Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Tenth Circuit Clarifies Diligent Prosecution Bar to Citizen Suits under Clean Air Act
- Eleventh Circuit Allows Federal Officer Removal for EPA-Directed Cleanup
- Supreme Court Holds FIFRA Preempts State-Law Failure-to-Warn Claims Challenging EPA-Approved Labels
- California Federal Court Holds Agencies May Be Liable Under Clean Air Act Citizen Suit Provision
- Court Finds New Jersey Ordinance Prohibiting Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers Permissible Under Federal Clean Air Act
Topics
- Venue
- State Implementation Plans
- NJDEP
- Pollutants
- Connecticut
- Federal Land Policy and Management Act
- Loper Bright
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Agency Action
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Public Trust Doctrine
- 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
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- National Contingency Plan
- Strict Liability
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Utilities
- Historic Resources
- Public Utilities Commission
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- PFAS
- Ohio
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Gold King Mine
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- New Mexico
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- Delaware
- National Forest Management Act
- FERC
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Corporate Veil
- Alter Ego
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- PCBs
- Property Damage
- 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
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- TMDL
- Stormwater
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Hearing Board
- Clean Streams Law
- Civil Penalties
- Arranger Liability
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Tax assessment
- Property Value
- Stigma
- Fair Market Value
- Damages
- Storage Tank
- Fifth Circuit
- Energy
- Electric
- Indemnification
- Ninth Circuit
- Arizona
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Discovery Rule
- Fourth Circuit
- Eighth Circuit
- Taxes
- Administrative Appeals
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Procedure
- Contamination
- Natural Gas
- Inspection
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Residential
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Natural Gas Act
- HAPs
- Mercury
- D.C. Circuit
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Takings
- Condemnation
- Storage
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Fifth Amendment
- Spill Act
- Causation
- 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
- Diligent Prosecution
- Citizen Suit
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Riverbed
- Navigability
- Montana
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Green House Counsel
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- CISWI
- Rulemaking
- Boiler MACT
- EPA
- Enforcement
- Delay Notice
- Equity
- Consent Decree
- Laches
- Second Circuit
- Declaratory Relief
- Contribution
- NPDES
- Standing
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Legislation
- Case Update
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- Certification
- CLE
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Expert Witness
- Discovery
- Decisions of Note
- Cases to Watch
- Insurance
- Defense Costs
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Army Corps
- Rapanos
- Donovan
- Class Actions
- Kentucky
- Farming
- Nuisance
- Hog Barn
- Trespass
- Odors
- Informal Agency Action
- ISRA
- New Jersey
- Administrative Hearing
- Emissions
- Waste
- RCRA
- Railroad
- Air
- Cancer
- Combustion
- Speaking Engagements
- CERCLA
- Removal
- Federal Procedure
- Third Circuit
- Toxic Torts
- Title V
- Clean Air Act
- Permits
- Statute of Limitations
- Supreme Court
- Superfund
- Cleanup
- Cost Recovery
- Camp Lejeune
- Tolling
- Statute of Repose
- Multi-District Litigation
- Clean Water Act
- Due Process
- Marcellus Shale
- Deeds
- Wetlands
- Enforcement Action
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Mineral Rights
- Exploration
- Drilling
- Real Estate
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Last week, in the case of Maroz v. Arcelormittal Monessen LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140660 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 15, 2015), a judge of the Western District of Pennsylvania declined to dismiss a proposed class action in which residents living near ArcellorMittal’s coke plant in Monessen, Pennsylvania alleged that noxious odors and air particulates from the plant polluted their properties. After allowing the residents to amend their original complaint, U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab found that the residents adequately pled the state common law tort claims for private nuisance, negligence, and trespass, despite the judge’s acknowledgement that there was “not a large number of detailed facts” set forth in the amended complaint. However, the Court did dismiss claims for public nuisance and punitive damages.
In the case, Judge Schwab found that the residents sufficiently pled a claim for trespass by alleging that particulate matter physically invaded their properties and interfered with their use and enjoyment of their respective properties. The opinion also notes the residents’ allegations that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection had cited ArcelorMittal six times since April 2014 for illegal air emissions, and that one of the citations indicated ArcelorMittal “was not taking all reasonable action to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne from the coal-handling area.”
While the trespass claim survived, the judge did throw out the residents’ public nuisance and punitive damages claims. The opinion notes that a claim for public nuisance requires that an alleged nuisance affect “the community at large and not merely the complaining parties.” Because the residents failed to identify what harm the community-at-large suffered and instead alleged their own harms, the public nuisance claim was dismissed. Finally, the judge dismissed the claim for punitive damages because the residents failed to allege sufficient facts that ArcelorMittal acted with “outrageous conduct” and “had an evil motive or was recklessly indifferent” to the residents’ rights, as required by the standard for punitive damages.
This class action lawsuit, which alleges various state common law tort claims, comes several years after the Third Circuit held in a precedential case that the federal Clean Air Act does not preempt such claims. In Bell v. Cheswick Generating Station, which we reported on here, a three-judge panel reversed the Western District of Pennsylvania’s dismissal of a similar complaint for nuisance, negligence, and trespass related to alleged odors and fly ash at an electric generation plant in Springdale, Pennsylvania. 734 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. Pa. 2013).
