{ Banner Image }
Search this blog

Subscribe for updates

Recent Posts

Blog editor

Blog Contributors

Showing 41 posts in Nuisance.

On May 18, 2022 in York et al. v. Northrop Grumman Corp. Guidance and Electronics Co. Inc. et al., No. 21-cv-03251 (W.D. Mo.), a Missouri federal court dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint alleging negligence, nuisance and trespass from alleged groundwater contamination, finding the claims were preempted by an existing consent decree. Read More »

A successful defense of a mass environmental tort case frequently turns on class certification.  In Holly Lloyd v. Covanta Plymouth Renewable Energy, LLC, No. 20-4330, 2022 WL 407377 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 10, 2022), a federal district court denied a motion to certify a class of neighboring residents complaining about noxious odors from a municipal waste incinerator.  In so holding, the court’s decision set out key strategies and considerations for defeating class certification in future mass environmental tort cases.  Read More »

Rejecting federal officer removal and federal question removal theories, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District of West Virginia’s remand of a state tort suit against the remediators of an EPA-permitted Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) site.  W.V. St. Univ. Bd. of Govs. v. Dow Chem. Co. et al., No. 20-1712, __ F.4th __, 2022 WL 90242 (Jan. 10, 2022). Read More »

Recently, there has been an explosion of litigation involving per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) contamination.  In SUEZ Water New York Inc. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, et al., No. 20-CV-10731 (LJL), 2022 WL 36489, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2022), a federal district court dismissed PFAS related contamination claims against four Delaware corporate defendants:  E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc. (“Old DuPont”), The Chemours Company (“Chemours”), DuPont de Nemours, Inc (“New DuPont”), and Corteva, Inc. (“Corteva”) (collectively “Defendants”).  The court dismissed the Complaint against New DuPont and Corteva due to lack of personal jurisdiction over each defendant.  Although the court found that personal jurisdiction existed over Old DuPont and Chemours, it ultimately still dismissed the Complaint against these defendants due to Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim against each of them. Read More »

When a homeowner misses trash day for months, piling up stinking bags of trash in the backyard, neighboring homeowners could presumably bring a private nuisance claim against that homeowner to abate the nuisance.  But what if that neighbor was a landfill and its noxious odors spread for miles: who in the surrounding neighborhood would have standing to abate that apparent nuisance?  The answer depends on the jurisdiction.  In the recent decision Davies v. S.A. Dunn & Co., Nos. 530994/531613 (3d Dep’t Oct. 21, 2021), a split panel in the Appellate Division for the Third Judicial Department in New York dismissed public nuisance and negligence claims brought by neighboring residents against a landfill for failing to control its odor emissions because the plaintiffs failed to allege that they had suffered a “special injury” that was distinct from other residents in the area. Assuming it withstands any appeal, the decision is a significant check on public nuisance claims in New York.   Read More »

On August 3, 2021, in the Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”) MDL the Court ruled that while the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's alter ego allegations were sufficient to pierce the corporate veil as between defendants Lukoil Americas Corporation and its subsidiary Getty Petroleum Marketing Inc. for jurisdictional purposes, they were not sufficient to pierce the veil for liability purposes, nor was there successor liability, resulting in the dismissal of all claims against LAC. Read More »

This Blog Post was authored by Isaiah B. Kramer, a summer associate.

On June 7, 2021, the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed in part a decision of the Appellate Division and held that the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (“the Department”) may bring an enforcement action against a county under the State’s Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and and Facilities Act (“the SWA”). Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of La Plata v. Colo. Dep’t of Pub. Health, 2021 CO 43. In doing so, the Court found that the county was neither protected by sovereign immunity nor otherwise exempt from the reach of the SWA. Read More »

In State of Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Products Co., L.L.C. et al., No. 19-1818 (1st Cir. 2020), decided on October 29th, 2020, the First Circuit joined seven sister circuits in holding that the scope of appellate review of remand orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) is limited to the questions of federal-officer jurisdiction and civil rights jurisdiction. And while the holding does not break new ground in light of its consistency, it informs members of industry of the venue in which they will litigate climate change claims based in tort and state law providing environmental rights. Read More »

The Federal Tort Claims Act permits claims for monetary damages against the United States for injury or loss of property caused by the wrongful acts of federal employees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). However, this waiver of sovereign immunity is limited by the discretionary function exception, which preserves immunity for claims “based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government.” 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit analyzed the discretionary function exception in the context of environmental contamination, finding that the exception does not apply to what can best be described as ordinary negligence in the performance of a site remediation. Nanouk v. United States, No. 13-35116 (Sept. 4, 2020). Read More »

In late July 2020, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss in a case involving releases of uranium radiation and other non-radioactive waste onto plaintiffs’ property. See Op. and Order, McGlone v. Centrus Energy Corp., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-02196 (S.D. Ohio, July 31, 2020). Claims involving the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and the Price-Anderson Act and were dismissed for failing to state a claim, while most state law tort claims for releases of non-radioactive waste were permitted to move forward, the court clarifying that medical monitoring exists as a form of damages under Ohio law and not as a separate claim. Read More »