No Spray Coalition Inc. v. City of NY
| Decision Date | 01 August 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 823--,Docket No. 00-9368,DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES,PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,823-- |
| Citation | 252 F.3d 148 |
| Parties | (2nd Cir. 2001) NO SPRAY COALITION, INC., NATIONAL COALITION AGAINST THE MISUSE OF PESTICIDES, INC., DISABLED IN ACTION, INC., SAVE ORGANIC STANDARDS OF NEW YORK BY ITS PRESIDENT HOWARD BRANDSTEIN, VALERIE SHEPPARD, MITCHEL COHEN, ROBERT LEDERMAN, AND EVA YAA ASANTEWAA,, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, RUDOLPH GIULIANI, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEAL COHEN, COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, AND RICHARD SHEIRER, COMMISSIONER OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FOR THE CITY OF NEW YORK, |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Martin, J.), denying plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
Affirmed.
Karl S. Coplan, Pace Environmental Litigation Clinic, Inc., White Plains, N.Y. (Christopher Rizzo, Joel R. Kupferman and Beth Wilson, on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
George Gutwirth, Office of the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, N.Y. (Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York and Francis F. Caputo, Assistant Corporation Counsel, on the brief), for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Jacobs, Parker and Katzmann, Circuit Judges.
In an effort to control West Nile Virus--a fatal, mosquito-borne disease--the City of New York last summer undertook an insecticide spraying program, and may renew that program in the summer of 2001. Plaintiffs appeal an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Martin, J.), denying, inter alia, a preliminary injunction against the renewed spraying and dismissing their claim under the citizen suit provision of the Resource Conservation Recovery Act ("RCRA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 6972(a)(1)(A) and (B). Our jurisdiction extends to the district court's denial of the preliminary injunctive relief as well as the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a); SmithKline Beecham Consumer Healthcare, L.P. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, 211 F.3d 21, 25 (2d Cir. 2000) ().
The RCRA provides for an injunction where:
the past or present handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of any solid or hazardous waste [] may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment . . . .
Id. § 6972(a) (emphasis added). The term "solid waste"
means any garbage, refuse, sludge, from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material
. . . .
Id. § 6903(27) (emphasis added).
Plaintiffs claim, in essence, that (i) the spraying of the pesticides constitutes the "disposal" of a "solid waste" in a manner that renders it "discarded material" causing "imminent and substantial endangerment" to people, and (ii) the spraying into the air of densely populated areas is in violation of the label instructions and this improper use constitutes disposal of a hazardous solid waste without a permit, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 6925(a).
We review the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion, see SG Cowan Securities Corp. v. Messih, 224 F.3d 79, 81 (2d Cir. 2000), and we are "free to affirm an appealed decision on any ground [that] finds support in the record." Beal v. Stern, 184 F.3d 117, 122 (2d Cir. 1999).
Ordinarily, a preliminary injunction may be granted when the party seeking the injunction establishes that "1) absent injunctive relief, it will suffer irreparable harm, and 2) either a) that it is likely to succeed on the merits, or b) that there are sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation, and that the balance of hardships tips decidedly in favor of the moving party." Otokoyama Co. Ltd. v. Wine of Japan Import, Inc., 175 F.3d 266, 270 (2d Cir. 1999). But when, as here, the moving party seeks a preliminary injunction that will affect "government action taken in the public interest pursuant to a statutory or regulatory scheme, the injunction should be granted only if the moving party meets the more rigorous likelihood-of-success standard." Beal, 184 F.3d at 122 (internal quotations omitted). And, when the injunction sought "will alter rather than maintain the status quo" the movant must show "clear" or "substantial" likelihood of success. Rodriquez v. DeBuono, 175 F.3d 227, 233 (2d Cir. 1999) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying injunctive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robar v. Vill. of Potsdam Bd. of Trs.
...of success on the merits." Mastrovincenzo v. City of New York, 435 F. 3d 78, 89 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting No Spray Coalition, Inc. v. City of New York, 252 F.3d 148, 150 (2d Cir. 2001) ).Upon the parties’ consent, the Court adjudicates Plaintiff's motions for a temporary restraining order and......
-
J.B. v. Onondaga Cnty.
...movant must demonstrate a " ‘clear’ or ‘substantial’ likelihood of success on the merits," id. (quoting No Spray Coalition, Inc. v. City of New York, 252 F.3d 148, 150 (2d Cir. 2001) ), and must make a "strong showing" of irreparable harm. Schneiderman, 787 F.3d at 650.5 Plaintiffs seek an ......
-
In re Starlink Corn Products Liability Litigation
...no federal private right of action to redress FIFRA violations. Only the EPA has standing to enforce it. No Spray Coalition, Inc. v. City of New York, 252 F.3d 148, 150 (2d Cir.2001). FIFRA does not, however, prevent states from creating civil remedies for violating the federal standard. Se......
-
Cohn v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
...remedy and should not be routinely granted." Patton v. Dole, 806 F.2d 24, 28 (2d Cir.1986); accord No Spray Coalition, Inc. v. City of New York, 252 F.3d 148, 150 (2d Cir.2001). Normally, "[a] party seeking a preliminary injunction in this Circuit must show: (1) irreparable harm in the abse......
-
Plain Meaning, Precedent, and Metaphysics: Interpreting the 'Pollutant' Element of the Federal Water Pollution Offense
...pollutants. he Second Circuit stated that the ques- 108. No Spray Coalition v. City of New York, 2000 WL 1401458 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), rev’d , 252 F.3d 148, 31 ELR 20707 (2d Cir. 2001). 109. he district court noted that the citizens iled suit “despite the unusual unanimity of governmental agency......
-
Pollutant
...FIFRA §§2(j) & 3(a), 7 U.S.C. §§136(j) & 136a(a). 108. No Spray Coalition v. City of New York, 2000 WL 1401458 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), rev’d , 252 F.3d 148, 31 ELR 20707 (2d Cir. 2001). 109. he district court noted that the citizens iled suit “despite the unusual unanimity of governmental agency o......
-
Environmental crimes.
...a point source discharge, even if it does not come from the land application area). But see No Spray Coalition, Inc. v. City of New York, 252 F.3d 148, 150 (2d Cir. 2001) (holding trucks and helicopters may be point sources, but they are not within reach of CWA if their emissions reach navi......
-
Environmental crimes.
...is a point source discharge, even if it does not come from the land application area). But see No Spray Coal, Inc. v. City of New York, 252 F.3d 148, 150 (2d Cir. 2001) (holding trucks and helicopters may be point sources, but they are not within reach of CWA if their emissions reach naviga......