Innis Arden Golf Club v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 3:06 CV 1352 (JBA).

• Decision Date: 04 March 2008
• Docket Number: No. 3:06 CV 1352 (JBA).,3:06 CV 1352 (JBA).
• Parties: INNIS ARDEN GOLF CLUB v. PITNEY BOWES, INC. et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut

541 F.Supp.2d 480

INNIS ARDEN GOLF CLUB v. PITNEY BOWES, INC. et al.

No. 3:06 CV 1352 (JBA).

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

March 4, 2008.

Robert W. Allen, Robert B. Flynn, Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn, LLP, New Haven, CT, for Innis Arden Golf Club.

Diane Woodfield Whitney, Lee D. Hoffman, Pullman & Comley, Andrew N. Davis, Kevin M. Lenehan, Leboeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, Doug Dubitsky, Eileen Patricia Conneely, David J. Monz, Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C., Hartford, CT, Maciej A. Piatkowski, Michael T. Ryan, James A. Mahar, Ryan, Ryan, Johnson & Deluca, Amanda B. Gilman, Carol L. Dudnick, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, John R. Harness, Law Office of John R. Harness, Stamford, CT, Jason G. Degenaro, Louis J. Bonsangue, Jacobi & Case, Milford, CT, David J. Freeman, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, James J. Reardon, Jr., Deway & Leboeuf LLP, New York, NY, for Pitney Bowes, Inc. et al.

RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S DEMAND FOR A TRIAL BY JURY

JOAN GLAZER MARGOLIS, United States Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Innis Arden Golf Club commenced this action on August 30, 2006 (Dkt. # 1), which Complaint was superseded by an Amended Complaint, filed on September 20, 2006 (Dkt. # 4), and a Second Amended Complaint, filed on November 13, 2006 (Dkt. # 57), in which plaintiff alleges that its property was contaminated by hazardous substances released from property owned and/or controlled by defendants. Specifically, plaintiff asserts the following claims: against defendants Pitney Bowes, Inc. and Pateley Associates 1, LLC (which own and/or control property adjacent to plaintiff) — violation of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601(9) (Count One), nuisance (Count Two) and violations of CONN. GEN.STAT. §§ 22a-427 and 22a-452 (Counts Three-Four); against defendants 375 Fairfield Avenues Associates, LLC, Irving Goldblum, and Murray, David, Charles, Laura, and Maxine Goldblum [collectively "the Goldblums"]¹ (who own and/or control property up-gradient from plaintiff) — violations of CONN. GEN.STAT. §§ 22a-427 and 22a-452 (Counts Five-Six, Eight-Nine, Eleven-Twelve) and nuisance (Counts Seven, Ten, Thirteen); against defendant Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company (which owns and/or controls property adjacent to plaintiff) — nuisance (Count Fourteen) and violations of CONN. GEN.STAT. §§ 22a-427 and 22a-452 (Counts Fifteen and Sixteen); against defendant Bronx Bar Supply Co., Inc. (which owns and/or controls property up-gradient from plaintiff) — nuisance (Count Sixteen), and violations of CONN. GEN.STAT. §§ 22a-427 and 22a-452 (Counts Eighteen and Nineteen); against defendant Global Development Enterprises, LLC (which owns and/or controls property up-gradient from plaintiff) — nuisance (Count Twenty) and violations of CONN. GEN.STAT. §§ 22a-427 and 22a-452 (Counts Twenty-One and Twenty-Two); and against all defendants — violation of CONN. GEN.STAT. § 22a-16 (Count Twenty-Three), and trespass (Count Twenty-Four). On September 28, 2007, 514 F.Supp.2d 328, United States District Judge Janet Bond Arterton issued her Ruling on Motions to Dismiss (Dkt. # 115), in which she dismissed Counts Three, Five, Eight, Eleven and Twenty-One, relating to negligence per se, under CONN. GEN.STAT. § 22a-427.

On December 19, 2007, defendants Pitney Bowes and Pateley Associates filed the pending Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Demand for a Trial by Jury. (Dkt. # 168). On January 7, 2008, the Goldblums filed their Motion for Joinder of the pending Motion to Strike (Dkt. # 171).² Three days later, 375 Fairfield Avenue Associates filed its Motion for Joinder (Dkt. # 173), which was followed by Global Development Enterprises' Motion for Joinder, filed on January 28, 2008 (Dkt. # 176), and Irving Goldblum's Motion for Joinder, filed January 31, 2008. (Dkt. # 178). On January 8, 2008, plaintiff filed its brief in opposition to defendants' Motion to Strike. (Dkt. # 172). One month later, on February 7, 2008, these pending motions were referred to this Magistrate Judge. (Dkt. # 186).³

For the reasons stated below, defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Demand for a Trial by Jury (Dkt. # 168) is granted. The Motions for Joinder (Dkts. ## 171, 173, 176, 178) are also granted.

I. DISCUSSION

The Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "[i]n Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of a jury shall be preserved." Where a party has properly demanded a jury trial, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(a)(2) provides that "[t]he trial on all issues so demanded must be by jury unless ... the court, on motion ... finds that on some or all of those issues there is no federal right to a jury trial."

