gov.uscourts.mdd.176071.26.0

8/7/2019 gov.uscourts.mdd.176071.26.0

1/26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

ASSATEAGUE COASTKEEPER et al . **

v. **ALAN AND KRI STI N HUDSON FARM *et al . * Ci vi l Act i on WMN- 10- cv- 0487

**

* * * * * * * * * * * *

MEMORANDUM

Bef ore t he Cour t are Def endant s Al an and Kr i st i n Hudson

Far m s and Per due Far ms I ncor por at ed s Mot i ons t o Di smi ss.

Papers 14 and 15. The mot i ons have been f ul l y br i ef ed. Upon

r evi ew of t he pl eadi ngs and t he appl i cabl e case l aw, t he Cour t

det er mi nes t hat no hear i ng i s necessar y ( Local Rul e 105. 6) and

t hat bot h Mot i ons t o Di smi ss wi l l be deni ed i n par t and gr ant ed

i n part .

I. BACKGROUND

Thi s case i s a ci t i zen sui t f or penal t i es and i nj unct i ve

r el i ef br ought by t he Assat eague Coast keeper , t he Assat eague

Coast al Tr ust , Kat hy Phi l l i ps, and t he Wat er keeper Al l i ance,

I nc. ( col l ect i vel y Pl ai nt i f f s) under t he ci t i zen sui t

pr ovi si ons of t he f eder al Cl ean Wat er Act ( CWA) , 33 U. S. C.

1251 et seq. , agai nst t he Al an and Kr i st i n Hudson Far m ( Hudsons

or Hudson Farm) and Perdue Farms I ncor porated ( Per due)

Case 1:10-cv-00487-WMN Document 26 Filed 07/21/10 Page 1 of 26

8/7/2019 gov.uscourts.mdd.176071.26.0

2/26

2

( col l ect i vel y Def endant s) . The case r el at es t o al l eged

i l l egal di schar ges of poul t r y manur e f r om t he Hudson Far m

chi cken oper at i on t o a f i el d di t ch t hat empt i es i nt o t he

Fr ankl i n Br anch of t he Pocomoke Ri ver . Per due i s an

i nt egr at or t hat cont r act s wi t h t he Hudsons t o rai se Per due s

chi ckens.

Bet ween Oct ober and December 2009, Pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat

Phi l l i ps sampl ed wat er i n a di t ch f l owi ng f r om t he Hudson f ar m

on f i ve separ at e occasi ons. On each dat e, sampl e anal ysi s

document ed t hat t he wat er cont ai ned pol l ut ant s, i ncl udi ng f ecal

col i f or m, E. col i , ni t r ogen, phosphor us, and ammoni a. Accor di ng

t o Pl ai nt i f f s, addi t i onal i nvest i gat i on r eveal ed st ockpi l es of

what was bel i eved t o be uncover ed poul t r y manur e next t o a

dr ai nage di t ch i n t he Hudson Far m s product i on ar ea, whi ch coul d

be a sour ce of t he pol l ut ant s di schar gi ng f r om t he si t e. Based

upon Phi l l i ps i nvest i gat i on, Pl ai nt i f f s sent a Not i ce Let t er on

December 17, 2009, t o Def endants Hudson Far m and Perdue,

al er t i ng t hem t o t he di schar ges. Fol l owi ng t he Not i ce Let t er ,

Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai m t hat Phi l l i ps sampl ed t he wat er sever al mor e

t i mes bet ween December 2009 and Febr uar y 2010, each t i me showi ng

hi gh l evel s of f ecal col i f or m, E. col i , ni t r ogen, phosphor us,

and ammoni a al l egedl y f r om Hudson Farm.

Pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed t hi s act i on on Mar ch 1, 2010, al l egi ng

t hat Def endant s vi ol at ed Sect i on 301( a) of t he CWA, 33 U. S. C.


8/7/2019 gov.uscourts.mdd.176071.26.0

3/26

3

1311( a) , whi ch pr ohi bi t s t he di schar ge of pol l ut ant s f r om a

poi nt sour ce i nt o navi gabl e wat er s of t he Uni t ed St at es, unl ess

pur suant t o t he t er ms of a Nat i onal Pol l ut i on Di schar ge

El i mi nat i on Syst em ( NPDES) permi t i ssued pur suant t o Sect i on 402

of t he CWA, 33 U. S. C. 1342. Al t er nat i vel y, i f Def endant s ar e

deemed t o be cover ed by the Maryl and permi t f or Cent r al i zed

Ani mal Feedi ng Oper at i ons, Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai m t hat Def endant s are

i n vi ol at i on of a zer o di schar ge permi t . NPDES Per mi t No. MDG01

Par t B. 2.

Def endant s f i l ed t hei r mot i ons t o di smi ss on Mar ch 29,

2010, ar gui ng t hat Pl ai nt i f f s Compl ai nt must be di smi ssed

pur suant t o Rul e 12( b) ( 1) and ( 6) of t he Feder al Rul es f or Ci vi l

Procedur e1 because Pl ai nt i f f s have f ai l ed t o sat i sf y t he not i ce

pr ovi si ons f or ci t i zen sui t s br ought under t he f eder al CWA,

Per due cannot be hel d l i abl e sol el y as an i nt egr at or , Pl ai nt i f f s

have f ai l ed t o pr ove an ongoi ng vi ol at i on, and Pl ai nt i f f s have

f ai l ed t o stat e a cl ai m upon whi ch r el i ef may be gr ant ed. 2

1 Def endant Hudson Farm i ncor porated by ref erence the argument si n Def endant Per due s mot i on.

2 Def endant s mot i ons al so r ai sed t he i ssue t hat Pl ai nt i f f s di dnot have st andi ng. Per due s Mot . 24- 33. They concede i n t hei rr epl y br i ef , however , t hat af f i davi t s pr ovi ded by Pl ai nt i f f s i nt hei r opposi t i on br i ef appear t o cur e t hei r def ect i ve pl eadi ngr egar di ng st andi ng, but Def endant s r eserved t he r i ght t o r ai set he i ssue af t er di scover y. Per due s Repl y 19 n. 12.


8/7/2019 gov.uscourts.mdd.176071.26.0

4/26

4

II. THE REGULATORY AND PERMITTING SCHEME

When Congr ess f i r st passed t he CWA i n 1972, i t ar t i cul at ed

a goal of r est or i ng and mai nt ai ni ng t he chemi cal , physi cal , and

bi ol ogi cal i nt egr i t y of t he nat i on s wat er s. 33 U. S. C. 1251.

To achi eve t hi s goal , t he CWA prohi bi t s t he di schar ge of

pol l ut ant s f r om a poi nt sour ce t o wat er s of t he Uni t ed

St at es, except as aut hor i zed by a per mi t i ssued under t he

Nat i onal Pol l ut i on Di schar ge El i mi nat i on Syst em ( NPDES) pr ogr am.

