Expert Witness Insights — ESG Lawsuits Database

Date	2025-09-12
Geography (Country)	Boise / Yellow Pine, Idaho. (United States)
ESG Category	Aboriginal and Indigenous Rights
Plaintiffs	Nez Perce Tribe — sovereign tribal nation asserting treaty-reserved rights and environmental harms from the project.
Defendants	U.S. Forest Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Secretary of Agriculture (official capacity).
Status	Newly filed (Aug. 29, 2025). District of Idaho, Case No. 1:25-cv-00498 (assigned to Chief Judge B. Lynn Winmill); Perpetua has moved to intervene. Related NGO suit filed Feb. 18, 2025 challenges the federal approvals on separate grounds.
Overview	The Nez Perce Tribe filed a federal lawsuit to overturn the U.S. Forest Service’s approval of Perpetua Resources’ Stibnite Gold Project, arguing the mine would restrict treaty-reserved access and threaten sensitive headwaters of the South Fork Salmon River. The complaint alleges violations of treaty obligations and federal environmental laws, with the case assigned in the District of Idaho. Perpetua plans open-pit mining with cyanide processing and a large tailings facility, touting cleanup and fish-passage benefits, while construction could begin after financing and permits. The developer is seeking to intervene in the case.
Why it matters	Expert witnesses should prepare for treaty-rights, NEPA/ESA, and water-quality questions tied to large-scale, cyanide-leach gold mining. Expect demand for testimony on hydrology and geochemistry of mine-affected waters, tailings dam risk, fish habitat and temperature impacts on ESA-listed salmonids, and cumulative-effects modeling. Cultural-resource specialists and Indigenous-rights experts will be central to evaluating access, use, and potential impairment under 1855/1863 treaties. Economic experts may be asked to assess cleanup commitments versus projected benefits, and to scrutinize claimed abatement or mitigation plans. Intervention by the proponent would broaden discovery on feasibility and alternatives.
Plaintiff Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Defendant Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Sources	Coeur d’Alene Press, Courthouse News – Complaint PDF, Justia docket, Reuters background

Back to Table of Contents

Date	2025-09-13
Geography (Country)	New Delhi / Delhi–NCR (India)
ESG Category	Air Pollution and Emissions
Plaintiffs	Federation of Fireworks Traders — trade group challenging the year-round ban in Delhi–NCR.
Defendants	Union of India (respondent; represented by ASG Aishwarya Bhati); Regulatory authorities administering the NCR ban (e.g., CAQM/GNCTD).
Status	Ongoing Supreme Court proceedings on applications challenging the year-round Delhi–NCR firecracker ban; the Bench questioned limiting the restriction to NCR and hinted at a uniform national approach. No final order yet.
Overview	The Supreme Court of India questioned why a year-round ban on manufacturing, selling and bursting firecrackers applies only to Delhi–NCR rather than across India. Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, sitting with Justice K. Vinod Chandran, made the remarks while hearing an application by the Federation of Fireworks Traders challenging the NCR-wide prohibition. The Bench noted pollution burdens outside Delhi (citing Amritsar) and suggested any policy should be uniform. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati responded for the Union. The traders argued that five lakh families depend on the trade and that seasonal curbs, not a blanket ban, would be more proportionate.
Why it matters	Expert witnesses should be prepared for pan-India questions on fireworks emissions, source apportionment during festivals, and the health impacts of short-duration but intense PM/metal/PAH spikes. If the Court pushes toward uniform policy, regulators will need defensible evidence on “green crackers” efficacy, dispersion modeling in dense urban settings, and comparative risk across cities. Expect demand for experts in emission inventories, ambient and personal-exposure monitoring, toxicology of pyrotechnic constituents, and feasibility of enforcement/alternatives (timing, zones, permits). Testimony may also touch constitutional rights to a clean environment and proportionality of restrictions.
Plaintiff Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Defendant Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Sources	The Leaflet, Bar & Bench, Hindustan Times

Back to Table of Contents

Date	2025-09-10
Geography (Country)	Aurora, Colorado (United States)
ESG Category	Air Pollution and Emissions
Plaintiffs	Center for Biological Diversity — national environmental nonprofit; 350 Colorado — state climate nonprofit.
Defendants	Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Pollution Control Division — state air-quality regulator.
Status	Filed Sept. 3, 2025 in Adams County District Court; plaintiffs seek orders compelling timely action on two Title V permits.
Overview	Two environmental nonprofits — the Center for Biological Diversity and 350 Colorado — sued Colorado’s Air Pollution Control Division, alleging the agency missed statutory deadlines to issue or renew Title V operating permits for two large facilities in the Denver metro area: Magellan Pipeline’s Aurora fuel terminal and Crestone Peak Resources’ Mustang Booster Station in east Aurora. Filed Sept. 3 in Adams County District Court, the complaint seeks court orders compelling the division to act on the permits within set timelines. The groups argue overdue permits and lax enforcement allow excess VOC and hazardous air pollutant emissions that worsen Front Range ozone.
Why it matters	Title V permitting fights are increasingly being used to force regulators to update controls and hold high-emitting sources to current standards. Expert witnesses will be central in explaining what timely permit action entails, whether proposed conditions would materially reduce VOCs/NOx, and how outdated permits affect ozone and community health. Specialists in air permitting, emissions inventories, atmospheric chemistry/ozone formation, petroleum terminal and compressor-station operations, and environmental justice health risk can help courts weigh the consequences of delay and craft workable compliance timelines and monitoring requirements.
Plaintiff Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Defendant Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Sources	The Colorado Sun, Center for Biological Diversity — press release, Complaint (PDF), 350 Colorado statement

Back to Table of Contents

Date	2025-09-09
Geography (Country)	Rome, Lazio (Italy)
ESG Category	Air Pollution and Emissions
Plaintiffs	Greenpeace O.N.L.U.S.; ReCommon E.T.S.; and twelve Italian citizens alleging rights harms and seeking Paris-aligned emissions cuts.
Defendants	ENI S.p.A. — integrated oil & gas company; Ministry of Economy and Finance — state shareholder; Cassa Depositi e Prestiti S.p.A. — Italy’s state investment bank and ENI shareholder.
Status	Jurisdiction affirmed by the Supreme Court on July 21, 2025; case remanded to the Civil Court of Rome for merits—ongoing.
Overview	Italy’s Supreme Court of Cassation (Joint Sections) issued Order No. 20381/2025, affirming that Italian civil courts have jurisdiction over a climate tort brought by Greenpeace O.N.L.U.S., ReCommon E.T.S., and 12 citizens against ENI S.p.A. and its majority shareholders—the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) and Cassa Depositi e Prestiti (CDP). The Court distinguished the case from earlier “A Sud” litigation, emphasized that claims against private actors can sound in tort and human-rights protection, and explained how EU private international law supports Italian jurisdiction. The case returns to the Civil Court of Rome for merits proceedings on injunctive relief and liability.
Why it matters	For expert witnesses, the ruling broadens the runway for climate torts in Italy against corporates and controlling shareholders. Opinions will be needed on attribution of climate-related harms in Italy, corporate decarbonization plans versus Paris-aligned pathways, group-wide control and parent liability, and the feasibility of emissions-reduction injunctions (e.g., −45% by 2030 from 2020). The decision also spotlights evidence on extra-territorial emissions within corporate groups, human-rights impacts (life, health, property), and governance duties of state shareholders—key domains for experts in climate science, GHG accounting, energy systems, and corporate governance.
Plaintiff Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Defendant Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Sources	Verfassungsblog, Climate Case Chart, Supreme Court Order PDF, Reuters

