Swin Resource Systems v. LYCOMING COUNTY, PA., Civ. No. 87-1565.
| Decision Date | 10 February 1988 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 87-1565. |
| Citation | 678 F. Supp. 1116 |
| Parties | SWIN RESOURCE SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, v. LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, acting Through the LYCOMING COUNTY SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT: Wilt, Dolly M.; and Smith, Gene; and Morningstar, Lora P.; all in their respective official capacities as Commissioners of Lycoming County, PA and in each of their individual capacities; and Alexander, Wayne I., in his official capacity as General Manager of Solid Waste Facilities of the Lycoming Cty. Solid Waste Dept., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
John P. Krill, Jr., Carleton O. Strouss, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, Harrisburg, Pa., Richard A. Gahr, Kieser & Gahr, Williamsport, Pa., for plaintiff.
J. David Smith, McCormick, Reeder, Nichols, Sarno, Bahl, & Knecht, Williamsport, Pa., for defendants.
The Defendants herein are the County of Lycoming, the present Commissioners of the County, and the manager of the Lycoming County Solid Waste Department. The County is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and operates a landfill in Lycoming County, through the Lycoming County Solid Waste Department. The landfill is situated on lands owned by the United States Bureau of Prisons and is operated under a permit granted to the County by the Bureau of Prisons.
The Plaintiff owns and operates a municipal solid waste processing facility in Hemlock Township, Columbia County, Pennsylvania. The Swin facility receives municipal solid waste from New Jersey and Eastern Pennsylvania. It separates tires, wood pallets, appliances and cardboard from other solid wastes. The items separated out are sold and shipped to businesses in Pennsylvania, other states, and other countries which have a commercial need for them. The solid waste which is not recycled is compacted into 40 inch by 30 inch by 60 inch bales in preparation for shipment to landfills. These bales are transported to duly permitted landfills such as the landfill operated by the named Defendants.
By this action the Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants from imposing on it volume restrictions, and increased rates for disposal at the landfill. The increased rates were made effective by the Defendants as of September 14, 1987 and the Plaintiff argues these increased rates effectively prevent it from using the landfill.
The matter is presently before us on a motion to dismiss filed on behalf of all Defendants. The motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for disposition. Because we find no basis for federal court jurisdiction, we will grant the motion to dismiss.
The parameters of the motion are best outlined by referring to the arguments made by the Plaintiff against the motion to dismiss; they are as follows:
In considering a motion to dismiss we accept as true all well-pleaded allegations and draw all inferences in favor of the non-moving party. We are cognizant, too, of the directions of guiding law which holds that a complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Regency Catering Services v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 640 F.Supp. 29 (M.D.Pa.1985). In reaching our decision in this case we have in fact given to the Plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the pleadings and, indeed, there is no dispute concerning the operative facts underlying this case.
The Plaintiff's argument concerning the alleged interference with interstate commerce is based on the constitutional grant of power to Congress to regulate commerce among the states. The purpose of that grant was expressed in H.P. Hood, Inc. v. DuMond, 336 U.S. 525, 537-38, 69 S.Ct. 657, 665, 93 L.Ed. 865 (1949):
This principle that our economic unit is the Nation, which alone has the gamut of powers necessary to control of the economy, including the vital power of erecting customs barriers against foreign competition, has as its corollary that the states are not separable economic units. As the court said in Baldwin v. Seelig, 294 U.S. 511, 527 55 S.Ct. 497, 502, 79 L.Ed. 1032 "what is ultimate is the principle that one state in its dealings with another may not place itself in a position of economic isolation."
In later decisions the Supreme Court recognized that many subjects which might potentially come under federal regulation escape Congressional attention because of their local character, number and diversity. Thus in a series of cases the Supreme Court has outlined a distinction between the actions of state and local governments when they are functioning as "regulators" of the market as opposed to when they are acting as "market participants". See Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., 426 U.S. 794, 96 S.Ct. 2488, 49 L.Ed. 2d 220 (1976); Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447 U.S. 429, 100 S.Ct. 2271, 65 L.Ed.2d 244 (1980); City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617, 98 S.Ct. 2531, 57 L.Ed.2d 475 (1978); and White v. Mass. Council of Constr. Employers, 460 U.S. 204, 103 S.Ct. 1042, 75 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982). As those cases explain, the Commerce Clause responds principally to state taxes and regulatory measures impeding free private trade in the National marketplace. There is no indication of a constitutional plan to limit the ability of the states themselves to operate uninhibited in the free market. Restraint of federal jurisdiction is counseled in these cases by considerations of state sovereignty, the role of each state as the guardian and trustee for its people and the long recognized right of trader or manufacturer engaged in an entirely private business freely to exercise his own independent discretion as to parties with whom he will deal. Thus the courts have found that there is nothing in the purposes animating the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution that prohibits a state (or a state agency) in the absence of specific Congressional action, from participating in the market and exercising the right to favor its own citizens over others.
Here, we find no effort by the Defendant agency to regulate or to tax the general operation of landfills. Rather, the actions alleged in the complaint perfectly describe a participant in the landfill market. A participant which has made certain determinations concerning its own competitiveness in the market as well as decisions to conserve its own resources. These are common decisions by market participants and have no bearing on the same determinations by others in the same market.
We find under the Hughes, Reeves, White and Philadelphia cases that Defendants' argument is compelling and there is no basis on which we could ascribe the restrictions of the Commerce Clause to this case.1
In arguing its due process claim, the Plaintiff alleges "it is a fundamental principle that valid contractual rights against a government body, both explicit and implicit, create property interests within the scope of the due process clause." The Plaintiff cites Northern Pennsylvania Legal Services, Inc. v. The County of Lackawanna, 513 F.Supp. 678 (M.D.Pa.1981) and other cases cited therein for the proposition that such a due process right allows them to pursue a claim against the Defendants under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 which is now 42 U.S.C....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Swin Resource Systems, Inc. v. Lycoming County, Pa. Through Lycoming County Solid Waste Dept.
...contended that the statute did not give rise to a private right of action. The district court, in an opinion reported at 678 F.Supp. 1116 (M.D.Pa 1988), agreed with the position of defendants and held that Swin's federal claims (both constitutional and statutory) failed to state a claim upo......
-
Vartan v. Sobolevitch, Civ. A. No. 1:CV-91-1065.
...violation but no argument was made there that the contract could not be terminated except for cause. In Swin Resource Systems, Inc. v. Lycoming County, 678 F.Supp. 1116 (M.D.Pa. 1988), the plaintiff advanced a substantive due process However, we need not decide this issue. Assuming that the......