laidlaw environmental services inc website
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. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. 122; pp. We are committed to building our people through career development, constructing quality projects, 3 The court of appeals "assume[d] without deciding that [petitioners] had standing to initiate this action and have proven a continuous injury in fact." 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. 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. "3In 1993, DeGroote and associates paid $23 million to the Ontario SecuritiesCommission in a settlement for insider trading involving Laidlaw stock. 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. 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. 6a. Formore on strategy and organizing see our Strategy Guide. Grant Co., and Oregon State Med. TES has developed and sustained partnerships with thousands of clients including petrochemical facilities, manufacturing facilities, shipyards, offshore facilities, chemical plants, hospitals, and 7a n.3. 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 LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS INC has the Handler ID: #TXD000454710. App. 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. The Court ruled that, even if EPCRA authorized a citizen to sue for wholly past violations, the citizens' suit must be dismissed because the citizens lacked Article III standing to seek relief that does not redress a cognizable "injury in fact" to the citizens. WebLaidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court) Ability of individuals bringing citizen-suits to seek civil penalties. 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. 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. 86-87). Petitioners accordingly had the requisite adversarial posture, arising from their concrete interest in abating those violations, to satisfy the requirements of Article III. 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. 1319(d). Id. Garbage, on the other hand, always had to be dealt with. City of Mesquite, 455 U.S. at 289. WebTES has successfully provided environmental, safety, and industrial hygiene solutions to our clients since 1984. The relief the district court awarded-civil penalties calibrated to "provide adequate deterrence under the circumstances of this case" (Laidlaw II, 956 F. Supp. As we next explain, the court's ruling overlooks established principles that guide how the mootness doctrine should be applied in this case. 183). 1319(a), the initiation of civil actions for injunctive relief, 33 U.S.C. A citizen who is aggrieved by permit violations has standing to sue to enforce the permit and thereby abate those violations. Formore on strategy and organizing see our Strategy Guide. In Virginia, several school districts canceled their school bus contracts with private operators and brought bus operations in-house. *90*91John A. Dalimonte, Karon & Dalimonte, Boston, MA, for Matthew Delmonte, Lee Ann Delmonte, plaintiffs. Ibid. The LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. principal address is 1301 GERVAIS STREET, SUITE 300, COLUMBIA, SC, 29201. 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. 482 U.S. at 760. 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 Petitioners Friends of the Earth, Inc., Citizens Local Environmental Action Network, Inc., and the Sierra Club brought this citizen suit against respondent Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., to enjoin Laidlaw's violations of its Clean Water Act permit. The application of mootness principles frequently calls for a practical assessment of whether a case or controversy persists in light of the particular facts at hand. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS 1 n.1. 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.". The defendant must show that "subsequent events made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur." at 610-611 (J.A. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 890 F. Supp. at 613-621 (J.A. (TOC), Inc., 956 F.Supp. As this Court indicated in Romero-Barcelo, the court was entitled to employ civil penalties, rather than an injunction, to deter future violations and ensure continued compliance. 33 U.S.C. at 318. If there were no such exception to the mootness doctrine, a defendant could thwart the efforts of other parties or the government to enforce the law indefinitely. Get free summaries of new US Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox! 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. On-Call Environmental Services for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. at 477, 478-479 (J.A. See, e.g., City of Mesquite v. Alladin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 288-289 (1982). on Investigations and Oversight of the House Comm. 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 See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U. S. 43, 66-67. at 611 (J.A. B. 1365(b)(1)(B). 1998); Atlantic States Legal Found., Inc. v. Stroh Die Casting, Inc., 116 F.3d 814, 820 (7th Cir. A lock (LockA locked padlock) or https:// means youve safely connected to the .gov website. 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. See Laidlaw I, 890 F. 2d at 478-479 (J.A. See 33 U.S.C. 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. 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 district court did deny petitioners' request for injunctive relief, which would have gone beyond a simple prohibitory injunction and imposed special reporting obligations. This Court has repeatedly and emphatically rejected the notion that "voluntary cessation" of the challenged conduct automatically deprives a court of the power to order relief. The question of attorneys' fees can be addressed once the litigation has run its course. 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 Compare Laidlaw II, 956 F. Supp. 484 U.S. at 57. The civil penalties, which the court expressly levied to deter future violations, were an appropriate judicial means to that end. The court of appeals overlooked that petitioners brought this citizen suit to compel Laidlaw to cease permit violations that, at the time the suit was filed, were allegedly causing petitioners injury in fact. CONCLUSION The judgment of the court of appeals should be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. It argued that the case was now moot because it had corrected the problems from which it had stemmed. But the citizen, unlike the federal or state government, may not bring suit simply to assess civil penalties for "wholly past violations." If Laidlaw had failed to meet its "heavy" burden of showing that "there is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated," Gwaltney, 484 U.S. at 66, then the citizen suit was not moot, and the district court could impose relief to ensure future compliance. at 106-107. "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. Furthermore, the court, "in issuing any final order in any action brought pursuant to this section, may award costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) to any prevailing or substantially prevailing party, whenever the court determines such award is appropriate." Language links are at the top of the page across from the title. 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. The district court had denied injunctive relief, however, as a matter of remedial discretion and not because the case satisfied this Court's criteria for mootness. Id. Create a free account to access additional details for Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. and other profiles that you visit. 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. 1251(a). Fined $22,500 for hazardous waste burning violations discovered duringa 1990 inspection. 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.'" Soc'y, supra). Section 402(b) and (c) authorizes the States to develop and administer their own NPDES permit programs and provides that EPA shall suspend issuance of federal permits upon determining that a State has adopted an adequate program. See Atlantic States Legal Found., Inc. v. Pan Am. As Section 505(a) makes clear, a citizen may ask the district court to "apply any appropriate civil penalties under [Section 309(d), 33 U.S.C. See, e.g., Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750 (1984). at 600-601 (J.A. 33 U.S.C. By the late 1980s, the only 3 remaining district school bus contracts were at Petersburg, Norfolk and Hopewell. Laidlaw moved for summary judgment on the ground that FOE lacked Article III standing to bring the lawsuit. 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. 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. Laidlaw undertook those steps to interpose a bar to the citizen suit under Section 505(b)'s "diligent prosecution" provision, 33 U.S.C. Id. United States Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18, 24-25 (1994) ("The judgment is not unreviewable, but simply unreviewed by [the losing party's] own choice."). 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. 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). 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. Safety-Kleen provides cleaning services for parts and tools and is a processor of used lubricating oil. "It is the duty of the courts to beware of efforts to defeat injunctive relief by protestations of repentance and reform, especially when abandonment seems timed to anticipate suit, and there is probability of resumption." WebFind out what works well at Laidlaw Environmental Services from the people who know best.