Duarte Nursery, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
17 F. Supp. 3d 1013
E.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiffs own and operate a nursery on the subject property.
- CORPS issued a February 25, 2013 cease-and-desist order (CDO) alleging violations of the Clean Water Act and directing stop-work pending resolution.
- The Corps’ notice warned of enforcement actions (fines, imprisonment, penalties) and cited statutes for those consequences.
- On March 21, 2013 plaintiffs sought the factual basis for the Corps’ determination; the Corps provided a partial response on April 18, 2013.
- California’s Central Valley Regional Board issued a Notice of Violation on April 23, 2013 alleging discharge without a permit and seeking mitigation.
- In October 2013 plaintiffs filed suit against the Corps and seven Board officials; the suit seeks constitutional remedies under Ex parte Young and challenges the CDO and NoV as unconstitutional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Corps’ CDO is ripe for review. | Plaintiffs: ripe because the CDO directly forced cessation and caused crop loss. | Corps: not ripe; CDO itself imposes no obligations and enforcement is through later action. | Yes, claims against Corps are ripe for judicial review. |
| Whether the Corps’ CDO and related actions violate the Due Process Clause. | Plaintiffs: CDO deprived them of property rights without hearing. | Corps: CDO merely notified obligations, not a final action imposing liability. | Plaintiffs state a claim under Due Process. |
| Whether the NoV and Board actions implicate Ex parte Young and avoid sovereign immunity. | plaintiffs seek prospective injunctive relief against state officers. | State officials argue sovereign immunity bars the claims; only retrospective relief is sought. | Sovereign immunity does not bar the Board claims; Ex parte Young applies. |
| Whether the state defendants’ claims are ripe and properly subject to federal review. | NoV causes ongoing effects; not yet remedied by state processes. | NoV and state actions are not ripe for federal review yet. | Board claims are not ripe for adjudication in federal court. |
| Whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Corps and state claims. | Plaintiffs invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and APA § 702 for judicial review. | Defendants argue lack of ripeness and sovereign immunity barriers. | Court has jurisdiction over Corps claims; State claims dismissed for lack of ripeness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fairbanks North Star Borough v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 543 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 2008) (CE/DO not final agency action; not ripe for review under APA § 704)
- Swanson v. U.S., 600 F. Supp. 802 (D. Idaho 1985) (CDO ripe for review where agency asserted jurisdiction and plaintiff opposed)
- Sackett v. EPA, 566 U.S. — (2012) (final agency action under 5 U.S.C. § 704; not controlling here but relevant to reviewability)
- U.S. v. Park Place Associates, Ltd., 563 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2009) (jurisdiction under § 1331; agency action defined; Ex parte Young discussed)
- Route 26 Land Dev. Ass’n v. U.S., 753 F. Supp. 532 (D. Del. 1990) (reviewability of agency designations; context in ripeness analysis)