Laidlaw II, 956 F. Supp. Cf. 182-183). 484 U.S. at 67 n.6 (quoting S. Rep. No. Became legally responsible for toxic emissions emanating from more than800 barrels and PCB-contaminated electrical equipment illegally buriedby the previous company, in Mercier. at 484-499 (J.A. 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 refused to grant petitioners' request for injunctive relief, reasoning that an injunction was inappropriate because "Laidlaw has been in substantial compliance with all parameters in its NPDES permit since at least August 1992." Fined $80,000 for emitting odors and $14,000 for silt discharges in March1993 in Storrington Township northeast of Kingston. 81 Before the Subcomm. Weblaidlaw environmental services, inc. 1301 grevais street, suite 300 columbia, sc 29201 1365(c)(3). Id. 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." The company`s management are President, Director - Stilwell William E Jr, Vice President - We are committed to building our people through career development, constructing quality projects, They could stop operations whenever a case was filed and resume once it was dismissed. As this Court indicated in Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 (1982), the Clean Water Act provides other remedies, including civil penalties, to compel compliance. Id. WebAfter Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. bought a wastewater treatment plant, it was granted a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. 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. WebRincon Consultants, Inc. was founded in 1994 and has grown to be a leading environmental consulting firm throughout California. Pet. 183). CWA 505(g), 33 U.S.C. 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." The order also contains the following: CONCLUSION OF LAW. 98-822. 5 (1976)). 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]. (TOC), Inc., 890 F. Supp. The Court has applied mootness principles in a practical manner when defendants facing injunctive remedies urge that their voluntary cessation of allegedly unlawful actions renders the case moot. TES has developed and sustained partnerships with thousands of clients including petrochemical facilities, manufacturing facilities, shipyards, offshore facilities, chemical plants, hospitals, and 6a. On June 12, 1992, FOE filed this citizen suit against Laidlaw, alleging noncompliance with the NPDES permit and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of civil penalties. See, e.g., Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Southwest Marine, Inc., 28 F. Supp. See 890 F. Supp. 182))-was designed to redress that specific interest by compelling compliance. The district court assessed civil penalties and attorneys fees to "provide adequate deterrence under the circumstances of this case," ibid. Congress and state legislatures have empowered those governmental entities to call upon a variety of mechanisms-including administrative penalties, judicial injunctions and civil penalties, and criminal sanctions-to compel a facility to comply with its permit and to punish permit violations. CWA 309, 402(b)(7), 33 U.S.C. Pet. See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U. S. 43, 66-67. Brought on behalf of the Ohio Public Interest Research Group and the Ohio Environmental Council, our lawsuit focused on Laidlaws years of repeated, illegal discharges of heavy metals into the [] The citizen "may seek civil penalties only in a suit brought to enjoin or otherwise abate an ongoing violation." 183). The court stated that "these elements must continue to exist at every stage of review" or else "the action becomes moot." at 477, 478-479 (J.A. WebECOS provides all of its customers with a one year guarantee on its water damage and fire damage repairs. P. 180. See 33 U.S.C. See CWA 505(d), 33 U.S.C. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632 (1953). Servs. 9a. All Trademarks and Copyrights are owned by their respective companies and/or entities. 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. Gwaltney, 484 U.S. at 59. 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. 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." WebAbout us. As we next explain, the court's ruling overlooks established principles that guide how the mootness doctrine should be applied in this case. (TOC), Inc., 956 F.Supp. Id. Laidlaw Environmental Services is a renewables & environment company based out of 4101 Washington Ave, Newport News, Virginia, United States. The bid includes $15 in cash per share and $15 of Laidlaw stock, as well as assumption of $249 million in debt. 181-182). In 1979, it acquired a Canadian contract school bus business. 1998); see also Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc., 2 F.3d 493, 503 n.9 (3d Cir. EPA, as well as the issuing state agency, may enforce a state-issued NPDES permit. 