laidlaw environmental services inc websiteclarksville basketball
See CWA 402(a)(1), 33 U.S.C. A party trying to show that the mootness doctrine applies because it will voluntarily cease an activity must show that the activity would not recur. 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 In this case, unlike Gwaltney and Steel Co., it is clear that, even after the citizen plaintiffs filed suit, the defendant continued to violate environmental requirements. The district court had denied injunctive relief, however, as a matter of remedial discretion and not because the case satisfied this Court's criteria for mootness. at 320. FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, INC., ET AL. The permit authorized Laidlaw to discharge treated water into the North Tyger River, but limited, among other things, the discharge of pollutants into the waterway. Finally, we show why the court of appeals erred in holding that, because the district court denied injunctive relief, the petitioners' enforcement action is moot.4 A. WebThis past terms decision in Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.7 raises the deference issue. 1342(a). April 12, 1999. A citizen plaintiff that simply seeks civil penalties to punish the defendant for past infractions cannot satisfy the redressability requirement because, in that situation, a payment of civil penalties to the United States Treasury does not redress any injury that the citizen suffered from the defendant's past conduct. 158), with Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 88, and Gwaltney, 484 U.S. at 55. On April 10, 1992, petitioners notified Laidlaw of their intention to bring a citizen suit under Section 505 of the CWA. WebLaidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000). 1365, must be dismissed as moot unless the district court orders injunctive relief. May 21, 2018. In the Supreme Court of the United States No. WebAfter Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. bought a wastewater treatment plant, it was granted a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. 28-30, infra. May 22, 2018. 1311(a), 1342. The court declined to order injunctive relief because Laidlaw, after the lawsuit began, had achieved substantial compliance with the terms of its permit. See Tull, 481 U.S. at 422 n.8. 1342(a)(1); 40 C.F.R. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Indeed, the lower courts, which have practical experience with the effectiveness of particular remedies, have concluded that civil penalties are an effective deterrent for Clean Water Act violations. Alleged in two lawsuits, one by city officials and another by two environmentalgroups, to have discharged illegal levels of heavy metals into the citysewer system. 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. 3 The court of appeals "assume[d] without deciding that [petitioners] had standing to initiate this action and have proven a continuous injury in fact." 956 F. Supp. The District Court Proceedings Laidlaw operated a hazardous waste incineration facility in Roebuck, South Carolina. 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 636). (TOC), Inc., 956 F. Supp. 1342(b) and (c). But because this Court concludes that the Court of Appeals erred as to mootness, this Court has an obligation to assure itself that FOE had Article III standing at the outset of the litigation. According to Laidlaw, the entire Roebuck facility has since been permanently closed, dismantled, and put up for sale, and all discharges from the facility have permanently ceased. Its resolution will have a direct and substantial effect on enforcement of the Act. In Virginia, several school districts canceled their school bus contracts with private operators and brought bus operations in-house. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS Work is often performed at active facilities in densely populated, urban areas. at 318. 33 U.S.C. Services; Innovations. The application of mootness principles frequently calls for a practical assessment of whether a case or controversy persists in light of the particular facts at hand. LES LOKERN proposed to add a landfill and a container storage facility. OCTOBER TERM, 1999 at 613-621 (J.A. City of Mesquite, 455 U.S. at 289. 81 (1971)). WebWe put it to work as energy to make cement. Periodical U.S. Reports: Friends of the Earth, Inc., v. Laidlaw Environmental Services 1993); see also Comfort Lake Ass'n v. Dresel Contracting, Inc., 138 F.3d 351, 356 (8th Cir. Tanning, 993 F.2d 1017, 1020-1021 (2d Cir. See 523 U.S. at 86-88. ; SouthCarolina Environmental Compliance Update, April, 1993.17 South Carolina EnvironmentalCompliance Update, November, 1993.18 "SCDHEC Board Order RequiringTrust Fund and Limiting Capacity Survives Two Preliminary Challenges,"Haynsworth, Marion, McKay & Guerard, L.L.P. Pet. In 1978 it entered the U.S. solid waste industry. The Court's decisions have established the hornbook principle that "[m]ere voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct, or a statement by the defendant that it would be uneconomical to engage in any further questioned behavior, does not render moot a suit for an injunction if it is possible for the defendant to resume such conduct." 