House of Raeford Farms, Inc. v. City of Raeford

• Decision Date: 15 October 1991
• Docket Number: No. 9016SC1327,9016SC1327
• Citation: 408 S.E.2d 885,104 N.C.App. 280
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: HOUSE OF RAEFORD FARMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF RAEFORD, Defendant-Appellee.

Page 885

408 S.E.2d 885

104 N.C.App. 280

HOUSE OF RAEFORD FARMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF RAEFORD, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 9016SC1327.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Oct. 15, 1991.

Jordan, Price, Wall, Gray & Jones by Henry W. Jones, Jr., Paul T. Flick, and Roseanne P. Carter, Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellant.

Everett, Wood, Womble, Finan & Riddle by W. Harrell Everett, Jr. and Jonathan S. Williams, Goldsboro, for defendant-appellee.

COZORT, Judge.

The City of Raeford issued an order to revoke plaintiff's wastewater discharge permit and to fine the plaintiff $50,000.00 for alleged violations of the City's effluent discharge standards. Plaintiff sued the City seeking an order enjoining the City from enforcing the order. After amending its complaint once, plaintiff sought a second amendment to add a petition for writ of certiorari to the complaint. The trial court denied the motion for second amendment to the complaint and dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff appeals. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of plaintiff's motion to amend and conclude that the action was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We thus affirm.

Plaintiff owns and operates a turkey slaughtering and processing business within the city limits of Raeford, North Carolina. In July 1987, plaintiff obtained a permit from defendant in order to discharge wastewater from plaintiff's facility into defendant's sewage system. Twice following the issuance of the initial permit, defendant adopted more stringent standards pertaining to the effluent limits on plaintiff's discharged wastewater. After collecting samples from the plaintiff's wastewater, defendant cited plaintiff for non-compliance with the stricter standards. Defendant issued a Cease and Desist Order on 21 February 1990 directing plaintiff to cease and desist the discharge of sewage which exceeded permit limits. On 1 June 1990, the defendant issued a Notice of Non-Compliance, which set a fine of $50,000.00 and gave the plaintiff 30 days to comply with the permit. Plaintiff was given 15 days to show cause as to why the permit should not be revoked. The City Manager, acting as hearing officer, presided over the Show Cause Hearing, requested by plaintiff, on 10 July 1990. In a decision rendered 25 July 1990, plaintiff was assessed penalties of $50,000.00, charged with $19,072.04 in enforcement costs, and required to post a $100,000.00 performance bond. On 30 July 1990, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant in Hoke County Superior Court seeking to challenge the hearing officer's findings. The complaint included a claim for damages, alleged various due process violations, and requested injunctive relief. On 24 August 1990, defendant filed a motion to dismiss alleging, among other things, lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

On 28 August 1990, plaintiff filed an amended and restated complaint which added claims and corrected clerical errors found in the original complaint. A preliminary injunction was granted on 30 August 1990 until the trial court could make a final decision on the merits. On 29 August 1990 and 13 September 1990, defendant renewed its motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On 20 September 1990, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint which included among other claims a petition for writ of certiorari and two claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). On 28 September 1990, the trial court denied plaintiff's motion for leave to amend its complaint and dismissed the action in its entirety for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

On appeal, plaintiff contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying its motion for leave to amend the complaint. We find no abuse of discretion. Pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend any pleading once without leave of court if amended prior to the time a responsive pleading is served, but with respect to additional amendments, "a party may amend his pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires." N.C.Gen.Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 15(a) (1990). This rule reflects the general policy of allowing an action to proceed to a determination on the merits. Johnson v. Johnson, 14 N.C.App. 40, 42, 187 S.E.2d 420, 421 (1972). A motion to amend is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge and the denial of such motion is not reviewable absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion. Chicopee, Inc. v. Sims Metal Works, 98 N.C.App. 423, 430, 391 S.E.2d 211, 216, disc. review denied, 327 N.C. 426, 395 S.E.2d 674 (1990). Furthermore, "[a] ruling committed to a trial court's discretion is to be accorded great deference and will be upset only upon a showing that it was so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision." White v. White, 312 N.C. 770, 777, 324 S.E.2d 829, 833 (1985). The trial judge is not required to set forth specific reasons for denial of a motion to amend. Chicopee, 98 N.C.App. at 430, 391 S.E.2d at 216. Some reasons which would justify a denial, however, include: (a) undue delay, (b) bad faith, (c) undue prejudice, (d) futility of amendment, and (e) repeated failure to cure defects by previous amendments. Id.

In the present case, the trial judge elected not to specify the particular reasons underlying the denial of plaintiff's motion to amend, nor was he required to do so. The order of dismissal indicates that the court considered the possibility of undue prejudice to the defendant as a factor in its decision. Our courts have recognized the potential for undue prejudice as a valid basis for the court's exercise of discretion in denying a motion to amend. Id. Contrary to plaintiff's assertion, we find no abuse of discretion in this case and uphold the trial court's denial of plaintiff's motion to amend.

Plaintiff additionally challenges on appeal the granting of defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We conclude that plaintiff's first amended...