Mid-New York Environmental and Sustainability Promotion Committee v. Dragon…
Mid-New York Environmental and Sustainability Promotion Committee, Inc. v. Dragon Springs Buddhist, Inc.
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-00513
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Mid-New York Environmental and Sustainability Promotion Committee v. Dragon Springs Buddhist, Judge Briccetti dismissed the Clean Water Act claims without prejudice because the notice did not identify the alleged violations specifically enough.
The plaintiffs’ Clean Water Act claims were dismissed without prejudice because their notice of intent was insufficient. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law private nuisance claim, and the case was closed. Dragon Springs Buddhist, Inc. obtained dismissal of the motion’s target claims.
What happened
Mid-New York Environmental and Sustainability Promotion Committee v. Dragon Springs Buddhist concerned allegations that Dragon Springs Buddhist, Inc. discharged wastewater and storm water containing excessive fecal coliform into nearby waterways. The plaintiffs sued under the Clean Water Act and asserted a state-law private nuisance claim.
Dragon Springs asked the court to dismiss the amended complaint. Judge Briccetti ruled that the plaintiffs’ required notice did not give enough information about the specific discharge standard, permit limit, or order allegedly violated. Because that notice requirement was not met, the court lacked authority to hear the Clean Water Act claims.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti granted the motion to dismiss. The Clean Water Act claims were dismissed without prejudice to refiling after a proper notice and the required 60-day waiting period. The court declined to decide the remaining state-law nuisance claim and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Mid-New York Environmental and Sustainability Promotion Committee v. Dragon… · No. 7:22-cv-00513
- Vincent Briccetti
- Dec. 28, 2022
Background
Mid-New York Environmental and Sustainability Promotion Committee, Inc., doing business as NYenvironcom, along with Robert Majcher, Grace Woodard, and Alex Scilla, brought a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act against Dragon Springs Buddhist, Inc. The plaintiffs alleged that Dragon Springs discharged wastewater and storm water containing excessive fecal coliform into the Basher Kill and Neversink River. They also asserted a state-law private nuisance claim.
The plaintiffs alleged that Dragon Springs exceeded fecal coliform limits in its State Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit. Before filing suit, they sent a notice of intent to Dragon Springs, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The notice identified fecal coliform, certain dates, and affected waterways, but it broadly referred to violations of the Clean Water Act without identifying the specific discharge standard, permit limit, or order allegedly violated.
Court’s Analysis
Dragon Springs moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns the court’s authority to hear a case; Rule 12(b)(6) concerns whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim.
The court held that the Clean Water Act requires a prospective plaintiff to provide notice at least 60 days before filing a citizen suit. The notice must provide enough information for the recipient to identify the specific standard, limitation, or order allegedly violated, the activity involved, the responsible person, the location, and the dates of the violations.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti concluded that the plaintiffs’ notice did not meet that requirement. Although it identified the pollutant, dates, and waterways, it did not specify which legal standard or permit limit Dragon Springs allegedly violated. The notice also did not state the alleged fecal coliform threshold, identify whether the alleged violations involved wastewater or storm water, or identify the discharge point. The court therefore concluded that the plaintiffs had not established subject-matter jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act claims. The court also stated that those claims could likewise be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for the same notice deficiencies.
Disposition
The court granted the motion to dismiss. It dismissed the Clean Water Act claims without prejudice to refiling after submission of a conforming notice of intent and completion of the required 60-day waiting period. After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—authority to hear related state-law claims—over the private nuisance claim. The Clerk was instructed to terminate the motion and close the case.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.