Timeline (partial) of Landmark Lawsuit Against the EPA

-A +A

This is a partial timeline of our lawsuit taking on the EPA in Federal Court to ban artificial water fluoridation!  

Can you see why this is an expensive endeavor?  Please donate.

All Court filings are here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6201332/food-water-watch-inc-v-environmental-protection-agency/



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.
EPA requests court for “a protective order limiting review to the administrative record and an order striking Plaintiffs’ Jury Demand.”

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. 
Court rules in our favor and denies EPA’s Motion to Dismiss!

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
NRDC opposes EPA’s motion to limit petitioner’s right to discovery. They state, “To the contrary, the language, structure, and history of section 21 all support the district court’s consideration of new evidence.”


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.
Our Team opposition to EPA’s motion to the court for a sweeping order that would exempt this “civil action” from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) and deny Plaintiffs their right to discovery.


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.  
EPA’s “further support of their motion for a protective order limiting review to the administrative record.”

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". 
The court ruled: “The EPA moves for a protective order limiting the scope of review in this litigation to the administrative record, a request that would effectively foreclose Plaintiffs from introducing any evidence in this litigation that was not attached to their administrative petition. The text of the TSCA, its structure, its purpose, and the legislative history make clear that Congress did not intend to impose such a limitation in judicial review of Section 21 citizen petitions. "The Court therefore DENIES the EPA’s motion.”

Order Denying Defendant’s (EPA) Motion to Limit Review to the Administrative Record (link is external)

 Nov. 2018

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. 
September 2019

  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"

Nov 2019  Hearing in Federal Court https://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/food-water-watch-inc-et-al-v-environmental-protection-agency-et-al
December 19, 2019.


Here is the filed Brief.
December 19, 2019  Plantiffs Proposed 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 our closing arguments!
    See some of the media coverage of the trial  Coverage from our co-plaintiff
April 12, 2019


August  10, 2020


Dec 14, 2022    
Dec 22 , 2022


Feb 2, 2-23 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING DECEMBER 2, 2022 PROTECTIVE ORDER filed by E. Scott Pruitt, United States Environmental Protection Agency, National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences. (Ong, Emmet) (Filed on 2/8/2023) (Entered: 02/08/2023) https://ia800603.us.archive.org/16/items/gov.uscourts.cand.310380/gov.uscourts.cand.310380.343.0.pdf
July 11, 2023  Motion to Lift Stay: Status Confernce  https://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/food-water-watch-vs-epa