1011, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. Section 402 of the Act establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which authorizes the federal government and qualifying States to issue permits for controlling the point-source discharge of pollutants. In 1988, Laidlaw, Inc. purchased a controlling interest in itself from Canadian Pacific Limited, parent of Canadian Pacific Railway. The plaintiff must allege sufficient facts in the complaint to demonstrate standing. Allied Waste SystemsAllied's Chief Executive Officer, Roger Ramsey, was the Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer for BFI from 1968 to 1976. 482 U.S. at 760. 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. Grant Co., 345 U.S. at 633 (the defendant bears the "heavy" burden of demonstrating that "there is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated"). It directs that the court may impose a maximum penalty of $25,000 per day of violation and that, when assessing the penalty, the court shall consider "the seriousness of the violation or violations, the economic benefit (if any) resulting from the violation, any history of such violations, any good-faith efforts to comply with the applicable requirements, the economic impact of the penalty on the violator, and such other matters as justice may require." 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. Fined $1 million for violations including illegal handling and disposalof hazardous wastes at its commercial hazardous waste fuel blending facilityin Crowley. United States v. Oregon State Med. On April 10, 1992, plaintiff-petitioners Friends of the Earth and Citizens Local Environmental Action Network, Inc. (referred to collectively here, along with later joined plaintiff-petitioner Sierra Club, as "FOE"), notified Laidlaw of their intention to file a citizen suit against it under the Act, 33 U. S. C. 1365(a), after the expiration of the requisite 60-day notice period. WebAccording to the EPA's California Toxics Release Inventory Fact Sheet from June 2004, Clean Harbors Buttonwillow (formally Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc. and Safety-Kleen Corporation) is listed as the second top facility for total on- and off-site releases of all chemicals in California, contributing 2.6 million pounds. The company had also lost their contract in Petersburg to self-operation in 1989, but was still operating at Hopewell. Ibid. Laidlaw began to discharge various pollutants into the waterway. 1342(b) and (c); 40 C.F.R. 182-183). PIERCE, JR.* This article was written before the Supreme Court decided Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw The Clean Water Act's Citizen-Suit Provisions Authorize Private Judicial Actions To Compel Dischargers To Comply With Their Discharge Permits The Clean Water Act, like other federal environmental statutes, creates a federal-state partnership for developing environmental standards and providing for their enforcement. Petitioners accordingly had the requisite adversarial posture, arising from their concrete interest in abating those violations, to satisfy the requirements of Article III. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000), exposes fundamental incoherencies within environmental standing doctrine, even while it ostensibly makes standing easier to prove for See CWA 309(a)-(g), 33 U.S.C. Formore on strategy and organizing see our Strategy Guide. A. Troubles at Laidlaw, however, continued to dog DeGroote even after heleft. In 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 and modify its existing hazardous waste facility near the unincorporated town of Buttonwillow. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. The Court ruled that, even if EPCRA authorized a citizen to sue for wholly past violations, the citizens' suit must be dismissed because the citizens lacked Article III standing to seek relief that does not redress a cognizable "injury in fact" to the citizens. WebFriends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the law regarding standing to sue and Decided: November 22, 1999 at 289 n.10 (citations omitted). See 33 U.S.C. B. Id. 1365(b)(1)(A). Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 417 (1975) ("If [violators] faced only the prospect of an injunctive order, they would have little incentive to shun practices of dubious legality."). Garbage, on the other hand, always had to be dealt with. 7a. Headquarters. B. Cf. If it did, courts would be compelled to leave the defendant free to return to its old ways. 1 n.1. The court also found that Laidlaw had committed 420 monitoring violations, including 13 post-complaint violations, and that Laidlaw had committed 503 reporting violations, including ten post-complaint violations. WebLaidlaw Environmental Services Environmental Services Division Is this Your Business? The court declined to issue an injunction but assessed civil penalties and indicated that it would award petitioners their costs of litigation in accordance with Section 505(d) of the Act. Stern, supra, at 716; see id. 106-136). Id. Company size. Soc'y, 343 U.S. 326, 333 (1952). WebFriends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. 