Willkommen beim Lembecker TV

laidlaw environmental services inc website

1. In acquiring Laidlaw, FirstGroup announced that the Laidlaw name would not be kept, but that the Greyhound name would be maintained. 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. The district court is empowered to enforce permit requirements and assess civil penalties, which are payable to the United States Treasury. 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. Servs. For example, the Court stated in Hewitt, supra, a case arising under 42 U.S.C. Soc'y, supra). 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. The court of appeals erred in this case by failing to take those principles into account. The deal combined North America's two largest private school bus operatorsEducation Services and First Student Inc.giving them a combined 40% of the school bus contractor market.[4]. WebLaidlaw was a great company and community. WebLAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS INC is located at and is classified as a Transporter by the Environmental Protection Agency. Instances of reverse privatization were rare, but did occur during Laidlaw's years of expansion. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The court of appeals erred in ruling that a Clean Water Act citizen suit, brought to compel a regulated entity to comply with its NPDES permit, must be dismissed as moot if the district court concludes that injunctive relief is unwarranted. 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). 1319(d)), and it assessed a penalty of $405,800. 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. at 610-611 (J.A. Web170 FRIENDS OF EARTH, INC. v. LAIDLAW ENVI-RONMENTAL SERVICES (TOC), INC. Syllabus not deprive a federal court of its power to determine the legality of the practice. Nevertheless, the district court found that, within two months after petitioners filed their complaint, Laidlaw was in "substantial compliance." United States v. Oregon State Med. Fined $80,000 for emitting odors and $14,000 for silt discharges in March1993 in Storrington Township northeast of Kingston. Pet. 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. After examining affidavits and deposition testimony from members of the plaintiff organizations, the District Court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had standing. WebTES has successfully provided environmental, safety, and industrial hygiene solutions to our clients since 1984. See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U. S. 43, 66-67. 98-822. 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." 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. 1983, that "[i]t is settled law, of course, that relief need not be judicially decreed in order to justify a fee award under [42 U.S.C.] Fined $22,500 for hazardous waste burning violations discovered duringa 1990 inspection. Respectfully submitted. 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." [6] Allied Waste sold the Canadian operations to USA Waste Services, Inc. Laidlaw American branches were re-branded to many different names, depending on their location. 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 Whether a citizen suit under Section 505 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. The Court applies the doctrine of standing as a threshold jurisdiction requirement that a plaintiff must normally satisfy to invoke the federal judicial power. Heard October 7, 1999. A. No warranties, expressed or implied, are provided for the business data on this site, its use, or its interpretation. Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U.S. 755, 761 (1987). This article is about the transportation corporation. 1991) (dictum). That relief "can include, but is not limited to, an order of immediate cessation." Art. 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 Work is often performed at active facilities in densely populated, urban areas. 33 U.S.C. III, is enforced through the concept of standing, which requires plaintiffs to demonstrate that they have suffered an injury in fact, caused by the defendant's action, that can be redressed through a favorable decision. Id. This Court has held that to satisfy Article Ill's standing requirements, a plaintiff must show "injury in fact," causation, and redressability. 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. 33 U.S.C. 1319. (TOC), Inc., 890 F. Supp. 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. 1365(a)) in citizen suits specifically to facilitate that objective. WebLaidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court) Ability of individuals bringing citizen-suits to seek civil penalties. The court of appeals should not have based a determination of mootness on the mere fact that the district court imposed civil penalties but did not provide injunctive relief. The court of appeals also stated that petitioners are not entitled to recover their costs of litigation because they are not "prevailing or substantially prevailing part[ies]" within the meaning of Section 505(d). Because the Fourth Circuit was persuaded that the case had become moot, it simply assumed that FOE had initial standing. 