1365(d). Cal. See CWA 309(a)-(g), 33 U.S.C. Services; Innovations. 1986). Specifically, the court stated that "a defendant in substantial compliance with its NPDES permit is not required to show that there is no chance of a future permit violation in order to defeat a request for injunctive relief." 33 U.S.C. Indeed, the lower courts, which have practical experience with the effectiveness of particular remedies, have concluded that civil penalties are an effective deterrent for Clean Water Act violations. Ibid. 484 U.S. at 57. 33 U.S.C. 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. WebRincon Consultants, Inc. was founded in 1994 and has grown to be a leading environmental consulting firm throughout California. C. The court of appeals erred in failing to apply the Court's teachings in City of Mesquite and other decisions, which establish that a defendant's mere voluntary cessation of unlawful conduct does not automatically moot a case. In 1988, Laidlaw, Inc. purchased a controlling interest in itself from Canadian Pacific Limited, parent of Canadian Pacific Railway. at 484-499 (J.A. WebIT Services and IT Consulting. The Court has indicated that those mootness principles apply to Clean Water Act citizen suits. 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. at 601-610 (J.A. 1319(d). 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. The civil penalties, which the court expressly levied to deter future violations, were an appropriate judicial means to that end. B. 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." 1365(g), and an "effluent standard or limitation" includes a state NPDES "permit or condition thereof," CWA 505(f), 33 U.S.C. 1319(b), and the imposition of criminal, civil, and administrative penalties, 33 U.S.C. See pp. Soc'y, 343 U.S. 326, 333 (1952). Id. The court of appeals concluded that the district court's refusal to provide injunctive relief had critical constitutional implications. 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. Allied Waste SystemsAllied's Chief Executive Officer, Roger Ramsey, was the Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer for BFI from 1968 to 1976. 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 Grant Co., and Oregon State Med. If an NPDES permit holder fails to comply with the specified permit conditions, the federal and state governments may take enforcement action. at 600, 613-619 (J.A. A citizen plaintiff that simply seeks civil penalties to punish the defendant for past infractions cannot satisfy the redressability requirement because, in that situation, a payment of civil penalties to the United States Treasury does not redress any injury that the citizen suffered from the defendant's past conduct. Instead, the defendant must show that "subsequent events made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur." See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962).8 D. The Court of Appeals' Judgment Should Be Vacated And The Case Remanded For Further Proceedings, Including Appropriate Proceedings Respecting Petitioners' Entitlement To Litigation Costs For the foregoing reasons, we submit that the court of appeals erred in concluding that the district court's determination not to award injunctive relief rendered this case moot. 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." 15-19, supra. EPA, as well as the issuing state agency, may enforce a state-issued NPDES permit. The LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. principal address is 1301 GERVAIS STREET, SUITE 300, COLUMBIA, SC, 29201. See Arizonans for Official English, 520 U.S. at 67-68. Indeed, this Court has suggested that mootness might be described as "'the doctrine of standing set in a time frame: The requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation (standing) must continue throughout its existence (mootness).'" Respectfully submitted. Defendant-respondent Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., bought a facility in Roebuck, South Carolina, that included a wastewater treatment plant. Ibid. 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. Get the inside scoop on jobs, salaries, top office locations, and CEO insights. 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. View all trademarks for Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. Laidlaw Environmental Services (Bdt), Inc. at 611 (J.A. at 600-601 (J.A. Pet. 1342(b) and (c); 40 C.F.R. 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. This article is about the transportation corporation. 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. Id. 1319(d)]" to deter future violations. "The companiestended to fail the tests of independence or accountability. WebECOS provides all of its customers with a one year guarantee on its water damage and fire damage repairs. Nevertheless, the district court found that, within two months after petitioners filed their complaint, Laidlaw was in "substantial compliance." Laidlaw's discharge of mercury into the North Tyger River repeatedly exceeded the limits set by the WebLaidlaw Environmental Services Environmental Services Division Is this Your Business? at 600-601 (J.A. ACTION CLEANUP ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC Environmental Services In this case, unlike Gwaltney and Steel Co., it is clear that, even after the citizen plaintiffs filed suit, the defendant continued to violate environmental requirements. Grant Co., 345 U.S. at 633 (the defendant bears the "heavy" burden of demonstrating that "there is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated"). at 600-601 (J.A. 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. In 1969 DeGroote began to expand beyond trucking by acquiring a solid waste management company. 181-182). WebLaidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 890 F. Supp. CONCLUSION The judgment of the court of appeals should be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. The civil penalty remedy is also a useful alternative to an injunction because, if the court concludes that an assessment of civil penalties will effectively deter future violations, then the court will not need to engage in the potentially cumbersome role of supervising the defendant's future compliance through an ongoing injunction. WebLaidlaw (/ l e d l /), organized as Laidlaw International, Inc. (with corporate headquarters in Naperville, Illinois) was the largest provider of intercity bus services, contract public 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. WebThis past terms decision in Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.7 raises the deference issue. 2d 584 (S.D. WebLaidlaw Environmental Services | 17 followers on LinkedIn. STATEMENT Section 505 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 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. Cf. App. LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (TOC), INC., a subsidiary of Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., Appellant, v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, Respondent. SETH P. WAXMAN Solicitor General 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 MAY 1999 1 A "citizen" means "a person or persons having an interest which is or may be adversely affected." 9a n.5. The Fourth Circuit vacated the District Court's order and remanded with instructions to dismiss the action. After Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. bought a wastewater treatment plant, it was granted a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Became legally responsible for toxic emissions emanating from more than800 barrels and PCB-contaminated electrical equipment illegally buriedby the previous company, in Mercier. 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."
Liverpool Hospital Radiology Email,
Narragansett Times Police Beat,
Jfk Jr Pinky Ring,
Articles L