Petition — Manchester Environmental Coalition v. Environmental Protection Agency

82-247

No

OCTOBER TERM, 1982

MANCHESTER ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION

and

MICHAEL DWORKIN

Petitioners

Vv.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL

Respondents

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

WITH ATTACHED APPENDIX

ANTHONY F. PAGANO

Beck & Pagano

447 Center Street

Manchester, CT 06040

(203) 646-5606

Counsel for Petitioners

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

Whether the denial, without opinion, of coste and

attorney's fees to a successful petitioner, suing for viola-

tions of the Federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §7401 et

seq., violates §7607(f) of the Act.

PARTIES

The Petitioners are Manchester Environmental

Coalition and Michael Dworkin (hereinafter, ‘‘Petition-

ers”). The Respondents are the United States Environ-

mental Protection Agency, Connecticut Fund for the

Environment, Inc., John Walton, The State of

Connecticut, National Retail Merchants Association,

National Realty Committee and International Council of

Shopping Centers (hereinafter, ‘‘Respondents’’).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ............ i

LIST OF PARTIES .........0ccccccccsceeeeeeeeeenes i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..........6.6ccceeeeeeees ii

OPINION BELOW. .........0ccccccsceeeeceeeeeenenes 1

JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT............6.60005 1

UNITED STATES STATUTE RELEVANT TO

BEBE TEER OON cc cccccccccccccccccccccccccccces 2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE & BASIS FOR

ORIGINAL FEDERAL JURISDICTION ......... 2

RETBUREIIINE cc cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccecs 3

eee Fit PPPPTTTTTTTTITITITI TTT TTT ri rir ir eee 10

rg | > SPMPPPPTTTTITITITITITITITITTTT TTT Tree 1A

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

Cases:

Alabama Power Co, v. Gorsuch, 672 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir.

\ MPPYTTITITITITITITITTTITTT iT irirrrrer ri iir ee 4

Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness

Society, 421 U.S. 240 (1975). .... 66... c cee eees 3, 5, 6

Barber v. Kimbrell's, Inc., 572 F.2d 216 (4th Cir.

PPPPPPYYPYTTTITTTTT LTT TTT TTTTTTTTTTiT rere: 8

Busche v. Burkee, 649 F.2d 509 (7th Cir.), cert. de-

nied, 70 L.Ed.2d 212, 102 S.Ct. 396 ..........6655. 5

Cohen v. West Haven Board of Police Commission-

ers, 638 F.2d 496 (2d Cir. 1980) ....... 666s cece eees 9

Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880 (D.C. Cir.

EREEPFPPPTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT TT TTT Tire 7,8

Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. EPA, 672 F.2d

Ge Ge Ge BE cocccccccedecccececocesoecces 4,8

Evans v. Sheraton Park Hotel, 603 F.2d 177, (D.C.

| PPPPPTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTiT ire er 7

Friends of the Earth v. Carey, 535 F.2d 165 (2d Cir.

1976), cert. denied, 434 U.S, 902 (1977) ............ 5

Hameed v. International Ass'n. of Bridge, Structural

& Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 396, 637 F.2d

Be Ge GS Ecc ccccccesocceccccececcoosceses 8

Hymes v. Harmett County Board of Education, 664

F.2d 410 (4th Cir, 1981)..... 0... cece ccceeeeeeeeees 9

Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d

We OU GS Bc che seecceececcsecceccocecosedes 7

Manchester Environmental Coalition v. EPA, 612

OE, TL: on pha s pce cn uncecdececasedé 5

Metropolitan Washington Coalition for Clean Air v.

District of Columbia, 639 F.2d 802 (D.C. Cir.

Murphy v. Kolovitz, 635 F.2d 662, 664 (7th Cir.

Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 581 F.2d 275 (ist Cir. 1978)

New York Gaslight Club v. Carey, 447 U.S. 54

ee tran ladveese Lia ia

Northern Plains Resource Council v. EPA, 670 F.2d

BEF Geet Ge Tc ccccccccccecccccccccccccccccess 4

National Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 484 F.2d

| FT . BPPPYTTTTTTTTTTTT TTT ree 4

Prate v. Friedman, 683 F.2d 42 (2d Cir. 1978).......... 7

Sargeant v. Sharp, 579 F.2d 645, 647 (lst Cir.