33 U. S. C. 1311, 1342, 1362. The U. S. Envi r onment al

Protect i on Agency ( EPA) admi ni st ers t he NDPES pr ogr am, al t hough

t he CWA pr ovi des f or del egat i on of aut hor i t y t o t he st at es. 33

U. S. C. 1251( d) , 1342( a) ( 5) ; 40 C. F. R. 123. 25( a) .

Accor di ngl y, Mar yl and admi ni st er s t he f eder al NPDES pr ogr am and

i ssues f eder al di schar ge per mi t s i n t he St at e. See Howar d

Count y v. Davi dsonvi l l e Ar ea Ci vi c and Pot omac Ri ver Ass ns,

I nc. , 527 A. 2d 772, 774 n. 3 ( Md. 1987) . A del egat ed st at e must

i mpl ement al l aspect s of t he NPDES pr ogr am, i ncl udi ng i ssui ng

per mi t s t hat conf or m t o f eder al st andar ds. 33 U. S. C.

1342( b) ( 1) ( A) .

The r egul at i ons i mpl ement i ng t he NPDES program def i ne

ani mal f eedi ng oper at i ons ( AFOs) t hat meet cer t ai n cr i t er i a as

concent r at ed ani mal f eedi ng oper at i ons ( CAFOs) , whi ch ar e

poi nt sour ces under t he CWA. 33 U. S. C. 1362( 14) ; 40 C. F. R.

122. 23. CAFOs ar e desi gnated as poi nt sour ces because of


8/7/2019 gov.uscourts.mdd.176071.26.0

5/26

5

Congr ess r ecogni t i on of t he i ncr easi ng amount s of wast e

gener at ed by t hese i nt ensi ve l i vest ock pr oduct i on f aci l i t i es.

Ani mal and poul t r y wast e, unt i l r ecent year s, has not

been consi der ed a maj or pol l ut ant . . . . The pi ct ur ehas dramat i cal l y changed, however , as devel opment ofi nt ensi ve l i vest ock and poul t r y pr oduct i on on f eedl ot sand i n modern bui l di ngs has cr eat ed massi veconcent r at i ons of manur e i n smal l ar eas. Ther ecycl i ng capaci t y of t he soi l and pl ant cover hasbeen sur passed. . . . Pr eci pi t at i on r unof f f r om t hesear eas pi cks up hi gh concent r at i ons of pol l ut ant s whi chr educe oxygen l evel s i n r ecei vi ng st r eams and l akesand accel er at e t he eut r ophi cat i on pr ocess. . . .[ W] ast e management syst ems ar e requi r ed t o pr eventwast e gener at ed i n concent r at ed pr oduct i on ar eas f r omcausi ng ser i ous har m t o sur f ace and gr ound wat er s.

St atement of Senator Robert Dol e, S. Rep. No. 92- 414, at 100

( 1972) , r epr i nt ed i n 1972 U. S. C. C. A. N. 3668, 3761.

The Regul at i ons prohi bi t any di schar ge of manure, l i t t er ,

or pr ocess wast ewat er f r om t he pr oduct i on ar ea of a CAFO i nt o

wat er s of t he Uni t ed St at es. 40 C. F. R. 412. 43( a) ( 1) . The

onl y except i on t o t hi s zer o di schar ge st andar d occur s when t her e

i s a di schar ge as a resul t of a 25 year , 24 hour r ai nf al l event .

I d. ; 40 C. F. R. 412. 2( i ) . CAFOs that di schar ge or pr opose t o

di schar ge t o sur f ace wat er s are requi r ed to obt ai n an NPDES

per mi t . 40 C. F. R. 122. 23( d) ( 1) . Pur suant t o i t s del egat ed

aut hor i t y, t he Maryl and Depar t ment of t he Envi r onment ( MDE)

i ssued a Gener al Di schar ge Permi t f or Ani mal Feedi ng Oper at i ons

t hat became ef f ect i ve on December 9, 2009, consi st ent wi t h

f eder al r egul at i ons wi t h r espect t o CAFOs. Mar yl and Per mi t No.


8/7/2019 gov.uscourts.mdd.176071.26.0

6/26

6

09AF, NPDES Per mi t No. MDG01 ( General Per mi t or GP) . Ci t i zens

may f i l e sui t agai nst any per son al l eged t o be i n vi ol at i on of

an ef f l uent st andar d or l i mi t at i on under t he CWA, whi ch i ncl udes

vi ol at i ons of di schar gi ng wi t hout a per mi t and di schar gi ng i n

vi ol at i on of a per mi t . 33 U. S. C. 1365( a) ( 1) and ( f ) .

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Wher e subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on i s chal l enged under Rul e

12( b) ( 1) , t he pl ai nt i f f bear s t he bur den of per suasi on t o show

t hat j ur i sdi ct i on exi st s. Adams v. Bai n, 697 F. 2d 1213, 1219

( 4t h Ci r . 1982) . Wher e a chal l enge i s made, not t o t he

suf f i ci ency of t he j ur i sdi cti onal al l egat i ons, but t o t he

under l yi ng f act s suppor t i ng t hose al l egat i ons, [ a] t r i al cour t

may [ ] go beyond t he al l egat i ons of t he compl ai nt and may

consi der evi dence by af f i davi t , deposi t i ons or l i ve t est i mony

wi t hout conver t i ng the pr oceedi ng t o one f or summary j udgment .

I d. I n consi der i ng t hat evi dence, t he Cour t may r esol ve f act ual

di sput es t o det er mi ne t he pr oper di sposi t i on of t he mot i on. I d.

To survi ve a Rul e 12( b) ( 6) mot i on t o di smi ss, a compl ai nt

must cont ai n suf f i ci ent f actual mat t er , . . . , t o st at e a

cl ai m t o rel i ef t hat i s pl aus i bl e on i t s f ace. Ashcrof t v.

I qbal , 129 S. Ct . 1937, 1949 ( 2009) ( quot i ng Bel l At l ant i c Cor p.

v. Twombl y, 550 U. S. 544, 570 ( 2007) ) . A cl ai m has f aci al

pl ausi bi l i t y when t he pl ai nt i f f pl eads f actual cont ent t hat

al l ows t he cour t t o dr aw t he reasonabl e i nf er ence that t he


8/7/2019 gov.uscourts.mdd.176071.26.0

7/26

7

def endant i s l i abl e f or t he mi sconduct al l eged. I qbal , 129 S.

