The former Virginia Overland subsidiary operation in the Norfolk area acquired from Laidlaw operates as Transquest and is now owned by Serco. at 595, 619-621 (J.A. 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. 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. 1 n.1. at 289 n.10 (citations omitted). Glen Roberts was the MedTrans CEO and Donald Jones, COO, at the time of the Laidlaw acquisition. Get the inside scoop on jobs, salaries, top office locations, and CEO insights. It apparently saw no need to invoke the foregoing mootness principles, and it did not make specific findings on the question whether it was clear that Laidlaw's permit violations could not reasonably be expected to recur. In the 1990s, Laidlaw continued to acquire hundreds of smaller school bus and public transit contractors in the U.S. and Canada. At the time of that suit, Section 505(d) of the Clean Water Act authorized courts to award attorneys' fees "whenever the court determines such award is appropriate." 33 U.S.C. WebFind out what works well at Laidlaw Environmental Services from the people who know best. Our offices are strategically located in the Gulf Coast. In 1979, it acquired a Canadian contract school bus business. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. - Corporation Wiki 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. at 601-610 (J.A. LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC City of Mesquite, 455 U.S. at 289 n.10. Laidlaw II, 956 F. Supp. 1319(d). See 523 U.S. at 106. 3078. We next address how this Court's mootness doctrine operates in the context of those provisions. 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. The order also contains the following: CONCLUSION OF LAW. Br. West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor. Industries. 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 On April 10, 1992, petitioners notified Laidlaw of their intention to bring a citizen suit under Section 505 of the CWA. A citizen who is aggrieved by permit violations has standing to sue to enforce the permit and thereby abate those violations. (J.A. Environmental Background Information Center - movementech.org See CWA 505(c)(2), 33 U.S.C. Cadence Environmental Energy Grant Co., 345 U.S. at 633 ("The purpose of an injunction is to prevent future violations."). Pet. See pp. The court accordingly vacated the district court's decision and remanded with instructions to dismiss the action. The contracting companies unsuccessfully disputed the state's financial calculations and cost allocations for the reverse privatizations, which effectively ended all public school bus contracting in Virginia by 1996. After examining affidavits and deposition testimony from members of the plaintiff organizations, the District Court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had standing. Gwaltney, 484 U.S. at 66. 123.27. Ibid. Nevertheless, the district court found that, within two months after petitioners filed their complaint, Laidlaw was in "substantial compliance." Environmental Services The court then requested and received, through a brief amicus curiae, the views of the United States on that issue. City of Mesquite, 455 U.S. at 289 n.10 (quoting Concentrated Phosphate Export Ass'n, 393 U.S. at 203, and W.T. 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. Signed a consent decree with the state to close and clean GSX toxic wastesite- five years later, the soil is still contaminated. 7 Congress drafted Section 309(d)'s standards for assessing civil penalties (see note 6, supra) with deterrence of violations specifically in mind. Congress drew that factor, as well as others, from EPA's pre-existing civil penalty policy. Soc'y, 343 U.S. 326, 333 (1952). U.S. Const. Laidlaw I, 890 F. Supp. 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. at 478 (J.A. May 22, 2018. 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. at 600-601 (J.A. 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. A party trying to show that the mootness doctrine applies because it will voluntarily cease an activity must show that the activity would not recur. C. A Court's Decision To Withhold Injunctive Relief Does Not Constitute A Finding That The Discharger's Violations Will Not Recur The court of appeals concluded that petitioners' citizen suit was necessarily moot because the district court refused to grant an injunction in light of Laidlaw's cessation of its permit violations and "the only remedy currently available to [petitioners]-civil penalties payable to the government-would not redress any injury [petitioners] have suffered." 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. 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 WebTES has successfully provided environmental, safety, and industrial hygiene solutions to our clients since 1984. 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). Laidlaw - Wikipedia 1365(g), and an "effluent standard or limitation" includes a state NPDES "permit or condition thereof," CWA 505(f), 33 U.S.C. Laidlaw, based in Columbia, S.C., launched a hostile bid in November, saying it had been rebuffed in efforts to negotiate a friendly deal with Safety-Kleen. 414, 92 Cong., 2d Sess. See Laidlaw II, 956 F. Supp. The Court's decision in Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992), which states that, "to qualify as a prevailing party, a civil rights plaintiff must obtain at least some relief on the merits of his claim," id. at 760-761. Stern, supra, at 716; see id. 158), with Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 88, and Gwaltney, 484 U.S. at 55. 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. Environmental Services Legal 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. 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).'" App. STATEMENT Section 505 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. On April 10, 1992, plaintiff-petitioners Friends of the Earth and Citizens Local Environmental Action Network, Inc. (referred to collectively here, along with later joined plaintiff-petitioner Sierra Club, as "FOE"), notified Laidlaw of their intention to file a citizen suit against it under the Act, 33 U. S. C. 1365(a), after the expiration of the requisite 60-day notice period. at 716 n.21 (collecting cases). 