United States v. Power
| Decision Date | 04 August 2011 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:11-CV- 00227 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Utah |
This matter is before the court on DefendantRocky Mountain Power's ("RMP")motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).The court held a hearing on the motion on July 20, 2011.At the hearing, RMP was represented by Rick L. Rose, and Plaintiff was represented by Tyler L. Murray.The court took the matter under advisement.The court has considered carefully the memoranda and other materials submitted by the parties, as well as the law and facts relating to the motion.Now being fully advised, the court renders the following Memorandum Decision and Order.
Rocky Mountain Power delivers electricity to customers in Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho.On September 20, 2005, electricity allegedly arced from insulators on a power pole, referred to as power pole 25, across the cross-arm of the pole and allegedly caused the cross-arm to burn, fall,and ignite a wild land fire (known as the "Puddle Valley Fire") that burned 3,571 acres owned by the United States.The transmission line that allegedly started the Puddle Valley Fire is owned, operated, and maintained by Rocky Mountain Power.Suppressing the Puddle Valley Fire cost the United States $77,013.96.
Based on these facts, the United States filed suit against Rocky Mountain Power under Utah Code Ann. § 65A-3-4 to recover the costs of suppressing the fire.Section 65A-3-4 reads: "Any person responsible for the existence or spread of a wild land fire necessitating suppression action shall be liable for the payment of the costs of the suppression action."RMP responded by filing a motion to dismiss asserting that the United States fails to state a plausible claim for relief.
RMP brings its motion to dismiss asserting that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim against it under Utah Code Ann. § 65A-3-4.RMP argues that (1)Utah Code Ann. § 65A-3-4 is inapplicable and only encompasses illegal or prohibited activities on state lands; (2)Utah Code Ann. § 65A-3-4 does not apply to federal lands nor does the statute allow the federal government to recover fire suppression costs; and (3)Utah Code Ann. § 65A-3-4 does not provide for liability regardless of fault.The court will address each of these grounds in turn.
Plaintiff argues that it can state a cause of action under the plain language of Section 65A-3-4.RMP, however, contends that the court must look at the statute in the context of the statutory section in which it belongs.
Plaintiff first asserts that this court's interpretation of Section 65A-3-4 must look only to the language of the statute itself and that when the words are clear, however incongruous theymay appear in policy application, the court must interpret them as written.State v. Wallace, 150 P.3d 540, 542(Utah2006);State v. Anderson, 169 P.3d 778, 782(Utah App.2007).Plaintiff contends that this court must leave it to the Legislature to make corrections when warranted.Plaintiff also relies on general statutory interpretation rules stating that in interpreting a statute as a whole, a court may not infer substantive terms into the text that are not already there or rewrite the statute to conform to an intention not expressed.General Contractors v. Board of Oil, Gas and Mining, 38 P.3d 291, 301(Utah2001)(quotingBerrett v. Purser & Edwards, 876 P.2d 367, 370(Utah1994)).A court should give effect to any omission in the statute's language by presuming that the omission is purposeful.State v. Jacobs, 144 P.3d 226, 228-299(Utah App.2006)(quotingCarrier, 104 P.3d at 1216).
RMP asserts that it is not asking this court to rewrite the statute.Rahter, RMP simply asks the court to interpret the subject statute as a whole.RMP relies on rules of statutory construction requiring the court to "read the plain language of the statute as a whole."Archuleta v. St. Mark's Hosp., 238 P.3d 1044, 1046(Utah2010).Section 65A-3-1 is within Chapter 3 of Title 65A, which is titled "Illegal Activities on State Lands."Within Chapter 3 of Title 65A, Section 65A-3-1 is titled trespassing on state land penalties, and Section 65A-3-2 is titled prohibited acts on state land.
The United States, on the other hand, urges the Court to look at § 65A-3-4 in isolation and to ignore the proceeding sections and statutory scheme of Chapter 3.Interpreting a single statutory section in isolation, irrespective of its statutory context, is improper.SeeAnderson v. Bell, 234 P.3d 1147, 1150(Utah2010).Plaintiff also argues that absent circumstances where a statute is ambiguous, a court many not look to the caption of a statute to determine its meaning.Funk v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 839 P.2d 818, 820(Utah1992).The Utah Legislature has made clear that headings, titles, and summary descriptions are not law and are only intended to highlight the content of each section, part, chapter, or title for legislators.Utah Code Ann. § 68-3-13.The court agrees with that law.However, irrespective of whether the court looks at headings and titles, the court must interpret the contested statute in the context of the entire statutory scheme of Chapter 3.