Ct . at 1949 ( ci t i ng Twombl y, 550 U. S. at 556) . Det ai l ed

f act ual al l egat i ons ar e not r equi r ed, but al l egat i ons must be

mor e t han l abel s and concl usi ons, or a f or mul ai c r eci t at i on

of t he el ement s of a cause of act i on[ . ] I qbal , 129 S. Ct . at

1949 ( quot i ng Twombl y, 550 U. S. at 555) . [ O] nce a cl ai m has

been st ated adequatel y, however , i t may be support ed by

showi ng any set of f act s consi st ent wi t h t he al l egat i ons i n t he

compl ai nt . Twombl y, 550 U. S. at 563. I n consi der i ng such a

mot i on, t he cour t i s r equi r ed t o accept as t r ue al l wel l - pl ed

al l egat i ons i n t he compl ai nt , and t o const r ue the f act s and

r easonabl e i nf er ences f r om t hose f act s i n t he l i ght most

f avor abl e t o t he pl ai nt i f f . I bar r a v. Uni t ed St at es, 120 F. 3d

472, 474 ( 4t h Ci r . 1997) ( ci t i ng Li t t l e v. Feder al Bur eau of

I nvest i gat i on, 1 F. 3d 255, 256 ( 4t h Ci r . 1993) ) .

III. DISCUSSION

A. Rule 12(b)(1): Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction:

Plaintiffs Notice of Intention to File Suit

Ci t i zen pl ai nt i f f s must pr ovi de a not i ce of i nt ent t o sue

t o t he al l eged vi ol at or , t o t he U. S. Envi r onment al Pr ot ect i on

Agency ( EPA) , and t o t he r el evant st ate enf orcement agency at

l east 60 days pr i or t o actual l y f i l i ng sui t . 33 U. S. C.

1365( b) ( 1) ( A) . Not i ce i n ci t i zen sui t s i s a mandat or y, not

opt i onal , condi t i on pr ecedent t o f i l i ng sui t . Hal l st r om v.


8/7/2019 gov.uscourts.mdd.176071.26.0

8/26

8

Ti l l amook County, 493 U. S. 20, 26, 31 ( 1989) . Wi t hout adequat e

not i ce, t he Cour t does not have subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on t o

hear t he case. Communi t y of Cambr i dge Envi r onment al Heal t h and

Communi t y Devel opment Gr oup v. Ci t y of Cambr i dge, 115 F. Supp.

2d 550, 558- 59 ( D. Md. 2000) . Not i ce must be gi ven i n such

manner as t he [ EPA] Admi ni st r at or shal l pr escr i be by

r egul at i on. 33 U. S. C. 1365( b) . Accor di ng t o t he Supr eme

Cour t i n Hal l st r om, t he Not i ce pr ovi si on i s i nt ended t o st r i ke a

bal ance between encour agi ng ci t i zen enf orcement and avoi di ng the

bur den on f eder al cour t s f r om excessi ve number s of ci t i zen

sui t s. I d. at 29. Requi r i ng compl i ance wi t h t he Not i ce

pr ovi si on ser ves t hi s congr essi onal goal by al l owi ng Gover nment

agenci es t he oppor t uni t y t o t ake r esponsi bi l i t y t o enf or ce t he

envi r onment al r egul at i ons and by gi vi ng t he al l eged vi ol at or an

oppor t uni t y t o cor r ect t he vi ol at i on, r ender i ng a ci t i zen sui t

unnecessary. I d.

EPA r egul at i ons r equi r e t hat not i ce shal l i ncl ude

suf f i ci ent i nf or mat i on t o per mi t t he r eci pi ent t o i dent i f y

1) t he speci f i c standar d, l i mi t at i on, or or der al l eged t o

have been vi ol at ed,

2) t he acti vi t y al l eged t o const i t ut e a vi ol at i on,

3) t he per son or per sons r esponsi bl e f or t he al l eged

vi ol at i on,

4) t he l ocat i on of t he al l eged vi ol at i on,


8/7/2019 gov.uscourts.mdd.176071.26.0

9/26

9

5) t he dat e or dat es of such vi ol at i on, and

6) t he f ul l name, addr ess, and t el ephone number of t he

per son gi vi ng not i ce.

40 C. F. R. 135. 3( a) . Def endant s ar gue t hat t her e ar e sever al

def i ci enci es i n Pl ai nt i f f s Not i ce t hat depr i ve t hi s Cour t of

j ur i sdi ct i on. I n par t i cul ar t hey cont end t hat t he Not i ce 1)

f ai l s to proper l y i dent i f y pl ai nt i f f s ; 2) f ai l s to provi de

not i ce of t he vi ol at i ons al l eged i n t he Compl ai nt ; 3) f ai l s t o

al l ege vi ol at i ons of t he CWA wi t h suf f i ci ent speci f i ci t y; 4)

f ai l s t o i dent i f y dat es of vi ol at i ons. The l ast t hr ee i ssues

wi l l be addr essed t oget her .

1.Sufficiency Of The Notice As To The Identification of

Plaintiffs

Def endant s cont end t hat t he Not i ce f ai l s t o adequat el y

i dent i f y Pl ai nt i f f s Assat eague Coast keeper , Kat hy Phi l l i ps, and

Assateague Coast al Trust and t hat t he sui t must be di smi ssed as

t o t hose Pl ai nt i f f s. Pl ai nt i f f s concede t hat t hey f ai l ed t o

i dent i f y Assat eague Coast al Tr ust ( ACT) i n t he Not i ce Let t er ,

whi ch r ender s t he Not i ce Let t er def i ci ent as t o ACT. Ci t i ng t o

Leonar d v. Cl ar k, 12 F. 3d 885, 888 ( 9t h Ci r . 1993) , t hey

cont end, however , t hat t he Cour t i s not under obl i gat i on t o

di smi ss ACT f r om t he sui t because, i f one of t he pl ai nt i f f s have

st andi ng, t he cour t need not deci de t he st andi ng of t he ot her s.


8/7/2019 gov.uscourts.mdd.176071.26.0

10/26

10

The quest i on her e i s not one of st andi ng, however , but of

not i ce. The Supr eme Cour t and t he Four t h Ci r cui t have st at ed

t hat t he 60 day not i ce pr ovi si on i s t o be st r i ct l y f ol l owed.

Hal l st r om, 493 U. S. at 26; Monongahel a Power , 980 F. 2d at 275

n. 2. I n l i ght of Monongahel a Power and f ol l owi ng t he Ni nt h

Ci r cui t s deci si on i n Washi ngt on Tr out v. McCai n Foods, I nc. , 45

F. 3d 1351 ( 9t h Ci r . 1995) , t hi s Cour t i n Communi t y of Cambr i dge

hel d t hat l anguage i n a not i ce l et t er st at i ng ot her i nt er est ed

par t i es may j oi n i n as pl ai nt i f f s was not suf f i ci ent t o compl y

wi t h t he st at ut or y not i ce r equi r ement s as t o i ndi vi dual

pl ai nt i f f s not speci f i cal l y named i n t he not i ce l et t er . 115 F.

Supp. 2d at 559. Al t hough i n Washi ngt on Tr out t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t

di smi ssed t he unnamed pl ai nt i f f s onl y af t er t he named pl ai nt i f f s

had l ef t t he sui t , t hi s Cour t ext ended t hat hol di ng t o di smi ss

unnamed pl ai nt i f f s r egar dl ess of whet her not i ce was suf f i ci ent

as t o ot her pl ai nt i f f s. I d. at 558- 59. Thus, her e, t he Cour t

must di smi ss Assat eague Coast al Tr ust f r om t he act i on.

