State v. Rri Energy Mid-Atlantic Power Holdings, LLC, Civil Action No. 07–cv–05298.
| Decision Date | 28 March 2013 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 07–cv–05298. |
| Citation | 960 F.Supp.2d 512 |
| Parties | State of NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff v. RRI ENERGY MID–ATLANTIC POWER HOLDINGS, LLC, RRI Energy Power Generation, Inc., Sithe Energies, Inc., now known as Dynegy, Inc., and Metropolitan Edison Co., Defendants and State of Connecticut, Intervenor–Plaintiff v. RRI Energy Mid–Atlantic Power Holdings, LLC, RRI Energy Power Generation, Inc., Sithe Energies, Inc., now known as Dynegy, Inc., and Metropolitan Edison Co., Intervenor–Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Ruth E. Musetto, Esquire, Lisa J. Morelli, Esquire, Jon C. Martin, Esquire, Aaron A. Love, Esquire, for plaintiff State of New Jersey.
Scott Koschwitz, Esquire, for intervenor-plaintiff State of Connecticut.
David H. Quigley, Esquire, Paul E. Gutermann, Esquire, for defendant Metropolitan Edison Co.
David A. Super, Esquire, A. Kent Mayo, Esquire, William M. Bumpers, Esquire, Michael B. Schon, Esquire, for defendants RRI Energy Mid–Atlantic Power Holdings, LLC; RRI Energy Power Generation, Inc.; and Sithe Energies, Inc.
This matter is before the court on Defendant Metropolitan Edison Company's Motion for Summary Judgment filed July 27, 2012.
For the reasons expressed below, I grant Defendant Metropolitan Edison Company's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismiss plaintiffs claims asserted against defendant Metropolitan Edison Co. (“MetEd”).
Specifically, I conclude that the applicable statute of limitations bars all of plaintiffs claims asserted against MetEd. More specifically, I conclude that based on the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Gabelli v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 568 U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1216, 185 L.Ed.2d 297 (2013), the discovery rule does not apply to the applicable statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2462 for actions seeking civil penalties.
Moreover, I conclude that plaintiffs have failed to provide sufficient evidence to toll the statute of limitations based on the doctrine of equitable tolling because plaintiffs have not produced any evidence that MetEd concealed its allegedly unlawful conduct from plaintiffs.
Finally, I conclude that the continuing violations doctrine, even if generally applicable to violations of the Clean Air Act, does not provide a basis to permit plaintiffs to recover for MetEd's alleged unlawful conduct because all of MetEd's conduct occurred outside the applicable statute of limitations period.
Accordingly, because none of plaintiffs' claims against MetEd were filed within the applicable five-year statute of limitations, and because plaintiffs have not established a basis for tolling the limitations period, I grant MetEd's motion for summary judgment and dismiss plaintiffs' claims against MetEd.
Jurisdiction in this case is based upon federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the events giving rise to plaintiff's claims allegedly occurred in Northampton County, Pennsylvania, which is located within this judicial district.
Plaintiff, the State of New Jersey, initiated this action on December 18, 2007 by filing an eight-count civil Complaint against Reliant Energy Mid–Atlantic Power Holdings, LLC, Reliant Energy Power Generation, Inc., Reliant Energy, Inc., Centerpoint Energy, Sithe Energies, Inc., Metropolitan Edison Co., and GPU, Inc. The claims arose from defendants' alleged construction or operation of the Portland Generating Station (“Portland Plant” or “the Plant”), a coal-fired power plant located in Upper Mount Bethel Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania, across the Delaware River from Warren County, New Jersey.
Specifically, New Jersey's claims arose from the construction or operation of the Portland Plant without permits required by the Clean Air Act (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7470–7503, and the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan, which incorporates the federal program at 40 C.F.R. Part 52, Subpart NN, §§ 52.2020 to 52.2063.
On December 4, 2008, New Jersey filed its First Amended Complaint which asserted eleven-counts against defendants Reliant Energy Mid–Atlantic Power Holdings, LLC., Reliant Energy Power Generation, Inc., Sithe Energies, now known as Dynegy, Inc. (collectively the “GenOn defendants”) 1, and Metropolitan Edison Co. (“MetEd”).
On February 19, 2009, the GenOn defendants filed a motion to dismiss Counts 1–5 and 7–11 of the First Amended Complaint. That same day, MetEd filed a motion to dismiss New Jersey's entire First Amended Complaint.
On October 31, 2008, the State of Connecticut filed a motion to intervene. By Order dated March 24, 2009, I granted the motion and directed Connecticut to conform its complaint-in-intervention to New Jersey's First Amended Complaint and gave Connecticut until April 3, 2009 to file its complaint-in-intervention.
On April 3, 2009, Connecticut filed its complaint-in-intervention, styled “Amended Complaint”, against the GenOn defendants and MetEd.2 New Jersey's First Amended Complaint and Connecticut's First Amended Complaint–in–Intervention sought the same relief based on the same allegations.
