The permit 1990). Art. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Specifically, the court stated that "a defendant in substantial compliance with its NPDES permit is not required to show that there is no chance of a future permit violation in order to defeat a request for injunctive relief." 1998); see also Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc., 2 F.3d 493, 503 n.9 (3d Cir. Servs. It would deny that flexibility and exalt form over substance to require the district court to add a pro forma injunction order in order to avoid mootness. Held: The Fourth Circuit erred in concluding that a citizen suitor's claim for civil penalties must be dismissed as moot when the defendant, after commencement of the litigation, has come into compliance with its NPDES permit. Art. This Court applies the mootness doctrine to determine whether circumstances have changed during the course of the litigation so as to eliminate the case or controversy that the plaintiff had previously shown to exist. CWA 505(g), 33 U.S.C. Beginning in 1972, under the leadership of Michael DeGroote, Laidlaw, Inc. began growing through acquisitions of other companies when it acquired a Canadian intercity and charter bus company. Id. Cf. Ibid. TES has developed and sustained partnerships with thousands of clients including petrochemical facilities, manufacturing facilities, shipyards, offshore facilities, chemical plants, hospitals, and Congress and state legislatures have empowered those governmental entities to call upon a variety of mechanisms-including administrative penalties, judicial injunctions and civil penalties, and criminal sanctions-to compel a facility to comply with its permit and to punish permit violations. 147, 193-195). The court's ruling rests on a mistaken understanding of the Clean Water Act's citizen-enforcement provisions, CWA 505, 33 U.S.C. Co., 385 U.S. 533, 535 (1967) (directing that "the District Court should determine in the first instance the effect of an intervening event upon the appropriateness of injunctive relief"); Stern, supra, at 257. The Court has previously indicated, in connection with other federal statutes that authorize "prevailing parties" to recover attorneys' fees, that a plaintiff whose suit induces the defendant to comply with the law voluntarily is a "prevailing party." (TOC), Inc., 956 F. Supp. In the Supreme Court of the United States No. See who you know. On-Call Environmental Services for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. III, 2. (quoting Concentrated Phosphate Export Ass'n, 393 U.S. at 203). The district court did not find that there was no reasonable prospect of future violations; it therefore could assess civil penalties, as an alternative to an injunction, to deter future violations and redress the injuries that prompted petitioners' suit. Heard October 7, 1999. In 1986, the State of South Carolina, which administers a federally approved NPDES permit program through the State's Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), issued a NPDES permit for Laidlaw's wastewater treatment plant. III, is enforced through the concept of standing, which requires plaintiffs to demonstrate that they have suffered an injury in fact, caused by the defendant's action, that can be redressed through a favorable decision. WebLaidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court) Ability of individuals bringing citizen-suits to seek civil penalties. See, e.g., Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 102-104; Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559-560 (1992). As this Court indicated in Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 (1982), the Clean Water Act provides other remedies, including civil penalties, to compel compliance. Shortly thereafter, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), acting under the Clean Water Act (Act), 33 U. S. C. 1342(a)(I), granted Laidlaw a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. WebLaidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000). The Court has indicated that those mootness principles apply to Clean Water Act citizen suits. In May 1995, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Pinellas Plant in Largo, FL is proposing to ship and dispose of hazardous sludge, listed as F006 waste, to the Laidlaw Environmental Services of South Carolina, Inc. (Laidlaw) treatment, storage, and disposal facility in Pinewood, South Carolina. Laidlaw International, Inc. listed its common shares on the New York Stock Exchange (Ticker: LI), on February 10, 2004, and emerged from reorganization on June 23, 2003, as the successor to Laidlaw Inc. Canadian Pacific sold its remaining 17% interest in Laidlaw Inc. 93-94). WebLaidlaw was a great company and community. at 106-107. B. 1983, that "[i]t is settled law, of course, that relief need not be judicially decreed in order to justify a fee