Back to Table of Contents

Date	2025-09-07
Geography (Country)	Martinez, Contra Costa County, California (United States)
ESG Category	Air Pollution and Emissions
Plaintiffs	The People of the State of California ex rel. Bay Area Air Quality Management District — regional air regulator bringing civil enforcement.
Defendants	Acme Fill Corporation — owner/operator of the Martinez landfill alleged to have exceeded emission limits.
Status	Filed August 14, 2025 in Contra Costa County Superior Court; penalties sought (up to ~$87,850) for alleged emissions violations; case pending.
Overview	A recent report describes a Bay Area Air Quality Management District lawsuit against Acme Fill Corporation over alleged excessive methane and organic compound emissions from its Martinez landfill. The complaint, filed August 14, 2025 in Contra Costa County Superior Court, cites a 2023 inspection that found four landfill surface leaks and a leaking gas-collection system, with some readings 23x and 31x above legal thresholds. The Air District seeks monetary penalties and highlights public-health and climate risks from methane and non-methane organics. Acme disputes the allegations.
Why it matters	For environmental expert witnesses, the case centers on landfill gas (LFG) compliance and measurement reliability. Opinions will likely be needed on surface emissions monitoring (SEM) protocols, instrument calibration and QA/QC, gas-collection and control system design/maintenance, applicability of district and CARB landfill rules, and health-risk/ozone-formation contributions from methane and NMOCs. Expect testimony on feasible remedial actions—e.g., GCCS repairs, wellfield balancing, surface cover integrity—and on appropriate penalty calculations versus days of violation. Experts in dispersion modeling and community exposure may also be engaged to inform injunctive relief.
Plaintiff Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Defendant Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Sources	The Cool Down, Bay Area Air Quality Management District – press release, Complaint (PDF), KQED, CBS News Bay Area, Local News Matters

Back to Table of Contents

Date	2025-09-13
Geography (Country)	Portland, Oregon (United States)
ESG Category	Ecology and Natural Resources Damage
Plaintiffs	National Wildlife Federation and allied NGOs (including Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Institute for Fisheries Resources, Sierra Club, Idaho Rivers United, NW Sportfishing Industry Association, NW Energy Coalition, Columbia Riverkeeper, Idaho Conservation League, Fly Fishers International); Intervenor-Plaintiff State of Oregon; Yakama Nation, Nez Perce Tribe, Confederated Tribes of Umatilla, Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs.
Defendants	National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries); U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; Bonneville Power Administration; Intervenor-Defendants include Public Power Council and others.
Status	Stay sought by parties in 2023 has been lifted/ending: plaintiffs, states, and tribes moved Sept. 11 to lift the pause; reports indicate Judge Michael H. Simon granted the request, with filings to resume as soon as Oct. 8, 2025. Case No. 3:01-cv-00640-SI (D. Or.).
Overview	After conservation groups, Northwest states, and several Columbia Basin tribes moved to end a multi-year pause in the long-running Columbia/Snake River salmon case, dam advocates countered with statements defending hydropower and opposing renewed litigation. The motion to lift the stay follows the Trump administration’s June withdrawal from the Resilient Columbia Basin Agreement. Reporting indicates the case—National Wildlife Federation v. NMFS—will resume in the District of Oregon before Judge Michael H. Simon, with filings expected to restart in early October. Stakeholders split along familiar lines over dam benefits, salmon recovery pathways, and treaty obligations.
Why it matters	Expert witnesses should anticipate renewed demand for testimony on fish passage engineering, juvenile/adult survival, climate-driven river temperatures, spill/flow operations, and basin-wide energy replacement modeling if any structural changes to dams are proposed. Causation and remedy will hinge on linking operation scenarios to ESA outcomes, weighing system reliability and ratepayer impacts, and addressing tribal treaty-reserved fishing rights. Expect rigorous challenges to model methods (e.g., life-cycle, temperature, and power system models), as well as to proposed injunctive relief and adaptive-management plans.
Plaintiff Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Defendant Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Sources	OPB, Washington State Standard, The Spokesman-Review, Motion to Lift Stay (PDF)

Back to Table of Contents

Date	2025-09-11
Geography (Country)	Cheyenne, Wyoming; southwestern Wyoming “Checkerboard” region (United States)
ESG Category	Ecology and Natural Resources Damage
Plaintiffs	American Wild Horse Conservation; Animal Welfare Institute; Carol Walker (wildlife photographer); Kimerlee Curyl (wildlife photographer); Chad Hanson (sociologist/author) — petitioners challenging BLM’s 2025 Removal Decision.
Defendants	Bill Groffy, Acting Director, U.S. Bureau of Land Management; Doug Burgum, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior — federal officials responsible for the challenged agency action.
Status	Filed September 10, 2025; petition seeks to set aside the 2025 Removal Decision and enjoin roundups. BLM has postponed the planned October 2025 roundup until summer 2026; case pending.
Overview	A coalition led by American Wild Horse Conservation and the Animal Welfare Institute filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming to halt the Bureau of Land Management’s plan to remove roughly 3,300 wild horses from Wyoming’s “Checkerboard” region over multiple years. The petition challenges a May 29, 2025 Removal Decision Record that would permanently eliminate the Salt Wells Creek and Great Divide Basin herds and part of the Adobe Town herd. The filing follows a July Tenth Circuit ruling that faulted BLM’s 2023 land-use plan amendments. After the lawsuit, BLM postponed the roundup, saying it will not proceed before summer 2026.
Why it matters	This case turns on the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act’s “thriving natural ecological balance” mandate, FLPMA multiple-use planning, and whether BLM can rely on plan amendments already flagged by the Tenth Circuit. Expert witnesses will be critical on rangeland carrying capacity, forage and water availability, population modeling and fertility control alternatives, cumulative impacts of livestock grazing, and NEPA/APA compliance. Robust remote sensing, habitat and demographic analyses, and critique of BLM’s “excess” determinations will shape injunctive relief and any remedial pathway for managing iconic herds while balancing other land uses.
Plaintiff Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Defendant Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Sources	E&E News, American Wild Horse Conservation — press release, Animal Welfare Institute — press release, Complaint (PDF), 10th Cir. opinion (PDF)

