Garcia v. McCarthy (2012): add detail
Okumaya devam et...
← Previous revision | Revision as of 00:53, 7 May 2024 |
| Line 73: | Line 73: |
| After the EPA issued a preliminary finding against the CDPR on April 22, 2011, it began private settlement discussions with the defendant, to which the complainants were not invited. On August 24, 2011, the EPA and CDPR reached an informal compliance agreement. An appeal of this administrative decision was denied.{{sfn|Rensink|2022|p=235}} In 2014 the strawberry growers of California still accounted for roughly 90% of the methyl bromide use in the developed world.{{sfn|Yeung|Taggart|Donohue|2014|p= }} | After the EPA issued a preliminary finding against the CDPR on April 22, 2011, it began private settlement discussions with the defendant, to which the complainants were not invited. On August 24, 2011, the EPA and CDPR reached an informal compliance agreement. An appeal of this administrative decision was denied.{{sfn|Rensink|2022|p=235}} In 2014 the strawberry growers of California still accounted for roughly 90% of the methyl bromide use in the developed world.{{sfn|Yeung|Taggart|Donohue|2014|p= }} |
| == ''Garcia v. McCarthy'' (2012) == | == ''Garcia v. McCarthy'' (2012) ==United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
 | In ''Garcia v. McCarthy'' the plaintiff filed at the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals{{sfn|Dayton|2015|p= }} to say that the settlement did not provide recourse to those exposed; the CDPR made no changes to the pesticide's registration in 2013 and re-registered and lawfully certified it as of January 26, 2012 despite its own finding of discriminatory harm.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |title=Section 7.115 - Postaward compliance, 40 C.F.R. § 7.115 {{!}} Casetext Search + Citator |url=https://casetext.com/regulation/cod...-procedures/section-7115-postaward-compliance |access-date=2024-04-18 |website=casetext.com}}</ref> The plaintiffs said that the EPA failed to investigate health effects and “arbitrarily and capriciously” negotiated a voluntary compliance agreement that did not protect schoolchildren and that plaintiffs were excluded from the investigation and the settlement negotiations.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":2" /> The court granted a motion to dismiss, saying that the agency was empowered to settle the matter as it saw fit. |
| In ''Garcia v. McCarthy'' the plaintiff appealed to the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | |
| |US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals]]{{sfn|Dayton|2015|p= }} to say that the settlement did not provide recourse to those exposed; the CDPR made no changes to the pesticide's registration in 2013 and re-registered and lawfully certified it as of January 26, 2012 despite its own finding of discriminatory harm.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |title=Section 7.115 - Postaward compliance, 40 C.F.R. § 7.115 {{!}} Casetext Search + Citator |url=https://casetext.com/regulation/cod...-procedures/section-7115-postaward-compliance |access-date=2024-04-18 |website=casetext.com}}</ref> The plaintiffs said that the EPA failed to investigate health effects and “arbitrarily and capriciously” negotiated a voluntary compliance agreement that did not protect schoolchildren and that plaintiffs were excluded from the investigation and the settlement negotiations.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":2" /> The court granted a motion to dismiss, saying that despite the "lamentable" delay the agency was empowered to settle the matter as it saw fit. |
| ==See also== | ==See also== |
Okumaya devam et...