Rollingwood Acres, Inc. v. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management

Citations

• 212 A.3d 1198

Syllabus

This case concerns an appeal from a denial of a request for reasonable litigation expenses under the Equal Access to Justice for Small Businesses and Individuals Act, G.L. 1956 chapter 92 of title 42 (EAJA). The plaintiffs, Rollingwood Acres, Inc., Smithfield Peat Co., Inc., and Smithfield Crushing Co., LLC, appealed from a Notice of Violation (NOV) issued on November 6, 2006, by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM). The NOV alleged ten discrete violations of the Rhode Island Water Pollution Act, DEM's Water Quality Regulations, the Rhode Island Oil Pollution Control Act, DEM's Oil Pollution Control Regulations, and DEM's Regulations for the Rhode Island Pollution Discharge Elimination System. After a hearing before the Administrative Adjudication Division of DEM (AAD), the plaintiffs prevailed on all but two of the alleged violations, and the petitioners requested reasonable litigation expenses under the EAJA. The AAD hearing officer denied their request, finding that, first, DEM was substantially justified because a complaint had initiated DEM's investigation of plaintiffs, and, second, that complaint notwithstanding, DEM's actions were substantially justified. Adopting the hearing officer's reasoning, the Superior Court affirmed the denial of reasonable litigation expenses. The Supreme Court held that, in the first instance, the initiating complaint did not afford DEM substantial justification because there was not a sufficient nexus between the complaint and the NOV issued. The Supreme Court further held that DEM was not substantially justified based on its failure to cite the Rhode Island Department of Transportation (DOT) for the same violation, when, during the administrative proceedings, it was revealed that DEM knew that DOT made the changes that had caused the violations as well as that DOT had a general history of noncompliance with state environmental laws. The Supreme Court also noted DEM's lack of evidence as to the alleged wat