Opinion ID: 61690
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Mootness Analysis

Text: Congress enacted the CWA with the express purpose of restor[ing] and maintain[ing] the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a). Among the myriad of mechanisms for achieving this goal, Congress empowered private citizens to bring suit in federal court against alleged violators of the Act. 33 U.S.C. § 1365. Under the CWA citizen-suit provision, federal courts are authorized to enter injunctions and assess civil penalties, payable to the United States Treasury, against any person found to be in violation of an effluent standard or limitation under the Act. § 1365(a); Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 175, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000). The citizen-suit provision is a critical component of the CWA's enforcement scheme, as it permit[s] citizens to abate pollution when the government cannot or will not command compliance. Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Found., Inc., 484 U.S. 49, 62, 108 S.Ct. 376, 98 L.Ed.2d 306 (1987). However, Congress placed some limitations on the commencement of citizen suits under the CWA. First, a citizen may not commence suit prior to sixty days after giving notice of the alleged violation to the EPA, the State, and the alleged violator. § 1365(b)(1)(A). Second, no citizen suit may be brought if the EPA or State has commenced and is diligently prosecuting a civil or criminal action against the alleged violator. § 1365(b)(1)(B). The Act is silent as to which mechanisms may be invoked to dispense with citizen suits  like ECO's  that have been properly commenced under Section 1365(b). ECO argues that courts should not employ judicially-created mootness or res judicata doctrines to dismiss a properly filed citizen suit because this would conflict with Congress's statutory scheme under the CWA. ECO invokes the canon of statutory construction ( expressio unius est exclusio alterius ) that instructs [w]hen a statute limits a thing to be done in a particular mode, it includes a negative of any other mode. Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576, 583, 120 S.Ct. 1655, 146 L.Ed.2d 621 (2000). ECO posits that because Congress imposed certain express limitations on a citizen's right to prosecute a CWA suit, all other methods of limiting that right are excluded. Under ECO's theory, the decision to dismiss a properly commenced citizen suit due to mootness constitutes an impermissible judicial addition to Congress's enumerated limitations on such suits. ECO's argument is flawed for two reasons. First, the thing to be done under Section 1365(b) is the commencement of a citizen suit, not the resolution of such a suit. Second, and more importantly, mootness is part of the Article III standing inquiry applicable to all suits filed in federal court. See Laidlaw, 528 U.S. at 189-94, 120 S.Ct. 693. Thus, when dismissing a citizen suit as moot, a court does not graft some judicially-created doctrine onto the CWA. Rather, a finding that the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing is not satisfied means the court has no constitutional authority to resolve the dispute between the citizen and the alleged violator. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). One court has noted that the citizen-suit provision confers standing to enforce the Clean Water Act to the full extent allowed by the Constitution. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Gaston Copper Recycling Corp., 204 F.3d 149, 152 (4th Cir.2000) (en banc). The full extent of the law does not extend beyond constitutional limits. Accordingly, this court has recognized that developments subsequent to the filing of a citizen suit may moot the citizen's case. See Carr v. Alta Verde Indus., Inc., 931 F.2d 1055, 1061-65 (5th Cir.1991). [3] Having established that the jurisdictional mootness inquiry is required in the context of a CWA citizen suit, we turn to an application of mootness principles to ECO's suit.
