Jump to Navigation
Jump to Content

United States v. International Harvester Co.

ELR Citation: 16 ELR 20382
Nos. No. C-3-85-365, 624 F. Supp. 216/23 ERC 2022/(S.D. Ohio, 11/25/1985)

The court rules that a judge hearing a civil penalty action under §113(b) of the Clean Air Act lacks authority to stay or enjoin a §120 civil penalty action for the same violation that is in progress before an administrative law judge. The court first notes that it lacks authority to stay a §120 penalty proceeding pending before an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrative law judge. Characterizing defendant's motion for a stay as one to enjoin the §120 proceeding, the court first notes that the relevant provisions of the Clean Air Act demonstrate that Congress intended EPA to be able to use both civil penalty provisions as independentand cumulative remedies for a single violation. The language and structure of §120 establish that it is an additional, not alternative, remedy to §113(b). The court then rules that §307(g) does not imply authority for the court to stay the administrative action and that defendant has failed to establish any of the four prerequisites for injunctive relief. The court schedules further proceedings so as to coordinate them with proceedings in the administrative case.

Counsel for Plaintiff
Dale Goldberg, Ass't U.S. Attorney
P.O. Box 280, Mid City Station, Dayton OH 45402
(513) 225-2910

Steven J. Willey
Land and Natural Resources Division
Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 633-5415

Counsel for Defendant
Howard P. Krisher
Bieser, Greer & Landis
400 Gem Plaza, Third and Main Sts., Dayton OH 45402
(513) 223-3277

Donald W. Rupert
Kirkland & Ellis
200 E. Randolph Dr., Chicago IL 60601
(312) 861-2000