did wrong, and when. The target is not required to play a guessing game in that respect.”). Once Defendants cured the specific problems identified in Plaintiffs’ Notice, if Plaintiffs believed that Defendants remained in violation and wanted to motivate Defendants to change their conduct with the possibility of a citizen suit, Plaintiffs needed to provide Defendants’ with another notice, one with sufficient information to address the problems that would eventually be the subject of a federal lawsuit. The Court rejects the idea it is foisting an impossible burden on Plaintiffs by requiring that this suit be supported by a notice containing details not available at the time of the first (and only) Notice. That Notice was good, but just not for the claims Plaint 1137, 1144 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). B. State Law Claims (Counts II-IV).
holding that some of the claims raised in the plaintiffs complaint were not properly raised in its 60day citizen suit notice thus the district court correctly held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over those claims holding that a district court may impose sanctions for abuse of judicial process pursuant to rule 11 even after it is determined that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs claims holding that the federal claims which arose from state court criminal contempt proceedings were inextricably intertwined with the state court action and thus the federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims pursuant to the rookerfeldman doctrine holding that the court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute holding that the district court was not divested of subject matter jurisdiction upon the dismissal of the plaintiffs federal claims