Eden Environmental Citizen's Group, LLC v. American Custom Marble, Inc.

Background

Eden Environmental Citizen's Group, LLC brought a citizen lawsuit under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly called the Clean Water Act. It sued American Custom Marble, Inc. and Patricia A. Sharp, identified as the corporation's legal secretary and the facility's legally responsible person. Eden alleged violations of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements involving stormwater discharges.

Eden sought injunctive relief, declaratory relief, civil penalties, and remediation. Its complaint asserted seven causes of action involving alleged failures to obtain permit coverage, prepare and implement an adequate stormwater pollution prevention plan, monitor and report, submit accurate annual reports, use required treatment technologies, prevent contaminated stormwater discharges, and train employees.

Defendants' Arguments

The defendants moved to dismiss on three grounds: Eden had not stated facts supporting a claim; Eden lacked standing, meaning a sufficient legal connection to sue; and the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Sharp because the notice of the alleged violations did not state that Eden intended to sue her individually.

The defendants also pointed to a state inspection that reportedly found no violations and recommended no further action. They argued that a later No Exposure Certificate, which meant the defendants did not need permit authorization for certain industrial stormwater discharges, left Eden without a viable cause of action.

Standing

The court denied the motion to dismiss based on organizational standing. Eden claimed standing to sue on behalf of its members. In opposition to the motion, it submitted a declaration from Theophilus Austin Mills, III, who stated that he had been an Eden member since before the complaint was filed and that the alleged conduct impaired his aesthetic and recreational interests, including birdwatching, photography, cycling, and nature walks. The court concluded that Eden had sufficiently alleged standing at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

The court also denied the challenge to claims involving Clean Water Act violations that occurred before Eden was formed, so long as those violations fell within the applicable limitations period. The court stated that a member who suffered an injury could sue for violations going back as far as the relevant limitations period allowed. It concluded that Mills's allegations supported claims reaching back, at most, five years before the lawsuit was filed.

The court further denied the challenge to Eden's fourth cause of action concerning allegedly false annual reports. It concluded that submitting a false document could violate a condition of a permit covered by the Clean Water Act's citizen-suit provision. The court also noted that Eden was not seeking criminal penalties in this lawsuit.

Personal Jurisdiction Over Sharp

The court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over Sharp. It concluded that, under the circumstances, Sharp had fair notice that she was being sued individually. The court considered that the notice was addressed to corporate officers and facility managers, that Sharp was served at her home, and that she was identified as both the corporation's secretary and the facility's legally responsible person.

Adequacy of the Claims

The court rejected the argument that the No Exposure Certificate automatically barred Eden's claims. It explained that the Clean Water Act expressly bars a citizen action when the federal or state government has begun and is diligently prosecuting a qualifying enforcement action, but the Act contains no separate bar based on issuance of a No Exposure Certificate.

The court nevertheless found the fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action inadequately pleaded under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not provide enough factual allegations to state a legally sufficient claim. For the sixth cause of action, Eden did not identify a specific contaminated-stormwater discharge or explain how many violations it alleged. The fifth and seventh causes of action generally repeated permit or statutory requirements without supplying sufficient supporting facts.

Disposition

The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss on the grounds of standing and personal jurisdiction. It granted the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) as to the fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action. The dismissal was without prejudice, and Eden was permitted 30 days to file an amended complaint. The order disposed of Docket No. 50.