Murtaugh v. New York

810 F.Supp.2d 446

Gail MURTAUGH, Individually and d/b/a Crosby Hill Auto Recycling; Richard R. Murtaugh; Murtaugh Recycling Corp.; Richard O. Murtaugh; and Flood Drive Props., Inc., Plaintiffs,

v.State of NEW YORK; Pete Grannis, Comm'r of Envtl. Conservation; Cnty. of Oswego; Benjamin Conlon; Richard Brazell; Maureen Leary; Op–Tech Envtl. Servs., Inc.; William Simpson; and Adm'r Andrea Rhonda Miller, Defendants.

No. 5:08–CV–1168 (GTS/GHL).

United States District Court, N.D. New York.

Aug. 16, 2011.

Law Office of Richard J. Brickwedde, of Counsel: Richard J. Brickwedde, Esq., Syracuse, NY, for Plaintiffs Gail Murtaugh, Richard R. Murtaugh and Murtaugh Recycling Corp.

The Wladis Law Firm, PC, of Counsel: Kevin C. Murphy, Esq., Syracuse, NY, for Plaintiffs Richard O. Murtaugh and Flood Dr.

Petrone & Petrone, PC, of Counsel: Lori E. Petrone, Esq., Utica, NY, for Defendant County of Oswego.Hancockestabrook, of Counsel: Doreen A. Simmons, Esq., James P. Youngs, Esq., Syracuse, NY, for Defendants Simpson and Op–Tech Envtl. Servs.Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General for the State of New York, of Counsel: Charles Quackenbush, Esq., Shoshanah Bewlay, Esq., Assistant Attorneys General, Albany, NY, for Defendants New York, Grannis, Conlon, Brazell, Leary, and Miller.

MEMORANDUM–DECISION and ORDER

GLENN T. SUDDABY, District Judge.

Currently before the Court in this environmental action filed by Gail Murtaugh, Richard R. Murtaugh, Murtaugh Recycling Corp., Richard O. Murtaugh, and Flood Drive Properties, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) are the following three motions: (1) a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and failure to join indispensable parties, filed by Oswego County (hereinafter “County Defendant”) (Dkt. No. 56, Attach. 30); (2) a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, filed by New York State, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Pete Grannis, Benjamin Conlon, Richard Brazell, Maureen Leary, and Andrea Rhonda Miller (hereinafter “State Defendants”) (Dkt. No. 59, Attach. 2); and (3) a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, filed by Op–Tech Environmental Services and William Simpson (hereinafter “Corporate Defendants”) (Dkt. No. 60, Attach. 3). For the reasons set forth below, County Defendant's motion is granted in part and denied in part; State Defendants' motion is granted; and Corporate Defendants' motion is granted.

+-------------------+
¦TABLE OF CONTENTS  ¦
+-------------------+

I.  RELEVANT BACKGROUND                                                 456

    A.   Plaintiff's Claims                                             456
    B.   Defendants' Motions                                            457

         1.  County Defendant's Motion                                  457
         2.  State Defendants' Motion                                   459
         3.  Corporate Defendants' Motion                               462

II. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS                                            463

    A.   Standard Governing Dismissals for Failure to State a Claim     463
         Standard Governing Dismissals for Lack of Subject–Matter
    B.   Jurisdiction                                                   464
         Standard Governing Dismissals for Failure to Join
    C.   Indispensable Party                                            464
    D.   Standards Governing Plaintiffs' Claims                         465

III. ANALYSIS                                                           465

    A.   Murtaugh Plaintiffs' CWA Claim                                 465

             Whether Murtaugh Plaintiffs' Claim Should Be Dismissed on
             the Ground of Lack of Standing, “Public Policy,”
         1.  Collateral Estoppel and/or Failure to Fulfill the          465
             Jurisdictional Notice Requirement
             Whether, in the Alternative, Murtaugh Plaintiff s Have
             Failed to Allege that, at the Time They Filed Their
         2.  Complaint, There Was a Continuous or Intermittent          468
             Violation of the CWA and a Reasonable Likelihood that
             County Defendant Would Continue to Pollute
             Whether, in the Alternative, Murtaugh Plaintiffs' Claim
         3.  Should Be Dismissed for Failure to Join an Indispensable   469
             Party

         4.  Whether, in the Alternative, the Eleventh Amendment Bars   469
             Murtaugh Plaintiffs' Claim Against Defendant Grannis

