Last Friday, the Sixth Circuit upheld a $250,000 sanction award levied against the attorneys representing a large group of plaintiffs in an Ohio federal environmental contamination suit, on the basis that plaintiffs’ medical monitoring claims were objectively unreasonable.   The case – Baker et al. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. et al., Nos. 11-4369, 12-3995 (6th Cir., Aug. 2, 2013) – was on appeal from the Southern District of Ohio, which had granted Chevron’s motion for sanctions after plaintiffs had failed to meet the legal and factual burdens for establishing a medical monitoring claim under Ohio law.  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (“Rule 11”) provides litigants with a mechanism to attack claims that are “not well grounded in fact . . . [and/or] not warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.”  Generally, Rule 11 sanctions are limited to those circumstances where an attorney’s conduct was unreasonable under the circumstances.  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Cancer, Causation, Class Actions, Decisions of Note, Federal Procedure, Medical Monitoring, Sixth Circuit, Toxic Torts

On March 13, 2013, the First Circuit issued its opinion in Paolino v. JF Realty, LLC,No. 12-2031 (1st Cir. Marc. 13, 2013), reversing in part the District Court’s dismissal of a Citizen’s Suit brought pursuant to the Clean Water Act, and in so doing addressing an “issue of first impression in the First Circuit as to the standard for measuring the sufficiency of the mandatory pre-suit notice which must be given” before such a suit can be brought.   Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Citizen Suit, Clean Water Act, Federal Procedure, Procedure

As a result of increasing development of natural gas drilling, pipelines are popping up everywhere.  And with them has come a mound of litigation.  In a February 5, 2013 decision, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has ruled, as a matter of first impression, that permits issued by a state agency (in this case, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PADEP”)) under the federal Clean Water Act (the “CWA”) may be challenged only in federal court, and not in a state adjudicatory proceeding. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Cases to Watch, Clean Water Act, Drilling, Due Process, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Federal Procedure, Marcellus Shale, Natural Gas Act, Oil and Gas, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Permits, Procedure

Last week, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, in Trident Seafoods Corp. v. Bryson, No. C12-134 MJP (Nov. 30, 2012), sent litigants a reminder about the necessity of proper standing in rulemaking challenges.  Indeed, standing is often one of the most difficult aspects of these cases, and often result in early case dismissal, as it did in Trident. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Procedures Act, Federal Procedure, Procedure, Rulemaking, Standing

On Tuesday, in Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future v. Ultra Resources, Inc., No. 4:11-CV-1360 (M.D.PA. Sept. 24, 2012) — a case watched closely by natural gas stakeholders in Pennsylvania — Judge Mariani of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania refused to dismiss a citizen suit brought by an environmental group challenging the validity of state air permits issued to the operator of a series of natural gas compressor stations, potentially opening the door for similar Federal court challenges to air permits previously issued by state regulators in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.  Approximately three years ago, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PADEP”) issued separate authorizations for Ultra Resources, Inc. (“Ultra”) to construct seven compressor stations pursuant to a state general permit generally known as “GP-5.”  In issuing these authorizations, PADEP considered each of the compressor stations as a separate “facility.” If PADEP had considered the compressor stations to be a single “major” facility, then Ultra would have been required to obtain a more stringent non-attainment new source review (“NNSR”) permit before commencing construction. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Cases to Watch, Clean Air Act, Drilling, Emissions, Federal Procedure, Marcellus Shale, Oil and Gas, Pennsylvania, Permits

One of the very first things I was told by the senior partner when I started practicing law was that there isn’t an honest mistake that can’t be fixed, except blowing the statute of limitations. As a result, my calendar has limitations periods blocked out weeks, months and in some cases years in advance, and if there’s ever a question of when it runs, I use the earliest date. The Tenth Circuit’s decision in Impact Energy Resources, LLC v. Salazar, Nos. 11-4043 & 11-4057 (Sept. 5, 2012 10^th Cir.), is a cautionary tale to those who may not be as conservative. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Procedures Act, Cases to Watch, Exploration, Federal Procedure, Interior, Leases, Mineral Leasing Act, Oil and Gas, Procedure, Public Lands, Statute of Limitations, Tenth Circuit, Tolling

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 a precedential opinion issued on October 12 in the case of DeLalla v. Hanover Ins., No. 10-3933 (3rd Cir. Oct. 12, 2011), the Third Circuit finally picked a side on the question of whether a later-served defendant can remove a case filed in state court more than thirty days after the first defendant was served with the Complaint. But first, some background. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Decisions of Note, Federal Procedure, Removal, Third Circuit