award under [42 U.S.C.] In 2019, ECOS is celebrating its 15th year anniversary due to our highly regarded customer service. on Public Works and Transp., 98th Cong., 2d Sess. The court stated that "these elements must continue to exist at every stage of review" or else "the action becomes moot." Laidlaw moved for summary judgment on the ground that FOE lacked Article III standing to bring the lawsuit. The company`s management are President, Director - Stilwell William E Jr, Vice President - 1993); Atlantic States Legal Found., Inc. v. Pan Am. WebLaidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 890 F. Supp. But as this Court explained in Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 (1982), the Clean Water Act does not employ injunctions as "the only means of ensuring compliance." WebLAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC is listed in the categories Environmental Contractors, Environmental Conservation & Ecological Services, Air And Water Resource It argued that the case was now moot because it had corrected the problems from which it had stemmed. Pushed for a bill that would make environmental audits priviledged informationwhich is inadmissable as evidence. This article is about the transportation corporation. See 33 U.S.C. Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Marianas awarded a contract with a maximum amount of $25 million to Guam small business Landscape Management Systems, Inc. for environmental services at Attorney (s) appearing for the Case WebFRIENDS OF EARTH, INC. V. LAIDLAW ENVI-RONMENTAL SERVICES (TOC), INC. (98-822) 528 U.S. 167 (2000) 149 F.3d 303, reversed and remanded. In this case, petitioners commenced suit to compel compliance from an entity that was in violation of its permit requirements at the time the suit was brought but that had discontinued its violations before the court entered judgment. at 318. In 1983, Laidlaw entered the U.S. school bus transportation sector with its acquisition of ARA Transportation, a major contract school bus provider which also owned a Wayne Corporation bus dealership. Signed a consent decree with the state to close and clean GSX toxic wastesite- five years later, the soil is still contaminated. It apparently saw no need to invoke the foregoing mootness principles, and it did not make specific findings on the question whether it was clear that Laidlaw's permit violations could not reasonably be expected to recur. It ruled, based on an extrapolation of this Court's decision in Steel Co., that the district court's denial of petitioners' request for an injunction rendered this case constitutionally moot and prohibited the district court from assessing civil penalties. In general, "a case is moot when the issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." The court of appeals overlooked that petitioners brought this citizen suit to compel Laidlaw to cease permit violations that, at the time the suit was filed, were allegedly causing petitioners injury in fact. 182-183). Allied Waste Industry, Inc.'s Fort Mill transfer station was issueda consent order in response to charges of leakage and operational problemsthat affected the environment. Web394 Virginia Environmental Law Journal [Vol. Moreover, even if the court of appeals' methodology were proper, its analysis overlooks the relationship between injunctive relief and civil penalties under the Clean Water Act, which would be an essential consideration in evaluating whether petitioners' citizen suit against Laidlaw is indeed moot.5 The court of appeals should have begun by applying this Court's teachings that a defendant's voluntary cessation of unlawful conduct does not automatically moot a case. 6 Section 309(d) sets forth standards for a district court to apply in assessing civil penalties in government enforcement actions. Like most States, South Carolina has obtained EPA's approval to issue and enforce NPDES permits. They have operated tour bus companies (they own Greyhound), ambulance services, para-trasit companies and other types of transportation services. Before the litigation was resolved on appeal, Laidlaw started to comply with the Clean Water Act limits and closed the plant that had exceeded them. We begin by explaining the content and objectives of the citizen-enforcement provisions. See 33 U.S.C. See CWA 309(a)-(g), 33 U.S.C. 122.41(j) and (l). Id. Required to pay into a trust fund, to total $133 million cash in the year2004, to cover any clean-up costs. Pet. Allied Waste SystemsAllied's Chief Executive Officer, Roger Ramsey, was the Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer for BFI from 1968 to 1976. ", Named a potentially responsible party (prp) in at least 6 Superfund sites.And they are also listed in EPA court data as defendents at several otherSuperfund sites, according to EPA data. Weve been identifying carbon-rich wastes to use in our Chem-Fuel program since 1975. May 22, 2018. at 478 (J.A. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. at 601-610 (J.A. At the time of that suit, Section 505(d) of the Clean Water Act authorized courts to award attorneys' fees "whenever the court determines such award is appropriate." Laidlaw II, 956 F. Supp. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 890 F. Supp. The companies and people profiled on Corporation Wiki are displayed for research purposes only and do not imply an endorsement from or for the profiled companies and people. See 523 U.S. at 86-88. The Court explained that "the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing" consists of the "triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability," which "constitutes the core of Article III's case-or-controversy requirement." WebIn October 1991, Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. (LES LOKERN), noticed its intention to seek a conditional use permit and general plan amendment from Kern County to expand See CWA 505(c)(2), 33 U.S.C. Id. The court of appeals based its determination of mootness on the fact that the district court did not provide injunctive relief. The Court expressed no doubt that the federal or state governments could bring suit to punish past violations, but a private citizen could not sue to impose civil penalties unless that relief "would likely remedy its alleged injury in fact." The Fourth Circuit vacated the District Court's order and remanded with instructions to dismiss the action. FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, INC., ET AL. Laidlaw sold BFI their 29% stake in Attwoods to for$132.5 million. Assuming, arguendo, that FOE initially had standing, the appellate court held that the case had become moot once Laidlaw complied with the terms of its permit and the plaintiffs failed to appeal the denial of equitable relief. For example, the Court stated in Hewitt, supra, a case arising under 42 U.S.C. The civil penalty remedy is also a useful alternative to an injunction because, if the court concludes that an assessment of civil penalties will effectively deter future violations, then the court will not need to engage in the potentially cumbersome role of supervising the defendant's future compliance through an ongoing injunction. All Trademarks and Copyrights are owned by their respective companies and/or entities. The district court in this case expressly applied civil penalties in that manner for the specific purpose of deterrence. 33 U.S.C. Ibid. But it nevertheless denied injunctive relief, stating that Laidlaw need not demonstrate "no chance of a future permit violation" to defeat petitioners' request for an injunction. WebLaidlaw Environmental Services | 17 followers on LinkedIn. See Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 88-89. Laidlaw Environmental Services is a company that operates in the Among other things, the Act prohibits a facility from discharging pollutants into navigable waters unless the facility obtains a NPDES permit, which, among other things, establishes limits on the amounts of certain pollutants that may be discharged. FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, INC., ET AL. 1365(b)(1)(B). In Laidlaw the Court held in a Clean Water Act suit that the plaintiff environ-mental organization could seek civil penalties payable to the United States Treasury because such relief redressed its continuing interest in In answering that question, the Court has established the principle that a defendant's mere voluntary cessation of unlawful conduct does not moot a case. Laidlaw Environmental Services has laid off 23 employees at its Reidsville office and its Columbia, S.C., headquarters in its third round of layoffs in eight months. Paid a fine of $80,000 in November, 1993 and agreed to $3.5 million inimprovements to abate odors emanating from "bio-sludge.". Nevertheless, Congress has recognized, in light of the sheer size of a water pollution program requiring a permit for every point-source discharge in the Nation, that the federal and state governments cannot adequately enforce the NPDES permit program without citizen cooperation and assistance. Troubles at Laidlaw, however, continued to dog DeGroote even after heleft. 123.27. In 2012, ECOS was awarded with the Aspen Chamber of Commerce Business of the Year Award. Cal. 1251 et seq. Id. The Respondent was acquired by Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. on December 23, 1992. at 611 (J.A. Instead, the defendant must show that "subsequent events made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur." Services; Innovations. District Court found that Laidlaw had gained a total economic benefit of $1,092,581 as a result of its extended period of noncompliance with the permit's mercury discharge limit; nevertheless, the court concluded that a civil penalty of $405,800 was appropriate. 