Individuals for Responsible Government, Inc. v. Washoe County By and Through the Bd. of County Com'rs
| Citation | 110 F.3d 699 |
| Decision Date | 14 February 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-17264,95-17264 |
| Parties | , 27 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,029, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2443, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4367 INDIVIDUALS FOR RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT, INC., a non-profit Nevada corporation; Janice Buse; Hilary Burson; June Link, individuals, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WASHOE COUNTY, By and through the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS of the County of Washoe; Dianne Cornwall, Chairman; Larry Beck, Vice Chairman; Gene McDowell; Steve Bradhurst; Independent Sanitation Co., Inc., a Nevada corporation, Defendants-Appellees. . Submitted * |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Marc Picker, Reno, Nevada, for the plaintiffs-appellants.
Melanie Foster, Deputy District Attorney, Reno, Nevada; Frank Cassas, Marshall Hill Cassas & de Lipkau, Reno, Nevada, for the defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Edward C. Reed, Jr., District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-94-00526-ECR.
Before SNEED, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
As happens from time-to-time, this is a case with simple facts whose resolution involves complex legal doctrines. In 1991 and 1992, defendant/appellee Washoe County enacted ordinances that, inter alia, require residents in certain unincorporated areas of the County to subscribe to a garbage collection and disposal service offered by defendant/appellee Independent Sanitation Co., Inc. Plaintiffs/appellants Individuals for Responsible Government, Inc., Janice Buse, Hilary Burson and June Link claim that these ordinances violate Nevada statutes and the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. They also claim that the County's curbside recycling program violates the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants/appellees on all counts. We affirm.
Washoe County, Nevada, like many other environmentally concerned communities, confronts a problem stemming from the illegal dumping of trash at sites other than approved dump sites. In response to this problem, the Board of County Commissioners ("Commissioners"), in November 1991, enacted ordinance 838 to amend chapter 90 of the County Code. Ordinance 838 provides that the County and its authorized agents or contractees "have the exclusive right to gather, collect and haul garbage" in certain unincorporated areas in Washoe County. It also provides that "[e]very owner of real property who accumulates or causes the accumulation of garbage ... must subscribe to the [services for] collection, hauling and disposal of garbage" provided by the county through Independent Sanitation Co., its exclusive franchisee. 1
In April 1992 the Commissioners enacted ordinance 848, which further amends chapter 90 of the County Code. Ordinance 848 creates an exemption from mandatory subscription to Independent Sanitation's garbage service for those owners and occupants of residential dwelling units who prefer to dispose of their own garbage. To qualify for such an exemption, these residents must haul their garbage "to an approved disposal site not less than every 7 calendar days." Independent Sanitation maintains the right to bill, on a quarterly basis, those who have been exempted. However, an exempt resident need not pay the bill provided that he submits to Independent Sanitation "receipts or other proof showing that he has disposed of his garbage at an approve [sic] disposal site for each week within the previous quarter."
The enforcement of ordinances 838 and 848 encountered difficulties. Prior to their passage, approximately 12,000 of Washoe County's 16,000 rural households subscribed to Independent Sanitation's garbage service, while approximately 4000 rural residents elected to dump their own trash. There are two legal dump sites in Washoe County, Nevada: the "Lockwood" landfill, located east of Reno, and the "Reno transfer station," located in the city of Reno. Independent Sanitation and its affiliate Reno Disposal Co. maintain and operate both dump sites. Despite these legal dumping options within Washoe County, prior to enactment of ordinances 838 and 848 many county residents preferred to dispose of their household garbage in California because the dump sites in Susanville and Portola, California were more convenient and cost effective than the options available in Washoe County.
In response to ordinance 848, approximately 400 residents received exemptions from mandatory collection, allowing them to dispose of their own garbage. However, some who initially obtained exemptions later had their exemptions revoked for failure to provide receipts documenting their weekly disposal of garbage. As of August, 1993, Reno Disposal Co. had filed suit in small claims court against 72 Washoe County residents who had failed to pay for their garbage service. Those subjected to suit included at least one person who refused to pay after his exemption was revoked.
Appellant June Link, among others, was angry about being brought into court and ordered to pay for a service that she neither wanted nor believed she needed. Appellants Hilary Burson and Janice Buse also object to being forced to pay for a service they do not want. Hence, in July 1994, appellants filed suit in state court, seeking a declaratory judgment that ordinances 838 and 848 are unconstitutional. Appellees removed the case to federal district court and filed motions for summary judgment. The district court granted appellees' motions for summary judgment in October, 1995. Appellants timely appealed.
The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1441. This court has
appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court's grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Bagdadi v. Nazar, 84 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir.1996).
