FMC Corporation v. Special Services Department
N16A-10-010 AML
Del. Super. Ct.May 31, 2017Background
- FMC Corporation operates a manufacturing facility in Newark with a permit to discharge into New Castle County’s public sanitary sewer. The County’s Special Services Department (the Department) manages the sewer system.
- From Jan–Apr 2016 the Department issued seven Notices of Violation to FMC for discharges that allegedly caused sewer blockages and overflows.
- A Show Cause evidentiary hearing was held; the Department’s Hearing Officer issued a Final Order (Oct 13, 2016) upholding the NOVs and imposing fines/costs (over $100,000) and remedial obligations.
- FMC filed a notice of appeal to the Superior Court under New Castle County Code § 38.03.004 and obtained a stay of enforcement; the Department moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The Department argued (1) the County Code does not confer Superior Court jurisdiction; (2) FMC waived certiorari by failing to file within 30 days; and (3) FMC failed to name the correct/indispensable party. FMC argued the Code authorized an appeal, or alternatively equitable conversion to certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether New Castle County Code § 38.03.004 grants a statutory right to appeal to the Superior Court | FMC: § 38.03.004 authorizes aggrieved persons to appeal Hearing Officer decisions to the Court | Department: § 38.03.004 only permits appeals “as provided by law”; the County cannot confer state-court jurisdiction | Court: No. County ordinances cannot confer jurisdiction on the Superior Court; statutory jurisdiction must come from the General Assembly |
| Whether the County’s home-rule authority (9 Del. C. § 1101) permits it to expand Superior Court jurisdiction | FMC: Home-rule power allows County to create appellate rights without state statute | Department: Home rule cannot conflict with state Constitution/Code; cannot expand state-court jurisdiction | Court: Home rule cannot be read to allow a locality to enlarge state-court jurisdiction; McCusker reasoning controls this limitation |
| Whether FMC can obtain certiorari review despite missing the usual 30-day filing period | FMC: appeal via Code created uncertainty; equitable relief/excusable delay justifies allowing late certiorari | Department: FMC chose to pursue a (wrong) direct appeal and missed the certiorari deadline | Court: Exceptional circumstances exist (reasonable uncertainty, no prejudice); FMC may file a petition for writ of certiorari within 20 days |
| Whether the appeal was imperfect for failing to name an indispensable party | FMC: named Department and County as appropriate | Department: appeal not perfected due to improper parties | Court: Did not reach this argument after concluding no statutory appeal right |
Key Cases Cited
- Appriva S'holder Litig. Co., LLC v. EV3, Inc., 937 A.2d 1275 (Del. 2007) (discussing principles of appellate review and agency appeals)
- Scattered Corp. v. Chi. Stock Exch., 671 A.2d 874 (Del. Ch. 1994) (on procedural aspects of appeals and review)
- Maddrey v. Justice of the Peace Court 13, 956 A.2d 1204 (Del. 2008) (availability and scope of certiorari review)
- In re Gunn, 122 A.3d 1292 (Del. 2015) (timeliness rules for certiorari and direct appeals)
- Schadt v. Latchford, 843 A.2d 689 (Del. 2004) (interpretation of home-rule authority)
- Green v. Sussex Cty., 668 A.2d 770 (Del. 1995) (scope of county home-rule powers)
Outcome: Motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction GRANTED; FMC given leave to file a petition for writ of certiorari within 20 days. The stay of the Department’s Final Order remains in place pending further proceedings.