United States of America et al v United States Steel Corporation
Filing
20
ORDER: The Court GRANTS The Surfrider Foundation's ion to Intervene DE 2 and City of Chicago' Motion to Intervene DE 13 and ORDERS Surfrider and the City to file their Complaints in Intervention on or before 12/27/18. Signed by Magistrate Judge John E Martin on 12/13/18. (nal)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and
STATE OF INDIANA,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES STEEL
CORPORATION,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 2:18-cv-127-JEM
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on The Surfrider Foundation’s Motion to Intervene [DE 12],
and City of Chicago’s Motion to Intervene [DE 13], both filed on September 13, 2018. Non-parties
The Surfrider Foundation and the City of Chicago seek to intervene as plaintiffs in this action
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. Plaintiffs the United States of America and the State
of Indiana filed a joint response to the motions on September 27, 2018. Surfrider and the City each
filed replies on October 4, 2018.
I.
Background
In January 2018, before this action was filed, Surfrider (an advocacy group) and the City
separately sued U.S. Steel, alleging numerous violations of environmental law arising from the
release of pollutants near Lake Michigan. In the instant action, the United States and the State of
Indiana have sued U.S. Steel, alleging a narrower set of violations. The parties in this case have filed
a proposed Consent Decree, intending to resolve the allegations in the complaint. Surfrider and the
City seek to intervene as plaintiffs, arguing that their interests will not be adequately represented by
the Plaintiffs in this action. Plaintiffs do not dispute that Surfrider and the City have the right to
intervene, but make two requests: that the Court defer ruling on the instant Motions until after the
public comment review process for the proposed Consent Decree, and that if it does grant the
Motions, that the Court should impose certain case management conditions on the intervenors.
II:
Analysis
Intervention of right is established under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), which
provides in relevant part:
(a) Intervention of Right. On timely motion, the court must permit
anyone to intervene who: . . .
(2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction
that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that
disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or
impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless
existing parties adequately represent that interest.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). In addition, the Clean Water Act provides for a “citizen” to intervene in a
lawsuit brought by a State to enforce its provisions. 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(B). Plaintiffs do not
dispute that Surfrider and the City have the right to intervene, but seek to defer a ruling on the
motion until the public comment review process for the Consent Decree has concluded.
Plaintiffs state that they are in the process of considering public comment, which could result
in the modification or withdrawal of the proposed decree. Plaintiffs state that they have been
communicating with Surfrider and the City, and that potential modifications to the decree, or written
responses to public comment, may address their concerns, rendering their intervention moot.
Plaintiffs argue that to permit the movants to intervene now “could unnecessarily complicate” the
matter at a time when resources are being devoted to review of voluminous public comment.
Surfrider and the City argue that their right to intervention exists regardless of the status of
the public comment process. If they do eventually challenge the proposed decree, they argue it
would be more efficient for the objection to occur as early as possible, before the parties try to seek
2
judicial approval of the completed agreement. In addition, Surfrider argues that its interests in the
matter will exist regardless of the content of the decree, including an interest in ensuring that all
relevant evidence is before the Court and in ensuring execution and enforcement of the decree.
The Court agrees that Plaintiffs have not shown that the public comment process makes
immediate intervention in this case moot or inefficient. Although Plaintiffs point to two unpublished
decisions in which intervention was deferred for that reason, the weight of case law supports
immediate intervention. See, e.g., City of Chicago v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 660 F.3d 980,
986 (7th Cir. 2011) (reversing denial of motion to intervene where intervention “could not have
produced a net delay” given the possibility of further litigation); Sec. Ins. Co. of Hartford v.
Schipporeit, Inc., 69 F.3d 1377, 1381 (7th Cir. 1995) (affirming grant of motion to intervene, citing
“obvious benefits of intervention in general [of] efficiency and consistency”); United States v. Blue
Lake Power, LLC, 215 F. Supp. 3d 838, 844 (N. D. Cal. 2016) (granting motion to intervene during
comment review period for consent decree); United States v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist. of
Greater Chicago, No. 11 C 8859, 2012 WL 3260427, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 7, 2012) (same).
Plaintiffs also argue that if the Court permits intervention, the scope of intervention should
be limited to (1) briefing in response to any motion to enforce the decree, and (2) the filing of an
appeal if the decree were entered over the intervenors’ objections. Plaintiffs argue that intervention
without limits would bog down the litigation, particularly if the intervenors request discovery or an
evidentiary hearing. Essentially, Plaintiffs seek to prevent the citizen intervenors from
“commandeer[ing] the federal enforcement machinery.” Dubois v. Thomas, 820 F.2d 943, 949 (8th
Cir. 1987). Although courts have frequently imposed reasonable conditions on intervenors, see
United States v. Albert Inv. Co., Inc., 585 F.3d 1386, 1396 (10th Cir. 2009) (listing cases), Plaintiffs’
3
request is premature, because Surfrider and the City have not yet sought discovery or an evidentiary
hearing. If they do, and Plaintiffs object, those concerns will be heard to the extent supported by
applicable rules and precedent. See, e.g., Metro. Water Reclamation Dist., 2012 WL 3260427 at *5
(granting intervention in consent decree case, and holding that “[t]he Court need not decide the
scope of intervention at this point”); United States v. The Doe Run Res. Corp., No. 4:10CV01895
JCH, 2011 WL 251093, at *4 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 25, 2011) (declining to limit the scope of intervention
in consent decree case where intervenor had “not yet asked for discovery and this Court has not had
an opportunity to determine if additional discovery would be warranted”).
III:
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS The Surfrider Foundation’s Motion to Intervene
[DE 12], and City of Chicago’s Motion to Intervene [DE 13], and ORDERS Surfrider and the City
to file their Complaints in Intervention on or before December 27, 2018.
SO ORDERED this 13th day of December, 2018.
s/ John E. Martin
MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
cc:
All counsel of record
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?