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. Pet. If it did, courts would be compelled to leave the defendant free to return to its old ways. A dispute may become moot as a result of changes in the underlying facts, see, e.g., Mosley v. United States, 119 S. Ct. 484 (1998) (per curiam) (death of the defendant mooted review of his criminal conviction); Vitek v. Jones, 436 U.S. 407 (1978) (grant of parole may moot prisoner's challenge to conditions of confinement), or the controlling law, see, e.g., United States v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Services. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. at 600, 613-619 (J.A. Pet. 1. 81 Before the Subcomm. Ibid. After FOE initiated this suit, but before the District Court rendered judgment on January 22, 1997, Laidlaw violated the mercury discharge limitation in its permit 13 times and committed 13 monitoring and 10 reporting violations. 1365(d). The district court assessed civil penalties and attorneys fees to "provide adequate deterrence under the circumstances of this case," ibid. Laidlaw had grown primarily through acquisitions of other companies and contracting of services formerly directly provided by government entities. Laidlaw began to discharge various pollutants into the waterway. Section 402(a) provides that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shall issue NPDES permits authorizing effluent discharges in strict compliance with conditions specified in the permit. Fined $214,000 for four hazardous waste violations: improper disposal ofinfectious waste, inadequate treatment of sewer sludge, insufficient testingof debris and soil, and excessive contamination of waste at its landfill.As one top agency official put it, "Laidlaw must be more diligent in itsoperations.". . Fined $60,000 for air quality violations involving petroleum liquids storedin tanks at its storage and treatment facility near Silverwood. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. - Columbia, SC Suite 300 PO Box 11393 1301 Gervais St Columbia, SC 29211 - 1393 Write A Review (803) 933-4238 Updated: at 111, does not repudiate the reasoning in Hewitt and Maher. See CWA 505(d), 33 U.S.C. The company had also lost their contract in Petersburg to self-operation in 1989, but was still operating at Hopewell. Gwaltney, 484 U.S. at 66-67. Practically speaking, however, repeatedly opening and closing the same facility might not be a logical, cost-effective business choice. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS WebLaidlaw Environmental Services | 17 followers on LinkedIn. The court stated that "these elements must continue to exist at every stage of review" or else "the action becomes moot." Pet. 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. 8a-9a. Paid a fine of $80,000 in November, 1993 and agreed to $3.5 million inimprovements to abate odors emanating from "bio-sludge.". TES has developed and sustained partnerships with thousands of clients including petrochemical facilities, manufacturing facilities, shipyards, offshore facilities, chemical plants, hospitals, and Container Corp., a South Carolina subsidiaryof Allied that was responsible for the Fort Mill transfer station, paida $55,000 fine and the station was closed. 1990). Id. Create a free account to access additional details for Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. and other profiles that you visit. WebLaidlaw Environmental Services | 17 followers on LinkedIn. WebIT Services and IT Consulting. Tanning, 993 F.2d 1017, 1020-1021 (2d Cir. A district court can properly conclude that the prospect of recurrence is not so small as to moot a case, but is sufficiently unlikely to warrant denial of injunctive relief. Since the environmental services arm went bankrupt, needless to say those of us that worked there were shocked and dismayed. WebLaidlaw Environmental Services Environmental Services Division Is this Your Business? See Laidlaw II, 956 F. Supp. App. 122.41(j) and (l). 1365(b)(1)(B). As a part of that program, Section 301(a) of the Act prohibits all discharges of pollutants into navigable waters except those made in compliance with the Act. (TOC), Inc., 956 F. Supp. 1993); Atlantic States Legal Found., Inc. v. Pan Am. WebWe put it to work as energy to make cement. 1365(a). Citing this Court's decision in Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998), the court of appeals concluded that "this action is moot because the only remedy currently available to [petitioners]-civil penalties payable to the government-would not redress any injury [petitioners] have suffered." Newport News, Virginia. Pet. In 1997, 182-183). NEWS; SAFETY-KLEEN APPROVES TAKEOVER OFFER FROM LAIDLAW LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES See Laidlaw I, 890 F. 2d at 478-479 (J.A. Laidlaw On-Call Environmental Services for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 33 U.S.C. In 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 and modify its existing hazardous waste facility near the unincorporated town of Buttonwillow. The Court has explained that voluntary cessation "is an important factor bearing on the question whether a court should exercise its power to enjoin the defendant from renewing the practice, but that is a matter relating to the exercise rather than the existence of judicial power." 1998); see also Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc., 2 F.3d 493, 503 n.9 (3d Cir. 1319(a)-(g); see also 40 C.F.R. The District Court Proceedings Laidlaw operated a hazardous waste incineration facility in Roebuck, South Carolina. If the United States has not filed its own action, it may intervene in the citizen action. The cash portion will be reduced by breakup fees or new severance agreements with Safety-Kleen executives, Laidlaw has said. In May 1995, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. 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." 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 Pp.180-195. On the last day before FOE's 60-day notice period expired, DREC and Laidlaw reached a settlement requiring Laidlaw to pay $100,000 in civil penalties and to make "every effort" to comply with its permit obligations. 588, 600-01, 610 (D.S.C.1997). See Comfort Lake Ass'n v. Dresel Contracting, Inc., 138 F.3d 351, 356 (8th Cir. B. 98-822. 