|This is a timeline of our historic legal challenge of the "Moms and Pops" (organizations and individual Mothers on behalf of their children) taking on the EPA in Federal Court to ban artificial water fluoridation!|
Description of Action
|The Links to All the Documents.|
|November 22, 2016||
Your Moms Team and coalition filed a Toxic Substances Control Act petition at the EPA in Washington DC. This petition alleges that there is neurotoxic harm from drinking fluoride and the EPA needs to follow their own rules on neurotoxicity and ban the practice of allowing this chemical to be added to the public drinking water. This petition to the EPA included over 180 new studies on fluoride's neurotoxicity including human studies showing reduced IQ.
|February 17, 2017||
The EPA denies the TSCA petition and allows a de novo proceeding in Federal Court.
|https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/02/27/2017-03829/fluoride-chemicals-in-drinking-water-tsca-section-21-petition-reasons-for-agency-response (link is external)|
|April 18, 2017||
The Coalition files our complaint against the EPA in a Federal District Court in the 9th Circuit.
|https://www.docdroid.net/mtRWn3v/complaint-2-4.pdf (link is external)|
|October 25, 2017
Plantiffs Opposition to EPA's Motion to Dismiss
|Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Motion to Dismiss (link is external)|
|October 25, 2017||Amicus brief filed by NRDC and SCHF.
NRDC Amicus Curiae Brief in support of our coalitons challenge to EPA on Section 21 of TSCA.
|[Proposed] Amicus Curiae Brief of Natural Resources Defense Council and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families in Support of Neither Party (link is external)|
|November 8, 2017||
Defendants Reply in Further Support of Motion to Dismiss
|December 14, 2017||
EPA tries to roadblock us and limit plantififs' ability to prove our case and limit our discovery.
|Federal Defendants’ Notice of Motion and Motion to Limit Review to the Administrative Record and to Strike Plaintiffs’ Jury Demand (link is external)|
|December 21, 2017||
Judge's ORDER denying the EPA's motion.
|U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (link is external) Docket No. 28|
|January 5, 2018||
Amicus Brief by NRDC and SCHF
|Amicus Curiae Brief of Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families in Response to EPA’s Motion to Limit Review (Supporting Neither Party on the Merits) (link is external)|
|January 5, 2018||
Our oposition to the EPA's tactic to try to limit our "discovery" and prove our case.
|Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Federal Defendants’ Motion to Limit Review to the Administrative Record and to Strike Plaintiffs’ Jury Demand (link is external)|
|January 15, 2018||
EPA wants to limit our abilty to prove our allegations of harm.
|Federal Defendant’s Reply in Further Support of Motion to Limit Review to Administrative Record (link is external).|
|January 18, 2018
EPA response to each (107) paragraph to the Plantiffs “Complaint” of April 18, 2017 (link is external), concluding: “Except as expressly admitted or otherwise stated herein, EPA denies each and every allegation in Plaintiff’s Complaint.”
|The Defendant, EPA, “Answer” to “Complaint of Fluoride’s harm submitted April 18, 2017. (link is external)|
|February 7, 2018||
Judge Ruled in our favor on the EPA's Motion to limit our "discovery".
|Order Denying Defendant’s (EPA) Motion to Limit Review to the Administrative Record (link is external)|
to July 2019
|This phase of the lawusit has been very busy as we have been in full and complete "Discovery". Discovery for both parties can involve emails, data, relevant material for the case, depostions and more. During this phase of the case, experts and material evidence has been compiled and much more.||All of the "Discovery" will be presented in court in 2020.|
EPA attempted to have the trial postponed for 65 days and to add another "expert" after the allowed time.
Judge Chen denied their requests. See the ruling.
"For the forgoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Enlargement of Time.
This order disposes of Docket No. 113 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 25, 2019"
|December 19, 2019.||
JOINT PRETRIAL CONFERENCE STATEMENT
|Here is the filed Brief.|
|December 19, 2019||Plantiffs Propsed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law||Here is the Brief:|
|December 30, 2019||
Judge Again Rejects EPA's Motion To End Landmark TSCA Citizen Suit A federal judge has again denied EPA’s effort to end a potentially precedent-setting suit challenging the agency’s denial of a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) citizen petition seeking to ban drinking water fluoridation, though the judge also rejected plaintiffs’ competing summary judgment motion that sought a quick ruling in their favor.
|Judge Again Rejects EPA's Motion To End Landmark TSCA Citizen Suit|
|January 1, 2020.||
Attorney for our lawsuit against the EPA makes a short New Year's day presentation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9zIiv_E2j0&feature=emb_logo
|Here is the short video.|
|April 20,2020||POSTPONED TSCA fluoride lawsuit trial dates, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco||Postponed on 3/17/20 due to the coronavirus outbreak.|
|May 8, 2020||Pre-trial hearing. The Court cleared the way for Plaintiffs three international experts in neurotoxicity to testify on the risks of fluoride in public water supplies. The court ruled that the purported benefits of community water fluoridation cannot be part of the trial, restricting testimony to the toxic risks under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)|
May 27, 2020
|Judge Codifies Key Rulings Ahead Of Landmark TSCA Trial On Fluoride||Inside EPA article:|
|START OF TRAL June 8, 2020||The nearly 2 week TRIAL Happened||Here are closing arguments!|
|See some of the media coverage of the trial||Coverage from our co-plaintiff|