Opinion ID: 24837
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Procedural History of Current Litigation

Text: 14 In February 1997, Plaintiffs, homeowners in residential areas adjoining these dumps, brought a citizens suit in federal court against the owners of the Deepwood dump, 10 the City, and Saitas for injunctive relief under the RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1). This suit was consolidated with Plaintiffs' July 1998 citizens suit against the City and Saitas regarding the South Loop 12 dump. Plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that the City violated 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B) by contributing to illegal open dumping at both sites, that Saitas failed to classify the dumps on the EPA's Open Dump Inventory (ODI), and that Saitas failed to comply with the corresponding RCRA obligation of cleaning up the dumps. 11 15 On October 5, 1998, the district court certified an injunctive relief class of homeowners near or adjacent to the Deepwood dump. As to the South Loop 12 dump, Plaintiffs are all individually named. On December 17, 1998, the district court bifurcated the injunctive relief and damages 12 portions of the suits. The court then held a bench trial regarding the injunctive relief claims on July 14, 1999. The Final Judgment, entered on August 27, 1999, 13 granted Plaintiffs injunctive relief against the City on both dumps, finding that the City had contributed to illegal open dumping, but denied injunctive relief against Saitas. 14 The district court's injunction required the City, inter alia, to (1) erect a fence around both sites, (2) monitor the sites for methane gas and fire hazards, (3) prevent future open dumping, (4) remove all solid waste from the sites without harming adjoining properties, and (5) restore the sites to non-hazardous conditions. See Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc., 516 U.S. 479, 484 (1996) (stating that a private citizen suing under § 6972(a)(1)(B) could seek a mandatory injunction, i.e., one that orders a responsible party to 'take action' by attending to the cleanup and proper disposal of toxic waste, or a prohibitory injunction, i.e., one that 'restrains' a responsible party from further violating [the] RCRA). 16 The City timely appealed, claiming that the district court erred in holding that the City contributed to dumping at the sites. 15 Plaintiffs also timely appealed, arguing that the district court erred in holding that Saitas could not be held liable for violating the RCRA.