Pace et al v. Bonham et al, No. 3:2012cv05610 - Document 61 (N.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING 45 MOTION TO STRIKE by Judge William H. Orrick. The Court GRANTS defendants' motion to strike and strikes the following portions of the Second Amended Complaint: (1) and by canisters borne by packstock (page 2, line 6); (2) p aragraph 11 (page 4, lines 9 to 13); (3) or packstock (page 4, line 15); (4) paragraph 16 (page 5, lines 11 and 12); (5) and discrete conveyances carried by packstock, and by other confined and discrete conveyances (page 5, lines 24 and 25) and (6), packstock, or other means that constitute a point source of pollution (page 6, lines 2-3). (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2013)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 FELICE PACE, et al., Case No. 12-cv-05610-WHO Plaintiffs, 8 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE 9 10 CHARLTON H. BONHAM, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 45 Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 On September 25, 2013, the Court heard argument on defendants motion to dismiss or 12 13 strike portions of plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint (SAC). For the reasons discussed below, 14 after having considered the record and the arguments made, the Court GRANTS the motion to 15 strike. 16 17 BACKGROUND Plaintiffs in this Clean Water Act case allege that defendants Charlton H. Bonham and 18 Stafford Lehr (representatives of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“Department”)) 19 violate the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., by releasing fish into waters of 20 the United States without necessary permits. See SAC ¶ 1. Specifically, plaintiffs contend that 21 when the Department releases native and non-native fish into lakes in California for purposes of 22 stocking the lakes it is discharging “biological materials” that are “pollutants” under the CWA, § 23 1362(6). SAC ¶¶ 9, 13, 18. Plaintiffs allege that release of the fish harms the biological integrity 24 and “food webs” of the lakes by altering nutrient cycling and algal production and impacting other 25 fish, amphibians, and organisms in those lakes. Id. ¶ 13. Plaintiffs allege that defendants 26 introduce the fish and water into the lakes by packstock (in oxygenated plastic bags) and by aerial 27 drop. Id. ¶¶ 10-11. Solely with respect to the fish introduced by aerial drop, plaintiffs allege that: 28 “Mortality rates from the aerial stocking of fish often approach 50%, as a result of the transport, 1 drop, or because these stocked fish do not feed or survive well after stocking.” Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiffs 2 do not make any allegations regarding mortality of fish stocked by packstock. Defendants move to dismiss all allegations regarding: (1) defendants release of live fish 3 4 from airplanes; (2) defendants release of water from airplanes (along with live fish); (3) 5 defendants release of live fish from containers carried by packstock; and (4) defendants release 6 of water from containers carried by packstock (along with live fish), arguing those practices are 7 not in violation of the CWA under Ninth Circuit precedent. In the alternative, defendants move to 8 strike the following from the SAC: (1) “and by canisters borne by packstock” (page 2, line 6); (2) 9 paragraph 11 (page 4, lines 9 to 13); (3) “or packstock” (page 4, line 15); (4) paragraph 16 (page 5, lines 11 and 12); (5) “and discrete conveyances carried by packstock, and by other confined and 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 discrete conveyances” (page 5, lines 24 and 25) and (6) “, packstock, or other means that 12 constitute a point source of pollution” (page 6, lines 2-3). Defendants “do not contest” and do not 13 move to dismiss or strike plaintiffs allegations that aerial fish stocking results in dead fish. 14 Motion at 1. 15 16 17 Plaintiffs oppose the motion, arguing that all of the allegations state a claim under the CWA. LEGAL STANDARD 18 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court must dismiss a complaint 19 if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to 20 dismiss, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 21 face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). This “facial plausibility” standard 22 requires the plaintiff to allege facts that add up to “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant 23 has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). While courts do not require 24 “heightened fact pleading of specifics,” a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to “raise a right to 25 relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 26 In deciding whether the plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, the 27 court must assume that the plaintiff s allegations are true and must draw all reasonable inferences 28 in the plaintiff's favor. See Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). 