Hudson Riverkeeper Fund v. Putnam Hospital Center
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
891 F. Supp. 152, 25 ELR 21583 (1995)
The Clean Water Act (CWA) allowed a citizen to sue any entity that violated effluent discharge standards. Section 505(b) of the CWA required the citizen filing such a suit to send notice of the alleged violations to relevant state and federal agencies. The regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) specified that the notice should include information sufficient to allow identification of the violated standard, the person responsible, the dates of the violations, and other details. In September 1994, Hudson Riverkeeper Fund, Inc. (Hudson) (plaintiff) sent a notice describing violations of discharge standards by Putnam Hospital Center, Inc. (Putnam) (defendant). The notice identified the discharge standards Putnam had allegedly violated but did not list the dates on which the violations allegedly occurred. The notice said that the violations were continuing. Hudson filed a citizen suit against Putnam. Putnam filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on the grounds that the notice did not satisfy the requirements of § 505(b) as set out in the EPA regulations. Hudson argued that the specific dates need not be specified in the notice, so long as the notice included enough information for the recipient to identify the dates. Hudson asserted that Putnam could identify the dates of the violations by reviewing its own monthly discharge monitoring reports. However, eight months after the notice, Hudson had also stated in a letter that some of the allegations in the notice were based on testing carried out by New York State environmental authorities.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Parker, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 711,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 711,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.