Court Dismisses Microplastics Consumer Protection Suit Citing Federal Preemption
MGKF Litigation Blog
by
1w ago
In a recent case from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, two plaintiffs alleged that Danone Waters of America, LLC (“Danone”) violated Illinois and California state statutes by labeling Evian spring water “natural” despite the presence of microplastics which leach from the plastic bottles into the water.  Daly v. Danone Waters of America, LLC, 2024 WL 4679086 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 2024).  Read More » Tags: California, Citizens Suit, Greenwashing, Illinois, Preemption ..read more
Visit website
Montana Supreme Court Finds Constitutional Right to Stable Climate
MGKF Litigation Blog
by
2w ago
In an opinion published on December 18, 2024, the Montana Supreme Court found that a provision in the Montana Constitution providing for the right to a “clean and healthful environment” guarantees the right to a stable climate system.  In Held v. State of Montana, 2024 MT 312 (Mont. 2024), the Montana Supreme Court affirmed a trial court decision striking down state law provisions that barred state agencies from considering greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions in permitting decisions, finding the law violates the environmental rights guaranteed by the Montana Constitution. Read More  ..read more
Visit website
D.C. Circuit Issues Surprise Holding in NEPA Dispute: CEQ Regulations are Non-Binding
MGKF Litigation Blog
by
1M ago
In Marin Audubon Society v. Federal Aviation Administration, No. 23-1067 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 12, 2024), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unexpectedly held that, despite nearly fifty years of precedent, the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) lacks the authority to promulgate binding regulations for the purpose of implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). Read More » Tags: Agency Action, Council on Environmental Quality, D.C. Circuit, Loper Bright, NEPA ..read more
Visit website
New Jersey Appellate Division Finds The New Jersey Constitution Does Not Provide A Fundamental Right To “A Stable Environment”
MGKF Litigation Blog
by
2M ago
On October 29, 2024 in Dawson v. Murphy, et al., the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s order denying Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to assert a claim that New Jersey’s investment of state pension funds into oil and gas companies which allegedly harm the environment constitutes a violation of plaintiffs’ rights under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (“NJCRA”).  No. A-3083-22, 2024 WL 4601708 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Oct. 29, 2024).  In an unpublished opinion, the Court held that that the New Jersey Constitution does not guarantee a right t ..read more
Visit website
Wisconsin District Court Allocates CERCLA Liability for Past and Future Response Costs
MGKF Litigation Blog
by
3M ago
In Barclay Lofts LLC v. PPG Industries, Inc., Case No. 20-CV-1694, 2024 WL 4224731 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 18, 2024), a United States District Court in Wisconsin, after deciding several threshold issues under CERCLA, allocated liability for past and future response costs to clean up a contaminated site based upon a detailed analysis of the operational and material handling practices of the potentially responsible parties.  The decision offers insights about the facts that a court may find compelling and the factors that a court may apply to reach an equitable CERCLA allocation among responsible ..read more
Visit website
Missouri Court Rejects "Bright-Line" Test for Determining Statute of Limitations Under CERCLA Section 107
MGKF Litigation Blog
by
3M ago
On September 27, 2024, in Short Creek Development, LLC v. MFA Incorporated, No. 22-05021-CV-SW-WBG, 2024 WL 4326815 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 27, 2024), Magistrate Judge W. Brian Gaddy determined Plaintiffs’ claim under Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) was barred by the applicable statute of limitations as “physical on-site construction of the remedial action” occurred more than six years prior to when Plaintiffs brought their lawsuit.  Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found that costs related to a leachate collection system co ..read more
Visit website
Louisiana Trial Court Enjoins EPA From Enforcement of Disparate Impact Regulations Under Title VI
MGKF Litigation Blog
by
4M ago
The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lake Charles Division, on August 22, 2024 issued an injunction barring the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) from enforcing regulations based on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 200d, et seq., in the State of Louisiana (the “State”). The ruling in State of Louisiana v. US Environmental Protection Agency, et al., No. 2:23-CV-00692, 2024 WL 3904868, at *1 (W.D. La. Aug. 22, 2024), effectively prohibits these federal agencies from impleme ..read more
Visit website
SCOTUS to Resolve Scope of Agency NEPA Environmental Analysis
MGKF Litigation Blog
by
4M ago
This entry was authored by MGKF Summer Associate Ryan Raynor Next term, the United States Supreme Court will decide the extent to which federal agencies must consider environmental impacts beyond their control in performing environmental reviews. On June 24, 2024, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition and the Uinta Basin Railway, LLC to determine whether the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) requires a federal agency conducting an environmental impact statement (“EIS”) to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action ..read more
Visit website
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules that Nonprofits are Permitted to Defend Pennsylvania’s Membership in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
MGKF Litigation Blog
by
5M ago
On July 18, 2024, in Shirley v. Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau, No. 85 MAP 2022, 2024 WL 3450536 (Pa. July 18, 2024), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the denial of three nonprofit organizations’ application to intervene in the litigation challenging the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) regulation implementing Pennsylvania’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (the RGGI Regulation).  After rejecting several arguments regarding the appealability of the order denying intervention, the Court found that the nonprofits’ interest ..read more
Visit website
Massachusetts Appeals Court Affirms Cleanup Option with Activity and Use Exemption and No Award for Diminution in Value
MGKF Litigation Blog
by
5M ago
This month, in Markmik, LLC v. Packer (unreported decision, No. 23-P-736), the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed a trial court’s finding that a less expensive cleanup option requiring buyers to accept an activity and use limitation (“AUL”), with no diminution in value damages, was appropriate given a guaranty by sellers that was silent about the level of cleanup committed to. Read More » Tags: Breach of Contract, Cleanup, Contamination, Cost Recovery, Damages, Groundwater, Massachusetts, Property Value, Real Estate, Remediation, Vapor Intrusion ..read more
Visit website

Follow MGKF Litigation Blog on FeedSpot

Continue with Google
Continue with Apple
OR