Decisions and Orders | Office of Administrative Law Judges

 
	
		
	
	
	








UNITED STATES 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY



BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR








THE MATTER OF                  )
                               )
   CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, WATER    )  Docket No. 5-CWA-97-021
   POLLUTION CONTROL CENTER    )
                               )    		
            Respondent         )









ORDER GRANTING WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE



	On April 10, 1998, Complainant Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") filed a
Motion to Withdraw Complaint Without Prejudice.  The Motion was triggered by EPA's belief
that there may be related ongoing violations.  This belief has caused EPA to conclude that it
needs to seek injunctive relief, which relief is not available in this forum.  For that reason and for
judicial economy, EPA seeks an Order granting its Motion.    

	The City of Cambridge ("Respondent" or "City") filed a Reply to EPA's Motion, stating
that it "does not oppose the motion of USEPA to withdraw its Complaint in this proceeding
without prejudice . . . so long as the City also is not prejudiced by USEPA's withdrawal of its
Complaint."  Reply at 2.  

	Specifically, the City seeks to have the Order provide that ". . . USEPA's withdrawal of
its Complaint shall not prejudice the City or result in a waiver with respect to any rights, defenses
or claims which it may have regarding the subject matters of this proceeding."  The City also
seeks permission to withdraw its "Answer to USEPA's Complaint and the Joint Statement
Regarding the City of Cambridge's Challenge to Proposed Penalty. . . [as it] . . . does not wish to
be prejudiced by any admission or statement made in this proceeding if USEPA's request to
withdraw its Complaint is granted, since additional facts or newly discovered evidence may
cause the City to take a different position in the future with respect to the violations alleged in the
Complaint."

	Underlying the City's request is its concern that it not be prejudiced by its earlier
statements if  "additional facts or newly discov[ered] evidence may cause the City to take a
different position in the future . . ."

	With the withdrawal of EPA's Complaint, Respondent's answer is also withdrawn, as
there can be no answer to a nonexistent complaint.  As to Respondent's concerns that its earlier
statements may be construed as admissions when a new complaint is filed by EPA, the
Respondent's concerns are, it concedes, speculative, and therefore, premature to raise.  These
issues should be presented, to the extent they materialize, in the new forum. 

	To the extent that Respondent is concerned about the possibility of additional facts or
newly discovered evidence, it is noted that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow for the
liberal amendment of pleadings.  

	Accordingly, EPA's Motion is GRANTED and Respondent's Answer is withdrawn.  	So Ordered. 


							___________________________

							William B. Moran

                           	        				Administrative Law Judge



Dated:	April 29, 1998

        	Washington, DC
Local Navigation
