Pine Ridge Recycling, Inc. v. Butts County, Ga.
Decision Date | 22 June 1994 |
Docket Number | C.A. No. 93-426-2-MAC (WDO). |
Parties | PINE RIDGE RECYCLING, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. BUTTS COUNTY, GEORGIA, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Georgia |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Stephen E. O'Day, Clark G. Sullivan, and George E. Butler, II, Atlanta, GA, for plaintiffs.
Joseph R. Cullens, Jack N. Sibley, H. Lane Young, II, and Nickolas P. Chilivis, Atlanta, GA, for defendants.
This action seeks to prevent Butts County, Georgia, its Board of Commissioners ("Board"), the Butts County Solid Waste Management Authority ("Authority"), and their individual members from opposing or otherwise interfering with the establishment of Pine Ridge's municipal solid waste landfill ("MSWLF"). Plaintiffs Pine Ridge Recycling, Inc. ("Pine Ridge") and Stephen Dale seek damages and injunctive relief against the defendants based upon violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act ("Sherman Act"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq., the Clayton Antitrust Act ("Clayton Act"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 12 et seq., the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq., the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. Art. 1, § 8, cl. 3, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, the relevant case law, and the record as a whole, the court issues the following order.
Pine Ridge was incorporated for the purpose of developing and operating MSWLFs within Georgia. Pine Ridge has purchased options on a 201 acre site in Butts County, Georgia, and plans to construct a "Subtitle D" MSWLF thereon. Defendant Butts County Solid Waste Management Authority currently operates a MSWLF in Butts County which disposes of waste generated in Butts and surrounding counties.
Effective in the early 1990s, federal regulations, known as "Subtitle D," tightened the requirements on MSWLFs. Instead of complying with "Subtitle D" requirements, many of the MSWLFs surrounding Butts County chose to gradually cease operations. The Butts County Authority's current MSWLF does not comply with "Subtitle D", but the county intends to build a MSWLF which satisfies the regulations.
In 1993, the Butts County Authority applied for and received a vertical expansion permit to continue receiving waste at the existing landfill until July 1, 1998. The vertical expansion permit allows the Authority to dispose of as much solid waste as it can intake until July 1998; the permit does not limit the tonnage disposed of at the site. Plaintiffs allege that, by virtue of the vertical expansion permit and the lack of other nearby MSWLFs, the Butts County Authority has a monopoly on the solid waste market within the Butts County Region, the area within thirty miles of the Butts MSWLF. Plaintiffs fear this monopoly could become intractable because state law requires cities and counties to develop solid waste disposal plans assuring adequate disposal capacity over the following ten-year period. See O.C.G.A. § 12-8-31.1.
The complaint alleges that defendants view the landfill enhanced with the vertical expansion permit as a profit-making enterprise which will allow the county to partially subsidize building a new MSWLF which complies with "Subtitle D" requirements. To take advantage of the profit potential of the existing landfill, defendants have entered into multi-year contracts with neighboring municipalities and counties and private waste generators.
Plaintiffs allege defendants have also used funds generated from the vertical expansion permit to actively oppose the permitting of Pine Ridge at its current site. Pine Ridge expects to be a competitor of Butts County's MSWLF. To avoid the competition, defendants allegedly engaged in a conspiracy to monopolize the area's solid waste market and have committed illegal acts to obstruct Pine Ridge from constructing its proposed MSWLF.
Before beginning construction, Pine Ridge must receive a permit from the Georgia Environmental Protection Division ("EPD").1 According to plaintiffs, defendants have falsely informed waste generators that Pine Ridge's permit application will fail and thus that they have no alternative but to contract with the Butts County landfill. In addition, defendants have threatened to charge higher tipping fees to those generators who do not cooperate in opposing Pine Ridge's permit application.
The complaint further alleges that defendants have unlawfully manipulated the permitting process in violation of RICO and in an effort to sustain their attempted monopoly of the solid waste market. Defendant's opposition allegedly includes the following actions.
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) attacks the legal sufficiency of the complaint. A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 2232-33, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-02, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)); Pataula Electric Membership Corp. v. Whitworth, 951 F.2d 1238, 1240 (11th Cir.1992). The court is to presume true all of the complaint's allegations and make all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Miree v. DeKalb County, Ga., 433 U.S. 25, 27 n. 2, 97 S.Ct. 2490, 2492 n. 2, 53 L.Ed.2d 557 (1977); Linder v. Portocarrero, 963 F.2d 332, 334 (11th Cir.1992); Duke v. Cleland, 5 F.3d 1399, 1402 (11th Cir.1993). The rules require nothing more than "a short and plain statement of the claim" that will give the defendant fair notice of the claims and the grounds upon which they are based. Conley, 355 U.S. at 47, 78 S.Ct. at 103.
