Coastkeeper v. Pick-Your-Part Auto Wrecking
| Docket Number | 22-CV-1693 TWR (DDL) |
| Decision Date | 31 July 2023 |
| Parties | SAN DIEGO COASTKEEPER, and OUR CHILDREN'S EARTH FOUNDATION, Plaintiffs, v. PICK-YOUR-PART AUTO WRECKING; AMERICAN RECYCLING INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and LKQ CORPORATION, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE, AND (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO PARTIALLY DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF NOS. 52, 59-2)
Presently before the Court is Defendants Pick-Your-Part Auto Wrecking American Recycling International, Inc., and LKQ Corporation's Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 52, “Mot.”) along with Plaintiffs San Diego Coastkeeper and Our Children's Earth Foundation's Opposition to (ECF No 59, “Opp'n”) and Defendants' Reply in Support of (ECF No. 62, “Reply”) the Motion. Also before the Court is Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice. (ECF No. 59-2, “RJN.”) The Court held a hearing on July 6, 2023. (ECF No. 64.) Having carefully considered the Parties' arguments, the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 47, “SAC”), and the relevant law, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff San Diego Coastkeeper is a non-profit public benefit corporation that works to protect and restore fishable, swimmable, and drinkable water in San Diego. (SAC ¶ 20.) Plaintiff Our Children's Earth Foundation is a non-profit corporation that works to protect the environment, including species habitat and biodiversity in southern California. (Id. ¶ 21.) Defendants Pick-Your-Part Auto Wrecking and American Recycling International, Inc. are wholly owned subsidiaries of Defendant LKQ Corporation. (Id. ¶ 2.) Defendants are primarily engaged in the business of automotive dismantling, storage of vehicles and automotive parts, battery removal, and other associated industrial activities. (Id. ¶¶ 24, 29.)
Defendants own and operate six industrial facilities in San Diego County (collectively, “the Facilities”). (Id. ¶ 6.) Four of the Facilities are in Chula Vista (collectively, “Chula Vista Facilities”), and two of the Facilities are in Oceanside (collectively, “Oceanside Facilities”). (Id.) The Facilities are enrolled under the State of California's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated With Industrial Activities (“General Permit”). See NPDES Order No. CAS000001: California State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality Order 2014-0057-DWQ, as amended in 2015 and 2018 (Order 2015-0122-DWQ and November 6, 2018, Board Amended Requirements). (SAC ¶ 7.) Other than as authorized by the General Permit, the Facilities “lack NPDES permit authorization for application, disposal, or discharge of any process water, wastewater, or industrial wastewater.” (Id. ¶¶ 23, 28.) Dischargers under the General Permit must comply with a variety of requirements, including but not limited to “monitoring and reporting requirements, developing and implementing adequate best management practices (“BMPs”), revising and updating the [Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (“SWPPPs”)], developing an adequate monitoring implementation plan, [and] conducting the requisite storm water sampling.” (Id. ¶¶ 27, 32.)
Operations at Defendants' Facilities involve several pollution-generating activities including automotive dismantling, vehicle storage and washing, battery removal and storage, removal of vehicle fluids, and hazardous waste accumulation and storage. (Id. ¶¶ 24-26, 29-31.) “[T]he pollutants associated with the facilities' industrial activities and materials include aluminum, copper, iron, lead, zinc, oil & grease . . ., TSS, and pH affecting substances.” (Id. ¶¶ 26, 31.) Further, “[s]tormwater and non-stormwater discharges from the four Chula Vista Facilities flow into the Otay River, San Diego Bay, and the Pacific Ocean.” (Id. ¶ 33.) “Stormwater discharged from the two Oceanside Facilities flows to the San Luis Rey River and the Pacific Ocean.” (Id. ¶ 45.) Defendants' Facilities also release discharges that contain elevated levels of toxic heavy metals, oil and grease, and various petroleum hydrocarbons “onto adjacent land” and “into adjacent riparian habitat.” (Id. ¶¶ 19, 237.)
