Kathy LITTLE; Greg Walker; Debra L. Walker; Richard Evans; Phillip Whitaker; Faye Whitaker, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. LOUISVILLE GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY; PPL Corporation, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 14-6499.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Nov. 2, 2015.
Rehearing En Banc Denied Dec. 7, 2015.
805 F.3d 695
Argued: Aug. 6, 2015.
Diageo suggests that allowing state common law claims would “disrupt the CAA‘s balance of authority between federal and state law and conflict with the mechanism by which the CAA allows states to impose more stringent standards than the ‘floor’ established by federal law.” The Supreme Court disposed of an identical argument in Ouellette, remarking that:
An action brought against [a polluter] under [source-state] nuisance law would not frustrate the goals of the CWA as would a suit governed by [affected-state] law. [A]pplication of the source State‘s law does not disturb the balance among federal, source-state, and affected-state interests. Because the Act specifically allows source States to impose stricter standards, the imposition of source-state law does not disrupt the regulatory partnership established by the permit system.
479 U.S. at 498-99, 107 S.Ct. 805. What was true for the Clean Water Act holds true for the Clean Air Act.
We acknowledge the concern that a comprehensive federal scheme imposes substantial costs on industries, and that some suggest it is unduly burdensome for such industries to remain subject, in addition, to the requirements and remedies of state common law. Such a concern must however be directed to Congress. There is no basis in the Clean Air Act on which to hold that the source state common law claims of plaintiffs are preempted.
The order of the district court is affirmed.
ARGUED: Paul D. Clement, Bancroft PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Seattle, Washington, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Paul D. Clement,
OPINION
ROGERS, Circuit Judge.
Defendant Louisville Gas & Electric brings this interlocutory appeal pursuant to
The district court summarized the facts underlying this appeal as follows:
This case involves the operation of the Cane Run power plant in southwestern Louisville [which is owned and operated by Louisville Gas and Electric Company (“LGE“)]. The Plaintiffs allege that beginning in 2008, they and their neighbors began noticing a persistent film of dust that coated their homes and properties. They allege that the Cane Run power plant emits dust and coal ash into the air and onto their homes and properties several times a month. The Plaintiffs state that the dust and coal ash have been emitted from: (1) Cane Run‘s emission stacks, through which solid particulates are released during the coal burning process; and (2) Cane Run‘s sludge plant, where the ash is mixed with a cementing agent. Further, the Plaintiffs state that ash, dust, and other coal combustion byproducts blow onto their properties because they are placed in an insufficiently-covered landfill. The Plaintiffs allege that the ash, dust, and coal combustion by-products are not only annoying, but also, they are composed of dangerous elements, including arsenic, silica, lead, and chromium.
Louisville‘s Air Pollution Control District (the “District“) is the agency charged with enforcing [federal and state] environmental regulations in Jefferson County. In 2010, the District began investigating complaints about Cane Run. As a result of the investigation, the District issued several Notices of Violation (“NOVs“) to [LGE] concerning particulate emissions and the odors produced by Cane Run. Specifically, in July of 2011, the District issued an NOV finding that LGE allowed fly ash particulate emissions to enter the air and be carried beyond its property line. Four months later, in November of 2011, the District issued a second NOV, detailing more violations involving the emission of dust and ash from Cane Run. Subsequently, between July of 2012 and August of 2013, the District issued four additional NOVs. These NOVs were resolved by an administrative proceeding before Louisville‘s Air Pollution Control Board (“the Board“), which resulted in an Agreed Board Order (“ABO“).
The ABO required LGE to implement, and comply, with a “Plant-Wide Odor, Fugitive Dust, and Maintenance Emissions Control Plan.” In the ABO, the Board specifically found that: (1) the required measures would “fully address” the alleged violations cited in the NOVs; (2) LGE “demonstrated compliance at the Cane Run Generating Station” by submitting to the ABO‘s control plan; and (3) the proposed resolution in the
ABO was “reasonable and adequate under the circumstances.” After a public hearing on November 20, 2013, the District adopted the ABO.
On September 6, 2013, the Plaintiffs provided a Notice of Intent to Sue (“NOI“) to the Defendants, the District‘s Director, the EPA Administrators, the Director of Kentucky‘s Division of Waste Management, the Commissioner of Kentucky‘s Department of Environmental Protection, and the U.S. Attorney General. The Plaintiffs filed this action more than 90 days from when the notices were delivered. In the action, the Plaintiffs allege violations of the Clean Air Act (“CAA“) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA“). They also bring state-law claims of nuisance, trespass, negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence. LGE and [its parent company,] PPL Corporation (collectively “defendants“), argue that the claims must be dismissed under
In a “Memorandum and Order” issued on July 17, 2014, the district court dismissed all of plaintiffs’ federal law claims except the claim that defendants were operating Cane Run without a valid Clean Air Act permit. Id. at 798-814. In the same “Memorandum and Order,” the district court rejected defendants’ argument that the Clean Air Act preempted plaintiffs’ state common law claims. Id. at 814-17.
