Valley Disposal, Inc. v. Central Vermont Solid Waste Management Dist.
| Decision Date | 05 August 1994 |
| Docket Number | D,No. 1012,1012 |
| Citation | 31 F.3d 89 |
| Parties | 1994-2 Trade Cases P 70,680 VALLEY DISPOSAL, INC., Palisades Landfill and Recycling Corporation; Robert C. Dowdell, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CENTRAL VERMONT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT; C.V. Landfill, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. ocket 93-7818. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
John L. Franco, McNeil & Murray, Burlington, VT, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Michael B. Rosenberg, Miller, Eggleston & Rosenberg, Burlington, VT, for defendant-appellee C.V. Landfill, Inc.
Glenn C. Howland, Jr., McKee, Guiliani & Cleveland, Montpelier, VT, for defendant-appellee Central Vermont Solid Waste Management Dis.
Before: MAHONEY and WALKER, Circuit Judges, and CAMPBELL, * Senior Circuit Judge.
In this appeal we review the district court's rulings (1) granting one defendant's motion to dismiss certain counts in the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and (2) holding that all claims are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
Plaintiffs-appellants are Valley Disposal, Inc., a solid waste hauler, Palisades Landfill and Recycling Corporation ("Palisades Landfill"), operator of a lined landfill in Moretown, Vermont, and Robert C. Dowdell, Jr., president of Valley Disposal and Palisades Landfill. Dowdell and his wife are the sole shareholders and directors of Valley Disposal and Palisades Landfill. Dowdell is also the president, sole director, and sole shareholder of the now defunct Palisades Recycling Corporation, Inc. ("Palisades Recycling")--operator of an unlined landfill in Moretown, Vermont--which is not a party.
Defendants-appellees are Central Vermont Solid Waste Management District (the "District"), a Vermont union municipal district created by the Vermont General Assembly pursuant to Vt.Stat.Ann. tit. 24, Secs. 4861-4868 (1975), and C.V. Landfill, Inc., owner and operator of an unlined landfill in East Montpelier, Vermont.
In the spring of 1992, the District requested quotations from and negotiated Interim Disposal Agreements with both Palisades Recycling and C.V. Landfill for solid waste disposal for municipalities within the District. Although Palisades Recycling refused to enter into the District's proposed Interim Disposal Agreement, C.V. Landfill agreed, on June 1, 1992, to provide landfill services commencing July 1, 1992. The contract's terms provided, inter alia, that the District, "[i]mmediately upon the execution of these presents, ... shall proceed to enact a District-wide solid waste flow control ordinance" that would, at a minimum, "contain solid waste hauler licensing and enforcement provisions, as well as a mechanism for designating [C.V. Landfill's] facilities as an authorized solid waste disposal site." On June 3, 1992, the District adopted the "Flow Control Ordinance" referred to in the Interim Disposal Agreement. The ordinance (1) regulated the collection, transportation, recycling, resource recovery, and disposal of solid waste within the District, (2) required licenses for the transportation of solid waste within the District, (3) directed the delivery of all solid waste generated within the District to facilities described in the ordinance, (4) prohibited the unlawful disposal of solid waste, and (5) provided for enforcement and penalties. The Flow Control Ordinance also established a District Regulatory Board, which, on July 29, 1992, adopted "Rules and Regulations Pertaining to the Collection, Transport and Disposal of Solid Waste Pursuant to the Waste Flow Control Ordinance."
Plaintiffs have alleged in their district court complaint that the Interim Disposal Agreement, the Flow Control Ordinance, and the rules and regulations adopted thereunder, operating in concert, provide C.V. Landfill with the exclusive right to provide solid waste facility services to municipalities located within the District, and prohibit haulers from exporting any and all solid waste generated within the District to any facility located outside of the District--although C.V. Landfill is permitted to accept solid waste generated and brought in from outside of the District. In support of these allegations, Plaintiffs point out paragraph two of the District's Interim Disposal Agreement with C.V. Landfill, which states:
[C.V. Landfill] shall ... have the exclusive right to receive solid waste for processing ... and disposal from the District waste service areas as shown on the map which is attached hereto as Addendum (B); and District shall so designate [C.V. Landfill's] facilities as the exclusive destination of such solid waste. In addition, [C.V. Landfill] may receive waste from non-District towns that so designate [C.V. Landfill's] facilities[;]
paragraph thirteen of the Interim Disposal Agreement, which reads:
District, by ordinance, shall prohibit the exportation of District-generated solid waste for disposal at any facility not designated by the District[;]
and paragraph 5.1 of the Flow Control Ordinance, which provides:
Solid Waste collected or generated in the District shall be delivered to a transfer station or Facility designated by the District. No person shall deliver, or cause to be delivered, Solid Waste in the District except to such Facilities designated by the District.
Palisades Landfill's lined landfill in Moretown, Vermont, is, as of November 1992, located outside of the District, and is not a facility designated by the District for the receipt of solid waste generated or collected in the District.
On July 22, 1992, Palisades Recycling, Dowdell's wholly-owned corporation, reacting to the Interim Disposal Agreement between C.V. Landfill and the District, as well as to the Flow Control Ordinance and its rules and regulations, sued the District in Washington County, Vermont, Superior Court. C.V. Landfill intervened as a defendant. Palisades Recycling sought to enjoin (1) the District from designating C.V. Landfill as the exclusive facility for all solid waste generated within the District if Palisades Recycling declined to execute the Interim Disposal Agreement as written, (2) the Flow Control Ordinance from taking effect on August 4, 1992, and (3) the District's contract with C.V. Landfill from continuing in effect. Palisades Recycling alleged, inter alia, that the District's actions infringed the dormant Commerce Clause, see U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 8, and were ultra vires under state law. After hearings in early September 1992, the Washington Superior Court denied Palisades Recycling's request for a preliminary injunction on September 21, 1992. The Vermont court found, among other things, that (1) the District's contract with C.V. Landfill and its proposed contract with Palisades Recycling "do not go beyond the District's grant of authority concerning its ability to assess and recover a surcharge on solid waste disposed of within the District"; (2) "[t]he evidence does not establish that the Flow Control Ordinance[,] as applied, violates the [C]ommerce [C]lause of the United States Constitution"; and (3) "the evidence does not establish irreparable harm to Plaintiff." On November 16, 1992, the Washington Superior Court entered summary judgment for the defendants--the District and C.V. Landfill--on all counts of the complaint. Palisades Recycling did not appeal from that decision.
