Environmental Law Case Summaries
[09/09] Ecuadorian Plaintiffs v. Chevron Corp.
In an action alleging that defendant-Chevron polluted the Ecuadorian Amazon Rainforest over the course of several decades while engaging in oil extraction in the region, the district court’s order directing plaintiffs' consultants to submit to a foundational deposition is affirmed where: 1) it made no sense to require defendant to seek the consulting firm's documents from an Ecuadorean official, given the plaintiffs' denial that they provided any such documents to the official and his interest in denying receipt of the firm's material; and 2) the record did not clearly demonstrate that defendant was attempting to evade restrictions on discovery in Ecuador.
[09/09] South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. FERC
In a petition for review of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) order approving the construction of new facilities to allow for the northward flow of natural gas, the petition is denied where: 1) FERC's environmental impact statement contained a reasonably thorough discussion of the environmental impact of its actions, based on information then available to it; 2) the California Public Utility Commission's determination was the product of a lengthy decision making process subject to ample challenges by petitioner; and 3) the Clean Air Act did not require that FERC attempt to "leverage its legal authority to influence or control" state air quality issues.
[09/07] McEvoy v. KKL Dev., LLC.
In plaintiffs' suit against a local company for violations of the Illinois's Prohibition of Air Pollution and Fugitive Particulate Matter regulations, objecting to the nearby pile of coal stored by the defendant and alleging theories of recovery under the citizen-suit provision of the Clean Air Act (Act), district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where: 1) contrary to the district court's ruling, the Act permits citizen enforcement of standards found in an SIP, even if those standards are not repeated in a permit; 2) the Illinois's Prohibition of Air Pollution and Fugitive Particulate Matter regulations cannot be used as the basis of a citizen's suit under the Act, as the regulations do not set forth judicially enforceable standards or limitations; and 3) the district court was well within its rights to dismiss the supplemental state claims without prejudice.
[09/03] Sheffield v. City of Fort Thomas
In plaintiff's suit against a city and various city officials in their official and individual capacities, claiming that several of the city's ordinances related to controlling deer population, violate the United States and Kentucky Constitutions and that the ordinances are preempted by Kentucky state statutes and administrative regulations, district court's judgment in affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the Bow-and-Arrow Ordinance is not preempted; 2) the Field-Dressing Ordinance is not preempted by Chapter 150; 3) although 301 Ky. Admin. Regs. 2:-015 has preemptive force and the Deer-Feeding Ordinance is preempted insofar as it purports to ban deer-feeding within the curtilage of Fort Thomas homes, the ordinance is not preempted in its entirety, as it is a legitimate exercise of municipal authority as applied to deer-feeding outside the curtilage of the home; 4) plaintiff's substantive due process challenge to the Bow-and-Arrow Ordinance is rejected; and 5) the Deer-Feeding Ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague.
[09/03] California Oak Found. v. Regents of the Univ. of California
Trial court's denial of plaintiffs' petition for a writ of mandate seeking to compel the Regents of the University of California to rescind certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for seven related projects at the University of California at Berkeley, and its approval of the proposed student athlete center, is affirmed where: 1) while the athlete center is subject to the Alquist-Priolo Act based on its proposed location within an earthquake fault zone, the Regents could properly find the athlete center will not be an "addition" or "alteration" to the University's California Memorial Stadium as defined by the statute, and thus is not subject to the statute's value restrictions on certain projects coming within those definition; and 2) Regents acted in accordance with CEQA in certifying the EIR because it contains sufficient information regarding the projects' likely environmental impacts, as well as feasible alternatives to or mitigation measures for those projects to avoid or minimize the identified impacts.
[09/01] Western Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink
In a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) challenge to eighteen amendments to the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) grazing regulations, partial summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part where: 1) the BLM failed to address concerns raised by its own experts, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the EPA, and state agencies; and 2) there was resounding evidence from agency experts that the eighteen amendments to the BLM's grazing regulations may affect listed species and their habitat. However, the order is vacated in part where the district court failed to consider plaintiffs' Federal Land Policy and Management Act claim under the framework and with the deference set forth in Chevron.
