Town's trash lawsuit against county to move forward

Circuit Court Judge L. Craig Johnson has denied Cannon County's motion to dismiss the Town of Woodbury's solid waste lawsuit against it.

Johnson is hearing the case in Manchester because local judges recused themselves, citing a possible conflict of interest.

The main issue involves the county's decision to not pay landfill fees when Town of Woodbury garbage truck take residential trash there.

Following is the text of Johnson's ruling. The Town of Woodbury is the Plaintiff in the case and Cannon County and County Executive Brent Bush are the defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Both parties filed their respective briefs, and oral argument was heard in Manchester by agreement of the parties on April 15, 2019. After a careful review of the Complaint and the other pleadings, as well as argument of counsel, the Court makes the following findings:

Allegations In Complaint

The Complaint alleges that state statutes require each county in the State of Tennessee have one or more solid waste collection and disposal systems. The statutes also require these system or systems complement and supplement those provided by any municipality within said county. The Complaint also alleges that the county funds its solid waste operation in whole or in part by the levy of a tax on property in the county, including property with the Town of Woodbury.

The County has one convenience center dedicated to solid waste management, and in addition, Woodbury provides curbside garbage collection.

Until September 2018, the County accepted solid waste delivered to its convenience center by Woodbury. The Complaint further alleges that the citizens and residents of the town have delivered their garbage collectively to the County Convenience Center, but because of this new declination of accepting the Town's collective delivery, the citizens and residents of the Town are being unequally served.

Woodbury further alleges that because of this unlawful action by the County, it continues to incur damages because it is forced to transport and dump its solid waste to the landfill at its costs. As a further allegation, the Complaint states that these County decisions were made in violation of the Open Meetings Act.

Rulings

Under a Rule 12.02(6) Motion to Dismiss, only the Complaint is examined, and the Defendant must admit the truth of the allegations. The Defendant must convince the Court that the allegations do not establish a viable cause of action. The Court is mandated to construe the Complaint liberally, giving the Complainant the benefit of reasonable inferences. This Motion to Dismiss focuses on the Town of Woodbury's "standing" to bring suit against the County.

This Court must look in part to T.C.A. § 29-14-101 to 103 and see that municipalities have the right to seek declaratory judgments. This Court does not believe under the allegations in the Complaint that Woodbury is merely asserting the rights of its collective residents, but is seeking a redress to the alleged injuries and damages the Town itself is directly incurring because of the tipping fees and other costs it must pay for the transportation and dumping of the Town's solid waste. This Court believes City of Memphis v. Hargett and Gray's Disposal Co., Inc. v. Metro Nashville are distinguishable, one involving voters' rights of citizens and the other holding that a private corporation lacked standing to sue on behalf of its customers.

Further, in keeping with the remedial nature of the Open Meetings Act, this Court finds that under the reasoning posited in Curve Elementary and Metropolitan Air, the Town of Woodbury has standing to bring a violation of the Open Meetings Act claim as it is to be considered a "citizen," just as these cases held that a business corporation and an unincorporated association are "citizens" under the statute.

Finally, as to the Defendant's assertion that the County has immunity under the TGTLA, this action is a declaratory judgment action whose claims do not sound in Tort. Chancery Courts have inherent jurisdiction to award incidental damages under such circumstances. Although this Court by this decision is not insinuating a final outcome, in this case, II does believe that under these circumstances, the TGTLA's immunity clause does not apply.

Therefore, this Court respectfully denies the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.