It was the parent company of Laidlaw Transit (which was merged into First Transit), Laidlaw Education Services (merged into First Student), Greyhound Lines and Greyhound Lines of Canada, and a number of Gray Line Sightseeing franchises in major North American cities. Laidlaw sold the Canadian operations to USA Waste Services, Inc. Laidlaw American branch's where re-branded to many different names, depending on the location of were they were. In acquiring Laidlaw, FirstGroup announced that the Laidlaw name would not be kept, but that the Greyhound name would be maintained. City of Mesquite, 455 U.S. at 289 n.10. . Indeed, that is what the district court apparently concluded here. TES has developed and sustained partnerships with thousands of clients including petrochemical facilities, manufacturing facilities, shipyards, offshore facilities, chemical plants, hospitals, and All Trademarks and Copyrights are owned by their respective companies and/or entities. If it did, courts would be compelled to leave the defendant free to return to its old ways. 470, 475 (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). CWA 505(g), 33 U.S.C. Id. Formore on strategy and organizing see our Strategy Guide. 3078. CWA 505(d), 33 U.S.C. 1365(a)(1).1 Section 505(b) generally bars a citizen from suing until 60 days after the citizen gives notice of the alleged violation to EPA, the relevant State, and the alleged violator, 33 U.S.C. An official website of the United States government. No. 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. United States Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18, 24-25 (1994) ("The judgment is not unreviewable, but simply unreviewed by [the losing party's] own choice."). See, e.g., City of Mesquite v. Alladin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 288-289 (1982). The citizen may obtain enforcement through an injunction that compels compliance. 1365(b)(1)(B). 956 F. Supp. The court stated that "these elements must continue to exist at every stage of review" or else "the action becomes moot." Services; Innovations. 41. See 33 U.S.C. Allied Waste SystemsAllied's Chief Executive Officer, Roger Ramsey, was the Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer for BFI from 1968 to 1976. In the 1970s he would increasingly focus on waste management and other areas, shifting away from the boom-or-bust trucking industry, which had a tendency to rise and fall with the economy. The citizen "may seek civil penalties only in a suit brought to enjoin or otherwise abate an ongoing violation." (TOC), Inc., 890 F. Supp. 9a n.5. The court of appeals erred in this case by failing to take those principles into account. STATEMENT Section 505 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 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. 33 U.S.C. The district court did deny petitioners' request for injunctive relief, which would have gone beyond a simple prohibitory injunction and imposed special reporting obligations. 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. 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. 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. 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. 588, 593-594 (D.S.C. App. WebLaidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. May 1985 - May 19916 years 1 month Charleston, SC Education University of North Carolina at Greensboro Master of Science (M.S. Ask them, in public, for the background and experienceof the management for your local facility. Although the court of appeals appears wrong in suggesting that petitioners are not entitled to recover their litigation costs, that matter should be addressed, if it becomes necessary, through the proceedings on remand. 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." In 1998, a watershed year, Laidlaw Inc. acquired Greyhound Lines U.S. operations, Greyhound Canada, the DAVE Companies (specialists in paratransit) and emergency management companies EmCare and Spectrum Emergency Care. 531, 536 (1984). 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. In 1969 DeGroote began to expand beyond trucking by acquiring a solid waste management company. EPA, as well as the issuing state agency, may enforce a state-issued NPDES permit. Renewable Energy Semiconductor Manufacturing. May 21, 2018. at 600-601 (J.A. A lock (LockA locked padlock) or https:// means youve safely connected to the .gov website. 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. Section 309(d) makes express reference to setting penalties in light of the "the economic benefit (if any) resulting from the violation." 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. at 320. (J.A. 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. WebHe also served as Senior Compliance Official with the Rollins Environmental Services Company, Laidlaw Environmental Services Company and Safety-Kleen, Inc. Mr. Retallick holds a Bachelor of Sciences Degree in Geosciences from the Pennsylvania State University. 