Back to Table of Contents

Date	2025-09-10
Geography (Country)	Tenkasi, Tamil Nadu (India)
ESG Category	Ecology and Natural Resources Damage
Plaintiffs	K. Kala — Ward 17 member, Maranthai panchayat, petitioner in PIL.
Defendants	Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Tamil Nadu) — state forestry authority; Tenkasi District Collector — district administrator; State authorities (implied in PIL); Unnamed private company alleged to be clearing trees for solar installation.
Status	Interim order: status quo on felling; inspection directed; status report due; next hearing on September 16, 2025.
Overview	The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court ordered status quo to halt alleged unauthorised felling of trees on patta lands adjoining the Kavalkutti Parambai reserve forest in Tenkasi. Justices Anita Sumanth and C. Kumarappan directed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and the Tenkasi District Collector to inspect the site and file a status report before the next hearing on September 16. The PIL by K. Kala (a ward member of Maranthai panchayat) alleges a private company that bought roughly 350 acres has been cutting trees to install solar panels, with nearly 200,000 trees already felled without required permissions, harming the ecosystem.
Why it matters	For expert witnesses, the case spotlights renewable-energy siting conflicts at forest margins and how courts weigh ecological loss versus private development on patta land. Likely opinion needs include: baseline biodiversity surveys, forest-ecosystem services valuation, remote-sensing/GIS evidence of clearing, human–wildlife conflict risk, and impacts from large-scale tree removal (air/noise, soil stability, microclimate). Experts may also be asked to assess legality/adequacy of permissions (district green/vigilance committees), propose restoration and monitoring plans, and advise on alternatives that reduce habitat fragmentation while enabling compliant solar deployment.
Plaintiff Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Defendant Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Sources	The New Indian Express (https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2025/Sep/10/madras-hc-orders-status-quo-on-tree-felling-in-tenkasi-reserve-forest-seeks-report-from-officials)

Back to Table of Contents

Date	2025-09-07
Geography (Country)	Houston, Texas; Terrebonne Bay / Lake Pelto, Louisiana (United States)
ESG Category	Ecology and Natural Resources Damage
Plaintiffs	2,300+ Gulf Coast shrimpers, boat owners, and seafood businesses alleging economic and ecological harm from the 2022 spill.
Defendants	Hilcorp Energy Co. — oil and gas producer; WCC Energy Group, LLC — energy company named over alleged transfer-related damage.
Status	Filed August 8, 2025 in S.D. Texas (Houston) as 7 Long Fishery LLC et al. v. Hilcorp Energy Co. et al., No. 4:25-cv-03725; claims pending.
Overview	More than 2,300 shrimpers, boat owners and seafood businesses across the Gulf Coast have sued Hilcorp Energy Co. and WCC Energy Group over a 2022 spill that disrupted the opening day of Louisiana’s shrimp season. The complaint—filed in federal court in Houston—centers on a Hilcorp offshore platform tank collapse during an oil transfer, releasing ~14,000 gallons of crude into waters feeding Lake Pelto and prompting officials to close ~33 square miles to oyster harvesting. Plaintiffs seek damages for lost income, contaminated gear and reputational harm; defendants cite rapid shutdown/cleanup and seafood safety tests.
Why it matters	This case will hinge on Oil Pollution Act liability, causation for fishery closures and market losses, and the ecological persistence of spilled crude in estuarine systems. Expert witnesses may be asked to trace fate-and-transport, quantify impacts on shrimp/oyster stocks, model spill trajectory and exposure, and evaluate seafood safety communications. Fisheries economists will be key for lost-profits analyses; marine ecologists/toxicologists and NRDA practitioners can assess injury and restoration; engineers may opine on platform/tank integrity and transfer operations. The matter also illustrates how community reputation and consumer demand factor into damages beyond immediate closures.
Plaintiff Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Defendant Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Sources	The Cool Down, WBRZ, NOAA IncidentNews, Law360 docket note

Back to Table of Contents

Date	2025-09-10
Geography (Country)	Beaverton, Michigan; Detroit, Michigan (United States)
ESG Category	Employee DEI
Plaintiffs	U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — federal agency enforcing anti-discrimination laws.
Defendants	East Jordan Plastics, Inc. — manufacturer of plastic horticultural containers; facility in Beaverton, MI.
Status	Settled via consent decree (3 years) with $460,000 monetary relief and mandated training/reporting/posting.
Overview	East Jordan Plastics, Inc., a horticultural plastics manufacturer, will pay $460,000 and undertake injunctive measures to resolve an EEOC sexual harassment lawsuit involving its Beaverton, Michigan facility. The EEOC alleged a male co-worker subjected multiple women to offensive comments and unwanted touching, and that the company failed to act after at least two complaints. Following a subsequent complaint, the company investigated and terminated the harasser. A three-year consent decree requires anti-harassment training, annual reporting to the EEOC on sex-harassment complaints, and posting of employee rights notices under Title VII. Case: EEOC v. East Jordan Plastics, No. 2:25-cv-12302 (E.D. Mich.).
Why it matters	For expert witnesses, this settlement underscores how federal enforcers evaluate employer responses to harassment complaints, the evidentiary weight of complaint timelines, and the remedial scope of consent decrees. Experts in HR compliance, EEO training, and organizational culture may be pivotal in assessing reasonable employer action, program efficacy, and monitoring/reporting obligations. The decree’s multi-year training and reporting requirements reflect remedies courts and agencies expect when alleged notice and response gaps exist—useful benchmarks for crafting opinions on adequacy of policies, investigations, and governance oversight in EPLI-covered workplaces.
Plaintiff Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Defendant Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Sources	Insurance Journal, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Michigan Lawyers Weekly (https://milawyersweekly.com/news/2025/09/04/mi-manufacturer-to-pay-460k-in-eeoc-sex-harassment-lawsuit/)

Back to Table of Contents

Date	2025-09-12
Geography (Country)	Port Angeles, Washington; Seattle, Washington (United States)
ESG Category	Governance
Plaintiffs	3\|5\|2 Capital GP LLC — Jefferies-affiliated hedge fund alleging First Fed aided a WaterStation-related fraud.
Defendants	First Fed Bank (subsidiary of First Northwest Bancorp) — community bank alleged to have facilitated misuse of WaterStation bond proceeds.
Status	Ongoing: 3\|5\|2 Capital GP’s King County suit filed June 10, 2025 seeks ≈$106.9M; bank disputes allegations. Criminal and SEC cases against Wear/Chirico filed Aug. 14, 2025 continue. Some investor claims against the bank were settled.
Overview	First Northwest Bancorp (parent of First Fed Bank) named veteran banker Curt Queyrouze as CEO effective Sept. 17, 2025, amid ongoing fallout from alleged WaterStation-related fraud. The prior CEO resigned in July after Jefferies-affiliated 3\|5\|2 Capital GP sued First Fed in King County Superior Court for ~$107 million, alleging the bank abetted a scheme tied to Water Station Management. The company denies the claims. Separately, on Aug. 14, 2025, federal prosecutors charged Water Station’s founder Ryan Wear and former Jefferies portfolio manager Jordan Chirico; the SEC filed related civil charges. Some Water Station investor claims against the bank were previously settled without an admission of wrongdoing.
Why it matters	This is a governance and financial-fraud case with implications for ESG risk management. Expert witnesses may be called on to analyze bank due diligence, loan structures, and whether repayment practices or use of bond proceeds evidenced knowledge of fraud. Expect work in forensic accounting, internal controls, disclosure practices, and damages modeling tied to alleged investor losses. For environmental expert witnesses who also advise on ESG or infrastructure finance, the case underscores third-party risk when banks finance “equipment-as-a-service” ventures, and how governance failures can spill into regulatory, securities, and consumer-protection arenas.
Plaintiff Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Defendant Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Sources	American Banker, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. SEC – Wear/Water Station complaint, Reuters