1319(d). The contracting companies unsuccessfully disputed the state's financial calculations and cost allocations for the reverse privatizations, which effectively ended all public school bus contracting in Virginia by 1996. Section 505(b) also bars a citizen from suing if EPA or the State has already commenced and is "dili- gently prosecuting" an enforcement action. The defendant must show that "subsequent events made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur." at 600, 613-619 (J.A. Arizonans for Official English, 520 U.S. at 68 n.22 (quoting United States Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 397 (1980), and Henry P. Monaghan, Constitutional Adjudication: The Who and When, 82 Yale L. J. Laidlaw II, 956 F. Supp. Laidlaw Environmental provides industrial waste management services. Laidlaw II, 956 F. Supp. West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor. 33 U.S.C. at 610-611 (J.A. The doctrines of standing and mootness are closely related because each inquires into the existence of an Article III case or controversy. at 314. 1365(d). CWA 309, 402(b)(7), 33 U.S.C. See, e.g., Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750 (1984). BBB Rating: A+. Court of Appeals of South Carolina. WebRincon Consultants, Inc. was founded in 1994 and has grown to be a leading environmental consulting firm throughout California. 33 U.S.C. 1998); Atlantic States Legal Found., Inc. v. Stroh Die Casting, Inc., 116 F.3d 814, 820 (7th Cir. In 2012, ECOS was awarded with the Aspen Chamber of Commerce Business of the Year Award. Formore on strategy and organizing see our Strategy Guide. App. The court noted that the penalty amounted to less than one half of the economic benefit that Laidlaw had obtained through non-compliance, but it concluded that the "total deterrent effect" was adequate, because "Laidlaw will be required to reimburse [petitioners] for a significant amount of legal fees and has, itself, incurred significant legal expenses." Industries. Fined $106,000 for discharging mercury at higher than legally allowed ratesinto the North Tyger river in 1992. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The court of appeals erred in ruling that a Clean Water Act citizen suit, brought to compel a regulated entity to comply with its NPDES permit, must be dismissed as moot if the district court concludes that injunctive relief is unwarranted. The Court's decision in Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992), which states that, "to qualify as a prevailing party, a civil rights plaintiff must obtain at least some relief on the merits of his claim," id. Read More Syllabus The deal combined North America's two largest private school bus operatorsEducation Services and First Student Inc.giving them a combined 40% of the school bus contractor market.[4]. The latter converted in 1996, and Virginia Overland's parent company based in Richmond closed in 2004. The site had problemsbefore Laidlaw purchased GSX, but Ohio EPA Director Richard Shank latercalled Laidlaw's operation, "horrendous and shoddyI never would havedreamed that (Laidlaw) would have gotten themselves into this kind of troublethisis not some corner drug store, this is a hazardous waste facility. This Court concluded that the Clean Water Act does not "deny courts the discretion to rely on remedies other than an immediate prohibitory injunction." See CWA 505(a), 33 U.S.C. The court observed that the Constitution's "Case[]" or "Controvers[y]" requirement, U.S. Const. 158); see also id. In 1998, the company acquired American Medical Response, another nationwide U.S. ambulance service provider and CareLine, Inc., U.S. ambulance consolidator of smaller ambulance contractors. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Marianas awarded a contract with a maximum amount of $25 million to Guam small business Landscape Management Systems, Inc. for environmental services at The district court evaluated the Clean Water Act's criteria for imposing civil penalties (CWA 309(d), 33 U.S.C. "3In 1993, DeGroote and associates paid $23 million to the Ontario SecuritiesCommission in a settlement for insider trading involving Laidlaw stock. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. The United States is also a potential defendant in citizen enforcement actions against federal facilities. 1. The court accordingly vacated the district court's decision and remanded with instructions to dismiss the action. The company has also been subjectto several. 1995) (Laidlaw I) (J.A. See, e.g., W.T. See CWA 309, 33 U.S.C. 1365(a). Laidlaw, based in Columbia, S.C., launched a hostile bid in November, saying it had been rebuffed in efforts to negotiate a friendly deal with Safety-Kleen. Congress has since revised Section 505(d) to allow an award of litigation costs "to any prevailing or substantially prevailing party, whenever the court determines such award is appropriate." 