United States v. Lambert

No. 81-255-Orl-Civ-R (M.D. Fla. March 28, 1983)

The court rules that a jury trial is unavailable to a defendant facing civil penalties under § 309 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The court finds no support for granting a jury trial in the Act's legislative history, and finds the civil penalty to be in the nature of a deterrent to statutory violations rather than damages.

[A related decision is reported at 13 ELR 20045 — Ed.]

Counsel for Plaintiff
Lawrence R. Liebesman, Rosanne Mayer
Land and Natural Resources Division
Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 633-2807

Counsel for Defendants are listed at 13 ELR 20045

[13 ELR 20489]

Reed, J.:

Order

This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed by plaintiff and thereon, it is

ORDERED:

Motion to Strike Demand for Jury Trial.

Filing Date: 18 February 1983.

Disposition: Granted. There is nothing in the Clean Water Act of 1977 or its legislative history to suggest a Congressional intent to afford litigants in an enforcement action under Section 1319, Title 33, United States Code, a right to trial by jury. The civil action authorized by Section 1319 would be clearly an equity action, but for the fact that a civil penalty is authorized by that section.The penalty, however, is not analogous to a typical damage remedy for at least three reasons. First, there is no private recipient of the award. Second, the amount of the award is left to the court's discretion and is not linked to any measurable injury. Finally, the apparent purpose of the award is to deter violations of the statutory scheme. For these reasons the court concludes that the civil penalty is not the functional equivalent of a damage remedy. The Seventh Amendment does not, therefore, require the provision of a trial by jury. The analysis in Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189 (1974) is instructive on the issue.