Centreville Citizens for Change v. City of Cahokia Heights

• Decision Date: 14 November 2022
• Docket Number: 21-cv-00842-DWD
• Parties: CENTREVILLE CITIZENS FOR CHANGE et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CAHOKIA HEIGHTS, COMMONFIELDS OF CAHOKIA PUBLIC WATER DISTRICT, METRO EAST SANITARY DISTRICT Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois

CENTREVILLE CITIZENS FOR CHANGE et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CAHOKIA HEIGHTS, COMMONFIELDS OF CAHOKIA PUBLIC WATER DISTRICT, METRO EAST SANITARY DISTRICT Defendants.

No. 21-cv-00842-DWD

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

November 14, 2022

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DAVID W. DUGAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Now before the Court are four Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants Commonfields of Cahokia Public Water District (“Commonfields”), the City of Cahokia Heights (“Cahokia Heights”), and the Metro East Sanitary District (“MESD”) (Docs. 60, 61, 62, 83). Plaintiffs responded to these motions (Docs. 65, 69, 87). For the reasons set forth below, the Motions will be denied.

Background

Plaintiffs Centreville Citizens for Change (“Centreville”) and thirty-one of its members and individual citizens of Centreville, Illinois (the “Individual Plaintiffs”)^[1] seek recourse against Defendants for their alleged negligence in allowing sewage to seep into public waterways and residential areas. Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 59) sets forth 11 counts:

Counts 1 and 2: Plaintiff Centreville asserts claims for Declaratory Judgment (Count 1) and Injunctive Relief (Count 2) against Defendants Commonfields and Cahokia Heights for their alleged violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311;

Counts 3 and 4: Plaintiffs Byrd Lyles, J. Green, L. Green, M. Gladney, T. Gladney, Saffold-Crigler, Hych, Ware, Marion, McNeal, Goree, Greenwood, Gladney, Anthony, Ivy, M. Johnson, P. Johnson, S. Smith, B. Smith, Hopkins, C. Taggart, M. Taggart, Randoph, and McIntrye assert takings claims pursuant to the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 15 of the Illinois State Constitution against Defendants Cahokia Heights and MESD related to recurrent stormwater flooding;

Count 5: Plaintiffs Byrd, J. Green, Saffold-Crigler, Hych, Ware, McNeal, S. Smith, B. Smith, Greenwood, Anthony, C. Taggart, M. Taggart, Hopkins, Blaylock, M. Johnson, P. Johnson, and Randolph bring a private nuisance claim against Defendants Commonfields and Cahokia Heights related to sewage contamination;

Count 6: Plaintiffs Byrd, Lyles, J. Green, L. Green, M. Gladney, T. Gladney, Saffold-Crigler, Hych, Ware, Marion, McNeal, S. Smith, B. Smith, Goree, Eiland, Greenwood, Gladney, Anthony, C. Taggart, M. Taggart, Dancy, Ivy, Hopkins, Blaylock, Johnson, J. Cox, R. Cox, and Randolph, bring a private nuisance claim against Defendants Cahokia Heights and MESD related to stormwater drainage;

Count 7: All Individuals Plaintiffs assert a public nuisance claim against Defendants Cahokia Heights and MESD related to stormwater flooding;

Count 8: Plaintiffs Byrd, J. Green, L. Green, Saffold-Crigler, Hych, Ware, McNeal, S. Smith, B. Smith, Greenwood, Anthony, C. Taggart, M. Taggart, Hopkins, Blaylock, M. Johnson, P. Johnson, J. Cox, R. Cox, and Randolph assert a negligence claim against Defendants Commonfields and Cahokia Heights related to sewage maintenance and recurrent overflows; Count 9: All Individual Plaintiffs assert a negligence claim against Defendants Cahokia Heights and MESD related to recurrent stormwater flooding;

Count 10: Plaintiffs Byrd, J. Green, Saffold-Crigler, Hych, Ware, McNeal, S. Smith, B. Smith, Greenwood, Anthony, C. Taggart, M. Taggart, Hopkins, Blaylock, M. Johnson, P. Johnson, and Randolph assert a negligent trespass claim against Defendants Commonfields and Cahokia Heights related to sewage overflows and backups; and

Count 11: Plaintiffs Byrd, Lyles, J. Green, L. Green, M. Gladney, T. Gladney, Saffold-Crigler, Hych, Ware, Marion, McNeal, S. Smith, B. Smith, Goree, Eiland, Greenwood, Gladney, Anthony, C. Taggart, M. Taggart, Ivy, Hopkins, Blaylock, M. Johnson, P. Johnson, J. Cox, R. Cox, Randoph, and McIntyre assert a negligent trespass claim against Defendants Cahokia Heights and MESD related to stormwater flooding.

