City of Dover, New Hampshire v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
40 F. Supp. 3d 1
D.D.C.2013Background
- Three New Hampshire cities sued EPA under the Clean Water Act alleging EPA failed to perform nondiscretionary duties regarding a 2009 document and public participation.
- The EPA moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim; the court previously found standing but dismissed the complaint with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Plaintiffs moved under Rule 59(e) to alter the judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint adding Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims based on the court’s earlier suggestion that such a theory might be viable.
- Plaintiffs argued they need only satisfy Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment standard; defendants urged Rule 59(e) must be satisfied because judgment was final.
- The court held plaintiffs must meet Rule 59(e) to reopen judgment, found clear error in dismissing the entire complaint with prejudice without explaining why given the possible alternative APA claim, and granted limited relief to allow amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 15(a) alone governs post-judgment amendment | Plaintiffs: only Rule 15(a) should apply because amendment is procedural and does not challenge the merits | EPA: final judgment requires satisfying Rule 59(e) before amendment | Court: Must satisfy Rule 59(e) first; Circuit precedent controls (Ciralsky/Firestone) |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was appropriate | Plaintiffs: dismissal with prejudice was clear error because court suggested APA theory and failed to explain prejudice | EPA: dismissal with prejudice proper because original CWA claims could not be cured by new facts | Court: Dismissing specific CWA counts with prejudice was correct, but dismissing entire complaint with prejudice was clear error absent explanation; reopen to allow APA claims |
| Whether amendment to add APA claims would be futile | Plaintiffs: APA claims viable on existing facts; new facts add clarity | EPA: argued futility for original claims but did not argue APA claims would be futile | Court: EPA did not show futility of APA claims; amendment permitted under Rule 15(a)(2) after Rule 59(e) relief |
| Whether plaintiffs’ delay or earlier failure to plead APA claims bars amendment | EPA: plaintiffs could and should have pleaded APA claims earlier; Rule 59(e) is not for theories available earlier | Plaintiffs: court’s prior opinion led them to bring APA claims post-judgment | Court: Plaintiffs erred in delay but relief warranted because court previously suggested APA theory and failed to explain prejudice; amendment allowed but new facts must be consistent with original pleading |
Key Cases Cited
- Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (post-judgment amendment requires satisfying Rule 59(e) first)
- Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (dismissal with prejudice appropriate only if additional facts could not cure pleadings)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1962) (leave to amend should be freely given; amendment stating alternative theory warranted relief)
- Belizan v. Hershon, 434 F.3d 579 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (court must explain reasons when dismissing with prejudice in light of Firestone)
- Rollins v. Wackenhut Servs., Inc., 703 F.3d 122 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (applies Firestone standard; high bar for dismissal with prejudice)
- Kremer v. Chem. Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461 (U.S. 1982) (res judicata can bar claims arising from same transaction even under different statutes)
- Confederate Mem'l Ass'n, Inc. v. Hines, 995 F.2d 295 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (explains amendment as of right prior to responsive pleading)