A few months later, on February 23, 1993, Palisades Landfill, Valley Disposal, and Robert Dowdell brought the present complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont against the District, C.V. Landfill, and Vermont Integrated Waste Solutions, Inc. 1 Plaintiffs charged that the District and C.V. Landfill had contracted, combined, and conspired to exclude Plaintiffs from competition in providing lined landfill disposal services to customers residing in the member municipalities that form the District. The five-count complaint alleged:
[I] [t]he contract, ordinance and regulations are unconstitutional in that they violate the "dormant Commerce Clause" of the U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 8[;] 2
* * * * * *
[II] [t]he actions of defendants constitute an[ ] unlawful contract, combination or conspiracy in the form of a trust or otherwise in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states in violation of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1 [of the Sherman Act], damaging plaintiffs[;]
* * * * * *
[III] [t]he actions of the defendants constitute an unlawful monopolization, attempt to monopolize, or a combination or conspiracy to monopolize solid waste disposal of any municipal solid waste generated within the member towns of the District, thus monopolizing a part of trade or commerce among the states in violation of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2 [of the Sherman Act], damaging plaintiffs[;]
* * * * * *
[IV] [b]y designating the C.V. Landfill as the exclusive "designated facility" for the disposal of solid waste, the "District Regulatory Board's" actions are ultra vires and void[; and]
* * * * * *
[V] [t]here is no primary or overriding public municipal purpose in the District's grant of exclusive monopoly rights to receive solid waste to the unlined C.V. Landfill. Rather the primary purpose is to promote the private ends of the C.V. Landfill. Any public purpose is at best incidental, set up as a mere pretext to conceal a private purpose, and is therefore ultra vires and void.
Plaintiffs sought compensatory damages and requested preliminary and permanent injunctions against the "operation and enforcement of the 'flow control' provisions of the contract [between the District and C.V. Landfill], [the] ordinance, and [the] regulations." Following an evidentiary hearing on March 11, 1993, the district court, on March 16, 1993, denied Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that Plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate "they are likely to suffer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Distajo
...would do so." Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 96, 101 S.Ct. 411, 415, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980); Valley Disposal, Inc. v. Central Vermont Solid Waste Management Dist., 31 F.3d 89, 98 (2d Cir.1994). The parties agree that the question, therefore, is whether the various state court judgments (one ......
-
Doyle v. Town of Litchfield
...originally filed in state court rather than federal court, his current federal action was barred. Valley Disposal, Inc. v. Cent. Vt. Solid Waste Mgmt. Dist., 31 F.3d 89, 97 (2d Cir.1994). In reversing the district court, the Second Circuit discussed Marrese at length and noted: "Whatever mi......
-
Doe v. Karadzic, 93 Civ. 0878 (PKL)
...a district court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is within its discretion. Vally Disposal, Inc. v. Central Vermont Solid Waste Management District, 31 F.3d 89, 103 (2d Cir.1994) (citing Block v. First Blood Assocs., 988 F.2d 344, 351 (2d Cir.1993) ("The decision whether to exercise ......
-
Reading Intern. v. Oaktree Capital Management LLC
...and distributors and the separate horizontal conspiracy between Onex and Oaktree. See Valley Disposal, Inc. v. Central Vermont Solid Waste Management Dist., 31 F.3d 89, 94-95 (2d Cir.1994) (plaintiff must allege facts which, if proved, would directly or inferentially satisfy each element of......
-
Table of Cases
..., 275 In re Urethane Antitrust Litig., 768 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. 2014), 263 , 267 V Valley Disposal v. Cent. Vt. Solid Waste Mgmt. Dist., 31 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 1994), 130 Table of Cases 329 Valspar Corp. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 152 F. Supp. 3d 234 (D. Del. 2016), 227 Valspar Corp. v.......
-
Table of Cases
...(11th Cir. 1995), 350 Valley Bank v. Plus Sys., 914 F.2d 1186 (9th Cir. 1990), 675 Valley Disposal v. Central Vt. Solid Waste Mgmt. Dist., 31 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 1994), 47, 51 1888 ANTITRUST LAW DEVELOPMENTS (NINTH) Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 344 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2003), 283, ......
-
Restraints of Trade
...overrules Cordova and other First Circuit cases on this issue). Second Circuit: Valley Disposal v. Central Vt. Solid Waste Mgmt. Dist., 31 F.3d 89, 94-96 (2d Cir. 1994) (defendants’ illegal activities must have a not insubstantial effect on interstate commerce); Furlong v. Long Island Coll.......
-
The Special Issues of Coconspirator Evidence and Parallel Government Enforcement
...Aquatherm Indus. v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 84 F.3d 1388, 1392 -93 (11th Cir. 1996); Valley Disposal v. Cent. Vt. Solid Waste Mgmt. Dist., 31 F.3d 89, 98-99 (2d Cir. 1994). 118 . 896 F.2d 960 (5th Cir. 1990). 119 . Id. at 962. 120 . Id. at 962-64. 121 . Id. at 964. [federal] antitrust claim......