Plaintiffs allege that heavy metals “are well-known environmental pollutants due to their toxicity, persistence in the environment, and bioaccumulative nature.” (Id. ¶ 10.) In fact, elevated levels of “heavy metals such as iron, copper, zinc, and lead in stormwater can be toxic to aquatic organisms” including fish and benthic macroinvertebrates. (Id. ¶¶ 10, 12, 14.) “These heavy metals can bioaccumulate to toxic levels in aquatic animals such as fish, turtles, and other species, and have the potential to contaminate drinking water supplies.” (Id. ¶ 13.) The negative effect of heavy metals on the benthic community and the bioaccumulation in fish can, in turn, impact birds and fauna that depend on the benthic communities to survive. (Id.)
Plaintiffs further allege that the stormwater discharged from Defendants' Facilities contributes to the ongoing stormwater problem in the bodies of water where those discharges flow. (Id. ¶18.) In addition, the “large number of vehicles entering and leaving the [Facilities] track oil, grease, sediments, fine metal particulates, and other pollutants offsite and onto roads where rainfall washes these pollutants” into the Otay River, San Diego Bay, Pacific Ocean, and San Luis Rey River, as well as riparian and upland areas adjacent to the Facilities. (Id. ¶¶ 25, 30, 238.)
Finally, Plaintiffs allege that they are bringing this action on their own behalf and on behalf of their adversely affected members. (Id. ¶ 244.) Their members “use and enjoy the waters into which Defendants' Facilities discharge stormwater with elevated levels of pollutants and non-stormwater discharges (NSWDs), including the Otay River, San Luis Rey River[,] and the bays and wetlands into which those waters flow, including San Diego Bay, and the Pacific Ocean.” (Id.) Plaintiffs' members “use and enjoy these waters for recreational, aesthetic, restoration, conservation, educational, scientific, professional, and other purposes.” (Id.) With their knowledge of the pollution concerns about Defendants' six Facilities including the degradation of the surrounding riparian ecosystem and habitat, Plaintiffs, and their members “avoid or limit touching, swimming, fishing, and engaging in other activities in and around the Otay River, San Luis Rey River, San Diego Bay, Pacific Ocean, beaches, and surrounding waters into which those waters flow when they would otherwise like to.” (Id. ¶ 250; see also id. (alleging pollution from Defendants' Facilities are impacting the Plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of the waters, bays, beaches, and surrounding ecosystems).)
The San Luis Rey River runs alongside the San Luis Rey Bike Trail, which is a 10.7 mile publicly accessible multi-use trail that provides opportunities to see the natural habitat of the region, including bird species. (Id. ¶ 248.) The trail “goes past the discharge locations of the two Oceanside Facilities.” (Id.) Plaintiffs' members bike along the trail and hike “from the mouth of the river east past Interstate 5 to look for and view wildlife, including birds.” (Id. ¶ 249.) The portions of the trail that Plaintiffs' members use “pass directly by the discharge points from the Oceanside Facilities and the places those discharges reach the San Luis Rey River.” (Id.) Plaintiffs and their members “plan to continue enjoying” all the activities they have engaged in around the area including hiking, biking, enjoying the natural open spaces, bird watching, and observing other fauna including fish, reptiles, and mammals. (Id.) Because of concerns that the Facilities' stormwater discharges and NSWDs have degraded the area with pollutants, including “the water, adjacent riparian areas, and surrounding ecosystems,” “Plaintiffs and their members have curtailed their use of the areas in and around where the Oceanside Facilities discharge” stormwater. (Id.)
Plaintiffs allege that their reduced use and enjoyment of these bodies of water and surrounding beaches is directly traceable to Defendants' stormwater discharges containing elevated levels of pollutants and unpermitted NSWDs. (Id. ¶ 250.) They further allege that unless Plaintiffs achieve the relief sought in their Second Amended Complaint, they will continue to be adversely affected. (Id. ¶ 251.) Instead, if “Plaintiffs are successful in this action . . . Defendants will be required to bring their discharges from the Facilities to waters of the United States into compliance with the [law] and thus reduce their discharges of pollutants to the affected receiving waters, and either eliminate or seek permit coverage for their [NSWDs] and unpermitted discharges.” (Id.)
Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint in October 2022. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs then filed a timely First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). (ECF No. 8.) Defendants subsequently moved to partially dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 11.) In response, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 33.) The Court granted Plaintiffs' request and denied Defendants' Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint as moot. (ECF No. 46.) Plaintiffs then timely filed their Second Amended Complaint, alleging seven causes of action under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial