Baptiste v. Bethlehem Landfill Co.

965 F.3d 214

Robin BAPTISTE; Dexter Baptiste, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants

v.BETHLEHEM LANDFILL COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation doing business as IESI PA Bethlehem Landfill

No. 19-1692

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued December 9, 2019

Filed: July 13, 2020

Nicholas A. Coulson [ARGUED], Steven D. Liddle, Liddle & Dubin, 975 East Jefferson Avenue, Detroit, MI 48207, Philip J. Cohen, Kevin S. Riechelson, Kamensky Cohen & Riechelson, 194 South Broad Street, Trenton, NJ 08608, Counsel for Appellants

Matthew J. Owens [ARGUED], Miner Barnhill & Galland, 325 North LaSalle Street Suite 350, Chicago, IL 60654, Sarah E. Siskind, Miner Barnhill & Galland, 44 East Mifflin Street Suite 803, Madison, WI 53703, Counsel for Amici Public Interest Law Center and Philly Thrive in Support of Appellants

Eric L. Klein [ARGUED], Beveridge & Diamond, 155 Federal Street Suite 1600, Boston, MA 02110, Robert M. Donchez, Robert A. Freedberg, Florio Perrucci Steinhardt & Cappelli, 60 West Broad Street Suite 102, Bethlehem, PA 18018, Michael G. Murphy, John H. Paul, Nicole B. Weinstein, Beveridge & Diamond, 477 Madison Avenue 15th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Roy D. Prather, III, Beveridge & Diamond, 201 North Charles Street Suite 2210, Baltimore, MD 21201, James B. Slaughter, Beveridge & Diamond, 1350 I Street, NW Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005, Counsel for Appellee

John F. Stoviak, Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr, 1500 Market Street, Centre Square West, 38th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19102, Counsel for Amicus National Waste & Recycling Association in Support of Appellee

Robert L. Byer, Duane Morris, 600 Grant Street Suite 5010, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, John E. Moriarty, Duane Morris, 30 South 17th Street, United Plaza Philadelphia, PA 19103, Counsel for Amici Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business & Industry, and Pennsylvania Farm Bureau in Support of Appellee

Before: RESTREPO, ROTH and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

RESTREPO, Circuit Judge.

Robin and Dexter Baptiste brought an action against the Bethlehem Landfill Company on behalf of a class of homeowner-occupants and renters claiming interference with the use and enjoyment of their homes and loss in property value caused by noxious odors and other air contaminants emanating from the Bethlehem landfill. They brought these claims under three state-law tort theories: public nuisance, private nuisance, and negligence.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the company's motion to dismiss the complaint. The District Court held that too many residents were similarly affected to sustain a private claim for public nuisance, that the odors affected too many people and the landfill was too far away from them to constitute a private nuisance, and that the plaintiffs had failed to identify a duty of care to maintain a negligence claim. We disagree, and therefore, we will reverse and remand.¹

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

A. Legal Framework

Landfill operations in Pennsylvania are governed in part by the Commonwealth's Solid Waste Management Act (SWMA). The SWMA was enacted for several purposes including to "protect the public health, safety and welfare from the short and long term dangers of transportation, processing, treatment, storage, and disposal of all wastes," and to "provide a flexible and effective means to implement and enforce the provisions of this act." 35 P.S. § 6018.102(4) - (5). The SWMA empowers the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP or the "department") to enforce the statute's provisions. 35 P.S. § 6018.104(10) - (11) ; 35 P.S. § 6018.103 ; 71 P.S. § 1340.501.

One of the SMWA's provisions states that "[a]ny violation of any provision of this act, any rule or regulation of the department, any order of the department, or any term or condition of any permit, shall constitute a public nuisance." 35 P.S. § 6018.601. Among these rules and regulations is an obligation to implement a plan "to minimize and control public nuisances from odors," 25 Pa. Code § 273.218(b)(1), and to be governed by a plan providing for "the orderly extension of municipal waste management systems ... in a manner which will not ... constitute a public nuisance." 35 P.S. § 6018.201(e)(1).

The SWMA "does not provide for a private cause of action" and "private persons may only intervene under the SWMA in actions brought by [PADEP]." Centolanza v. Lehigh Valley Dairies, Inc. , 430 Pa.Super. 463, 635 A.2d 143, 149 (1993), aff'd , 540 Pa. 398, 658 A.2d 336 (1995).

