laidlaw environmental services inc website

It was the parent company of Laidlaw Transit (which was merged into First Transit), Laidlaw Education Services (merged into First Student), Greyhound Lines and Greyhound Lines of Canada, and a number of Gray Line Sightseeing franchises in major North American cities. at 5a. Get free summaries of new US Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox! at 109. By the late 1980s, the only 3 remaining district school bus contracts were at Petersburg, Norfolk and Hopewell. But if the court of appeals nevertheless believed that Laidlaw's "voluntary" compliance, by itself, may have eliminated any reasonable prospect of future violations, then the court of appeals should have remanded the case to the district court for an express finding on that matter. See, e.g., Vitek, 436 U.S. at 410 (remanding case to the district court for consideration of the question of mootness); McLeod v. General Elec. With locations in Reston, VA, Philadelphia, PA, and Baltimore, MD, Comstock Environmental also offers regulatory compliance, site characterization and remediation, 1365(d). Id. 531, 536 (1984). Services. 1365(a)) in citizen suits specifically to facilitate that objective. at 70 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Laidlaw installed additional pollution control technology in 1991, but nevertheless violated the mercury limitation more than 100 times in 1992. C. A Court's Decision To Withhold Injunctive Relief Does Not Constitute A Finding That The Discharger's Violations Will Not Recur The court of appeals concluded that petitioners' citizen suit was necessarily moot because the district court refused to grant an injunction in light of Laidlaw's cessation of its permit violations and "the only remedy currently available to [petitioners]-civil penalties payable to the government-would not redress any injury [petitioners] have suffered." The district court is empowered to enforce permit requirements and assess civil penalties, which are payable to the United States Treasury. SETH P. WAXMAN Solicitor General LOIS J. SCHIFFER Assistant Attorney General LAWRENCE G. WALLACE Deputy Solicitor General JEFFREY P. MINEAR Assistant to the Solicitor General DAVID C. SHILTON R. JUSTIN SMITH Attorneys MAY 1999 1 A "citizen" means "a person or persons having an interest which is or may be adversely affected." Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc. increased the cash portion of its hostile offer for the Safety-Kleen Corporation to $18 a share, but the overall value of the offer remains $30 a share. This Court has recognized that the foregoing principles governing mootness are directly applicable to Clean Water Act citizen suits. In Laidlaw the Court held in a Clean Water Act suit that the plaintiff environ-mental organization could seek civil penalties payable to the United States Treasury because such relief redressed its continuing interest in The question, for purposes of Article III's case-or-controversy requirement, is whether petitioners' claim for relief presented a live controversy under the principles that this Court has established for determining mootness. In May 1995, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Grant Co., 345 U.S. at 633, 635-636 ("although the actions were not moot, no abuse of discretion has been demonstrated in the trial court's refusal to award injunctive relief"); see generally City of Mesquite, 455 U.S. at 289. Servs. In 1996, Laidlaw sold its solid waste business to Allied Waste Industries. See Hewitt, 482 U.S. at 761 ("In all civil litigation, the judicial decree is not the end but the means."). An official website of the United States government. Fined $214,000 for four hazardous waste violations: improper disposal ofinfectious waste, inadequate treatment of sewer sludge, insufficient testingof debris and soil, and excessive contamination of waste at its landfill.As one top agency official put it, "Laidlaw must be more diligent in itsoperations.". FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, INC., ET AL. Beginning in 1972, under the leadership of Michael DeGroote, Laidlaw, Inc. began growing through acquisitions of other companies when it acquired a Canadian intercity and charter bus company. See 33 U.S.C. As a part of that program, Section 301(a) of the Act prohibits all discharges of pollutants into navigable waters except those made in compliance with the Act. 33 U.S.C. In this case, unlike Gwaltney and Steel Co., it is clear that, even after the citizen plaintiffs filed suit, the defendant continued to violate environmental requirements. 