ELR Citation: 41 ELR 20214
No(s). 3:10-cv-00221 (D. Alaska Jun 8, 2011)

A district court denied a defendant company's motion to dismiss a distribution center's claim for injunctive relief and damages under various causes of action based on environmental contamination on property managed by the defendant. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the company is not meeting the requirements of a 20-year-old compliance order concerning the property and is seeking an order requiring defendants to “develop and implement an effective remediation plan.” The company argued that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under RCRA’s citizen suit provision. Although the plaintiff's claims may or may not prove to be reasonably possible, it is a factual question that the court cannot resolve at this point. While the plaintiff will have to articulate something much more specific to survive summary judgment, its allegations are sufficient to survive the pleading stage. Alternatively, the company argued that the court should dismiss or stay the action pursuant to the primary jurisdiction doctrine because hearing the claim would require resolving issues that are within the "special competence" of the state environmental agency—the entity that issued the compliance order. But the court cannot yet determine whether the case presents particularly complicated issues committed to the agency's jurisdiction. As such, it retains jurisdiction over the case.