    B.   Murtaugh Plaintiffs' RCRA Claims                               471

         1.  Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(A)                      471

                 Whether Murtaugh Plaintiffs' Claim Should Be Dismissed
             a.  on Grounds of Lack of Standing, “Public Policy,”       471
                 Collateral Estoppel and/or the Eleventh Amendment
                 Whether, in the Alternative, Murtaugh Plaintiffs Have
             b.  Failed to Allege that, at the Time They Filed Their    473
                 Complaint, County Defendant Was Accepting and/or
                 Introducing Waste to the City Dump

         2.  Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B)                      474

    C.   Plaintiffs' CERCLA Claim                                       476
    D.   Plaintiffs' Civil Rights Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983         479

             Due Process Claims Against Defendants Conlon, Brazell, and
         1.  Leary Corporate Defendants                                 479
         2.  Unlawful–Search–and–Seizure Claims Against Defendants      482
             Conlon, Brazell, and Leary and Corporate Defendants

         Plaintiff Gail Murtaugh's Due Process and
    E.   Unlawful–Search–and–Seizure Claims Against Defendant Leary and 483
         Corporate Defendants
    F.   Plaintiffs' State Law Claims                                   485

             Claim for Nuisance Against Defendant New York State
         1.  Defendant Grannis, and County Defendant                    485
             Claim for Declaratory Relief Against Defendant New York
         2.  State, and Defendants Miller, Brazell, Conlon, and Leary   488
         3.  Claim for Negligence Against Corporate Defendants          488

    G.   State Defendants' and Corporate Defendants' Abstention         489
         Arguments

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUNDA. Plaintiff's Claims

On October 30, 2008, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this action. (Dkt. No. 1.) On July 16, 2009, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 46.) Generally, Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint asserts claims against Defendants arising from the alleged ownership and operation of the Old City of Fulton Dump (hereinafter “City Dump”), located at 40 Airport Drive, Fulton New York (hereinafter “County Property”), which allegedly has discharged, and continues to discharge, pollutants, hazardous substances and hazardous waste into the water of the United States and onto the property of Plaintiffs Gail Murtaugh and Flood Drive Properties, Inc. ( Id.)

More specifically, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint asserts the following three claims by Plaintiffs Gail Murtaugh, Richard R. Murtaugh, and Murtaugh Recycling Corp. (“Murtaugh Plaintiffs”), against County Defendant and Defendant Grannis: (1) a claim of violation of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq., based on the unlawful discharge of pollutants to an unnamed tributary of the Oswego River; (2) a claim of violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(A), based on the maintenance of an “open dump,” which negatively impacts Murtaugh Plaintiffs and their real property and business operations; and (3) a claim of violation of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B), based on the handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of solid or hazardous waste contained on, at, or about the Old City of Fulton Dump (hereinafter “City Dump”) located at 40 Airport Drive, Fulton New York (hereinafter “County Property”). ( Id.)

In addition, Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint asserts the following claims by all Plaintiffs against County Defendant, Defendant New York State, and Defendant Grannis: (1) a claim of violation of 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq., the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), based on the releasing or threatened releasing of hazardous substances from, at, and about the City Dump; and (2) a state law claim for nuisance, based on the City Dump's discharge and release of leachate containing pollutants, hazardous substances, and hazardous wastes onto the real property located at 180 Flood Drive in the Town of Volney, Oswego County, New York (hereinafter “the Murtaugh Property”) and the real property located at 170 Flood Drive, Town of Volney, Oswego County, New York (hereinafter the “Flood Property”). ( Id.)

Finally, Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint asserts the following five claims against certain State Defendants and all Corporate Defendants arising from their entry onto Plaintiffs' properties, and removal of certain materials: (1) a claim of violation of due process and unlawful search and seizure under the Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserted by all Plaintiffs against Defendants Conlon, Brazell, and Leary, and Corporate Defendants, based on those Defendants' entry onto Plaintiffs' properties and creation of an excavation, which lowered the water table and induced and enhanced the flow of leachate discharge from the upgradient City Dump; (2) a claim of violation of due process and unlawful search and seizure under the Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserted by Plaintiff Gail Murtaugh, individually and d/b/a Crosby Hill Auto Recycling Corp., against Defendant Leary and Corporate Defendants...