Back to Table of Contents

Date	2025-09-12
Geography (Country)	Montréal, Quebec (Canada)
ESG Category	Governance
Plaintiffs	Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement (CQDE) — Quebec environmental law NGO challenging Bill C-5.
Defendants	Attorney General of Canada — represents the federal government; Attorney General of Quebec (mis en cause).
Status	Filed; application for judicial review/constitutional invalidity pending in Quebec Superior Court.
Overview	Quebec’s Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement (CQDE) filed an application in Quebec Superior Court to strike down Canada’s new “major projects” law (Bill C-5, Building Canada Act). CQDE argues the statute gives cabinet sweeping discretion to designate “projects of national interest,” waive application of federal or provincial environmental laws, and approve projects before full impact information is available—undermining constitutional checks by courts and the public. Government messaging frames the law as a fast-track tool to spur strategic mines, ports, LNG and SMR projects amid trade tensions. A separate First Nations challenge is underway in Ontario.
Why it matters	This challenge targets the legal architecture governing environmental assessment and permitting for Canada’s highest-priority projects. Expert witnesses may be asked to opine on whether cabinet-level fast-track decisions still provide adequate impact analysis, cumulative-effects evaluation, Indigenous consultation and accommodation, and science-based constraints. Opinions on constitutional divisions of powers, the practical effect of “Henry VIII”–style clauses, and whether conditions meaningfully manage air, water, habitat and community risks will be central—especially for ports, mines, LNG expansions and nuclear builds likely to invoke the law’s provisions.
Plaintiff Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Defendant Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Sources	Daily Commercial News, CQDE press release, North Shore News/Canadian Press, Reuters background

Back to Table of Contents

Date	2025-09-08
Geography (Country)	Manatee County / Bradenton, Florida (United States)
ESG Category	Governance
Plaintiffs	Manatee County — Florida county government joining a coalition suit challenging SB 180.
Defendants	State of Florida — state government responsible for SB 180.
Status	County commission approved joining a coalition challenge; complaint described as pending/being filed in early September 2025; no docket number reported yet.
Overview	Manatee County voted 6–1 on Sept. 2 to join a coalition of cities and counties planning to challenge Florida’s new SB 180. The law restricts local governments from adopting more-restrictive land-use and zoning rules or imposing development moratoriums for a year after a hurricane, and it creates a private right to sue local governments that do so. Supporters say the measure speeds post-disaster rebuilding; opponents argue it chills resilience planning and environmental protections (e.g., wetland setbacks). Other localities—including Orange County and the cities of Alachua, Deltona and Stuart—are part of the emerging challenge.
Why it matters	For environmental expert witnesses, SB 180 tests the balance between rapid disaster recovery and science-based land-use controls that protect wetlands, water quality and flood resilience. Future litigation will likely turn on whether post-storm limits on local rulemaking materially increase environmental risk, how “more restrictive” standards are defined, and whether private enforcement against local governments deters needed protections. Experts in coastal resilience, hydrology, wetland science, growth-management planning and administrative/constitutional law may be asked to quantify ecological and public-safety impacts of delayed or barred ordinances, assess cumulative effects, and evaluate alignment with hazard-mitigation best practices.
Plaintiff Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Defendant Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Sources	AMI Sun, FOX 13 Tampa Bay, WUSF, Observer, Florida Senate — Bill Text

Back to Table of Contents

Date	2025-09-11
Geography (Country)	South Charleston, West Virginia; Richmond, Virginia (United States)
ESG Category	Toxic Substances and Human Health
Plaintiffs	Lee Ann Sommerville, individually and on behalf of similarly situated residents near the South Charleston plant.
Defendants	Union Carbide Corporation; Covestro LLC — operators of the South Charleston, WV chemical plant during relevant periods.
Status	Reversed and remanded on August 18, 2025; plaintiff’s medical-monitoring claim proceeds in S.D.W. Va. with expert testimony reinstated.
Overview	Law.com reports on a precedential Fourth Circuit decision reviving a West Virginia ethylene oxide (EtO) medical-monitoring suit against Union Carbide and Covestro. In a 2–1 opinion, the court held that under West Virginia’s Bower framework, a plaintiff’s present need to undergo diagnostic testing due to toxic exposure is a concrete Article III injury—even without manifest disease—and reversed exclusion of the plaintiff’s air-emissions expert, Dr. Ranajit Sahu, sending the case back to the Southern District of West Virginia. The ruling may ease federal-court paths for exposure-only toxic tort claims where state law permits medical monitoring.
Why it matters	Expert witnesses should expect more requests to establish exposure, quantify risk elevations, and define medically necessary monitoring protocols in Fourth Circuit states. The opinion underscores (1) that “exposure + present monitoring need” can satisfy standing for damages; and (2) appellate willingness to scrutinize Daubert gatekeeping that prematurely excludes emissions and dispersion modeling. High-value testimony will include EtO source characterization, dispersion and cumulative-dose modeling, risk/epidemiology analyses tied to Bower’s factors, and defensible monitoring regimens (frequency, tests, costs). This reframes strategic leverage for plaintiffs and defendants in exposure-only cases.
Plaintiff Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Defendant Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Sources	Law.com, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit – Sommerville v. Union Carbide Corp., No. 24-1491 (opinion, Aug. 18, 2025), Courthouse News, Inside EPA, JD Supra

Back to Table of Contents

Date	2025-09-10
Geography (Country)	Sacramento, California (United States)
ESG Category	Toxic Substances and Human Health
Plaintiffs	Karla Elisa Cortez — consumer purchaser of Nature’s Recipe dog food alleging misleading “preservative-free” labeling.
Defendants	Post Holdings Inc. — owner of Nature’s Recipe brand, accused of misleading “no artificial preservatives” labeling.
Status	Filed Aug. 14, 2025; putative class action pending in the Eastern District of California.
Overview	A California consumer filed a putative class action against Post Holdings Inc., alleging the company falsely advertises Nature’s Recipe dog food as having “no artificial preservatives” despite the presence of citric acid. The complaint, filed Aug. 14, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, contends the citric acid used is industrially produced (via Aspergillus niger fermentation) and functions as a preservative, rendering the label misleading under California’s CLRA and UCL. The article identifies plaintiff Karla Elisa Cortez and counsel from Crosner Legal, P.C.; the case is captioned Cortez v. Post Holdings Inc., No. 2:25-at-01067.
Why it matters	Expert witnesses will be central to whether “no artificial preservatives” is deceptive: chemists and food scientists to explain how citric acid is manufactured and whether it acts as a preservative in these formulations; regulatory experts to interpret FDA/AAFCO guidance and GRAS listings; survey experts to assess reasonable consumer understanding; and labeling/compliance specialists to evaluate claim substantiation. Pet nutrition and veterinary toxicology experts may be asked to address any implied health-safety arguments. This case also touches brand governance and ESG transparency in pet food claims, relevant across CPG sectors facing citric-acid litigation.
Plaintiff Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Defendant Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Sources	Top Class Actions, Law360, Law360 Docket, Post Holdings press release (https://www.postholdings.com/post-holdings-completes-acquisition-of-rachael-ray-nutrish-natures-recipe-and-other-select-pet-food-brands-2/)

