Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Supreme Court Broadly Interprets “relating to” in Federal Officer Removal Statute
- Pennsylvania Federal Court Clarifies HSCA Statute of Limitations and “Response Costs” Under HSCA and CERCLA
- New Jersey Federal Court Dismisses PFAS Consumer Suit Against Band-Aid on Standing Grounds
- Massachusetts Federal Court Concludes that Biopellets Containing PFAS are “Useful Products,” Providing Defense to Superfund Liability
- District Court Certifies 23(b)(3) Class Action Alleging Injury from Misrepresentations That Pet Food Was “Healthy” Despite Presence of PFAS
Topics
- State Implementation Plans
- Venue
- NJDEP
- Connecticut
- Pollutants
- Federal Land Policy and Management Act
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Agency Action
- Loper Bright
- Public Trust Doctrine
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Environmental Justice
- Disparate Impact
- Title VI
- Massachusetts
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- Georgia
- FIFRA
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- Major Questions Doctrine
- Lead Paint
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Operator Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- Apportionment
- National Contingency Plan
- Divisibility
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Strict Liability
- Utilities
- Historic Resources
- Public Utilities Commission
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Gold King Mine
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- New Mexico
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- Delaware
- National Forest Management Act
- FERC
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- Building Materials
- Property Damage
- First Circuit
- PCBs
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfield
- Brownfields
- Innocent Party
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- PHMSA
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Coal Ash
- Injunction
- Spoliation
- TMDL
- Stormwater
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Clean Streams Law
- Civil Penalties
- Hearing Board
- Arranger Liability
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Stigma
- Fair Market Value
- Damages
- Storage Tank
- Energy
- Fifth Circuit
- Electric
- Indemnification
- Ninth Circuit
- Arizona
- OPRA
- Attorney-Client
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Taxes
- Administrative Appeals
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Contamination
- Natural Gas
- Procedure
- Inspection
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Residential
- New York
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- HAPs
- D.C. Circuit
- Mercury
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Storage
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Fifth Amendment
- Causation
- Spill Act
- NEPA
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- Interior
- California
- Zoning
- Act 13
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Landfill
- Eminent Domain
- Sixth Circuit
- Private Right of Action
- Illinois
- Water
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Navigability
- Montana
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Riverbed
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Green House Counsel
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Enforcement
- Delay Notice
- Equity
- Laches
- CISWI
- Rulemaking
- Consent Decree
- Boiler MACT
- EPA
- Declaratory Relief
- Contribution
- Second Circuit
- Standing
- NPDES
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Legislation
- Case Update
- Certification
- Louisiana
- Dukes
- CLE
- Discovery
- Decisions of Note
- Privilege
- Expert Witness
- Cases to Watch
- Work Product
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Response Action Contractors
- Remediation
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Hog Barn
- Trespass
- Odors
- Class Actions
- Farming
- ISRA
- Informal Agency Action
- Administrative Hearing
- New Jersey
- Cancer
- Air
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Waste
- Railroad
- RCRA
- CERCLA
- Speaking Engagements
- Third Circuit
- Toxic Torts
- Removal
- Federal Procedure
- Permits
- Clean Air Act
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Cleanup
- Cost Recovery
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Camp Lejeune
- Tolling
- Statute of Repose
- Multi-District Litigation
- Due Process
- Mineral Rights
- Clean Water Act
- Wetlands
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Enforcement Action
- Marcellus Shale
- Deeds
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
- Real Estate
- Exploration
- Drilling
- Leases
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Relying on Texas caselaw, the Fifth Circuit, in Gao v. Blue Ridge Landfill TX, L.P., No. 19-40062 (5th Cir. Oct. 30, 2019), affirmed a district court decision which held that homeowners who moved near a preexisting landfill were subject to a two-year statute of limitations to bring suit based on odors emanating from the landfill. The case, while reliant on state law, nonetheless suggests that such claims that sound in nuisance need to be brought quickly, and that even a change in operations or uptick in odor complaints may be insufficient to reset the clock on the viability of claims.
First, the Court held that odor from the Blue Ridge Landfill was a permanent nuisance. This was important to the Court’s analysis, as a “permanent nuisance claim accrues when injury first occurs”, whereas a “temporary nuisance” accrues upon each injury. The Court stated that the permanence of the nuisance could be shown through either the permanence of the Landfill’s operation or the Plaintiffs’ injuries. The Court noted that the Landfill had operated since 1992 and further, that a survey of residents in 2007 indicated that the neighbors had remarked upon the odors as of that date. Thus, the Court found that both the Plaintiffs’ injuries and the Landfill’s operations were permanent. Further, the Court pointed out that the Plaintiffs presented no evidence that the odors were so rare that it was uncertain they would recur, a required showing to rebut the “permanent nuisance” presumption.
Next, the Court considered Plaintiffs’’ argument that their claims were not time-barred, due to an uptick in the severity of the odor complaints since 2015. As stated above, permanent nuisance claims in Texas are subject to a two-year statute of limitations, and at least some of their named members moved into the neighborhood as early as 2007 and had been experiencing odors from the landfill since at least that date. Nonetheless, they argued that evidence of a worsening in odors in 2015 extended their bar date to 2017, while their suit filed in November 2016. Although the District Court refused to entertain this latter argument as it had been untimely presented, the Fifth Circuit reviewed the filings on this topic and determined that its conclusion would not be altered by them.
In short, this case suggests that, at least in the Fifth Circuit, homeowners cannot move to the source of a nuisance, wait for the problem to become severe, and extend their statute of limitations as starting from this “severity” date.