As a general rule, any set of circumstances that eliminates actual controversy after the commencement of a lawsuit renders that action moot. Carmouche, 449 F.3d at 661. A case should not be declared moot [a]s long as the parties maintain a `concrete interest in the outcome' and effective relief is available to remedy the effect of the violation .... Dailey v. Vought Aircraft Co., 141 F.3d 224, 227 (5th Cir.1998). But a case will become moot where there are no longer adverse parties with sufficient legal interests to maintain the litigation or when the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the litigation. In re Scruggs, 392 F.3d at 128. As the Supreme Court has noted, it is not enough that a dispute was very much alive when the suit was filed; ... [t]he parties must continue to have a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit. Lewis v. Cont'l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-78, 110 S.Ct. 1249, 108 L.Ed.2d 400 (1990) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). ECO argues that, if the EPA-negotiated consent decree can moot its citizen suit, the test for mootness should be the traditional, stringent standard that was applied by this court in Carr v. Alta Verde Industries. According to Carr, in order to have a case dismissed as moot, [t]he defendant must demonstrate that it is absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur. 931 F.2d at 1062 (quoting Gwaltney, 484 U.S. at 66, 108 S.Ct. 376) (some quotation marks omitted; emphasis in original). Under this standard, the party asserting mootness bears the formidable burden of showing that its alleged violations of the CWA cannot reasonably be expected to recur. Laidlaw, 528 U.S. at 189-90, 120 S.Ct. 693. As such, ECO argues that the City must prove that the consent decree actually stops all violations without any likelihood the violations will recur in order to have its citizen suit dismissed as moot. However, the test for mootness that ECO urges us to apply is derived from cases in which the defendant argued that its voluntary conduct mooted the plaintiff's suit. See Laidlaw, 528 U.S. at 189, 120 S.Ct. 693 (The only conceivable basis for a finding of mootness in this case is Laidlaw's voluntary conduct ....); Carr, 931 F.2d at 1061-65 (cattle feedlot's voluntary improvements and application for CWA permit did not moot citizen suit). This stringent standard is appropriate when considering voluntary cessations of CWA violations because it protects plaintiffs from defendants who seek to evade sanction by predictable protestations of repentance and reform. Gwaltney, 484 U.S. at 66, 108 S.Ct. 376 (quotation marks omitted). For example, if we were considering an argument by the City that ECO's claims were moot because the City voluntarily hired the requisite number of compliance and monitoring staff or voluntarily set aside funds for supplemental environmental projects, we would employ the standard discussed in Laidlaw and Carr because there would no impediment to the City's laying off the new hires or reallocating the funds after ECO's suit was dismissed. Far from voluntary, the City's compliance with the terms of its MS4 Permit and the CWA has been compelled by an EPA enforcement action and the resulting court-approved consent decree. Further, the actions that allegedly moot ECO's suit are actions of third parties (the EPA and a federal court), not those of the City. As such, we would not be relying solely on the City's assurances that it will not return to [its] old ways. United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632, 73 S.Ct. 894, 97 L.Ed. 1303 (1953). Under such circumstances, Carr 's stringent test for voluntary mootness is inappropriate. Instead, we apply the test that has been endorsed by the Second and Eighth Circuits, under which ECO's claims for relief are moot unless ECO (the citizen-suit plaintiff) proves that there is a realistic prospect that the violations alleged in its complaint will continue notwithstanding the consent decree. Comfort Lake, 138 F.3d at 355; Eastman Kodak, 933 F.2d at 128. [4] This standard for determining whether a CWA citizen suit has been mooted by a subsequent government enforcement action respects Congress's intent that citizen suits supplement rather than ... supplant government action. Gwaltney, 484 U.S. at 60, 108 S.Ct. 376. The primary function of a citizen suit is to spur agency enforcement of law. See Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Hanson, 859 F.2d 313, 317 (4th Cir.1988) (such suits help ensure that the agencies fulfill their duties under the CWA responsibly). That is why the Supreme Court has noted that citizen suits are proper only `if the Federal, State, and local agencies fail to exercise their enforcement responsibility.' Gwaltney, 484 U.S. at 60, 108 S.Ct. 376 (quoting S.Rep. No. 92-414, at 64 (1971), reprinted in 1972 