LOUISIANA ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION v. Baton Rouge
677 F.3d 737
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- LEAN filed a CWA citizen suit against City and Parish for alleged effluent standard violations and adherence to the 2002 consent decree; district court dismissed as moot based on ongoing 2002 decree enforcement.
- 2002 consent decree superseded the 1988 decree and set a January 1, 2015 deadline with remedial measures and stipulations for penalties.
- Second Remedial Measures Action Plan (2006) and proposed modification (2008) kept the 2015 deadline; modification approved in 2009.
- LEAN gave sixty-day notice in November–December 2009 and filed suit March 22, 2010, asserting violations of the NPDES permits and the 2002 decree.
- District court determined mootness under City of Dallas doctrine and dismissed; LEAN appealed seeking enforcement of CWA and permits.
- Court reverses, remanding for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LEAN's suit is moot due to the consent decree | LEAN argues decree does not moot because filed years after and noncompliance issues remain | Defendants contend ongoing compliance with the decree moots the suit | Mootness improper; reversal and remand for jurisdictional/merits review |
| Whether the diligent prosecution bar is jurisdictional | Diligent prosecution bar is nonjurisdictional; LEAN must get Rule 12(b)(6) scrutiny | Bar precludes suit where EPA/State diligently prosecutes | Bar is nonjurisdictional; issues must be remanded to assess applicability |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Dallas, 529 F.3d 519 (5th Cir. 2008) (mootness standard for post-decree citizen suits under CWA)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (Supreme Court 2006) (jurisdictional vs. nonjurisdictional rules; bright-line test)
- Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 130 S. Ct. 1237 (2010) (contextual analysis for jurisdictional status of requirements)
- Henderson v. Shinseki, 131 S. Ct. 1197 (Supreme Court 2011) (clarifies treatment of jurisdictional vs. nonjurisdictional rules)
- Adkins v. VIM Recycling, Inc., 644 F.3d 483 (7th Cir. 2011) (massively influential: nonjurisdictional view of diligent-prosecution bar)