Opinion ID: 3009961
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: District Court Order on Interlocutory Appeal

Text: Following the district court's order granting in part and denying in part the parties' motions for summary judgment, plaintiffs sought entry of final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 54(b) as to those claims dismissed by the court. 830 F. Supp. 1549, 1553 (D.N.J. 1993). In the alternative, plaintiffs sought 9 Of the total 114 discharge violations: Summary judgment was granted in favor of plaintiffs on 60; 44 were dismissed on the basis that no notice was provided by plaintiff; four were dismissed on the basis that Hercules had established an upset defense; and six were left for later judgment. Subsequent to the district court's ruling, the parties entered into a stipulation which permanently disposed of the latter 10 discharge violations. 830 F. Supp. 1549, 1552 n.4. Of the 60 violations on which summary judgment was granted for plaintiffs, 43 were included in the 60-day notice letter, and 17 occurred after the complaint was filed. Of the 44 violations that were dismissed due to lack of notice, 23 occurred before the 60-day notice letter was filed, and 21 occurred after the notice was filed. certification, for purposes of an interlocutory appeal, of the court's interpretation of the Act's 60-day notice requirement. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (establishing a district court's authority to certify a controlling question of law for interlocutory appeal). Defendants filed a cross-motion, seeking certification under § 1292(b) on the question of whether the district court erred in failing to dismiss the post-complaint discharge violations. After considering and rejecting plaintiffs' motion for final judgment as to the dismissed violations, the court granted plaintiffs' motion and defendant's cross-motion for certification of a question of law for interlocutory appeal. The court certified the question of law as: Whether this court correctly decided, pursuant to section 505(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1) and the accompanying regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 135.3, that where plaintiffs have given notice of intent to sue for various discharge violations but no other type of violation (i.e., monitoring, reporting or recordkeeping) this court's subject matter jurisdiction includes the noticed violations and any post-complaint continuing violations of the same type as those for which notice was given, but not unnoticed pre-complaint violations, nor post-complaint violations of a different type from those for which notice was given. Id. at 1560.