Shark River Cleanup Coalition v. Township of Wall, 47 F.4th 126

Shark River Cleanup Coalition (citizen group) discovered exposed sections of a buried Township sewer line on the Estate of Fred McDowell, Jr., and served a Clean Water Act pre-suit Notice claiming erosion had released fill/sand into Shark River Brook.
The Notice referenced the Township’s recorded 25-foot-wide, ~3-mile easement across the Estate but did not give precise or approximate coordinates and did not cite a specific federal Clean Water Act provision (it cited the entire Act and many state statutes/regulations).
The Notice stated photos were “available upon request,” but Coalition counsel failed to provide them when Defendants asked; Defendants and NJDEP initially could not locate the site from the Notice alone and only found it after the Complaint was filed and later, when provided photos.
The Coalition sued under 33 U.S.C. § 1365; the District Court granted summary judgment for Defendants, holding the Notice failed to identify the alleged violation’s location (along the >3-mile easement) and thus was insufficient.
The Third Circuit held (1) the Notice was sufficient as to location under Pub. Int. Rsch. Grp. of N.J., Inc. v. Hercules, Inc., but (2) the Notice was deficient because it failed to identify the specific standard/limitation alleged to have been violated (i.e., did not fairly inform Defendants which part of the Clean Water Act was claimed), and affirmed dismissal on that ground.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of Notice as to location of alleged violation	Notice referencing recorded easement and public records sufficed to permit Defendants to identify the location	Reference to the entire 25-ft easement over a large, wooded Estate was too vague; Coalition’s failure to provide photos frustrated identification	Notice was sufficient as to location (Hercules applied); Township later located the site, and defendants had superior access to easement info
Sufficiency of Notice to identify specific standard/limitation violated	General reference to the Clean Water Act was adequate; details could be developed after suit	Notice must identify the specific standard/limitation or parameter violated so defendants can evaluate and remedy the alleged violation	Notice was insufficient: it failed to identify the specific statutory/regulatory standard (left defendants guessing); dismissal affirmed on this ground
Characterization and review of notice requirement	Notice is a mandatory condition precedent but factual development may occur; Coalition challenged factual sufficiency	Defendants treated notice sufficiency as a preserved, jurisdictional (or quasi‑jurisdictional) defense	Court treated sufficiency as a legal question with factual elements, reviewed de novo while weighing evidence (treated as factual challenge)

Pub. Int. Rsch. Grp. of N.J., Inc. v. Hercules, Inc., 50 F.3d 1239 (3d Cir. 1995) (regulation requires notice to include enough information to enable recipient to identify components of alleged violation)
Hallstrom v. Tillamook Cnty., 493 U.S. 20 (1989) (pre-suit notice is a mandatory condition precedent to citizen suit)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (purpose of notice is to allow alleged violator to bring itself into compliance)
Paolino v. JF Realty, LLC, 710 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2013) (notice need not list every detail of every alleged violation)
Waterkeepers N. Cal. v. AG Indus. Mfg., Inc., 375 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2004) (same principle limiting overly technical application of notice requirements)
Ecological Rts. Found. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 713 F.3d 502 (9th Cir. 2013) (notice sufficient where plaintiff referenced representative sites and defendant’s superior ability to locate others)
Gaston Copper Recycling Corp. v. Friends of the Earth, 629 F.3d 387 (4th Cir. 2011) (treating notice sufficiency as a legal defense while warning against overly technical applications)