19 F. Supp. 3d 817
N.D. Ill.2014Background
- Former Texaco gasoline station in Evanston operated from 1925 to the late 1990s; leaks from underground storage tanks allegedly began in the 1960s.
- City of Evanston sued E‑Town Community Ventures and Chevron entities under RCRA § 6972(a) (Count I) and state law trespass, nuisance, and municipal ordinance claims (Counts II–IV).
- Environmental inspections (2000–2012) revealed improperly abandoned, leaking USTs and petroleum contamination migrating off‑site into soil and groundwater, containing carcinogens (benzene, etc.).
- Chevron moved to dismiss all counts under Rule 12(b)(6); E‑Town joined dismissal arguments as to the state claims.
- The court denied the motion in full, finding the RCRA claim adequately pleaded and retaining supplemental jurisdiction over state and municipal claims; it also rejected Burford abstention and sustained requests for civil penalties and certain fee relief at the pleading stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RCRA § 6972(a) — imminence of endangerment | Contamination migrates and poses ongoing future threat to health/environment. | Not imminent: contamination is long‑standing, site mostly paved, ordinance bans groundwater extraction, no surface exposure. | Imminence adequately pleaded — ongoing threat plausible despite age and paving; RCRA claim survives dismissal. |
| Burford abstention | Federal court should decide RCRA claim; state remedies exist but do not preclude federal forum. | Abstain because Illinois regulatory scheme (IEPA/Pollution Control Board) provides parallel remedial scheme. | Burford abstention inappropriate — state review is to appellate court of general jurisdiction, not concentrated specialized judicial review required for Burford. |
| Civil penalties & expert fees under RCRA | Seeks appropriate civil penalties and costs (including expert fees). | Civil penalties reserved for EPA enforcement; some expert fees (past voluntary investigations) are not recoverable. | Civil penalties may be awarded in citizen suits via cross‑reference; expert fees allowed but recoverability of specific past costs uncertain and may be tested later. |
| Supplemental jurisdiction / State claims (nuisance, trespass, ordinance), statutes of limitations, punitive damages | State and municipal claims arise from same facts; claims timely (discovery in 2012); continuing violation; punitive damages plausible based on alleged knowing conduct. | Relinquish supplemental jurisdiction; state claims time‑barred; punitive damages improper. | Court retains supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367; state claims plausibly pleaded and timely (or saved by continuing violation); punitive damages not stricken at pleading stage. |
| Proper corporate defendants (Chevron entities) | Chevron Corp. and Chevron EMC plausibly responsible post‑merger and by environmental remediation role. | Only Texaco (post‑merger surviving corporate form) is the proper defendant. | Inclusion of Chevron Corp. and Chevron EMC plausible on pleadings; dismissal of those entities denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Adkins v. VIM Recycling, Inc., 644 F.3d 483 (7th Cir.) (discusses Burford abstention and RCRA citizen suits)
- Albany Bank & Trust Co. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 310 F.3d 969 (7th Cir.) (imminence in RCRA citizen suits does not require present harm)
- U.S. Dep’t of Energy v. Ohio, 503 U.S. 607 (Supreme Court) (civil penalties referenced in citizen‑suit provisions can apply to non‑sovereign defendants)
- Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., 484 U.S. 49 (Supreme Court) (citizen suits may seek civil penalties)
- Chico Serv. Station, Inc. v. Sol Puerto Rico Ltd., 633 F.3d 20 (1st Cir.) (district courts have authority to impose civil penalties in § 6972(a) actions)
- In re Chicago Flood Litig., 176 Ill.2d 179 (Ill.) (private nuisance defined; environmental contamination can constitute nuisance)