Matthew Dueling, et al v. Devon Energy Corporation

<> Matthew Dueling, et al v. Devon Energy Corporation - 8/14/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, Case No. 14-11177.  Unpublished Opinion. Plaintiffs asserted that Devon Energy's oil and gas drilling site, across the street from their homes in a residential area, is noisy and disruptive, and interferes with their use and enjoyment of their properties. The district court granted Devon Energy's motion for judgment on the pleadings—finding Plaintiffs' nuisance claims time-barred—and denied Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend.       The Appeals Court ruled, "Because the district court denied leave to amend based on mere delay in the absence of a possibility of serious prejudice to the defendant, we vacate the judgment and remand."

ONRC Action v. US Bureau of Reclamation

<> ONRC Action v. US Bureau of Reclamation - 8/21/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 12-35831. The panel affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the United States Bureau of Reclamation and other defendants in a citizen suit brought by an environmental group under the Clean Water Act, alleging defendants violated the Act by discharging pollutants from the Klamath Straits Drain into the Klamath River without a permit.

Summer Break

Subscribers & Readers Note: WIMS will be on summer break for the next two weeks. We will resume publication on August 31, 2015.   During the break you can stay on top of many news events and issues with our WIMS Environmental News Blogs which are continuously, automatically updated with the latest news and information from various WIMS sources.   White House News   Congressional News   Federal Agencies News   Industry News   Enviro Group News   Air Quality News   Hazardous Waste News   Transportation News

Berks County v. U.S. EPA

<> Berks County v. U.S. EPA - 8/11/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, Case No. 14-2913. Non-precedential opinion. The Appeals Court said, "Petitioner Berks County challenges EPA's approval of the most recent SIP submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) with respect to the monitoring of airborne lead particles in the vicinity of Reading, Pennsylvania. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition for review."      The Appeals Court ruled, "Because EPA's conclusion on this point was based on a factual question falling squarely within EPA's area of expertise, and because the record shows that EPA evaluated the merits of Petitioner's position and rejected it after due consideration, we see no basis on which to grant relief."

Tobias Chavez v. Dole Food Company Inc

<> Tobias Chavez v. Dole Food Company Inc - 8/11/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 13-4144. The Panel said, "This appeal is but a facet of procedurally intricate litigation concerning the alleged misuse of the pesticide dibromochloropropane (DBCP) on banana farms throughout Central America."      The majority concluded: "we conclude that the Delaware District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the Appellants' actions in favor of the first-filed litigation in Louisiana. We also find no error in the Delaware District Court's dismissal of Appellee Chiquita Brands International for a lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the Delaware District Court's orders." [A lengthy dissent was filed.]

Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center v. MacWhorter

<> Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center v. MacWhorter – 8/10/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 13-35453. The panel reversed the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of an Endangered Species Act claim brought by Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center against the U.S. Forest Service concerning its approval of suction dredge mining projects in the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. Suction dredge mining challenge can go forward, 9th Circuit finds

Pesticide Action Network v. U.S. EPA

<> Pesticide Action Network v. U.S. EPA – 8/10/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 14-72794. The Appeals Court said, "Pesticide Action Network North America and the Natural Resources Defense Council have been waiting for years for the United States Environmental Protection Agency to respond to their administrative petition requesting a ban on the pesticide chlorpyrifos. . . This delay is egregious and warrants mandamus relief. We order EPA to issue a full and final response to the petition no later than October 31, 2015." Federal Court Demands Decision on Toxic Pesticide

Wildearth Guardians v. US Dep't of Agriculture

<> Wildearth Guardians v. US Dep't of Agriculture - 8/3/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth circuit, Case No. 13-16071. The panel reversed the district court's order dismissing a case brought by WildEarth Guardians, alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act, and seeking to enjoin the federal government's participation in the killing of predatory animals in Nevada.

The American Coal Company v. MSHR

<> The American Coal Company v. MSHR - 7/31/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 14-1206. Mine Safety and Health Administration observed patches of smoldering, smoking coal without visible flames and issued a citation. American Coal argues that the citation and fine should be vacated because a "fire," for purposes of the Mine Act, exists only when there are visible flames.      The Panel ruled: " The statutory term 'fire' is ambiguous, the Secretary of Labor reasonably determined that the term does not require the presence of flames, and substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the smoldering patches on American Coal's stockpile satisfied the Secretary's interpretation of a 'fire.'"

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

<> Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. - 7/30/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Case No. 14-4078. In this unpublished suit between responsible parties involving the Airdock, a massive facility built in Akron, Ohio in 1929 to manufacture and house blimps.       In conclusion, we hold that Lockheed's claim in the Airdock Litigation arose from preclosing operations of the Airdock and thus falls outside Lockheed's indemnification obligations under § 6.19.2 of the Asset Purchase Agreement. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment.