The State Of Ohio et al v. United States Environmental Protection Agency et al
Filing
27
OPINION AND ORDER granting 21 Motion to Stay. Proceedings in this action are STAYED pending ruling from the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 9/1/2015. (pes)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
THE STATE OF OHIO, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action 2:15-cv-2467
Judge Sargus
Magistrate Judge King
vs.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Stay
Proceedings Pending a Ruling from the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation Under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to Transfer and Consolidate, ECF 21
(“Motion to Stay”).
For the reasons that follow, the Motion to Stay
is GRANTED.
I.
BACKGROUND
On June 29, 2015, the State of Ohio and Michigan Attorney General
Bill Schuette filed this action.
Complaint, ECF 1.
On July 23, 2015,
the First Amended Complaint, ECF 20 (“Amended Complaint”), which
joined the State of Tennessee as a plaintiff (collectively with Ohio
and Michigan, “plaintiffs”) was filed.
This action challenges a new
administrative rule known as the “Clean Water Rule,” 80 Fed. Reg.
37,054 (June 29, 2015) (“the Rule”), as overbroad. Specifically, the
Amended Complaint contends that the Rule “purports to extend federal
regulatory jurisdiction over broad swaths of the country . . . that in
no way constitute navigable, potentially navigable, or interstate
1
waters – even in various instances reaching land that is typically
dry.”
Id. at ¶¶ 2-3.
See also id. at ¶¶ 26-30.
According to
plaintiffs, the Rule’s overreach exceeds the powers granted to the
federal government under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause and
conflicts with United States Supreme Court precedent.
Id. at ¶ 31-53.
Plaintiffs go on to allege that defendants, through the Rule’s
overreach, injure plaintiffs by intruding on interstate “waters”
entirely within the State of Ohio, the State of Michigan, and the
State of Tennessee.
Id. at ¶¶ 6-7.
Plaintiffs assert claims under
the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging violations of the Act and
the United States Constitution. Id. at ¶¶ 54-65.
Plaintiffs seek
declaratory and injunctive relief invalidating the Rule and returning
the matter to defendants to permit the defendant agencies to propose a
new rule that is consistent with the Clean Water Act and the
Constitution. See Prayer for Relief. Named as defendants are the
United States Army Corps of Engineers, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, the Honorable Jo-Ellen Darcy in her official
capacity as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), and the
Honorable Gina McCarthy in her official capacity as Administrator of
the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
On July 23, 2015, defendants filed the Motion to Stay, seeking a
stay of all proceedings in this action pending ruling from the
Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (the “MDL Panel”) on
defendant’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to transfer and consolidate
(the “MDL motion”).
See Reply in Support of Defendants’ Motion to
Stay Proceedings Pending a Ruling from the Judicial Panel on Multi2
District Litigation Under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to Transfer and
Consolidate, ECF 25 (“Reply”), pp. 1-2 (citing In re: Clean Water
Rule:
Definition of “Waters of the United States” Litigation, MDL No.
2663 (J.P.M.L.), ECF 1, 2).
According to defendants, seventy-two
plaintiffs have challenged the Rule to date, through actions filed in
eight district courts across the country.
See Attachment to Motion to
Stay (identifying, in addition to the present action, the following
actions: State of North Dakota, et al. v. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, et al., No. 3:15-cv-59 (filed in D. N.D. on June
29, 2015); Murray Energy Corp. v. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, et al., No. 1:15-cv-110 (filed in N.D. W.Va. on June 29,
2015);1 State of Texas, et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
et al., No. 3:15-cv-162 (filed in S.D. Tex. on June 29, 2015); State
of Georgia, et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.,
No. 2:15-cv-79 (filed in S.D. Ga. on June 30, 2015); Am. Farm Bureau
Federation, et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.,
No. 3:15-cv-165 (filed in S.D. Tex. on July 2, 2015); State of
Oklahoma v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al., No. 4:15-cv381 (filed in N.D. Okla. on July 8, 2015); Chamber of Commerce of the
United States of America, et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, et al., No. 4:15-cv-386 (filed in N.D. Okla. on July 10,
2015); Southeastern Legal Foundation, Inc., et al. v. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, et al., No. 1:15-cv-2488 (filed in
N.D. Ga. on July 13, 2015)).
1
This action has been dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Murray Energy Corp. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, No.
1:15-cv-110, ECF 32.
3
On July 29, 2015, petitions for review were consolidated in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit by order of the
MDL Panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 28 U.S.C. § 2112.
Water Rule:
In re: Clean
Definition of “Waters of the United States” Litigation,
MDL No. 2663 (J.P.M.L.), ECF 3.
Defendants represent that the MDL
motion will be heard by the MDL Panel at its next scheduled hearing on
October 1, 2015.
Reply, p. 2 (citing United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, Hearing Information, available at
http://jpml.uscourts.gov/hearing-information).
Defendants also point out that the defendant agencies have moved
for stays in each of the district court cases pending a ruling on the
MDL motion.
Id.
Several of those requests have already been granted.
See Texas v. EPA, No. 3:15-cv-162, ECF 15; Am. Farm Bureau Federation
v. EPA, No. 3:15-cv-165, ECF 22; Chamber of Commerce v. EPA, No. 4:15cv-386, ECF 32; Oklahoma v. EPA, No. 4:15-cv-381, ECF 22; Se. Legal
Found. v. EPA, No. 1:15-cv-2488, ECF 5; Wash. Cattlemen’s Ass’n v.
