FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT OCT 24 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1690 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 02-00925 -CV -BMM- 1 QU EB EL L P . P ARKER , SANDRA SKYPEK, CHARLES PARKER, ind ivi dua lly , a s a tto rn ey s inf ac t f or Q ue be ll Park er , and i n th e nam e of Quebell Parker, Pl ai nti ff s- Appe llants , ve rs us SCRAP METAL PROCESSORS , INC., a G eo rg iac or

por at ion , L.B. RECYCLING, INC., a G eo rg iac or

por at ion J. WAYN E MADDOX, ind ivi dua lly

and a s th e suc ce sso r in in te res t t o L.B. Re cy cl in g, In c., D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (O ct ob er 24, 200 6)2

Be fo re BI RC H , P RY O R and F A Y , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. FA Y, Circuit Judge: Quebell Parker and her children, Sandra Sky pek and Charles Par

ker (“pla int if f” ), appe al the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of he r Mot ionto Sh owCa

use a s to why Scr ap Metal Pr ocessors, Inc. (“ SMP” ) and J. W ay ne Maddox (togeth er:

“ defendant”), have failed to com ply with this Court’ s order in Par ker v. Scra

p Me ta l P ro ce sso rs , I nc . , 386 F . 3d 9 93 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) , to obt ai n a sol id w as te handl ing pe rm it an d to im ple m en t a le ga lly suf fi ci en t S tor

m W at er P oll uti on Pr ev en tio n P lan ( “ SWPP P” ). A ddi tio na lly , thi s C ourt or de re d ar etri al a s to dam ag es onl y , on p la int if f’ s st at e tort c la im s. R athe r than c ondu ct the r etri al , the dis tr ic t c ourt di sm iss ed

the c as e fo r la ck

of sub j ec t- m atte r j ur isd ic tio n purs uant t o 28 U . S. C. § 13 67( c) , w hic h th e pla int if f al so a ppe al s. F or

the r ea sons se t f

orth be low , w e re ve rs e as to the dis m iss al f or la ck of sub j ec t- m atte r j ur isd ic tio n and the de nia l of the m oti on t o sh owc au se w ithr eg ar d to obt ai nin g asol id w as te handl ing pe rm it. H ow ev er , w e af

fi rm , w ith out

pr ej udi ce , the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of the m otion to show cause as to the im plem entation of the SW PPP. I. BACK GROUND Pl ai nti ff ’ s f am ily ha s owne d th e pr ope rty

a t 91 44 W as hin gto n S tr ee t, Co vin gto n, G eo rg ia( “ Park er pr ope rty ”) f

or appr oxi m at el y

f if ty y ears . T he3

ad j ac en t pr ope rty , a t 81 94 W as hin gto n S tr ee t ( “ de fe ndant p ro pe rty ”) , ha s ha d a j unky ar d/s cr ap m et al y ar d op er at ing on i t si nc e the 196 0s o r 1970 s. J. W ay ne Ma ddox too k ov er

the j unky ar d and s cr ap m et al y ar d op er at ionin or about 199 0, an d a cquir ed

ow ne rs hip of

the pr ope rty

in 1994 . Pl ai nti ff f ile d th is a ct ionon Apr il 10, 200 2, a ga ins t de fe ndant and i ts pr ed ec es sor s inint er es t, a lle gin g ne gli ge nc e, ne gli ge nc e pe r se , nui sanc e, tr es pa ss, vio la tio ns o f the Cl ean W at er A ct ( “ CWA ”) 33 U . S. C. §§ 1 251- 1386 , the Re sour ce Co nse rv at ionand R ec ove ry A ct ( “ RC RA ”) 42 U . S. C. §§ 6 901- 6992 k, an d vari ous state e nvi ro nm en ta l st at ute s. O n Augus t 8, 200 3, a ft er

aj ur y tr ia l, the N orthe rnD istri ct of G eo rg ia entered j udgm ent in favor of plaintiff on all counts. De fendant wa s ordered to pay a t o t al o f $ 1 m i l l i o n i n d amag es t o th e p l ai n t i ff , a n dp ay ci v i l fi n es fo r i t s CWA an d R CR Avio la tio ns t o th e gove rn m en t. D ef en dant w as f

urthe r or de re d to im ple m en t a S tor m W at er P oll uti on P re ve nti on P lan, and t o ob ta in a sol id w as te handlin g perm it from

the Ge orgia Environm ental Protection Division (“ EP D” ). T he de fe ndant a

ppe al ed the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f

ind ing s of

li ab ili ty und er the CWA and the RCRA , a s well a s the award of dam ages. Parker v. S crap Me tal Pr oc es sor s, I nc . , 386 F . 3d 9 93, 100 0 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) . O n S ep te m be r 28, 200 4, thi s C ourt up he ld the f

ind ing s of

li ab ili ty ba se d up on the CWAand the RC RA , but1. Th is C ourt re ve rs e d o nly

the da ma g e awa rd s a s to the state law c la ims of nu isa nc e , tr e sp a ss, neg lige nce, ne g lige nce pe r seand punitive damag es, but upheld the district cour t’s monetary judgme nt on the Geor g ia Hazar dous Sit e Response A ct contribution and attorney ’s fe es. Parke r, 386 F.3d at 1019, footnote 35. 4 reverse d the dam ages aw ard because the district court did not ins truct the j ury that dam ages we re only

rec overable by

a party that owned or occupied the Par ker p ro p er t y du ri n g th e r el ev an tt i m e p er i o d . Id . a t1 0 1 8 . Al t h o u g h Mr s . P ar k er ’s ch ildre n w er e inc lud ed

in the dam ag e aw ar d, the y did not ow n or oc cu py the Parker property during th e re levant tim e period. A ccordingly , this Court ordered the dis tr ic t c ourt ho ld a

ne wtr ia l ondam ag es . I d. A t 10 19. O n r em an d th e 1 p l a i n t i f f s s o u g h td a mag e s a s t o M r s . P a rk e r o n l y. On Se ptem

ber 6, 2005 , the district court order ed the parties to subm it briefs ad dr es sin g w he the r the c our t sh oul d e xe rc ise sub

j ec t- m atte r j ur isd ic tio n ov er the rem aining st ate lawdam age claim . On Se ptem ber 23, 2005, plaintiffs subm itted their m otion to require defe ndants to show cause as to why the district court shou ld n ot h old

de fe ndants in co nte m

pt f or f ai lin g to c om

ply w ithit s Augus t 8, 2003 or de r. P la int if

fs a lle ge d th e de fe ndants ha d f ai le d to im

ple m en t a le ga lly suf fi ci en t S W PP P an d ha d no t ob ta ine d asol id w as te handl ing pe rm it, a s pe r the or de rs of the dis tr ic t c ourt and this Co urt.5