Back to Table of Contents

Date	2025-09-10
Geography (Country)	Roseland, Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana (United States)
ESG Category	Toxic Substances and Human Health
Plaintiffs	Ronnie Polezcek — Roseland resident and livestock owner alleging property and environmental harm from the Smitty’s Supply incident.
Defendants	Smitty’s Supply, Inc. — manufacturer/blender and distributor of petroleum-based automotive products operating the Roseland facility.
Status	Filed in state court in Tangipahoa Parish (week of Sept. 8, 2025); plaintiffs seek property, livestock, cleanup, and monitoring damages; separate CWA citizen-suit notice served Sept. 5, 2025.
Overview	A Roseland, Louisiana resident, Ronnie Polezcek, sued Smitty’s Supply, Inc. after the Aug. 22 explosion and prolonged fire at the company’s petroleum products facility. The complaint, filed in Tangipahoa Parish state court, alleges negligent maintenance and regulatory noncompliance led to toxic soot and oily residues blanketing property, killing livestock, and contaminating ponds and nearby waterways. EPA reported the fire fully extinguished after more than two weeks of flare-ups; parish officials continue monitoring. The suit cites past federal violations and “Significant Noncompliance” status. A separate notice of intent to sue under the Clean Water Act was issued by an environmental group the prior week.
Why it matters	Expert witnesses will be central to proving causation and scope of harm. Expect needs in source characterization (what burned), fate and transport of petroleum mixtures in stormwater and river systems, ambient air/soot deposition analysis, and toxicology for VOCs/SVOCs, dioxins, and metals. Hydrologists and fisheries/ecosystem experts can assess downstream risks; industrial hygienists can evaluate exposure pathways; forensic engineers can opine on tank/storage integrity and fire dynamics; and damages experts can quantify property loss, livestock impacts, cleanup, and long-term monitoring costs. Clear, defensible sampling plans and QA/QC will be pivotal to withstand Daubert challenges.
Plaintiff Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Defendant Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Sources	Louisiana Illuminator, WBRZ, Singleton Schreiber press release, AP News

Back to Table of Contents

Date	2025-09-10
Geography (Country)	Las Vegas, Nevada (United States)
ESG Category	Toxic Substances and Human Health
Plaintiffs	Lenora Soteros and daughters, on behalf of the late Steven Soteros—alleging liver injury and wrongful death from Real Water consumption.
Defendants	Affinitylifestyles.com, Inc. (majority shareholder) and Real Water—producer/marketer of alkaline bottled water; plus unnamed retailers/distributors.
Status	Filed September 9, 2025; claims pending against manufacturer/majority shareholder and retail distributors.
Overview	The family of Steven Soteros, a Las Vegas retiree who “heavily” drank Real Water for years, filed suit alleging the beverage’s toxic contamination caused his late-stage liver disease and death in June 2024. The complaint names Real Water and majority shareholder Affinitylifestyles.com, plus retailers and distributors. Plaintiffs cite hydrazine contamination, inadequate process controls, and lack of ingredient testing. The article notes at least three prior deaths tied to Real Water and past multibillion-dollar Nevada verdicts ($3B in June 2024; $5B in October 2024). Real Water has ceased operations; the company filed for bankruptcy in 2021.
Why it matters	Expert witnesses may be pivotal on (1) dose and exposure reconstruction from long-term ingestion; (2) hydrazine toxicology and biological plausibility for acute and chronic liver injury; (3) alternative-cause analysis for cirrhosis; (4) bottled-water processing/QA failures and whether standard testing would detect hydrazine; and (5) medical and economic damages. With prior large verdicts and limited insurance/bankruptcy estate, courts will scrutinize causation evidence, chain-of-custody for samples, and reliability of expert methods under Daubert. Manufacturing-process experts and hepatology/toxicology specialists will be central to liability and damages.
Plaintiff Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Defendant Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Sources	Las Vegas Review-Journal, U.S. FDA – Real Water outbreak/cease-operations, Insurance Journal – $5.2B verdict, Courtroom View Network – $5B punitive verdict (https://blog.cvn.com/5-billion-punitive-verdict-awarded-over-alkaline-water-health-drink-contamination-watch-trial-via-cvn)

Back to Table of Contents

Date	2025-09-09
Geography (Country)	Bethpage, Town of Oyster Bay, New York (United States)
ESG Category	Toxic Substances and Human Health
Plaintiffs	Town of Oyster Bay — New York municipal government seeking comprehensive cleanup of Bethpage Community Park.
Defendants	Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation — aerospace & defense company; former operator adjacent to Bethpage Community Park.
Status	Motion to exclude new hexavalent-chromium allegations denied; RCRA §7002(a)(1)(B) and public-nuisance injunctive claims proceeding in E.D.N.Y.; preliminary injunction previously denied; leave granted to plead chromium-related facts.
Overview	A federal judge declined Northrop Grumman’s bid to strike new allegations the Town of Oyster Bay added this summer to its Bethpage Community Park cleanup lawsuit, allowing claims tied to hexavalent chromium to proceed. Town sampling reported chromium VI at 4,290 mg/kg and total chromium at 19,400 mg/kg—well above New York soil cleanup objectives. Earlier orders kept the case alive on RCRA §7002(a)(1)(B) “imminent and substantial endangerment” and public-nuisance injunctive claims, while denying a preliminary injunction and granting leave to plead chromium-related facts. The plume and park cleanup remain under state and federal oversight.
Why it matters	This ruling expands the factual and contaminant scope of a high-profile Long Island cleanup suit, signaling courts’ willingness to consider late-discovered hazards alongside legacy VOC/PCB issues. Expert witnesses should be ready to address chromium speciation and stability, leaching potential to the Magothy aquifer, soil/groundwater pathway modeling, and the adequacy of proposed remedial actions and monitoring. RCRA “imminent and substantial endangerment” standards, DEC soil objectives, and risk communication to affected communities will be central, as will data-quality critiques of town vs. company sampling and the implications for remedy selection and timelines.
Plaintiff Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Defendant Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Sources	Long Island Press, Justia — Opinion & Order, May 19, 2025, Justia — Docket summary, NY DEC fact sheet update (PDF) (https://extapps.dec.ny.gov/data/der/factsheet/grummanupdate0725.pdf)

Back to Table of Contents

Date	2025-09-13
Geography (Country)	Ambaji, Banaskantha; Ahmedabad, Gujarat (India)
ESG Category	Waste Management
Plaintiffs	Amit Manibhai Panchal — public interest petitioner challenging inadequate plastic-waste controls during the Ambaji Padyatra.
Defendants	State of Gujarat — state government; Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) — state environmental regulator; Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation — municipal body; other local authorities.
Status	Ongoing PIL; affidavits from municipal bodies due; next hearing listed for November 21, 2025.
Overview	In a public interest litigation, Amit Manibhai Panchal v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (R/WP (PIL) No. 6 of 2023), the Gujarat High Court reviewed steps taken to curb plastic waste during the Ambaji Padyatra, a major pilgrimage in Banaskantha. The bench lauded initiatives like distributing reusable steel bottles, installing reverse-vending machines along pilgrimage routes, and promoting cloth bags. Data before the court included deployment of 21 vending machines, collection of ~107 tonnes of plastic, and bottle-exchange programs. While appreciating progress, the court stressed that door-to-door collection is insufficient for public places and emphasized stricter “polluter pays” enforcement to deter littering at mass-gathering sites.
Why it matters	For expert witnesses, this PIL spotlights operational and enforcement challenges in event-scale solid-waste management. Courts may seek opinions on designing material recovery facilities (MRFs), reverse-vending logistics, route-side collection, and realistic diversion targets. Evidence needs could include litter mapping, waste composition studies, and performance metrics for incentive programs versus fines under the polluter-pays principle. Experts may also evaluate municipal compliance plans, procurement/contracting for processing capacity, and behavior-change strategies that actually reduce single-use plastics during large festivals—providing templates that other jurisdictions can adapt for pilgrimages, fairs, or stadium events.
Plaintiff Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Defendant Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Sources	The Legal Affair, LiveLaw

Back to Table of Contents

Date	2025-09-12
Geography (Country)	San Francisco, California (United States)
ESG Category	Waste Management
Plaintiffs	Sierra Club, Surfrider Foundation, Heal the Bay, Baykeeper — environmental nonprofits alleging Exxon’s conduct created a plastic-pollution nuisance.
Defendants	Exxon Mobil Corporation — producer of polymers used in single-use plastics, alleged to have promoted misleading narratives about disposal/recycling.
Status	Ongoing. On Sept. 5, 2025, the court denied in part and granted in part Exxon’s motion to dismiss: public-nuisance claims proceed; UCL claim dismissed; anti-SLAPP motion denied. Case No. 3:24-cv-07288-RS.
Overview	A federal judge in the Northern District of California allowed a plastics-deception lawsuit by four nonprofits—Sierra Club, Surfrider Foundation, Heal the Bay, and Baykeeper—against ExxonMobil to proceed on public nuisance claims. Chief Judge Richard Seeborg granted in part and denied in part Exxon’s motion to dismiss, holding the groups plausibly alleged Exxon contributed to single-use plastic pollution by promoting misleading narratives about safe disposal and recycling. The court dismissed a companion Unfair Competition Law claim and denied Exxon’s anti-SLAPP motion. The ruling follows similar allegations raised by California’s attorney general and relies on evidence described in CCI’s reports on plastic recycling and “advanced” recycling.
Why it matters	The decision signals that public-nuisance theories targeting upstream polymer producers can survive early challenges, opening discovery on issues like plastics fate and transport, recyclability at scale, and the effectiveness/impacts of “advanced recycling.” Expert witnesses should anticipate questions on polymer chemistry, waste systems performance, microplastics pathways and health/ecological risks, abatement feasibility, and economic valuation of cleanup. The order’s jurisdiction analysis and anti-SLAPP discussion also preview admissibility battles over industry marketing, causation, and statewide harms—areas where rigorous technical opinions and clear abatement modeling will be pivotal.
Plaintiff Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Defendant Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Sources	Center for Climate Integrity, Order on Motion to Dismiss (PDF), Case page, Complaint (PDF)

Back to Table of Contents

Date	2025-09-10
Geography (Country)	Carteret County, North Carolina (United States)
ESG Category	Waste Management
Plaintiffs	Armistead et al. — four named property owners challenging Carteret County’s solid waste fees and seeking class refunds.
Defendants	Carteret County — local government that administers the challenged solid waste fees.
Status	Argued at the NC Supreme Court on Sept. 10, 2025; decision pending on class certification (underlying claims continue to be litigated).
Overview	North Carolina’s Supreme Court heard arguments on whether a challenge to Carteret County’s solid waste fees should proceed as a class action. The county asks the court to overturn an August 2024 order certifying three plaintiff classes in Armistead v. Carteret County. Two classes involve residents who paid private or municipal trash collection but were still charged county “green box” site and $15 landfill fees; a third alleges the county unlawfully profited from the program. Carteret argues class membership isn’t objectively ascertainable and exemptions exist; plaintiffs say the classes are clearly defined and class treatment is needed to secure refunds for all affected property owners.
Why it matters	Expert witnesses may be tapped to analyze whether county fees reflect cost-of-service versus profit, determine who actually used county drop-off sites, and validate exemption/usage data over multiple years (since 2017). Work could include reconstructing billing and service records, evaluating statutory constraints under N.C. Gen. Stat. §153A-292(b), and modeling equitable refund methods. Solid-waste operations, municipal finance, and rate-design experts can help the court assess alleged overcharges, the practicality of identifying class members, and the environmental/governance implications of funding disposal infrastructure via broad fees.
Plaintiff Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Defendant Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Sources	Carolina Journal, Carolina Journal – preview, Law360 (https://www.law360.com/classaction/articles/2386743/nc-justice-probes-scalia-style-view-of-waste-fee-law)

Back to Table of Contents

Date	2025-09-10
Geography (Country)	San Mateo, California; Berkeley, California (United States)
ESG Category	Waste Management
Plaintiffs	Earth Island Institute — nonprofit environmental organization based in Berkeley, CA, bringing plastics litigation on its own behalf and for sponsored projects.
Defendants	Danone North America — food and beverage company; U.S. subsidiary of Danone S.A.
Status	Settled as between Earth Island Institute and Danone North America; litigation continues against remaining defendants in San Mateo County Superior Court; trial currently set for May 2026.
Overview	Earth Island Institute announced a settlement with Danone North America in its California state-court plastics case first filed in 2020. Under the deal, Danone will support initiatives to reduce plastic waste in California and add an educational statement to its website explaining limits of plastic recycling, including EPA-cited data on PET bottle recycling and fossil fuel origins of most plastics. The broader lawsuit continues against other major consumer-goods companies, with trial currently set for May 2026. Earth Island is represented by Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy; partner Tyson Redenbarger is quoted in the release.
Why it matters	For expert witnesses, this settlement signals increasing pressure on brand owners over lifecycle impacts of plastic packaging and related public-nuisance and consumer-protection theories. Future merits proceedings will likely turn on evidence about recyclability claims, fate and transport of plastic in waterways, efficacy of collection and sorting systems, and comparative LCA of alternative materials. Experts in solid waste systems, marine debris, hydrology, materials science, LCA/GHG accounting, and consumer-perception surveys can expect demand to assess alleged greenwashing, quantify environmental harm, and evaluate feasible mitigation measures and stewardship commitments.
Plaintiff Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Defendant Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Sources	PR Newswire, Earth Island Institute, Packaging Dive, Yahoo Finance, Case background: Earth Island “Taking on Big Plastic” (https://www.earthisland.org/index.php/advocates/suit/taking-on-big-plastic)

Back to Table of Contents

Date	2025-09-13
Geography (Country)	Eloor–Edayar (Kochi), Ernakulam District, Kerala (India)
ESG Category	Water and Hydrogeology
Plaintiffs	Periyar Malineekarana Virudha Samithi & local residents (petitioners seeking remediation and enforcement to abate Periyar/Kuzhikandam Thodu pollution).
Defendants	State of Kerala; Union of India; Kerala State Pollution Control Board; Central Pollution Control Board (and other authorities).
Status	Ongoing writ proceedings in Kerala High Court (WP(C) 996/2012 & connected). On September 13, 2025, the Bench directed feasibility on KEIL option, expedited HIL land transfer for a new ETP, CPCB oversight details, and a PCB affidavit on remediation funds; matter listed for further consideration Monday, September 15, 2025.
Overview	The Kerala High Court (Justices Devan Ramachandran and M.B. Snehalatha) pushed authorities to act on long-running industrial pollution in the Periyar River at the Kuzhikandam Thodu stretch in writ petitions led by Periyar Malineekarana Virudha Samithi (WP(C) 996/2012 & connected). Petitioners urged immediate decontamination via Kerala Enviro Infrastructure Ltd. (KEIL) instead of waiting to build a new effluent treatment plant (ETP). The State, supported by the Pollution Control Board, argued KEIL lacks capacity and pressed for a new ETP on 75 cents of land from the former HIL site. The court ordered feasibility, land-transfer, CPCB oversight, and PCB fund-use affidavits; about 40% of a central Clean Energy Fund tranche reportedly lapsed. Next hearing is Monday.
Why it matters	For expert witnesses, this matter will hinge on comparative feasibility and speed: immediate cleanup by a hazardous-waste operator versus constructing a dedicated ETP. Expect demand for hydrology and fate-and-transport modeling in tidal riverine systems, ETP process design and treatability (multi-pollutant industrial effluents), hazardous-waste handling, and QA/QC for sampling. Financial accountability is front-and-center (polluter-pays funds; alleged lapses of central funding), so cost estimation, scheduling, and independent monitoring capabilities will be critical. Courts will scrutinize implementable action plans, chain-of-custody, and measurable performance metrics tied to public-health protection.
Plaintiff Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Defendant Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Sources	The Legal Affair, LiveLaw, Times of India

Back to Table of Contents

Date	2025-09-12
Geography (Country)	Calistoga, California (United States)
ESG Category	Water and Hydrogeology
Plaintiffs	Napa County District Attorney’s Office (bringing civil environmental enforcement over 2019 leachate spill and related violations)
Defendants	Vista Corporation; Clover Flat Land Fill Inc. — owners/operators of Clover Flat Landfill near Calistoga.
Status	Settled, pending court approval; includes injunctive relief, on-site habitat restoration (~4.24 acres), $2.654M in restoration funding, and $100k civil penalties (rising to $500k if injunction is violated).
Overview	Napa County’s District Attorney announced a civil-enforcement settlement with Vista Corporation and Clover Flat Land Fill Inc., tied to a March 2019 spill of roughly 40,000 gallons of leachate into tributaries of the Napa River. In addition to injunctive terms prohibiting future discharges and stream alterations without authorization, defendants will restore 4.24 acres of habitat (removing an unauthorized road, re-establishing natural channels, and replanting vegetation) at an estimated cost of about $4 million. They will also fund $2.654 million in county restoration projects and pay $100,000 in civil penalties, which could rise to $500,000 for violations. Court approval is pending.
Why it matters	For expert witnesses, this settlement highlights the technical underpinnings of modern water-pollution enforcement: leachate characterization, pathway analysis to receiving waters, and habitat-restoration design that withstands regulatory scrutiny. The package specifies on-site restoration acreage, off-site mitigation funding, and enforceable injunctive terms—areas where hydrogeology, fluvial geomorphology, and restoration ecology expertise drive outcomes. It also signals evidentiary expectations for documenting legacy violations (e.g., streambed road construction) and for monitoring compliance post-settlement, opening opportunities for neutral monitors, cost estimators, and fisheries/water-quality experts to support implementation and potential disputes over performance or adaptive management.
Plaintiff Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Defendant Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Sources	County of Napa — District Attorney, SFGate

Back to Table of Contents

Date	2025-09-12
Geography (Country)	Clovis, New Mexico (United States)
ESG Category	Water and Hydrogeology
Plaintiffs	State of New Mexico (seeking cleanup costs, natural resource damages, and injunctive relief related to PFAS at multiple military facilities)
Defendants	U.S. Department of Defense; U.S. Air Force (installations including Cannon AFB, Holloman AFB, Kirtland AFB, White Sands Missile Range, Fort Wingate)
Status	Ongoing: State of New Mexico is participating in PFAS MDL seeking cleanup costs/NRD across several installations; a separate state suit was filed in June 2025 to order cleanup at Cannon under new state PFAS authority. Sampling access was denied during a mid-July 2025 inspection, per the article.
Overview	A Source New Mexico commentary details how New Mexico regulators were blocked from collecting PFAS samples during a mid-July inspection at Cannon Air Force Base, with base attorneys citing ongoing litigation. The piece traces PFAS contamination across several military facilities, notes a ~6-mile groundwater plume near Cannon, and says the state has spent about $12 million on litigation and additional funds on testing and alternate water supplies. It highlights ongoing multidistrict litigation seeking cleanup costs and natural resource damages at multiple installations, plus a separate state suit filed in June 2025 to compel cleanup under a new law clarifying state PFAS authority.
Why it matters	For expert witnesses, the article signals active and expanding PFAS disputes in New Mexico involving jurisdiction, access for sampling, plume delineation, and public-health exposure. It underscores the evidentiary stakes—denial of state sampling, biomonitoring results showing widespread PFAS detections, and alleged migration into the Ogallala Aquifer. Anticipate demand for experts on fate and transport, hydrogeology, toxicology, dose/response, NRD valuation, and drinking-water treatment (e.g., GAC/IX). The commentary also foreshadows arguments over federal–state authority and “cooperative federalism,” framing how technical opinions will interface with regulatory and sovereign-immunity defenses.
Plaintiff Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Defendant Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Sources	Source New Mexico

Back to Table of Contents

Date	2025-09-11
Geography (Country)	Carlsville, Door County, Wisconsin (United States)
ESG Category	Water and Hydrogeology
Plaintiffs	Door County — county government seeking to abate wastewater violations at Carlton Heights Mobile Home Park.
Defendants	Carlton Heights LLC — owner/operator of Carlton Heights Mobile Home Park in Carlsville.
Status	Filed July 2025; owner has not responded as of September 11, 2025; court-ordered fines of $100/day accruing (≈$7,600 to date) until repair/replacement.
Overview	NBC26 reported raw sewage pooling in yards at the Carlton Heights Mobile Home Park in Carlsville, Door County, Wisconsin. County records show Door County sued the park’s owner, Carlton Heights LLC, in July for violating state wastewater rules. The owner has not responded to the lawsuit. A $100-per-day fine is accruing until the failing septic system is repaired or replaced; as of the report, fines totaled about $7,600. Residents describe strong odors, water shutoffs, and concerns for children’s health. County officials indicated that stronger court action may follow continued noncompliance.
Why it matters	For environmental expert witnesses, this case centers on failing onsite wastewater treatment and associated public-health risks. Testimony may be needed on septic-system capacity and failure modes, pathogen and nutrient pathways to soil and groundwater, exposure and risk to residents (especially children), emergency abatement options, and compliance with Wisconsin sanitary and wastewater regulations. Experts can also inform the court on appropriate interim controls, monitoring plans, and timelines for system replacement—plus cost estimates and enforcement mechanisms that ensure timely remediation.
Plaintiff Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Defendant Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Sources	NBC26, Wisconsin Circuit Court Access – Case No. 2025CX000003, Door County (https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetail.html?caseNo=2025CX000003&countyNo=15&index=0&mode=details)

