violated the same emission standards or limitations in its Title V permits both before and after the complaint was filed. Plaintiffs do not claim satisfaction of the third method of proving actionability: method (2)(b) continuing likelihood of recurrence. 11. Title V permits incorporate numerous, different regulatory requirements, and the Complex is regulated by over 120,000 permit conditions. Plaintiffs must prove Exxon repeatedly violated an emission standard or limitation, which includes a standard, limitation, schedule, term, or condition in one of Exxon’s Title v. permits. See 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(1), (f)(4). Thus, it is insufficient to prove violation of one standard or limitation followed by violation of a different standard or limitation. ExxonMobil Corp., ECF No. 126 at 13 (<HOLDING>) (citing Patton v. Gen. Signal Corp., 984
holding that statute authorizing citizen suits against those alleged to be in violation of the clean water act cwa conferred no jurisdiction over cases based on wholly past violations holding that the caa allows citizen suits for a wholly past violation so long as there is a second violation of the same emission standard or limitation holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation holding that the court had jurisdiction to hear the suit under the citizen suit provision of the caa holding that police may approach citizen and ask that he roll down the window as long as the officers do not detain the citizen or create the impression that the citizen may not leave