Appellants claim that ordinances 838 and 848 violate the so-called "dormant" Commerce Clause, which limits the power of states to regulate interstate commerce. Their argument rests on invoking the possible claims of the operators of the California dump sites who are not parties in this proceeding. Such claims might rest on the Supreme Court's decision in C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, N.Y., 511 U.S. 383, 114 S.Ct. 1677, 128 L.Ed.2d 399 (1994), in which an ordinance that required "all solid waste to be processed at a designated transfer station before leaving the municipality," id. at 386, 114 S.Ct. at 1680, violated the Commerce Clause because it discriminated against interstate commerce by depriving competitors, including out-of-state firms, of access to a local market. Id. at 389, 114 S.Ct. at 1681-82. Their argument appears to be that the ordinance interferes with interstate commerce by preventing them from utilizing dump sites outside the State of Nevada. While we have serious reservations about the strength of this argument, we do not reach the merits of such a claim. Instead, we hold that appellants lack standing to raise a dormant Commerce Clause challenge.
First, appellant Individuals for Responsible Government, Inc. is a Nevada nonprofit corporation which appears to lack substance. An association, it is true, has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members when: "(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit." United Food and Commercial Workers v. Brown Group, --- U.S. ----, ----, 116 S.Ct. 1529, 1534, 134 L.Ed.2d 758 (1996) (quoting Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 343, 97 S.Ct. 2434, 2441, 53 L.Ed.2d 383 (1977)). However, the record in this case does not specify who are the members of Individuals for Responsible Government, Inc., nor does it specify the organization's purpose. Absent both purpose and members, it lacks any standing to sue.
The individual plaintiffs, Janice Buse, Hilary Burson, and June Link, lack standing to sue under the "dormant commerce clause." We shall address both the constitutional and prudential requirements for standing to bring this claim.
"[T]he irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements." Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 2136, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). These are that the plaintiffs must have suffered an injury in fact; that there be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and that it be likely that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Id. at 560-61, 112 S.Ct. at 2136-37.
Individual plaintiffs have met these requirements. They allege that Independent Sanitation has "been aggressively utilizing legal processes to force" them to pay for unwanted garbage collection services. In other words, they have been ordered to pay the bill for a service they do not want. That satisfies the "injury-in-fact" requirement. Moreover, there is a direct causal link between enactment of the challenged ordinances and the fact that appellants have been forced to pay for unwanted garbage collection services. Finally, a declaration that the ordinances are unconstitutional would clearly redress their injuries. Therefore, all three individual appellants meet the minimal constitutional standing requirements.
Apart from the constitutional requirements for standing, there is also a set of prudential principles that bear on the question of standing. Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation The Supreme Court has applied the zone of interests test most frequently in suits brought under the Administrative Procedure Act. See, e.g., Air Courier Conference of America v. American Postal Workers Union, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers Machinery, Inc. v. Washington Cty.
... ... WASHINGTON COUNTY, and ... City of Tigard, Respondents ... is reviewable solely under ORS 34.010 through ORS 34.100 (writ of review) in circuit court. WCC ... ordinance or resolution by the local government." ... Petitioner does not ... rise to takings claims); see also Individuals for Responsible Government, Inc. v. Washoe ... ...
-
Yakima Valley Mem'l Hosp. v. Wash. State Dep't of Health
... ... of need regimes part of the federal government's national [654 F.3d 924] health planning ... Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir.2011). 6 In ... Individuals for Responsible Gov't, Inc. v. Washoe Cnty., 110 ... and the free flow of goods and services through the several states; it is the economic interest ... to claims addressing a state or county's effort to erect barriers to interstate ... ...
-
Houlton Citizens' Coalition v. Town of Houlton
... ... in the selection of a local firm (Andino, Inc.) as its exclusive contractor, agreed to provide ... v. Hennepin County, 115 F.3d 1372, 1381-82 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, ... 629, 139 L.Ed.2d 609 (1997); Individuals for Responsible Gov't, Inc. v. Washoe County, 110 ... If a state or local government enters such uncharted waters and enacts a law ... out-of-state landfills without passing it through the Route 303 station and without paying tipping ... ...
-
Rodriguez v. California Highway Patrol
... ... 's Joint Legislative Task Force on Government Oversight on September 29, 1999, which alleges ... See Levine v. Diamanthuset, Inc., 950 F.2d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir.1991); In re ... 8(a). Buckey v. County of Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 794 (9th ... 2434, 53 L.Ed.2d 383 (1977); Individuals for Responsible Gov't, Inc. v. Washoe County, ... receiving federal assistance through the Department of Justice shall ... ...