Welcome to the Beveridge & Diamond Environmental, Land Use, and Litigation Law Portal.
Beveridge & Diamond is a leading environmental, land use and litigation law firm based in Washington, DC, with offices in California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Texas.
Meet the Contributors
- Peter C. Anderson
- David A. Barker
- Gus B. Bauman
- Daniel P. Berner
- Daniel M. Brian
- Megan R. Brillault
- Lily N. Chinn
- Nadira Clarke
- Richard S. Davis
- Laura Metz Duncan
- Mark N. Duvall
- Russell N. Fraker
- Bethany S. French
- David M. Friedland
- Aaron H. Goldberg
- Marc J. Goldstein
- Jeanine L.G. Grachuk
- Edward M. Grauman
- Paul E. Hagen
- Karen M. Hansen
- Lauren A. Hopkins
- Steven M. Jawetz
- Aladdine D. Joroff
- Madeleine Boyer Kadas
- Heidi P. Knight
- Daniel M. Krainin
- K. Russell LaMotte
- Jayni A. Lanham
- Laura L. LaValle
- Brian C. Levey
- Pamela D. Marks
- Bryan J. Moore
- W. Parker Moore
- Michael G. Murphy
- Zachary M. Norris
- John H. Paul
- Elizabeth M. Richardson
- Stephen M. Richmond
- Peter J. Schaumberg
- Aron H. Schnur
- James B. Slaughter
- Gary J. Smith
- Timothy M. Sullivan
- Kathryn E. Szmuszkovicz
- Ryan R. Tacorda
- Linda Tsang
- Kari L. Twaite
- Nicholas W. van Aelstyn
- Sara L. Vink
- Benjamin F. Wilson
- Alexandra M. ("Andie") Wyatt
- Graham C. Zorn
Topics
- Environmental Litigation
Recent Posts
Click here to learn more about us
Showing 76 posts in Environmental Litigation. View our practice description for Environmental Litigation.
Second Circuit Certifies Medical Monitoring Issue for Ruling by New York High Court
In an effort to clarify the availability and scope of medical monitoring claims under New York law, the Second Circuit last week certified to the New York State Court of Appeals questions relating to whether smokers who have not been diagnosed with a smoking-related disease may bring a stand-alone claim against a tobacco company for medical monitoring. The Court of Appeals’ decision will likely have broad implications for toxic tort cases involving allegations of potential health effects. Read More ›
Important D.C. Circuit FOIA Ruling Affirms Agencies’ Obligation To Provide Substantive, Appealable Determinations Promptly in Response to FOIA Requests
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has issued a significant decision holding that the common agency practice of providing open-ended initial responses to requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) violates statutory requirements for prompt agency “determinations” and that judicial review of incomplete responses may be available after the initial 20-business-day period for agency responses to FOIA requests. The ruling should prompt agencies to provide more substantive and robust initial determinations and provide requesting parties with faster and more reliable access to federal courts to challenge an agency’s failure to respond or decision to withhold records. Read More ›
Maryland High Court Slashes Billion-Dollar Jury Award and Clarifies Toxic Tort Standards
Reversing nearly all of the $1.6 billion in jury verdicts that had been entered against Defendant Exxon Mobil Corporation by lower courts, the Maryland Court of Appeals on February 26, 2013, issued a pair of opinions that may make recovery of damages more difficult for Maryland plaintiffs in toxic exposure cases. Read More ›
New Hampshire Jury Awards State $236M in MTBE Case
Approximately six weeks after getting the Maryland Supreme Court to agree that nearly all of the $1.6 billion in damages awarded by lower courts should be overturned, Exxon Mobil Corporation found itself facing a new toxic tort jury award, this one in favor of the State of New Hampshire in the amount of $236 million. The jury found ExxonMobil responsible for groundwater clean-up costs allegedly associated with the gasoline additive methyl tert-butyl ether (“MTBE”). New Hampshire v. Hess Corp., No. 03-C-0550 (N.H. Sup. Ct. Apr. 9, 2013), available at www.bdlaw.com/assets/attachments/Hess.pdf. The jury found in favor of the State on its failure to warn, design defect and negligence claims. Read More ›
D.C. Court Denies Class Certification in Drinking Water Case
In a significant victory for Defendant D.C. Water and Sewer Authority (“D.C. Water”), which is represented in the action by Beveridge & Diamond, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in a putative class action relating to claims of injuries due to lead allegedly found in drinking water in the city. Parkhurst v. D.C. Water & Sewer Auth., No. 2009 CA 000971 B (D.C. Sup. Ct. Apr. 8, 2013), available at www.bdlaw.com/assets/attachments/Parkhurst.pdf. Read More ›
Supreme Court Shoots Down Stipulated CAFA Caps