The complaint seeks damages, a reasonable attorney's fee, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief against defendants based upon the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, RICO, the Commerce Clause, and § 1983.
Butts County, Georgia, its Board of Commissioners, the Butts County Solid Waste Management Authority, and their individual members are named as defendants in their official and individual capacities. As an initial matter, the court must decide if absolute legislative immunity insulates any or all of these individuals from suit. Brown v. Crawford County, Ga., 960 F.2d 1002, 1011 (11th Cir.1992) ( ). See also Marx v. Gumbinner, 855 F.2d 783, 788 (11th Cir.1988).
"The absolute immunity of legislators, in their legislative functions, ... now is well settled." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 807, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2732, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (citations omitted). The United States Supreme Court has extended absolute immunity to state legislators, Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 71 S.Ct. 783, 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951), and to regional legislators, Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391, 99 S.Ct. 1171, 59 L.Ed.2d 401 (1979), but has not reached the issue of immunity for local legislators. See Spallone v. United States, 493 U.S. 265, 278, 110 S.Ct. 625, 633-34, 107 L.Ed.2d 644 (1990). The Court cautioned, in Spallone, that "some of the same considerations on which the immunity doctrine is based must" be considered in cases involving local legislators. Spallone, 493 U.S. at 278, 110 S.Ct. at 634. Acknowledging this precedent, the Eleventh Circuit has extended absolute legislative immunity to local legislators in the performance of traditional legislative functions. Crawford County, 960 F.2d at 1011. See also Hernandez v. City of Lafayette, 643 F.2d 1188 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 907, 102 S.Ct. 1251, 71 L.Ed.2d 444 (1982). The court in Crawford County endorsed absolute legislative immunity for individual county commissioners, regardless of whether the plaintiff could establish a conspiracy or bad faith motive on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marshall v. City of Atlanta
...that the plaintiff himself must have been a target of and relied on a misrepresentation. In contrast, in Pine Ridge Recycling, Inc. v. Butts County, 855 F.Supp. 1264, 1274 (M.D.Ga.1994), the court determined that a plaintiff need not prove his own reliance, but may utilize a third party's r......
-
Topping v. Cohen
...(6th Cir. 1991)) (holding that a federal agency may not be sued under the federal RICO statute); Pine Ridge Recycling, Inc. v. Butts Cnty., Ga., 855 F. Supp. 1264, 1273-74 (M.D. Ga. 1994) (holding that state agencies cannot be held civilly liable under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) because they are i......
-
Bfi Waste System of North Am. v. Dekalb County, Ga
...James Emory, Inc., 883 F.Supp. 1546, 1564. BFI does not contest these conclusions. However, BFI relies on Pine Ridge Recycling v. Butts County, 855 F.Supp. 1264 (M.D.Ga.1994), for the proposition that "Georgia cannot grant its local governments the authority to violate the Commerce Clause."......
-
James Emory, Inc. v. Twiggs County, Ga.
...statutory scheme authorizing municipalities to conduct waste collection and disposal services. In Pine Ridge Recycling, Inc. v. Butts County, 855 F.Supp. 1264, 1271 (M.D.Ga.1994), the court found that "arguably, Georgia's grant of power to its solid waste authorities is comparable to simila......
-
The State Action Doctrine and Litigation Against State and Local Governments
...fees); Daniel v. Am. Bd. of Emergency Med., 988 F. Supp. 127, 191 n.63 (W.D.N.Y. 1996); Pine Ridge Recycling, Inc. v. Butts Cnty., 855 F. Supp. 1264, 1272 (M.D. Ga. 1994); Wicker, 673 F. Supp. at 186. Suits Against State and Local Government 123 entities are protected by the LGAA. 118 These......
-
Table of Cases
...Pa. 1993), 266, 267 Pierucci v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 418 F. Supp. 704 (W.D. Pa. 1976), 279, 280 Pine Ridge Recycling, Inc. v. Butts Cnty., 855 F. Supp. 1264 (M.D. Ga. 1994), 122 Pine Ridge Recycling, Inc. v. Butts Cnty., 864 F. Supp. 1338 (M.D. Ga. 1994), 120, 122 Pinhas v. Summit Health, Ltd.,......
-
Establishing injury "by reason of" racketeering activity: a critical analysis of the 11th Circuit's per se detrimental reliance requirement and its impact on RICO class actions.
...on competitor's fraudulent use of mails and wires to sell infringing goods); Pine Ridge Recycling, Inc. v. Butts Country, Georgia, 855 F. Supp. 1264, 1274 (M.D. Ga. 1994) (holding that where mail fraud is directed to a third party, reliance by that third party can proximately cause injury t......