1319(d)), and it assessed a penalty of $405,800. Office of the Solicitor General Cadence developed the use of Chem-Fuel using industrial wastes to replace the use of non-renewable resources as fuels for use in cement kilns. In the Supreme Court of the United States No. On-Call Environmental Services for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 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. Respectfully submitted. 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. (TOC), Inc., 956 F.Supp. Safety-Kleen provides cleaning services for parts and tools and is a processor of used lubricating oil. See Gwaltney, 484 U.S. at 65-66; id. Laidlaw Environmental Services The NPDES permit limited Laidlaw's discharges of numerous pollutants and required Laidlaw to monitor and report its discharges. WebECOS provides all of its customers with a one year guarantee on its water damage and fire damage repairs. 147, 193-195). We begin by explaining the content and objectives of the citizen-enforcement provisions. Nevertheless, the Court has treated the doctrines of standing and mootness as separate jurisdictional concepts and subjected them to different standards because of the distinct role that each plays, as a practical matter, in the conduct of litigation. 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. City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U. S. 283, 289. at 484-499 (J.A. at 611 (J.A. Grant Co., 345 U.S. at 633, 635-636 ("although the actions were not moot, no abuse of discretion has been demonstrated in the trial court's refusal to award injunctive relief"); see generally City of Mesquite, 455 U.S. at 289. 33 U.S.C. The latter converted in 1996, and Virginia Overland's parent company based in Richmond closed in 2004. All Trademarks and Copyrights are owned by their respective companies and/or entities. In 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 and modify its existing hazardous waste facility LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES See CWA 505(a), 33 U.S.C. 106-136). 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. 456 U.S. at 316. See generally Robert L. Stern, et al., Supreme Court Practice 710-721 (7th ed. WebLaidlaw 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 Weve been identifying carbon-rich wastes to use in our Chem-Fuel program since 1975. In February 2007, FirstGroup, a bus and rail transportation operator in the United Kingdom with subsidiaries in North America, acquired Laidlaw International, Inc.[1][2][3] FirstGroup completed the acquisition of Laidlaw International on October 1, 2007, and rebranded Laidlaw services under the First umbrella. The district court in this case expressly applied civil penalties in that manner for the specific purpose of deterrence. Otherwise, that party could resume the behavior as soon as the case was dismissed for mootness. at 318. 1990); Pawtuxet Cove Marina, Inc. v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 807 F.2d 1089, 1094 (1st Cir. 33 U.S.C. See also Carr v. Alta Verde Indus., Inc., 931 F.2d 1055, 1065 n.9 (5th Cir. at 600-601 (J.A. 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. 122; pp. West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor. Laidlaw Environmental Services has laid off 23 employees at its Reidsville office and its Columbia, S.C., headquarters in its third round of layoffs in eight months. Laidlaw 41. 149). WebIn Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.}0 envi-ronmental groups brought action against Laidlaw, a NPDES permit holder, pursuant to the citizen suit provision17 of the Clean Water Act.18 The plaintiff organizations alleged that Laidlaw had failed to comply with its See Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 88-89. LAIDLAW ENV. SERV. v Congress's authorization of civil penalties in citizen suits, however, is properly viewed as limited to the "forward-looking" objective of deterring the defendant from further non-compliance. The relief the district court awarded-civil penalties calibrated to "provide adequate deterrence under the circumstances of this case" (Laidlaw II, 956 F. Supp. EPA, as well as the issuing state agency, may enforce a state-issued NPDES permit. 1251 et seq. Words: Standing, Environment & Other Contested Terms After incurring heavy losses through its investments in Safety-Kleen and Greyhound Lines and after almost 20 years of expansion, Laidlaw Inc. filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in June 2001. Congress empowered the government to seek civil penalties to punish wrongful conduct as well as to deter future violations, both of which are proper government objectives. In 2012, ECOS was awarded with the Aspen Chamber of Commerce Business of the Year Award. Ibid. Grant Co., 345 U.S. at 636). at 70 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). The Court has previously indicated, in connection with other federal statutes that authorize "prevailing parties" to recover attorneys' fees, that a plaintiff whose suit induces the defendant to comply with the law voluntarily is a "prevailing party." See, e.g., Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 102-104; Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559-560 (1992). on Public Works and Transp., 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 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. Section 309(d) makes express reference to setting penalties in light of the "the economic benefit (if any) resulting from the violation." Ibid. 588, 593-594 (D.S.C. See CWA 505(a), 33 U.S.C. Fined $22,500 for hazardous waste burning violations discovered duringa 1990 inspection. P. 180. Ibid. The state court approved the settlement on June 10, 1992, the day after the expiration of Section 505(b)'s 60-day notice period, 33 U.S.C. The Fourth Circuit vacated the District Court's order and remanded with instructions to dismiss the action. May 21, 2018. 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. 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. 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. 181-182). 91). Laidlaw is offering $30 per share for the Elgin, Ill.-based oil and chemicals recycler. Language links are at the top of the page across from the title. No. Id. 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. WebThis past terms decision in Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.7 raises the deference issue. 8a-9a. Cf. 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. 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.