The district court certified for interlocutory appeal “the portion of its July 17, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order that denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ state common law claims on preemption grounds under the Clean Air Act.” A panel of this court granted the appeal pursuant to
The issue of whether the CAA preempts the plaintiffs’ state-law claims is an unresolved, controlling issue of law that may materially advance the termination of the action below. Accordingly, the petition to appeal the July 17, 2014, Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The parties may brief any issues fairly included within that order, and the merits panel will determine which of the briefed issues should be resolved in the interlocutory appeal.
On appeal, defendants contest the district court‘s denial of their motion to dismiss, on preemption grounds, plaintiffs’ state law claims, while plaintiffs contest the district court‘s dismissal of their federal law claims.
Defendants’ Clean Air Act preemption arguments are disposed of by our decision in Merrick v. Diageo Americas Supply, No. 14-6198. Plaintiffs’ state common law claims are not materially distinguishable from the state common law claims raised in Merrick. For the reasons set forth in that opinion, the Clean Air Act does not preempt plaintiffs’ state common law claims.
We lack jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs’ challenge to the district court‘s orders that dismissed most of plaintiffs’ federal law claims. Under
It is true that the last paragraph of the motions panel‘s order granting defendants leave to appeal included a statement that the parties could brief “any issues fairly included within [the district court‘s July 17, 2014 Memorandum and Order].” While perhaps subject to a broader reading, the language can have referred only, for example, to threshold issues or different arguments regarding the order appealed from, and not to different orders regarding different claims under different statutes, even if the distinct orders were contained in a single document entitled “Order.” Indeed, the district court made explicit that its certification extended only to “the portion of its July 17, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order that denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ state common law claims on preemption grounds under the Clean Air Act.”
We recognize of course that a district court‘s certification of an order as containing a controlling question of law permits appellate consideration of other legal questions that are presented by the certified order. See Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199, 204 (1996). But additional legal questions implicated in one order are different from additional orders that are included in one document that happens to be labeled “order.” Yamaha involved the former, an “anterior issue” that was “pivotal” with respect to the certified order. Id. Plaintiffs’ arguments in this case involve the latter.
Allowing interlocutory appeal of directions or commands in a district court opinion, for the formal reason that the district court labeled the opinion an “Order,” would be inconsistent with the purpose of
Other circuits have similarly interpreted the word “order” in
Homeland correctly points out that it is the district court order that is certified under
§ 1292(b) and not the specific question of law deemed controlling by the district court. Homeland contends that, because the certified order discussed the question of injunctive relief along with the question of federal jurisdiction, we can and should address the injunctive relief issue in this appeal. We disagree.If we find that a particular question other than the question specifically identified by the district court controls the disposition of the certified order, we may, and indeed should, address that question. In this case, however, whether injunctive relief is available against the RTC is not such an alternate controlling question. The order appealed from concerns whether Homeland‘s complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted. Homeland‘s request for injunctive relief is only as a specific type of remedy for its breach of contract claims. Because we hold ... that Homeland‘s complaint does state a claim and, at minimum, relief would be available in the form of damages at law, we need not decide on the availability of any specific type of alternate relief here. Thus, we do not address the question of the availability of injunctive relief.
Id. at 1271-72 (internal citations omitted).
FDIC v. Dye, 642 F.2d 833 (5th Cir. Unit B Apr.1981), is similar. The district court in that case had denied the petitioner‘s motion for summary judgment on four counterclaims raised by the respondent. Id. at 835. Although the district court had certified just one of those rulings for interlocutory appeal, the petitioner sought review of the district court‘s rulings with respect to all four counterclaims. Id. at 836-37. The Fifth Circuit rejected the petitioner‘s attempt to appeal the uncertified rulings, noting that “we have not accepted [those rulings] for appeal pursuant to
[a]lthough grouped nominally in the same order, the denials of summary judgment ... should be considered different orders under
§ 1292(b) . See generally Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 433 F.2d 117 (5th Cir.1970) (party should not be allowed to use valid appeal as vehicle for
making other appeals which would otherwise be impermissible).
Id. at 837 n. 6. The reasoning of the Tenth and Fifth Circuits in these cases supports the conclusion that we lack jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs’ challenges to the dismissal of federal law claims on this interlocutory appeal.
The district court‘s order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ state common law claims is affirmed. We lack jurisdiction to consider the other, unrelated orders challenged by the plaintiffs in their brief on this interlocutory appeal.