The statutory scheme of Chapter 3 makes clear that the State may only recover its fire suppression costs in cases involving certain prohibited acts on state lands.While "[t]he title of a statute is not part of the text of a statute ... it is persuasive and can aid in ascertaining the statute's correct interpretation and application."State v. Gallegos, 171 P.3d 426, 430(Utah2007).
The title of Chapter 3 combined with the sections under Chapter 3 demonstrates the Legislature's intent.The Legislature's intent is to allow the state to recover wildfire suppression costs only from responsible parties who were either trespassing or committing prohibited acts.SeeDuke v. Graham, 158 P.3d 540, 545(Utah2007)().
In this case, RMP was not trespassing nor is there any allegation that RMP committed any of the prohibited acts identified in § 65A-3-2, which include: throwing or placing any lighted cigarette, cigar, firecracker, ashes, or other flaming or glowing substance which may cause a fire on a highway or wildland; obstructing the state forester, or any of his deputies, in the performance of controlling a fire; refusing, on proper request of the state forester or any of his deputies, to assist in the controlling of a fire, without good and sufficient reason; or firing anytracer or incendiary ammunition anywhere except within the confines of established military reservations.
Considering Chapter 3 as a whole, it is clear that the term "responsible for" in § 65A-3-4 refers to someone who has violated the "prohibited acts" identified in § 65A-3-2.Since the district attorney is authorized in the same sentence to both prosecute someone who violates § 65A-3-2 and to seek fire suppression costs from that person, it is only logical that the same conduct is required for both criminal and civil liability under the statute.Section 65A-3-4 follows and is necessary because public fire suppression costs are not normally recoverable at common law in the absence of a statute.SeeCity of Flagstaff v. Atchison, T. & Santa Fe Ry., 719 F.2d 322, 323-24(9th Cir.1983);District of Columbia v. Air Florida, Inc., 750 F.2d 1077, 1080(D.C. Cir.1984).The proximity of the two sections demonstrates that the Legislature intended for the recovery of fire suppression costs in Section 65A-3-4 to be tied to the specific prohibited acts in Section 65A-3-2.If the Legislature did not want the section regarding suppression costs to be tethered to the "prohibited acts"section, the Legislature would have placed the section in a different location.
Based on this court's interpretation of Section 65A-3-4 within the entire context of Chapter 3 of Title 65A, the court concludes that Plaintiff may only state a claim for suppression costs against RMP if RMP committed a "prohibited act" listed in Section 65A-3-2.Because Plaintiff makes no allegation that RMP committed any "prohibited acts,"the court concludes that Plaintiff has not stated a claim under Section 65A-3-4.Accordingly, the court grants RMP's motion to dismiss on this ground.
RMP further argues that Plaintiff cannot state a claim under Section 65A-3-4 because the statute does not provide for the recovery of suppression costs by non-state entities.Title 65A is titled "State Lands" and Chapter 3 of Title 65A is titled "Illegal Activities on State Lands."State lands are defined as lands owned by the state by virtue of the state's sovereignty.Title 65A specifically excludes federal lands; it provides that the Division shall provide for forestry and fire control activities as required in § 65A-8-101.Section 65A-8-101 limits what lands the Division has fire control responsibility over to "nonfederal" lands (§ 65A-8-101 (1)(a),(b), and (d)).Also, § 65A-8-210 outlines the responsibility of the Division and State agencies to fight uncontrolled fires and only state land is referenced.
Plaintiff contends that because Section 65A-3-4 does not expressly limit its application to state lands or to actions by the State of Utah, section 65A-3-4 applies to federal lands.In making this contention, however, Plaintiff again asks the Court to consider § 65A-3-4 in a vacuum.Although Section 65A-3-4 is broadly worded, when viewed in the context of the entire statutory scheme in which it is located, it cannot be construed to provide for the recovery of fire suppression costs by anyone other than a state entity.The immediately proceeding section states: "The...
To continue reading
Request your trial