Judge Poised to Consider Piney Point Fight
The lawsuit came after about 215 million gallons of wastewater were discharged from the site into Tampa Bay in April because of fears about a potentially catastrophic breach of a reservoir.
February 15, 2022 at 10:47 AM
3 minute read
After the state scrambled last spring to prevent a potential catastrophe at a former phosphate-plant site, a federal judge will hear arguments Tuesday about whether he should toss out a lawsuit filed by environmental groups alleging "malfeasance" in the handling of hazardous waste.
U.S. District Judge William Jung will hold a hearing in Tampa on motions by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Gov. Ron DeSantis and other defendants to dismiss the lawsuit centered on the Piney Point site in Manatee County.
The lawsuit came after about 215 million gallons of wastewater were discharged from the site into Tampa Bay in April because of fears about a potentially catastrophic breach of a reservoir. The lawsuit said the discharges, in part, caused harmful algae blooms and fish kills. Also, nearby residents had to be temporarily evacuated because of fears of a breach.
The Center for Biological Diversity, Tampa Bay Waterkeeper, Suncoast Waterkeeper, Manasota-88 and Our Children's Earth Foundation allege that the state and other defendants long mishandled the site.
But the Department of Environmental Protection contends that the lawsuit should be dismissed because it is "moot." The department said a separate case in state court has led to an appointed receiver overseeing efforts to close the site.
"An enforceable state court order to close the facility is already in place, the receiver is working diligently to implement that order, and plaintiffs are not entitled to invoke this (federal) court's jurisdiction just because progress is not yet to their satisfaction," department attorneys wrote in a Feb. 4 document.
But in a Jan. 21 filing, attorneys for the environmental groups said the receiver is engaged in "preparatory work." Also, they argued that the case involves disputes about broader issues, including what is known as a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit for the site.
"There is no plan in place (from the receiver), let alone proposed," the plaintiffs' filing said. "Even if the (federal) court were to accept that the receiver will eventually achieve 'closure,' that would still leave unaddressed plaintiffs' claims concerning groundwater contamination and the lack of any NPDES permit. A live controversy exists, and this case is not moot."
The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal Clean Water Act and a law known as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. In the lawsuit, attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote they are seeking to "ensure Piney Point is operated and closed in a manner that complies with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and abates the present imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and the environment, including endangered species such as manatees and sea turtles."
In addition to DeSantis and the Department of Environmental Protection, the other defendants are property owner HRK Holdings, LLC and the Manatee County Port Authority — both of which also filed motions to dismiss the case.
Piney Point includes hazardous phosphogypsum stacks, a byproduct of phosphate production, which took place at the site from 1966 to 1999. State and local officials and HRK rushed to shore up the site in April after leaks of wastewater raised concerns about a breach.
Also, state lawmakers earmarked $100 million to help resolve the problems at the site. In a document filed Feb. 3, attorneys for DeSantis said the case against him should be dismissed, in part, because he is not an "operator" of Piney Point.
"In effect, they (the plaintiffs) argue that every action (or inaction) by an agency employee is automatically imputed, and thereby traceable, to Governor DeSantis," the document said. "They are wrong. Indeed, they cite zero authority for this sweeping proposition, despite their clear burden to prove standing."
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250