Environmentalists must offer concrete examples of harm in their suit against a modular home builder over river contamination.
By Alan Riquelmy, Courthouse News Service
A federal judge ruled Thursday an environmental group that sued a Woodland, California, company over contaminated water in the Sacramento River lacks standing to bring its case.
Central Valley Eden Environmental Defenders sued Champion Home Builders this past June. Eden claims stormwater flows over Champion’s facility, collecting sediment, metals and other contaminants and then flows into a canal and creek that feeds into the Sacramento River.
Champion makes modular homes and buildings at its Woodland site, about 20 miles northwest of Sacramento.
Eden claims Champion failed to implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan, had an inadequate monitoring program and didn’t perform monthly observations of stormwater discharges — violations of the Clean Water Act and Champion’s industrial general permit for stormwater.
At a hearing Thursday in Sacramento, U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Calabretta had intended to hear arguments on Champion’s motion to dismiss and Eden’s motion to amend the complaint. However, he said Eden hadn’t shown how its members are harmed and therefore lacks standing to sue.
“It can’t be generally, ‘Our plaintiffs like the Sacramento River,’” Calabretta said.
Eden says in its complaint that at least one of its members has suffered harm because of adverse effects.
“That effectively just restates the law,” Calabretta said, adding the complaint contains no facts about how and why one of Eden’s members was impacted.
A complaint must contain more than a statement that a law was violated, the judge said, but must include elements of those violations. Calabretta gave an example of an Eden member who uses the Sacramento River and is somehow harmed by Champion’s actions, making the argument concrete.
Calabretta suggested Eden’s attorney, Edward Yates, file an amended complaint that shows harm. Champion’s attorney, Daniel Brunton, could then amend his motion to dismiss once he’s seen the new complaint.
Yates suggested the parties attempt to settle, but Calabretta said the issue of standing must first be resolved.
In response, Brunton said his client would withdraw its request for mediation.
In its motion to dismiss, Champion said Eden’s suit recited the law as if it were a factual accusation and urged dismissal.
“Indeed, plaintiff does not plead the name of a single member who allegedly has standing or any specific facts regarding standing,” Champion said in the motion.
Other reasons for dismissal include the statute of limitations, failing to provide a proper 60-day notice to Champion and not stating a cause of action.
Champion monitors its stormwater, a requirement of its general permit, and its results show compliance for the past six years, the company said.
Calabretta said he’d quickly issue a written ruling denying Eden’s motion to file an amended complaint as moot, as the judge gave the group that option. Champion can file a new motion to dismiss once it receives the new amended complaint.
