Court of Appeals of South Carolina. In 1983, BFI pleadedno contest to charges of price-fixing and conspiracy in Atlanta from 1974to 1979. WebRincon Consultants, Inc. was founded in 1994 and has grown to be a leading environmental consulting firm throughout California. Get the latest business insights from Dun & Bradstreet. 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. See CWA 402(a)(2), 33 U.S.C. Inc Laidlaw's discharge of mercury into the North Tyger River repeatedly exceeded the limits set by the Laidlaw Environmental Services - Interim Decision, December 21, 1993 Interim Decision, December 21, 1993 STATE OF NEW YORK : DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Office of Hearings 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233-1550 In the Matter of the Application of Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. and The permit authorized Laidlaw to discharge treated water and limited pollutants. Web170 FRIENDS OF EARTH, INC. v. LAIDLAW ENVI-RONMENTAL SERVICES (TOC), INC. Syllabus not deprive a federal court of its power to determine the legality of the practice. Ibid. 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 On the date of acquisition there were approximately ninety roll-off containers which held odiferous bio-sludge material on site. 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." [6] Allied Waste sold the Canadian operations to USA Waste Services, Inc. Laidlaw American branches were re-branded to many different names, depending on their location. 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. In August 1992, Laidlaw denied all charges but agreed to pay US andCanadian shareholders $7.65 million in a class action settlement whichclaimed that the officers had "misrepresented the financial condition ofLaidlaw. The court accordingly vacated the district court's decision and remanded with instructions to dismiss the action. Organizing Tip-For all intents and purposes, Laidlaw's trackrecord is still relevant since the same management will be probably beoperating the facilities. The court's ruling rests on a mistaken understanding of the Clean Water Act's citizen-enforcement provisions, CWA 505, 33 U.S.C. They could stop operations whenever a case was filed and resume once it was dismissed. Pp.180-195. West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor. Ibid. Id. A. By the late 1980s, the only 3 remaining district school bus contracts were at Petersburg, Norfolk and Hopewell. 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. 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 Tull, 481 U.S. at 422 n.8. Laidlaw Environmental Services 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. 33 U.S.C. See, e.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 561; Lujan v. National Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871, 883-889 (1990); Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 114-115 & n.31 (1979). In 1997, on Public Works and Transp., 98th Cong., 2d Sess. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental We begin by explaining the content and objectives of the citizen-enforcement provisions. See pp. at 613-621 (J.A. Fined $80,000 for emitting odors and $14,000 for silt discharges in March1993 in Storrington Township northeast of Kingston. Proposed stipulated penalty of $61,500 for violations of specified operatingrequirements in their hazardous waste storage facility. Id. In 2019, ECOS is celebrating its 15th year anniversary due to our highly regarded customer service. The Court applies the doctrine of mootness to assess 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. The question, for purposes of Article III's case-or-controversy requirement, is whether petitioners' claim for relief presented a live controversy under the principles that this Court has established for determining mootness. See, e.g., Vitek, 436 U.S. at 410 (remanding case to the district court for consideration of the question of mootness); McLeod v. General Elec. Like most States, South Carolina has obtained EPA's approval to issue and enforce NPDES permits. The district court's statements respecting the appropriateness of equitable relief do not provide what a determination of mootness would require: a definitive finding that it is absolutely clear there is no reasonable prospect that Laidlaw would repeat its violations. Friends of Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc (TOC), Inc., 956 F.Supp. Receive an email notification when changes occur for Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.. 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. (J.A. After almost 20 years of expansion, Laidlaw Inc. filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in June 2001. A. The court ultimately found that Laidlaw had violated the permit's mercury limitation 489 times, including nine times after petitioners filed their complaint. 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+ 91, 93-95). WebAbout us. 183). 1365(a). The facility included a wastewater treatment plant that removed pollutants from water generated by the facility's air pollution control system. Id. We believe that the district court's actions demonstrate its understanding that petitioners' citizen suit continued to present a live controversy under the standards set out in Gwaltney. Pt. Laidlaw raised its "diligent prosecution" defense, and the district court heard seven days of testimony on the matter. See Atlantic States Legal Found., Inc. v. Pan Am. 1365(a). The Court has applied mootness principles in a practical manner when defendants facing injunctive remedies urge that their voluntary cessation of allegedly unlawful actions renders the case moot. May 21, 2018. CWA 101(a), 33 U.S.C. See CWA 402(a)(1), 33 U.S.C. 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 free to return to his old ways.'" 8a-9a. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. - Columbia, SC National Association of Manufacturers Id. The company has also been subjectto several. 2d 584 (S.D. Office of the Solicitor General Laidlaw Environmental Services is a company that operates in the 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." Like the court of appeals (see note 3, supra), we assume, for purposes of resolving the mootness question, that Laidlaw's permit violations have caused petitioners injury in fact. Laidlaw Environmental Services - Interim Decision, December The Court has indicated that those mootness principles apply to Clean Water Act citizen suits. See Gwaltney, 484 U.S. at 66-67 (quoting Concentrated Phosphate Export Ass'n, W.T. In addition, the court may award costs of litiga- See Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 88-89. v. LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (TOC), INC. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, No. E.g., County of Los Angeles, 440 U.S. at 631. 1342(b) and (c); 40 C.F.R. Official websites use .gov 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. LES LOKERN proposed to add a landfill and a container storage facility. WebECOS provides all of its customers with a one year guarantee on its water damage and fire damage repairs. 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. A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. at 318. In 1969 DeGroote began to expand beyond trucking by acquiring a solid waste management company. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632 (1953). Cadence Environmental Energy The relief the district court awarded-civil penalties calibrated to "provide adequate deterrence under the circumstances of this case" (Laidlaw II, 956 F. Supp. 1319. PIERCE, JR.* This article was written before the Supreme Court decided Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw 1365(a)(1)), allows the citizen to commence suit in response to "a state of either continuous or intermittent violation-that is, a reasonable likelihood that a past polluter will continue to pollute in the future." 1. Compunnel Inc. hiring Environmental Services Worker in - LinkedIn 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. These discharges, particularly of mercury, repeatedly exceeded the limits set by a discharge WebIT Services and IT Consulting. at 611 (J.A. *90*91John A. Dalimonte, Karon & Dalimonte, Boston, MA, for Matthew Delmonte, Lee Ann Delmonte, plaintiffs. III, 2. ENVIRONMENTAL Grant Co., and Oregon State Med. 1998); see also Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc., 2 F.3d 493, 503 n.9 (3d Cir. See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997); County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979). 158), with Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 88, and Gwaltney, 484 U.S. at 55. 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. App. The court of appeals should not have based a determination of mootness on the mere fact that the district court imposed civil penalties but did not provide injunctive relief. 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. 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 [5] In 1993, Laidlaw acquired San Diego based MedTrans, a high quality industry leader which began as Harrison Ambulance in San Diego, operating emergency medical services operating in California, Washington, Nevada and Texas, and continued to grow it through 138 acquisitions across the country, reaching over $1B in revenue. Stern, supra, at 716; see id. The court of appeals based its determination of mootness on the fact that the district court did not provide injunctive relief. Laidlaw Environmental Services Careers and Employment Environmental Background Information Center - movementech.org 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. See CWA 505(a), 33 U.S.C. 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. On-Call Environmental Services for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. D. Because the court of appeals erred in concluding that the district court's decision to withhold injunctive relief rendered petitioners' citizen suit moot, there is no occasion for this Court to review the court of appeals' suggestion that a finding of mootness would preclude petitioners from recovering their costs of litigation. Grant Co., 345 U.S. at 636). Laidlaw undertook those steps to interpose a bar to the citizen suit under Section 505(b)'s "diligent prosecution" provision, 33 U.S.C. 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. Soc'y, 343 U.S. 326, 333 (1952). 1319(a)-(g); see also 40 C.F.R. C. A Court's Decision To Withhold Injunctive Relief Does Not Constitute A Finding That The Discharger's Violations Will Not Recur The court of appeals concluded that petitioners' citizen suit was necessarily moot because the district court refused to grant an injunction in light of Laidlaw's cessation of its permit violations and "the only remedy currently available to [petitioners]-civil penalties payable to the government-would not redress any injury [petitioners] have suffered." See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Ibid. 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). Laidlaw operated a hazardous waste incineration facility in Roebuck, South Carolina. See 33 U.S.C. Grant Co., 345 U.S. at 632). App. 1319(d)]" to deter future violations. at 102-110. Servs. Ibid. US 4th Circuit Opinions and Cases | FindLaw 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. This Court has held that to satisfy Article Ill's standing requirements, a plaintiff must show "injury in fact," causation, and redressability. App. Cf. 106-136). Tanning, 993 F.2d 1017, 1021 (2d Cir. 2. Laidlaw also has operated landfills and hazardous waste incinerators among III, 2, underpins both standing and mootness doctrine, but the two inquiries differ in crucial respects. No. 33 U.S.C. 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. 1997) (Laidlaw II) (J.A. Brought on behalf of the Ohio Public Interest Research Group and the Ohio Environmental Council, our lawsuit focused on Laidlaws years of repeated, illegal discharges of heavy metals into the [] App. 1311(a), 1342. Congress empowered the government to seek civil penalties to punish wrongful conduct as well as to deter future violations, both of which are proper government objectives. The district court assessed civil penalties and attorneys fees to "provide adequate deterrence under the circumstances of this case," ibid. B. In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 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." 523 U.S. at 102-104. On the last day before FOE's 60-day notice period expired, DREC and Laidlaw reached a settlement requiring Laidlaw to pay $100,000 in civil penalties and to make "every effort" to comply with its permit obligations. 1319(d). 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. Gwaltney, 484 U.S. at 59. "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." SAFETY-KLEEN FINALLY ACCEPTS LAIDLAW TAKEOVER at 760-761. Laidlaw The court rejected Laidlaw's diligent prosecution defense after an extensive analysis of the substance of the settlement and the circumstances by which it was reached. If it did, courts would be compelled to leave the defendant free to return to its old ways. U.S. Const. 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.