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 WebHe also served as Senior Compliance Official with the Rollins Environmental Services Company, Laidlaw Environmental Services Company and Safety-Kleen, Inc. Mr. Retallick holds a Bachelor of Sciences Degree in Geosciences from the Pennsylvania State University. 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. Language links are at the top of the page across from the title. 33 U.S.C. CWA 505(c)(3), 33 U.S.C. Laidlaw raised its "diligent prosecution" defense, and the district court heard seven days of testimony on the matter. 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." at 289 n.10 (citations omitted). 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. Servs. Decided: November 22, 1999 ; 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. 201-500 employees. 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. After incurring heavy losses through its investments in Safety-Kleen and Greyhound Lines. free to return to his old ways.'" at 611 (J.A. See Hewitt, 482 U.S. at 761 ("The real value of the judicial pronouncement-what makes it a proper judicial resolution of a 'cause or controversy' rather than an advisory opinion-is in the settling of some dispute which affects the behavior of the defendant towards the plaintiff."). In the 1990s, Laidlaw continued to acquire hundreds of smaller school bus and public transit contractors in the U.S. and Canada. 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. 141-143); Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. 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. 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." 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. 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." 33 U.S.C. A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. at 716 n.21 (collecting cases). See Laidlaw II, 956 F. Supp. WebLaidlaw played a major role in helping BFI launch their hostile takeoverof Attwoods in 1994. 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. Cf. 183). Gwaltney, 484 U.S. at 66 (quoting Concentrated Phosphate Export Ass'n, 393 U.S. at 203) (emphasis added by the Court in Gwaltney). We believe that the district court's actions demonstrate its understanding that petitioners' citizen suit continued to present a live controversy under the standards set out in Gwaltney. 470 (D.S.C. at 59. . After almost 20 years of expansion, Laidlaw Inc. filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in June 2001. See Arizonans for Official English, 520 U.S. at 67-68. 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. 8a-9a. 1993) (collecting cases and secondary sources). Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412, 422-423 (1987). 122; pp. 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. They have operated tour bus companies (they own Greyhound), ambulance services, para-trasit companies and other types of transportation services. 183). Id. Laidlaw had grown primarily through acquisitions of other companies and contracting of services formerly directly provided by government entities. at 320. 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 May 1995, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Settled for a $100,000 fine for more than four years of mercury dischargeviolations. 1342(b) and (c). WebLaidlaw Environmental Services | 17 followers on LinkedIn. at 600-601 (J.A. 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. 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. 1365(a)) in citizen suits specifically to facilitate that objective. Laidlaw I, 890 F. Supp. See Comfort Lake Ass'n v. Dresel Contracting, Inc., 138 F.3d 351, 356 (8th Cir. West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor. Decided November 22, 1999. 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. "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. The company had also lost their contract in Petersburg to self-operation in 1989, but was still operating at Hopewell. In Romero-Barcelo, citizens demanded an injunction to abate government discharges of ordnance, which qualified as a pollutant under the Clean Water Act. C. The court of appeals erred in failing to apply the Court's teachings in City of Mesquite and other decisions, which establish that a defendant's mere voluntary cessation of unlawful conduct does not automatically moot a case. If the United States has not filed its own action, it may intervene in the citizen action. See Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 88-89. The doctrine of standing requires a court to ascertain that a plaintiff has demonstrated an "injury in fact," caused by the defendant's allegedly unlawful action, that can be redressed through the requested relief. Co., 385 U.S. 533, 535 (1967) (directing that "the District Court should determine in the first instance the effect of an intervening event upon the appropriateness of injunctive relief"); Stern, supra, at 257. WebTES has successfully provided environmental, safety, and industrial hygiene solutions to our clients since 1984. 