O n D ec em

be r 13, 200 5, the dis tr ic t c ourt e nte re d an or de r de ny ing the pl ai nt iff’s m ot io n t o s ho w cau se . The d is tri ctco ur t re as on ed : (1 ) un de r RCRA, de fe ndants are de em ed

to have ape rm it- by -r

ule and d o no t ne ed

any oth er sol id wa ste handlin g perm its; and (2) under the CWA, plaintiffs failed to provide clear an dco n v i n ci n g ev i d en ce th at d ef en d an t s we re i n v i o l at i o n o f t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s order to develop and im

plem ent a legally

sufficient SW PPP. The district court also declined to exercise subj ect-m atter j urisdictio n over the ne wtr ia l ondam ag es , dis m iss ing the a ct ionw ith out pr ej udi ce , so i t c oul d be re fi le d inG eo rg iaS ta te Co urt. T his appe al f oll ow ed . II. ST AN DA RD OF RE VIEW T he re are thr ee iss ue s pr es en te d onappe al : I. Whe the r the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in de ny ing pla int if

f’ s m oti on t o sh ow ca use a s to w hy

de fe ndant h ad

not obt ai ne d asol id w as te handl ing pe rm it. II . Whe the r the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in de ny ing pla int if

f’ s m oti on t o sh ow cause as to w hy

defendant had not im

plem ented a legally

sufficient Storm

W ater Po llu tio n P re ve nti on P lan. III . W hether the district court err ed in declining to exercise supplem ental j ur isd ic tio n ov er

the ne wtr ia l ondam ag es .6

W e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of the pla int if

f’ s m oti on t o sh owc au se for abuse of discretion. In re N ew ton, 718 F.2d 1015 , 1022 (11th Cir. 1983); U nit ed S ta te s v. H ay es , 722 F . 2d 7 23, 725 ( 11th C ir . 198 4) . Ade fe ndant’ s pr es en t ab ili ty to co m ply w ithac ourt or de r is s ubj ec t t o th e cl earl y e rr one ous standard

of review . United States v. Roberts, 858 F. 2d 69 8, 701 (11th Cir. 1988); CitronelleMob ile G athe ri ng, I nc . v. W atkin s, 943 F . 2d 1 297, 130 1 ( 11th C ir . 199 1) ; C om bs v. Ry an’ s Coal Co., Inc. , 785 F. 2d 97 0, 983 (11th Cir. 1986); Fed.R .Civ. P. 52(a). W e re view the district court’ s decision n ot to exercise supplem ental ju r i s d i c t i o n f

o r ab u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n . I n g r a m v . S c h o o l B d . o f M i a mi - D a d e C o u n t y, 167 Fed.Appx. 107, 108 (11t h Cir. 2006 ) ( ci tin g L uc er o v. T ro sc h, 121 F . 3d 5 91, 598 (1 1thCi r. 199 7) ( “ A s apr ac tic al m atte r, the dis tr ic t c ourt i s inthe be st posi tio n to w ei gh the c om pe tin g in te re sts se t f

orth i n § 1 367( c) and [ U nit ed Mi ne W orke rs v. G ibb s, 383 U . S. 715 , 86 S . Ct 113 0, 16 L . E d. 2d 2 18 ( 1966 )] in de ci din g w he the r it is a

ppr opr ia te to ex er ci se sup ple m en ta l j ur isd ic tio n. ”) ). B oth parties agree that the district court had po we r to exerc ise subject- m atter j urisdictio n und er 28 U .S .C. § 1367 (a). III . A N A LY SI S Pl ai nti ff arg ue s th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed w he n it de nie d pl ai nti ff

’ s m oti on t o showc au se a s to w hy

de fe ndant s houl d no t be he ld i n c ont em pt f or vio la tin g th e7

dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r to o bta in a sol id w as te handl ing pe rm it, and t o im ple m en t a le ga lly suf fi ci en t S W PP P. P la int if

f furthe r ar gue s th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed w he n it dis m iss ed pla int if f’ s c as e. W e co nsi de r ea chof the se iss ue s intur

n. A . S oli d Was te Ha nd lin g P er m it O n Augus t 8, 200 3, the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound de fe ndant i n vi olatio n of the RC RA , and o rd er ed

that de fe ndant t ak e “ al l r ea sona ble ste ps t o ob ta in a

sol id wa ste handlin g perm it from the director of the E PD .” O n appeal, this Court uphe ld the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ind ing of li ab ili ty und er the RC RAand a ff

irm ed the di st ric t co ur t’s o rd er re qu iri ng th e o bt ai ni ng of a so li d was te ha nd li ng pe rm it . Park er v . Scrap Met al Pro ces so rs , Inc ., 38 6 F .3d99 3, 1 01 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) . Be ca use w e co nc lud ed

in that c as e the de fe ndant m ust appl y f or and o bta in a

sol id w as te handl ing pe rm it, w e nowbr ie fl y r ev ie wthe ana ly sis f

or that de ci sio n. T he RC RAa llo w s a

ppr ove d st at es to im

ple m en t and e nf

or ce it s pr ovi sio ns. 42 U. S. C.A . § 6926(b). Ge orgia rece ived approval to do so in 1979 , and enacted the Co m pr eh en siv e So lid

W as te Mana ge m en t A ct

( “ SWMA ”) , G a. Co de A nn. §§ 12- 8- 20 thr ough12- 8- 59. 2, to re gul at e sol id and h az ar dous w as te . U nde r the SW MA, a person generally m ust ob tain a perm it to hand le solid waste. Par ker, 38 6 F .3dat 1 01 1, ci ti ng Ga. Cod e. Ann . § 1 2- 8- 24 .2. “‘Rec overe d Materia ls’ means those mate rials which have known use , reuse , or re cycling

potential; can be fea sibly

used, re used or r ecycled; and ha ve bee n diverted or

remove d from the solid waste stream for sale , use re use, or r ecycling , whether or not requir ing subse quent separ ation and proc essing .” Ga . Comp. R. & Reg s. r. 391-3-4- .01(55). 3. A “r ecove red materials proc essingfac ility ” is “a fac ility eng ag ed solely

in the storag e, proce ssing, a

nd resa le or re use of r ecove red materials.” G a. Comp. R. & Reg s. r. 391-3-4- .01(56). 8 Beca use the scrap m etal and other m aterials on defendant’ s property we re found to be w ithin Ge orgia’ s broad definitio n of solidwa ste, def endant was re qui re d to have asol id w as te handl ing pe rm it unl es s an e xc ep tio n to the pe rm it re qui re m en t a

ppl ie d. P ar

ke r, 386 F . 3d at 10 11. D ef en dant c ont en de d th e m aterials on the property we re a ctually

