Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Richardson v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

United States District Court, Fourth Circuit

January 7, 2014

MARK E. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff,
v.
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Richard D. Bennett United States District Judge

Plaintiff Mark E. Richardson[1] brought the currently pending action under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., for alleged pollution of the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River from sites located in Baltimore City. Defendant Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (“the City”) has filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5), which is currently pending before this Court. The parties’ submissions have been reviewed and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2011). As Richardson lacks standing for the reasons that follow, Defendant Mayor and City Council of Baltimore’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

BACKGROUND

This Court accepts as true the facts alleged in the plaintiff’s’ complaint. See Aziz v. Alcolac, Inc., 658 F.3d 388, 390 (4th Cir. 2011).

Plaintiff Mark E. Richardson (“Richardson”) is a resident of Baltimore City, Maryland. Pl.’s Compl. ¶ 12. Richardson alleges that he “live[s] near the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River” and “regularly use[s] and recreate[s] on and around the River and desire[s] to do so in the future.” Id. ¶ 13. Defendant Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (“the City”) owns property (“the Site”) located adjacent to the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River.[2] Id. at 14.

The gravamen of Richardson’s Complaint is that the City is violating the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants from the Site into the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River. Specifically, Richardson alleges that the Site was contaminated by past industrial uses, which resulted in the accumulation of pollutants such as “heavy metals, semi-volatile organic compounds, petroleum compounds, and volatile organize compounds.” Id. ¶¶ 26-27. According to the Complaint, groundwater flowing through the Site becomes polluted by these contaminants in the soil. Id. ¶¶ 28-29. That polluted groundwater then purportedly follows a “preferred pathway” along the outside of a 42-inch storm drainage pipe located under the Site and empties into the River. Id. ¶¶ 31-32. In addition, the Complaint alleges that pipes under the Site “more likely than not contain[] gaps, cracks, and holes that have developed over time.” Id. ¶ 33. These apertures allegedly allow contaminated groundwater to enter the pipes and to be discharged directly into the River. Id.

On April 19, 2013, Richardson provided notice of his intent to sue to the City, Robert Summers, secretary of the Maryland Department of Environment, and Stephen Field of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Id. ¶ 7. Richardson then filed this action against the City on July 2, 2013. See generally Id . On August 28, 2013, the City moved to dismiss the suit for lack of standing and other independent grounds.[3]

STANDARD OF REVIEW

I. Rule 12(b)(1)

When a defendant moves to dismiss a plaintiff’s claim for lack of standing, courts commonly address the motion under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Payne v. Chapel Hill North Properties, LLC, 947 F.Supp.2d 567 (M.D. N.C. 2013) (“Generally, challenges to standing are addressed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”); see also Nat'l Alliance for Accessibility, Inc. v. Rite Aid of N. Carolina, Inc., 1:10CV932, 2011 WL 4499294 (M.D. N.C. Sept. 27, 2011) (“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a party may assert that a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a plaintiff's complaint, including by challenging a plaintiff’s standing.”); Food & Water Watch v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, CV 12-1639(RC), 2013 WL 6513826, at *5 (D.D.C. Dec. 13, 2013) (“[A] motion to dismiss for lack of standing constitutes a motion under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the defect of standing is a defect in subject matter jurisdiction.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject matter jurisdiction challenges a court’s authority to hear the matter brought by a complaint. See Davis v. Thompson, 367 F.Supp.2d 792, 799 (D. Md. 2005). This challenge under Rule 12(b)(1) may proceed either as a facial challenge, asserting that the allegations in the complaint are insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction, or a factual challenge, asserting “that the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint [are] not true.” Kerns v. United States, 585 F.3d 187, 192 (4th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). With respect to a facial challenge, a court will grant a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction “where a claim fails to allege facts upon which the court may base jurisdiction.” Davis, 367 F.Supp.2d at 799. When addressing such a facial challenge, “the plaintiff, in effect, is afforded the same procedural protection as he would receive under a Rule 12(b)(6) consideration.” Kerns v. United States, 585 F.3d 187, 192 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Adams v. Bain, 697 F.2d 1213, 1219 (4th Cir. 1982)). Where the challenge is factual, the district court may look beyond the pleadings and “decide disputed issues of fact with respect to subject matter jurisdiction.” Kerns, 585 F.3d at 192; see also Khoury v. Meserve, 268 F.Supp.2d 600, 606 (D. Md. 2003) (“[T]he court may look beyond the pleadings and ‘the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and view whatever evidence has been submitted on the issue to determine whether in fact subject matter jurisdiction exists.’”). A plaintiff carries the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Lovern v. Edwards, 190 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir. 1999).

II. Rule 12(b)(6)

Where, as here, [4] a party makes a facial challenge to the district court’s jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the district court evaluates the jurisdictional allegations under the standard set forth in Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes the dismissal of a complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The purpose of Rule 12(b)(6) is “to test the sufficiency of a complaint and not to resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses.” Presley v. City of Charlottesville, 464 F.3d 480, 483 (4th Cir. 2006).

The Supreme Court’s recent opinions in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), “require that complaints in civil actions be alleged with greater specificity than previously was required.” Walters v. McMahen, 684 F.3d 435, 439 (4th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). The Supreme Court’s decision in Twombly articulated “[t]wo working principles” that courts must employ when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. First, while a court must accept as true all the factual allegations contained in the complaint, legal conclusions drawn from those facts are not afforded such deference. Id. Second, a complaint must be dismissed if it does not allege “a plausible claim for relief.” Id. at 679. Under the plausibility standard, a complaint must contain “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Although the plausibility requirement does not impose a “probability requirement, ” id. at 556, “[a] claim ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.