U.S. v. Del Monte De Puerto Rico, Inc., 78-1067

Decision Date15 November 1978
Docket NumberNo. 78-1067,78-1067
Citation586 F.2d 870
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEL MONTE DE PUERTO RICO, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Allan J. Topol, Washington, D.C., with whom Covington & Burling, Washington, D.C., Peter B. Ellis, Foley, Hoag & Eliot, Boston, Mass., Charles P. Adams, and Brown, Newsom & Cordova, San Juan, P.R., were on brief, for appellant.

Richard G. Tisch, Atty., Environmental Protection Agency, with whom Julio Morales Sanchez, U. S. Atty., San Juan, P.R., James W. Moorman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert L. Klarquist and Charles E. Biblowit, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., were on brief, for appellee.

Before KUNZIG, * Judge, U.S. Court of Claims, CAMPBELL and BOWNES, Circuit Judges.

KUNZIG, Judge.

This case involves a suit against defendant-appellant Del Monte De Puerto Rico, Incorporated (Del Monte) for alleged violations of certain terms and conditions of a NPDES permit. 1 The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, Judge Hernan G. Pesquera, granted the summary judgment motion of the United States (plaintiff-appellee) as to liability and then, after a hearing, ordered a fine of $125,000. Because there were disputed material issues of fact, the grant of summary judgment was inappropriate. We therefore reverse and remand.

Del Monte operated a tuna packing facility in the City of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. 2 On November 30, 1974, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to Del Monte. The permit governed Del Monte's discharge of pollutants from its tuna packing processing facility. Similar permits were issued to two other tuna packers located adjacent to Del Monte.

In May 1976, the United States brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, seeking injunctive relief and a penalty pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1319. The Government claimed that Del Monte had violated various conditions of its permit by (1) failing to submit final plans and specifications and failing to commence construction of treatment facilities within the time required by the permit; and (2) failing to file an application for a new permit 180 days before the old permit expired. On September 19, 1977, without an oral hearing, Judge Pesquera granted the Government's motion for summary judgment. Later, following a hearing concerned only with the imposition of a penalty, judgment was entered against defendant Del Monte in the amount of One Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($125,000). Del Monte now timely appeals to this court. Because the grant of summary judgment was inappropriate, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

I. THE FAILURE TO SUBMIT FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND COMMENCE CONSTRUCTION OF TREATMENT FACILITIES

Condition 11 of the permit established a schedule of compliance which contained the steps Del Monte was required to take towards reducing pollution. These steps included:

(a) the submission of an engineering report to the Environmental Quality Board of Puerto Rico (EQB) by February 28, 1975;

(b) the submission of final plans and specifications for the treatment facilities to EQB by July 31, 1975;

(c) the commencement of construction of treatment facilities by November 30, 1975;

(d) the completion of construction by June 30, 1977; and

(e) the attainment of operational levels by August 31, 1977.

The interim steps, which follow one another in chronological order, help to ensure attainment of the final step meeting the required effluent limits by August 31, 1977. Condition 11 also required Del Monte to submit a detailed notice of noncompliance to both EQB and the EPA should Del Monte be unable to meet any part of the schedule.

On February 24, 1975, Del Monte submitted a preliminary engineering report. EPA found this submission not adequate and entered an administrative order which required a new engineering report to be submitted by August 13, 1975. This new report was submitted on August 12, 1975. At that time, Del Monte's vice president, W. H. Nichols, made a written request for a meeting with the Regional Administrator to discuss the future steps Del Monte had to take to achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit.

Del Monte does not dispute the fact that it failed to meet the schedule contained in the permit, but instead argues that there are factual issues involved that preclude summary judgment. Del Monte maintains the completion of the final plans and specifications (and the commencement of construction) were dependent upon the approval of the engineering report. It urges vehemently that its vice president W. H. Nichols was prepared to testify concerning Del Monte's belief that EPA had, in actuality, approved a change in the original time schedule. Put in another way, Del Monte argues waiver and claims it was given no opportunity to prove its case. As to the matter of the dependence of the plans and specifications upon approval of the engineering report, the District Judge, in his MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, "agreed that a genuine...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Bangor Baptist Church v. STATE OF ME., ETC.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maine
    • October 26, 1982
    ...Summary judgment must be denied where there remains the slightest doubt as to any material fact. United States v. Del Monte De Puerto Rico, Inc., 586 F.2d 870, 872 (1st Cir. 1978); Peckham v. Ronrico Corp., 171 F.2d 653, 657 (1st Cir. 1948). There are numerous material facts in genuine disp......
  • Brown v. Town of Allenstown
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire
    • November 20, 1986
    ...Summary judgment must be denied where there remains the "slightest doubt" as to any material fact. United States v. Del Monte De Puerto Rico, Inc., 586 F.2d 870, 872 (1st Cir.1978). The Court is able to render a ruling on Counts II, IV, VII, and the motion to dismiss claims for punitive and......
  • Adam v. Joy Mfg. Co., Civ. No. 84-736-D.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire
    • January 23, 1987
    ...the "slightest doubt" as to any material fact, summary judgment is inappropriate and must be denied. United States v. Del Monte de Puerto Rico, Inc., 586 F.2d 870, 872 (1st Cir.1978). In Anderson, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit listed several factors to consider when applying......
  • Swiss v. Eli Lilly & Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island
    • August 3, 1982
    ...do so, the Court finds that there is not the "slightest doubt" as to the facts material to this motion. United States v. Del Monte de Puerto Rico, Inc., 586 F.2d 870, 872 (1st Cir.1978); Peckham v. Ron Rico Corp., 171 F.2d 653, 657 (1st Cir.1948). McNeil is thus entitled to summary judgment......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT