In a reversal of a decision by the New Jersey District Court, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in In re Congoleum Corporation held 2-1 that the bankruptcy court did not have jurisdiction to reopen an earlier proceeding to interpret findings within a confirmation order, holding interpretation of such orders constitutes a bankruptcy core proceeding.  Chief Judge Chagares also reversed the district court as to the effect of that confirmation order in CERCLA proceedings currently pending before the district court. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Bankruptcy, CERCLA, Cleanup, Contamination, Contribution, Cost Recovery, New Jersey, Potentially Responsible Parties, Superfund, Third Circuit

This post was written by MGKF summer associate Ella Souder

In March 2023, the State of New Jersey sued Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) in state court alleging that Dow was responsible for contamination caused by the chemical 1,4-dioxane which was used as an inhibitor in cleaning agents which Dow had sold decades earlier to, among others, the United States Government and military (the “Government”).  Dow removed the case to United States District Court for the District of New Jersey under the federal-officer removal statute, claiming that in producing this chemical it was “acting under” the auspices of the Government.  The District Court remanded the matter back to state court and on June 11, 2025 the Third Circuit affirmed the remand, holding that simply providing a product to the Government, even if the product complied with government specifications, was insufficient to implicate the federal-officer removal statute. See New Jersey v. Dow Chemical Co., 2025 WL 1646963 (3^rd Cir. 2025). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Contamination, Federal Jurisdiction, Federal Procedure, New Jersey, Removal, Third Circuit

On April 25, 2025, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division (the “Appellate Division”) in New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection et al. v. Desai et al., ruled on the statute of limitations for state claims brought under the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act (the “Spill Act”), finding that claims concerning remediation do not begin to accrue until the remediation is complete. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Agency Action, Cleanup, Cost Recovery, ISRA, New Jersey, Spill Act, Statute of Limitations

In a decision on February 5, 2025, the Superior Court of New Jersey dismissed the Attorney General of New Jersey’s state tort claims against various energy companies seeking redress for the effects of climate change in Platkin v. Exxon Mobil Corp (N.J. Super. No. MER-L-001797-22).  Because the dispute concerned interstate and global air emissions, which implicate uniquely federal interests, the court concluded that the federal Constitutional structure requires that federal common law preempts these climate-change related tort claims.   Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Clean Air Act, Climate Change, Energy, New Jersey, NJDEP, Toxic Torts

On October 29, 2024 in Dawson v. Murphy, et al., the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s order denying Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to assert a claim that New Jersey’s investment of state pension funds into oil and gas companies which allegedly harm the environment constitutes a violation of plaintiffs’ rights under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (“NJCRA”).  No. A-3083-22, 2024 WL 4601708 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Oct. 29, 2024).  In an unpublished opinion, the Court held that that the New Jersey Constitution does not guarantee a right to a stable environment and therefore the state’s investments did not violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Citizen Suit, Climate Change, Environmental Justice, Greenhouse Gas, New Jersey, New Jersey Civil Rights Act, Oil and Gas, Public Trust Doctrine

In an issue of first impression, in Matter of Proposed Construction of Compressor Station (CS327), No. A-3616-20, 2023 WL 5614411 (N. J. Super. Ct. Aug. 31, 2023), the New Jersey Superior Court rejected the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”)’s interpretation of the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act (the “Highlands Act”) and found that a permittee’s project upgrade must be “routine” to be exempted from the strict permitting requirements of the Highlands Act. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Chevron Deference, Citizen Suit, New Jersey, Oil and Gas, Permits, Pipelines, Wetlands

In order to bring a citizen suit in federal district court under the Clean Water Act, 33 USC  § 1365(a)(1), the plaintiff must first give “notice of the alleged violation” to the alleged violator, the EPA, and the State at least 60 days prior to commencing suit. In  Shark River Cleanup Coalition v. Township of Wall; Estate of Fred McDowell Jr., (No. 21-2060, 3d Cir. August 24, 2022), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals found that the district court erred in its finding that the notice was inadequate because it had not adequately identified the location of the alleged violation as required by the EPA regulations implementing the statutory notice requirement, but upheld the dismissal of the lawsuit on an alternate ground not reached by the district court – that the notice that was given was inadequate because it did not provide “sufficient information to permit the recipient to identify the specific standard, limitation, or order alleged to have been violated” also as required by EPA’s regulations. 40 C.F.R. §135.3(a). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Citizen Suit, Clean Water Act, Federal Jurisdiction, New Jersey, Statutory Notice, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Third Circuit, Waste

On April 21, 2022, in Tomas Vera et al. v. Middlesex Water Co. (MID-L-6306-21, Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County), a New Jersey Superior Court judge granted plaintiffs’ motion for certification in a case stemming from PFAS contamination of the county’s water supply.  Defendant Middlesex Water Co. (“Middlesex”) sent notices to customers on October 22, 2021 and November 8, 2021 advising that testing showed levels of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (“PFOA”) of 36.1 parts per trillion, well above the 14 parts per trillion maximum contaminant level (“MCL”) standard set by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”).  The notices further advised of health concerns potentially associated with PFOA, recommended that customers with “specific health concerns, a severely compromised immune system, have an infant, are pregnant or are elderly” seek advice from a health care provider, and recommended installing a home water filter to reduce levels of PFOA in the tap water or use bottled water for drinking, cooking, or preparing beverages for infants. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Class Actions, Contamination, Drinking Water, Injunction, Medical Monitoring, New Jersey, PFAS, Water

When a public interest environmental rights group or other party appeals a decision by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection affecting a planned project, it should name the permittee as a party on the Notice of Appeal and serve them accordingly. On April 11, 2022, the Supreme Court of New Jersey remanded a case back to the Appellate Division and held that an appellant natural gas company should have been named as a party in the Notice of Appeal and served. See In re Proposed Constr. of Compressor Station (CS327), No. 086428 (Apr. 11, 2022). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Appeals, Intervention, Natural Gas, New Jersey, Oil and Gas, Permits, Pipelines, Procedure, Standing

In Borough of Edgewater v. Waterside Construction, LLC, et al., 2022 WL 557903 (D.N.J. Feb. 24, 2004), Plaintiff Borough of Edgewater (“Edgewater”) brought Spill Act claims relating to PCB contaminated material which was used as fill in a public park project.  At issue was whether Arconic, as a prior owner of the property from which the fill was obtained, was “in any way” responsible for contamination resulting from use of the fill at another property.  The Court held that, because Arconic had no control over the property, and hence the fill, at the time of its subsequent use, it was not liable to the Borough under the Spill Act. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Causation, Contamination, New Jersey, Owner Liability, PCBs, Potentially Responsible Parties, Real Estate, Spill Act