456 U.S. at 316. The coercive effect of that sanction can be calibrated to respond to the likelihood of future violations. BBB Rating: A+. The court then requested and received, through a brief amicus curiae, the views of the United States on that issue. WebFRIENDS OF EARTH, INC. V. LAIDLAW ENVI-RONMENTAL SERVICES (TOC), INC. (98-822) 528 U.S. 167 (2000) 149 F.3d 303, reversed and remanded. The court also found that Laidlaw had committed 420 monitoring violations, including 13 post-complaint violations, and that Laidlaw had committed 503 reporting violations, including ten post-complaint violations. The former Virginia Overland subsidiary operation in the Norfolk area acquired from Laidlaw operates as Transquest and is now owned by Serco. at 601-610 (J.A. 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. The court noted that the penalty amounted to less than one half of the economic benefit that Laidlaw had obtained through non-compliance, but it concluded that the "total deterrent effect" was adequate, because "Laidlaw will be required to reimburse [petitioners] for a significant amount of legal fees and has, itself, incurred significant legal expenses." Paid a fine of $80,000 in November, 1993 and agreed to $3.5 million inimprovements to abate odors emanating from "bio-sludge.". See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962).8 D. The Court of Appeals' Judgment Should Be Vacated And The Case Remanded For Further Proceedings, Including Appropriate Proceedings Respecting Petitioners' Entitlement To Litigation Costs For the foregoing reasons, we submit that the court of appeals erred in concluding that the district court's determination not to award injunctive relief rendered this case moot. 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. at 102-110. 1311(a), 1342. Pet. Laidlaw Environmental Services is a company that operates in the 1319(d)), and it assessed a penalty of $405,800. In 1996, Laidlaw sold its solid waste business to Allied Waste Industries. May 21, 2018. The party claiming mootness has the burden of showing that the offending behavior cannot be repeated. In Virginia, several school districts canceled their school bus contracts with private operators and brought bus operations in-house. STATEMENT Section 505 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. See 484 U.S. at 59-63. Laidlaw I, 890 F. Supp. (quoting Concentrated Phosphate Export Ass'n, 393 U.S. at 203). ; 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. at 314. 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. See pp. 181-182). (TOC), Inc., 956 F. Supp. The Fourth Circuit vacated the District Court's order and remanded with instructions to dismiss the action. ", Named a potentially responsible party (prp) in at least 6 Superfund sites.And they are also listed in EPA court data as defendents at several otherSuperfund sites, according to EPA data. Laidlaw sold the Canadian operations to USA Waste Services, Inc. Laidlaw American branch's where re-branded to many different names, depending on the location of were they were. The court of appeals' exclusive focus on what relief the citizen received departs from the methodology that courts normally apply in analyzing mootness. 81 (1971)). 7a n.3. 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. EPA's policy expressly stated that a core objective of civil penalties is to deprive the defendant of the economic benefit of the violation in order to provide effective deterrence. According to Laidlaw, the entire Roebuck facility has since been permanently closed, dismantled, and put up for sale, and all discharges from the facility have permanently ceased. 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. 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. 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). See also Carr v. Alta Verde Indus., Inc., 931 F.2d 1055, 1065 n.9 (5th Cir. Here, unlike the situation in Steel Co., petitioners had more than merely a "generalized interest in deterrence." at 600, 613-619 (J.A. Web4 FRIENDS OF EARTH, INC. v. LAIDLAW ENVI-RONMENTAL SERVICES (TOC), INC. Opinion of the Court any good-faith efforts to comply with the applicable re-quirements, the economic impact of the penalty on the violator, and such other matters as justice may require. 1319(d). 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 1365(b)(1)(B).2 Once the citizen files a suit, Section 505(c) directs that the citizen must serve a copy of the complaint on the Attorney General and the Administrator of EPA, and the citizen must provide them with advance notice of any proposed consent judgment. No warranties, expressed or implied, are provided for the business data on this site, its use, or its interpretation. In particular, the District Court found that the judgment's "total deterrent effect" would be adequate to forestall future violations, given that Laidlaw would have to reimburse the plaintiffs for a significant amount of legal fees and had itself incurred significant legal expenses. As of 2007, Transquest was continuing bus contract operations transporting students to many independent schools in South Hampton Roads, including Norfolk Academy. 