1251(a). See 456 U.S. at 314. Virginia Overland Transportation was an operator of public service transportation and a much smaller industry consolidator in the state. WebIn 1995, NELC filed suit against garbage giant Laidlaw Environmental Services for violating the Clean Water Act hundreds of times at its Hilliard, OH, facility. Laidlaw also continued to explore technology to curtail the mercury violations. Its resolution will have a direct and substantial effect on enforcement of the Act. 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. 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 OCTOBER TERM, 1999 at 596-597 (J.A. This article is about the transportation corporation. 1365(f). 2-3, supra. In issuing its judgment, the. The company has also been subjectto several. 7 Congress drafted Section 309(d)'s standards for assessing civil penalties (see note 6, supra) with deterrence of violations specifically in mind. Laidlaw had grown primarily through acquisitions of other companies and contracting of services formerly directly provided by government entities. (quoting Concentrated Phosphate Export Ass'n, 393 U.S. at 203). See CWA 505(d), 33 U.S.C. Cf. 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. B. 183). The company`s registered agent is FL. 6 Section 309(d) sets forth standards for a district court to apply in assessing civil penalties in government enforcement actions. 1319(b), and the imposition of criminal, civil, and administrative penalties, 33 U.S.C. Laidlaw also has operated landfills and hazardous waste incinerators among 81 (1971)). 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. Nevertheless, the determination of whether injunctive relief is warranted is a matter within the trial court's discretion. We begin by explaining the content and objectives of the citizen-enforcement provisions. 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. The order also contains the following: CONCLUSION OF LAW. The doctrine of mootness, by contrast, requires a court to discontinue its exercise of judicial power if it determines that a live case or controversy no longer exists in light of changed circumstances. Proposed stipulated penalty of $61,500 for violations of specified operatingrequirements in their hazardous waste storage facility. WebLaidlaw Environmental Services - Case - Faculty & Research - Harvard Business School Harvard Business School Faculty & Research Publications July 1993 (Revised August 1994) Case HBS Case Collection Laidlaw Environmental Services By: Richard H.K. 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. Laidlaw I, 890 F. Supp. 1365(c)(2). ; South Carolina EnvironmentalCompliance Update, August, 1994.19 "DHEC Levies $214,000 LandfillFine," The Herald (Rock Hill, S.C.) August 21, 1996 Wednesday.20 "Don't Let Industry Hide Audits,"William Want, Special to The Herald; The Herald (Rock Hill, S.C.) May 11,1996 Saturday.21 "Laidlaw fined $94,000, "Financial Post, March 24, 1993.22"$10,000 Fine For Laidlaw DecriedAs 'Pro-Polluter'," Alexander Norris, The Gazette; CP The Gazette (Montreal),September 17, 1996.23 "Company Hired To Sniff OutOdors Near Hilliard School," Jeff Ortega; The Columbus Dispatch, December21, 1996.24 "School Principal Hoping NewSewage Building Will Clear Air," Randall Edwards; The Columbus Dispatch,September 15, 1996"25 Laidlaw-A Corporate Profile,CCHW, 703-237-224.26 "Campbell Board Best, ADMWorst," Reuters, November 14, 1996.27 "Mrs. Robinson's neighborhood,environmental activist Florence Robinson;" The Sierra Club Bulletin, July,1996.28 "Up in smoke; Clean Air Actamendments," The Nation, October 23, 1989. No warranties, expressed or implied, are provided for the business data on this site, its use, or its interpretation. "The companiestended to fail the tests of independence or accountability. | Library of Congress. The permit 1342(a)(1); 40 C.F.R. See CWA 505(b)(1)(B), 33 U.S.C. 91, 93-95). Pet. As relevant here, Section 505(a)(1) provides that "any citizen may commence a civil action on his own behalf * * * against any person * * * who is alleged to be in violation of * * * an effluent standard or limitation under this chapter." These addresses are known to be associated with Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. however they may be inactive or mailing addresses only. EPA's policy expressly stated that a core objective of civil penalties is to deprive the defendant of the economic benefit of the violation in order to provide effective deterrence. On-Call Environmental Services for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. In addition, the court may award costs of litiga- Syllabus 141-143); Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. 