San Francisco Baykeeper v. Sunnyvale
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-00824
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In San Francisco Baykeeper v. Sunnyvale, Judge Davila granted Baykeeper leave to amend its complaints to revise pollution-source allegations.
San Francisco Baykeeper may amend its complaints in its Clean Water Act suits against the Cities of Sunnyvale and Mountain View; the Cities must respond to the amended pleadings under the case’s future procedures.
What happened
San Francisco Baykeeper sued the Cities of Sunnyvale and Mountain View under the Clean Water Act over allegedly unlawful bacteria discharges. Baykeeper asked to file second amended complaints after discovery identified additional possible sources of non-stormwater.
The Cities did not oppose removing allegations about one permit limitation, but argued that adding the other pollution-source allegations would expand the case, require more discovery, and delay trial. The court found Baykeeper acted promptly after learning the information and that the amendments did not add new claims or require reopening discovery.
In San Francisco Baykeeper v. City of Sunnyvale, Judge Edward J. Davila granted the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Baykeeper must file it within seven days after the court rules on the pending summary-judgment motions.
The detailed version
- San Francisco Baykeeper v. Sunnyvale · No. 5:20-cv-00824
- Edward Davila
- June 3, 2022
Background
San Francisco Baykeeper brought related citizen-enforcement suits under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly called the Clean Water Act, against the City of Sunnyvale and the City of Mountain View. The suits alleged unlawful bacteria discharges, including dry-weather non-stormwater and raw sewage discharges allegedly violating Discharge Prohibition A.1 of the municipal storm-sewer permit, as well as stormwater discharges allegedly violating Receiving Water Limitations B.1 and B.2.
The cases were consolidated. After fact and expert discovery, Baykeeper moved for leave to file second amended complaints. The proposed amendments would remove the allegations concerning Receiving Water Limitation B.1 and add more specific alleged sources of non-stormwater, including exfiltration from the collection system, leaking or overflowing private sewer laterals, failed septic systems, recreational-vehicle wastewater dumping, illicit wastewater connections, homeless encampments, outdoor defecation, pet waste, trash-receptacle leachate, and wildlife waste.
Legal Standard
Because the motion was filed after the deadline in the scheduling order, Baykeeper first had to show “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. The court explained that this inquiry mainly focuses on whether the party seeking amendment acted diligently. If good cause is shown, Rule 15(a) requires consideration of bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and whether the amendment would be futile, meaning legally unable to succeed.
Court’s Reasoning
The court found good cause because Baykeeper learned about the additional sources during discovery and sought amendment promptly. The court rejected the Cities’ argument that Baykeeper should have known about the sources earlier, noting that an earlier report stated that Sunnyvale had no known septic tanks, while later information contradicted that statement.
The court also concluded that the proposed allegations did not inject new claims or concern events occurring after the complaints were filed. Because no trial date had been set, the court found no need to change the case schedule. It also found the Cities’ argument that discovery would need to be reopened unpersuasive because Baykeeper represented that the amendments relied on information already produced and that the experts had been questioned about the new sources.
The Rule 15 factors also favored amendment. The court found no evidence of bad faith, no undue delay, and no unfair prejudice. It rejected the Cities’ futility arguments because they did not show that the amendments were legally insufficient under Rule 12(b)(6), and because relying on a possible future ruling on the pending summary-judgment motions was too speculative.
Disposition
Judge Edward J. Davila granted Baykeeper’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The court stated that Baykeeper must file the Second Amended Complaint no later than seven days after the court issues a ruling on the parties’ pending summary-judgment motions.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.