These addresses are known to be associated with Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. however they may be inactive or mailing addresses only. See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U. S. 43, 66-67. Soc'y, supra). 9a n.5. The company`s registered agent is FL. Grant Co., and Oregon State Med. See 484 U.S. at 59-63. FOE appealed as to the amount of the District Court's civil penalty judgment, but did not appeal the denial of declaratory or injunctive relief. P. 180. Instead, the defendant must show that "subsequent events made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur." 1319(a), the initiation of civil actions for injunctive relief, 33 U.S.C. View all trademarks for Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. Laidlaw Environmental Services (Bdt), Inc. Industries. No. The citizen plaintiffs in Steel Co. brought a citizen suit against an industrial facility that had violated EPCRA's requirements but came into compliance before the citizens filed their complaint. 1365(f). The company`s management are President, Director - Stilwell William E Jr, Vice President - v. LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (TOC), INC. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, No. WebLaidlaw Environmental Services Environmental Services Division Is this Your Business? 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. In 1988, Laidlaw, Inc. purchased a controlling interest in itself from Canadian Pacific Limited, parent of Canadian Pacific Railway. Laidlaw raised its "diligent prosecution" defense, and the district court heard seven days of testimony on the matter. In 1996, Laidlaw sold its solid waste business to Allied Waste Industries. The court imposed civil penalties expressly to "provide adequate deterrence" of future violations. 91, 93-95). 7a n.3. Laidlaw II, 956 F. Supp. The doctrines of standing and mootness are closely related because each inquires into the existence of an Article III case or controversy. Whether a citizen plaintiff is barred from recovering litigation costs under Section 505(d) of the Clean Water Act if the citizen suit is dismissed as moot. Section 505 provides for citizen enforcement of the Act. 158), with Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 88, and Gwaltney, 484 U.S. at 55. TES has developed and sustained partnerships with thousands of clients including petrochemical facilities, manufacturing facilities, shipyards, offshore facilities, chemical plants, hospitals, and 93-94). Pt. See CWA 309(b) and (c), 33 U.S.C. <25 Employees . Laidlaw Environmental Services is a company that operates in the 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. at 477 (J.A. App. As of 2007, Transquest was continuing bus contract operations transporting students to many independent schools in South Hampton Roads, including Norfolk Academy. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. 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. LES LOKERN proposed to add a landfill and a container storage facility. See Gwaltney, 484 U.S. at 66-67. 1365(b). 1997); Natural Resources Defense Council v. Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc., 2 F.3d 493, 502 (3d Cir. WebTES has successfully provided environmental, safety, and industrial hygiene solutions to our clients since 1984. 1342(a)(2); 40 C.F.R. 159). (TOC), Inc., 956 F.Supp. 158); see also id. Pet. A lock (LockA locked padlock) or https:// means youve safely connected to the .gov website. Receive an email notification when changes occur for Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.. WebFind company research, competitor information, contact details & financial data for Laidlaw, Inc. of Little Rock, AR. In Laidlaw the Court held in a Clean Water Act suit that the plaintiff environ-mental organization could seek civil penalties payable to the United States Treasury because such relief redressed its continuing interest in The civil penalties, which the court expressly levied to deter future violations, were an appropriate judicial means to that end. Instances of reverse privatization were rare, but did occur during Laidlaw's years of expansion. CONCLUSION The judgment of the court of appeals should be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. In the 1990s, Laidlaw continued to acquire hundreds of smaller school bus and public transit contractors in the U.S. and Canada. B. A district court does not necessarily transgress Article III's case-or-controversy limitation by resolving a Clean Water Act citizen suit through the imposition of civil penalties as the sole form of relief. Laidlaw promptly entered into a consent agreement with DHEC, drafted and filed a complaint on behalf of DHEC, and sought state court approval of the settlement. 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. April 12, 1999. 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. 470 (D.S.C.1995). 182-183). 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. The facility included a wastewater treatment plant that removed pollutants from water generated by the facility's air pollution control system. A. Tanning, 993 F.2d 1017, 1020-1021 (2d Cir. Required to pay into a trust fund, to total $133 million cash in the year2004, to cover any clean-up costs. The amendment, which prohibits a court from awarding fees to a losing party, does not appear to restrict the court's power to award fees to a citizen who can show that the suit prompted the defendant to come into compliance. See CWA 309(a), 402(b)(7), 33 U.S.C. 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 Petitioners accordingly had the requisite adversarial posture, arising from their concrete interest in abating those violations, to satisfy the requirements of Article III. 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. Allied Waste SystemsAllied's Chief Executive Officer, Roger Ramsey, was the Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer for BFI from 1968 to 1976. DREC acceded to Laidlaw's request to file a lawsuit against the company. The citizen "may seek civil penalties only in a suit brought to enjoin or otherwise abate an ongoing violation." The court accordingly vacated the district court's decision and remanded with instructions to dismiss the action. The question of attorneys' fees can be addressed once the litigation has run its course. See 33 U.S.C. 484 U.S. at 57. 