“ recovere d m aterials, ” m aking th e SMP 2 facility a “ recovere d m aterials processing facility ,” elim inating the need for a 3 sol id w as te handl ing pe rm it be ca use the S W MAe xc lud es r ec ove re d m at er ia ls fro m th e d efi ni ti on of s ol idwast e. Ga. Co de Ann . § 1 2- 8- 22 (3 3) ; Ga. Co m p. R. & Regs. r . 391-3-4-. 04(7)(a). H ow ev er , e ve n “ re co ve re d m at er ia ls, ” re qui re asol id w as te handl ing pe rm it if t he y are “ accu m

ul at edsp ecu la ti ve ly.” Park er, 3 86 F.3dat 1 01 2, ci tin g Ga . Com p. R. & Regs. r. 391-3-4-.04(7)(b). T o prove m aterials ar e not accum ulated spe cu la tiv el y , de fe ndant w oul d have to show“ dur ing the pr ec ed ing 90 d ay s th e am ount of m at er ia l tha t i s r ec y cl ed , sol d, use d, or r eu se d e qua ls at l ea st 6 0 pe rc en t by w ei ght or vol um e of

the m at er ia l r ec ei ve d duri ng tha t 90 -d ay pe ri od and 6 09

pe rc en t by

w ei ght or vol um e of

a ll m at er ia l pr ovi ousl y

( sic ) re ce ive d and n ot recy cled, sold, used, or re used and carried f orward into that 90 -day

period.” Ga . Co m p. R . & Regs. r. 391-3-4-.04(7)(c) . The district court f ound , and thi s Court uphe ld, de fe ndant’ s w as te w as a cc um ulate d sp ec ulativ el y

and m ust c om ply w ith al l a ppl ic ab le r eg ulatio ns, w hic h in cl ude appl y ing f or and o bta ini ng a

sol id w as te handl ing pe rm it. P ar

ke r, 386 F . 3d at 10 12. O n ac ont em

pt m oti on, the m ovant b ears the ini tia l burd enof pr ovi ng, by clear and convin cing evidence, the defe ndant’s noncom pliance with a c ourt order. United States v. Roberts, 858 F. 2d 69 8, 700 (11th Cir. 1988). I n the instant case, plaintiff showed that there is no record the defe ndant has eith er a pplied o r has at te m pt edto ap pl y

fora so li d was te ha nd li ng pe rm itwit h t he EPD. Once the m ovant m akes a prim a fa cie showing of a violation, the burden shi ft s to the a lle ge d c ont em nor to pr oduc e de ta ile d e vid en ce spe ci fi ca lly explainin g why

he cannot com

ply . Roberts, 858 F. 2d at 701 , c iting United States v. Ry lande r, 460 U . S. 752 , 755 , 103 S . Ct . 154 8, 155 1, 75 L . E d. 2d 5 21 ( 1983 ) . The burden of production is n ot satisfied bya m ere assertion of inabilit y . United States v. Hay es, 722 F. 2d 72 3 (11th Cir. 1984). D efendant argues they are co ve redby a perm it -b y -ru le , pu rs ua nt to GA. Com p. R. & Reg s. r. 3 91 -3 -4 -.06 .4. El e ve n d ay s b e fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s Au gus t 8 o rd e r t o o bta in a so lid wa ste ha nd lin gpe rm it. 10 D ef en dant f urthe r ar gue s th at

the E PD a cknow le dge d th is f ac t, and thus, no s oli d wa ste handlin g perm it is required. W e disagree. Ap e rmi t - b y- r

u l e i s n o ts u f

f i c i e n ti f mat e r i a l s ar e a c c u mu l a t e ds p e c u l a t i v e l y. G a. Co m p. R. & Re gs. r . 391 -3 -4 -. 04( 7) (b ). I n it s arg um en t, de fe ndant r el ie s on tw o le tte rs f

ro m the P ro gr am

Mana ge r of

the E PD ’ s S oli d W as te Mana ge m en t Program , H arold C. Gillespie, and on an affidavit fr om EP D e m ploy ee, Michael Ro doc k. W e co nsi de r ea chof the se it em s intur

n. Th e f i rs tl et t erfr o m

Mr . Gi l l es p i e, d at edJ u l y 2 8 , 2 0 0 3 , i n d i ca t es th at “ [i ]f 4 [d ef en dant i s] onl y

e nga ge d inthe c oll ec tio n or handl ing of

r ec y cl ab le m at er ia ls, lik e m et al s. . . I a m

not aw ar e of any oth er pe rm its that w oul d be r equir ed . . . ” N ot onlydoes this letter ignore the issue of w hether m aterials ar e “ accum ulated sp ecu la ti ve ly” on de fen da nt ’s pro pe rty, it al so pre da te s t he di st ric t co ur t’s o rd er. It does not negate that the dis trict court and this Court foundthat m aterials ar e ac cum ulate d sp ec ulativ el y , nor

doe s it ove rr ule thi s C ourt’ s or de r to o bta in a sol id w as te handl ing pe rm it. Mr . G ill es pie ’ s se co nd l ette r is d at ed N ove m be r 14, 200 3. I t st at es that i t i s a fo llo w -u

p to his le tte r of

Jul y 28. I t pr ovi de s, in pe rt ine nt p ar t, “ My [ Jul y 28] re spon se w as sol el y

ba se d up on the inf

orm at ionpr ovi de d iny our Jul y 23, 200 311

letter and did

not add ress t he pos sib ili tytha t re co ve re d m ate ria ls m aybe ac cu m ula te d sp ec ula tiv el y or disp ose d of

at yo ur f ac ili ty . In such cases, recovere d m at er ia ls are c onsi de re d so lid w as te and a so lid

wa ste han dli ng p erm it is required” (e m

pha sis a dde d) . T his le tte r cl earl y state s th at

if r ec ove re d m at er ia ls ar e ac cum

ulate d sp ec ulativ el y , asol id w as te handl ing pe rm it is r equir ed . T hus, because the district court and this Cou rt both foun d that m aterials ar e acc um ulated spe cu la tiv el y , de fe ndant m ust obt ai n asol id w as te handl ing pe rm it. The next piece of evidence defe ndant po ints to is an aff idavit byMichael Rodock, the E PD em

ploy ee r espons ible for inspecting facilities to determ ine what ty pe of perm it, if any , the f acility requires. Mr. Rodock’ s affidavit provides