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 trying to show that the mootness doctrine applies because it will voluntarily cease an activity must show that the activity would not recur. at 102-110. 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." Civil penalties, as an alternative to an injunction, would continue to be available unless it is "absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur." See 456 U.S. at 314. Fined $106,000 for discharging mercury at higher than legally allowed ratesinto the North Tyger river in 1992. 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. In 2012, ECOS was awarded with the Aspen Chamber of Commerce Business of the Year Award. 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. 470 (D.S.C. After Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. bought a wastewater treatment plant, it was granted a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. App. See CWA 309(b) and (c), 33 U.S.C. 86-87). City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U. S. 283, 289. 1998); Atlantic States Legal Found., Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 897 F.2d 1128, 1137 (11th Cir. City of Mesquite, 455 U.S. at 289. See 33 U.S.C. See 890 F. Supp. 482 U.S. at 760. See 33 U.S.C. Finally, we show why the court of appeals erred in holding that, because the district court denied injunctive relief, the petitioners' enforcement action is moot.4 A. No. 2-3, supra. 149). The court's ruling rests on a mistaken understanding of the Clean Water Act's citizen-enforcement provisions, CWA 505, 33 U.S.C. 93-94). 6a. Allied Waste SystemsAllied's Chief Executive Officer, Roger Ramsey, was the Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer for BFI from 1968 to 1976. However, DeGroote is still one of Republic's largest shareholdersand is Vice-Chairman.6, Rollins Environmental ServicesBusiness Week ranked Rollins Environmental's board of directors asone of the worst. Gwaltney, 484 U.S. at 66 (quoting Concentrated Phosphate Export Ass'n, 393 U.S. at 203) (emphasis added by the Court in Gwaltney). 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. Laidlaw Environmental provides industrial waste management services. at 600, 613-619 (J.A. 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." Respondent has violated Section 10.56.170 of the Web394 Virginia Environmental Law Journal [Vol. See pp. 1993); Atlantic States Legal Found., Inc. v. Pan Am. 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. 7a n.3. App. 1993) (collecting cases and secondary sources). Laidlaw used these Beginning in 1972, under the leadership of Michael DeGroote, Laidlaw, Inc. began growing through acquisitions of other companies when it acquired a Canadian intercity and charter bus company. Get notified about new Service Crew jobs in Phoenix, AZ. Ibid. May 22, 2018. 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.". Br. 182-183). The court declined to issue an injunction but assessed civil penalties and indicated that it would award petitioners their costs of litigation in accordance with Section 505(d) of the Act. at 716 n.21 (collecting cases). The district court found that Laidlaw had violated its permit both before and after petitioners filed their citizen suit, but had ceased the violations before final judgment. 588, 600-01, 610 (D.S.C.1997). Official websites use .gov Penalized $30,000 for unauthorized emissions from their incinerator's stacks. WebCode Environmental Services, Inc. has been providing turn-key remedial and environmental construction services to a repeat customer base of Fortune 500 corporations, national engineering firms, and major utility companies for almost 30 years. In 1997, at 600-601 (J.A. Our offices are strategically located in the Gulf Coast. Laidlaw installed additional pollution control technology in 1991, but nevertheless violated the mercury limitation more than 100 times in 1992. (J.A. 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. Id. 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. 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." 2 The citizen may intervene in the government enforcement action. Required to pay into a trust fund, to total $133 million cash in the year2004, to cover any clean-up costs. 81 (1971)). 1319(d). See Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. at 314.6 The court of appeals concluded that the district court's award of civil penalties, without an injunction, dictated that the case was moot, because civil penalties -which are payable to the Treasury-"would not redress any injury [petitioners] have suffered." The facility included a wastewater treatment plant that removed pollutants from Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000), exposes fundamental incoherencies within environmental standing doctrine, even while it ostensibly makes standing easier to prove for The court reasoned 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." Language links are at the top of the page across from the title. 