County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County, a Public Agency v. Inland Container Corporation, a Delaware Corporation
Opinion
lead Opinion
Canby, J.
Los Angeles County Sanitation District No. 2 (“the District”) appeals an order of the district court dismissing its claim for a permanent injunction against Inland Container Corporation. The District sought to restrain Inland from discharging industrial wastewater from its plant in San Bernardino, California, into the disposal system of Chino Basin Municipal Water District (“Chino”), which empties into the District’s disposal system. We reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case to be dismissed for failure to join Chino as an indispensable party.
Facts
The District operates a sewage treatment and disposal system in Los Angeles County. After appropriate treatment, non-reclaimable wastewater that passes through the District’s system is discharged into the ocean. Inland operates a new $130 million paper mill and box plant in San Bernardino County. Wastewater from that plant is discharged into sewage lines owned by Chino.
Chino does not treat the nonreclaimable wastewater it receives into its lines, nor does it have an ocean outlet. Instead, Chino discharges its wastewater into the District’s system for treatment and ultimate disposal, under the terms of a 1966…
dissent Opinion
Noonan, J.
dissenting:
Since 1966 the District has had a comprehensive contract with Chino, entitled the Waste Water Capacity Agreement, governing the discharge of wastewater from Chino into the sewer system of the District. Chino has permitted Inland to make discharges into the Chino system, and these discharges ultimately enter the District’s system. The District contends that it has a right to stop Inland and asks for an injunction.
Chino is an indispensable party. Each of the three causes of action asserted by the District required interpretation of its contract with Chino. The first cause of action put forward the District’s rights under the District’s own Wastewater Ordinance; but these rights were affected as to water from Chino by the contract with Chino. The second cause of action asserted the District’s obligations under federal law; but any appraisal of these obligations as to water from Chino depended on the control the District had over such water through the contract with Chino. The third cause of action actually sought declaratory relief in interpretation of the contract between the District and Chino. Chino’s rights and obligations were immediately at issue in the third…
Opinion
803 F.2d 1074 25 ERC 1290 , 6 Fed.R.Serv.3d 123 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, a Public Agency, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INLAND CONTAINER CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee. No. 85-6554. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted July 11, 1986. Decided Nov. 4, 1986. Daniel V. Hyde, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant. Orville O. Orr, Jr., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before CANBY, REINHARDT, and NOONAN, Circuit Judges. CANBY, Circuit Judge: 1 Los Angeles County Sanitation District No. 2 ("the District") appeals an order of the district court dismissing its claim for a permanent injunction against Inland Container Corporation. The District sought to restrain Inland from discharging industrial wastewater from its plant in San Bernardino, California, into the disposal system of Chino Basin Municipal Water District ("Chino"), which empties into the District's disposal system. We reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case to be dismissed for failure to join Chino as an indispensable party.…