Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03579/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03579-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1319 Clean Water Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

George H. Johnson et al.,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-3579-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Pending before this Court are Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claim for

Injunctive Relief (Dkt. # 4) and Defendants' Motion to Compel Joinder of a Necessary Party

(Dkt. #5). With regard to both Motions, Plaintiff filed an Opposition and Defendants filed

a Reply. 

BACKGROUND

The United States of America brought this action against George H. Johnson, Johnson

International, Inc., and General Hunt Properties, Inc. (collectively "Defendants") for alleged

violation of the Clean Water Act ("CWA"), 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b) and (d). Plaintiff alleges

that Defendants violated the CWA by discharging dredged or fill material into waters of the

United States as part of their mechanized land clearing and levee construction activities

without the permits required under CWA section 404, 33 U.S.C. § 1344. According to

Plaintiff, the alleged illegal discharges on the King and La Osa Ranches in Pinal County,

Case 2:05-cv-03579-MHM Document 11 Filed 11/17/06 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Arizona ("the subject property"), filled with dredge material at least 100 acres of waters of

the United States, including portions of the Santa Cruz River and its tributaries. Plaintiff

seeks the following: (1) to enjoin the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States

without a permit in violation of CWA section 301(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a); (2) to require

Defendants, at their own expense and at the direction of the Environmental Protection

Agency, to restore and/or mitigate the damages caused by their unlawful activities; and (3)

to require Defendants to pay civil penalties as provided in CWA section 309(d), 33 U.S.C.

§ 1319(d). 

In the Motion to Dismiss, Defendants contend that they no longer own the subject

property, thus, Plaintiff cannot properly allege that Defendants must be enjoined from further

discharging any dredged or fill material or pollutants into any waters of the United States.

Defendants propose that the Court, therefore, should dismiss Plaintiff's claims for injunctive

relief. Plaintiff responds by stating that the Court should deny Defendants' Motion to

Dismiss because Rule 12(b)(6) does not allow for a court to strike prayers for relief and any

attempt to strike such prayers for injunctive relief is premature. Plaintiff further asserts that

the CWA expressly authorizes the injunctive relief sought in the Complaint. 

Defendants also have filed a Motion to Compel Joinder of a Necessary Party.

Defendants claim that it is necessary to join 3F Contracting, Inc., ("3F") in this lawsuit

because 3F was responsible for placing the dredged material in the waterway. Plaintiff's

Response claims that 3F is not a necessary party because 3F was not the only entity acting

on Defendants' behalf with regard to clearing the subject property and that complete relief

can be accorded between the parties without adding 3F.

LEGAL STANDARD

A. MOTION TO DISMISS

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim will be denied unless it is "clear

that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with

the allegations." Falkowski v. Imation Corp., 309 F.3d 1123, 1132 (9th Cir. 2002), citing

Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002). A

Case 2:05-cv-03579-MHM Document 11 Filed 11/17/06 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). "Each averment of a pleading shall be simple,

concise, and direct. No technical forms of pleading or motions are required." 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(e). These rules "do not require a claimant to set out in detail the facts

upon which he bases his claim. To the contrary, all the Rules require is 'a short and plain

statement of the claim' that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim

is and the grounds on which it rests." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2

L.Ed.2d 80 (1957).

B. JOINDER

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a) requires joinder of persons whose absence

would preclude the grant of complete relief, or whose absence would impede their ability

to protect their interests or would subject any of the parties to the danger of inconsistent

obligations. Necessary parties are those "having an interest in the controversy, and who

ought to be made parties, in order that the court may act on that rule which requires it to

decide on and finally determine the entire controversy, and do complete justice, by

adjusting all the rights involved in it." CP Nat'l. Corp. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 928

F.2d 905, 912 (9th Cir.1991) (quoting Shields v. Barrow, 58 U.S. (17 How.) 130, 139,

(1854)). An entity's status as a necessary party is determined in the context of the

particular litigation. Id. This standard is met when failure to join will lead to

"unnecessary and repetitive litigation ." Id.

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND THE CLEAN WATER ACT

The basis of Defendants Motion to Dismiss is that Plaintiff pleaded injunctive

relief as a claim and not merely as a claim for relief. Defendants assert that Plaintiff's

Complaint fails to state a claim for injunctive relief because Defendants no longer own

the ranch land which is subject to the Complaint. Defendants further claim that Plaintiff

can prove no set of facts which would entitle it to injunctive relief. 

The district court has considerable discretion to fashion appropriate injunctive

relief, particularly where the public interest is involved. See Virginian Railway Co. v.

Case 2:05-cv-03579-MHM Document 11 Filed 11/17/06 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

System Federation No. 40, etc., 300 U.S. 515, 552, 57 S.Ct. 592, 601, 81 L.Ed. 789

(1937); State of California v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 766 F.2d 1319, 1324

(9th Cir. 1985) (district court has greater power to fashion equitable relief in defense of

the public interest than it has when only private interests are involved), amended, 775

F.2d 998 (9th Cir.1985). The Supreme Court has recognized that the Clean Water Act

gives the district court discretion "to order that relief it considers necessary to secure

prompt compliance with the Act." Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 320,

102 S.Ct. 1798, 1807, 72 L.Ed. 2d 91 (1982).

In its Complaint, Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief are not limited to the

subject property. In fact, Plaintiff seeks an injunction to enjoin Defendants to undertake

measures to effect complete restoration of the waters of the United States that have been

impacted by Defendants' alleged violations of the CWA. Plaintiff also seeks an

injunction to enjoin Defendants to conduct off-site mitigation for un-restorable

environmental damage. Thus, Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief are not exclusively

tied to Defendants' ownership of the subject property.

Furthermore, Defendants assert that "[d]ue to pressure from plaintiff and other

associated governmental entities, Johnson International sold La Osa Ranch and [the

George H. Johnson Revocable] Trust sold King Ranch in 2004." Def.s' Mot. to Dismiss

Pl.'s Claims for Injunc. Relief p.2. However, it is not in the public interest to allow

alleged violators of the CWA to avoid potential clean-up responsibilities simply by

selling the land upon which the alleged violations occurred. Therefore, Defendants'

statement further supports allowing Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief to proceed. For

all of the aforementioned reasons, the Court denies Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff's Claims for Injunctive Relief (Dkt. # 4). 

JOINDER OF A NECESSARY PARTY

In its Motion to Compel Joinder of a Necessary Party (Dkt. #5), Defendants assert

that 3F Contracting, Inc., ("3F") is a necessary party to this litigation and failure to join

Case 2:05-cv-03579-MHM Document 11 Filed 11/17/06 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

3F will force Defendants to suffer prejudice. Defendants claim that complete relief

cannot be accorded among the parties in this case without joining 3F because 3F was the

company Defendants hired to conduct the earth-moving and land-clearing activities on

the subject property – the same activities that Plaintiff alleges were done in violation of

the CWA. 

Defendants assert that 3F made the unilateral decision to push debris into the

washes without Defendants' authorization. In fact, Defendants contend that they directed

3F to clear the brush and debris into piles and burn it. Defendants aver that they would be

prejudice if 3F is not joined as a party because Defendants would be precluded from

sharing or apportioning fault with 3F. Defendants argue that they then may be forced to

bring subsequent litigation against 3F.

In Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Join a Necessary Party, Plaintiff

advances that 3F is not a necessary party because complete relief can be accorded among

the parties without joining 3F in the present litigation. Plaintiff argues that there may be

other liable parties in addition to 3F who have had a relationship with Defendants and the

subject property. Plaintiff asserts that, because Defendants may have other future

litigation pertaining to the subject land, beyond that with 3F, Defendants need not join 3F

as a necessary party in the present litigation. Plaintiff also suggests that Defendants aim

in moving to add 3F as a necessary party may be to accomplish some sort of collateral

litigation advantage. 

According to Defendants, 3F contracted with Defendants to perform the land

clearing that led to the present litigation. If 3F is responsible for placing the dredge

material in the waterways as Defendants assert, 3F's absence from this lawsuit may force

Defendants to bring a subsequent lawsuit against 3F resulting in unnecessary, repetitive

litigation. Thus, 3F's absence from the instant case may preclude the Court from

establishing complete relief in one lawsuit. Furthermore, as an alleged actor in the

relevant land clearing that resulted in this lawsuit, 3F has an interest in the present

controversy. Therefore, in the interest of affording complete relief and to facilitate an

Case 2:05-cv-03579-MHM Document 11 Filed 11/17/06 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

expeditious resolution of this subject matter, the Court grants Defendants' Motion to

Compel Joinder of a Necessary Party (Dkt. #5). 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claim for

Injunctive Relief (Dkt. #4) is denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Compel Joinder of a

Necessary Party (Dkt. #5) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties' request for oral argument is

denied. 

DATED this 15th day of November, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03579-MHM Document 11 Filed 11/17/06 Page 6 of 6