I t i s a cl oser quest i on whet her Assat eague Coast keeper and

Kat hy Phi l l i ps must be di smi ssed as Pl ai nt i f f s. Al t hough t hey

ar e i dent i f i ed i n t he Not i ce, t hei r addr esses and phone number s

wer e not i ncl uded. The Cour t agr ees wi t h Pl ai nt i f f s t hat

Def endant s l i kel y coul d have obt ai ned t hei r cont act i nf or mat i on

f r om Wat erkeeper Al l i ance, but i n l i ght of Monongahel a Power and

Communi t y of Cambr i dge s mandate t o st r i ct l y adhere t o t he


8/7/2019 gov.uscourts.mdd.176071.26.0

11/26

11

not i ce requi r ement s and because t he EPA r egul at i ons as t o not i ce

r equi r e t hat a Pl ai nt i f f s addr ess and phone number be i ncl uded

i n t he Not i ce l et t er , t he Cour t must f i nd t hat t he Not i ce her e

i s not suf f i ci ent as t o Ms. Phi l l i ps or Assat eague Coast keeper

and t hey wi l l be di smi ssed as Pl ai nt i f f s.

2.Sufficiency Of The Notice As To The Facts And Laws

Violated

Def endant s ar gue t hat t he Not i ce Let t er sent by Pl ai nt i f f s

r egardi ng CWA vi ol at i ons at Hudson Far ms al l eged onl y a

vi ol at i on i n r el at i on t o an uncover ed st ockpi l e of poul t r y

manur e next t o a dr ai nage di t ch, but t hat t hei r Compl ai nt makes

a br oader al l egat i on of di schar ge of pol l ut ant s f r om unspeci f i ed

l ocat i ons at t he Hudson Far m CAFO. They cont end t hat t he Not i ce

pr ovi si on does not al l ow Pl ai nt i f f s t o expand t hei r cl ai m i n

t hi s f ashi on, but , r at her , Pl ai nt i f f s had t o pr ovi de not i ce of

t he vi ol at i ons about whi ch t hey woul d act ual l y sue. Mor eover ,

t hey cont end t hat act ual or const r uct i ve not i ce of t he

expanded cl ai m i s not suf f i ci ent , because t he not i ce pr ovi si ons

r equi r e st r i ct compl i ance.

The Cour t does not agr ee t hat Pl ai nt i f f s Not i ce i s t o be

r ead as narr owl y as Def endant s ar gue. Al t hough t he not i ce must

be suf f i ci ent l y adequat e so t hat t he r eci pi ent s can i dent i f y the

basi s f or t he compl ai nt , t he ci t i zen i s not r equi r ed t o l i st

ever y speci f i c aspect or det ai l of ever y al l eged vi ol at i on. Nor


8/7/2019 gov.uscourts.mdd.176071.26.0

12/26

12

i s t he ci t i zen r equi r ed t o descr i be ever y r ami f i cat i on of a

vi ol at i on. Communi t y Ass' n f or Rest or at i on of t he

Envi r onment v. Henr y Bosma Dai r y, 305 F. 3d 943, 951 (9t h Ci r .

2002) ( ci t i ng Publ i c I nt er est Resear ch Gr oup v. Her cul es, I nc. ,

50 F. 3d 1239, 1248 ( 3r d Ci r . 1995) ) . The Cour t i n Her cul es t ook

an over al l suf f i ci ency appr oach[ , whi ch] f ocused on t he

pur pose of t he not i ce r equi r ement t o pr ovi de t he r eci pi ent wi t h

ef f ecti ve, as wel l as t i mel y not i ce. I d. ( ci t i ng Her cul es, 50

F. 3d at 1248 and At l . St at es Legal Found. I nc. v. St r oh Di e

Cast i ng Co. , 116 F. 3d 814, 819 ( 7t h Ci r . 1997) ) . The key

l anguage i n t he not i ce r egul at i on i s t he phr ase suf f i ci ent

i nf or mat i on t o per mi t t he r eci pi ent t o i dent i f y t he al l eged

vi ol at i ons and br i ng i t sel f i nt o compl i ance. I d. Thus, [ t ] he

key t o not i ce i s t o gi ve t he accused company t he oppor t uni t y t o

cor r ect t he pr obl em. At l . St at es, 116 F. 3d at 820. I n shor t ,

t he Cl ean Wat er Act s not i ce pr ovi si ons and t hei r enf or ci ng

r egul at i ons r equi r e no mor e t han r easonabl e speci f i ci t y. San

Fr anci sco BayKeeper , I nc. v. Tosco Cor p. , 309 F. 3d 1153, 1157- 59

( 9t h Ci r . 2002) ( quot i ng Cat ski l l Mt ns. Chapt er of Tr out

Unl i mi t ed, I nc. v. New Yor k, 273 F. 3d 481, 488 ( 2d Ci r . 2001) ) .

Def endant s pr i mar y ar gument r el at es t o t he l ocat i on of t he

vi ol at i on i dent i f i ed i n Pl ai nt i f f s Not i ce Let t er . As

Pl ai nt i f f s ar e al l egi ng a poi nt - sour ce di schar ge vi ol at i on,

t hei r not i ce l et t er must have i dent i f i ed a poi nt sour ce. Kar r


8/7/2019 gov.uscourts.mdd.176071.26.0

13/26

13

v. Hef ner , 475 F. 3d 1192, 1203 ( 10t h Ci r . 2007) . Poi nt Sour ce

i s def i ned as any di scer nabl e, conf i ned and di scr et e

conveyance, i ncl udi ng but not l i mi t ed t o any pi pe, di t ch,

channel , t unnel , condui t , wel l , di scr et e f i ssur e, cont ai ner ,

r ol l i ng st ock, [ or ] concent r at ed ani mal f eedi ng oper at i on . . .

f r om whi ch pol l ut ant s ar e or may be di schar ged. 33 U. S. C.

1362( 14) . Her e, Pl ai nt i f f s Not i ce i dent i f i ed t he poi nt sour ce

as t he Hudson Far m, whi ch Def endant s do not di sput e i s a

concent r at ed ani mal f eedi ng operat i on ( CAFO) under t he CWA.

Thus, no f ur t her descr i pt i on of t he l ocat i on of t he vi ol at i on i n

t he Not i ce i s necessar y.

