New Jersey’s Industrial Site Recovery Action of 1993 (“ISRA”) requires owners and operators of industrial facilities to perform site assessment and remediation activities whenever a triggering event, such as a cessation of operations or sale of property, occurs. ISRA exempts, however, owners or operators who generate or use minimal amounts of hazardous substances from compliance with its requirements, known as a “De Minimis Quantity Exemption” or “DQE.” Pursuant to recently promulgated regulations, in addition to demonstrating the total quantity of hazardous substances handled at the facility are below specified regulatory thresholds, NJDEP requires all applicants for a DQE to certify that the applicant has no knowledge of contamination on the property above any remediation standard, regardless of the source, as a pre-condition to approval of a DQE. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Cleanup, Contamination, ISRA, New Jersey, Real Estate, Remediation

Back in October, we reported on a Complaint filed in California, in the case of Center for Community Action & Environmental Justice v. Union Pacific Corporation, No. CV11-8609 (C.D. Cal.) that contended that particulate matter in diesel fuel combustion exhaust is a hazardous waste which is “disposed of” when emitted and therefore is subject to the requirements of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).  Creative as it might have been, on a Motion to Dismiss, the Honorable S. James Otero threw out the case without leave to amend. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Cancer, Case Update, Cases to Watch, Clean Air Act, Emissions, RCRA, Toxic Torts, Waste

On May 25, 2012, the Sixth Circuit rendered its decision in Sierra Club v. Korleski, No. 10-3269 (6^th Cir. May 25, 2012), holding that there is no private right of action under Section 7604 of the  Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 7604, to compel a state to enforce its own State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) of the national air quality standards.  In doing so, it effectively overruled its own precedent, relying on an intervening Supreme Court decision which found no similar private right of action under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Clean Air Act, Private Right of Action, Procedure, Sixth Circuit

Plaintiffs continue to struggle in their attempts to obtain class certification in toxic tort cases, the most recent example being the May 14, 2012 decision in Earley v. Village of Crestwood, No. 09-CH-32969 (Cook County Ill).   In Earley, Plaintiffs brought suit ostensibly on behalf of the residents of Crestwood Village, contending that the municipality had been providing them with tap  water from a contaminated well for some twenty plus years.  In an opinion that does not even reach three pages in length, the trial court made quick work of their class action claims, focusing on proximate cause.  Relying on Smith v. Illinois Central RR, 223 Ill, 2d 441 (2006), which rejected class certification in mass toxic torts because of the complex and individual nature of establishing that the alleged contamination proximately caused each class members’ alleged injuries, the trial judge in Earley found that the necessity for each plaintiff “to establish the amount and type of their damages proximately caused by Defendants” would “overwhelm any common issues,” thus dooming certification.

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Cancer, Class Actions, Illinois, Toxic Torts, Water

With increasing frequency, courts around the country are using their inherent power to control the proceedings before them in order to structure environmental and toxic tort cases in such a way as to reduce, as much as possible, cases to their essence and, more importantly, ensure that the time and resources of parties are not needlessly wasted on discovery or lengthy proceedings when spurious claims are brought.  And that’s exactly what has happened in the case of Strudley v. Antero Resources Corp., No. 2011 CV 2218 (Denver Co. Dist. Court  May 9, 2012), where the Court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims against companies involved in drilling natural gas wells when the plaintiffs failed to show, prior to the initiation of discovery, that there was a prima facie basis for associating their personal injury claims with the defendants’ activities. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Decisions of Note, Drilling, Marcellus Shale, Medical Monitoring, Multi-District Litigation, Oil and Gas, Procedure, Real Estate, Toxic Torts

In the second appellate case within the past year addressing the “diligent prosecution” bar under environmental citizen suit provisions, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held last week that the Clean Water Act’s bar on citizen suits when governmental enforcement action is underway is not jurisdictional – reversing the dismissal of a citizen suit at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, and remanding the case for further proceedings before the district court. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Cases to Watch, Citizen Suit, Clean Water Act, Decisions of Note, Diligent Prosecution, Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Yesterday, in discussing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s grant of review in Butler v. Estate of Powers, we suggested that maybe it was time to do away with the rebuttable presumption that the owner of “mineral rights” does not own rights in a property’s natural gas stores and instead make it a firm rule of law, particularly in light of the fact that the presumption has been around for over a century.    Well, last week, this is exactly the step that the Supreme Court of Arkansas took in Staggs v, Union Pacific RR Co., 2012 Ark. 156 (Apr. 12, 2012), although holding that “mineral rights” do include oil and gas rights.  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Arkansas, Deeds, Leases, Marcellus Shale, Oil and Gas

As we reported previously, recent exploration and production in the Marcellus Shale has forced Pennsylvania courts to address interpretation of oil and gas leases which may be over 100 years old, relying on cases that are similarly over 100 years old, and to harmonize or reject those cases as they impact the people and property in the 21^stcentury.  On March 26, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court attempted to do just that in T.W. Phillips Gas and Oil Co. v. Jedlicka, No. 19 WAP 2009 (Mar. 26, 2012).  The case involved a 1926 oil and gas lease which provided, in relevant part, that the lease would continue for “as long . . . as oil or gas is produced in paying quantities” and required interpretation of the term “in paying quantities.”  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Decisions of Note, Drilling, Exploration, Leases, Marcellus Shale, Oil and Gas, Pennsylvania, Real Estate, Royalties

Those of you who have stumbled upon our blog through google or other search engines may wonder who we are and where we come from.  Manko, Gold, Katcher & Fox, LLP is, in many ways, a unique firm, and proudly so.  The current issue of Litigation Commentary & Review spotlights our firm; we hope you’ll take a look at the article to learn more about us. 

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Press

In a unanimous opinion that probably surprises no one, today the United States Supreme Court ruled in Sackett v. EPA, No. 10-1062 (Mar. 31, 2012), that Administrative Compliance Orders are final agency orders which are subject to the Administrative Procedures Act and thus can be appealed even in the absence of an enforcement action by the EPA. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Procedures Act, Case Update, CERCLA, Clean Water Act, Decisions of Note, Due Process, Enforcement Action, Procedure, Real Estate, Supreme Court, Uncategorized, Wetlands