2 1 However, the court is not required to accept as true “allegations that are merely conclusory, 2 unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 3 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008). Under Rule 12(f), a court “may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any 4 5 redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Civ. P. 12(f). The 6 function of a motion to strike under Rule 12(f) is to avoid the expenditure of time and money that 7 must arise from litigating immaterial and impertinent issues by dispensing of those issues before 8 trial. See Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993), rev’d on other grounds, 9 510 U.S. 517 (1994) (citation omitted). 10 DISCUSSION The Clean Water Act “aims to restore and maintain the „chemical, physical and biological United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 integrity of [the] Nation s waters. ” Association to Protect Hammersley v. Taylor Resources 13 (Hammersley), 299 F.3d 1007, 1009 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a)). Under the 14 CWA any “discharge” of a pollutant from a point source into navigable waters of the United States 15 is unlawful unless the discharge is covered by an NPDES permit.1 Id. The Act defines “pollutant” 16 as: 17 dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water. 18 19 20 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6) (emphasis added). The question at issue here is whether the Department s 21 practice of stocking fish in lakes is a discharge of “biological materials” covered by the CWA and, 22 therefore, illegal without the necessary NPDES permit. 23 I. INTRODUCTION OF LIVE FISH Defendants argue that this case is controlled by the Ninth Circuit s decision in 24 25 Hammersley. In that case the Ninth Circuit considered how to define “biological materials” and 26 concluded that it means “the waste product of a human or industrial process.” 299 F.3d at 1017. 27 1 28 Under 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a) and § 1342, discharges of pollutants must be covered by a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. 3 1 At issue in Hammersley was the farming of mussels in Puget Sound. The Hammersley 2 plaintiffs contended that byproducts released by mussels – introduced and grown by the defendant 3 company – were biological material pollutants under the CWA. The Ninth Circuit found that the 4 definition of “biological materials” was not readily apparent and, using the doctrine of ejusdem 5 generis, defined the term in reference to other specific examples of pollutants listed in the statute. 6 Id. at 1016. Comparing “biological materials” to radioactive materials, garbage, and sewage 7 sludge that end up in waters as the result of human activity, the Court found that “mussel shells, 8 mussel feces and other natural byproduct of live mussels do not appear to be the type of materials 9 the drafters of the Act would classify as „pollutants. ” Id. After considering Congressional intent, the Court held that “biological materials” covered by the Act were the “waste product of a 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 transforming human process” or “the waste product of a human or industrial process.” Id. at 1017. 12 Applying the Hammersley definition here, the Department s introduction of live fish for 13 stocking lakes cannot be considered the waste product of a transforming human or industrial 14 process. In other words, the fish entering a lake are not the by-product of a human activity, like 15 running a hydro-electric facility (National Wildlife Federation v. Consumers Power Co., 862 F.2d 16 580 (6th Cir. 1988)), spreading liquid manure on a field (Concerned Area Residents for the Env’t 17 v. Southview Farm, 34 F.3d 114, 117 (2d. Cir. 1994)), or taking fish from a water body, processing 18 the fish and returning the heads, fins and internal residuals back to that body of water (Ass’n of 19 Pacific Fisheries v. EPA, 615 F.2d 794, 802 (9th Cir. 1980)). Instead, introduction of the live fish 20 is the purpose and goal of the Department s stocking program. 21 The fact that plaintiffs in this case have alleged that the Department s stocking “alters the 22 physical and biological integrity” of the lakes does not change this Court s conclusion. While the 23 Court in Hammersley felt their analysis was “strengthened” by the lack of allegation or evidence 24 in the record that the shellfish discharge there caused any identifiable harm to Puget Sound and 25 issued their decision with the “caveat” that the record did not indicate that the materials discharged 26 by the shellfish were released in a concentration significantly greater than would otherwise be 27 found in Puget Sound, 299 F.3d 1017 n.9, the Court looked to the harm issue only as added 28 support for their interpretation of the ambiguous statutory term “biological materials.” This Court 4 1 is not charged with construing “biological materials” anew, but simply applying the Hammersley 2 Court s definition of “biological materials” as a “waste product of a human or industrial process.” 3 Similarly, the fact that some of the live fish being stocked are not native or could not 4 otherwise be naturally sustained does not alter the Court s conclusion. In Northwest 5 Environmental Defense Center v. EPA (NEDC), 537 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2008), in determining 6 that the EPA acted ultra vires in excluding marine ballast discharges from CWA coverage, the 7 Ninth Circuit found in passing that the term “biological materials” includes “invasive species.” Id. 8 at 1021. That finding, however, does not undermine the holding in this case because the invasive 9 species at issue there – non-native zebra mussels and other organisms – were discharged as waste in the ballast water of container ships. The NEDC Court s passing reference is not inconsistent 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 with Hammersley, because discharge of the organisms at issue was the waste product of a human 12 or industrial process. 