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.

WARMINSTER TWP. MUN. AUTH. v. UNITED STATES

October 20, 1995

WARMINSTER TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOYNER

 Joyner, J.

 This environmental action is before the Court today on the motions of Defendants, which seek the dismissal of four of the five counts contained in Plaintiff's complaint. Defendants argue that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the counts at issue, and therefore request an order dismissing them pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motions to dismiss will be granted.

 The plaintiff in this case is the Warminster Township Municipal Authority ("Warminster"), a Pennsylvania municipality that has brought this action against the United States of America, the United States Department of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Navy in his official capacity (collectively, "the Government"). In its complaint, Warminster contends that one of its water wells ("Well 26") became contaminated as a result of the release of hazardous substances from the Naval Air Warfare Center ("NAWC") in Warminster, a facility that was placed on the Environmental Protection Agency's National Priorities List ("NPL") on October 4, 1989. Specifically, Warminster asserts that hazardous substances continue to migrate through the soil from NAWC's waste disposal sites, resulting in the contamination of Well 26. Warminster first discovered the presence of hazardous substances in Well 26 in 1979. From 1979 until 1985, Warminster shut down Well 26, and was forced to purchase water from other sources. In 1985, Warminster installed a groundwater treatment system to remove the hazardous substances so that it could again draw on Well 26, and asserts that it will continue to operate the groundwater treatment system until the contamination has been eliminated.

 In Counts I and II, Warminster seeks compensation for response costs pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9601, et seq. ("CERCLA") and the Pennsylvania Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act, 35 P.S. § 6020.101, et seq. ("HSCA"), respectively. Such costs include the cost of replacing lost well capacity, the cost of pumping well water to waste, the cost of installing and maintaining a treatment system, and the costs associated with monitoring the threat posed by the potential release of hazardous substances, among others. In Counts III, IV and V, Warminster seeks relief pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671, et seq. ("FTCA") under the theories of negligence, nuisance and strict liability.

 The Government has since filed the instant motions, in which it seeks the dismissal of Counts II, III, IV and V of the complaint. In the first motion, the Government argues that since the United States has not waived sovereign immunity for the HSCA claim, Count II must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for want of subject matter jurisdiction. Moreover, in its second motion, the Government submits that the FTCA claims must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) because they are time-barred. Warminster opposes both motions. With this background and the parties' positions in mind, we turn now to address the merits of the arguments.

 II. DISCUSSION

 A. Count II: HSCA Claim

 The Government contends that we lack subject matter jurisdiction over Count II, in that the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity with respect to the HSCA claim. As a sovereign, the United States "'is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued . . . and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court's jurisdiction to entertain the suit.'" United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399, 47 L. Ed. 2d 114, 96 S. Ct. 948 (1976) (quoting United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586, 85 L. Ed. 1058, 61 S. Ct. 767 (1941)). The plaintiff in a suit against the United States is therefore required to set forth in the complaint the specific statute containing a waiver of the government's immunity from suit. Reeves v. United States, 809 F. Supp. 92, 94 (N.D. Ga. 1992), aff'd without op., 996 F.2d 1232 (11th Cir. 1993); see Swift v. United States Border Patrol, 578 F. Supp. 35, 37 (S.D. Tex. 1983)("It is incumbent upon the Plaintiff to state in his complaint the grounds upon which the sovereign consented to [the] suit."), aff'd without op., 731 F.2d 886 (5th Cir. 1984); 5 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1212 at 126 (1990). Such waivers are effective only if they are "unequivocally expressed in the statutory text." United States v. Idaho, 508 U.S. 1, 123 L. Ed. 2d 563, 113 S. Ct. 1893, 1896 (1993)(internal quotation omitted). Thus, waivers are strictly construed in favor of the sovereign, and are not to be "enlarged beyond what the language of the statute requires." Id. ; accord United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30, 117 L. Ed. 2d 181, 112 S. Ct. 1011 (1992).

 In its complaint, Warminster fails to set forth the specific basis under we might entertain its HSCA claim; instead, Warminster asserts that this Court has jurisdiction over the instant action pursuant to CERCLA. *fn1" Compl. P 4. CERCLA provides for a limited waiver of sovereign immunity, as follows:

 
State laws concerning removal and remedial action, including State laws regarding enforcement, shall apply to removal and remedial action at facilities owned or operated by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States when such facilities are not included on the National Priorities List. The preceding sentence shall not apply to the extent a State law would apply any standard or requirement to such facilities which is more stringent than the standards and requirements applicable to such facilities which are not owned or operated by any such department, agency, or instrumentality.

 42 U.S.C. § 9620(a)(4) (emphasis added). Thus, Congress opted to expose the United States to liability under state laws regarding removal and remedial action only where the site at issue is not included on the NPL. Since Warminster concedes in its complaint that NAWC is on the NPL, the waiver of sovereign immunity described in CERCLA cannot operate to expose the Government to liability under the HSCA. Accordingly, since the United States has not waived its immunity from suit, we ...


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.