“ [d ef en dant’ s] [ f] ac ili ty

ha s be ende em ed

to have asol id w as te handl ing pe rm itby -rule. .. [defe ndant’s] perm itting status is reflected in corr espond ence f rom EP D da te d N ove m

be r 14, 200 3, Jul y , 28, 200 3. . . and n o othe r sol id w as te handl ing pe rm it is n ec es sary . ” I t f urthe r pr ovi de s M r. Ro doc k “ vis ite d th e [f ] ac ili ty on O ct obe r 6, 200 5. . . [ an d] [ i] t do es not appe ar that the re are r ec ove re d m at er ia ls ac cum ulate d sp ec ulativ el y

or dis pose d a t the [ f] ac ili ty . ” I n c onsi de ratio n of thi s affidavit, the district court foundthat defendant was c overed by a perm it-by -rule, a n da p p l i c a t i o n f

o r as o l i dwa s t e h a n d l i n g p e rmi twa s n o tn e c e s s a r y.12

Appe llate c ourts h av e the pow er to iss ue m an da te s whic h are c om m an ds that cannot be ign ored. Absent a Suprem e Court decision to the cont rary , district co urts are c om

pe lle d to f

oll owm an da te s of

appe llate c ourts. L itm anv. Massachusetts Mutu al L ife Insurance Com pany , 825 F. 2d 15 06, 1508 (11t h Cir. 1987 ) ( ci tin g

I n r e Sanf

or d F ork & T ool Co . , 160 U . S. 247 , 255 , 16 S . Ct . 291 , 293 , 40 L . E d. 414 ( 1895 ); S ibb al d v. U nit ed S ta te s, 37 U . S. ( 12 P et . ) 488, 492 , 9 L . E d. 1167 (1838)). “ A district court when acting und er an appellate court’ s m andate, cannot vary it , or e xam ine it

f or any oth er pur pose than e xe cu tio n; o r giv e any other or further r elief; or r eview it, even for a pparent error , upon a m atter dec ided on appeal; or interm eddle with it, f urther than to settle so m

uch as has been rem an de d.” Id. At15 10 -1 51 1, ( ci tin g In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U.S . 247, 255 , 16 S . Ct . 291 , 293 , 40 L . E d. 414 ( 1895 ); S ibb al d v. U nit ed S ta te s, 37 U. S. (12 Pet. ) 488, 492, 9 L .E d. 1167 (1838 )) ( internal quotes o m itted). Inthe ins tant c as e, thi s C ourt a ff irm ed the f ind ing that r ec ove re d m at er ia ls w er e be ing a cc um

ulate d sp ec ulativ el y , and i ssu ed am an da te or de ri ng d ef

en dant t o obt ai n asol id w as te handl ing pe rm it. I t i s no t w ith in the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s po w er to second gu ess its or this Cou rt’ s conclusio n or revise this Court’ s order. T he fac t that Mr. Rodock dis agrees w ith this conclusion is irrelevant, even thoug h he is an5 . P l a i n t i f f a l s o a l l e g e s th atd e f

e n d an td i d

n o tf o l l o wth e p r o p e r

p r o c e d ur e t o o b t a i na

p e r m i t - b yrule for the SMP facility . As this is notmateria l to our analy sis, we do not rea ch this issue. 6. We rec og nize the possibil ity that the ac tivity

conducte d on the def

endant’ s proper

ty may have chang ed. This would re quire spec ific finding s by the district court a

nd would not eliminate any pe ri od of c onte mpt be tw e e n th e or de r r e qu ir ingde fe nd ant t o o bta in a so lid wa ste ha nd lin gpe rm it and the e limination of the activity g iving r ise to the order .

13 E PD e m plo y ee . T his Co urt’ s or de r to o bta in a sol id w as te handl ing pe rm it sti ll 5 stands, and n ei the r the dis tr ic t c ourt no r the de fe ndant i s pe rmitt ed to ign or e or m odi fy that or de r. T hus, w e co nc lud e the dis tr ic t c ourt a buse d it s di sc re tio n in de ny ing pla int if

f’ s m oti on t o sh owc au se and f ind ing that de fe ndant w as not re qui re d to se ek

asol id w as te handl ing pe rm it. 6 B. S to rm Wa te r P oll ut ion P re ve nt ion P lan O n Augus t 8, 200 3, a ft er

f ind ing de fe ndant l ia

ble und er the CWA , the dis tr ic t c ourt or de re d th e de fe ndant t o de ve lop and i m ple m en t a le ga lly suf fi ci en t Storm W ater P ollut ion Prevention Plan. T his Court affirm ed that order in Par ker, 386 F. 3d at 10 10. As stated previously , on a m otion to show cause the m ovant bears the initial burden of provin g, by

clear and convin cing evidence, that the alleged contem nors ar e in v iol at ionof

ac ourt or de r. R ey

nol ds v . A la

bam a D ep t. of

T ransp. , 10 F. Supp.2d 126 3, 1273 (M.D . A la. 1998 ) ( ci tin g U . S. v. Ro be rt s, 858 F . 2d 6 98, 700 (1 1thCi r. 198 8) ); L ai tr am Co rp . V . Cam

br idg e W ir e Cl othCo . , 863 F . 2d 8 55, 86714

(C. A. Fed. 1988 ); U nited States v. H ay es, 722 F. 2d 72 3, 725 (11th Cir. 1984) ( ci tin g N orths ide Re al ty

A sso ci at es v. U nit ed

S ta te s, 605 F . 2d 1 348, 135 2 ( 5th Ci r. 19 79 ). In its De cem

ber 13, 2005 order, the district court foundthat plaintiffs did not pr oduc e cl ear an d c onvi nc ing e vid en ce that de fe ndant h ad vio la te d of

the di st ric t co ur t’s o rd er t o d ev el op an d i m pl em en t a l eg al ly suf

fic ie nt SW PPP. T he dis tr ic t c ourt r el ie d up on a N ove m be r 3, 200 5 a ff

idavit of Ja son Ma ddox , pr es ide nt o f SM P an d so n of de fe ndant J . W ay

ne Ma ddox , in re ac hin g it s de ci sio n. T he Ma ddox a ff idavit e xpl ai ns tha t de fe ndant h as not be enable to construct a storm

water detention pon d as per the SW PPP, due to financial co nstra int s. S uc h c onstra int s in cl ude le ga l f ee s to c ove r lit igatio n a s w el l a s th e ina bil ity of S MP and J . W ay

ne Ma ddox to pr oc ur e loans d ue to thi s li tig at ion . Ja son Ma ddox ’ s a ff

idavit a lso de sc ri be s de fe ndant’ s e ff orts t o im ple m en t the S W PP P. S MP ha s c onstru ct ed ac ur b aro und the pe ri m et er

