Laserfiche WebLink
II . <br /> MCR FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE TWO NOVS <br /> ARE IDENTICAL CAUSES OF ACTION BROUGHT BY <br /> IDENTICAL PARTIES ACTING IN THE SAME CAPAC- <br /> ITY. <br /> As discussed in CDH' s Opening Brief, the two NOVs are inde- <br /> pendent enforcement actions brought by agencies with specific <br /> statutory duties to address the violation of two independently <br /> enforceable permits. Therefore, the District Court ' s finding of <br /> identity of causes of action and parties is in error . MCR' s ar- <br /> guments in support of the District Court ' s findings are unpersua- <br /> sive at best and unfounded at worst . <br /> A. DMG Neither Represented nor Could Have <br /> Represented the State ' s Interest to Enforce <br /> the CDPS Permit. Therefore, the Doctrine <br /> does not Bar the WQCD' s Enforcement Action. <br /> In its Opening Brief, CDH asserted that, under the Sunshine <br /> test of identity of government agencies as parties, DMG' s settle- <br /> ment of the DMG ' s NOV did not bar the State ' s enforcement of the <br /> CDPS Permit . See Opening Brief at 17-21. According to Sunshine, <br /> the test to determine whether an agency' s actions are binding on <br /> another agency is "whether or not in the earlier litigation the <br /> representative of the . . . [government ] had authority to repre- <br /> sent its interests in a final adjudication of the issue in con- <br /> troversy. " Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins , 310 U.S. 381, <br /> -11- <br />