13 Plaintiffs also rely on U.S. Public Interest Research Group v. Atlantic Salmon of Maine, 14 215 F.Supp.2d 239 (D. Me. 2002). In that case the District Court found that release of non-native 15 salmon, which escaped from a salmon farm, was discharge of a pollutant under the CWA. Id. at 16 247. However, the District Court s holding is likewise consistent with Hammersley. The escaped 17 non-native salmon – along with the other pollutants including copper, chemicals, and antibiotics, 18 id. at 248 – were waste products from a human or industrial process. 19 Finally, in Hammersley, the Ninth Circuit noted that Gallo mussels were not native to 20 Puget Sound, but were introduced in 1970s or 1980s. That fact did not alter the Court s 21 conclusion that discharges from the non-native mussels were not pollutants under the CWA. 299 22 F.3d at 1010 & n.1.2 23 For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the claims in the SAC regarding the 24 25 26 27 28 2 The Court notes that the alleged environmental impacts of the Department s stocking program are currently being reviewed, as plaintiff Wild Earth Advocates and others challenged the Department s Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement under the California Environmental Quality Act. See Exhibit C to Defendants Request for Judicial Notice [Docket No. 20-4]. This Court is bound to apply the Hammersley Court s definition of biological materials rather than attempt a review of the alleged environmental impacts of stocking live fish in Californian lakes. 5 1 introduction of live fish are not actionable under the CWA. 2 II. INTRODUCTION OF WATER Defendants also argue that plaintiffs allegations regarding the release of water (see e.g., 3 4 “[t]he water used to release fish can harbor non-native species of aquatic plans, [sic] invertebrates, 5 and fish that is introduced into the lake being stocked,” SAC ¶ 16) is not actionable because there 6 are no further allegations in the complaint regarding the release of water and the charging 7 allegations allege a violation of the CWA only because of “[t]he addition of these fish.” Id. ¶ 18; 8 see Motion at 14.3 Plaintiffs do not address this argument in their opposition and did not address it 9 at oral argument.4 The Court finds that despite multiple opportunities to address this deficiency in their pleadings, plaintiffs have not done so. Given that plaintiffs have not opposed defendants 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 argument on its substance, the Court finds that plaintiffs allegation regarding the release of water 12 (associated with the release of fish) is not actionable as pled. 13 III. REMEDY 14 Having found that the allegations regarding introduction of live fish and the introduction of 15 water are not actionable, the question becomes whether to dismiss or strike those allegations. As 16 an initial matter, the Court finds that because there is only one cause of action under the Clean 17 Water Act, and the challenged allegations are not clearly separable claims, dismissal under 18 12(b)(6) is not appropriate. However, the Court finds that in order to streamline the litigation, and 19 remove what are now immaterial allegations, striking the non-actionable allegations is the better 20 course. See e.g., Thompson v. Paul, 657 F. Supp. 2d 1113, 1130 (D. Ariz. 2009) (finding that a 21 Rule 12(b)(6) motion may be used to strike certain allegations in support of a claim, where the 22 underlying claim itself is not challenged). As such, the Court GRANTS defendants motion to 23 strike and strikes the following portions of the Second Amended Complaint: (1) “and by canisters 24 25 26 27 28 3 Defendants also argue that the transfer of water (and any materials already in that water) is exempt from the requirement to obtain a Clean Water Act permit. 40 C.F.R. § 122.3(i). 4 This issue was also raised in the Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and not addressed by plaintiffs either in their opposition to that motion or in their Second Amended Complaint. See Docket No.20 at 8; Docket No. 25 at 2 n.1. The arguments raised in the prior motion to dismiss were not ruled on substantively and the motion was denied as moot in light of plaintiffs request to file the Second Amended Complaint. See Docket No. 42. 6 1 borne by packstock” (page 2, line 6); (2) paragraph 11 (page 4, lines 9 to 13); (3) “or packstock” 2 (page 4, line 15); (4) paragraph 16 (page 5, lines 11 and 12); (5) “and discrete conveyances carried 3 by packstock, and by other confined and discrete conveyances” (page 5, lines 24 and 25) and (6) “, 4 packstock, or other means that constitute a point source of pollution” (page 6, lines 2-3). 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS defendants Motion to Strike. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 30, 2013 ______________________________________ WILLIAM H. ORRICK United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7
]]>
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.
