Stevens v. St. Tammany Par. Gov't
| Decision Date | 23 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-928 SECTION "L" (1) |
| Parties | TERRI LEWIS STEVENS, AND JENNIFER AND CRAIG RIVERA v. THE ST. TAMMANY PARISH GOVERNMENT |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Pending before the Court is Defendant St. Tammany Parish Government's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, R. Doc. 65. Plaintiffs Terri Lewis Stevens and Jennifer and Craig Rivera did not file a formal response to this motion; instead they filed a document entitled "Opposition To The Motions To Dismiss [Doc. 65 And Doc. 66] as Moot and Based on the Authority Cited in the Memoranda Filed by Plaintiffs in Support of Their Motion to File Second Amended Complaint, for Expedited Hearing, and Objection to the Magistrate's Ruling." R. Doc. 101. On June 19, 2020, Defendant filed a Reply Memorandum in support of its Motion to Dismiss, R. Doc. 106. Having considered the parties' arguments and the applicable law, the Court now rules as follows.
Plaintiffs Terri Lewis Stevens, Craig Rivera, and Jennifer Rivera (collectively, "Plaintiffs") brought suit against Defendants St. Tammany Parish Government ("STPG") and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality ("LDEQ") for past and ongoing violations of the Clean Water Act ("CWA"), 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., and the Louisiana Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("LPDES") Permit No. LAR04000, as well as for a failure to enforce the permit, the CWA, and applicable laws of the state of Louisiana. R. Doc. 1 at 1. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the "sanitary sewer overflows . . . and other pollutants are conveyed by STPG drainage ditches to a catch basin" that flows to the Stevens' property, then the Rivera's property, and then into various "waters of the United States," and that this increases the storm and sewage burden on Plaintiffs' properties. R. Doc. 1 at 2. Plaintiffs also allege that LDEQ "has not met its obligations and has not prevented the STPG from discharging sewage, stormwater, and other pollutants into the water of the United States through [P]laintiffs' private properties." R. Doc. 1 at 3.
The procedural history in this case is set forth in an unusually large number of documents. There are thus far 135 documents. Navigating through this procedural history has been made exceedingly difficult by the various pleadings and attachments filed or attempted to be filed by the Plaintiffs, which were often described in nonresponsive terms. The Court will nevertheless endeavor to press on in an attempt to deal with the salient issues in this matter.
Plaintiffs filed their first Complaint in this Court on March 17, 2020, R. Doc. 1. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, enforcement measures, and other remedies against STPG and LDEQ. R. Docs. 1 at 2; 87-1 at 19-20. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek (1) an injunction requiring that STPG "cease the flow of any substance from its drainage ditches into and/or through [P]laintiffs' properties"; (2) an order that STPG comply with its obligations under the CWA, the LPDES permit, and Louisiana law; and (3) damages, plus interest and attorney's fees. R. Doc. 1 at 23. Moreover, Plaintiffs seek an order that LDEQ comply with its obligations under the CWA; and an order that LDEQ notify STPG of its alleged violations and require that STPG cease its violations. R. Doc. 1 at 23.
Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction on March 27, 2020, R. Doc. 15, and then a Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction against LDEQ on April 23, 2020. R. Doc. 36. Oral argument on these motions was heard on July 22, 2020. R. Doc. 180. Additionally, on April 29, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment against STPG. R. Doc. 48. The Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment as premature, since neither Defendant had at the time filed an Answer to the Complaint. R. Doc. 57.
On April 27, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint prior to receiving an answer from Defendants. R. Doc. 44 at 1. In the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs seek additional remedies specific to LDEQ's alleged noncompliance with the CWA. R. Doc. 44. For example, Plaintiffs seek "actual and punitive damages consequent to harm to their persons and properties caused by LDEQ's violations of its enforcement obligations under the CWA, its failure to enforce LPDES permit obligations, [and] its lengthy and intentional course of misrepresentation to plaintiffs." R. Doc. 44 at 12. Plaintiffs listed specific employees of STPG and LDEQ and alleged that "[t]hey failed to enforce the CWA and STPG's LPDES permit obligations," among other allegations. R. Doc. 44 at 2. Plaintiffs, however, did not name these employees as defendants or file any formal motions to join them in this lawsuit. Finally, Plaintiffs added more claims against LDEQ, which include violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments under 43 U.S.C. § 1893 and unconstitutional takings of Plaintiffs' properties.