In a setback to plaintiffs seeking to get a tactical advantage by litigating in state court, the Supreme Court held that potential class action plaintiffs cannot cap their damages in an effort to avoid the reach of the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). The Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, No. 11-1450 (U.S. Mar. 19, 2013), available at www.bdlaw.com/assets/attachments/Knowles.pdf. CAFA allows defendants to remove to federal court those putative class actions that seek at least $5 million in the aggregate, assuming other factors are satisfied. Knowles, slip op. at 1. In Knowles, the Supreme Court held that potential class-action plaintiffs could not cap their damages in an effort to keep their cases in state court and circumvent CAFA. Id. Read More ›
Federal Court Certifies Class on Liability Claims Despite Differences Among Class Members on Exposure, Damages
In a limited but significant victory for class action plaintiffs, a federal court in Indiana granted class certification to 1,700 Indiana residents with respect to only the liability portion of their claims against the owners of a wood recycling facility based on alleged exposure to smoke, dust and “extreme noxious odors.” Greene v. Will, 3:09-cv-00510 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 29, 2013), available at www.bdlaw.com/assets/attachments/Greene.pdf. The district court held that the issues of which defendants caused the alleged harm, what chemicals were emitted, and when the chemicals were emitted, could and should be determined on a class-wide basis. Greene. slip. op at 7-9. Read More ›
Pennsylvania Court Holds Application of Biosolids To Be Protected Farming Activity
Establishing important precedent that right to farm laws, which have been adopted in most states, have broad application to many farm activities and shield farmers and their suppliers from tort suits, a Pennsylvania court found that defendants’ land application of biosolids did not constitute a nuisance or negligence under state law. Gilbert v. Synagro Techs., 2012 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 323 (York Co. Ct. Comm. Pl. Dec. 28, 2012), available at www.bdlaw.com/assets/attachments/Gilbert.pdf. Granting summary judgment to defendants, who were represented by Beveridge & Diamond, the court held that the use of biosolids as a fertilizer was a protected farming activity under the Pennsylvania Right to Farm Act’s statute of repose, and stated that use of biosolids is not significantly different from other organic fertilizers that farmers have traditionally used. Gilbert, slip op. at 19-20, 33. Read More ›
Utah Federal Court Rejects “Every Exposure” Theory
Adding to the growing chorus of courts that have rejected the “every exposure” theory (sometimes referred to as the “any exposure” theory), under which plaintiffs argue that each and every exposure to a toxic substance is sufficient to establish liability for certain injuries, a federal court in Utah dismissed a plaintiff’s claims for failing to establish causation. Smith v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2:08-cv-630 (D. Utah Jan. 18, 2013), available at www.bdlaw.com/assets/attachments/Smith.pdf. (For other courts that have reached similar conclusions, see Maryland Appellate Court Rejects “Any Exposure” Theory, Toxic Tort and Product Liability Quarterly, October 25, 2012, available at http://www.environmentallawportal.com/Maryland-Court-Rejects-Any-Exposure-Theory; Pennsylvania High Court Rejects “Any Exposure” Theory, Toxic Tort and Product Liability Quarterly, July 18, 2012, available at http://www.environmentallawportal.com/Pennsylvania-High-Court-Rejects-Theory). The District Court held that plaintiff’s expert was precluded from testifying that “every exposure” to asbestos-containing products manufactured by the defendant contributed to plaintiff’s mesothelioma. Smith, slip op. at 3, 10. Read More ›
California Court Denies Award for Damages Down to Background Levels
Striking a blow to plaintiffs seeking damages for cleanups down to “background” levels, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed an action by the State of California and the City of San Diego seeking damages due to soil and groundwater contamination on city-owned land around and under the San Diego Qualcomm Stadium. California v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., No. 07-CV-1883-MMA (S.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2013), available at www.bdlaw.com/assets/attachments/Kinder.pdf. Eliminating the lynchpin of the City’s case, the court excluded testimony by the City’s expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert, and granted summary judgment to the defendant. Kinder Morgan, slip op. at 13, 51-52. Read More ›