Syllabus 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. 4a. 1365(a)) in citizen suits specifically to facilitate that objective. 1995). 531, 536 (1984). 484 U.S. at 57. 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."). See 523 U.S. at 86-88. Congress accordingly enacted Section 505 of the Clean Water Act, which empowers citizens who are adversely affected by permit violations to bring civil enforcement actions to compel compliance. 98-822 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 INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES The United States, in cooperation with the individual States, has primary responsibility for implementing and enforcing the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. The district court assessed civil penalties and attorneys fees to "provide adequate deterrence under the circumstances of this case," ibid. 1991) (dictum). After examining affidavits and deposition testimony from members of the plaintiff organizations, the District Court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had standing. 956 F. Supp. In Romero-Barcelo, citizens demanded an injunction to abate government discharges of ordnance, which qualified as a pollutant under the Clean Water Act. 1993). See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. CWA 505(d), 33 U.S.C. 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]. 182-183). After FOE initiated this suit, but before the District Court rendered judgment on January 22, 1997, Laidlaw violated the mercury discharge limitation in its permit 13 times and committed 13 monitoring and 10 reporting violations. The party claiming mootness has the burden of showing that the offending behavior cannot be repeated. Create a free account to access additional details for Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. and other profiles that you visit. Office of the Solicitor General Services; Innovations. The state court approved the settlement on June 10, 1992, the day after the expiration of Section 505(b)'s 60-day notice period, 33 U.S.C. Ibid. at 600-601 (J.A. App. Ibid. 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. Tanning, 993 F.2d 1017, 1021 (2d Cir. A plaintiff prevails on the "merits of his claim" if a court finds that the defendant, in direct response to the plaintiff's suit, has altered his behavior in a way that renders the claim moot as a matter of law. at 760-761. App. WebLAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS INC is located at and is classified as a Transporter by the Environmental Protection Agency. App. WebFriends of Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) Argued: October 12, 1999 Decided: January 12, 2000 Annotation Primary Holding 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. 1365(b)(1)(B). See also Carr v. Alta Verde Indus., Inc., 931 F.2d 1055, 1065 n.9 (5th Cir. Signed a consent decree with the state to close and clean GSX toxic wastesite- five years later, the soil is still contaminated. After almost 20 years of expansion, Laidlaw Inc. filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in June 2001. 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. 7a-9a. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. filed as a Domestic Business Corporation in the State of New York on Wednesday, May 7, 1980 and is approximately forty-three years old, as recorded in documents filed with New York Department of State. . WebECOS provides all of its customers with a one year guarantee on its water damage and fire damage repairs. See CWA 402(a)(1), 33 U.S.C. 1986). Referrals increase your chances of interviewing at Compunnel Inc. by 2x. City of Mesquite, 455 U.S. at 289. 1993); see also Comfort Lake Ass'n v. Dresel Contracting, Inc., 138 F.3d 351, 356 (8th Cir. Syllabus Opinion [ Ginsburg ] Concurrence LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (TOC), INC. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Here, unlike the situation in Steel Co., petitioners had more than merely a "generalized interest in deterrence." If an NPDES permit holder fails to comply with the specified permit conditions, the federal and state governments may take enforcement action. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000), exposes fundamental incoherencies within environ-mental standing doctrine, even while it ostensibly makes standing easier to prove for plaintiffs in environmental citizen suits. Self-operation conversions for all three were urged by Virginia Department of Education officials as "cost-saving." 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. Laidlaw also continued to explore technology to curtail the mercury violations. Virginia Overland Transportation was an operator of public service transportation and a much smaller industry consolidator in the state. In 1988, Laidlaw, Inc. purchased a controlling interest in itself from Canadian Pacific Limited, parent of Canadian Pacific Railway. 7a. 470 (D.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). at 477 (J.A. 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. Get the inside scoop on jobs, salaries, top office locations, and CEO insights. On-Call Environmental Services for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The coercive effect of that sanction can be calibrated to respond to the likelihood of future violations. An official website of the United States government. Art. 8a-9a. 185-195). 1342(b) and (c). 470, 475 (D.S.C. See also Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122, 129 (1980) ("for purposes of the award of counsel fees [under 42 U.S.C. Glen Roberts was the MedTrans CEO and Donald Jones, COO, at the time of the Laidlaw acquisition. 41. 9a. WebLaidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. filed as a Domestic Business Corporation in the State of New York on Wednesday, May 7, 1980 and is approximately forty-three years old, as See Laidlaw I, 890 F. 2d at 478-479 (J.A. The court reasoned that "this action is moot because the only remedy currently available to [petitioners]-civil penalties payable to the government- would not redress any injury [petitioners] have suffered." 6a. 