Town of Islip v. Datre
245 F. Supp. 3d 397
E.D.N.Y2017Background
- The Town of Islip sued multiple defendants for illegal dumping of construction/demolition (C&D) debris and contaminated fill at Roberto Clemente Park (2013–2014), asserting RICO, CERCLA, and state-law tort claims.
- Datre Jr. and Grabe were convicted in state court; testing revealed asbestos, pesticides, and heavy metals; Town spent ~$4 million to remove ~39,932 tons of material.
- COD and IEV ("arranger defendants") are alleged brokers who arranged pickups and paid Datre/Grabe for hundreds of loads delivered to the Park.
- Atlas defendants assisted in removal and temporarily stored material off-site; Church defendants obtained Town permission to spread topsoil earlier in 2013 and sent letters regarding volunteer work.
- The Town alleged a RICO conspiracy based on mail/wire fraud and alleged CERCLA arranger/operator liability; arranger, Atlas, and Church defendants moved to dismiss.
- The Court dismissed RICO, CERCLA, and state-law claims against the arranger, Atlas, and Church defendants for failing to plead fraudulent particularity, scienter, or requisite knowledge/control, but granted leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RICO (mail/wire fraud particularity & intent) | Town: calls/letters and payments show scheme to conceal dumping and defraud Town. | Defs: allegations are vague, do not identify specific fraudulent communications or intent; no interstate wire/mailing alleged. | Dismissed — complaint fails Rule 9(b) particularity and does not plead facts giving strong inference of fraudulent intent; standing/ripeness (injury) was sufficient, but fraud predicates fail. |
| CERCLA arranger liability (knowledge the material was hazardous) | Town: arrangers arranged disposal of contaminated fill; intent to dispose suffices. | Defs: plaintiff must plead arrangers knew material was hazardous and/or knew disposal location. | Dismissed — Court requires that an arranger knew or should have known the material was hazardous; complaint lacks such allegations. |
| CERCLA operator liability (Church defendants) | Town: Church directed/participated in field work and letters show responsibility for field, supporting operator status. | Church: limited volunteer activity months before dumping; no control over disposal or site access; not directing pollution-related operations. | Dismissed — allegations do not show Church managed, directed, or conducted pollution-related operations necessary for Bestfoods operator liability. |
| State-law torts (nuisance, trespass, fraud, restitution) | Town: same facts supporting federal claims give rise to state nuisance/trespass/fraud/restitution claims. | Defs: lack of knowledge, intent, control, or duty; trespass not immediate/inevitable consequence of their acts; fraud not pled with particularity. | Dismissed — Town fails to plead intent/negligence for nuisance, immediate/inevitable entry for trespass, knowledge for fraud/concealment, or duty for restitution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (superseding RICO scope and civil RICO applicability)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States, 556 U.S. 599 (arranger liability requires intentional steps to dispose of a hazardous substance)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard; courts disregard legal conclusions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleading)
- United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51 (definition of CERCLA "operator": control of pollution-related operations)
- Moore v. PaineWebber, Inc., 189 F.3d 165 (Rule 9(b) particularity for fraud allegations)
- Anatian v. Coutts Bank (Switzerland) Ltd., 193 F.3d 85 (fraud pleading elements under Rule 9(b))
- Powers v. British Vita, P.L.C., 57 F.3d 176 (scienter: motive/opportunity or conscious behavior standard)
- United States v. Cello-Foil Prods., Inc., 100 F.3d 1227 (arranger may be liable even without knowledge of exact disposal site)
- Morton Int'l, Inc. v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co., 343 F.3d 669 (arranger liability should not extend to parties without knowledge of hazardous release)
- NCR Corp. v. George A. Whiting Paper Co., 768 F.3d 682 (affirming district-court analysis that knowledge of hazardous nature is critical to arranger liability)