Posted
by

On December 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in the case of Town of Westport, et al., v. Monsanto Company, et al., affirmed the District Court’s ruling granting the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment in a products liability case involving the sale of products containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The Court of Appeals, affirming the District Court’s ruling, held that

Monsanto did not breach the implied warranty of merchantability because it was not reasonably foreseeable in 1969 that there was a risk PCBs would volatilize from caulk at levels requiring remediation — that is, levels dangerous to human health.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

On November 22, the Texas Court of Appeals, sitting in Fort Worth, decided a case involving mandatory sanctions awarded under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). In Rich v. Range Resources Corporation, et al., the Court of Appeals determined that although that denial of sanctions was erroneous, it was not harmful; error.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

In the case of CH2M Hill Engineers, Inc. v. Springer, et al., the Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District, sitting in Beaumont, decided an interlocutory appeals brought by the Appellant CH2M Hill Engineers, Inc. The Court of Appeals concluded that the “trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied CH2M’s motion to dismiss” based upon the evidence before it, and affirmed the trial court’s order. The Court of Appeals noted that

While the record contains evidence that CH2M is registered with the Texas Board of Professional Engineers, the record does not contain any evidence that a licensed or registered professional practices within CH2M. Scott Neeley, Senior Designated Manager, signed the agreement between CH2M Hill and the Appellees. Mr. Neeley has not been shown to be a ‘licensed or registered professional,’ nor did he sign the contract as such. Moreover, the report is not signed by a licensed or registered engineer, but only issued by ‘CH2M Hill.’ CH2M has not proven, or even identified a single licensed professional engineer who performed professional engineering services for the firm.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

The Real Estate Bloom
The real estate industry is booming in states where marijuana is blooming—that is, in states that have legalized the medicinal and recreational use of marijuana. Here is a quick overview. In November 2016, voters in California, Maine and Massachusetts, all approved the legalization of recreational marijuana use. On January 1, 2018, California’s law will go into effect, and the state will start issuing temporary licenses to cannabis businesses. On December 6, 2017, Los Angeles approved a series of cannabis regulations, making it the largest city in the United States with legal recreational marijuana. Massachusetts will implement retail marijuana sales on July 1, 2018. While Maine has plans to open retail marijuana stores in the summer of 2018, it is unclear exactly when their laws will go into effect. Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly referred to as Superfund, was enacted in December 1980, and Section 108(b) provides that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shall promulgate, no later than December 11, 1985, financial responsibility requirements for classes of facilities—designated by EPA—consistent with “the degree and duration of risk associated with their production, transportation, treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous substances.” Despite this directive, EPA has not issued any financial responsibility rules under Section 108(b). This record of inaction prompted a lawsuit demanding compliance with the law.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

On November 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided the case of Betco Corporation v. Peacock, et al., which concerns a contractual dispute between the buyer and the seller of companies that produce and market a biodegradation product that is utilized in waste management and control. After paying out the escrow contemplated by the parties’ contract, Betco Corporation (Betco) “discovered that certificates of analysis were being re‐used or falsified by the sales team.” Critical of Betco’s due diligence efforts, the Seventh Circuit held that Betco

“failed to develop its argument in the district court that its breach of contract claim was in fact a claim for intentional misrepresentation that should have survived the Agreement’s one‐year time limit. Thus, it waived this claim, and we decline to hear its merits.

However, Betco did not waive its claim against Malcolm Peacock for breach of the duty of good faith. But our only inquiry in analyzing this claim is whether Malcolm acted in a way that injured or destroyed Betco’s ability to receive the benefits of the contract. Because Betco proffered no evidence at trial of consumer complaints, it cannot show that it was deprived of its contractual expectations. To the contrary, Betco received a company producing a successful line of products to the satisfaction of its customers.”

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

On November 27. the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided an important Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdictional case, United States. The Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed the defendant’s criminal convictions for knowingly discharging dredged or fill material from a point source into a “water of the United States” on private property without a permit. At issue was whether the Government proved that these waters were subject to the CWA in accordance with Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion in Rapanos v. U.S., which set forth the “significant nexus” test for jurisdiction over certain wetlands.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

On November 20, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided the case of Cox, et al., v. Duke Energy, Inc. et al., affirming the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina’s grant of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights lawsuit, holding

“(1) that Fleming had validly waived his right to sue the Darlington County Sheriff’s Office, the Sheriff, and the deputies; (2) that Duke Energy and its vice president were private actors not operating “under color of” state law as required for liability under § 1983; and (3) that Fleming’s remaining state law claims were preempted by federal law’s exclusive regulation of nuclear safety.”

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

On November 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Detroit International Bridge Company v. Government of Canada, et al., affirmed the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that a 2012 “Crossing Agreement” between State of Michigan officials and the Government of Canada authorizing the construction of a second bridge to span the Detroit River separating Detroit and Windsor, Canada, was a legal exercise of their legal authority.

Continue Reading ›

Posted
by

On November 21, the California Fifth District Court of Appeal issued its decision in Association of Irritated Residents v. Kern County Board of Supervisors, 2017 WL 5590096, a challenge to the County’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and approval for modifications at the Alon Bakersfield Refinery. Among other things, the Association of Irritated Residents (AIR) claimed that, since crude oil processing was shut down when work on the EIR began, the EIR should have considered the refinery’s inactive condition as the “baseline,” treating impacts of resuming typical operation as impacts of the new project. Rejecting AIR’s argument, the court held that, since refinery operations fluctuated over time, the use of data from operations in a representative prior year to identify the baseline level of activity was appropriate under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Continue Reading ›