2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

5-28-2004 

# Gr ine v . C o omb s P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-3028

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Gr ine v . C oombs " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 673. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/673NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT No: 03-3028 ROBERT W. GR INE , I I; JOANNE D. GRI NE; ESTAT E OF

MARGA RET M. GRINE, Ap pellan ts

v. RONALD W. COOMBS, Exec ut orof t he Es ta te of WI LLIAM R. COOM BS, DECEASED; BILLIE M. YOST; JACK W . SHRUM; ROTO CAST PLASTI C PRODUCTS; ESSEX ENVI RONMENTAL INDUSTRI ES, INC; TIONESTA BOROUGH CO UNCIL, OF FORREST COUNTY; RONALD HALL,

Preside nt of Borough Council , in an indivi dual and offi cial capacit y; SCOT T DA UM , BORO UGH MA NAG ER OF TIONES TA, in an individual and official capac ity; CO MM ON WE AL TH OF PEN NS YL VA NIA DEPART MENT OF E NVIR ONMENTAL P ROTECT ION ( "DEP ") ; GA RY WOZNI AK,

in an indi vidua l andoffi cialcapaci tyas an a gentof theDEP; DA NIEL HO LLE R, Emergency Respon se Coordinator, Northwest Region, i n an indivi dual and offi cial capacity, as an agent of the DEP; MICHA EL M CCA BE, Regional Adminis trator, Regi on III, U.S . E.P.A .; CO LL EE N C AL L, in h er O fficial C apac ity Onlyas Admi nis tr at or o f Ti ones taBorou gh; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ENVI RONMENTAL PROTECTI ON AGENCY

App eal from th e Un ited States District Co urt for the We stern D istrict of P enns ylvania (Civ. No. 95- CV-342) Distric t Judg e: Ho n. Sea n J. M cLa ugh lin Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

May 13, 2004 Before: NYGA ARD, McKE E and CHERTOFF,

Circuit Judges

### 2 (Opinion fi led: May 28, 2004)

OPI NION M cK EE , Circuit

Judge

. Plaintiffs cl aimed that

their up-gradi ent nei ghbor and other s engaged in unl awful disposalpracti ces that

resul ted in t

he contaminat

ion of the ir Tione sta Borough, Pen nsylvan ia prop erty. They su ed alle ging caus es of action und er the c itizen su it provisi ons of the Resour ce Conservation and RecoveryAct, 42 U.S. C. §§ 6901 et seq ., the Water Pol luti on Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq ., t he Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation and Liabi lities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et seq ., a s amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, as well as the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552. The complaint also as sert ed state law clai ms for intentiona l infl icti on of emotionaldist ress, tres pass, nuisance, stri ct li abili ty , as well as an a llege d violat ion of the Pennsyl vania Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act, 35 P A . S TAT . A NN . § 6020.101 et seq. Inasmuch as t

he dist rict court has alrea dy se t fort h the fact

ual and t ortur ed proc edur al history of this cas e, we find it u nnec essary to re peat th at history he re. W e only note that on October 23, 2001, the dist rict court entered a fi nal judgment under Fed.R.Civ. P. 54(b) in favor of t he United States Environmental Protecti on Agency and Donald S. Welsh, Regional Adminis trator, Regi on III of the EPA. Thereafter, t he plaint iffs fi led a number of i mproper interlocutory appeals f rom various orders e ntered by1 Fed eral R ule of Ap pellate P roced ure 3 8 pro vides a rem edy of d ama ges f or a p arty

wh o is req uired to defe nd a le gitima te judg men t from a frivo lous a ppea l. We will lea ve it to the Appel lees to determi ne whether they wis h to peti tion for such an award. 

### 3 the dis tri ct court

granti ng parti al summaryjudgment t o certain defendant s, gr anting parti al moti ons to di smiss t o certain defendant s, and denying plai ntiff s’ moti on to hold t

he EP A in conte mp t. Finally, on M ay 5, 200 3, the d istrict cou rt sua spon te dismis sed allof the pla intiffs’ re main ing cla ims ag ainst all o f the re main ing d efen dants pursu ant to Fed .R.C iv.P . 41( b) b eca use of th e pla intif fs’ f ailur e to p rose cute by, inter alia , engagi ng in d ilato ry con duc t and refu sing to co mp ly with cas e m ana gem ent o rde rs. Grine v. Coombs , 214 F.R .D. 312 (W .D. Pa. 200 3). In it s Memorandum O pinion, the dis tri ct court exhausti velyexplai ned its reasons for granting Rule 54(b) judgment t o the Federa l defendant s, i ts re asons for e nteri ng the other or ders not ed above, and i ts re asons for di smissi ng all remaining cl aims agai nst the remaining defend ants unde r Rule 41 (b). We a re in full agreem ent with the d istrict court’s thoughtfuland searchi ng analy sis. Consequently , we need not engagein a redundant

ana lysis sim ply to re ach the s am e res ults. Ac cord ingly, we will af firm th e district c ourt su bstan tially for the re ason s set fo rth in the di stri ct court ’s Memorandum Opinion without further elaboration. 1