122.41(j) and (l). Friends of the Earth brought an enforcement action against Laidlaw pursuant to the citizen-suit provision of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act). D. Because the court of appeals erred in concluding that the district court's decision to withhold injunctive relief rendered petitioners' citizen suit moot, there is no occasion for this Court to review the court of appeals' suggestion that a finding of mootness would preclude petitioners from recovering their costs of litigation. at 477, 478-479 (J.A. This Court's decision in Gwaltney rested on a determination that Congress intended to authorize citizens to initiate suit only to abate violations and compel compliance. Compare pay Pet. WebLaidlaw Environmental Services | 17 followers on LinkedIn. United States v. Oregon State Med. Get notified about new Service Crew jobs in Phoenix, AZ. Nevertheless, Congress has recognized, in light of the sheer size of a water pollution program requiring a permit for every point-source discharge in the Nation, that the federal and state governments cannot adequately enforce the NPDES permit program without citizen cooperation and assistance. Weblaidlaw environmental services, inc. 1301 grevais street, suite 300 columbia, sc 29201 In 2019, ECOS is celebrating its 15th year anniversary due to our highly regarded customer service. 15-19, supra. WebLAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS INC is located at and is classified as a Transporter by the Environmental Protection Agency. Respondent has violated Section 10.56.170 of the The United States is also a potential defendant in citizen enforcement actions against federal facilities. The citizens argued that their suit could nevertheless proceed because EPCRA, unlike the Clean Water Act, authorized citizens to obtain a judicial assessment of civil penalties for past infractions. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. filed as a Domestic Business Corporation in the State of New York on Wednesday, May 7, 1980 and is approximately forty-three years old, as recorded in documents filed with New York Department of State. A dispute may become moot as a result of changes in the underlying facts, see, e.g., Mosley v. United States, 119 S. Ct. 484 (1998) (per curiam) (death of the defendant mooted review of his criminal conviction); Vitek v. Jones, 436 U.S. 407 (1978) (grant of parole may moot prisoner's challenge to conditions of confinement), or the controlling law, see, e.g., United States v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. In addition, if the defendant knows that it faces the prospect of civil penalties as well as an injunction, it will not have an incentive to engage in "dilatory tactics" to prolong the litigation in the hope of eliminating the need for an injunction and then claiming that the citizen's claim for assessment of the accumulated civil penalties is moot. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000), exposes fundamental incoherencies within environmental standing doctrine, even while it ostensibly makes standing easier to prove for The court of appeals' exclusive focus on what relief the citizen received departs from the methodology that courts normally apply in analyzing mootness. The company`s registered agent is FL. Ibid. In February 2007, FirstGroup, a bus and rail transportation operator in the United Kingdom with subsidiaries in North America, acquired Laidlaw International, Inc.[1][2][3] FirstGroup completed the acquisition of Laidlaw International on October 1, 2007, and rebranded Laidlaw services under the First umbrella. Finally, we show why the court of appeals erred in holding that, because the district court denied injunctive relief, the petitioners' enforcement action is moot.4 A. C. The court of appeals erred in failing to apply the Court's teachings in City of Mesquite and other decisions, which establish that a defendant's mere voluntary cessation of unlawful conduct does not automatically moot a case. at 320. in Opp. Fined $80,000 for emitting odors and $14,000 for silt discharges in March1993 in Storrington Township northeast of Kingston. See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997); County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979). The court reasoned that "this action is moot because the only remedy currently available to [petitioners]-civil penalties payable to the government- would not redress any injury [petitioners] have suffered." Official websites use .gov Laidlaw Environmental Services - Interim Decision, December 21, 1993 Interim Decision, December 21, 1993 STATE OF NEW YORK : DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Office of Hearings 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233-1550 In the Matter of the Application of Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. and Work is often performed at active facilities in densely populated, urban areas. In 1983, BFI pleadedno contest to charges of price-fixing and conspiracy in Atlanta from 1974to 1979. at 610-611 (J.A. WebFind company research, competitor information, contact details & financial data for Laidlaw, Inc. of Little Rock, AR. Laidlaw II, 956 F. Supp. at 611 (J.A. In 1978 it entered the U.S. solid waste industry. In 1983, Laidlaw entered the U.S. school bus transportation sector with its acquisition of ARA Transportation, a major contract school bus provider which also owned a Wayne Corporation bus dealership. 