[08/31] Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy v. Universal Paragon Corp.
In defendant's suit against a law firm, claiming that an arbitrator's award of $7,554,149.13 in attorney fees and expenses for the law firm, related to its representation of defendant in an underlying complex environmental litigation, is unconscionable and violates public policy, superior court's affirmance of the award is affirmed as, assuming that defendant's claim of unconscionability is subject to judicial review as a predicate for determining whether the arbitration award violates public policy, the claim is rejected on the merits as neither the fee agreement nor the award actually issued by the arbitrator is unconscionable under rule 4-200 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
[08/25] Northern Cal. River Watch v. Wilcox
In an action claiming that defendants violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by digging up and removing endangered plant species, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where "areas under Federal jurisdiction" in section 9 of the ESA did not include the privately-owned land at issue here.
[08/20] Modesto Irrigation Dist. v. Gutierrez
In an action by irrigation districts challenging the decision of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to list the steelhead, a type of Pacific salmon, as a threatened species in California's Central Valley, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) Section 1532(16) of the Endangered Species Act did not require that interbreeding organisms be placed in the same distinct population segment; and 2) the government provided an adequate rationale for the change in policy.
[08/18] US v. Agosto-Vega
Conviction of a company in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and its owner and principal officer for violating criminal provisions of the Clean Water Act is vacated where: 1) district court committed a structural error by excluding the public from the courtroom during the selection of the jury; and 2) the government proved the charges against defendants by sufficient evidence to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
[08/17] Northwest Env. Def. Ctr. v. Brown
In an action claiming that defendants violated the Clean Water Act (CWA) and its implementing regulations by not obtaining permits from the Environmental Protection Agency for stormwater -- largely rainwater -- runoff that flows from logging roads into systems of ditches, culverts, and channels and is then discharged into forest streams and rivers, dismissal of the action is reversed where the discharges were not exempted from the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting process by the Silvicultural Rule, 40 C.F.R. section 122.27, promulgated under the CWA to regulate discharges associated with silvicultural activity.
[08/17] US v. Magnesium Corp. of Am.
In an action by the U.S. claiming that defendants' handling of wastes failed to comply with regulations promulgated under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), summary judgment for defendants is vacated where, because the EPA never previously adopted a definitive interpretation, it remained free, even under the legal precedents on which defendants sought to rely, to change its mind and issue a new interpretation of its own regulations without assuming notice and comment obligations.
[08/13] League of Wilderness Defenders v. Allen
In an action alleging that the Five Buttes Project, which authorized certain logging activities, violated the National Forest Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, summary judgment and an injunction in favor of plaintiff-conservation groups are reversed where: 1) the Forest Service's alleged admissions about possible harms actually described the balancing of risks that the Forest Service was required to undertake, and such balancing was entirely appropriate under the Northwest Forest Plan; and 2) the Forest Service adequately considered and responded to alternative views about the Project's potential environmental consequences.
[08/12] Great Rivers Habitat Alliance v. FEMA
In an action against FEMA claiming that a levee did not meet FEMA's requirements and FEMA erred by granting approval for it, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Act; and 2) the judicial review provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act did not apply.
[08/12] Sierra Club v. Otter Tail Power Co.
In a Clean Air Act (CAA) citizen suit alleging that defendants violated the CAA by failing to obtain permits for a series of modifications to a power plant and by exceeding applicable emission limits, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) the CAA and related regulations prohibited only construction or modification of a facility without a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit and best available control technology, and thus plaintiff's PSD civil penalty claims were time barred; and 2) because plaintiff's PSD civil penalty claims were barred by the statute of limitations, the equitable remedies it sought under those causes of action were barred as well.