of it s pr ope rty

and pum ps c oll ec te d st orm

w at er a s ne ce ssary

unt il it can a ff

or d to c onstru ct

the re qui re d st orm

w at er de te nti on p ond, w hic h it e sti m at ed

to oc cur w ith in 3 0- 90 day s of the aff

idavit. Plaintiff off

ers no evidence to the contrary . The f acts that de fe ndant h as c onstru ct ed ac ur b and i s pum

pin g st orm

w at er a s ne ce ssary

sho w the re ha s be enan e ff

ort t o c om

ply w iththe c ourt or de r. W e do n ot b el ie ve de fe ndant’ s f

ai lur e to c onstru ct

asto rm w at er de te nti on p ond as of

the sho wc au se7. Plaintiff’s brief c ites to various ca se law statinga self- induced inability to comply

with a cour

t order is not a valid defe nse to contempt. Chicag o Truck D rivers v. B hd. L abor L easing , 207 F.3d 500, 506 (8th Cir. 2000); In re Powe r Recove ry Sy s., Inc., 950 F .2d 798, 803 (1st Cir. 1991); Fe dera l Trade Commi ssion v. Afforda ble Media, L L C, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999). Under the fa cts of this case , we f ind this l aw inapplica

ble. 8. “The district courts shall have orig inal jurisdiction of all civil actions arisingunder the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331 9. “ Except as provide d in subsections (b) a nd (c) or as e x pressly

provided other

wise by Fe dera l statut e , in any c ivi l a c tio n o f whic h th e dis tr ic t c ourt s h ave or ig ina l juri sd ic tio n, the dis tr ic t c ourt s shall have suppleme ntal jurisdiction over all other c laims that are so r elated to c laims in the 15 he ar ing is en oughto pr ovi de c le ar and c onvi nc ing e vid en ce that the de fe ndant violated a court order. 7 Ba se d up on the r ec or d, w e co nc lud e the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s dis cr et ionw he n it

f ound no v iol at ionof

it s or de r re qui ri ng the de fe ndant t o im plem ent a legally

sufficient SW PPP. H owever , given that nearly a y ear has pa sse d si nc e the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r uli ng, thi s is w ith out

pr ej udi ce to the m atte r be ing re vis ite d up on p ro pe r m oti on. C . S ub je ct -M at te r Ju ri sd ic ti on T he dis tr ic t c ourt ha s or igi na l j ur isd ic tio n ov er pla int if f’ s c la im s un de r the RC RAand C WApur suant t o 28 U . S. C. § 13 31. Jur isd ic tio n ov er the r em ai nin g 8 state lawc la im s c om es und er the doc tr ine of

sup ple m en ta l or

pe nde nt j ur isd ic tio n out lin ed in U nit ed

Mi ne W orke rs of

A m er ic a v. G ibb s, 383 U . S. 715 , 86 S . Ct . 1 1 3 0 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , an dc o d i f

i e di n 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 6 7 . T h e s t a tu t e r e f l e c t s ad i c h o t o my 9action within such orig inal jurisdiction that they form par t of the same c ase or

controve rsy

under Ar tic le I I Iof the Un ite d St ate s Co ns tit uti on . Su c h s up ple me nta l juri sd ic tio n s ha ll i nc lud e c la ims that involve the joinder or inter vention of additional par

ties.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 16 betwee n a district court’ s power to exer cise supplem ental j urisdictio n, § 1367(a), an d it s di sc re tio n no t t o e xe rc ise suc h j ur isd ic tio n, § 13 67( c) . L uc er o v. T ro sc h, 1 2 1 F . 3 d5 9 1 , 5 9 7 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) ; P a l merv . Ho s p . Au t h . o f R a n d o l p h C o u n t y, 22 F.3d 1559 . 1563 (11th Cir. 1994). S ection 136 7(a) a utho rizes a court to hear s up p l e men t a l c l a i ms t o th e f u l l e x t e n ta l l o w e db y th e “ c a s e o r c o n t r o v e r s y” standard of A rt ic le I II of

the Co nst itu tio n. P al m er , 22 F . 3d at 15 66. T he co nst itu tio na l “ ca se or

c ontro ve rs y ” standard

c onf er s su ppl em en ta l j ur isd ic tio n ove r al l st at e cl ai m s whic h ari se out of ac om m on nuc le us o f ope rativ e fa ct w itha subs tantial federa l claim . United Mine W orkers of A m erica v. G ibbs, 383 U.S . 715, 725 , 86 S . Ct . 113 0, 113 8, 16 L . E d. 2d 2 18 ( 1966 ); P al m er , 22 F . 3d at 15 63- 64 (a f ederal c ourt has the power under se ct ion136 7( a) to ex er ci se pe nde nt j ur isd ic tio n ov er

state c la im s w hic h ari se f ro m the sam e oc curr en ce and i nvol ve th e sa m e o r si m il ar ev id en ce); L.A. D rap er an d S on v. Wheel ab rat or -Frye, Inc., 735 F. 2d 4 14, 427 ( 11th C ir . 198 4) ( a fe de ra l c ourt m ay e xe rc ise pe nde nt j ur isd ic tio n ov er

state lawc la im s de ri vin g f ro m ac om m on nuc le us o f ope rativ e fact w ith a subs tantial federa l claim ).10. Section 1367(b) doe s not apply in this case, as it dea ls with diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 17 In this case, the RCRAand CWA c laim s are the “ subs tantial federa l cl ai m s, ” an d th ey

ari se out of ac om m on nuc le us o f ope rativ e fa ct a s th e state cl ai m s, n am el y , SMP’s o pe rat io n o f a jun kyard a djac en t t o t he Park er p ro pe rty. Ther efore, the district court has power to exer cise supplem ental j urisdictio n over pla int if f’ s st at e lawc la im s. N ei the r party dis ag re es w iththi s c onc lus ion . T he iss ue be fo re the Co urt i s w he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt ha d di sc re tio n no t t o e xe rc ise supp le m en ta l j ur isd ic tio n ov er the ne wtr ia l ondam ag es pur suant t o se ct ion 1367 (c ). T he dis tr ic t c ourt ha s su chdis cr et ionin fo ur sit ua tio ns: (1 ) th e cl ai m

rai se s a n ov el or c om

pl ex is su e o f st at e la w, (2 ) the c la im

sub stanti al ly

pr ed om inate s ov er

the c la im or c la im s ov er

w hic h th e dis tr ic t c ourt ha s or igi na l j ur isd ic tio n, (3) the district court has dism issed all claim s over which it has original j ur isd ic tio n, or (4 ) in e xc ep tio na l c ir cum stanc es , the re are oth er c om pe lli ng r ea sons f

