United States v. LaPant
2:16-cv-01498
E.D. Cal.Oct 28, 2022Background
- Property near Coyote Creek (Sacramento River watershed) was surveyed as containing vernal-pool wetlands and endangered-species habitat; LaPant, Goose Pond, and Duarte conducted plowing/levelling and built roads that removed many wetland features.
- The United States sued Goose Pond (and LaPant) under the Clean Water Act; the government and Goose Pond settled via a consent decree entered in 2019 that (among other things) created a 616-acre conservation reserve, imposed remediation and monitoring obligations, and allowed successors to seek a Corps jurisdictional determination (JD) after one year.
- Paragraph 29.c of the consent decree permits Goose Pond (and successors) to seek a JD "as to the Balance of the Site," requires the Corps to apply the then-applicable definition of "waters of the United States" and otherwise act in accordance with governing law, and preserves ordinary JD processes.
- Duarte acquired the relevant land as a successor to Goose Pond’s interests, submitted a JD request, and the Corps asked for additional data. Duarte sent a notice of dispute under the consent decree and moved the court to compel the Corps to process the JD "as submitted" and to exclude currently dry areas from the JD definition of wetlands.
- The court joined Duarte as a defendant under Rule 25(c) (Duarte was a successor in interest) but denied Duarte’s motion to enforce the consent decree as unripe because the Corps has not issued a final JD and requesting more information is not a final agency action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Duarte) | Defendant's Argument (United States / Corps) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction to resolve Duarte’s enforcement motion | Court retained jurisdiction under the consent decree; federal-question jurisdiction exists to enforce U.S. obligations | The dispute is not reviewable yet; DOJ suggests lack of jurisdiction over putative dispute | Court has jurisdiction: federal-question and retained-decree jurisdiction apply; motion may be adjudicated |
| Whether the consent decree obligates the Corps to act on a JD request | Paragraph 29.c requires the Corps to apply the then-applicable definition and "act in accordance with then-governing law," i.e., process and decide JD requests | Paragraph 29.c only permits a JD request; it does not obligate the Corps to issue a decision — Duarte must rely on other law (e.g., APA) for compulsion | Consent decree requires the Corps to apply the then-applicable definition and act according to law in response to a valid request; "apply" and "act" impose an obligation beyond mere receipt |
| Whether the Corps’ request for more information is a final agency action ripe for judicial enforcement under the consent decree / APA | Corps has misapplied the CWA by treating currently dry areas as within jurisdiction; Corps’ information request is de facto refusal or misapplication and should be reviewable now | The Corps’ information request is non-final, interlocutory, and part of ordinary JD processing; no final agency action yet | Denied as unripe: asking for additional data is not a "final agency action" under Bennett/Hawkes; Duarte may challenge a future approved JD or pursue relief if the Corps unlawfully withholds/ delays action |
| Intervention / joinder as defendant | Duarte seeks to intervene as a defendant and to be joined as successor-in-interest | United States does not oppose intervention; Rule 25(c) joinder applies for successors | Duarte is joined as a defendant under Rule 25(c) and its motion to intervene is granted to that extent |
Key Cases Cited
- Trigueros v. Adams, 658 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2011) (courts may take judicial notice of related proceedings)
- United States v. Armour & Co., 402 U.S. 673 (1971) (consent decrees construed within their four corners)
- United States v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 420 U.S. 223 (1975) (consent decree treated like a contract)
- Nehmer v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 494 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2007) (federal contract/consent-decree interpretation principles)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (final agency action test for APA review)
- U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs v. Hawkes Co., 578 U.S. 590 (2016) (approved JDs can be final agency action)
- Ass’n of Am. Med. Colls. v. United States, 217 F.3d 770 (9th Cir. 2000) (factors for finality and ripeness of agency action)
- In re Bernal, 207 F.3d 595 (9th Cir. 2000) (Rule 25(c) joinder of successors)
- Tex. Indus., Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc., 451 U.S. 630 (1981) (United States’ rights/obligations under consent decrees governed by federal common law)
- E.O.H.C. v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 950 F.3d 177 (3d Cir. 2020) (enforcement of government obligations under consent decrees raises federal question)