Def endant s make much of t he f act t hat t he Not i ce Let t er

r ef er s t o an uncover ed poul t r y manur e pi l e i n the Hudson Far m

CAFO pr oduct i on area and ar gues t hat t he Compl ai nt shoul d,

t her ef or e, be r est r i ct ed t o t hat mor e speci f i c sour ce. Whi l e

Pl ai nt i f f s Not i ce r ef er s t o t he manur e pi l e as a possi bl e

sour ce, i t was onl y upon i nf or mat i on and bel i ef because

Pl ai nt i f f s wer e not abl e t o go ont o t he Hudson Far m and

i nvest i gat e t he sour ce t hemsel ves. As such, t hey specul at ed as

t o t he speci f i c sour ce l ocat i on wi t hi n t he CAFO. Once

Def endant s were on not i ce t hat t he Hudson Far m CAFO was

al l egedl y di schar gi ng pol l ut ant s i n t he f or m of poul t r y manur e

i nt o a wat er sour ce, t hey, not Pl ai nt i f f s, had t he i nf or mat i on


8/7/2019 gov.uscourts.mdd.176071.26.0

14/26

14

t o det er mi ne f r om wher e speci f i cal l y wi t hi n t he CAFO t he

di scharge may have been comi ng and t o corr ect t he probl em.

That t he Not i ce was not speci f i cal l y t ar get ed onl y at t he

manur e pi l e, but more general l y at t he CAFO, i s evi denced by

event s and act i ons t aken by t he Maryl and Depar t ment of t he

Envi r onment ( MDE) f ol l owi ng r ecei pt of t he not i ce. I n

i nvest i gat i ng t he al l egat i ons cont ai ned i n Pl ai nt i f f s Not i ce

Let t er , t he MDE conduct ed a si t e assessment of t he Hudson Farm

CAFO t hat f ocused not onl y on the pi l e of wast e, but on t he

ent i r e CAFO poi nt sour ce. They t ook wat er sampl es f r om di t ches

t hat f l ow past t he wast e pi l es and t he chi cken houses, t ook

phot os f r om ar ound t he f ar m, i ncl udi ng sever al pi l es of wast e,

st andi ng wat er , t r enches, and bui l di ngs, t ook a soi l sampl e, and

i nst al l ed pi ezometers i n areas ar ound t he Hudson Far m. Per due

Mot . Ex. C. These t est s showed t hat t he pol l ut ant s of whi ch

Pl ai nt i f f s pr ovi ded Not i ce wer e i n t he di t ches sur r oundi ng t he

Hudson Farm CAFO. Pl . s Opp. Ex. C. Thus, Pl ai nt i f f s Not i ce

pr ovi ded suf f i ci ent i nf or mat i on t o per mi t t he r eci pi ent t o

i dent i f y the . . . l ocat i on of t he vi ol at i on as t he Hudson Far m

CAFO.

Def endant s argue t hat t he act i ons MDE and Def endant s t ook

f ol l owi ng t he not i ce may show t hat t hey had act ual or

const r uct i ve not i ce of a br oader pot ent i al vi ol at i on as a

resul t of Pl ai nt i f f s l et t er , but act ual not i ce i s not


8/7/2019 gov.uscourts.mdd.176071.26.0

15/26

15

suf f i ci ent t o pr ovi de t hi s Cour t wi t h j ur i sdi cti on and ci t e t o

t hi s Cour t s deci si on i n Communi t y of Cambr i dge f or suppor t .

Def endant s argument expands t he hol di ng of Communi t y of

Cambr i dge, however . As al r eady di scussed, t he hol di ng i n

Communi t y of Cambr i dge appl i ed onl y t o t he requi r ement t o

i dent i f y al l i ndi vi dual pl ai nt i f f s i n t he not i ce l et t er . I t di d

not di scuss whet her , assumi ng al l of t he not i ce r equi r ement s had

been met , act ual not i ce was suf f i ci ent t o al l ow addi t i onal

al l egat i ons st emmi ng f r om t he not i ced vi ol at i on t o be i ncl uded

i n t he compl ai nt . Moreover , Communi t y of Cambr i dge l ends

suppor t t o t he ar gument t hat act ual or const r uct i ve knowl edge

may be used t o pr ove t hat adequate not i ce was gi ven. The Cour t

not ed i n di cta t hat [ t ] her e i s suppor t f or t he Pl ai nt i f f s

cont ent i on t hat t he l evel of speci f i ci t y r equi r ed i n i dent i f yi ng

t he dat es, t i mes, pl aces, and nat ur e of al l eged vi ol at i ons i s

not as st r i ngent as t he Ci t y suggest s. I d. at 559 n. 8. Thi s

Cour t , i n Chesapeake Bay Foundat i on v. Bet hl ehem St eel Cor p. ,

r ul ed t hat actual not i ce of a vi ol at i on i s suf f i ci ent as l ong as

t he not i ce r equi r ement s ar e met . 608 F. Supp. 440, 450 ( D. Md.

1985) ( Chesapeake Bay I ) ; Chesapeake Bay Foundat i on v. Bethl ehem

St eel Corp. 652 F. Supp. 620, 628 ( D. Md. 1987) ( Chesapeake Bay

I I ) . I n Chesapeake Bay I and I I , t he Cour t t wi ce r ef used t o

di smi ss cl ai ms not i ncl uded i n t he 60 day pr i or not i ce l et t er

when t he def endant s had act ual knowl edge of t he al l eged


8/7/2019 gov.uscourts.mdd.176071.26.0

16/26

16

vi ol at i ons. Chesapeake Bay I , 608 F. Supp. at 450- 51;

Chesapeake Bay I I , 652 F. Supp. at 628.

Thi s hol di ng as t o act ual not i ce i s hel d by t he maj or i t y of

Ci r cui t s t hat have l ooked at t he i ssue. Henr y Bosma Dai r y, 305

F. 3d at 952 ( hol di ng t hat wher e addi t i onal vi ol at i ons l i st ed i n

t he compl ai nt or i gi nat ed f r om t he same sour ce, t he CAFO dai r i es,

deposi t ed t he same wast e mat er i al , manur e, i nt o cl ear l y

i dent i f i abl e navi gabl e wat er s of t he U. S. , a si ngl e dr ai n di t ch,

t hat t hey const i t ut ed a si ngl e vi ol at i on t hat r epeat ed over a

span of t i me and met t he CWA not i ce r equi r ement s) ; At l . St ates

Legal Foundat i on, 116 F. 3d at 820 ( hol di ng t hat wher e t he

al l eged pol l ut er , upon r ecei vi ng not i ce about one of f endi ng

out f al l , si mpl y r edi r ect ed t he st r eam of cont ami nat ed wat er t o

anot her out f al l t he pol l ut er cl ear l y r ecei ved enough

i nf or mat i on t o cor r ect t he pr obl em and t o sat i sf y t he pur poses

of t he st at ut or y not i ce pr ovi si ons of t he CWA) ; Her cul es, 50

F. 3d at 1248 ( We f i nd t hat not i ce of one f acet of an ef f l uent

i nf r acti on i s suf f i ci ent t o per mi t t he r eci pi ent of t he not i ce

t o i dent i f y ot her vi ol at i ons ar i si ng f r om t he same epi sode. ) .

The cases ci t ed by Def endant s ar e i napposi t e because,

unl i ke her e, i n each case t he pl ai nt i f f s f ai l ed t o al l ege each

of t he not i ce r equi r ement s and act ual not i ce coul d not be a

subst i t ut e f or st r i ct l y compl yi ng wi t h t he r equi r ement s.