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3668, 3730). Were we to employ the stringent voluntary cessation standard urged by ECO to these circumstances  where compliance was brought about as the result of an EPA enforcement action and a court-approved consent decree  we would effectively cede primary enforcement authority under the CWA to citizens acting in the role of private attorneys general. Such ceding would discourage defendants in a citizen from entering a consent decree with federal or state enforcement agencies, because defendants would remain exposed to duplicative penalties. See Gwaltney, 484 U.S. at 60-61, 108 S.Ct. 376; Eastman Kodak, 933 F.2d at 127. Not only might this lead to under-enforcement of the CWA, it would also shift primary responsibility from the expert agencies to the necessarily generalist courts. Cf. Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter v. Cedar Point Oil Co., 73 F.3d 546, 579 (5th Cir.1996) (primary regulation of pollution should be by the EPA, not through a federal district court's supervision); Eastman Kodak, 933 F.2d at 127. Further, the realistic prospect mootness standard that we employ today comports with Congress's policy that only diligent prosecutions preempt citizen suits. See § 1365(b)(1)(B). If a citizen-suit plaintiff demonstrates that there is a realistic prospect that the violations alleged in its complaint will continue notwithstanding the government-backed consent decree, then a less-than-diligent prosecution might have been shown. Placing the burden on the citizen-suit plaintiff to demonstrate that his claims are not mooted by the consent decree is also in step with Congressional policy. See Karr v. Hefner, 475 F.3d 1192, 1198 (10th Cir.2007) (noting that the citizen-suit plaintiff bears the burden to demonstrate that an EPA prosecution is not diligent). For these reasons, we adopt the realistic prospect test for mootness that has been employed by the Second and Eighth Circuits in this context.
We now consider whether ECO can satisfy its burden to show a realistic prospect that the CWA violations alleged in its citizen suit will continue notwithstanding the consent decree. The district court found that the consent decree resolved every violation alleged in the ECO citizen suit. Envtl. Conservation Org., 516 F.Supp.2d at 659 & n. 6. ECO argues that evidence in the record shows that the City is engaging and will continue to engage in violations of its MS4 Permit and the CWA. ECO relies primarily on an affidavit submitted by Craig T. Maske, a civil engineer with an expertise in water resources whom ECO retained as an expert. Mr. Maske's affidavit, sworn on November 10, 2006, details various past violations by the City and offers his opinion that these violations will continue. However, Mr. Maske does not mention the consent decree in his affidavit, nor does he offer an explicit opinion that the consent decree will not adequately address the violations discussed therein. Therefore, Mr. Maske's affidavit does not address the critical fact in our mootness inquiry. Other evidence is said to be found in the depositions of several City employees. This testimony, given in April and May 2006, provides evidence solely of past violations by the City. No employee mentions the consent decree or offers any prediction as to whether the decree will address the relevant violations. ECO asks us to infer from the City's distinct track record of failing to comply with CWA requirements that these violations will continue and suggests that there is authority for drawing such an inference on summary judgment. See Orange Env't, Inc. v. County of Orange, 860 F.Supp. 1003, 1019 (S.D.N.Y.1994). Such an inference requires that the polluter have a poor track record for complying with [state agency] compliance orders.... Id. The only compliance order entered against the City is the one that is the focus of this appeal. We refuse to draw the inference that the Orange court drew under such dissimilar circumstances. After reviewing the consent decree and comparing it to ECO's complaint, we agree with the district court that it addresses every MS4 Permit and CWA violation alleged in ECO's citizen suit. ECO has not pointed to specific facts on appeal that would support an inference that the City will continue to engage in violations that were alleged in ECO's citizen suit but not addressed by the consent decree. See Sedgwick James, 276 F.3d at 759 (Conclusional allegations and denials, speculation, improbable inferences, unsubstantiated assertions, and legalistic argumentation do not adequately substitute for specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.). For these reasons, ECO cannot show a realistic prospect that any of the violations alleged in its citizen suit will continue notwithstanding the consent decree. As we explain below, ECO's claims for both injunctive relief and civil penalties are moot.
