FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, INC. V. LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
528 U.S. 167 (2000)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over citizen suits under the Clean Water Act.
FACTS: In 1986, Laidlaw (D) bought a hazardous waste facility that included a water
treatment plant. D was granted an NPDES permit, which placed limits on discharges of certain
elements. D’s discharges repeatedly exceeded the limits set by the permit particularly
mercury discharges. Section 402 of the Clear Water Act provides for issuance of permits that
impose limitations on the discharge of pollutants. Noncompliance with a permit constitutes a
violation of the Act. Section 505(a) allows for private citizen suits. There is a notice
provision that must be given to the alleged violator sixty days before any suit in order
that the alleged violator may bring itself into compliance. A citizen cannot sue under
505(a) for violations that have ceased by the time the complaint is filed. The Clean Water
Act authorized suits initiated by a person or persons having an interest, which is or may be
adversely affected. On June 12, 1992, FOE (P) filed under 505(a) seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief and an award of civil penalties. The District Court found 489 violations
from 1987-95. The District Court determined that injunctive relief was inappropriate as the
defendant complied after the suit was filed but nonetheless fined them $405,800 finding that
the total deterrent effect of the penalty would be adequate to forestall future violations.
D contends that FOE lacks standing because none of FOE’s members showed that any of them had
sustained or faced the threat of any injury in fact. D points to the fact that at trial, the
court found that there had been no demonstrated proof of harm to the environment. The Court
of Appeals vacated the District Court's order. They reasoned the case became moot once D
fully complied with the terms of its permit and P failed to appeal the denial of equitable
relief. '[C]ivil penalties payable to the government,' the Court of Appeals stated, 'would
not redress any injury Plaintiffs have suffered.' Nor were attorneys' fees in order, the
Court of Appeals noted, because, absent relief on the merits, plaintiffs could not qualify
as prevailing parties.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment