ANR v Davis

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
      STATE  OF  VERMONT     SUPERIOR  COURT   Vermont  Unit   ENVIRONMENTAL  DIVISION   Docket  No.  20-­ 2-­ 14  Vtec     ANR  v.  Ken  Davis  d/b/a  Davis  Contracting  Service     ENTRY  REGARDING  MOTION         Title:     Motion  to  Dismiss  (Motion  1)   Filer:     Ken  Davis   Attorney:   Pro  se   Filed  Date:   March  24,  2014     Response  filed  on  04/07/2014  by  Attorney  John  Zaikowski  for  Petitioner  Agency  of  Natural   Resources     The  motion  is  DENIED.     So  ordered.       This   matter   arises   out   of   the   alleged   failure   of   Respondent   Ken   Davis,   d/b/a   Davis   Contracting   Service,   to   follow   Acceptable   Management   Practices   (AMPs)   in   connection   with   Respondent s  logging  activities  on  property  in  Montgomery,  Vermont.    On  February  12,  2014,   the   Vermont   Agency   of   Natural   Resources   (ANR   or   Agency)   issued   Respondent   an   Administrative   Order   (AO)   alleging   violations   of   the   Vermont   water   pollution   control   law,   10   V.S.A.   §   1259(a),   as   a   result   of   his   logging   activities.     The   AO   sets   out   numerous   factual   allegations   describing   Respondent s   failure   to   follow   multiple   AMPs   on   several   occasions,   resulting   in   discharges   into   waters   of   the   State   without   a   permit.     While   the   AO   states   that   Respondent   has   since   come   into   compliance   and   is   following   all   AMPs,   ANR   seeks   administrative   penalties   for   the   violations.     On   February   18,   2014,   Respondent   requested   a   hearing  with  this  Court.    Now  before  the  Court  is  Respondent s   Motion  to  Dismiss  for  Lack  of   Prima  Facie  Case.       Rule  4(d)  of  the  Vermont  Rules  for  Environmental  Court  Proceedings  (V.R.E.C.P.)  governs   the  procedure  for  this  Court s  review  of  Administrative  Orders.    It  requires  ANR  to  file  a  pretrial   memorandum,  including  a  list  of  witnesses  and  a  summary  of  any  evidence  it  plans  to  present,   within  seven  days  of  the  request  for  a  hearing.    The  Agency  filed  this  memorandum  on  February   24,  2014.       Within  10  days  of  the  filing  of  the  Agency s  pretrial  memorandum,  the  respondent  must   file  a  memorandum  that  includes:  the  respondent s  agreement  or  disagreement  with  the  facts     1   described   by   the   Agency   in   the   AO;   a   list   of   witnesses   and   summary   of   the   respondent s   evidence;   a   statement   with   particularity   as   to   whether   the   respondent   accepts   or   contests   each  element  of  the  order  section  of  the  AO;  a  summary  of  evidence  related  to  penalties,  if  one   was   imposed;   and   the   legal   and   jurisdictional   issues   which   the   respondent   plans   to   raise.     Respondent s  memorandum,  filed  late  on  March  17,  2014,  laid  out  the  witnesses  Respondent   intended  to  call,  but  did  not  comply  with  the  other  requirements  of  V.R.E.C.P.  4(d)(4)(B)(ii).       On   March   24,   2014,   Respondent   filed   the   pending   motion   to   dismiss.     This   motion   is   best  characterized  as  a  motion  to  dismiss  for  failure  to  state  a  claim  upon  which  relief  can  be   granted,   as   governed   by   Vermont   Rule   of   Civil   Procedure   12(b)(6).     Civil   Rule   12(b)   does   not   apply  to  this  Court s  review  of  administrative  orders.    V.R.E.C.P.  4(a)(3).    Here,  however,  giving   Respondent  some  leeway  as  a  pro  se  litigant,  we  consider  the  merits  of  his  motion  under  the   Court s  authority  to  issue  orders  for  the  disposition  of  legal  issues  prior  to  the  de  novo  hearing.     V.R.E.C.P.  4(d)(4)(C).   This   Court   may   only   dismiss   a   claim   when   it   is   certain   that   there   are   no   possible   facts   or   circumstances  that  would  allow  relief  for  the  claimant.    Richards  v.  Town  of  Norwich,  169  Vt.   44,  48  (1999)  (citing  Amiot  v.  Ames,  166  Vt.  288,  291  (1997)).    To  make  this  determination,  we   are  directed  to  assume  that  all  factual  allegations  made  by  the  non-­ moving  party  are  true  and   that  all  contravening  assertions  made  by  the  moving  party  are  false.    Id.  at  48 49.    If  materials   outside   the   pleadings   are   considered,   the   motion   may   be   converted   into   one   for   summary   judgment   subject   to   the   standards   of   Civil   Rule   56.     V.R.C.P.   12(b).     Under   Civil   Rule   56,   a   movant   must   show   the   absence   of   any   genuine   dispute   of   material   fact   and   entitlement   to   judgment   as   a   matter   of   law.     V.R.C.P.   56(a).     Because   Respondent   cannot   meet   either   of   these   standards,  his  motion  must  be  dismissed.   The   Agency   has   alleged   sufficient   facts   to   create   an   issue   for   trial   as   to   whether   Respondent   was   in   violation   of   the   AMPs   and   whether   failure   to   follow   the   AMPs   resulted   in   discharges  to  State  waters  without  a  permit.    Respondent s  motion  to  dismiss  rests  primarily  on   an   issue   he   raises   in   defense:   that   the   discharges   were   caused   by   Hurricane   Irene   and   not   Respondent s   failure   to   follow   the   AMPs.     This   assertion   does   not   support   dismissal   of   the   action;   rather,   Respondent   must   present   evidence   of   his   compliance   with   the   AMPs   and   the   effects  of  Hurricane  Irene  at  the  de  novo  hearing.       Therefore,   because   Respondent   has   failed   to   establish   sufficient   legal   grounds   for   dismissal  of  this  administrative  enforcement  order,  his  motion  to  dismiss  is  DENIED.     Electronically  signed  on  July  9,  2014  at  09:49  AM  pursuant  to  V.R.E.F.  7(d).         _________________________________________   Thomas  G.  Walsh,  Judge   Superior  Court,  Environmental  Division         2   Notifications:   John  Zaikowski  (ERN  4276),  Attorney  for  Petitioner  Agency  of  Natural  Resources   Respondent  Ken  Davis     rkane       3  

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.