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 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. WebEnvironmental Consulting Services 541910 Marketing Research and Public Opinion Polling 541990 All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 551114 Corporate, Petitioners sought to deter violations that caused them, and would in the future cause them, injury in fact. See, e.g., Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750 (1984). Laidlaw Environmental provides industrial waste management services. at 109. In 1978, Laidlaw entered the United States solid waste industry, Laidlaw Waste Systems, a wholly owned subsidiary of Laidlaw Inc, In 1986 Laidlaw acquired Genstar Corp (GSX) of Boston and in 1996 then sold its solid waste business to Allied Waste Industries and many former Laidlaw operations where then rebranded to local names depending on the locations. Id. Id. The Court has indicated that those mootness principles apply to Clean Water Act citizen suits. See CWA 402(a)(1), 33 U.S.C. This Court ruled in Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., 484 U.S. 49 (1987), that Section 505 allows citizens to commence citizen suits to compel compliance with the Clean Water Act, but not to sue merely to punish past infractions. App. WebLAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS INC is located at and is classified as a Transporter by the Environmental Protection Agency. As a part of that program, Section 301(a) of the Act prohibits all discharges of pollutants into navigable waters except those made in compliance with the Act. 456 U.S. at 316. 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. It argued that the case was now moot because it had corrected the problems from which it had stemmed. See CWA 309(a), 402(b)(7), 33 U.S.C. Laidlaw's discharge of mercury into the North Tyger River repeatedly exceeded the limits set by the This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. Gwaltney, 484 U.S. at 66 (quoting Concentrated Phosphate Export Ass'n, 393 U.S. at 203) (emphasis added by the Court in Gwaltney). The Respondent was acquired by Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. on December 23, 1992. Ibid. 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. at 477, 478-479 (J.A. Work is often performed at active facilities in densely populated, urban areas. We are committed to building our people through career development, constructing quality projects, See Hewitt, 482 U.S. at 761 ("In all civil litigation, the judicial decree is not the end but the means."). On June 12, 1992, FOE filed this citizen suit against Laidlaw, alleging noncompliance with the NPDES permit and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of civil penalties. Because the Fourth Circuit was persuaded that the case had become moot, it simply assumed that FOE had initial standing. "3In 1993, DeGroote and associates paid $23 million to the Ontario SecuritiesCommission in a settlement for insider trading involving Laidlaw stock. The Court has since indicated in Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998), that a private citizen would lack constitutional standing to bring a suit solely to assess civil penalties for past infractions. 1251 et seq. Instances of reverse privatization were rare, but did occur during Laidlaw's years of expansion. 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 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. Penalized $1.825 million, the state's largest penalty ever, for repeatedviolations including improper disposal of infectious waste and wastewatersludge (36 total). (TOC), Inc., 956 F.Supp. . *90*91John A. Dalimonte, Karon & Dalimonte, Boston, MA, for Matthew Delmonte, Lee Ann Delmonte, plaintiffs. No. 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. 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. But the citizen, unlike the federal or state government, may not bring suit simply to assess civil penalties for "wholly past violations." 33 U.S.C. 201-500 employees. 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.'" See Gwaltney, 484 U.S. at 65-66; id. Grant Co., and Oregon State Med. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. 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. 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. United States v. Oregon State Med. The Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act creates a comprehensive program "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." In Virginia, several school districts canceled their school bus contracts with private operators and brought bus operations in-house. The cash portion will be reduced by breakup fees or new severance agreements with Safety-Kleen executives, Laidlaw has said. 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. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. The doctrines of standing and mootness are closely related because each inquires into the existence of an Article III case or controversy. Under this Court's normal practice, the case should be remanded for resolution of the remaining issues that the court of appeals did not reach. In 1997, 5 (1976)). 1997) (Laidlaw II) (J.A. Section 505 provides for citizen enforcement of the Act. Office of the Solicitor General 1365(d). at 611 (J.A. 91). 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. See also Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122, 129 (1980) ("for purposes of the award of counsel fees [under 42 U.S.C. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS The Court reasoned that Section 505(a)(1), which authorizes a citizen to sue persons "alleged to be in violation" of permit requirements (33 U.S.C. The civil penalties, which the court expressly levied to deter future violations, were an appropriate judicial means to that end. 182-183). (J.A. truckee plane crash ntsb report, the short game where are they now,
Lawman Johnson Bio,
New Cross Early Pregnancy Unit Number,
Who Killed Eleanor Wish In Bosch,
Articles L