EPA, No. 0:15-cv-3058, ECF 14.
Plaintiffs in the case presently before the Court nevertheless
oppose the Motion to Stay.
See Plaintiffs’ Brief in Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion to Stay, ECF 24 (“Opposition”).
With the filing of
the Reply, this matter is ripe for resolution.
II.
STANDARD
“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power
inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on
its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel,
and for litigants.”
Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936).
4
See also Hill v. Mitchell, 30 F. Supp.2d 997 (S.D. Ohio 1998) (“[T] he
Court has the inherent power to stay proceedings pending the
resolution of the same or related issues in another forum.”).
“How
this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must
weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.”
U.S. at 254.
Landis, 299
The party seeking a stay bears the burden “to
demonstrate a clear hardship or inequity if the present action moves
forward, to address the injury done to the opposing party, and to
evaluate the public interest, including the judiciary’s interest in
efficiency, economy and fairness.”
Hill, 30 F. Supp.2d at 1000.
See
also Michael v. Ghee, 325 F. Supp.2d 829, 831 (N.D. Ohio 2004)
(“Important to the Court’s propriety analysis [of whether or not to
stay proceedings] was a weighing of the potentiality of another case
having a dispositive effect on the case to be stayed, the judicial
economy to be saved by waiting on a dispositive decision, the public
welfare, and the hardship/prejudice to the party opposing the stay,
given its duration.”) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254).
III. DISCUSSION
Defendants contend that, in the absence of a stay, the need to
engage in duplicative proceedings in multiple district courts and the
possibility of conflicting rulings from different district courts will
harm them.
Motion to Stay, pp. 8-9; Reply, p. 13.
Plaintiffs
disagree, arguing that defendants face no clear hardship or inequity
if this action continues because this case is in its early stages and
because defendants admit that they expect the MDL Panel to act swiftly
on the MDL motion.
Opposition, pp. 6-7.
5
Plaintiffs’ arguments are not well-taken.
“‘Courts frequently
grant stays pending a decision by the MDL Panel regarding whether to
transfer a case.’”
Dowler v. Med. Shoppe, No. 2:07 cv 848, 2007 WL
2907519, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73950, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 3, 2007)
(quoting Good v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 5 F. Supp. 2d 804, 809
(N.D. Cal. 1998)).
As set forth supra, there are multiple cases
challenging the Rule in multiple districts.
already issued inconsistent rulings.
Some of these courts have
See, e.g., Georgia v. McCarthy,
No. 2:15-cv-79, ECF 77 (denying plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary
injunction); North Dakota v. EPA, No. 3:15-cv-59, ECF 70 (granting
plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction).
Moreover, at least one district
court has dismissed one of the actions challenging the Rule for lack
of jurisdiction upon finding that exclusive jurisdiction over the
legal challenges resides in the Sixth Circuit.
Corp. v. EPA, No. 1:15-cv-110, ECF 32.
See Murray Energy
Under these circumstances,
this Court concludes that the limited stay sought by defendants will
reduce the risk of harm posed by possible inconsistent rulings.
Plaintiffs argue, however, that a stay will prejudice them by
delaying resolution of their legal claims, particularly where they
have claimed that the Rule violates the Tenth Amendment.
Opposition,
pp. 5-6 (explaining, for example, that the Rule creates additional
burdens on the states arising from the states’ responsibilities under
the Clean Water Act, including an obligation to accommodate and
process an increased volume of permits applications based on federal
law).
Plaintiffs’ arguments are again not well-taken.
As defendants
point out, the claimed administrative burdens associated with
6
implementation of the Rule are speculative and, in any event,
plaintiffs have not shown that such burdens are imminent.
Conversely,
as discussed supra, any stay imposed in this action will be of limited
duration.
Moreover, as one district court has already concluded,
there is authority for the proposition that jurisdiction to review the
Rule under the Clean Water Act lies exclusively in the courts of
appeals and, in this instance, the Sixth Circuit.
Murray Energy Corp.
v. EPA, No. 1:15-cv-110, ECF 32. Under these circumstances, this Court
concludes that a limited stay will not prejudice plaintiffs.
Finally, defendants have established that the requested stay will
serve judicial economy and the public interest.
As noted supra,
several petitions for appellate review remain pending in the Sixth
Circuit.
It would be a waste of judicial resources for this case to
proceed here if it is ultimately determined that it is the Sixth
Circuit - or another circuit court – that is the appropriate court to
consider plaintiffs’ claims.
See, e.g., Unroe v. Vilsack, No. 2:11-
cv-592, 2012 WL 3527219, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114480, at *4-5 (S.D.
Ohio Aug. 14, 2012) (“[I]t would be inefficient for the parties to
prepare, and for this Court to review, potentially lengthy briefs and
for this Court to rule on the underlying issues in this case, only to
have to revisit the parties’ arguments in light of the Sixth Circuit’s
ruling[.]”).
In short, defendants’ have shown that a limited stay of
proceedings in this case is warranted.
WHEREUPON, Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending a
Ruling from the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation Under 28
U.S.C. § 1407 to Transfer and Consolidate, ECF 21, is GRANTED.
7
Further proceedings in this action are STAYED pending ruling from the
Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation.
The parties are ORDERED
to promptly notify this Court once such a ruling is issued.
September 1, 2015
s/Norah McCann King_______
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge
8
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?