Hal l st r om, 493 U. S. at 26, 31 ( hol di ng t hat ci t i zen pl ai nt i f f s


8/7/2019 gov.uscourts.mdd.176071.26.0

17/26

17

must st r i ct l y compl y wi t h t he 60 day not i ce per i od, but t he

Cour t di d not di scuss what t he not i ce must cont ai n) ; Nat i onal

Par ks and Conser vat i on Assn v. TVA, 502 F. 3d 1316, 1330 ( 11t h

Ci r . 2007) ( hol di ng t hat t he def endant s par t i ci pat i on i n an

ear l i er EPA enf or cement act i on r el at i ng t o si mi l ar al l egat i ons

di d not subst i t ut e f or t he l ack of speci f i ci t y i n t he not i ce as

t o pol l ut ant s and when t he vi ol at i ons occur r ed) ; Kar r , 475 F. 3d

at 1203- 06 ( hol di ng t hat t he pl ai nt i f f pr ovi ded no evi dence t hat

i t s ver y br oadl y wr i t t en not i ce l et t er , whi ch f ai l ed t o i dent i f y

pol l ut ant s di schar ged, t he r i ver i nt o whi ch t he pol l ut ant s wer e

r el eased, and a poi nt sour ce as def i ned by t he regul at i ons, had

r esul t ed i n r emedi al act i on on t he par t of def endant and t hat

t he cour t di d not bel i eve t hat t he l et t er , as wr i t t en, coul d

r easonabl y be expect ed t o r esul t i n appr opr i at e act i on wi t hi n 60

days and di d not , t her ef or e, pr ovi de suf f i ci ent not i ce) ; St ephen

v. Koch Foods, LLC, 667 F. Supp. 2d 768, 788 ( E. D. Tenn. 2009)

( hol di ng t hat wher e t he not i ce l et t er al l eged a di schar ge f r om

one poi nt sour ce, a par t i cul ar pump st at i on, t hat i t di d not

pr ovi de suf f i ci ent not i ce of di schar ges f r om a di f f er ent pump

stat i on) .

Unl i ke i n t he cases ci t ed by Def endant s, Pl ai nt i f f s her e

have met each of t he regul at ory not i ce requi r ement s despi t e

Def endant s cont ent i ons t o t he cont r ar y. Act ual not i ce i s not

bei ng used t o subst i t ut e f or t he pr ovi si on of not i ce, but t he


8/7/2019 gov.uscourts.mdd.176071.26.0

18/26

18

act i ons of Def endant s and MDE f ol l owi ng r ecei pt of Pl ai nt i f f s

not i ce l et t er serve t o demonst r at e t hat t he not i ce pr ovi ded

suf f i ci ent i nf or mat i on t o per mi t Def endant s t o i dent i f y and

cor r ect t he vi ol at i on. The Not i ce Let t er speci f i es an i nt ent t o

sue Def endant s f or di schar ges of pol l ut ant s associ at ed wi t h

poul t r y wast e f r omt he Hudson Far m CAFO i nt o t he Pocomoke Ri ver ,

i n vi ol at i on of t he CWA. I t speci f i es t he di schar ged, poul t r y

wast e, and mor e speci f i cal l y f ecal col i f or m, E. col i ,

phosphor us, ni t r ogen, ar seni c, and ammoni a. I t speci f i es t he

dat es of t he di schar ges - dur i ng and af t er each r ai n event on

Oct ober 30t h, November 11t h, 12t h, 16t h, and December 9t h, 2009.

I t al so pr ovi des a det ai l ed descr i pt i on of whi ch pr ovi si ons of

t he CWA Pl ai nt i f f s al l ege Def endant s vi ol at ed or , i n t he

al t er nat i ve, t hat Def endant s vi ol at ed a zer o char ge per mi t and

speci f i ed t he sour ce of t hat al l egat i on. I n par t i cul ar , t he

Not i ce l et t er speci f i es t hat Def endant s vi ol at ed 33 U. S. C.

1311( a) and 33 U. S. C. 1342 of t he CWA and ci t es t o st atut ory

and r egul at or y def i ni t i ons t o expl ai n speci f i cal l y how

Def endant s vi ol at ed t hose pr ovi si ons. I t al so expl ai ns t hat

shoul d i t be determi ned t hat Def endant s ar e cover ed by t he

Mar yl and CAFO per mi t , t hat Def endant s had vi ol at ed Par t B. 2 of

NPDES Per mi t No. MDG01. Thus, t he l et t er put t he Def endant s on

suf f i ci ent not i ce t hat Pl ai nt i f f s wer e al l egi ng t hat t he Hudson


8/7/2019 gov.uscourts.mdd.176071.26.0

19/26

19

Far m CAFO was di schar gi ng pol l ut ant s associ at ed wi t h poul t r y

wast e i nt o t he Pocomoke Ri ver .

I n the onl y r el evant case ci t ed by Def endant s, ONRC Act i on

v. Col umbi a Pl ywood, I nc. , t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t f ound t hat wher e

t he not i ce pr ovi ded t o the def endant speci f i ed onl y one theor y

on whi ch the def endant s NPDES permi t was i nval i d, but br ought

sui t on t wo addi t i onal gr ounds, t hat suf f i ci ent not i ce had not

been pr ovi ded as t o t hose t wo addi t i onal causes of act i on. 286

F. 3d 1137, 1142- 1144 ( 9t h Ci r . 2002) . The cour t f ound t hat , by

speci f i cal l y i dent i f yi ng onl y one pr obl em wi t h t he per mi t , t he

def endant was not r equi r ed t o specul at e as t o ot her possi bl e

r easons t hat i t s per mi t may not be val i d. Mor eover , t he cour t

f ound t hat , i f t he pl ai nt i f f had i dent i f i ed i t s ot her t heor i es

i n t he not i ce, Or egon and the EPA may have deci ded t hose

addi t i onal t heor i es, unl i ke t he one i dent i f i ed i n t he not i ce,

wer e suf f i ci ent t o cal l f or agency act i on.

Al t hough not bi ndi ng on t he Cour t , t hi s case i s nonet hel ess

di st i ngui shabl e f r om t he case at bar . Her e Def endant s al one,

not Pl ai nt i f f s, wer e abl e to det er mi ne whet her or not t he

r ef er enced pi l e was t he sour ce of t he al l eged pol l ut ant s. I n

bei ng al er t ed t o al l egat i ons of di schar ges of pol l ut ant s,

Def endant s were on not i ce t o st op t hose di schar ges whether t hey

came f r om t he r ef erenced manur e pi l e or f r omsome other sour ce

wi t hi n t he CAFO. Mor eover , t he not i ce of t he di schar ges l ed MDE


8/7/2019 gov.uscourts.mdd.176071.26.0

20/26

20

t o i nvest i gat e not onl y t he supposed manur e pi l e, but t he Hudson

Far m poul t r y CAFO gener al l y. Thus, unl i ke i n ONRC, bot h

Def endant s and the Gover nment wer e suf f i ci ent l y put on not i ce of

t he al l eged i l l egal di schar ges f r om t he poul t r y CAFO, of whi ch

one possi bl e cause was t he r ef erenced manur e pi l e. The Not i ce

di d not l i mi t , however , t he need t o i nvest i gat e ot her possi bl e

causes i f i t was det er mi ned t hat t he pi l e was not t he cause.

