Coal River Mt. Watch v. United States DOI

Coal River Mt. Watch v. United States DOI

Opinion

 [*18]  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Coal River Mountain Watch ("Coal River") is a non-profit organization that advocates for Appalachian communities affected by coal mining practices. Just over four years ago, Coal River determined that a particular West Virginia mining permit had not been utilized for more than three years after it had issued, and citing provisions of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 ("SMCRA") [*19] , 30 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq., Coal River asked the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection ("WVDEP") to declare that the permit had terminated automatically due to its nonuse. WVDEP declined to make the requested declaration, pointing to its own internal policy that [**2]  requires the issuance of a warning notice to the permit holder prior to the termination of a permit. Coal River then took its automatic-termination contention to the regional office of the Office of Surface Mining ("OSM") within the United States Department of the Interior, which agreed with Coal River that WVDEP's notice policy was arbitrary and capricious and contravened the pertinent provisions of the SMCRA. WVDEP requested a review of the regional office's determination from OSM's headquarters (which is stationed in the District of Columbia), and in a detailed letter ("Decision Letter"), OSM headquarters reached the opposite conclusion—i.e., it determined that the SMCRA could, and should, be read as permitting WVDEP's pre-termination notice policy. Coal River brings the instant action against OSM, the Department of the Interior, and various officials in their official capacities (collectively referred to herein as "the government") claiming that OSM headquarters' determination was a rulemaking that required notice-and-comment procedures, and that its substantive conclusion was contrary to governing law, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706. Notably, Coal River [**3]  also filed a substantively identical APA lawsuit against these same defendants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia ("SDWV").

Before this Court at present is the government's motion to dismiss this case in order "[t]o avoid duplicative litigation and promote judicial economy and comity" in light of the pending action in the Southern District of West Virginia. (Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss Pl.'s Am. Compl. ("Defs.' Mot."), ECF No. 19, at 13.)¹ The government cites cases in which one of two substantively identical and parallel actions is dismissed on equitable grounds, and asks this Court to follow that path. In response, Coal River contends that this Court has exclusive jurisdiction under 30 U.S.C. § 1276(a)(1) and thus cannot dismiss this matter in deference to another forum; moreover, and in the alternative, Coal River argues that the equities support keeping the case in this Court. (Pl.'s Opp'n to Defs.' Mot. ("Pl.'s Opp'n"), ECF No. 21, at 7-8.)

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.