On May 12, 2020, Defendant STPG filed the present Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint and Amended Complaint. R. Doc. 65. Additionally, LDEQ filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, R. Doc. 66. On June 3, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, which remains pending. R. Doc. 87. The Court granted leave to Plaintiffs to file excess pages in support of this motion. R. Doc. 95. At the time of filing their Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, neither STPG nor LDEQ had answered the initial Complaint. On July 9, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a "Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint." R. Doc. 128.
Three days before oral argument was set for the motions to dismiss filed by STPG and LDEQ, LDEQ was dismissed by Plaintiffs without prejudice. R. Doc. 108. This dismissal effectively terminated LDEQ's presence in the case and mooted its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, R. Doc. 66. On June 23, 2020, the Court heard oral argument on the remaining STPG Motion to Dismiss. R. Doc. 111. The pending motion, the applicable law, and the Court's decision are summarized below.
On May 12, 2020, Defendant STPG filed the present Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. R. Doc. 65. STPG's primary argument is that Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. R. Doc. 65. STPG explains that over five years ago, these same Plaintiffs filed suit in the 22nd Judicial District Court for the state of Louisiana against the same Defendant for damages arising from the same alleged conduct. R. Doc. 65-1 at 2. After five years of protracted litigation, the state court issued a Final Judgment in favor of STPG. R. Doc. 65-1 at 2; Stevens v. St. Tammany Parish Government, No. 2015-10649, Division "H" (Hon. Alan A. Zaunbrecher), on the docket of the 22nd Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Tammany. While this judgment was on appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeal for Louisiana, Plaintiffs filed the present suit in this Court. R. Doc. 1-8 at 1, 58; R. Doc. 65-1 at 2. The First Circuit denied Plaintiffs' request for relief on June 25, 2020. Stevens v. St. Tammany Parish Government, No. 2020-CW-0426 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/25/20) 2020 WL 3467713. STPG argues that Plaintiffs simply "rebranded their core claim" against STPG in the present federal lawsuit, while adding a new defendant, LDEQ, which defendant has now been dismissed by Plaintiffs and is no longer a party to this litigation. R. Docs. 108; 65-1 at 2. Alternatively, STPG contends that "Plaintiffs have failed to state any claim against St. Tammany upon which relief can be granted." R. Doc. 65-1 at 1.
Plaintiffs did not formally or timely respond to Defendants' motions to dismiss. Rather, on June 15, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a pleading entitled an "Opposition To The Motions To Dismiss [Doc. 65 And Doc. 66] as Moot and Based on the Authority Cited in the Memoranda Filed by Plaintiffs in Support of Their Motion to File Second Amended Complaint, for Expedited Hearing, and Objection to the Magistrate's Ruling." R. Doc. 101. This pleading was rejected by the Clerk's Office and marked as deficient because it appeared to include two different motions in one pleading. R. Doc. 101. In the deficient pleading, Plaintiffs apparently sought to justify or explain the lack of formal opposition to STPG and LDEQ's Motions to Dismiss, asserting that the "grounds for the oppositions are set forth in the many memoranda that have previously been filed in this case and will not be repeated." R. Doc. 101 at 2-3. The Court gave Plaintiffs seven days to cure this deficiency and file a proper intelligible response, but Plaintiffs never did so. Therefore, the Court must consider STPG's Motion to Dismiss to be technically unopposed.
The Court, nevertheless, will address the arguments in Plaintiffs' June 19, 2020 motion entitled "Motion to Dismiss the Pending Motions to Dismiss as Moot and Continue the Hearing of June 23, 2020 as Moot and Unnecessary" to the extent they relate to the pending motion's alleged mootness. R. Doc. 103. Here, Plaintiffs seem to argue that STPG's and LDEQ's motions to dismiss are moot because the proposed second amended complaint alleges "much more specific allegations" and named "the LDEQ defendants in their individual and official capacities." R. Doc. 103-1 at 2. Plaintiffs point out "that prior and pending motions to dismiss are moot when comprehensive amended complaints are filed," and their proposed second amended complaint would cure any previous deficiencies. R. Doc. 103-1 at 2. Further, Plaintiffs cite authority for the propositions "that, when timely filed, an amended complaint becomes the operative pleading so that any pending motion to dismiss becomes moot" and "a pending Rule 12(b)(6) motion automatically 'transfers' to the amended complaint." R. Doc. 103-1 at 4. As mentioned above, LDEQ was properly...
To continue reading
Request your trial