According to the allegations in the complaint, Defendant Commonfields of Cahokia Public Water District (“Commonfields”) owned and operated the sewage system in the area of Cahokia Heights, Illinois formerly known as Centreville (“Centreville”). In 2021, Defendant City of Cahokia Heights (“Cahokia Heights”) assumed the ownership, operation, and all debts and liabilities associated with the Centreville Sewer System. Cahokia Heights also operates another municipal sewage system which Plaintiffs refer to as the “Cahokia Heights' Sewage System.”

Plaintiffs allege that these two sewage systems are dysfunctional and suffer from years of neglect. As a result, stormwater and groundwater frequently enter the sewage systems, and cause residential neighborhoods in Centreville to suffer from raw sewage pools or spews. Plaintiffs maintain that in some areas sewage spews occur “on a nearly daily basis” resulting in sewage accumulation in yards, roadside ditches, and backups into residents' tubs, toilets, and sinks. The sewage system failures have also caused property damage to Plaintiffs' homes, disrupted Plaintiffs' lives, and caused sewage to flow into local waterways, including tributaries to the Mississippi River.

In addition to the two sewage systems, Cahokia Heights is also responsible for managing stormwater in the Centreville area. Plaintiffs allege that Cahokia Heights has failed to maintain and develop functional stormwater infrastructure to ensure stormwater channels away from residential homes. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendant MESD Sanitary District (“MESD”) has failed to maintain local waterways. Thus, many Centreville neighborhoods suffer from recurrent flooding devastating Plaintiffs' homes and community. According to Plaintiffs, the combination of mismanaged stormwater infrastructure and the broken sewage systems “compounds the destruction wrought by each alone” and have “created a vicious cycle of pollution and flooding that endangers the Individuals Plaintiffs and members of Centreville Citizens for Change, contaminates waters, and leaves destroyed property in its wake.” (Doc. 59, pp. 2-3).

In support of the allegations in their Complaint, Plaintiffs submitted photographs of alleged sewage backups. Plaintiffs also cite to a sampling of approximately 1,500 Commonfields' sewer system work orders submitted from 2012 to 2019 to illustrate the sewage backups and overflows into residential streets, homes, and yards in the community (Doc. 59, ¶ 236). Plaintiffs also allege, based on their knowledge of Defendants' budgets and permit records, that Commonfields and Cahokia Heights do not routinely inspect or maintain the Commonfields Sewage System and do not typically budget funds in anticipation of emergency repairs or investments to improve the sewer systems (Doc. 59, p. 56).

Plaintiffs also submitted copies of inspection reports, communications, and violation notices from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Doc. 59-1), along with agreements made among Defendants and the State of Illinois' Emergency Management Agency and Department of Natural Resources, and the United States Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service (Doc. 59-1). Plaintiffs further allege that a water contamination test conducted on a storm drain in Centreville by the United States Environmental Protection Agency revealed the presence of fecal coliform 97 times higher than Illinois' water quality standard for fecal coliform (Doc. 59, ¶ 250).

Defendants now seek to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and 12(f). Cahokia Heights and MESD both argue that the sheer length of Plaintiffs' complaint coupled with scores of what they regard as irrelevant details render the complaint vulnerable to dismissal under 12(b)(6) or substantial amendment under 12(f). Commonfields, however, moves for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) and the Illinois Public Water District Act, 70 ILCS 3705, et seq., arguing that they no longer exist as an entity subject to joinder under Illinois law. In addition to Commonfields' motion under Rule 12(b)(6), Commonfields recently moved for dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) asserting that the Court has no jurisdiction over it because of their dissolution (Doc. 83).

Legal Standards

A. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)

To survive a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must include enough factual content to give the opposing party notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 698 (2009). To satisfy the notice-pleading standard of Rule 8, a complaint must provide a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” in a manner that provides the defendant with “fair notice” of the claim and its basis. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. at 555). The court will accept all well-pleaded allegations as true. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678. However, the court need not accept legal conclusions as true. Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009).

In ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a court must “examine whether the allegations in the complaint state a ‘plausible' claim for relief.” Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 677-78). A complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” rather than providing allegations that do not rise above the speculative level. Arnett, 658 F.3d at 751-52 (internal quotations and citation omitted).

B. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f)

Rule 12(f) permits the court to strike parts of the complaint that are “redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous.” Fed.R.Civ.P....