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

Yes, the per curium opinions in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Ford, et al., No. 1804, September Term, 2009 (Md. Spec. App Feb. 9, 2012) are over a month old, but at 309 pages, it isn’t light reading.  It takes a while to digest the five different opinions and try to reconcile, in any reasonable fashion, what they say.  And while several issues were addressed by the court, we’re going to focus here on a favorite tort – medical monitoring. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Decisions of Note, Maryland, Medical Monitoring, Toxic Torts

Although CERCLA has been around for many years, courts are still interpreting both its parts and its whole.  In recent years, the Supreme Court has tried to direct traffic between Section 107(a), which permits PRPs to bring cost recovery actions against other PRPs for “any necessary costs of response incurred” by the PRP bringing suit, and Section 113(f), which permits PRPs who have been sued under section 106 or 107(a) or have entered into a judicially-approved settlement with a federal or state government resolving CERCLA liability to bring actions for contribution against other PRPs to recover amounts paid in excess of their equitable share of liability.   Because these two provisions have differing limitations periods, burdens of proof, and allow for different forms of recovery against multiple defendants, the distinction is often significant. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Cleanup, Cost Recovery, Decisions of Note, Eleventh Circuit, Enforcement Action, Statute of Limitations, Superfund, Waste

For the Association of Corporate Counsel, Nicole recently wrote about the decision in Menasha Corp. v. United States Department of Justice, No. 11-C-682 (E.D. Wis. 2012) which should give counsel some pause before communicating with employees of a client’s affiliated entities, particularly in multi-party environmental cost-recovery cases.  Her article can be found here.

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Cost Recovery, Decisions of Note, Superfund

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in PPL Montana, LLC v. Montana, No. 10-218 (Feb. 22, 2012), which reads more like a wonderous travelogue than a judicial opinion.  The decision can’t help but inspire one to put on a pair of hiking boots and set out for Montana.  At least, the Montana explored by Lewis and Clark and that joined the United States in 1889.  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Decisions of Note, Equal-Footing Doctrine, Leases, Montana, Navigability, Public Lands, Real Estate, Riverbed, Supreme Court

On Monday, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued an opinion in Sierra Club v. Jackson, No. 11-1278 (D.C.D.C. Jan. 9, 2012), that has much to chew on with respect to judicial review of agency actions, particular those involving stays.  For those not following this long-running saga, a brief background is in order. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Procedures Act, Air, Boiler MACT, Cases to Watch, CISWI, Clean Air Act, Decisions of Note, Delay Notice, EPA, Federal Procedure, Procedure, Rulemaking

In one of the first lawsuits seeking personal injuries and medical monitoring in connection with natural gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale – one of the largest and most recent natural gas plays in North America – the first blow has been dealt to the plaintiffs, who have been ordered by a Special Master tasked with overseeing discovery to produce all of their medical records to the defendants. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Cases to Watch, Class Actions, Decisions of Note, Dimock, Marcellus Shale, Medical Monitoring, Oil and Gas, Toxic Torts

Both before and after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2451 (2011), removal to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) was a key tool in the arsenal employed by class action defendants, as federal courts have become increasingly more skeptical of certifying classes in toxic tort class actions.  But with many state court procedural rules patterned after their federal counterparts, federal trends can influence state courts, and the recent Louisiana Supreme Court decision in Price v. Roy R. Martin, 2011-C-0853 (Dec. 6, 2011), is a perfect example. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Certification, Class Actions, Contamination, Decisions of Note, Dukes, Louisiana, Real Estate, Toxic Torts

I love dissents.  While majority opinions focus on legal analysis, as they should, dissents tell the story, because it is usually only in the context of the story that the legal analysis of the majority can be directly attacked.  Such is the case with the recent en banc decision by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hospital, 2011 Pa. Super. 251 (2011).  But more on the dissent later. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Cases to Watch, Decisions of Note, Discovery, Expert Witness, Privilege, Work Product

In a decision that should pique the interests of environmental consultants across the country, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri issued an opinion last month in BancorpSouth Bank v. Environmental Operations, Inc., Case No. 4:11CV9 HEA (E.D. Mo. Oct. 11, 2011),allowing a CERCLA claim to survive against several engineering firms hired to handle the remediation of an old landfill slated for a Brownfields redevelopment project.  The complaint alleged that the defendants failed to properly design and construct an engineered cell on the site (which didn’t account for the potential for methane gas to escape the cell), and further failed to adequately screen hazardous materials from the dirt on the site prior to spreading it around as fill material.  These activities, according to the plaintiff, not only constituted malpractice, but also turned the engineering firms into “operators” and/or “arrangers” under CERCLA, subjecting them to strict, joint and several liability for alleged damages in excess of $10 million. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Consultant Liability, Cost Recovery, Decisions of Note, Negligence, Remediation, Response Action Contractors, Superfund, Waste