Jane Friedman Obituary, Articles L

Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. - Columbia, SC The district court evaluated the Clean Water Act's criteria for imposing civil penalties (CWA 309(d), 33 U.S.C. This Court indicated in Gwaltney that citizens would be entitled to recover litigation costs for suits that "result in successful abatement but do not reach a verdict." 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. at 611 (J.A. at 106-107. 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. 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." 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. Formore on strategy and organizing see our Strategy Guide. Respectfully submitted. App. App. 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. 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. 5 (1976)). 4, In the meanwhile, Degroote busied himself building a new waste empire.In 1991, DeGroote took over Republic Waste from Browning Ferris Industriesfounder Tom Fatjo.5In 1995 DeGroote gave up control of Republic to Waste Management Inc. founderWayne Huizenga. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. WebECOS provides all of its customers with a one year guarantee on its water damage and fire damage repairs. Laidlaw began to discharge various pollutants into the waterway; these discharges, particularly of mercury, an extremely toxic pollutant, repeatedly exceeded the limits set by the permit. In May 1995, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Penalized $1.825 million, the state's largest penalty ever, for repeatedviolations including improper disposal of infectious waste and wastewatersludge (36 total). (J.A. The Court applies the doctrine of standing as a threshold jurisdiction requirement that a plaintiff must normally satisfy to invoke the federal judicial power. LES LOKERN proposed to add a landfill and a container storage facility. C. The Court of Appeals' Decision Petitioners appealed solely on the ground that the district court's penalty was inadequate, and Laidlaw cross-appealed on the grounds that petitioners lacked standing to bring the suit and that the district court had improperly rejected Laidlaw's diligent prosecution defense. 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." WebThis past terms decision in Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.7 raises the deference issue. at 760-761. Rather, the Court concluded that the Clean Water Act gives a court discretion to choose relief "that will achieve compliance with the Act."