Adkins v. VIM Recycling, Inc.
644 F.3d 483
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs filed a federal RCRA citizen-suit alleging violation and endangerment at the VIM site, plus state-law claims.
- _IDEM had previously sued VIM in 2008 to enforce an Agreed Order addressing C-grade waste, and in 2009 IDEM filed a second suit addressing B-grade waste.
- Plaintiffs gave RCRA notice to EPA, IDEM, and alleged violators; EPA/IDEM did not sue within the waiting period.
- The district court dismissed the federal RCRA claims and abstained under Colorado River and Burford.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding RCRA statutory conditions allow the citizen suit to proceed and abstention was improper; remand for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the second IDEM suit a bar to the federal RCRA violation claim? | Adkins | VIM | No; not a bar under 6972(b)(1)(B) as to commencement timing. |
| Do IDEM's first suit and overlap with the RCRA claims bar the federal action? | Plaintiffs; claims extend to A and B waste not covered in IDEM’s first suit | VIM; claims overlap | No; RCRA §6972(b)(1)(B) does not bar non-overlapping RCRA claims. |
| Should Colorado River abstention apply to stay/dismiss the RCRA action? | Federal suit should proceed concurrently | Abstain to avoid piecemeal litigation | Abstention improper; federal jurisdiction should be exercised. |
| Should Burford abstention apply to dismiss the RCRA action? | Burford abstention unnecessary | State regulatory regime warrants Burford abstention | Burford abstention inappropriate; abstention rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Friends of Milwaukee’s Rivers v. Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Dist., 382 F.3d 743 (7th Cir. 2004) (bar under CWA timewise does not preclude federal action; timing language relevant here)
- PMC, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 151 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 1998) (abstention not preferred where statutes contemplate parallel actions)
- Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1981) (establishes narrow exceptions for abstention; balance factors apply)
- Hallstrom v. Tillamook County, 493 U.S. 20 (1989) (discusses notice and waiting period as non-jurisdictional conditions)
- Chico Service Station, Inc. v. Sol Puerto Rico Ltd., 633 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2011) (rejects Burford abstention in RCRA; abstention not allowed when Congress addressed the issue)