On April 23, 2009, MetEd filed a motion to dismiss Connecticut's First Amended Complaint–in–Intervention. On April 27, 2009, the GenOn defendants filed a motion to dismiss Counts 1–5 and 7–11 of the complaint-in-intervention.
MetEd's motions to dismiss sought dismissal of Counts 5, 6 and 11 because the alleged modifications were made after MetEd was no longer the owner of the Portland Plant. MetEd sought dismissal of Counts 1–4 and 7–9 as barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
The GenOn defendants sought dismissal of Counts 1–5 and 7–11 of the complaints. Specifically, the GenOn defendants contended that plaintiffs failed to state a claim in those counts because the GenOn defendants did not own or operate the Portland Plant at the time the modifications to the Plant were made. Additionally, the GenOn defendants contended that those claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
By Order, 2010 WL 3958777 and accompanying Opinion, 2009 WL 3234438 dated September 30, 2009 I granted in part and denied in part MetEd's and the GenOn defendants' motions to dismiss. Specifically, I granted each motion to dismiss to the extent it sought dismissal of Count 11.3
I granted MetEd's motion to dismiss to the extent it sought dismissal of plaintiffs claims for injunctive relief against it.4 I also dismissed as moot MetEd's motion to dismiss Counts 5–6 and 10 of each complaint because plaintiffs indicated that they were not pursuing those claims against MetEd, but rather were only seeking relief in Counts 5, 6 and 10 from the GenOn defendants.5
I denied MetEd's motion to dismiss in all other respects. In doing so, I specifically held that the discovery rule could be applied to toll the statute of limitations applicable to plaintiffs' claims. I concluded that based on the face of plaintiffs' complaints, it was not clear when plaintiffs learned, or should have learned, of the alleged Clean Air Act violations. I also held that dismissal based on the statute of limitations was not appropriate because plaintiffs could present evidence to establishthat the statute of limitations was tolled based on the doctrine of equitable tolling.
I granted the GenOn defendants' motions to dismiss to the extent each sought to strike certain paragraphs from New Jersey's First Amended Complaint and Connecticut's First Amended Complaint–in–Intervention.6
However, I denied the GenOn defendants' motions to dismiss in all other respects. In doing so, I concluded, like I had in denying MetEd's motions to dismiss, that the discovery rule could serve to toll the applicable statute of limitations period for plaintiffs' claims against the GenOn defendants. I also held that an owner or operator of a plant could be held liable under the Clean Air Act because the preceding owner of the plant failed to secure the appropriate permit and that the prevention of significant deterioration (“PSD”) provisions imposed ongoing obligations on owners and operators.7
On October 28, 2009 defendants answered New Jersey's First Amended Complaint and Connecticut's First Amended Complaint–in–Intervention. After conducting substantial discovery, on June 28, 2011 plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.
By Order dated October 6, 2011 and filed October 11, 2011 I granted plaintiffs' motion. On October 14, 2011 New Jersey filed its Second Amended Complaint and Connecticut filed its Second Amended Complaint–in–Intervention. 8
On November 14, 2011 defendants filed their respective answers to the complaints.9 After conducting additional discovery, on July 27, 2012 MetEd filed the within motion for summary judgment assertingthat it is entitled to judgment on all of the remaining claims against it.
On August 17, 2012 New Jersey and Connecticut each filed responses in opposition to MetEd's summary judgment motion. On September 17, 2012 MetEd filed a reply brief in support of its motion for summary judgment and on October 2, 2012 New Jersey filed a surreply.
On November 1, 2012 plaintiffs each filed a motion for partial summary judgment, in which they asserted that they were entitled to judgment on Claims 4 and 7. Also on November 1, 2012 the GenOn defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment, in which they sought judgment on Claims 6, 10, 11 and 12.10
On February 22, 2013 I heard oral argument on all of the summary judgment motions in this case and took each motion under advisement. During oral argument, the GenOn defendants sought to join MetEd's motion for summary judgment.11
On February 27, 2013 the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Gabelli v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 568 U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1216, 185 L.Ed.2d 297 (2013). That same day, MetEd sought...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harpeth River Watershed Ass'n v. City of Franklin, 3:14-1743
...as well, including Sierra Club v. DTE Energy Co., 2014 WL 29127 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 3, 2014) and New Jersey v. RRI Energy Mid-Atlantic Power Holdings, LLC, 960 F. Supp. 2d 512, 514 (E.D. Pa. 2013). See also, United States v. Rutherford Oil Corp., 756 F. Supp. 2d 782, 788-89 (S.D. Tex. 2010) ("......
-
U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. John T. Place, Paul G. Kirk, John P. Kirk, Global Transition Solutions, Inc., CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-4291
...Gabelli, 568 U.S. at 448 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also New Jersey v. RRI Energy Mid-Atl. Power Holdings, LLC, 960 F. Supp. 2d 512, 524 (E.D. Pa. 2013) (Gardner, J.) (citing Haughey, 646 F.3d at 146) ("[A] claim accrues when all elements of the cause of action hav......