158, 185-193). The Court has explained that voluntary cessation "is an important factor bearing on the question whether a court should exercise its power to enjoin the defendant from renewing the practice, but that is a matter relating to the exercise rather than the existence of judicial power." On April 10, 1992, plaintiff-petitioners Friends of the Earth and Citizens Local Environmental Action Network, Inc. (referred to collectively here, along with later joined plaintiff-petitioner Sierra Club, as "FOE"), notified Laidlaw of their intention to file a citizen suit against it under the Act, 33 U. S. C. 1365(a), after the expiration of the requisite 60-day notice period. In this case, petitioners commenced suit to compel compliance from an entity that was in violation of its permit requirements at the time the suit was brought but that had discontinued its violations before the court entered judgment. App. In general, "a case is moot when the issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." Among other things, the Act prohibits a facility from discharging pollutants into navigable waters unless the facility obtains a NPDES permit, which, among other things, establishes limits on the amounts of certain pollutants that may be discharged. WebFriends of Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) Argued: October 12, 1999 Decided: January 12, 2000 Annotation Primary Holding A party trying to show that the mootness doctrine applies because it will voluntarily cease an activity must show that the activity would not recur. Pet. Section 309(d) makes express reference to setting penalties in light of the "the economic benefit (if any) resulting from the violation." Pet. See also Carr v. Alta Verde Indus., Inc., 931 F.2d 1055, 1065 n.9 (5th Cir. A plaintiff prevails on the "merits of his claim" if a court finds that the defendant, in direct response to the plaintiff's suit, has altered his behavior in a way that renders the claim moot as a matter of law. To contact LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS INC, call (903) 984-8621, or view more information below. ACTION CLEANUP ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC Environmental Services See Hewitt, 482 U.S. at 761 ("The real value of the judicial pronouncement-what makes it a proper judicial resolution of a 'cause or controversy' rather than an advisory opinion-is in the settling of some dispute which affects the behavior of the defendant towards the plaintiff."). 1365(b)(1)(B). Pt. at 477 (J.A. And if those allegations are disputed, the plaintiff must be prepared to come forward with sufficient evidence to withstand a motion for summary judgment and to prove those facts at trial. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. The court ultimately found that Laidlaw had violated the permit's mercury limitation 489 times, including nine times after petitioners filed their complaint. Here, unlike the situation in Steel Co., petitioners had more than merely a "generalized interest in deterrence." 19:393 the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.,2 a private en forcement action brought pursuant to the Clean Water Act (the "Act").3 The four opinions barely mention the substantive con cerns of the Act and are devoted to justiciability issues - stand ing and mootness. 414, 92 Cong., 2d Sess. 1995) (Laidlaw I) (J.A. at 484-499 (J.A. on Investigations and Oversight of the House Comm. See, e.g., W.T. 1342(b) and (c). Nevertheless, the determination of whether injunctive relief is warranted is a matter within the trial court's discretion. [5] In 1993, Laidlaw acquired San Diego based MedTrans, a high quality industry leader which began as Harrison Ambulance in San Diego, operating emergency medical services operating in California, Washington, Nevada and Texas, and continued to grow it through 138 acquisitions across the country, reaching over $1B in revenue. . 91). "3In 1993, DeGroote and associates paid $23 million to the Ontario SecuritiesCommission in a settlement for insider trading involving Laidlaw stock. Laidlaw began in 1924 when founder Robert Laidlaw created Laidlaw Transit, a trucking service company in Hagersville, Ontario. Servs. The court concluded that "the fact that Laidlaw is now and has for an extended time been in compliance with its permit" supported its decision that "no injunction or other form of equitable relief is appropriate." Instances of reverse privatization were rare, but did occur during Laidlaw's years of expansion. It apparently saw no need to invoke the foregoing mootness principles, and it did not make specific findings on the question whether it was clear that Laidlaw's permit violations could not reasonably be expected to recur. Before the litigation was resolved on appeal, Laidlaw started to comply with the Clean Water Act limits and closed the plant that had exceeded them. The Court explained that "the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing" consists of the "triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability," which "constitutes the core of Article III's case-or-controversy requirement." In 1969 DeGroote began to expand beyond trucking by acquiring a solid waste management company. 