United States v. El Dorado County
704 F.3d 1261
9th Cir.2013Background
- Government and County entered a consent decree for cleanup of a Lake Tahoe landfill; County sought modification and district court suspended the decree.
- Government appealed; County moved to dismiss arguing the order was nonfinal and unappealable.
- District court originally held significant plan errors would raise costs; government liable for increased costs.
- Appellate issue centers on whether a consent decree modification is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and Carson v. American Brands.
- Court dismisses appeal for lack of jurisdiction; Carson governs interlocutory appealability of consent decrees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carson controls interlocutory appealability of consent-decree modifications | Carson permits appeal when order affects injunctive decree | Consent-decree orders are not within § 1292(a)(1) alone | Carson applies; not under § 1292(a)(1) alone |
| Whether Hook v. Arizona controls jurisdiction | Hook supports 1292(a)(1) appeal of modification | Hook misapplies Carson; does not control here | Hook does not control; Carson governs |
| Whether Carson factors show immediate appeal and irreparable harm | Order causes irreparable harm by potentially undermining cleanup | Harm is monetary; may be remedied later | Carson factors not satisfied; no jurisdiction to hear now |
| Whether the suspension of the decree is a final, appealable modification | Suspension effectively alters obligations | Suspension is incomplete modification; not final | Not enough to confer jurisdiction; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79 (U.S. (1981)) (expanded Carson framework for consent-decree appeals)
- Shee Atika v. Sealaska Corp., 39 F.3d 247 (9th Cir. 1994) (applied Carson to consent-decree interlocutory appeals)
- Thompson v. Enomoto, 815 F.2d 1323 (9th Cir. 1987) (applied Carson to monitor appointment under injunctive consent decree)
- L.A. Mem’l Coliseum Comm’n v. Nat’l Football League, 634 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1980) (illustrated irreparable harm and reviewability considerations)
- Hook v. Arizona, 120 F.3d 921 (9th Cir. 1997) (discussed modification of a consent decree; not controlling here)
- Special Invs., Inc. v. Aero Air, Inc., 360 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts can determine their own jurisdiction)