The jury right applies to "suits in which legal rights are to be ascertained and determined, in contradistinction to those where equitable rights alone are recognized, and equitable remedies are administered." Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers, Local No. 391 v. Terry, 494 U.S. 558, 564, 110 S.Ct. 1339, 108 L.Ed.2d 519 1990 ["Terry"](emphasis, alterations, internal quotations & citation omitted). "To determine whether a particular action will resolve legal rights," the Court embarks on a two-part inquiry. Id. at 565, 110 S.Ct. 1339. "First, we compare the statutory action to the 18th-century actions brought in the courts of England prior to the merger of the courts of law and equity. Second, we examine the remedy sought and determine whether it is legal or equitable in nature." Id. (citations & internal quotations omitted); see also Germain v. Conn. Nat'l Bank, 988 F.2d 1323, 1328 (2d Cir.1993). "The second inquiry is the more important in our analysis." Terry, 494 U.S. at 565, 110 S.Ct. 1339 (citations omitted). "If the Court finds that even one of [p]laintiffs claims is legal, then absent the most imperative circumstances, ... [p]laintiff's right to a jury determination on that claim may not be abridged." King v. Fox, No. 97 Civ. 4134(RWS), 2007 WL 4207202, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2007) (citation & internal quotations omitted). With the foregoing in mind, the Court now addresses plaintiffs claims.

A. CERCLA COUNT

In Count One of plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint, plaintiff asserts a CERCLA claim, 42 U.S.C. § 9607 against defendants Pitney Bowes and Pateley Associates. Plaintiff "concedes that the current weight of authority would suggest that there is no right to a jury trial in an action brought pursuant to CERCLA." (Dkt. # 172-2, at 2).

B. STATE STATUTORY CLAIMS

Plaintiff brings claims against defendants Pitney Bowes, Pateley Associates, 375 Fairfield Avenue Associates, Irving Goldblum and the Goldblums, Bronx Bar Supply, and Global Development Enterprises for violations of CONN. GEN.STAT. § 22a-452 (Counts Four, Six, Nine, Twelve, Sixteen, Nineteen, Twenty-Two), and against all defendants for violation of CONN. GEN.STAT. § 22a-16 (Count Twenty-Three). Plaintiff concedes that its action under § 22a-16 is for declaratory and injunctive relief, and that § 22a-16 is clearly a statute providing only equitable and declaratory relief. (Dkt. #172-2, at 2). However, as for § 22a-452, plaintiff asserts that this is a statute providing an action for damages against entities or individuals "who are nothing more than, under the common law, tortfeasors." (Dkt. # 172-2, at 2)(footnote omitted).

Section 22a-452 of the Water Pollution Control Act provides for reimbursement for containment or removal costs and the associated liability for acts of mitigation or the lack thereof; however, the statute does not specify whether such cause of action preserves the right to a jury trial. It is well settled that the question of right to jury trial, even on state claims, is to be decided as a matter of federal law. See Simler v. Conner, 372 U.S. 221, 222, 83 S.Ct. 609, 9 L.Ed.2d 691 (1963). Further, when state-created rights are enforced in the federal courts, the federal courts are not bound by state jury practices. Id. As the U.S. Supreme Court explained in Simler:

[T]he right to a jury trial in the federal courts is to be determined as a matter of federal law in diversity as well as other actions.... In diversity cases, of course, the substantive dimension of the claim asserted finds its source in state law ... but the characterization of that statecreated claim as legal or equitable for purposes of whether a right to jury trial is indicated must be made by recourse to federal law.

Id. (multiple citations omitted); see also Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Elec. Co-op., Inc., 356 U.S. 525, 538, 78 S.Ct. 893, 2 L.Ed.2d 953 (1958)("[T]here is a strong federal policy against allowing state rules to disrupt the judge-jury relationship in the federal courts."). Thus, this Court must undertake its Terry analysis, emphasizing the remedy sought under this § 22a-452, and then determine whether a right to jury trial exists under federal law.⁴ Therefore, an examination of Section 22a-452 is required.

"[I]t is well established that remedial environmental statutes, such as § 22a-452(a) are to be construed liberally in order to effectuate the legislature's intent...." ATC P'ship v. Coats N. Am. Consol, Inc., 284 Conn. 537, 549, 935 A.2d 115 (2007)(multiple citations omitted). As the Connecticut Supreme Court acknowledged, the "clear purpose of [the reimbursement provision of § 22a — 152(a)] is to encourage parties to pay for remediation by providing them with an opportunity to recoup at least some of their remediation costs from others who are also found to be responsible for the contamination." Knight v. F.L. Roberts & Co., Inc., 241 Conn. 466, 475, 696 A.2d 1249 (1997)(footnote omitted). While plaintiff contends that it is seeking money damages, the "broad remedial purpose" of this statutory provision is a remedy akin to restitution, an equitable form of relief. Id.; see Brown v. Sandimo Materials, 250 F.3d 120, 126 (2d Cir.2001). Furthermore, in addition to the recognition of restitution as an...