Monday, July 21, 2014

USA v. Volvo Powertrain Corporation

USA v. Volvo Powertrain Corporation - 7/18/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 12-5234. Volvo Powertrain argues that a consent decree has no application to the Volvo Penta engines even though, under the language of the decree, the engines were manufactured at a "facility owned or operated by" a settling company. The district court disagreed, and it held Volvo Powertrain liable and ordered Volvo Powertrain to pay approximately $72 million. The Panel agreed with the district court decision and found no abuse of discretion.
 
 
Readers Note: Upcoming Vacation Days: We will not be publishing the remainder of this week (Tuesday, the 22nd through Friday, the 25th). Next week we will be back on Monday, Tuesday & Wednesday; and off again on Thursday and Friday July 31 & August 1).

Friday, July 18, 2014

WildEarth Guardians v. EPA

WildEarth Guardians v. EPA - 7/17/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 12-71523. On challenges to the Nevada air pollution SIP, the Panel concluded that the EPA's decision was not arbitrary and capricious and that EPA's approval of Nevada's SIP did not violate any requirements imposed by 42 U.S.C. § 7410(1).
 

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Ralls Corporation v. Committee on Foreign Investment

Ralls Corporation v. Committee on Foreign Investment - 7/15/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 13-5315. The case challenges a decision by Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and a Presidential Order denying a transaction by a Chinese company to purchase 4 wind farms in Oregon saying they posed a threat to national security. The district court dismissed both the CFIUS decision and Order. The Panel reversed the district court decision and remanded with instructions.
 

State of Michigan v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

State of Michigan v. United States Army Corps of Engineers - 7/14/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, Case No. 12-3800. Plaintiffs, five Great Lakes states, ask the Appeals Court to step in and impose measures to ensure that the Asian Carp are forever blocked from the Lakes. In an informative, 30-page opinion, the Panel concludes, ". . .we hold that the States have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, either under a public nuisance theory or under the APA. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court."
 

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Friends of Merrymeeting Bay v. Hydro Kennebec, LLC

Friends of Merrymeeting Bay v. Hydro Kennebec, LLC - 7/14/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, Case No. 13-1220/1750. Two conservation groups, brought two citizen enforcement suits containing claims under the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act against Hydro Kennebec, LLC, et al. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants as to the CWA claims in both cases, and Plaintiffs appealed the rulings. The Panel vacated and remanded the judgments.
 

Alt v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation

Alt v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation - 7/14/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Case No. 13-2200. Plaintiff Lois Alt, a West Virginia farmer, sued EPA in the seeking declaratory relief in connection with EPA administrative enforcement proceedings against her for violations relating to her chicken farm. CBF attempted to intervene and the district court denied its intervention motion as untimely. CBF appealed the Denial Order, and, the Panel affirmed the denial.
 

Hobart Corp. v. Waste Mgmt. of Ohio, Inc.

Hobart Corp. v. Waste Mgmt. of Ohio, Inc. - 7/14/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Case Nos. 13-3273/3276. The case involves the apportionment of liability between various entities that allegedly created an environmental hazard at a landfill in Ohio. In both cases, the district court dismissed Appellants' § 113(f)(3)(B) contribution claims as untimely and dismissed the unjust-enrichment claims for failing to state a valid cause of action under Ohio law. The Panel affirmed the district court's dismissals and its grant of summary judgment to Appellees.