Louisiana Environmental Action Network et al v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

Filing 142

RULING: Plaintiffs' 95 Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 8/9/2018. (KAH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LOUISIANA ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION NETWORK AND
STEPHANIE ANTHONY

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

16-144-SDD-RLB

EXXON MOBIL CORP. d/b/a
EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL CO.

RULING
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability1
filed by Plaintiffs, Louisiana Environmental Action Network (“LEAN”) and Stephanie
Anthony (“Anthony”) or (“Plaintiffs”). Defendant Exxon Mobil Corp. d/b/a ExxonMobil
Chemical Co. (“Defendant” or “ExxonMobil”) has filed an Opposition2 to the motion, to
which Plaintiffs filed a Reply.3 Because the Court finds that there are material facts in
dispute, and all inferences must be drawn in favor of the non-moving party, the
Defendant,4 the Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability is DENIED.
The factual background in this matter has been previously set forth in the Court’s
previous Ruling5 and will not be repeated here. In short, Plaintiffs bring this citizens suit

1

Rec. Doc. No. 95.
Rec. Doc. No. 109.
3
Rec. Doc. No. 112. Defendant also filed a Sur-Reply, Rec. Doc. No. 118, to which Plaintiffs filed a SurSur-Reply, Rec. Doc. No. 121.
4
Galindo v. Precision American Corp., 754 F.2d 1212, 1216 (5th Cir. 1985)(“All reasonable factual
inferences are drawn in favor of the nonmoving party.”).
5
Rec. Doc. No. 83.
2

47353 
Page 1 of 3 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA).6 Plaintiffs contend the Defendant repeatedly violates the
CAA at its Baton Rouge chemical plant and has self-reported at least 142 days of
violations. Plaintiffs seek a ruling by this Court finding that Defendant has violated the
CAA at least 142 days since March 3, 2011 based on the unauthorized discharge reports
Defendant is required to send to LDEQ.
Defendant opposes Plaintiffs’ motion and argues that several genuine issues of
material fact exists such that summary judgment is not proper on the issue of liability.
The Court agrees. The Court finds that the following issues of fact and law, inter alia,
require the denial of Plaintiffs’ motion:


Whether and/or how many alleged violations have been repeated;



Whether unauthorized emissions involving substances with no numerical limit can
be considered a permit violation of an emission standard of limitation within the
purview of the CAA citizen suit provision;



Whether either Parties’ charts and tables interpreting the alleged violations
accurately represent the unauthorized discharge reports;



Whether the defense of “upset” applies in this case;7



Whether the number of violations is the same as the number of days of each
violation;



Several fact and legal issues the Court believes it is necessary to determine by
live (and in some cases, expert) testimony.

6

42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(1).
Also pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ recently filed Motion for Summary Judgment on the Unpleaded
Affirmative Defense of Upset, Rec. Doc. No. 126. As briefs are still being filed relating to this motion, the
Court has not reached a conclusion on this issue at the time of this Ruling.
7

47353 
Page 2 of 3 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability8 is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on August 9, 2018.

S

CHIEF JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

8

Rec. Doc. No. 95.

47353 
Page 3 of 3