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. As this Court recognized in Gwaltney, the primary function of the citizen-suit provisions is to compel compliance with the law, 484 U.S. at 59-63, and it is therefore reasonable to conclude that Congress provided for "appropriate civil penalties" (33 U.S.C. Newport News, Virginia. BBB Rating: A+. The latter converted in 1996, and Virginia Overland's parent company based in Richmond closed in 2004. Under this Court's normal practice, the case will be remanded for resolution of the remaining issues that the court of appeals did not reach, including the question of petitioners' standing. Pt. We note that Laidlaw's decision to close the facility after receiving a penalty assessment designed to deter future violations would not provide a basis for setting aside the civil penalty assessment as moot. 181-182). Tanning, 993 F.2d 1017, 1020-1021 (2d Cir. In addition, the court may award costs of litiga- LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (TOC), INC., a subsidiary of Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., Appellant, v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, Respondent. The court imposed civil penalties expressly to "provide adequate deterrence" of future violations. CWA 309, 402(b)(7), 33 U.S.C. LES LOKERN proposed to add a landfill and a container storage facility. Pushed for a bill that would make environmental audits priviledged informationwhich is inadmissable as evidence. See CWA 505(a), 33 U.S.C. References1 "Pricing Surfaces on LaidlawFund Tranches," Institutional Investor, Bank Letter, March 10, 1997.2 "Allied Waste Announces Completionof Shareholder Transactions Closes Senior Discount Note Offering," PR Newswire,May 15, 1997, "Drexel to Pay $650 million in Guity Plea," Chicago Tribune,December 22, 1988.3 "Class Action Suits Lure Shareholders:But Laidlaw case shows it's not easy money," Eric Reguly, Financial Post,September 30, 1993.4 "Cragnotti pays $ 2.67 million,"Tony van Alphen, Toronto Star, April 29, 1993.5 "Fatjo and Hall Return to WasteManagement Business with ENVIRx," Integrated Waste Management, July 22,1992.6 "Odd Union Intrigues Wall St.;Waste Manager Joins with Insurer," Terrence L. Johnson; and Stephen Phillips,The Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 26, 1996.7 "Attwoods PLC - BFI Offer Extended,etc," Extel Financial Limited, Regulatory News Service, November 4, 1994,"Laidlaw expands hazardous waste business with purchase of Union Pacific[sic]" The Ottawa Citizen, December 7, 1994.8 "Waste Plant Fined $10,000 AfterLime Leak," Rob Moritz; The Nashville Banner, October 31, 1995.9 "Law Laid Down for Laidlaw,"Louisiana Industry Environmental Advisor April, 1994.10 "Laidlaw Hammered by DEQ,"Louisiana Environmental Compliance Update, March, 1994.11 "EPA Targets Waste-BurningViolators For Penalties," Reuters, November 15, 1994; "EPA Cites MonsantoFor Hazardous Waste Violation; Seeks $555,900 Fine," PR Newswire, November16, 1994.12 "Laidlaw: No Collusion," APOnline, December 13, 1994.13 "EPA Fines Two South CarolinaIncinerators," South Carolina Environmental Compliance Update, March, 1994.14 "EPA Announces Hazardous WasteCombustion Enforcement Iniative," Arnall Golden & Gregory; GeorgiaEnvironmental Law Letter, October, 1993.15 "Sewer District Annexes Laidlaw,"Shelly Haskins; Spartanburg Herald-Journal, July 11, 1996.16 "SCDHEC Issues Twenty-ThreeConsent Orders," Haynsworth, Marion, McKay & Guerard, L.L.P. The Court has since indicated in Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998), a case involving the citizen-suit provisions of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. Formore on strategy and organizing see our Strategy Guide. 11046(a)(1), that a citizen plaintiff would lack constitutional standing to bring a citizen suit solely to assess civil penalties (payable to the government) for wholly past violations. WebLAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC is listed in the categories Environmental Contractors, Environmental Conservation & Ecological Services, Air And Water Resource 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. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962).8 D. The Court of Appeals' Judgment Should Be Vacated And The Case Remanded For Further Proceedings, Including Appropriate Proceedings Respecting Petitioners' Entitlement To Litigation Costs For the foregoing reasons, we submit that the court of appeals erred in concluding that the district court's determination not to award injunctive relief rendered this case moot. Get free summaries of new US Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox! WebACE is the Mid-Atlantics premier builder of water infrastructure projects. 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. 1365(d). The potential for future violations gives rise to a disputed question of fact in this instance, since the company has retained its permit. 159). 1365(b)(1)(B). 523 U.S. at 108. 7 Civil penalties are an effective "forward-looking" remedy because a coercive monetary sanction allows the court to compel compliance through a mechanism that directly removes the economic incentives that could induce a defendant "to return to his old ways." As this Court indicated in Romero-Barcelo, the court was entitled to employ civil penalties, rather than an injunction, to deter future violations and ensure continued compliance. The Court has explained that voluntary cessation "is an important factor bearing on the question whether a court should exercise its power to enjoin the defendant from renewing the practice, but that is a matter relating to the exercise rather than the existence of judicial power." Cf. Section 402(a) provides that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shall issue NPDES permits authorizing effluent discharges in strict compliance with conditions specified in the permit. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 890 F. Supp. Servs. Whether a citizen plaintiff is barred from recovering litigation costs under Section 505(d) of the Clean Water Act if the citizen suit is dismissed as moot. The question of attorneys' fees can be addressed once the litigation has run its course. 1342(a). 1365(d). The court observed that the Constitution's "Case[]" or "Controvers[y]" requirement, U.S. Const. Renewable Energy Semiconductor Manufacturing. The district court did deny petitioners' request for injunctive relief, which would have gone beyond a simple prohibitory injunction and imposed special reporting obligations.