123.27. Grant Co., 345 U.S. at 636). at 600-601 (J.A. 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. Congress accordingly enacted Section 505 of the Clean Water Act, which empowers citizens who are adversely affected by permit violations to bring civil enforcement actions to compel compliance. 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. Periodical U.S. Reports: Friends of the Earth, Inc., v. Laidlaw Environmental Services Section 309 of the Clean Water Act provides for a variety of government enforcement measures, including the issuance of compliance orders, 33 U.S.C. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. | Library of Congress. 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. The permit authorized Laidlaw to discharge treated water and limited pollutants. 1319(d). Citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83, the court reasoned that the only remedy currently available to FOE, civil penalties payable to the Government, would not redress any injury FOE had suffered. Weve been identifying carbon-rich wastes to use in our Chem-Fuel program since 1975. In 2012, ECOS was awarded with the Aspen Chamber of Commerce Business of the Year Award. 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." at 320. Id. at 610-611 (J.A. Cf. The district court is empowered to enforce permit requirements and assess civil penalties, which are payable to the United States Treasury. 1365(g), and an "effluent standard or limitation" includes a state NPDES "permit or condition thereof," CWA 505(f), 33 U.S.C. Laidlaw had grown primarily through acquisitions of other companies and contracting of services formerly directly provided by government entities. 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. App. Became legally responsible for toxic emissions emanating from more than800 barrels and PCB-contaminated electrical equipment illegally buriedby the previous company, in Mercier. Nevertheless, Congress has recognized, in light of the sheer size of a water pollution program requiring a permit for every point-source discharge in the Nation, that the federal and state governments cannot adequately enforce the NPDES permit program without citizen cooperation and assistance. Pet. App. Referrals increase your chances of interviewing at Compunnel Inc. by 2x. 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. 201-500 employees. This Court has recognized that the foregoing principles governing mootness are directly applicable to Clean Water Act citizen suits. 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." Friends of the Earth brought an enforcement action against Laidlaw pursuant to the citizen-suit provision of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act). In 1979, it acquired a Canadian contract school bus business. Decided: November 22, 1999 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. The facility included a wastewater treatment plant that removed pollutants from Moreover, even if the court of appeals' methodology were proper, its analysis overlooks the relationship between injunctive relief and civil penalties under the Clean Water Act, which would be an essential consideration in evaluating whether petitioners' citizen suit against Laidlaw is indeed moot.5 The court of appeals should have begun by applying this Court's teachings that a defendant's voluntary cessation of unlawful conduct does not automatically moot a case. 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. 1995) (Laidlaw I) (J.A. See Laidlaw I, 890 F. 2d at 478-479 (J.A. With locations in Reston, VA, Philadelphia, PA, and Baltimore, MD, Comstock Environmental also offers regulatory compliance, site characterization and remediation, App. at 106-107. In May 1995, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. For example, the Court stated in Hewitt, supra, a case arising under 42 U.S.C. 33 U.S.C. 1993); Atlantic States Legal Found., Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 897 F.2d 1128, 1135-1136 (11th Cir. PIERCE, JR.* This article was written before the Supreme Court decided Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw 11046(a)(1), that a citizen plaintiff would lack constitutional standing to bring a citizen suit solely to assess civil penalties (payable to the government) for wholly past violations. 159-181). We nevertheless observe that there is good reason to question the court of appeals' dictum that "[petitioners'] failure to obtain relief on the merits of their claim precludes any recovery of attorneys' fees or litigation costs because such an award is available only to a 'prevailing or substantially prevailing party.'" 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. This Court ruled in Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., 484 U.S. 49 (1987), that Section 505 allows citizens to commence citizen suits to compel compliance with the Clean Water Act, but not to sue merely to punish past infractions. 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). Grant Co., 345 U.S. at 633 ("The purpose of an injunction is to prevent future violations."). See, e.g., City of Mesquite v. Alladin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 288-289 (1982). 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. WebEnvironmental Consulting Services 541910 Marketing Research and Public Opinion Polling 541990 All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 551114 Corporate, 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. Vietor Format: Print | Pages: 22 Email Print Share Keywords Green Technology Industry Citation 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. See Comfort Lake Ass'n v. Dresel Contracting, Inc., 138 F.3d 351, 356 (8th Cir. 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. 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