Source: http://fbi.openjurist.org/310/f3d/969/albany-bank-trust-company-11-4067-v-exxon-mobil-corporation
Timestamp: 2018-05-20 23:29:26
Document Index: 566428580

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 6902', '§ 6972', '§ 6972', '§ 6972', '§ 6972', '§ 6972', '§ 6972', '§ 6972']

310 F3d 969 Albany Bank Trust Company 11-4067 v. Exxon Mobil Corporation | OpenJurist
310 F. 3d 969 - Albany Bank Trust Company 11-4067 v. Exxon Mobil Corporation
310 F3d 969 Albany Bank Trust Company 11-4067 v. Exxon Mobil Corporation
310 F.3d 969
ALBANY BANK & TRUST COMPANY, not individually, but solely as Trustee under Trust No. 11-4067, Plaintiff-Appellant,
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-4211.
* We review a decision granting a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim de novo, accepting all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Vorhees v. Naper Aero Club, Inc., 272 F.3d 398, 401 (7th Cir.2001). Generally, matters outside the pleadings may not be considered on such a motion. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b). However, this court has permitted district courts to examine "[d]ocuments that a defendant attaches to a motion to dismiss ... if they are referred to in the plaintiff's complaint and are central to her claim." Venture Assocs. Corp. v. Zenith Data Sys. Corp., 987 F.2d 429, 431 (7th Cir.1993); see also Tierney v. Vahle, 304 F.3d 734, 738 (7th Cir.2002). Relying on this authority, Exxon claims that we should consider the proposed access agreements and other correspondence it exchanged with Albany in reviewing the district court's ruling.
We reject Exxon's argument. In the first place, although cases like Tierney make it clear that documents attached to a complaint are part of it for all purposes, and suggest further that concededly authentic documents referred to in a complaint that are central to a claim may also be consulted on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the converse is also true: documents that are neither included in the plaintiff's complaint nor central to the claim should not be considered on a motion to dismiss. Berthold Types Ltd. v. Adobe Sys. Inc., 242 F.3d 772, 775 (7th Cir.2001). In any event, the district court did not rely in its ruling on any of the extra materials to which Exxon now points, and so it would be inappropriate for us to take them into account for the first time on appeal. In fact, even if one were to take a more liberal approach to materials outside the complaint than the one taken in Berthold Types, these documents could still not be considered, because they were neither attached to a pleading nor even to Exxon's motion to dismiss. Instead, Exxon introduced them in connection with a related motion to disqualify Albany's counsel. For these reasons, we will consider only the complaint in resolving this dispute.
Both Albany and Exxon contend that this is a simple case, albeit for entirely different reasons. Albany rests on the fact that its complaint alleges every element of a prima facie RCRA case, which means, in its opinion, that it was error to dismiss it as a matter of pleading. RCRA is a comprehensive statute governing the treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste. City of Chicago v. Environmental Defense Fund, 511 U.S. 328, 331, 114 S.Ct. 1588, 128 L.Ed.2d 302 (1994). Its primary purpose is to limit the harmful effects of hazardous waste "to minimize the present and future threat to human health and the environment." 42 U.S.C. § 6902(b). A citizen is empowered under RCRA to bring suit "against any person, including ... any past or present generator... who has contributed or who is contributing to the past or present handling... of any solid or hazardous waste which may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment." Id. § 6972(a)(1)(B).
To make out a prima facie claim under RCRA, a plaintiff must allege (1) that the defendant has generated solid or hazardous waste, (2) that the defendant is contributing to or has contributed to the handling of this waste, and (3) that this waste may present an imminent and substantial danger to health or the environment. Cox v. City of Dallas, 256 F.3d 281, 282 (5th Cir.2001). Imminence does not require an existing harm, only an ongoing threat of future harm. Id. at 299. Albany's complaint makes each of these allegations. Its property is contaminated with petroleum waste at levels that substantially endanger public health, and it has alleged that Exxon generated and handled that waste. Therefore, Albany argues, the motion to dismiss should have been denied.
Exxon relies on a single district court case as authority for this proposition. See Aurora Nat'l Bank v. Tri Star Mktg., Inc., 990 F.Supp. 1020 (N.D.Ill.1998). There the plaintiff owned property which it rented to Tri Star, a gas station operator. At the end of its lease, Tri Star removed its underground storage tanks, detected waste on the property, and offered to investigate and remediate. The plaintiff evicted Tri Star and refused to grant access for further investigation pending additional rental payments. Id. at 1025-26. The court in passing noted that "if plaintiffs here have impeded the enforcement of environmental laws for their own financial advantage, they have not acted consistent with the purpose of the statute and a finding of liability would not be warranted." Id. at 1026. In the end, however, the court issued no definitive ruling on the matter, because there were factual disputes regarding whether the plaintiff had wrongfully evicted Tri Star and thereby impeded cleanup efforts or if Tri Star had instead dragged its feet on cleaning up the site. Id. at 1027.
Despite Exxon's claims, we are not persuaded that any of the reasoning in Aurora is helpful for this case. (The decision is obviously not controlling on this court, as it comes from a district court. But we are happy to consult it for whatever analytical assistance it may offer.) In Aurora, the court was presented with at least the allegation that the plaintiff was seeking additional private payments unrelated to environmental law. Here, by contrast, Albany has requested (according to its complaint) only the removal of all contamination on its property resulting from the underground tank spill and the reimbursement of its expenses. RCRA itself permits both recovery of litigation costs and attorneys' fees, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(e), and injunctions ordering cleanup of waste "which may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment." Id. § 6972(a)(1)(B).
Indeed, though we need not reach the question, it is not at all clear that Aurora itself was rightly decided. RCRA is quite comprehensive. After granting courts the authority to order violators to take any action necessary to attain compliance, the statute details specific prerequisites to bringing a claim. A citizen must provide 90 days' notice to the defendant and various government officials of her intent to file suit. Id. § 6972(b)(2)(A). She may not proceed if either the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or a state agency is prosecuting an action against the defendant. Id. § 6972(b)(2)(B)-(C). The provision also may not be used to prevent operation of a waste disposal facility. Id. § 6972(b)(2)(D). The statute itself places no further restrictions on a citizen's ability to sue. It is uncontested that Albany met those requirements: it gave notice of its intent to sue, no government agency is enforcing an action against Exxon, and this case does not pertain to a waste disposal site. PMC, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 151 F.3d 610, 618-19 (7th Cir.1998). When Congress has explicitly enumerated the preconditions to a given entitlement (here the right to sue), a court should not infer additional ones without evidence of contrary legislative intent. Andrus v. Glover Constr. Co., 446 U.S. 608, 616-17, 100 S.Ct. 1905, 64 L.Ed.2d 548 (1980). Though federal courts do place some penalties on obstinate plaintiffs who unjustifiably refuse to settle their disputes out of court, such as the cost-shifting provisions after an offer of judgment, see FED. R. CIV. P. 68, dismissal of a suit entirely seems to us a harsh penalty unlikely to have been intended by Congress. Albany has not declared that it will never allow Exxon on its property. Now that the litigation is underway, assuming Exxon still wishes to inspect the land for contamination, Albany will have to permit entry during discovery under FED. R. CIV. P. 34(a)(2). Under these circumstances, we find dismissal improper.
This too misses the point. EPA's regulations do not prohibit citizen suits to clean up petroleum contamination from leaking tanks. Waldschmidt v. Amoco Oil Co., 924 F.Supp. 88, 92 (C.D.Ill.1996). If the EPA or the IEPA wishes to bring a formal action to resolve responsibility for cleaning up the waste on Albany's property, this suit would have to be dismissed. But assuming that an investigation, whether undertaken by the EPA, Exxon, or Albany, has yielded evidence of imminent and substantial contamination, the plain language of RCRA makes a remedy available to Albany. Furthermore, the conceded occurrence of the spill means that its claim for injunctive relief is not premature. Cf. Avondale Fed. Sav. Bank v. Amoco Oil Co., 170 F.3d 692, 695 (7th Cir.1999) (denying injunction where contamination was not currently an imminent and substantial danger).
The district court also dismissed with prejudice any claims Albany was making under RCRA for reimbursement of the preliminary investigation expenses it has already incurred, relying on both our precedent and authority from the Supreme Court. In Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc., 516 U.S. 479, 488, 116 S.Ct. 1251, 134 L.Ed.2d 121 (1996), the Supreme Court held that "a private party cannot recover the cost of a past cleanup effort under RCRA" whether the remedy is sought as "damages" or "equitable restitution." This court has understood Meghrig also to bar a plaintiff from recovering cleanup costs incurred after filing suit but prior to the entry of final judgment. Avondale, 170 F.3d at 694.
Albany argues that its claim for reimbursement of expenses it has already incurred may be pursued in spite of this daunting precedent. It claims to be seeking "investigation" costs rather than "cleanup" costs, and it alleges that Meghrig and Avondale bar only the latter. We cannot accept this proposition. The plain language of 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a) bars damages and "deliberately limit[s] RCRA's remedies to injunctive relief." Avondale, 170 F.3d at 694; see also Nashua Corp. v. Norton Co., 116 F.Supp.2d 330, 357-58 (N.D.N.Y.2000); Walls v. Waste Resource Corp., 761 F.2d 311, 315 (6th Cir.1985). Since the Meghrig Court refused to characterize cleanup costs as equitable restitution that could plausibly mesh with RCRA's injunctive remedies, and investigation costs are a mere subset of cleanup costs, it seems clear to us that "investigation" costs are no more recoverable than "cleanup" costs would be. (Indeed, if only one could be recouped, the equities might favor cleanup costs.) We declined to read additional remedies into RCRA in Avondale and again reject the invitation here.
After dismissing Albany's federal claim, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Because we are reversing on the RCRA count, the state law claims brought under both the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and common law must be reinstated as well, as they are related to the same set of operative facts. See Armstrong v. Squadrito, 152 F.3d 564, 582 (7th Cir.1998). The judgment of the district court is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings.