Jump to Navigation
Jump to Content

SED, Inc. v. Dayton, City of

Citation: 12 ELR 20024
No. No. C-3-81-193, 519 F. Supp. 975/16 ERC 1223/(S.D. Ohio, 07/01/1981) Motion to dismiss denied

The court denies defendant's motion to dismiss on abstention grounds a suit seeking to enjoin defendant from enforcing city ordinances regulating hazardous wastes. The court concludes that defendant failed to demonstrate that the case involves sufficiently exceptional circumstances to warrant abstention. Abstention is appropriate where a federal constitutional question is presented which might be mooted by a state court's resolution of an unsettled question of state law. However, in this case defendant presented no evidence that the case warrants state consideration of the question whether state law on hazardous waste regulation preempts the city ordinances. Abstention is also appropriate where federal jurisdiction may disrupt important state policies. The court finds that no state policy involving the distribution of government authority to regulate hazardous wastes is involved in this case. Finally, the court rules that the federal claims before it are sufficiently substantial to assume "pendent" jurisdiction over the state claims.

Counsel are listed at 12 ELR 20021.