data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c999e/c999e27315b21aa6e851e6b0b4a742f8041e917d" alt="{ Banner Image }"
Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Ninth Circuit Upholds Vacatur of Some Oil and Gas Leases
- Court Dismisses Microplastics Consumer Protection Suit Citing Federal Preemption
- Montana Supreme Court Finds Constitutional Right to Stable Climate
- D.C. Circuit Issues Surprise Holding in NEPA Dispute: CEQ Regulations are Non-Binding
- New Mexico District Court Applies Pro-Rata Method to Settlement under CERCLA
Topics
- Federal Land Policy and Management Act
- Loper Bright
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Agency Action
- Public Trust Doctrine
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Environmental Justice
- Disparate Impact
- Title VI
- Massachusetts
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- Georgia
- FIFRA
- Major Questions Doctrine
- Lead Paint
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- Solvents
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Operator Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Environmental Covenants
- Federal Circuit
- Divisibility
- National Contingency Plan
- Apportionment
- Strict Liability
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Historic Resources
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- PFAS
- Ohio
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Gold King Mine
- Utah
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- New Mexico
- Tribal Lands
- Delaware
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- Chevron Deference
- Endangered Species Act
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- PCBs
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- Property Damage
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Innocent Party
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- PHMSA
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Pipelines
- Texas
- Missouri
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Clean Streams Law
- Civil Penalties
- Hearing Board
- Arranger Liability
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Stigma
- Fair Market Value
- Tax assessment
- Damages
- Property Value
- Storage Tank
- Indemnification
- Energy
- Fifth Circuit
- Electric
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Discovery Rule
- Fourth Circuit
- Eighth Circuit
- Taxes
- Administrative Appeals
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Residential
- Inspection
- New York
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Natural Gas Act
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- HAPs
- D.C. Circuit
- Mercury
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Takings
- Condemnation
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Fifth Amendment
- Takings Clause
- Flooding
- Causation
- Spill Act
- NEPA
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- Interior
- California
- Zoning
- Act 13
- Insurance Coverage
- Duty to Defend
- Landfill
- Eminent Domain
- Sixth Circuit
- Private Right of Action
- Illinois
- Water
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Navigability
- Montana
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Riverbed
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- CISWI
- Consent Decree
- Enforcement
- EPA
- Laches
- Boiler MACT
- Delay Notice
- Rulemaking
- Equity
- Second Circuit
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- NPDES
- Procedure
- Standing
- Medical Monitoring
- Dimock
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Contamination
- Louisiana
- Dukes
- Certification
- CLE
- Cases to Watch
- Privilege
- Decisions of Note
- Expert Witness
- Discovery
- Work Product
- CERCLA
- Insurance
- Defense Costs
- Cost Recovery
- Real Estate
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Trespass
- Farming
- Odors
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- New Jersey
- ISRA
- Informal Agency Action
- Administrative Hearing
- Cancer
- Emissions
- Waste
- Air
- Combustion
- RCRA
- Railroad
- Speaking Engagements
- Federal Procedure
- Third Circuit
- Toxic Torts
- Removal
- Statute of Limitations
- Permits
- Title V
- Clean Air Act
- Superfund
- Cleanup
- Supreme Court
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Statute of Repose
- Multi-District Litigation
- Clean Water Act
- Wetlands
- Mineral Rights
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Enforcement Action
- Marcellus Shale
- Due Process
- Deeds
- Exploration
- Royalties
- Drilling
- Oil and Gas
- Leases
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Last week, Judge Chad F. Kenney, former Delaware County Court of Common Pleas Judge and recent appointee to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, granted Defendant Bethlehem Landfill Company’s motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging that landfill odors created a public and private nuisance for all households within a 2.5-mile radius of the facility. Baptiste v. Bethlehem Landfill Co. et al., No. 18-2691, 2019 WL 1219709 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 13, 2019). The lead plaintiffs, Robin and Dexter Baptiste, reside 1.6 miles from the facility and allege that odors from the facility impacted their property value and ability to enjoy their property. Id. at *5. They alleged that the conditions affected 8,400 households within a 2.5-mile radius. Id. They styled their claims as claims for public nuisance, private nuisance, and negligence. Id. at *1.
Judge Kenney’s opinion is premised upon an apparent lack of sufficiency in pleading that the plaintiffs had suffered any harm above-and-beyond that suffered by the general public. First, in addressing plaintiffs’ public nuisance claim, Judge Kenney acknowledged that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case that a public nuisance exists. Id. at *7. He reasoned, however, that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PADEP”) is charged with regulating public nuisances created by landfills under Pennsylvania’s Solid Waste Management Act (“SWMA”). He concluded that the plaintiffs lacked a private right of action to address the public nuisance because they had not alleged suffering a unique harm, other than their general proximity to the facility. Id. at *9-10.
Second, Judge Kenney found that plaintiffs, who live 1.6 miles from the facility, could not suffer a “unique” harm as required for a private nuisance because plaintiffs are not direct neighbors to the facility and hundreds of others are similarly situated. Judge Kenney relied on a 1920 Pennsylvania Supreme Court case for the principle that landfill odors generally affect the public at large, not an individual neighbor, and therefore give rise to a public – not private – nuisance cause of action. Id. at *11 (citing Philips v. Donaldson, 112 A. 236, 238 (Pa. 1920)).
Third and finally, Judge Kenney dismissed plaintiffs’ negligence claim on the basis that plaintiffs failed to establish that defendant had a duty to plaintiffs to avoid causing odors at plaintiffs’ property. Plaintiffs based their negligence claim on the general duty under the Solid Waste Management Act to avoid the creation of public nuisances. Id. at *13. Noting the lack of a private cause of action under the Solid Waste Management Act, Judge Kenney reasoned that plaintiffs’ claim was akin to a negligence per se claim and concluded that such a claim is not available where the statute on which the plaintiff relies is not intended to create a new cause of action in favor of individual, private plaintiffs. Id. at *14.
The case marks a rare complete victory for the defendant at the motion to dismiss stage. Plaintiffs have 30 days from the March 13, 2019 decision to appeal.