Words: Standing, Environment, and Other Contested Terms 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. 106-136). Self-operation conversions for all three were urged by Virginia Department of Education officials as "cost-saving." United States v. Oregon State Med. See Gwaltney, 484 U.S. at 65-66; id. (a) The Constitution's case-or-controversy limitation on federal judicial authority, Art. In 2012, ECOS was awarded with the Aspen Chamber of Commerce Business of the Year Award. Penalized $1.825 million, the state's largest penalty ever, for repeatedviolations including improper disposal of infectious waste and wastewatersludge (36 total). See CWA 309(a), 402(b)(7), 33 U.S.C. OCTOBER TERM, 1999 In 1996, Laidlaw sold its solid waste business to Allied Waste Industries. 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 The companies and people profiled on Corporation Wiki are displayed for research purposes only and do not imply an endorsement from or for the profiled companies and people. The bid includes $15 in cash per share and $15 of Laidlaw stock, as well as assumption of $249 million in debt. ARGUMENT The Court of Appeals Erred In Holding That A Citizen Suit Must Be Dismissed As Moot Unless The Citizen Plaintiff Obtains Injunctive Relief The court of appeals' ruling that petitioners' citizen suit is moot rests on a misunderstanding of the Clean Water Act's citizen-enforcement provisions and this Court's mootness jurisprudence. 1990); Pawtuxet Cove Marina, Inc. v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 807 F.2d 1089, 1094 (1st Cir. at 716 n.21 (collecting cases). Id. The court of appeals did not reach any of those issues and instead concluded, after supplemental briefing, that the case was non-justiciable as a constitutional matter because the action had become moot. 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. 1365(d). 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." WebLAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS INC is located at and is classified as a Transporter by the Environmental Protection Agency. 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." P. 180. If the United States has not filed its own action, it may intervene in the citizen action. Accord Concentrated Phosphate Export Ass'n, 393 U.S. at 203-204 (a defendant is entitled to show "that the likelihood of further violations is sufficiently remote to make injunctive relief unnecessary") (citing W.T. Became legally responsible for toxic emissions emanating from more than800 barrels and PCB-contaminated electrical equipment illegally buriedby the previous company, in Mercier. In answering that question, the Court has established the principle that a defendant's mere voluntary cessation of unlawful conduct does not moot a case. at 610-611 (J.A. For example, the Court stated in Hewitt, supra, a case arising under 42 U.S.C. City of Mesquite, 455 U.S. at 289 n.10. 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. The relief the district court awarded-civil penalties calibrated to "provide adequate deterrence under the circumstances of this case" (Laidlaw II, 956 F. Supp. On the date of acquisition there were approximately ninety roll-off containers which held odiferous bio-sludge material on site. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS Argued October 12, 1999-Decided January 12,2000. See CWA 505(a), 33 U.S.C. ; 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. 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. . 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. The court then requested and received, through a brief amicus curiae, the views of the United States on that issue. D. Because the court of appeals erred in concluding that the district court's decision to withhold injunctive relief rendered petitioners' citizen suit moot, there is no occasion for this Court to review the court of appeals' suggestion that a finding of mootness would preclude petitioners from recovering their costs of litigation. 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. Court of Appeals of South Carolina. at 109. The United States is also a potential defendant in citizen enforcement actions against federal facilities. Servs. CWA 505(g), 33 U.S.C. It directs that the court may impose a maximum penalty of $25,000 per day of violation and that, when assessing the penalty, the court shall consider "the seriousness of the violation or violations, the economic benefit (if any) resulting from the violation, any history of such violations, any good-faith efforts to comply with the applicable requirements, the economic impact of the penalty on the violator, and such other matters as justice may require." 1342(b) and (c). In the 1990s, Laidlaw continued to acquire hundreds of smaller school bus and public transit contractors in the U.S. and Canada. Assuming, arguendo, that FOE initially had standing, the appellate court held that the case had become moot once Laidlaw complied with the terms of its permit and the plaintiffs failed to appeal the denial of equitable relief. 5 (1976)). 