1319. 1. 91). A lock (LockA locked padlock) or https:// means youve safely connected to the .gov website. / ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPPORT AND WASTE MANAGEMENT AND REMEDIATION SERVICES / ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPPORT SERVICES / SERVICES TO BUILDINGS AND Penalized $1.825 million, the state's largest penalty ever, for repeatedviolations including improper disposal of infectious waste and wastewatersludge (36 total). 1988." The plaintiff must allege sufficient facts in the complaint to demonstrate standing. Our offices are strategically located in the Gulf Coast. CWA 505(d), 33 U.S.C. 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. Respondent has violated Section 10.56.170 of the 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.] 149). 4a. A plaintiff prevails on the "merits of his claim" if a court finds that the defendant, in direct response to the plaintiff's suit, has altered his behavior in a way that renders the claim moot as a matter of law. See CWA 505(c)(2), 33 U.S.C. Section 505(b) also bars a citizen from suing if EPA or the State has already commenced and is "dili- gently prosecuting" an enforcement action. Official websites use .gov 2. Section 402 of the Act establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which authorizes the federal government and qualifying States to issue permits for controlling the point-source discharge of pollutants. WebLAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS INC is located at and is classified as a Transporter by the Environmental Protection Agency. 158); see also id. CWA 101(a), 33 U.S.C. In 1983, BFI pleadedno contest to charges of price-fixing and conspiracy in Atlanta from 1974to 1979. 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. The defendant must show that "subsequent events made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur." Civ.A. If the Court concludes that petitioners' suit is not moot, the issue of petitioners' standing would be resolved on remand. 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. 3078. 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. Laidlaw II, 956 F. Supp. Grant Co., 345 U.S. at 633 (the defendant bears the "heavy" burden of demonstrating that "there is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated"). on Investigations and Oversight of the House Comm. 98-10463-MEL. . Laidlaw began in 1924 when founder Robert Laidlaw created Laidlaw Transit, a trucking service company in Hagersville, Ontario. Soc'y, 343 U.S. 326, 333 (1952). 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. at 611 (J.A. A citizen plaintiff that simply seeks civil penalties to punish the defendant for past infractions cannot satisfy the redressability requirement because, in that situation, a payment of civil penalties to the United States Treasury does not redress any injury that the citizen suffered from the defendant's past conduct. WebFind out what works well at Laidlaw Environmental Services from the people who know best. 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. "The companiestended to fail the tests of independence or accountability. B. 9a n.5. 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. 4 In the proceedings below, Laidlaw also contested petitioners' standing to bring suit. By the late 1980s, the only 3 remaining district school bus contracts were at Petersburg, Norfolk and Hopewell. Id. LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS INC has the Handler ID: #TXD000454710. Laidlaw moved for summary judgment on the ground that FOE lacked Article III standing to bring the lawsuit. Indeed, that is what the district court apparently concluded here. In 2012, ECOS was awarded with the Aspen Chamber of Commerce Business of the Year Award. Grant Co., 345 U.S. at 633 ("The purpose of an injunction is to prevent future violations."). The company`s registered agent is FL. 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. 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. 1365. 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 7 Congress drafted Section 309(d)'s standards for assessing civil penalties (see note 6, supra) with deterrence of violations specifically in mind. 159). 33 U.S.C. Please verify address for mailing or other purposes. 8 In its brief in opposition, Laidlaw indicated that it closed the facility after the district court assessed civil penalties. 33 U.S.C. The District Court Proceedings Laidlaw operated a hazardous waste incineration facility in Roebuck, South Carolina. See, e.g., City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 288-289 (1982); United States v. Concentrated Phosphate Export Ass'n, 393 U.S. 199, 203 (1968); United States v. W.T. 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. See, e.g., Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750 (1984).