or de cl ini ng j ur isd ic tio n Whe ne ve r a fe de ra l c ourt ha s su ppl em en ta l j ur isd ic tio n un de r se ct ion 1367 (a), that j urisdictio n shou ld be exercised unless section 13 67(b) or (c) ap pli es . P al m er , 22 F . 3d at 15 69. A ny one of the se ct ion136 7( c) f

ac tor s is 10 suf fi ci en t t o gi ve the dis tr ic t c ourt di sc re tio n to dis m iss ac as e’ s su ppl em en ta l st at e lawc la im s. I d. W e nowc onsi de r ea chof the f our se ct ion136 7( c) f

ac tor s intur

n.18

1. N ove l or C om pl ex Iss ue of S ta te La w T he dis tr ic t c ourt f

ound that this c as e ra ise s no ve l or c om ple x is sue s of

state la w. The district court reasoned the state lawissues are novel and com plex be ca use it w as r ev er se d inthi s C ourt’ s pr ior de ci sio n, and b ec au se the part ie s have filed new m otion s pertaining to Ge orgia state law . The issues the district court refe rs to are a m otion to invalid ate fr audulent transfers under Geor gia’ s Uniform Frau du le nt Tran sf

er Act , O.C.G.A. §§ 18 -2 -7 0, et se q. , and p la int if

f’ s r eque st t o have the district court appoin t a re ceiver pursuant to O. C.G .A . § 18-2-77(3)(B) , an d O . C. G . A . § 9- 8- 3. H ow ev er , be ca use pla int if

f ha s a gr ee d no t t o se ek

the se re m ed ie s inthe dis tr ic t c ourt, w e do n ot r ea chthe iss ue of w he the r the se m oti ons rai se is su es of n ov el or c om pl ex st at e la w. (Pla in ti ff’s Bri ef at39 ). Ther efo re, we loo k on ly a t the ne wtr ia l ondam ag es to se e if it r ai se s no ve l or

c om ple x is sue s of st at e la w. Gen eral ly, st at e to rt c la im s ar e n ot co ns id eredno ve l o r co m pl ex . Se e, e . g. , My er s v. Ri ch land C ounty , 288 F . Su pp. 2d 1 013, 101 8 ( D . N . D . 200 3) ( hol din g br ea chof c ontra ct , de fam at ion , and i nte nti ona l i nf lic tio n of e m oti ona l di str es s cl ai m s di d no t r ai se nov el or c om ple x is sue s of

state law ); H oll an d v. O ’ Br y an t, 964 F. Su pp. 4, 7 ( D . D . C. 199 7) ( hol din g f al se im pr iso nm en t, f

al se arr es t, int en tio na l i nf

lic tio n of e m oti ona l di str es s, a ssa

ult and b atte ry , and i nva sio n of19

pr iva cy do n ot r ai se nov el or

c om ple x is sue s of

state law ); Y ea ge r v. N or w es t Mul tif am ily , I nc . , 865 F . Su

pp. 768 , 771 (M . D . A la . 199 4) ( hol din g a ssa ult and battery claim s do no t raise novel or com plex issu es of state law ). Moreover, ne gli ge nc e, nui sanc e, and p ro pe rty dam ag e cl ai m s have be enhe ld a s no t r ai sin g n o v e l o r c o mp l e x i s s u e s o f

s t a t e l a w . I N XI n t e rn . I n kC o . v . De l p h i En e r g y & Eng in e Ma na ge m en t Syste m s, 9 43 F.Supp 99 3, 9 97 (E.D. W is . 19 96 ). N ei the r the dis tr ic t c ourt no r the de fe ndant c ite to any auth or ity hol din g th e state lawc la im s inthi s c as e: ne gli ge nc e, ne gli ge nc e pe r se , nui sanc e, and tre spa ss, are considered nov el or com plex by a fe deral court. Moreover, neither the district court nor the defendant cite to any authority holdi ng a trial on dam ages alone, a fter lia bil ity ha s be ende te rm ine d, r ai se s no ve l or c om ple x is sue s of

state law . B ec au se thi s c as e inv olv es onl y

state tor t c la im s and l ia

bil ity ha s a lr ea dy

be ende te rm ine d, w e co nc lud e a ne wtr ia l ondam ag es doe s no t r ai se nov el or c om ple x is sue s of st at e la w. 2 . S t a t e Cl a i m S u b s t a n t i a l l y Pr e d o mi n a t e s O v e r Fe d e r a l Cl a i ms T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso f

ound the ne wtr ia l ondam ag es sub stanti al ly pr ed om inate s ov er

the c la im s ov er

w hic h it ha d or igi na l j ur isd ic tio n, be ca use a ll the federa l claim s have been resolved. “ A f ederal c ourt will find subs tantial predom inance when it appear s that a state claim constitu tes the real body of a c ase,20

to whic h th e fe de ra l c la im is onl y an a ppe nda ge . ” Mc N er

ny v. N eb ra ska

P ubl ic Po wer Dis t., 3 09 F.Supp .2d11 09 , 11 17 -1 8 (D. Neb . 20 04 ), ( ci tin g D e A se nc io v . Ty son Food s, I nc., 342 F.3d 301, 309 (3rd Cir. 2003) ( quot ing Gibbs, 383 U. S. at 72 7, 8 6 S .Ct. at 11 40 )) (i nt ern al qu ot es om it te d) . In L .A . D raper & Son v. W heelabrator-F ry e, Inc. , this Court held “ [o] nce the dis tr ic t c ourt ha d adir ec te d ve rd ic t a ga ins t the [ fe de ra l] c la im s, it ha d on ly the state c la im s le ft

to co nsi de r; a s w oul d of

c our se be tr

ue in any c as e in whic h th e fe de ra l c la im s are ins uf

fi ci en t t o c re at e a j ur

y iss ue . T his pr ed om inanc e of the state c la im , by

it se lf , is not de te rm inativ e; the f

ed er al c la im s c andr op o ut o f the ca se a ft er tr ia l y et dis m iss al of

pe nde nt s ta te c la im s ne ve rthe le ss m igh t be an a buse of di sc ret io n.” 73 5 F .2d41 4, 4 28 -2 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 4) . In the instant case, the f

ederal c laim s did no t “ drop out ” af ter trial, but were re sol ve d inf

av or of the pla int if

f, j ust a s th e state c la im s w er e. W e fi nd this c as e ev enstr onge r than L . A . D ra pe r. H er e the f

ed er al c la im s have be enr es olv ed in favor of the plaintiff- they have not dropp ed out of the case. N either the district court nor the defendant cite any authority holdi ng that when all feder al claim s are r e s o l v e di n f

a v o r o f th e p l a i n t i f

f , th e p l a i n t i f

f ’s r e ma i n i n g s t a t e l a wc l a i ms pr ed om in at e an d c an be di sm is se d.21