Notwithstanding this limitation, the SWMA includes an express carve out or savings clause preserving private "rights of action or remedies" existing "under the common law or decisional law or in equity." 35 P.S. § 6018.607.

B. Plaintiffs’ Action

The Baptistes are homeowners residing in Freemansburg, Pennsylvania, which is located on the west bank of the Lehigh River. East of the river is Lower Saucon Township, where Bethlehem owns and operates a 224-acre solid waste disposal facility and landfill. The landfill is permitted to accept up to 1,375 tons of waste daily. As the waste decomposes, it releases "odorous landfill gas, leachate and other byproducts."² JA29 (Compl. ¶ 8).

In 2018, the Baptistes sued Bethlehem for public nuisance, private nuisance, and negligence. The plaintiffs asserted these claims on behalf of a putative class of other homeowner-occupants and renters in about 8,400 households within a 2.5-mile radius of the landfill, claiming property damages in excess of $5 million.

According to the complaint, Bethlehem is not operating the landfill in accordance with the SWMA and industry standards, causing nearby neighborhoods, homes and yards to be "physically invaded by noxious odors, pollutants and air contaminants[.]" JA29 (Compl. ¶ 12); see JA32 (Compl. ¶ 27) (alleging that Bethlehem "negligently failed to construct, maintain and/or operate the landfill, and caused the invasion of Plaintiffs’ property by noxious odors, air contaminants, and other airborne pollutants").

Over the years, residents have complained to PADEP and Lower Saucon Township about "odorous emissions" from the landfill. JA30 (Compl. ¶ 13). Bethlehem has received numerous fines and citations from PADEP and the township for its failure to properly manage and maintain the landfill, such as the "failure to implement a gas control and monitoring plan to effectively monitor gas collection for nuisance potential," the failure to place covers atop the trash piles to "prevent vectors, odors, blowing litter, and other nuisances" from escaping the landfill, and the "failure to implement the Nuisance Minimization and Control Plan to minimize and control conditions that are harmful to the environment or public health, or which create safety hazards, odors, dust, noise, unsightliness, and other public nuisances." JA30-31 (Compl. ¶ 16 (d)-(f)).

Some residents have contacted counsel to document their experiences with the landfill, describing "the sickening odors as obnoxious, foul, and nauseating." JA32 (Compl. ¶ 20). Residents complained that the odors prevent them from using and enjoying their homes and private land. For instance, residents are unable to use their swimming pools, spend time on their porches, host guests (due to embarrassment), or play in their yards with their children or pets. "At times, the stench becomes so pungent that it permeates the walls of [their] homes," forcing them to keep "all windows and doors sealed shut and virtually render[ing] them entrapped in their own homes." JA32 (Compl. ¶ 22).

On Bethlehem's motion, the District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Having dismissed all the claims, the court also dismissed the Baptistes’ request for punitive and injunctive relief. The Baptistes timely appealed.

C. Intervention by Amici

We granted leave to the Public Interest Law Center and Philly Thrive to appear as amici in support of the Baptistes. These two non-profit organizations sought to shine light on the "environmental justice" implications of the District Court decision for "communities disproportionately impacted by pollution—that is, low-income communities and communities of color."³ Public Interest Law Center Amicus Br. 2.

The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business & Industry, the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, and the National Waste & Recycling Association appeared as amici in support of Bethlehem. In their view, the District Court decision preserves the business community's ability to "coordinate" directly with regulatory agencies, rather than defend numerous private lawsuits, and redress large-scale environmental harms without reducing "investment and quality of goods and services." Chamber of Commerce Amicus Br. 5, 24-31; see National Waste & Recycling Association Amicus Br. 1,16-19.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We exercise plenary review over the dismissal of a complaint under Federal Rule 12(b)(6). Our role is to "determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief." Phillips v. County of Allegheny , 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). A complaint's "well-pleaded allegations" must be accepted as true and must be viewed "in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs." McTernan v. City of York , 577 F.3d 521, 526 (3d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

The Baptistes assert that they have sufficiently pleaded the necessary elements for each of their causes of action: public nuisance, private nuisance, and negligence. We will address the nuisance claims together, because the analysis overlaps in significant respects, before turning to negligence.

A. Nuisance

Common-law nuisance is a notoriously perplexing and unruly doctrine, seeming to defy all efforts to draw bright lines around it. See Int'l Paper Co. v....