On April 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the request for an en banc rehearing in the case of Newton v. Parker Drilling Mgmt. Serv., Ltd. that was decided on February 5, 2018. In that decision, the Court of Appeals held that California’s wage and hour, and overtime laws apply to offshore drilling facilities located in offshore waters adjacent to the State of California off the coast of Santa Barbara. No Ninth Circuit judge agreed that there should be a rehearing.
Recent federal court rulings illustrate how the courts are serving as an umpire sometimes restraining the government and litigants.
On April 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued a ruling, in Kuehl, et al., v. Sellner, et al., affirming the District Court’s decision which held that the defendants had violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in their operation of the Cricket Hollow Zoo (a licensed facility), located in Manchester, IA. The plaintiffs, which included the Animal Legal Defense Fund, sued the Sellners alleging that the conditions in which some endangered species (lemurs and tigers) were housed in the zoo amounted to a mistreatment of these endangered species.
Accelerating air permitting decisions will be very helpful to almost everyone in business. An important Presidential environmental policy memorandum dated April 12, 2018 directing the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take specific actions to ensure efficient and cost-effective implementation of the U.S. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS, pronounced \’naks\) program, including permitting decisions for new and expanded facilities, and with respect to the Regional Haze Program, was published in the April 16, 2018 edition of the Federal Register.
Briefly, the memo, acknowledgrd that the periodic statutory review of the NAAQS for the “criteria pollutants” (ozone, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, lead and carbon monoxide) has resulted in delayed Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan (SIP) reviews and has also had the effect of making the processing of preconstruction permits to construct new manufacturing facilities or their modification much more difficult.
On April 9, 2018, the heads of twelve Federal agencies and departments entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) committing their respective agencies to implement certain concepts and directives from Executive Order (“EO”) 13807,[1] the Trump administration’s effort to streamline environmental review and approval of major infrastructure projects. The signatory agencies are the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Energy, and Homeland Security, the Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, as well as the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council. These agencies frequently are involved in large-scale, complex infrastructure projects, such as traditional and renewable energy facilities and interstate pipelines; highway and bridge improvements, and transportation projects. While much of the MOU recites requirements previously set forth in the EO, it adds details and deadlines regarding interagency coordination, communication and dispute resolution in order to carry out the EO’s “One Federal Decision” concept and the goal of completing environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) within two years.
On April 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a unanimous opinion, rejected the challenges to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) decision to issue a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit to the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall), which is planning a large residential and commercial project in Los Angeles County near Santa Clarita, CA (the Newhall Ranch project). The Newhall Ranch project, which involves the discharge of dredge and fill materials into the Santa Clara River, has been scaled back and modified, and the Ninth Circuit held that it is consistent with the CWA, the Corps’ regulations and procedures, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Ninth Circuit provides an excellent primer on the Section 404 permitting process. The case is Friends of the Santa Clara River v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
In recent years many industries, including, by way of example only, the solar industry, have rapidly adopted text messaging to, among other things, keep in touch with their customers, to alert customers to the availability of new goods and services, and to entice customers to upgrade their systems with a promotional offer or rebate-related information. Pre-recorded calls and text messages are governed by the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) implementing rules. In recent years, thousands of nationwide consumer class actions have been filed alleging violations of the TCPA – including bare technical violations – and seeking up to $1,500 for each alleged unlawful pre-recorded call and/or text message.
Legal arguments that the laws a state enacts which take into consideration the interests of its own citizens unfairly impede the free flow of interstate commerce are difficult to win, as demonstrated by two recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rulings. On March 29, the Second Circuit issued two Commerce Clause/Dormant Commerce Clause decisions:
Check out our colleague Tim Wright’s recent post on Pillsbury’s Sourcing Blog titled Oh No, Mr. Robot Just Hacked Our Smart Building…
On March 20, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided the case of Marquette County Road Commission v. U.S. EPA, et al. The opinion will not be published in the Federal Reporter. Both the trial court and the Sixth Circuit rejected the Marquette County Road Commission’s argument that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) actions and inactions amounted to a “veto,” and were thus a “final action” for purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Our colleagues Christine Richardson, Colleen Lamarre and Danielle Bradley recently posted their Alert titled Recent and Upcoming Changes to 401(k) Plans. In the Alert they discuss the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the Act) and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (the Budget), and the number of modifications they make to the 401(k) plan rules. The modifications are expected to make the administration of 401(k) plans simpler by removing operational burdens, while also giving plan sponsors the ability to offer more options to employees.
Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog