Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Pruitt

Background

The plaintiffs brought the action against the Administrator and a regional administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the agency. The City of New York and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation intervened as defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that the agency had failed to perform nondiscretionary duties under Clean Water Act § 303(c)(3)-(4) concerning New York’s water-quality standards for disease-causing pathogens in surface waters. The complaint also alleged that the agency had unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed agency action under § 706(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act.

The plaintiffs originally asserted two causes of action under the Clean Water Act’s citizen-suit provision. They voluntarily dismissed the second cause of action in May 2019. The earlier proceedings treated the case as involving both the Clean Water Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. On March 15, 2019, however, the court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act’s citizen-suit provision. The Clerk entered final judgment for the defendants on March 18, 2019, and the case was closed.

Motion and Analysis

The plaintiffs moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which permits a court to alter or amend a judgment, or alternatively under Rule 60(b), which permits relief from a final judgment in specified circumstances. They also sought leave under Rule 15(a)(2) to file an amended complaint. They argued that the prior dismissal should not have disposed of the case because the complaint included an Administrative Procedure Act claim that the court had not decided.

The defendants argued that the complaint did not actually plead an Administrative Procedure Act cause of action and that considering such a claim after judgment would improperly give the plaintiffs another opportunity to litigate. The court rejected that position in light of the case’s circumstances. Judge Broderick noted that he had characterized the action as involving the Administrative Procedure Act before the parties filed their dispositive motions and had repeated that characterization in the order dismissing the case. The opinion also noted that the parties had recognized the possibility that the complaint included an Administrative Procedure Act claim.

The court found that the plaintiffs should have sought amendment before final judgment but that their failure did not show undue delay, bad faith, or a dilatory motive. Because the court had itself previously read the complaint as raising an Administrative Procedure Act claim, it concluded that denying leave to amend would cause manifest injustice. The court did not decide the merits of that claim.

Ruling

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration or to amend the judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint. It ordered the Clerk to vacate the March 18, 2019 judgment and reopen the case. The plaintiffs were ordered to file their proposed amended complaint within 30 days after entry of the opinion and order. The defendants were ordered to answer or otherwise respond within 30 days after the amended complaint was filed. The ruling did not affect the plaintiffs’ earlier voluntary dismissal of their second cause of action.