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+ Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. ("LESI"), 220 Outlet Pointe Boulevard, Columbia, SC 29210; and BDT, Inc. ("BDT"), 4255 Research Parkway, Clarence, NY 14031, (collectively, the "Applicants") seek modification of existing Hazardous Waste Facility and Air Permits; and Certificates to Operate; and approval by the Department of Environmental WebFind out what works well at Laidlaw Environmental Services from the people who know best. The site had problemsbefore Laidlaw purchased GSX, but Ohio EPA Director Richard Shank latercalled Laidlaw's operation, "horrendous and shoddyI never would havedreamed that (Laidlaw) would have gotten themselves into this kind of troublethisis not some corner drug store, this is a hazardous waste facility. See Laidlaw II, 956 F. Supp. This Court concluded that the Clean Water Act does not "deny courts the discretion to rely on remedies other than an immediate prohibitory injunction." 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 Periodical U.S. Reports: Friends of the Earth, Inc., v. Laidlaw Environmental Services Soc'y, 343 U.S. 326, 333 (1952). Id. The court concluded that "the fact that Laidlaw is now and has for an extended time been in compliance with its permit" supported its decision that "no injunction or other form of equitable relief is appropriate." The court accordingly vacated the district court's decision and remanded with instructions to dismiss the action. 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. In 1978 it entered the U.S. solid waste industry. on Public Works and Transp., 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 41. FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, INC., ET AL. Laidlaw also continued to explore technology to curtail the mercury violations. 1311(a), 1342. 1365(a). And if those allegations are disputed, the plaintiff must be prepared to come forward with sufficient evidence to withstand a motion for summary judgment and to prove those facts at trial. But if the court of appeals nevertheless believed that Laidlaw's "voluntary" compliance, by itself, may have eliminated any reasonable prospect of future violations, then the court of appeals should have remanded the case to the district court for an express finding on that matter. To contact LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS INC, call (903) 984-8621, or view more information below. 4a. 7a-9a. 1011, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 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. The court of appeals' exclusive focus on what relief the citizen received departs from the methodology that courts normally apply in analyzing mootness. 1251(a). 8a-9a. The company`s registered agent is FL. The defendant must show that "subsequent events made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur." The relief the district court awarded-civil penalties calibrated to "provide adequate deterrence under the circumstances of this case" (Laidlaw II, 956 F. Supp. 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. The potential for future violations gives rise to a disputed question of fact in this instance, since the company has retained its permit. at 109. 1365(a). Pushed for a bill that would make environmental audits priviledged informationwhich is inadmissable as evidence. (202) 514-2203. 1995) (Laidlaw I) (J.A. $500,000 civil penalty addressing hazardous waste burning violations. The District Court Proceedings Laidlaw operated a hazardous waste incineration facility in Roebuck, South Carolina. See, e.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 561; Lujan v. National Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871, 883-889 (1990); Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 114-115 & n.31 (1979). 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. The bid includes $15 in cash per share and $15 of Laidlaw stock, as well as assumption of $249 million in debt. WebECOS provides all of its customers with a one year guarantee on its water damage and fire damage repairs. 1319(b), and the imposition of criminal, civil, and administrative penalties, 33 U.S.C. The LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. principal address is 1301 GERVAIS STREET, SUITE 300, COLUMBIA, SC, 29201. In 2012, ECOS was awarded with the Aspen Chamber of Commerce Business of the Year Award. A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Decided: November 22, 1999 1365(b)(1)(A). The present case, in which the United States participated as amicus curiae before the district court and the court of appeals, concerns the ability of citizen plaintiffs to recover civil penalties for violations of the Act and the costs of litigation for successful enforcement actions. See Hewitt, 482 U.S. at 761 ("In all civil litigation, the judicial decree is not the end but the means."). 