528 U.S. 167 (2000) Study Aids Case Briefs Overview Casebooks Case Briefs From our private database of 38,100+ Pet. LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (TOC), INC., a subsidiary of Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., Appellant, v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, Respondent. WebLAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC is listed in the categories Environmental Contractors, Environmental Conservation & Ecological Services, Air And Water Resource This Court has repeatedly and emphatically rejected the notion that "voluntary cessation" of the challenged conduct automatically deprives a court of the power to order relief. Servs. See 523 U.S. at 106. Ibid. The order also contains the following: CONCLUSION OF LAW. 201-500 employees. Laidlaw began in 1924 when founder Robert Laidlaw created Laidlaw Transit, a trucking service company in Hagersville, Ontario. If this case were truly like Steel Co., and petitioners had brought suit simply to seek imposition of civil penalties for past violations, then they would lack standing, because punishing pre-complaint conduct, discontinued before the suit began, would not redress any cognizable injury to petitioners that could provide the basis for the suit. Congress's authorization of civil penalties in citizen suits, however, is properly viewed as limited to the "forward-looking" objective of deterring the defendant from further non-compliance. In the Supreme Court of the United States FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS v. LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (TOC), INC. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING PETITIONERS SETH P. WAXMAN Solicitor General Counsel of Record LOIS J. SCHIFFER Assistant Attorney General LAWRENCE G. WALLACE Deputy Solicitor General JEFFREY P. MINEAR Assistant to the Solicitor General DAVID C. SHILTON R. JUSTIN SMITH Attorneys Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 (202) 514-2217 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Like most States, South Carolina has obtained EPA's approval to issue and enforce NPDES permits. at 610-611 (J.A. Co., 516 U.S. 415, 416 (1996) (per curiam) (vacating decision for determination of mootness); see also United States Dep't of Justice v. Provanzano, 469 U.S. 14 (1984) (congressional enactment mooted one issue but not the entire case). 1365(g), and an "effluent standard or limitation" includes a state NPDES "permit or condition thereof," CWA 505(f), 33 U.S.C. Web4 FRIENDS OF EARTH, INC. v. LAIDLAW ENVI-RONMENTAL SERVICES (TOC), INC. Opinion of the Court any good-faith efforts to comply with the applicable re-quirements, the economic impact of the penalty on the violator, and such other matters as justice may require. 1319(d). 588, 600-01, 610 (D.S.C.1997). Rather, "[t]he test for mootness in cases such as this is a stringent one." "It is the duty of the courts to beware of efforts to defeat injunctive relief by protestations of repentance and reform, especially when abandonment seems timed to anticipate suit, and there is probability of resumption." Virginia Overland Transportation was an operator of public service transportation and a much smaller industry consolidator in the state. No. The court next conducted a trial on petitioners' complaint, but the court delayed issuance of its decision in light of administrative proceedings respecting Laidlaw's permit. Formore on strategy and organizing see our Strategy Guide. STATEMENT Section 505 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 5 The courts of appeals, other than the Fourth Circuit, have concluded under various rationales that a citizen plaintiff who proves that the defendant was in violation of a NPDES permit at the time of suit may obtain civil penalties to deter future violations, even if the violations by that time ceased. Weve been identifying carbon-rich wastes to use in our Chem-Fuel program since 1975. WebI - ISSUES RAISED BY FRIENDS OF THE EARTH V.LAIDLAW - PIERCE.DOC 04/25/01 9:37 AM 207 ISSUES RAISED BY FRIENDS OF THE EARTH V. LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES: ACCESS TO THE COURTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLAINTIFFS RICHARD J. 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. WebACE is the Mid-Atlantics premier builder of water infrastructure projects. at 9a n.5 (quoting CWA 505(d), 33 U.S.C. See CWA 309, 33 U.S.C. BBB Rating: A+. 2d 584 (S.D. Services. C. The Court of Appeals' Decision Petitioners appealed solely on the ground that the district court's penalty was inadequate, and Laidlaw cross-appealed on the grounds that petitioners lacked standing to bring the suit and that the district court had improperly rejected Laidlaw's diligent prosecution defense.