7 Civil penalties are an effective "forward-looking" remedy because a coercive monetary sanction allows the court to compel compliance through a mechanism that directly removes the economic incentives that could induce a defendant "to return to his old ways." 8a-9a. Co., 385 U.S. 533, 535 (1967) (directing that "the District Court should determine in the first instance the effect of an intervening event upon the appropriateness of injunctive relief"); Stern, supra, at 257. See also Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122, 129 (1980) ("for purposes of the award of counsel fees [under 42 U.S.C. See CWA 309(b) and (c), 33 U.S.C. CWA 505(g), 33 U.S.C. WebLaidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 890 F. Supp. The District Court also denied Laidlaw's motion to dismiss on the ground that the citizen suit was barred under 1365(b)(I)(B) by DREC's prior action against the company. See Atlantic States Legal Found., Inc. v. Pan Am. Pet. See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U. S. 43, 66-67. The district court did not treat petitioners' claims against Laidlaw as moot. Grant Co., 345 U.S. at 632). Indeed, that is what the district court apparently concluded here. The court additionally instructed that petitioners are not entitled to recover their litigation costs because they failed to prevail on the merits and therefore are not a "prevailing or substantially prevailing party" within the meaning of Section 505(d) of the Clean Water Act. 182))-was designed to redress that specific interest by compelling compliance. 86-87). WebTES has successfully provided environmental, safety, and industrial hygiene solutions to our clients since 1984. 1997) (Laidlaw II) (J.A. Otherwise, that party could resume the behavior as soon as the case was dismissed for mootness. 33 U.S.C. City of Mesquite, 455 U.S. at 289 n.10 (quoting Concentrated Phosphate Export Ass'n, 393 U.S. at 203, and W.T. But the court denied injunctive relief as a matter of equitable discretion, treating Laidlaw's compliance history as a factor bearing on the exercise of that discretion. The court then requested and received, through a brief amicus curiae, the views of the United States on that issue. In 1979, it acquired a Canadian contract school bus business. Id. at 289 n.10 (citations omitted). TES has developed and sustained partnerships with thousands of clients including petrochemical facilities, manufacturing facilities, shipyards, offshore facilities, chemical plants, hospitals, and In addition, the court may award costs of litiga- 41. 1319(a), 1342(b)(7). The District Court Proceedings Laidlaw operated a hazardous waste incineration facility in Roebuck, South Carolina. LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (TOC), INC., a subsidiary of Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., Appellant, v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, Respondent. Laidlaw raised its "diligent prosecution" defense, and the district court heard seven days of testimony on the matter. 159). See Gwaltney, 484 U.S. at 66-67. See EPA Civil Penalty Policy (1984), reprinted in Implementation of the Federal Clean Water Act: Hearings on H.R. See Arizonans for Official English, 520 U.S. at 67-68. B. Id. If the United States has not filed its own action, it may intervene in the citizen action. Section 309 of the Clean Water Act provides for a variety of government enforcement measures, including the issuance of compliance orders, 33 U.S.C. App. 1365(d). All Trademarks and Copyrights are owned by their respective companies and/or entities. on Public Works and Transp., 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 1365(b)(1)(B). The court also found that Laidlaw had committed 420 monitoring violations, including 13 post-complaint violations, and that Laidlaw had committed 503 reporting violations, including ten post-complaint violations. See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66-67 (1997) (courts may assume that standing exists to resolve whether a case has nevertheless become moot). 470, 475 (D.S.C. LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (TOC), INC., a subsidiary of Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., Appellant, v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, Respondent. That relief "can include, but is not limited to, an order of immediate cessation." Laidlaw operated a hazardous waste incineration facility in Roebuck, South Carolina. Cal. at 611 (J.A. The Court ruled that, even if EPCRA authorized a citizen to sue for wholly past violations, the citizens' suit must be dismissed because the citizens lacked Article III standing to seek relief that does not redress a cognizable "injury in fact" to the citizens. In 1978, Laidlaw entered the United States solid waste industry, Laidlaw Waste Systems, a wholly owned subsidiary of Laidlaw Inc, In 1986 Laidlaw acquired Genstar Corp (GSX) of Boston and in 1996 then sold its solid waste business to Allied Waste Industries and many former Laidlaw operations where then rebranded to local names depending on the locations. 