In Amicus Brief, Lyft Bashes EPA for 'Head-Scratching' Drive to Relax Car Pollution Rules
"Efficient vehicles mean more earnings for drivers, cheaper rides for passengers, and a better business for Lyft," the company's lawyers at Washington's Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis said in a D.C. Circuit filing.
February 14, 2019 at 07:22 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
Lawyers for the ride-hail company Lyft Inc. are lining up against the Trump administration's moves to weaken car-pollution rules.
A federal appeals court in Washington is weighing a challenge by California and 16 other states to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's decision to roll back emissions standards for cars produced between 2022 and 2025.
San Francisco-based Lyft said in an amicus brief filed Thursday that the EPA was “wrong” in finding that tailpipe standards set during the Obama administration were inappropriate. Lyft, represented by the Washington litigation boutique Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis, joined the states in asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to block the EPA's action.
“Lyft counts on the automotive industry's innovations in fuel efficiency and electrification to support Lyft's economic and environmental goals,” Jared Marx, a Harris Wiltshire partner, wrote in the filing. “Efficient vehicles mean more earnings for drivers, cheaper rides for passengers, and a better business for Lyft.”
The ride-hailing company has publicly pledged to make all its rides carbon-neutral and is currently piloting a program that lets customers request trips in only hybrid or electric vehicles. Lyft argues in its brief that it's relying on the previously adopted emissions rules to compel manufacturers to build those types of cars.
“Lyft must rely on the automotive industry to make fuel-efficient vehicles prevalent and affordable,” the company's attorneys said. “That will only happen if automakers invest in efficiency-increasing technologies, and that investment is most likely if EPA has future standards on its books today that drive that change.”
Lyft also argued that the EPA cherry-picked facts to conclude that consumers' interest in electric vehicles has waned while ignoring a spike in electric-car purchases over the last three years.
“EPA also draws a head-scratching conclusion from the effect of the new standards on the availability of new and used vehicles,” the amicus brief said. “EPA worries that more stringent standards may force new car buyers into the used car market, reducing the rate at which efficient vehicles replace less efficient ones. But even if that were to happen (and EPA offers virtually nothing to support its assertion), it ignores the positive effects of the standards on the used car market.”
Lyft's brief wasn't the first time the company has jumped into a big-ticket case. The company, with dozens of others, has signed onto briefs challenging the Trump administration's effort to end protections for so-called “Dreamers.”
California's opening brief in the vehicle emissions was filed Feb. 7. David Zaft, a deputy in Attorney General Xavier Becerra's office, is one of the lead attorneys for the state. California, as a petitioner, was joined by Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia, among other jurisdictions.
Read Lyft's brief here:
[falcon-embed src="embed_1"]
||
Read more:
170 GCs Pen Open Letter to Law Firms: Improve on Diversity or Lose Our Business
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigation Leaders: Mark Jones of Nelson Mullins on Helping Clients Assemble ‘Dream Teams’
Litigators of the Week: Rolling Back Elon Musk's $56B Tesla Compensation Package
Litigators of the Week: Quinn Emanuel Slashes $137M Racial Discrimination Verdict Against Tesla by Nearly 98%
Litigators of the Week: Defense Verdict Secured By Quinn Emanuel in Multibillion Securities Trial Over Musk's Go-Private Tweets
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250