
Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Tenth Circuit Applies Statute of Limitations That Is “Closest Fit” in CERCLA Action, Overrules Earlier Precedent
- New Jersey Weighs in on State Climate Tort Claims
- First Circuit Holds that Smelling Vehicle Exhaust Constitutes Injury-in-Fact under Clean Air Act
- Ninth Circuit Upholds Vacatur of Some Oil and Gas Leases
- Court Dismisses Microplastics Consumer Protection Suit Citing Federal Preemption
Topics
- NJDEP
- Connecticut
- Pollutants
- Federal Land Policy and Management Act
- Agency Action
- Loper Bright
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Public Trust Doctrine
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Title VI
- Environmental Justice
- Disparate Impact
- 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
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- 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
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Historic Resources
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Fees
- Commonwealth Court
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Martime
- Asbestos
- Utah
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- New Mexico
- Tribal Lands
- Gold King Mine
- Delaware
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- Chevron Deference
- Endangered Species Act
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Corporate Veil
- Alter Ego
- 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
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Pipelines
- Texas
- Missouri
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Drinking Water
- Michigan
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Clean Streams Law
- Civil Penalties
- Hearing Board
- Arranger Liability
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Damages
- Property Value
- Stigma
- Fair Market Value
- Tax assessment
- Storage Tank
- Indemnification
- Energy
- Fifth Circuit
- Electric
- Ninth Circuit
- Arizona
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- 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
- D.C. Circuit
- Mercury
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- HAPs
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Storage
- Natural Gas
- Takings Clause
- Flooding
- Fifth Amendment
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Interior
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- California
- Act 13
- Zoning
- Insurance Coverage
- Duty to Defend
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Water
- Illinois
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Riverbed
- Navigability
- Montana
- Seventh Circuit
- Indiana
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Green House Counsel
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Consent Decree
- Enforcement
- EPA
- Laches
- Boiler MACT
- Delay Notice
- Rulemaking
- Equity
- CISWI
- Declaratory Relief
- Second Circuit
- Contribution
- Procedure
- Standing
- NPDES
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Certification
- Contamination
- Louisiana
- Dukes
- CLE
- Decisions of Note
- Expert Witness
- Discovery
- Work Product
- Cases to Watch
- Privilege
- Defense Costs
- Cost Recovery
- CERCLA
- Insurance
- Real Estate
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Donovan
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Class Actions
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- Trespass
- Farming
- Odors
- Nuisance
- Administrative Hearing
- New Jersey
- ISRA
- Informal Agency Action
- Air
- Combustion
- RCRA
- Railroad
- Cancer
- Emissions
- Waste
- Speaking Engagements
- Toxic Torts
- Removal
- Federal Procedure
- Third Circuit
- Clean Air Act
- Statute of Limitations
- Permits
- Title V
- Supreme Court
- Superfund
- Cleanup
- Multi-District Litigation
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Statute of Repose
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Enforcement Action
- Marcellus Shale
- Due Process
- Deeds
- Clean Water Act
- Wetlands
- Mineral Rights
- Drilling
- Oil and Gas
- Leases
- Exploration
- Royalties
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
In a recent case from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, the court granted a partial motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s common law claims because they were deemed time-barred under Pennsylvania law. Iorfido v. Domtar Paper Company, LLC et al., No. 23-156, 2024 WL 1346641 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 29, 2024). The lawsuit stemmed from a paper mill’s ongoing emissions of lime particulate matter that allegedly harmed plaintiff’s property. The court dismissed the common law claims as obviously barred by the two-year statute of limitations as pled in plaintiff’s complaint.
The case related to a paper mill that had been operating continuously pursuant to an air permit since 2000. In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that his property, which was in vicinity to the mill, was exposed to “chronic unauthorized emissions of lime particulate matter” which polluted the air, and settled on the ground, buildings, and vehicles at the plaintiff’s property. After initially providing reimbursement for the plaintiff’s cleanup efforts on his property, the paper mill company discontinued payments and the plaintiff continued to address the contamination at his own cost.
Plaintiff filed his complaint on May 25, 2023, alleging federal Clean Air Act and Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act violations in addition to nuisance and trespass claims, for which the plaintiff sought injunctive relief, civil penalties, and monetary damages. The paper mill company filed a partial motion to dismiss the third count of plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim, arguing that the plaintiff’s common law claims were time-barred because they were raised more than two years after the initial lime pollution event.
The court agreed with the paper mill company and dismissed the common law claims, reasoning that under Pennsylvania law, “[w]hen the statute of limitations begins to run for causes of action for trespass and nuisance depends on whether the wrong is permanent or continuing.” To make this determination, courts look to a variety of factors, including: 1) “the character of the structure or thing which produces injury”; 2) whether “the consequences of the [trespass/nuisance] will continue indefinitely”; and 3) whether the “past and future damages may be predictably ascertained.”
As to the first factor, the court concluded based upon the allegations in the complaint that the mill was a permanent fixture, and that it was reasonable to expect its operations to continue indefinitely in view of the air permit authorizing its emissions. Consequently, and with regard to the second factor, the court reasoned that lime pollution events were expected to continue indefinitely and that their periodic occurrence did not preclude a finding of permanence. Finally, the court found that the lime pollution events were not so irregular and unpredictable as to prevent ascertainment of the plaintiff’s past and future damages in a single action. Accordingly, the court determined that the lime pollution events were permanent in nature.
Because the pollution events were deemed “permanent,” the relevant date for statute of limitations purposes was the date the pollution first occurred, rather than the date of each successive pollution event. On the face of the complaint, the plaintiff had alleged that the pollution events began in 2020. Therefore, the court held that plaintiff’s common law claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations.
The court’s decision is a rare illustration of an affirmative defense being used successfully to dismiss a claim at the motion to dismiss stage in federal court. The defendant in the case now avoids any potential compensatory and punitive damages for the common law claims, as well as any additional discovery relating thereto.