Opinion ID: 166638
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: CCC's motion to dismiss

Text: 14 Before submitting its answer, CCC moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). CCC's argument was predicated on 33 U.S.C. § 1319(g)(6)(A)(ii), which states, in relevant part: 15 [A]ny violation [of the Clean Water Act] . . . with respect to which a State has commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action under a State law comparable to this subsection. . . shall not be the subject of a civil penalty action under. . . section 1365 of this title. 16 In evaluating the motion to dismiss, the district court focused on whether Oklahoma law was comparable to the Clean Water Act. After reviewing the factual materials provided by CCC and the relevant statutes, the court concluded that Oklahoma law was comparable and therefore that § 1319(g)(6)(A)(ii) applied to Plaintiffs' claims. 17 Next the court turned to the question of whether § 1319 barred only the civil penalty remedies or whether it also barred Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. Noting that the plain language of Section 1319(g)(6) indicates that only civil penalty actions are precluded when the conditions set forth in § 1319(g)(6)(A)(ii) are satisfied[,] the district court granted CCC's motion to dismiss with respect to the civil penalty claims only, stating that § 1319 deprived it of jurisdiction only of the civil penalties claims. The injunctive and declaratory claims were left intact. Recognizing that it had, to some extent, waded into uncharted waters, the district court stayed its order to permit an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). CCC subsequently filed a petition with this court for permission to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which we granted.