1365. In 1996, Laidlaw sold its solid waste business to Allied Waste Industries. Congress drew that factor, as well as others, from EPA's pre-existing civil penalty policy. Decided November 22, 1999. Get free summaries of new US Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox! 1365(c)(3). Id. Section 309 of the Clean Water Act provides for a variety of government enforcement measures, including the issuance of compliance orders, 33 U.S.C. For other uses, see, "Laidlaw International Announces Agreement to Be Acquired by FirstGroup", Chicago Business News, Analysis & Articles | British bus firm to acquire Laidlaw | Crain's, "Allied Agrees to Purchase Laidlaw's Waste Operation", https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laidlaw&oldid=1150694941, Transportation companies of the United States, Transportation companies based in Illinois, Waste management companies of the United States, Short description is different from Wikidata, All Wikipedia articles written in American English, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0, Solid Waste, Recycling, School bus, transit, and charter services. The court additionally instructed that petitioners are not entitled to recover their litigation costs because they failed to prevail on the merits and therefore are not a "prevailing or substantially prevailing party" within the meaning of Section 505(d) of the Clean Water Act. EPA, as well as the issuing state agency, may enforce a state-issued NPDES permit. Cf. 1993). Servs. Laidlaw's discharge of mercury into the North Tyger River repeatedly exceeded the limits set by the Because the Fourth Circuit was persuaded that the case had become moot, it simply assumed that FOE had initial standing. Indeed, under those principles, Laidlaw was required to "demonstrate that it is 'absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.'" OCTOBER TERM, 1999 WebAbout us. The court concluded that "the fact that Laidlaw is now and has for an extended time been in compliance with its permit" supported its decision that "no injunction or other form of equitable relief is appropriate." 8 In its brief in opposition, Laidlaw indicated that it closed the facility after the district court assessed civil penalties. A citizen who is aggrieved by permit violations has standing to sue to enforce the permit and thereby abate those violations. 149). Citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83, the court reasoned that the only remedy currently available to FOE, civil penalties payable to the Government, would not redress any injury FOE had suffered. Since the environmental services arm went bankrupt, needless to say those of us that worked there were shocked and dismayed. free to return to his old ways.'" In addition, if the defendant knows that it faces the prospect of civil penalties as well as an injunction, it will not have an incentive to engage in "dilatory tactics" to prolong the litigation in the hope of eliminating the need for an injunction and then claiming that the citizen's claim for assessment of the accumulated civil penalties is moot. 9a. May 21, 2018. LES LOKERN proposed to add a landfill and a container storage facility. In 1984, Laidlaw Inc. exited the trucking business, as the company began a consolidating smaller school bus contracting companies in the U.S. and Canada. Grant Co., 345 U.S. at 633, 635-636 ("although the actions were not moot, no abuse of discretion has been demonstrated in the trial court's refusal to award injunctive relief"); see generally City of Mesquite, 455 U.S. at 289. (J.A. LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (TOC), INC., a subsidiary of Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., Appellant, v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, Respondent. Tanning, 993 F.2d 1017, 1020-1021 (2d Cir. The district court is empowered to enforce permit requirements and assess civil penalties, which are payable to the United States Treasury. In particular, the District Court found that the judgment's "total deterrent effect" would be adequate to forestall future violations, given that Laidlaw would have to reimburse the plaintiffs for a significant amount of legal fees and had itself incurred significant legal expenses. 1365(a). Business Week said of these companies. See 33 U.S.C. See, e.g., City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 288-289 (1982); United States v. Concentrated Phosphate Export Ass'n, 393 U.S. 199, 203 (1968); United States v. W.T. App. Laidlaw II, 956 F. Supp. See 890 F. Supp. The District Court also denied Laidlaw's motion to dismiss on the ground that the citizen suit was barred under 1365(b)(I)(B) by DREC's prior action against the company. (J.A. Glen Roberts was the MedTrans CEO and Donald Jones, COO, at the time of the Laidlaw acquisition.
Teamsters Dental Insurance,
Dr Valente Orthopedic Surgeon,
Articles L