Because t he Not i ce met al l of t he st at ut or y and r egul at or y

r equi r ement s and suf f i ci ent l y put Def endant s on not i ce of t he

pot ent i al vi ol at i ons of t he CWA such t hat t hey coul d at t empt t o

cor r ect t hem, Def endant s mot i on t o di smi ss wi l l be deni ed as t o

t hi s gr ound.

B. Rule 12(b)(6): Failure To State A Claim

1. Perdue As a Defendant

Def endant Per due ar gues t hat , as a mat t er of l aw, i t cannot

be a Def endant i n t hi s case because i t i s a poul t r y i nt egr at or

and not r equi r ed t o obt ai n a NPDES CAFO di scharge permi t .

Al t hough, i t cont ends t hat t hi s argument i s t o be anal yzed under

Rul e 12( b) ( 1) f or l ack of subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi cti on, i t

pr ovi des no l egal suppor t f or t hi s basi s. Oddl y, Per due does,

however , pr ovi de l egal basi s f or i t s anal ysi s under Rul e

12( b) ( 6) f or f ai l ur e t o st at e a cl ai m and t he Cour t pr oceeds on

t hat basi s.


8/7/2019 gov.uscourts.mdd.176071.26.0

21/26

21

Sect i on 301( a) of t he CWA st at es t hat t he di schar ge of any

pol l ut ant by any per son shal l be unl awf ul . 33 U. S. C. 1311( a)

( emphasi s added) . The st at ut e cl ear l y makes vi ol at i ons by any

per son unl awf ul , not sol el y per mi t - hol der s. Cf . U. S. v.

Smi t hf i el ds Foods, I nc. , 965 F. Supp. 769, 781 ( E. D. Vi r . 1997)

( hol di ng t hat 309 of CWA appl i es t o per sons who vi ol at e not

j ust per mi t - hol der s) ( r ev d on ot her grounds) . Cour t s have hel d

t hat t he CWA i mposes l i abi l i t y bot h on t he par t y who act ual l y

per f or med t he wor k and on t he par t y wi t h r esponsi bi l i t y f or or

cont r ol over per f or mance of t he wor k. U. S. v. Lamber t , 915 F.

Supp. 797, 802 ( S. D. W. Va. 1996) ( hol di ng person who hi r ed

cont r act or l i abl e f or vi ol at i on of exceedi ng per mi t

l i mi t at i ons) . See al so U. S. v. Avat ar Hol di ngs, I nc. , Ci v. No.

93- 281, 1995 WL 871260, *14 ( M. D. Fl a. Nov. 22, 1995) ( hol di ng

t hat wher e a subsi di ar y that hol ds a NPDES per mi t vi ol at es

309( d) of t he CWA, a par ent cor por at i on i s l i abl e i f i t

exer ci sed suf f i ci ent cont r ol over t he subsi di ar y such t hat i t

may be consi der ed a per son who vi ol at es ) ; Uni t ed St at es v.

Boar d of Trust ees of Fl a. Keys Communi t y Col l ege, 531 F. Supp.

267, 274 ( S. D. Fl a. 1981) ( hol di ng cont r act or l i abl e f or

vi ol at i ons of CWA despi t e hi s bel i ef t hat t he cont r act i ng

col l ege had obt ai ned t he r equi si t e per mi t ) .

Def endant Per due s argument t hat i t cannot be hel d l i abl e

sol el y because i t i s an i nt egr at or st ems f r om deci si ons by EPA


8/7/2019 gov.uscourts.mdd.176071.26.0

22/26

22

and MDE that i nt egr ators do not need t o be co- permi t ees wi t h

t hei r cont r act or s chi cken oper at i ons. Def endant s cont ent i on

i s over st at ed, however , because havi ng a per mi t i s not t he basi s

of an i nt egr at or s pot ent i al l i abi l i t y. Rat her , an i nt egr at or s

l i abi l i t y i s det er mi ned on t he basi s of i t s l evel of cont r ol

over t hei r cont r act or s chi cken oper at i ons. The EPA

acknowl edged t hi s basi s of l i abi l i t y f or i nt egr at or s i n i t s 2001

Proposed CAFO Rul e, i n whi ch i t st at ed under t he exi st i ng

r egul at i on and t he exi st i ng case l aw, i nt egr at or s whi ch ar e

r esponsi bl e f or or cont r ol t he per f or mance of t he wor k at

i ndi vi dual CAFOs may be subj ect t o the CWA as an operator of t he

CAFO. 66 Fed. Reg. 2, 960, 3, 024 ( J an. 12, 2001) . Had t he EPA

and MDE want ed t o pr ecl ude i nt egr at or s f r om l i abi l i t y f or CWA

vi ol at i ons, t hey coul d have wr i t t en t hei r r egul at i ons t o make

t hat expl i ci t , but t hey di d not do so. I nst ead, t hey have

acknowl edged t hat an i nt egr at or may be hel d l i abl e f or i t s

CAFO s vi ol at i ons.

Def endant Per due, i n i t s r epl y, concedes i n t wo f oot not es

t hat i nt egr at or s can exer ci se suf f i ci ent cont r ol over t hei r

gr owers t o be hel d l i abl e under t he CWA, 3 but cont end t hat i n

or der t o do so Pl ai nt i f f must al l ege f act s showi ng t hat Per due

exer ci ses mor e cont r ol over t he oper at i on of t he Hudson Far m

t han ot her i nt egr at or s do over t hei r cont r act grower s. Per due

3Per due Repl y 7 n. 4, 9 n. 6.


8/7/2019 gov.uscourts.mdd.176071.26.0

23/26

23

Repl y 7- 8. Per due pr ovi des no l egal basi s f or t hi s asser t i on,

however . The l evel of cont r ol ot her i nt egr at or s exer t i s

i r r el evant t o whet her Pl ai nt i f f s have al l eged suf f i ci ent f act s

r egardi ng Per due s cont r ol over t he Hudson Far m CAFO t o

establ i sh t hei r l i abi l i t y f or i t s al l eged i l l egal di scharges

under t he CWA.