183). These discharges, particularly of mercury, repeatedly exceeded the limits set by a discharge WebHe also served as Senior Compliance Official with the Rollins Environmental Services Company, Laidlaw Environmental Services Company and Safety-Kleen, Inc. Mr. Retallick holds a Bachelor of Sciences Degree in Geosciences from the Pennsylvania State University. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. In October 1991, Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. (LES LOKERN), noticed its intention to seek a conditional use permit and general plan amendment from Kern County to expand and modify its existing hazardous waste facility | Library of Congress. 181-182). Laidlaw I, 890 F. Supp. The district court evaluated the Clean Water Act's criteria for imposing civil penalties (CWA 309(d), 33 U.S.C. As we next explain, the court's ruling overlooks established principles that guide how the mootness doctrine should be applied in this case. This Court ruled in Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., 484 U.S. 49 (1987), that Section 505 allows citizens to commence citizen suits to compel compliance with the Clean Water Act, but not to sue merely to punish past infractions. Syllabus Opinion [ Ginsburg ] Concurrence LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (TOC), INC. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT This Court has held that to satisfy Article Ill's standing requirements, a plaintiff must show "injury in fact," causation, and redressability. Decided: November 22, 1999 After incurring heavy losses through its investments in Safety-Kleen and Greyhound Lines and after almost 20 years of expansion, Laidlaw Inc. filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in June 2001. Newport News, Virginia. Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 417 (1975) ("If [violators] faced only the prospect of an injunctive order, they would have little incentive to shun practices of dubious legality."). 4, In the meanwhile, Degroote busied himself building a new waste empire.In 1991, DeGroote took over Republic Waste from Browning Ferris Industriesfounder Tom Fatjo.5In 1995 DeGroote gave up control of Republic to Waste Management Inc. founderWayne Huizenga. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632 (1953). at 611 (J.A. Pet. The contracting companies unsuccessfully disputed the state's financial calculations and cost allocations for the reverse privatizations, which effectively ended all public school bus contracting in Virginia by 1996. WebTES has successfully provided environmental, safety, and industrial hygiene solutions to our clients since 1984. WebFind 6 listings related to Laidlaw Environmental Svc Inc in Newport News on YP.com. WebLaidlaw played a major role in helping BFI launch their hostile takeoverof Attwoods in 1994. The court of appeals concluded that the district court's refusal to provide injunctive relief had critical constitutional implications. B. See CWA 505(d), 33 U.S.C. Gwaltney, 484 U.S. at 66. In the 1970s he would increasingly focus on waste management and other areas, shifting away from the boom-or-bust trucking industry, which had a tendency to rise and fall with the economy. Respectfully submitted. 482 U.S. at 760. Vietor Format: Print | Pages: 22 Email Print Share Keywords Green Technology Industry Citation See, e.g., Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Southwest Marine, Inc., 28 F. Supp. Forced to address complaints from the school next door of odors and noiseIn 1994, odors from Laidlaw's industrial wastewater treatment facilitywere so strong, children reported burning eyes and throats. See pp. App. By authorizing citizens to seek civil penalties, Congress intended to provide citizens with an additional means of compelling compliance through the specific deterrent force of a monetary sanction. It argued that the case was now moot because it had corrected the problems from which it had stemmed. On the date of acquisition there were approximately ninety roll-off containers which held odiferous bio-sludge material on site. Laidlaw sold BFI their 29% stake in Attwoods to for$132.5 million. 3078. 7 Congress drafted Section 309(d)'s standards for assessing civil penalties (see note 6, supra) with deterrence of violations specifically in mind. May 22, 2018. The company`s management are President, Director - Stilwell William E Jr, Vice President - 8a-9a. 182-183). WebLaidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court) Ability of individuals bringing citizen-suits to seek civil penalties. 2 The citizen may intervene in the government enforcement action. Signed a consent decree with the state to close and clean GSX toxic wastesite- five years later, the soil is still contaminated.

Does Speedway Accept Venmo, How Did Bella Die In Hunt For The Wilderpeople, Articles L