City of Newburgh v. Sarna
406 F. App'x 557
2d Cir.2011Background
- Plaintiff City of Newburgh filed a CWA action and state-law tort claims against the Sarna defendants and Drainage District #6 – Mt. Airy Estates (The Reserve) and Town of New Windsor.
- Plaintiff sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief to halt expansion and enforce permits, civil penalties, damages, and fees.
- District Court denied plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and partially granted defendants’ motion to dismiss; Windsor was sua sponte dismissed for lack of adequate notice under 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(A).
- Plaintiff appealed; Sarna defendants cross-appealed the denial of their motion to dismiss on the basis of City Council authorization.
- The Second Circuit dismissed plaintiff’s appeal to the extent it challenged Windsor’s dismissal and dismissed the cross-appeal as to the alleged authorization issue; the remainder was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal properly covers Windsor’s dismissal | Newburgh contends the appeal includes Windsor dismissal. | Windsor argues the notice did not designate that part of the judgment. | Jurisdiction lacking; Windsor dismissal not reviewable. |
| Whether Sarna's cross-appeal was a proper interlocutory appeal | Cross-appeal should be reviewable as matters related to the injunction. | Interlocutory appeal requires § 1292(b) certification; issue not certified and not within scope. | Cross-appeal not proper interlocutory review; alternatively review would be affirmed on merits. |
| Whether the district court’s injunction-related rulings were properly reviewed | Arguments challenging the injunction denial should be reviewed on the merits. | District court’s reasoning was thorough; no error in denial and partial dismissal. | Affirmed the district court’s injunction-related rulings on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- New Phone Co. v. City of New York, 498 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2007) (jurisdictional limits when reviewing noticed appeal under Rule 3(c))
- Swint v. Chambers Cnty. Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35 (Supreme Court, 1995) (interlocutory review limited; necessity for certification)
- Lynch v. City of New York, 589 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2009) (illustrates limitations on interlocutory appeals)
- Lamar Adver. of Penn, LLC v. Town of Orchard Park, 356 F.3d 365 (2d Cir. 2004) (interlocutory review may extend to issues inextricably bound to injunction)