The consent decree requires the City to take steps to correct the planning, staffing, monitoring, and compliance deficiencies that resulted in the violations alleged in ECO's suit. ECO argues there is no mootness as to injunctive relief because the immediate cessation of all violations has not been ordered. Even had ECO prevailed on its citizen suit, the district court was not bound to order the immediate cessation of all violations. Traditional equitable principles control the decision to enter an injunction, under which the court has broad discretion to balance the interests of the parties. 11A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER & MARY KAY LANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2942 (2d ed.1990). The district court might even have denied injunctive relief altogether. See Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 314-20, 102 S.Ct. 1798, 72 L.Ed.2d 91 (1982). But even if some form of injunctive relief were ordered, the district court might have denied ECO's request for immediate relief if the more practical solution was a permanent injunction that mandated a cessation of violations over a period of time. See e.g., Reserve Mining Co. v. EPA, 514 F.2d 492, 537-40 (8th Cir.1975); N.Y. Coastal Fishermen's Ass'n v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Sanitation, 772 F.Supp. 162, 169-70 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). We also note the practical difficulty of enforcing an immediate cessation of violations that occur, in large part, due to rainfall over the City. Thus, as applied to this case, the realistic prospect test considers whether violations will continue in the sense that the violations will not be cured even after the remedial plan imposed by the consent decree has been fully implemented in accordance with reasonable timetables. [5] The consent decree achieved some court-ordered mandatory relief that is injunctive in nature. Because ECO is not entitled to any particular form of injunctive relief under the CWA  and, therefore, was not guaranteed to achieve any other form of relief in its citizen suit than that imposed under the consent decree  its claims for injunctive relief are moot.
There is some authority that even where a defendant's voluntary acts of compliance are sufficient to moot a citizen's request for injunctive relief, those voluntary acts will not necessarily moot a related claim for civil penalties. Comfort Lake, 138 F.3d at 356; Carr, 931 F.2d at 1065 n. 9. This is not a case of voluntary compliance. This appeal requires us to determine whether acts of compliance that have been compelled by an EPA-negotiated consent decree can moot a citizen's claim for civil penalties. First, it is significant that the consent decree imposed $800,000 in civil penalties on the City. This does not represent the maximum penalty permissible under the statute. See 33 U.S.C. § 1319(d). However, even in the event of a successful citizen suit, the district court is not bound to impose the maximum penalty afforded under the statute. In fact, the district court is required to consider a myriad of factors, some of which are mitigating in nature, when determining the appropriate civil penalty under the CWA. § 1319(d); see Cedar Point, 73 F.3d at 576 (district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing $186,070 civil penalty even though maximum permissible penalty was $20,225,000). Thus, the penalties imposed by the consent decree are arguably the same penalties that ECO could have achieved in a successful citizen suit. More importantly, ECO assumed the role of private attorney general in the pursuit of its citizen suit. Any penalty that it achieved would have been paid into the United States Treasury. After ECO initiated its citizen suit, the United States government initiated its own enforcement action and extracted some civil penalties from the City. The resulting consent decree (approved by the U.S. Department of Justice) represents the federal government's discretionary resolution of the level of penalty needed for the same environmental concerns raised by ECO. A private attorney general is no longer needed to raise the issue of the proper civil penalty. That ECO might have sought stiffer penalties against the City does not change the result; ECO is not permitted to upset the primary enforcement role of the EPA by seeking civil penalties that the Administrator chose to forego.... Gwaltney, 484 U.S. at 61, 108 S.Ct. 376. The appropriate government agencies have exercised their discretion to extract some penalties from the City and forego others. By proceeding with its citizen suit, ECO could accomplish nothing other than to revisit the government's dispositive administrative settlement. Eastman Kodak, 933 F.2d at 127; compare Atlantic States Legal Found. v. Pan Am. Tanning, 993 F.2d 1017, 1022 (2d Cir.1993) (distinguishing Eastman Kodak where settlement did not cover all of the violations plaintiffs allege[d] and assessed small fines of only $6,600). For these reasons, ECO's claim for civil penalties is moot.