Hallstrom v. Tillamook Cty. - 493 U.S. 20, 110 S. Ct. 304 (1989)

Rule:

The language of 42 U.S.C.S. § 6972(b)(1) could not be clearer. A citizen may not commence an action under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 6972, until 60 days after the citizen has notified the Environmental Protection Agency, the state in which the alleged violation occurred, and the alleged violator. Actions commenced prior to 60 days after notice are prohibited. Because this language is expressly incorporated by reference into § 6972(a), it acts as a specific limitation on a citizen's right to bring suit. Under a literal reading of the statute, compliance with the 60-day notice provision is a mandatory, not optional, condition precedent for suit.

Facts:

Plaintiff farmers owned and operated a dairy farm next to a sanitary landfill operated by the defendant corporation. Plaintiffs believed that the defendant was violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, so they notified the defendant of their intention to sue. The defendant alleged that the plaintiffs violated § 6972(b)(1) of the Act by failing to notify the state and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of their intention to sue. The district court denied the motion, holding that the plaintiffs had cured any defect in notice by formally notifying the state and federal agencies. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, remanding the case to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the action, held that the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the notice and 60-day-delay requirements deprived the District Court of subject matter jurisdiction. Certiorari was granted.

Issue:

Did the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the notice and 60-day-delay requirements deprive the District Court of subject matter jurisdiction? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The United States Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the appellate court, holding that the notice provision was mandatory and failure to comply with the provision warranted dismissal of the plaintiffs’ action. According to the Court, Section 6972(b)(1) was clear and provided that the plaintiffs could not commence their suit until they notified the defendant, the state, and the EPA. The section acted as a specific limitation on the plaintiffs' right to bring suit, so compliance with the section was a mandatory, condition precedent for suit.