PPPPPPPPTTTT TTTIT TTT eT Ti TTT Tirririrre ey 8

Sethy v. Alameda County Water District, 602 F.2d

894 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. — 444 U.S. 1046

—— PFPPPPPTTTTOTT TT TTT TTTT CTTTTTITT Tri ye 8

Sierra Club v. Gorsuch, 672 F.2d 33 (D.C. Cir.

PPPPEPPPPTTTTTTITITITITTTTTTTTTTTTTT Tir ry 4,9

Statutes:

a TN | BPPPPPTTTTTITITT TTT TTTTTTTT TTT rer ire 6

16 U.S.C. §1540(gN4). 0... c cece e eee eeeeweees 6

BD TE, GEO cc ccccccccecceccccccnvcccosceccsoccece 2

iL | | BPPPPTTTTTTTTTTT TT TTTTTTT Tere iii ey 6

iv

BB UBS. GISGG nr rcccccvcvccccceccccccsscvescccccecs 6

83 U.S.C. §1415(g).. 6.6 cece cece cece eee eeeeeeeeeenenes 6

GB UGG, GEGIG cc rccccccccccccccccccccccccccccevccces 6

4B UBC, GOOD... crcccccccccsccccccccccccvecececees 6

42 U.S.C, §$2000A-O(b) 0... c cece e cere eeeeenenes 5

42 U.S.C. §20000-5(K) (1976)... 6.6 cece eee e eee e eens 6

GB UBD, GOBUL oo cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccceees 6

4B UDG, GOOTB oc ccccccrcccccccccccccccvcccvccecccces 6

42 U.S.C, §7401, et 80... 66. c cece cee ceceeeeeeeees (i), 2

42 U.S.C, §7GO7T(D). 1... cece cece tere eeeeeeewereeeeees 2

42 U.S.C, §TG0T(f). 6... ccc cece eees (i), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9

GD VBR. GEO coccccccccccccccccccescccccccccccocccs 6

Federal Regulations:

45 Fed. Reg. 84769-84787 (1980) ...........ccccceeeees 2

Miscellaneous:

House Report, H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Cong. Ist

Sess, 337 (1977, reprinted in 1977 U.S. Code

Cong. & Ad. News 1077, 1416...........6c0ceceeee 3

Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the

Second Circuit - Rule 27(c) and (h) .............. 1,3

OPINION BELOW

reported at 672 F.2d 998 (2d Cir.

of the United States Court of Appeals

Circuit, which appears at p. 1 of the

is

opinion

Second

infra,

The

the

§

-_

ie Hs

iad

‘+i

A

i

Hu

tte

JURISDICTION

Petitioners’ Motion for Attor-

was entered on April 9, 1982.

Reconsideration was entertained and

RELEVANT STATUTES

42 U.S.C. Section 7607(f):

si3

(i

STATEMENT OF

guts

qi?

moved, on March 3, 1982, pursuant to 42

U.S.C. Section 7607(f) for an award of costs of suit,

ee

<

&

538 z Aina]

aig ie bil F : :

a ae i Tae

i a HH bie

vie elnee seapeelats

; i: i; gS

itt i He lar:

at ad Sled a

PH BTL mt Iyer. Tt ae SHE

We Far een Pee

cleats Gr eld ti

i! i r : 13,3 ds TH tt

teeth

lis Ht Te Aaa

Tae Hi: i

int ; Site Hl

the parties sought in bringing suit”

. Helgemoe, 581 F.2d 275, 278-279 (ist

1978). Accord, Busche v. Burkee, 649 F.2d 509 (7th

.), cert. denied, 70 L.Ed.2d 212, 102 S.Ct. 396 (1981).

i

The Second Circuit's denial of attorney's fees in this

case not only conflicts with the decisions of other

circuits, but also with prior decisions of the Second

Friends of the Earth v. Carey, 535 F.2d

6), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 902 (1977) and

Environmental Coclition v. EPA, 612

determining when an award of attorney's fees is

“appropriate”, or the factors to be used in calculating

the amount of such an award.

In Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness

Society, supra, this Court had occasion to review various

statutory provisions allowing attorney's fees,

(see £21 U.S. 261 at n. 35), the Alyeska Court, in

discussing another discretionary statute, Title II of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000a-e(b), noted

that

We have held that Congress intended that the

award should be made to the successful plaintiff

absent exceptional circumstances. Newman uv.

Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400,

402, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263, 88 S.Ct. 964 (1968).

421 U.S. at 262.

Likewise, in New York Gaslight Club v. Carey, 447 U.S.

54 (1980), the court relied upon the legislative history of

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

§2000e-5(K), to hold that ‘the courts’ discretion to deny

a fee award to a prevailing plaintiff is narrow. Absent

‘special circumstances,’ ... fees should be awarded.” 447

U.S. at 68. Similarly, the legislative history of the Clean

Air Act mandates an award of attorney's fees in this

supra, and Newman v. Piggie Park, supra. The interpre-

tation of the provision at issue here, Section 307 of the

Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §7607, should be accorded even

Environmental acts containing similar provisions include Section

505 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §1365;

the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (Ocean

Dumping Act), 33 U.S.C. §1415(g); Section 12 of the Noise Control

Act of 1972, 42 U.S.C. §4911; Section 11 of the Endangered Species

Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. §1540ig); Section 16 of Port

Act of 1974, 33 U.S.C. §1515; Section 1449 of the Safe Drinking

Water Act, 42 U.S.C. §300j-8; Section 7002 of the Resource Conser-

ma

tea. 3 22833

it Sea

tk i i PHB abi! Mi

aia ; pial] Ch ii}! Biull

leat AHI AH

13445 mae : badbaet jie THE 24]

tea | lentes ai

ual, ry beeree te aiih

abaeta ZF ie u: iis paltadly

— HEHE

638 F.2d 42, 48 (2d Cir. 1978); Barber v. Kimbrell's, Inc.,

572 F.2d 216, (4th Cir. 1973), as has the analysis

forth in Copeland,® the application of these criteria is

from

B. THE OPINION DENYING ATTORNEY'S FEES

SHOULD BE VACATED AS THE COURT'S

FAILURE TO ARTICULATE A REASON FOR

ITS DENIAL CONSTITUTES AN ABUSE OF

DISCRETION.

In exercising whatever degree of discretion it has in

awarding or denying attorney's fees, a court must

articulate the reasons for its decision. To deny discre-

tionary fees without stating a reason constitutes an

abuse of discretion. Murphy v. Kolovitz, 635 F.2d 662,

664 (7th Cir. 1981); Hameed v. International Ass'n of

Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, Local

396, 637 F.2d 506 (8th Cir. 1980); Sethy v. Alameda

County Water District, 602 F.2d 894, 897 (9th Cir.

1979), cert denied, 444 U.S. 1046 (i980); Sargeant v.

Sharp, 579 F.2d 645, 647 (lst Cir. 1978). Similarly,

reversal. Hymes v. Harmett County Board of Education,

664 F.2d 410 (4th Cir. 1981); Hedrich v. Hercules, Inc.

658 F.2d 1088 (5th Cir. 1981); Cohen v. West Haven

Board of Police Commissioners, 638 F.2d 496 (2d Cir.

1980).

In the present case, Petitioners, for the purpose of

securing this Court's review of the Second Circuit's

orced

dangerous precedent which can only cripple enforcement,

not only of the Clean Air Act, but if a wide panoply of

other environmental statutes as well.

As the Court stated in Sierra Club v. Gorsuch,

supra, 672 F.2d at 36:

ment of statutory goals. When the government

is attempting to carry out a program of such

vast and uncharted dimensions, there are roles

for both the official agency and a private watch-

dog. tion

Without this Court's defining “appropriate” in 42

U.S.C. Section 7607(f) and defining the factors relevant

to a fee award, the government will be free to continue

its reign of litigation terror; not litigation to prevent

pollution but :ather to prevent enforcement actions by

those “private watchdogs of the environment” whe have

administrative enforcement action by the EPA, a

decision in this case is of utmost importance.

CONCLUSION

10