Jenkins v. Meta Platforms Inc.
| Docket Number | 3:22-CV-72 (CAR) |
| Decision Date | 30 June 2023 |
| Parties | JULIE G JENKINS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. META PLATFORMS INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Georgia |
ORDER ON DEFENDANT BRUCE'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMEND, AND DEFENDANT MOHAMED'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Currently before the Court are Defendant Daniel Bruce's (“Bruce”) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,[1]Plaintiffs Julie Jenkins' and James Gunn's (collectively “Plaintiffs”) Motion to Amend their Complaint, and Defendant Adan Mohamed's (“Mohamed”) Motion to Dismiss. Having considered the record, the parties' briefs, and applicable law Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend [Doc. 47] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part Bruce's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. 33] is DENIED as moot,[2] and Mohamed's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 57] is GRANTED.[3]
Plaintiffs filed this action on July 7, 2022, seeking damages and injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) and Georgia law against Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”), Holder Construction Company, Plateau Excavation, Inc., the Alif Defendants, and Bruce.[4] Plaintiffs' claims arise out of an agreement between the Alif Defendants and Bruce to transport excavated red clay from the Meta project site in Newton County, Georgia to Bruce's Property in Morgan County, Georgia.[5] Plaintiffs allege the dumping occurred without the legally required permits or adequate erosion and sedimentation controls, which ultimately resulted in “red clay-impacted discharge of storm water” into Rawlings Branch, the Gunn's pond, and the Jenkins' pond.[6]
Bruce moved for judgment on the pleadings on Plaintiffs' CWA and state-law negligence and negligence per se claims. Shortly after, Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to address the deficiencies raised in Bruce's Motion. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to add factual allegations to support their claims and to sufficiently allege a discharge from a point source and a continuing violation of the CWA.
Bruce opposes Plaintiffs' Motion and contends it was filed with undue delay and should be denied as futile. Mohamed moved to join Bruce's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and moved separately to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims against him as an impermissible shotgun pleading and for failure to state a claim.
Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend its pleading “once as a matter of course” when no responsive pleading has been served.[7]For the purposes of this rule, a motion to dismiss is not considered a responsive pleading.[8]If, however, a responsive pleading has been served and the adverse parties do not consent to the amendment, a party may amend its pleading only by leave of court.[9] In such circumstances, leave of court should be “freely give[n] when justice so requires.”[10]
Substantial reasons justifying a denial of a timely filed motion for leave to amend include “undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive on the part of the movant, [ ] undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment [and] futility of allowance of the amendment.”[11]The standard for futility is akin to a motion to dismiss. A proposed amendment may be denied for futility “when the complaint as amended would still be properly dismissed.”[12] Thus, the Court must construe the proposed amended complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and accept as true all well-pled facts in a plaintiff's complaint.[13] The decision whether to grant leave to amend a complaint is within the sound discretion of the district court,[14] and “[o]rdinarily, a party must be given at least one opportunity to amend before the district court dismisses the complaint.”[15]
On a motion to dismiss, the Court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and accept as true all well-pled facts in a plaintiff's complaint.[16]To avoid dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'”[17]A claim is plausible where the plaintiff alleges factual content that “allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”[18] The plausibility standard requires that a plaintiff allege sufficient facts “to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence” that supports a plaintiff's claims.[19]
Bruce contends Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend was filed with undue delay and should be denied as futile.[20] Plaintiffs argue the Motion was timely filed, and the proposed Amended Complaint addresses the deficiencies raised in Bruce's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.[21]
I. Undue Delay
Bruce contends Plaintiffs' Motion was filed with undue delay because “Plaintiffs have known of the legal deficiencies in their Complaint since at least August 12, 2022, when then-defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss.”[22] The Court disagrees. “Although [l]eave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires, a motion to amend may be denied on numerous grounds such as undue delay, undue prejudice to the defendants, and futility of the amendment.”[23] But the Eleventh Circuit has noted “generally, the mere passage of time, without more, is an insufficient reason to deny leave to amend a complaint.”[24]
While Bruce and Meta raised similar arguments in their respective motions, Meta's Motion became moot when the Court granted the parties' consent motion to drop Meta as a party to this lawsuit.[25]Furthermore, discovery in this case has not yet begun, and this is the first time Plaintiffs moved to amend their Complaint. Plaintiffs sought leave to amend to address the deficiencies raised in Bruce's Motion and did so in a timely manner. Thus, the Court finds no undue delay in the filing of Plaintiffs' Motion.
II. Clean Water Act Claim
Bruce contends Plaintiffs' Motion should be denied as futile because the proposed Amended Complaint fails to sufficiently allege an ongoing violation or a discharge from a point source.[26] Specifically, Bruce argues the alleged discharges are exempt from the CWA's definition of point source as agricultural stormwater discharge.[27] Plaintiffs counter their proposed Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges an ongoing violation and a discharge from a point source because the CWA's agricultural stormwater discharge exemption does not apply.[28]For the purposes of this Motion, the Court agrees.
The CWA confers jurisdiction over citizen suits “for ongoing or continuous violations, not for those that are wholly in the past.”[29]Thus, for jurisdictional purposes, the plaintiff must allege “a state of either continuous or intermittent violation-that is, a reasonable likelihood that a past polluter will continue to pollute in the future.”[30] “To establish a CWA violation, the plaintiffs must prove that (1) there has been a discharge; (2) of a pollutant; (3) into waters of the United States; (4) from a point source; (5) without a NPDES permit.”[31]
Plaintiffs sufficiently allege an ongoing violation. Plaintiffs allege the “pollution of Rawlings Branch, Jenkins Pond, and Gunn Pond consisting of discharges of red clay polluted storm water into Rawlings Branch from point source ditches, channels, and other conveyances on and downgradient from the Bruce property, which resulted from the dumping of red clay waste on the Bruce property, served to pollute its waters during and following storm events, and was continuing as of the July 7, 2022 filing of the original Complaint.”[32] As this Court held in Flint Riverkeeper, “a good-faith allegation of violations that continued at the time suit was filed is sufficient for jurisdictional purposes.”[33] Here, Plaintiffs' allegations satisfy this “low standard.”[34]
Bruce next contends that the alleged discharges fall under the CWA's agricultural stormwater discharge exception and are thus, not discharges from a point source.[35]Plaintiffs argue the agricultural stormwater discharge exception does not apply, and the proposed Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges a discharge from a point source. Based on Plaintiffs' allegations, the Court cannot find as a matter of law at this stage of the proceedings that the agricultural stormwater discharge exception applies or that Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege a discharge from a point source.
A point source is “any discernable, confined, and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, [or] container . . . from which pollutants are or may be discharged.”[36] But the term “point source” does not include “agricultural stormwater discharges and return flows from irrigated agriculture.”[37] A nonpoint source, in contrast, refers to pollution arising ( ) that is “not traceable to any single discrete source.”[38] In the Eleventh Circuit, courts “interpret the term ‘point source' broadly.”[39]
Bruce asks the Court to take judicial notice of tax records identifying approximately ninety-three acres of Bruce's property as “Agland 93”...
To continue reading
Request your trial