15-19, supra. After incurring heavy losses through its investments in Safety-Kleen and Greyhound Lines. 1995). In addition, the court may award costs of litiga- at 611 (J.A. Pet. They have operated tour bus companies (they own Greyhound), ambulance services, para-trasit companies and other types of transportation services. The party claiming mootness has the burden of showing that the offending behavior cannot be repeated. 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. See CWA 309(a), 402(b)(7), 33 U.S.C. See, e.g., Vitek, 436 U.S. at 410 (remanding case to the district court for consideration of the question of mootness); McLeod v. General Elec. Like the court of appeals (see note 3, supra), we assume, for purposes of resolving the mootness question, that Laidlaw's permit violations have caused petitioners injury in fact. Safety-Kleen provides cleaning services for parts and tools and is a processor of used lubricating oil. 1319(a), the initiation of civil actions for injunctive relief, 33 U.S.C. at 477 (J.A. West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor. ; SouthCarolina Environmental Compliance Update, April, 1993.17 South Carolina EnvironmentalCompliance Update, November, 1993.18 "SCDHEC Board Order RequiringTrust Fund and Limiting Capacity Survives Two Preliminary Challenges,"Haynsworth, Marion, McKay & Guerard, L.L.P. In this case, petitioners commenced suit to compel compliance from an entity that was in violation of its permit requirements at the time the suit was brought but that had discontinued its violations before the court entered judgment. 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. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. ("Laidlaw") asks for clarification with respect to the environmental monitoring condition and with respect to the information to be required in its periodic updates of record of compliance filings. Garbage, on the other hand, always had to be dealt with. 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. at 59. Argued October 12, 1999-Decided January 12,2000. These also included major competitors, including Mayflower Contract Services in 1995, and National Bus Service in 1996. 1342(a)(2); 40 C.F.R. 1997) (Laidlaw II) (J.A. Id. Tanning, 993 F.2d 1017, 1020-1021 (2d Cir. See reviews, photos, directions, phone numbers and more for Laidlaw Environmental Svc Inc locations in Newport News, VA. A-1 Environmental Services Inc. Environmental Services-Site Remediation Janitorial Service. at 9a n.5 (quoting CWA 505(d), 33 U.S.C. WebLaidlaw Environmental Services | 17 followers on LinkedIn. 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. WebLaidlaw Environmental Services Environmental Services Division Is this Your Business? "26Rollins has been cited for more than 100 violations, both state and federal,but has not paid any penalties.27And in 1989,"Rollins was fined $ 1.9 million for its involvement in illegalshipments of hazardous ash; this year, after running eighteen years onvarious temporary permits, it received a final operating license."28. <25 Employees . 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." 7 Civil penalties are an effective "forward-looking" remedy because a coercive monetary sanction allows the court to compel compliance through a mechanism that directly removes the economic incentives that could induce a defendant "to return to his old ways." (TOC), Inc., 956 F.Supp. Business Week said of these companies. The plaintiff must allege sufficient facts in the complaint to demonstrate standing. 9a. 159-181). 183). III, 2. The cash portion will be reduced by breakup fees or new severance agreements with Safety-Kleen executives, Laidlaw has said. In 1991, after losing its major school bus contract in Norfolk, Virginia to a governmental conversion to district-self-operation, Laidlaw sold the rest of its urban-suburban bus line, school bus contracting business serving independent schools and day camps, and related assets in the Norfolk area to Virginia Overland Transportation. Specifically, the court of appeals incorrectly concluded that the district court's discretionary decision to withhold injunctive relief in the face of Laidlaw's post-complaint cessation of its permit violations necessarily rendered petitioners' enforcement action moot. . Meanwhile you can send your letters to POST OFFICE BOX 11393, COLUMBIA, SC, 29211. Grant Co., 345 U.S. at 632). 1319(c)-(g). 1990). We next address how this Court's mootness doctrine operates in the context of those provisions.

Tannum Sands Caravan Park Site Map, Histidine Buffer Calculator, Michael Fowler Chicago, Frank Murtha Sports Agent, Romeo And Juliet Act 3 Scene 5 Literary Devices, Articles L