In 1969 DeGroote began to expand beyond trucking by acquiring a solid waste management company. 523 U.S. at 108. NAVFAC Marianas Awards $1.9 Million to Guam-Based Small 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. 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." Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 890 F. Supp. 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. Laidlaw Environmental provides industrial waste management services. Mike McClung 1990). Penalized $1.825 million, the state's largest penalty ever, for repeatedviolations including improper disposal of infectious waste and wastewatersludge (36 total). 158), with Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 88, and Gwaltney, 484 U.S. at 55. Fined $1 million for violations including illegal handling and disposalof hazardous wastes at its commercial hazardous waste fuel blending facilityin Crowley. Id. Environmental Background Information Center But this case differs crucially from Steel Co. because petitioners brought suit to abate Laidlaw's ongoing environmental violations, Laidlaw was in a state of non-compliance when the suit was filed, Laidlaw failed to demonstrate that its voluntary cessation had left no reasonable prospect of future violations, and petitioners were therefore entitled to seek a remedy that would adequately ensure future compliance. Environmental See who you know. After examining affidavits and deposition testimony from members of the plaintiff organizations, the District Court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had standing. 183). 106-136). Cf. 33 U.S.C. Whether a citizen suit under Section 505 of the Clean Water Act, 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 authorizes citizens to bring citizen suits to compel compliance with the Clean Water Act, but not to sue merely to punish past violations. 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. 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. Ibid. DREC acceded to Laidlaw's request to file a lawsuit against the company. 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. Laidlaw Environmental Services 1319(b), and the imposition of criminal, civil, and administrative penalties, 33 U.S.C. THE LAW OF WORDS: STANDING, ENVIRONMENT, AND 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. Nevertheless, the district court found that, within two months after petitioners filed their complaint, Laidlaw was in "substantial compliance." 1995). 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. FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, INC., ET AL. Official websites use .gov WebThis past terms decision in Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.7 raises the deference issue. See 33 U.S.C. See CWA 309, 33 U.S.C. Laidlaw II, 956 F. Supp. (TOC), Inc., 956 F. Supp. The cash portion will be reduced by breakup fees or new severance agreements with Safety-Kleen executives, Laidlaw has said. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., Local Assessment Com. v. 33 U.S.C. Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc. increased the cash portion of its hostile offer for the Safety-Kleen Corporation to $18 a share, but the overall value of the offer remains $30 a share. WebEnvironmental Consulting Services 541910 Marketing Research and Public Opinion Polling 541990 All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 551114 Corporate, Cadence Environmental Energy Work is often performed at active facilities in densely populated, urban areas. 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 CWA 402(a)(2), 33 U.S.C. 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. A district court can properly conclude that the prospect of recurrence is not so small as to moot a case, but is sufficiently unlikely to warrant denial of injunctive relief. at 484-499 (J.A. 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. Troubles at Laidlaw, however, continued to dog DeGroote even after heleft. 6 Section 309(d) sets forth standards for a district court to apply in assessing civil penalties in government enforcement actions. 1319(d). WebTES has successfully provided environmental, safety, and industrial hygiene solutions to our clients since 1984. 1319(d). Create a free account to access additional details for Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. and other profiles that you visit. LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS INC 1319(d)), and it assessed a penalty of $405,800. But if the court of appeals nevertheless believed that Laidlaw's "voluntary" compliance, by itself, may have eliminated any reasonable prospect of future violations, then the court of appeals should have remanded the case to the district court for an express finding on that matter. Fined $106,000 for discharging mercury at higher than legally allowed ratesinto the North Tyger river in 1992. Id. The court refused to grant petitioners' request for injunctive relief, reasoning that an injunction was inappropriate because "Laidlaw has been in substantial compliance with all parameters in its NPDES permit since at least August 1992." But the court denied injunctive relief as a matter of equitable discretion, treating Laidlaw's compliance history as a factor bearing on the exercise of that discretion. . See reviews, photos, directions, phone numbers and more for Laidlaw Environmental Svc Inc locations in Newport News, VA. A-1 Environmental Services Inc. Environmental Services-Site Remediation Janitorial Service. 1342(a)(2); 40 C.F.R. 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." Petitioners Friends of the Earth, Inc., Citizens Local Environmental Action Network, Inc., and the Sierra Club brought this citizen suit against respondent Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., to enjoin Laidlaw's violations of its Clean Water Act permit. By the late 1980s, the only 3 remaining district school bus contracts were at Petersburg, Norfolk and Hopewell. Ibid. The relief the district court awarded-civil penalties calibrated to "provide adequate deterrence under the circumstances of this case" (Laidlaw II, 956 F. Supp. 182))-was designed to redress that specific interest by compelling compliance. 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. Forced to address complaints from the school next door of odors and noiseIn 1994, odors from Laidlaw's industrial wastewater treatment facilitywere so strong, children reported burning eyes and throats. April 12, 1999. 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). 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 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. As of 2007, Transquest was continuing bus contract operations transporting students to many independent schools in South Hampton Roads, including Norfolk Academy. But the citizen, unlike the federal or state government, may not bring suit simply to assess civil penalties for "wholly past violations." Periodical U.S. Reports: Friends of the Earth, Inc., v. Laidlaw Environmental Services LAIDLAW "The companiestended to fail the tests of independence or accountability. If there were no such exception to the mootness doctrine, a defendant could thwart the efforts of other parties or the government to enforce the law indefinitely. Soc'y, 343 U.S. 326, 333 (1952). Br. 183). Here, unlike the situation in Steel Co., petitioners had more than merely a "generalized interest in deterrence." 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. 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. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632 (1953). The latter converted in 1996, and Virginia Overland's parent company based in Richmond closed in 2004. 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. See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U. S. 43, 66-67. 531, 536 (1984). 81 (1971)). "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." Fined $60,000 for air quality violations involving petroleum liquids storedin tanks at its storage and treatment facility near Silverwood. In Romero-Barcelo, citizens demanded an injunction to abate government discharges of ordnance, which qualified as a pollutant under the Clean Water Act. Weblaidlaw environmental services, inc. 1301 grevais street, suite 300 columbia, sc 29201 Foe v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc The court imposed civil penalties expressly to "provide adequate deterrence" of future violations.