ELR Citation: ELR 20215
No(s). 05-16904 (11th Cir. Oct 24, 2006)

The court affirmed the denial of a property owner's motion to show cause as to why a junkyard operator had not implemented a legally sufficient stormwater pollution prevention plan pursuant to a prior court order, but it reversed the district court's denial of her motion to show cause as to why the operator had not obtained a solid waste handling permit. The district court abused its discretion in finding that the operator was not required to seek a solid waste handling permit under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and denying the property owner's motion to show cause on this issue. The district court based its decision on a state agency letter that stated that the operator no longer needed to obtain a permit. But the Eleventh Circuit had affirmed the district court's prior court order requiring the operator to obtain a permit, and a district court may not act contrary to an appellate court's command. The property owner, however, failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the operator had violated the prior court order to develop and implement a legally sufficient stormwater pollution prevention plan under the Clean Water Act. Rather, the record demonstrates that the operator made an effort to comply with the order. In addition, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of the property owner's state-law claims for damages. The district court had jurisdiction to hear the claims.

[A prior decision in this litigation is digested at 34 ELR 20104.]