Pet. Among other things, the Act prohibits a facility from discharging pollutants into navigable waters unless the facility obtains a NPDES permit, which, among other things, establishes limits on the amounts of certain pollutants that may be discharged. Laidlaw Environmental Services is a renewables & environment company based out of 4101 Washington Ave, Newport News, Virginia, United States. The civil penalties, which the court expressly levied to deter future violations, were an appropriate judicial means to that end. The court of appeals concluded that the district court's refusal to provide injunctive relief had critical constitutional implications. WebIn 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 81 (1971)). 1365(d). 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]. 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 Laidlaw 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. 1365(b)(1)(B). Syllabus 1342(a). See CWA 402(a)(1), 33 U.S.C. A lock (LockA locked padlock) or https:// means youve safely connected to the .gov website. at 109. LAIDLAW Friends of Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc The court of appeals erred in this case by failing to take those principles into account. Troubles at Laidlaw, however, continued to dog DeGroote even after heleft. 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. WebWe put it to work as energy to make cement. Self-operation conversions for all three were urged by Virginia Department of Education officials as "cost-saving." In 1998, the company acquired American Medical Response, another nationwide U.S. ambulance service provider and CareLine, Inc., U.S. ambulance consolidator of smaller ambulance contractors. NAVFAC Marianas Awards $1.9 Million to Guam-Based Small But as this Court explained in Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 (1982), the Clean Water Act does not employ injunctions as "the only means of ensuring compliance." 1993); see also Comfort Lake Ass'n v. Dresel Contracting, Inc., 138 F.3d 351, 356 (8th Cir. at 9a n.5 (quoting CWA 505(d), 33 U.S.C. 1986). In May 1995, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. 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+ at 611 (J.A. Referrals increase your chances of interviewing at Compunnel Inc. by 2x. 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. 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. Ibid. Data inaccuracies may exist. 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. Ibid. 182-183). Laidlaw International, Inc. listed its common shares on the New York Stock Exchange (Ticker: LI), on February 10, 2004, and emerged from reorganization on June 23, 2003, as the successor to Laidlaw Inc. Canadian Pacific sold its remaining 17% interest in Laidlaw Inc. 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." Get free summaries of new US Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox! 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." 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." The Fourth Circuit vacated the District Court's order and remanded with instructions to dismiss the action. Formore on strategy and organizing see our Strategy Guide. See 484 U.S. at 59-63. at 610-611 (J.A. 41. Id. Id. 3078. Ibid. The district court assessed civil penalties and attorneys fees to "provide adequate deterrence under the circumstances of this case," ibid. See Gwaltney, 484 U.S. at 65-66; id. App. . This Court has recognized that the foregoing principles governing mootness are directly applicable to Clean Water Act citizen suits. The company later sold American Medical Response and EmCare, its EMS contract operations, to new owners. A citizen who is aggrieved by permit violations has standing to sue to enforce the permit and thereby abate those violations. In addition, if the defendant knows that it faces the prospect of civil penalties as well as an injunction, it will not have an incentive to engage in "dilatory tactics" to prolong the litigation in the hope of eliminating the need for an injunction and then claiming that the citizen's claim for assessment of the accumulated civil penalties is moot. 1342(a)(2); 40 C.F.R. 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.'" 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. ; 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. BURY PLUS PARTNERS-INC., Chantilly, Virginia, VA 20151-1128 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." April 12, 1999. However, DeGroote is still one of Republic's largest shareholdersand is Vice-Chairman.6, Rollins Environmental ServicesBusiness Week ranked Rollins Environmental's board of directors asone of the worst. In 2012, ECOS was awarded with the Aspen Chamber of Commerce Business of the Year Award. WebIT Services and IT Consulting. Laidlaw Environmental Services Careers and Employment at 318. 1997); Natural Resources Defense Council v. Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc., 2 F.3d 493, 502 (3d Cir. 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). 33 U.S.C. Attorney (s) appearing for the Case Petitioners accordingly had the requisite adversarial posture, arising from their concrete interest in abating those violations, to satisfy the requirements of Article III. Servs. 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 611 (J.A. These also included major competitors, including Mayflower Contract Services in 1995, and National Bus Service in 1996. WebAbout us. 122.41(j) and (l). Grant Co., 345 U.S. at 636). 106-136). 86-87). An official website of the United States government. 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. A. Glen Roberts was the MedTrans CEO and Donald Jones, COO, at the time of the Laidlaw acquisition. ACE | Water & Wastewater Treatment Facilities | Columbia MD 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." Practically speaking, however, repeatedly opening and closing the same facility might not be a logical, cost-effective business choice. 470 (D.S.C. The district court in this case expressly applied civil penalties in that manner for the specific purpose of deterrence. Furthermore, the court, "in issuing any final order in any action brought pursuant to this section, may award costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) to any prevailing or substantially prevailing party, whenever the court determines such award is appropriate." Instances of reverse privatization were rare, but did occur during Laidlaw's years of expansion. The plaintiff must allege sufficient facts in the complaint to demonstrate standing. See, e.g., Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Southwest Marine, Inc., 28 F. Supp. Mike McClung 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. LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES See Gwaltney, 484 U.S. at 66-67 (quoting Concentrated Phosphate Export Ass'n, W.T. 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. ", Named a potentially responsible party (prp) in at least 6 Superfund sites.And they are also listed in EPA court data as defendents at several otherSuperfund sites, according to EPA data. 182), but it refused to issue an "injunction or other form of equitable relief" in light of "the fact that Laidlaw is now and has for an extended period of time been in compliance with its permit," ibid. 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. Because Article III's case-or-controversy requirement subsists "through all stages of federal judicial proceedings," Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990), the plaintiff must be prepared to establish the requisites of injury in fact, causation, and redressability at each juncture where they may be called into question. Instead, petitioners had the same Article III interest as one who seeks an injunction or declaratory judgment to curtail "a continuing violation or the imminence of a future violation." See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66-67 (1997) (courts may assume that standing exists to resolve whether a case has nevertheless become moot). 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. 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. INC 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. Cf. 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. 181-182). See Laidlaw I, 890 F. 2d at 478-479 (J.A. 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. Foe v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc 956 F. Supp. 1319(a)-(g); see also 40 C.F.R. 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. 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. WebTES has successfully provided environmental, safety, and industrial hygiene solutions to our clients since 1984. 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. The facility included a wastewater treatment plant that removed pollutants from 7a n.3. The court of appeals' exclusive focus on what relief the citizen received departs from the methodology that courts normally apply in analyzing mootness. A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. The district court did not find that there was no reasonable prospect of future violations; it therefore could assess civil penalties, as an alternative to an injunction, to deter future violations and redress the injuries that prompted petitioners' suit. Section 402(b) and (c) authorizes the States to develop and administer their own NPDES permit programs and provides that EPA shall suspend issuance of federal permits upon determining that a State has adopted an adequate program. Fined $10,000 for lime blowing out of a storage vent in October 1995. Otherwise, that party could resume the behavior as soon as the case was dismissed for mootness. Our offices are strategically located in the Gulf Coast. Laidlaw was fined only $10,000 dueto the $9 million they had already spent cleaning up the site. The defendant must show that "subsequent events made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur." 7a-9a. 8a-9a. 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. The citizens argued that their suit could nevertheless proceed because EPCRA, unlike the Clean Water Act, authorized citizens to obtain a judicial assessment of civil penalties for past infractions. When that occurs, the plaintiff is deemed to have prevailed despite the absence of a formal judgment in his favor. 159). In 1979, it acquired a Canadian contract school bus business. The district court is empowered to enforce permit requirements and assess civil penalties, which are payable to the United States Treasury. 1365(b)(1)(B).2 Once the citizen files a suit, Section 505(c) directs that the citizen must serve a copy of the complaint on the Attorney General and the Administrator of EPA, and the citizen must provide them with advance notice of any proposed consent judgment.