United States v. Daikin Applied Americas, No. 20-2786 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
For nearly forty years, there has been ongoing efforts to environmentally remediate the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation site in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. In 2019, the site’s original consent decree and remedial action plan were amended in a fashion that some neighboring parties oppose. At issue is whether the neighboring parties may intervene to oppose the amended consent decree.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling and held that neighboring parties may not intervene because the neighboring parties lack Article III standing. The court explained that even assuming the Proposed Intervenors show a concrete injury by having to spend money to remediate their property, there are causality issues that preclude Article III standing. The Proposed Intervenors’ contention that the 2019 Consent Decree will increase the migration of CVOC contaminants from the Reilly Tar Site to their own property is based on two unfounded assumptions: (1) it presumes that the CVOC contaminants were subject to remediation by the 1986 Consent Decree, and (2) the 2019 Consent Decree significantly changes CVOC remediation at the Reilly Tar Site.
Given this assurance and the conclusion that the 2019 Consent Decree does not alter Reilly Tar’s CVOC remediation obligations, the Proposed Intervenors have not shown a traceable or redressable injury, which are requirements for Article III standing. Because the Proposed Intervenors lack standing, the court has no authority to analyze their remaining claims.
Court Description: [Erickson, Author, with Melloy and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Environmental law. The proposed intervenors sought leave to intervene in this remediation lawsuit to argue that changes to the consent decree for cleanup of the Reilly Tar site in St. Louis Park, Minnesota would worsen spread of the contaminants and force them to undertake additional remediation efforts on their nearby site; the district court denied their motion to intervene, finding they lacked Article III standing because they could not demonstrate that their alleged harm was traceable to the parties' 2019 Consent Decree or otherwise redressable; even assuming the proposed intervenors could show a concrete injury by having to spend money to remediate their site, there are causality issues that preclude Article III standing, and the district court order is affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.