Def endant Per due s second argument ar i ses i n a f oot note

wher e i t ar gues that Pl ai nt i f f s al l egat i ons of cont r ol ar e

mer el y concl usory and t hus f ai l t o st at e a cl ai m. The Cour t

di sagr ees. Pl ai nt i f f s st at e speci f i c f actual al l egat i ons as t o

t he cont r ol Def endant Per due exer ci ses over t he Hudson Far m

CAFO. Accor di ng t o Pl ai nt i f f s, Per due owns t he chi ckens and

pr ovi des al l of t he f eed, f uel , l i t t er , medi cat i ons,

vacci nat i ons and ot her suppl i es necessar y f or t he Hudson Far m

CAFO t o gr ow t he chi ckens. Pl ai nt i f f s al so al l ege t hat Per due

di ct at es t he aspect s of car e f or t he chi ckens such as t he t ype

of bui l di ngs, equi pment , and ot her f aci l i t i es used i n t he

oper at i on, and makes per i odi c si t e vi si t s t o ensur e compl i ance

wi t h i t s di ct at es. Because t hese al l egat i ons ar e not concl usor y

and ar e suf f i ci ent t o st at e a pl ausi bl e cl ai m agai nst Per due at

t he mot i on t o di smi ss st age, Def endant Per due s mot i on t hat t he

Cour t di smi ss i t as a Def endant wi l l be deni ed.


8/7/2019 gov.uscourts.mdd.176071.26.0

24/26

24

2. Continuing Violation

A CWA ci t i zen sui t may be br ought onl y i f t her e i s an

ongoi ng vi ol at i on of t he act at t he t i me t he compl ai nt i s f i l ed.

Gwal t ney of Smi t hf i el d, Lt d. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundat i on, I nc. ,

484 U. S. 49, 64 ( 1987) ; Am. Canoe Ass n v. Mur phy Far ms, I nc. ,

326 F. 3d 505, 521 ( 4t h Ci r . 2003) . Def endant s ar gue t hat t he

ongoi ng vi ol at i on r equi r ement i s not j ust a mat t er of f act t o

be pr oper l y pl eaded, but t hat i t i s j ur i sdi ct i onal and t hus

r equi r es Pl ai nt i f f s t o pr ove t he ongoi ng vi ol at i ons. Def endant s

t hen r ef er t he Cour t t o a si gni f i cant amount of evi dence, whi ch

i t cl ai ms demonst r at es t hat t he vi ol at i on was r ect i f i ed pr i or t o

Pl ai nt i f f s f i l i ng t hei r Compl ai nt . Thus, t hey ar gue t hat t he

act i on must be di smi ssed because i t was not ongoi ng when

Pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed t hei r Compl ai nt .

Def endant s ar e i ncor r ect r egar di ng Pl ai nt i f f s obl i gat i ons

at t hi s st age of t he pr oceedi ngs, however . Under t he CWA, at

t he mot i on t o di smi ss s t age, pl ai nt i f f s need onl y make a good

f ai t h al l egat i on of cont i nuous or i nt er mi t t ent vi ol at i on t o

sat i sf y t he j ur i sdi ct i onal r equi r ement of t he st at ut e.

Gwal t ney, 484 U. S. at 64 ( The st at ut e does not r equi r e t hat a

def endant be i n vi ol at i on of t he Act at t he commencement of

sui t ; r at her , t he st at ut e r equi r es t hat a def endant be al l eged

t o be i n vi ol at i on. ) ; Am. Canoe Ass n, 326 F. 3d at 521. I f

Def endant s want t o di sput e t he al l egat i ons and i nt r oduce


8/7/2019 gov.uscourts.mdd.176071.26.0

25/26

25

ext r i nsi c evi dence, t he appr opr i at e pr ocedur al mechani sm i s a

mot i on f or summary j udgment . Gwal t ney, 484 U. S. at 64; Am.

Canoe Ass n, 326 F. 3d at 521. 4 Ot her t han r ef er t o evi dence

out si de t he pl eadi ngs i n t hei r i ni t i al mot i on, Def endant s di d

not cont end t hat Pl ai nt i f f s f ai l ed t o al l ege, i n good f ai t h,

suf f i ci ent f act s demonst r at i ng an ongoi ng vi ol at i on. Nor di d

Def endant s r espond t o Pl ai nt i f f s ar gument s r el at i ng t o t hose

al l egat i ons. Thus, Def endant s seem t o concede t hat Pl ai nt i f f s

have suf f i ci ent l y pl eaded an ongoi ng vi ol at i on and Def endant s

mot i ons t o di smi ss wi l l be deni ed as t o t hi s basi s.

3. Whether Plaintiffs Have Sufficiently Alleged A

Discharge From The Hudson Farm CAFO

To est abl i sh a vi ol at i on of t he CWA s NPDES r equi r ement s,

a pl ai nt i f f must pr ove t hat def endant s 1) di schar ged, i . e. ,

added 2) a pol l ut ant 3) t o navi gabl e wat er s 4) f r om 5) a poi nt

sour ce. Commi t t ee t o Save Mokel umne Ri ver v. East Bay Mun.

Ut i l . Di st . , 13 F. 3d 305, 308 ( 9t h Ci r . 1993) ( ci t i ng Nat i onal

Wi l dl i f e Feder at i on v. Gor such, 693 F. 2d 156, 165 ( D. C. Ci r .

1982) ) . Def endant s ar gue t hat Pl ai nt i f f s have f ai l ed t o st at e a

cl ai m f or vi ol at i on of t he CWA because they have not al l eged

f act s connect i ng t he pol l ut ant s t hey f ound downst r eam f r om t he

Hudson Farm CAFO t o any di schar ge f r om t he CAFO. Def endant s

cont end t hat because Pl ai nt i f f s Compl ai nt does not speci f y f or

4 Per due st at ed i n i t s mot i on t o di smi ss t hat i t does not wi sh t oconver t i t t o a mot i on f or summary j udgment . Per due Mot . 4 n. 2.


8/7/2019 gov.uscourts.mdd.176071.26.0

26/26

each of t he al l eged vi ol at i ons wher e speci f i cal l y t he wat er

t est i ng t ook pl ace t hat t he pol l ut ant s coul d have come f r om any

ot her pl ace upst r eam or downst r eam of t he Hudson Far m CAFO.

Const r ui ng t he f act s al l eged by Pl ai nt i f f s and r easonabl e

i nf er ences f r om t hose f act s i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o

Pl ai nt i f f s, as t he Cour t must on a mot i on t o di smi ss, t he Cour t

di sagr ees. Her e, Pl ai nt i f f s Compl ai nt r ai ses a r easonabl e

i nf er ence t hat t he Hudson Far m CAFO, and mor e speci f i cal l y t he

chi cken oper at i on, i s t he sour ce of t he pol l ut ant s di scover ed.

Thus t he mot i on t o di smi ss wi l l be deni ed on t hi s ground.

IV. CONCLUSION

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, Def endant s mot i ons wi l l be

deni ed i n par t and gr ant ed i n par t . A separ at e or der wi l l

i ssue.

_______________/ s/ ________________

Wi l l i am M. Ni cker sonSeni or Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct J udge

J ul y 20, 2010


gov.uscourts.mdd.176071.26.0

Documents