Waste Servs. of Decatur, LLC v. Decatur Cnty.

Decision Date05 February 2019
Docket NumberCase No. 1:17-cv-01030-STA-egb
Citation367 F.Supp.3d 792
Parties WASTE SERVICES OF DECATUR, LLC, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. DECATUR COUNTY, TENNESSEE, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, v. Waste Industries, LLC, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee

James L. Murphy, Joel D. Eckert, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP, Nashville, TN, for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant.

Elizabeth L. Murphy, Law Office of Elizabeth L. Murphy, Amy Rao Mohan, Phillip F. Cramer, Lisa K. Helton, Sherrard Roe Voigt & Harbison PLC, Nashville, TN, Stephen Wussow, Pro Hac Vice, Cooper Law Firm, New Orleans, LA, Jason Wayne Pearcy, Law Office of Jason Pearcy, Parsons, TN, for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.

Celeste Brustowicz, Pro Hac Vice, Stuart H. Smith, Pro Hac Vice, Cooper Law Firm, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT DECATUR COUNTY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

S. THOMAS ANDERSON, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is Defendant Decatur County, Tennessee's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 47) filed on February 8, 2018. Plaintiff Waste Services of Decatur, LLC has responded in opposition, and Defendant has filed a reply. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED .

BACKGROUND

This is a contractual dispute between Decatur County, Tennessee, and Waste Services of Decatur, LLC (hereinafter "Waste Services"), the private firm operating the Decatur County Landfill. Decatur County seeks judgment as a matter of law on Waste Services' claim for breach of contract, arguing that the claim is time barred. In support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, Decatur County has asserted that a number of facts are undisputed for purposes of Rule 56. Local Rule 56.1(a) requires a party seeking summary judgment to prepare a statement of facts "to assist the Court in ascertaining whether there are any material facts in dispute." Local R. 56.1(a). A fact is material if the fact "might affect the outcome of the lawsuit under the governing substantive law." Baynes v. Cleland , 799 F.3d 600, 607 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing Wiley v. United States , 20 F.3d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1994) and Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247–48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ). A dispute about a material fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson , 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. For purposes of summary judgment, a party asserting that a material fact is not genuinely in dispute must cite particular evidence in the record and show that the materials fail to establish a genuine dispute or that the adverse party has failed to produce admissible evidence to support a fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).

The non-moving party at summary judgment is required to respond to each of the moving party's statements of fact "by either (1) agreeing that the fact is undisputed; (2) agreeing that the fact is undisputed for the purpose of ruling on the motion for summary judgment only; or (3) demonstrating that the fact is disputed." Local R. 56.1(b). Additionally, the non-moving party may "object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). Where the non-moving party asserts that a genuine dispute of material fact exists, the non-moving party must support his or her contention with a "specific citation to the record." Local R. 56.1(b). If the non-moving party fails to demonstrate that a fact is disputed or simply fails to address the moving party's statement of fact properly, the Court will "consider the fact undisputed for purposes" of ruling on the Motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2) ; see also Local R. 56.1(d) ("Failure to respond to a moving party's statement of material facts, or a non-moving party's statement of additional facts, within the time periods provided by these rules shall indicate that the asserted facts are not disputed for purposes of summary judgment."). Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court "need consider only the cited materials" but has discretion to "consider other materials in the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3).

Nearly all of the material facts related to the statute of limitations on Waste Services' breach of contract claim are undisputed. The Decatur County Landfill ("the landfill") is owned by Decatur County. (Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Fact ¶ 1.) On March 4, 1996, Decatur County entered into an Agreement for Development and Operation of the Sanitary Landfill ("the contract") with Waste Services of America, Inc., the predecessor in interest to the rights of Waste Services under the contract. (Id. ¶ 2.) In 1999, Waste Services of America, Inc. assigned its interests in the contract to Waste Services, which was formerly a wholly-owned subsidiary of Waste Services of America, Inc. (Id. ¶ 10.)

The contract's recitals stated that Decatur County desired to "be free of any and all future environmental liabilities associated with the operation and management" of the landfill, wanted "to protect the public safety, health and welfare, in the most economically feasible, cost effective and environmentally sound manner," and sought "the safest and most economic long-term solution to its solid waste disposal needs." (Id. ¶ 3.) Under the terms of the contract, Waste Services assumed full control and responsibility for the operation of the landfill. (Id. ¶ 4.) Waste Services agreed to operate the landfill through 2026 and then to oversee the closure of the landfill, all in compliance with all applicable environmental laws. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 6, 8, 9.) Decatur County agreed to use the landfill exclusively for the disposal of its solid and industrial waste. (Id. ¶ 7.)

Leachate is the liquid that leaches from waste in a landfill. (Pl.'s Statement of Add'l Facts ¶ 2.) The amount of leachate produced by the landfill fluctuates; rainfall, the amount and type of waste in the landfill, and other variables all influence leachate production. (Id. ¶ 4.) Leachate disposal and treatment is an expensive and important part of landfill operations. (Id. ¶ 3.) The contract provided that "[l]eachate disposal/treatment will remain at no cost to the [landfill] and [Waste Services] for the life of the site, in exchange for free disposal to Parsons and Decaturville pursuant to Schedule B of this Agreement." (Contract § 2.6, ECF No. 1-3). Schedule B, entitled "Decatur County's Tipping Fee and Surcharge," stated that "Decatur County and the municipalities within Decatur County will receive free disposal of residential waste" up to a certain amount. (Sch. B to Contract, ECF No. 1-3). Schedule B went on to describe a formula for the calculation of the amount of free disposal of waste promised to Decatur County and its municipalities but with the additional provision that "the Cities of Decaturville and Parsons will continue to receive free residential waste disposal ... only so long as leachate treatment and disposal is provided at no cost to [the landfill] and [Waste Services]." Id.

Waste Services alleges that Decatur County has breached this term of the contract by not providing leachate disposal and treatment. Waste Services currently pays for all disposal and treatment of leachate at the landfill. (Pl.'s Statement of Add'l Facts ¶ 1.) Waste Services has devised the following treatment program for the leachate produced at the landfill. Leachate comes to one central location at the landfill and is then pumped into a lagoon system for aeration as part of a pretreatment process. (Id. ¶ 6.) Waste Services installed the lagoon system in 2012. (Id. ¶ 7.) Once the pre-treatment process is complete, the pre-treated leachate is pumped on to a truck which transports the leachate to a wastewater treatment facility in Dyersburg, Tennessee. (Id. ¶ 8.) According to Waste Services, the landfill produces approximately 15,000 gallons of leachate a week, filling 14 to 18 trucks. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 11.) This current volume actually represents a reduction from the amounts generated at the landfill three to four years ago. (Id. ¶ 11.) Waste Services has employed different wastewater treatment facilities and for-hire trucking companies over the years to handle leachate. (Id. ¶¶ 12, 15.) From 2011 through late 2015, Waste Services expended $ 4,500,141.92 on leachate disposal and treatment at the landfill. (Id. ¶ 14.). Since late 2015, Waste Services has incurred annual expenses of approximately $ 1 million on leachate disposal and treatment. (Id. ¶¶ 16-17.) Decatur County has not paid Waste Services' fees or otherwise provided for the leachate disposal and treatment at the landfill. (Id. ¶ 18.)

The parties disagree over when Waste Services' claim for breach of the leachate treatment and disposal term accrued. Decatur County maintains that it has never provided Waste Services free leachate treatment and disposal at the landfill. (Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Fact ¶ 12.) The parties appear to agree that the wastewater treatment facility in Parsons has not treated leachate from the landfill since 2002 and that the wastewater treatment facility in Decaturville has not treated leachate from the landfill since at least July 2006. (Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s Statement of Add'l Fact ¶ 19; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Fact ¶ 12, citing Waste Services' Answers to Def.'s First Set of Requests for Admission, ex. 1 to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 48-1.)

According to Decatur County, Waste Services first raised the issue of leachate treatment and disposal in 2007. David W. Pepper, who is currently vice-president and director of capital projects for Waste Industries USA, Inc., addressed letters in March 2007 to the cities of Parsons and Decaturville on behalf of Waste Services. (Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Fact ¶¶ 14, 15.) The letter stated as follows: "Waste Services of Decatur has honored the free disposal of solid waste from [Parsons and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • StarLink Logistics Inc. v. ACC, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • January 31, 2023
    ...issue of material fact as to when the plaintiffs cause of action accrued.'” Waste Servs. of Decatur, LLC v. Decatur Cnty., Tennessee, 367 F.Supp.3d 792, 810 (W.D. Tenn. 2019) (quoting Henry v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 605 Fed.Appx. 508, 510 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting Campbell v. Grand Trunk W. R.R......
  • The Lampo Grp. v. Marriott Hotel Servs.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • August 9, 2021
    ... ... No. 38, at 5 ... (quoting Waste Servs. of Decatur, LLC v. Decatur ... Cty. , 367 F.Supp.3d 792, ... ...

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