In light of L. A. Dr aper, and because liability has alrea dy

been determ ined with regar d to all claim s, w e conclude that the new tria l on state law dam ages does not sub stanti al ly

pr ed om inate ove r the f

ed er al c la im s. 3. D ism iss al o f A ll C lai m s of Or igi na l Ju ri sd ic ti on T he dis tr ic t c ourt f

ound that 28 U . S. C. § 13 67( c) (3 ) al low ed dis m iss al of

the pla int if f’ s ne wtr ia l ondam ag es . T he dis tr ic t c ourt r ea sone d th at e ve n th oughthe statut e re ad s th at

w he n “ the dis tr ic t c ourt ha s dismissed a ll cl ai m s ov er

w hic h it ha s or igi na l j ur isd ic tio n, ” Id . ( em pha sis a dde d) , it

appl ie s inthi s c as e be ca

use

“ j udge m en t ha s be ene nte re d on[ the f ed er al c la im s] and the y

are no l onge r the subject of this proceeding .” W e disagree. Apla in r ea din g of

the w or d “ dis m iss ed ” in s ec tio n 13 67( c) (3 ) doe s no t inc lud e w he n a ll fe de ra l c la im s have be entr ie d and r es olv ed in favor of the plaintiff. W e can f

ind no authority

so hold ing. T he defendant err oneous ly cites Carn eg ie -Me ll on Uni v. v . Coh il l, 4 84 U.S. 34 3, 3 50 . 10 8 S .Ct. 6 14 , 61 9 (1 98 8) . N ot o nly w as thi s c as e de ci de d be fo re sup ple m en ta l j ur isd ic tio n w as c odi fi ed , but the onl y r ef er en ce to w ha t w oul d be co m e se ct ion136 7( c) (3 ) state s “ w he n th e fe de ra l- lawc la im s have dr oppe d ou t of the law sui t i n it s e ar ly

sta ge s and o nly state -l awc la im s r em ai n, the f ed er al c ourt sh oul d de cl ine the e xe rc ise of juri sd ic ti on by dis m is si ng th e cas e wit ho ut pre jud ic e.” Id . ( ci tin g

Gibbs, 383 U. S.11 . Co ntr ary to d e fe ns e c ouns e l’ s b ri e f, the pla int if f’ s f e de ra l c la ims we re no t a ff ir me d in thi s case . I t is disappointi ngwhen a party misrepre sents the holding in a case that could be binding authority over this dec ision. 22 at 726-727 , 86 S. Ct. at 1139) (footno te om itted). I n the instant case, the feder al cl ai m s w er e tr ie d and r es olv ed in favor of the pla int if

f, and d id n ot dro p ou t of the law sui t i n it s e ar ly

sta ge s. D ef en dant a lso c ite s L ak e Co unty v. N RG/R ec ove ry

G ro up, I nc . , 144 F. Su pp. 2d 1 316, 131 9 ( M. D . F la . 200 1) ( re m an d to state c ourt w as appr opr ia te w he re pla int if

f’ s am en de d c om

pla int did not inc lud e any

f ed er al c la im s) ; C ar

r v. T at an ge lo, 156 F . supp . 2d 1 369, 138 0 ( M. D . G a. 200 1) ( de cl ini ng t o e xe rc ise supp lem ental j urisdictio n over state claim s after feder al claim s had been dis m iss ed ); H ic ks v . Mo or e, 422 F . 3d 1 246 (1 1thCi r. 200 5) ( af te r gr an tin g sum m ar y j udgm en t ona ll fe de ra l c la im s inf av or of de fe ndant, thi s C ourt no te d th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sc re tio n w he the r to r em an d pl ai nti ff ’ s st at e lawc la im s to state co urt) ; M ur

phy v. F lor ida

K ey s E le c. Co -o p. A ss’ n, I nc . , 329 F . 3d 1 311 (1 1th 11 Ci r. 200 3) ( af

fi rm ing sum

m ar y j udgm en t of

de fe ndant’ s c ontri but ionc la im in favor of third-party

defendant, and dis m issin g third-party defendant’ s state law co unt er cl ai m

to state c ourt, a s pe r thi rd -p ar ty de fe ndant’ s pr ef

er en ce ); H ar dy

v. B i rmi n g h a m B d . o f

E du c . , 9 5 4 F . 2 d1 5 4 6 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 2 ) ( d i s mi s s i n g s t a t e c l a i ms of f ir st i m pr es sio n a ft er

a ll fe de ra l c la im s ha d be endis m iss ed ). N one of the se23

de ci sio ns i nvol ve state lawc la im s di sm iss ed a ga ins t a party ’ s pr ef

er en ce a ft er

the fe de ra l c la im s ha d be entr ie d and r es olv ed in that party ’ s f

av or . T hus, non e of the se de ci sio ns p ro vid e supp ort f or the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al . U nde r the pe cu liar fa ct s of

thi s c as e, w e co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt a buse d it s di sc re tio n in di sm is si ng th e cas e u nd er s ect io n 1 36 7( c)(3 ). 4. Ot her Except ional Circu m stances or C om pelling R easons for De clining Ju ri sd ic ti on T he G ibb s f

ac tor s of j udi ci al e co nom

y , c onve nie nc e, f

ai rn es s to the part ie s, and whether a ll claim s would be expected to be tried together are evaluated under se ct ion136 7( c) (4 ). T he dis tr ic t c ourt f ound the se f ac tor s w ei gh i n f

av or of dis m iss ing the c as e to s ta te c ourt. W e ad dr es s e ac h f ac tor in tur n. I . J u d i c i a l E c o n o my T he dis tr ic t c ourt f

ound that j udi ci al e co nom

y w oul d be st b e se rv ed

by dis m iss ing the c as e to s ta te c ourt be ca use “ [the dis tr ic t c ourt] c anf or es ee that i n a se co nd tri al it

w ill a ga in b e ca lle d up on t o m ak e num er ous ru lin gs o n stri ct ly G eo rg ialaw , and tha t i t c oul d ve ry w el l a ga in m ak e a m ist ak e w hic h m ust a ga in b e co rr ec te d by

the E le ve nthCi rc uit

on a se co nd a ppe al . ” Appr eh en sio n of be ing reverse d on appeal is no t a valid reason to dism iss a case f or lack of subje ct m atter j ur isd ic tio n. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c ite any auth or ity to the c ontrary . I nde ed ,24

the policy of supplem ental j urisdictio n is to su pport the cons ervation of j udicial en er gy and avoi d m

ult ipl ic ity in lit igatio n. R osa do v . Wym an , 397 U . S. 397 , 405 , 90 S . Ct . 120 7, 121 4 ( 1970 ). H av ing astate c ourt r eh as h is sue s th at have a lr ea dy be enarg ue d inf

ed er al c ourt i s f

ar m or e lik el y

to ca use m ult ipl ic ity in lit igatio n than the pos sibili ty

of a f uture reversa l in this case. Other courts have held that a court shou ld retain j urisdictio n over state law claim s “ wher e substanti al j udicial resources have alre ady been com

m itted, so that sending the case to another court w ill cause a substantial du plication o f ef fort. ” Gr af v. Elgin, Joliet and E astern Ry . C o., 790 F.2d 1341 , 1347-1348 (7th Cir. 1986 ). T his case wa s originallyfiled on April 4, 2002 . Ther e has been a f our day j ur y tr ia l, a s w el l a s tw o pr etri al he ar ing s. T he re have be entw o a ppe al s, both he ar d onor al arg um en t be fo re thi s C ourt. T he dis tr ic t c ourt ha s hande d do w n 18 orders, ruling on m ore than 40 m otion s. C learly , substantial judicial re sources have a lr ea dy

be enc om

m itt ed to the r es olu tio n of

thi s c as e. A s su ch , thi s c as e sh ou ldno t b e d is m is se d i n t he in te res t o f jud ic ia l ec on omy . ii. C onvenienc e T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso f

ound that c onve nie nc e to the part ie s w oul d f av or dis m iss al giv enthat the part ie s have to tr av el f ro m N ew tonCo unty

to A tlanta

to tr y the c as e in f

ed er al c our

t. H ow ev er , the dis tanc e fr om the pr ope rty

in que sti on25

to the f ed er al c ourtho use in A tlanta is a m er e 36 m ile s. J. W ay ne Ma ddox and Jason Maddo x are the only witnesses listed by

the defendant, and plain tiffs are pr ep aredto ha ve th ei r wit ne ss es en du re t he tre k t o At la nt a. Acco rd in gl y we co nc lud e any

inc onve nie nc e w oul d be m ino r an d w oul d no t r ise to the le ve l of

“ ex cep ti on al reas on s o r co m pe ll in g c irc um st an ces ” d es cri be d i n 2 8 U.S.C. § 1367 (c)( 4). iii. F airness to th e P arties T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso f

ound that f ai rn es s to the part ie s w oul d be se rv ed by dis m iss ing the ne wtr ia l ondam ag es to state c ourt. P la int if fs arg ue d it

w oul d be unf ai r at thi s st ag e of

the pr oc ee din gs t o r equir e the m to start ove r in s ta te c ourt. In ste ad of ana lyzi ng why

thi s is not

the c as e, how ev er , the dis tr ic t c ourt e xpl ai ns

“ having to retry

this case in state court m ust be consi dered together w ith the part that [plaintiff’ s] counsel play ed in the need to retry the case. .. the court charged t h e ju ry [i n th e f

i rs ttri al ] as i t w as r eq ueste d to do b y the pla int iff

s . ” S inc e the oblig ation of ruling on the propriety of j ury instruction s rests solely

with the trial jud ge , we fin d t hi s a s tra ng e b as is fordi sm is si ng a cas e. Furthe rm or e, be ca

use pla int if

f ha s pr ev ai le d inf

ed er al c ourt a s to both federa l and state law claim s, w e conclude that fairness to the parties dictates that the dis tr ic t c ourt c om

ple te the c as e by

handl ing the ne wtr ia l ondam ag es .26

iv. Whe ther All C laim s Would be Expect ed t o be Tr ied Togeth er A lth oughnot

a ddr es se d by

the dis tr ic t c ourt, w e nowc onsi de r w he the r al l cl ai m s inthi s c as e w oul d be e xpe ct ed to be tr ie d to ge the r. T he e xe rc ise of supp le m en ta l j ur isd ic tio n inf ed er al e nvi ro nm en ta l c la im s, suc h a s R CR Aand CE RC L Ac la im s, is favor ed . G re enH ill s ( U SA ), L . L . C. v. A ar on S tr ei t, I nc . , 361 F.Supp .2d81 , 88 (E.D. N.Y . 20 05 ); R ayth eo n C o. v . Mcg raw-Ed is on Co ., Inc ., 979 F. Su pp. 858 , 866 ( ci ting IN XI nte rn . I nk C o. v. D el phi E ne rg y & E ngi ne Managem ent Sy stem s, 943 F. Supp 99 3 (E .D . W is. 1996)). Courts have found th at fe de ra l e nvi ro nm en ta l and s ta te nui sanc e cl ai m s de ri ve f ro m ac om m on nuc le us o f ope rativ e fa ct s and the pla int if f w oul d or din ar ily

be e xpe ct ed

to tr y the m a ll in o ne pr oc ee din g. S ee S ta te of N . Y . v. S hor e Re al ty

Co rp . , 759 F . 2d 1 032, 105 0 ( 2d Cir. 1985 ) ( ci tin g G ibb s, 383 U . S. a t 72 8, 86 S . Ct . A t 11 40) . I nde ed , a ll the f ac ts in this c as e de ri ve f

ro m the sam e nuc le us o f ope rativ e fa ct s, spe ci fi ca lly , the ope ratio n of

aj unky ar d a dj ac en t t o th e Park er pr ope rty , and p la int if

f cl earl y ex p ec t s t o h av e a l l cl ai m s tri edt o g et h eri n fe d er al co u rt . We c o n cl u d e p l ai n t i ff ’s expe ct at ionto re sol ve a ll cl ai m s to ge the r w ei ghs in f av or of r et ai nin g supp le m en ta l j ur isd ic tio n ov er pla int if f’ s st at e lawc la im s. Ther efore, because the district court had the power to exercise supplem ental j urisdictio n over plaintiff’ s state lawclaim s, and because none of the factors27

enum erate d in 28 U. S. C. 1367 (c) are persuasively present, w e conclude the district court abused its d iscretion when it dism issed the case for lac k of subject- m atter j ur isd ic tio n. T he dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r is v ac at ed and i t i s in str

uc te d to hol d th e ne wtr ia l ondam ag es a s se t f orth i n our ea

rl ie r de ci sio n. IV. CO NC LUS ION Ac cordingly , w e vacate and reverse the dism issal for lack of subje ct-m atter ju ri s d i ct i o n an dre m an dfo r an ew tri al o n d amag es i n th e d i s t ri ct co u rt . We re ve rs e the de nia l of

the m oti on t o sh owc au se a s to the sol id w as te handl ing pe rm it. W e af

fi rm , w ith out

pr ej udi ce , the de nia l of

the m oti on t o sh owc au se a s to th e St orm W at er Po ll ut io n P rev en ti on Pla n. AF FIRMED IN P AR T, REV ERS ED AN D REMA ND ED IN P AR T.