9a. 1365(c)(3). at 595, 619-621 (J.A. As we next explain, the court's ruling overlooks established principles that guide how the mootness doctrine should be applied in this case. Fined $106,000 for discharging mercury at higher than legally allowed ratesinto the North Tyger river in 1992. 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 generally Robert L. Stern, et al., Supreme Court Practice 710-721 (7th ed. Id. All Trademarks and Copyrights are owned by their respective companies and/or entities. Laidlaw installed additional pollution control technology in 1991, but nevertheless violated the mercury limitation more than 100 times in 1992. Gwaltney, 484 U.S. at 66-67. In 1986, the State of South Carolina, which administers a federally approved NPDES permit program through the State's Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), issued a NPDES permit for Laidlaw's wastewater treatment plant. at 611 (J.A. The coercive effect of that sanction can be calibrated to respond to the likelihood of future violations. Pet. The latter converted in 1996, and Virginia Overland's parent company based in Richmond closed in 2004. Inc Environmental The permit authorized Laidlaw to discharge treated water into the North Tyger River, but limited, among other things, the discharge of pollutants into the waterway. 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+ The facility included a wastewater treatment plant that removed pollutants from Pet. 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. Environmental The Court explained: A lawsuit sometimes produces voluntary action by the defendant that affords the plaintiff all or some of the relief he sought through a judgment-e.g., a monetary settlement or a change in conduct that redresses the plaintiff's grievances. 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." WebRincon Consultants, Inc. was founded in 1994 and has grown to be a leading environmental consulting firm throughout California. 1319. 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. Compare Laidlaw II, 956 F. Supp. WebLAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant. 81 Before the Subcomm. See pp. Laidlaw undertook those steps to interpose a bar to the citizen suit under Section 505(b)'s "diligent prosecution" provision, 33 U.S.C. 1319, 1342(b)(7). In general, "a case is moot when the issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." 6 Section 309(d) sets forth standards for a district court to apply in assessing civil penalties in government enforcement actions. 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. 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 15-19, supra. Its resolution will have a direct and substantial effect on enforcement of the Act. Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 417 (1975) ("If [violators] faced only the prospect of an injunctive order, they would have little incentive to shun practices of dubious legality."). B. "3In 1993, DeGroote and associates paid $23 million to the Ontario SecuritiesCommission in a settlement for insider trading involving Laidlaw stock. COMPANY NEWS; LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL ADJUSTS BID FOR See, e.g., Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 102-104; Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559-560 (1992). 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 2019, ECOS is celebrating its 15th year anniversary due to our highly regarded customer service. Otherwise, that party could resume the behavior as soon as the case was dismissed for mootness. 956 F. Supp. Periodical U.S. Reports: Friends of the Earth, Inc., v. Laidlaw Environmental Services 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. The question, for purposes of Article III's case-or-controversy requirement, is whether petitioners' claim for relief presented a live controversy under the principles that this Court has established for determining mootness. See CWA 505(c)(2), 33 U.S.C. Pet. Laidlaw - Wikipedia (quoting Concentrated Phosphate Export Ass'n, 393 U.S. at 203). 149). 141-143); Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. 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." See CWA 309(a)-(g), 33 U.S.C. 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. On April 10, 1992, petitioners notified Laidlaw of their intention to bring a citizen suit under Section 505 of the CWA. The court of appeals specifically "focus[ed] on the continued existence of the third element, redressability." 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. at 111, does not repudiate the reasoning in Hewitt and Maher. 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. 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. 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. But the citizen, unlike the federal or state government, may not bring suit simply to assess civil penalties for "wholly past violations." Respectfully submitted. 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. TES has developed and sustained partnerships with thousands of clients including petrochemical facilities, manufacturing facilities, shipyards, offshore facilities, chemical plants, hospitals, and