Back to Table of Contents

Date	2025-09-10
Geography (Country)	Fresno, California; Washington, D.C. (United States)
ESG Category	Water and Hydrogeology
Plaintiffs	City of Fresno; ~20 Friant Water Authority member districts; several San Joaquin Valley growers—CVP Friant Division water users.
Defendants	United States (Bureau of Reclamation/Department of the Interior); San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority (respondent party).
Status	Petition for writ of certiorari filed Sept. 5, 2025; docketed Sept. 9, 2025; U.S. response due under the Court’s briefing schedule.
Overview	Friant Water Authority member districts, the City of Fresno, and several growers filed a petition for writ of certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review losses in their lawsuit over 2014–2015 “zero allocations” of Central Valley Project water. They allege the Bureau of Reclamation breached Friant contracts and effected a Fifth Amendment taking by delivering San Joaquin River water to Exchange Contractors during extreme drought. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed takings claims and later rejected breach-of-contract claims; the Federal Circuit affirmed key rulings in December 2024. The cert petition (docketed Sept. 9) is led by attorneys Nancie Marzulla, Lawrence Ebner, and Alex Peltzer.
Why it matters	If the Court takes the case, it could reset national precedent on how Reclamation balances competing contract rights during drought and whether irrigators/municipalities hold compensable “water property” interests under Reclamation Act §8. Expert witnesses may be asked to interpret CVP contract provisions and immunity clauses, reconstruct 2014 hydrology and operations, model alternative allocations, and quantify economic and reliability impacts to Friant users. Hydrogeologists, river-operations modelers, water-rights historians, and agricultural/water-economics experts will be critical to explain whether San Joaquin River water could be used as “substitute water” and the consequences of zero allocations.
Plaintiff Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Defendant Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Sources	SJV Water, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit – City of Fresno v. United States, Supreme Court docket (extension application)

Back to Table of Contents

Date	2025-09-10
Geography (Country)	Lee Township, Michigan (United States)
ESG Category	Water and Hydrogeology
Plaintiffs	Whispering Pines MHP, LLC; Evergreen Parke, LLC — owner/operator of the Whispering Pines manufactured housing community alleging obstruction of licensing compliance.
Defendants	Dennis Govitz; Elizabeth Govitz — tenants/residents accused of obstructing compliance efforts (allegations denied).
Status	TRO granted Aug. 12, 2025; initial hearing held Sept. 10, 2025; follow-up evidentiary hearing to be scheduled.
Overview	Whispering Pines mobile home community and ownership group Evergreen Parke sued tenants Dennis and Elizabeth Govitz, alleging they obstruct efforts to meet state requirements to renew the park’s operating license in Lee Township, Midland County. At a Sept. 10 initial hearing before Judge Stephen Carras, plaintiffs (Varnum LLP) said they seek to prevent interference with compliance steps (not eviction), including work to meet minimum water-pressure standards. Defense counsel (The Michigan Law Firm) denied obstruction. A TRO issued in August remains; the court will schedule a follow-up evidentiary hearing. Background reports note the park has been unlicensed since March 2023.
Why it matters	For environmental expert witnesses, this dispute centers on infrastructure and regulatory compliance in a manufactured housing community: whether the water distribution system can meet Michigan’s minimum 35 psi standard, whether on-site wastewater and other systems are properly maintained, and how alleged tenant actions affect compliance. Courts may need engineering testimony on distribution hydraulics, sampling/QA protocols, and remedial steps to restore pressure and sanitary conditions; as well as opinions on licensing pathways under LARA/EGLE. Experts in mobile-home park utilities and Michigan rules can help shape workable compliance schedules and interim protections for residents.
Plaintiff Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Defendant Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Sources	Huron Daily Tribune / Michigan’s Thumb, Midland Daily News, Midland Daily News, Mich. Admin. Code R. 325.11105

Back to Table of Contents

Date	2025-09-08
Geography (Country)	Sheridan, Oregon (United States)
ESG Category	Water and Hydrogeology
Plaintiffs	Oregon Department of Environmental Quality — state environmental regulator issuing the civil penalty.
Defendants	Stella-Jones Corporation — wood-products manufacturer/wood treater operating the Sheridan facility.
Status	Administrative enforcement (civil penalty) — 20 days to appeal. Related criminal matter resolved Aug. 25, 2025 via guilty plea to 10 misdemeanor counts (fine $250,000; probation/conditions). EPA reached a separate $98,000 civil settlement in July 2025.
Overview	Oregon DEQ assessed a $1,055,825 civil penalty against Stella-Jones Corp.’s Sheridan wood-treating facility for 23 violations spanning water quality, hazardous waste, and spill response/cleanup. DEQ said $877,225 of the total reflects “economic benefit” the company gained by avoiding compliance. Required actions include upgrading stormwater treatment, added monitoring/reporting, and operational changes; Stella-Jones has 20 days to appeal. Related developments include a $98,000 EPA settlement over spill-prevention/training and an Aug. 25, 2025 Oregon DOJ plea in which Stella-Jones admitted to 10 misdemeanor counts of unlawful water pollution.
Why it matters	This is a high-signal enforcement for expert witnesses working on wood-preserving chemicals (e.g., pentachlorophenol) and stormwater. Expect demand for fate/transport analyses into a drinking-water source, evaluation of stormwater system capacity and failure modes, hazardous-waste classification and disposal compliance, and damages/abatement cost modeling tied to “economic benefit” calculations. Discovery and testimony may also address whether alleged off-site disposal to non-permitted landfills and repeated permit exceedances contributed to human health and ecological risks, as well as the appropriateness of continued operations under enhanced monitoring versus shutdown.
Plaintiff Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Defendant Lawyers	No lawyers listed
Sources	Oregon DEQ, Oregon Capital Chronicle, Oregon DOJ

Back to Table of Contents

Volume 9 | For week ending 13 September 2025

Table of Contents

Aboriginal and Indigenous Rights

Nez Perce Tribe lawsuit to halt Central Idaho gold mine clouds federal approval

Air Pollution and Emissions

“If citizens living in Delhi-NCR are entitled to pollution-free air, why not in the rest of the country?”: CJI Gavai

Environmental groups press on with legal challenges to major fossil fuel handlers on Front Range

A Step Forward in Italian Climate Litigation

Officials file lawsuit against major waste company over alleged harmful operations: ‘We take our enforcement responsibilities seriously’

Ecology and Natural Resources Damage

Dam advocates respond to groups’ bid to lift salmon litigation pause

Coalition sues to block BLM’s Wyoming wild horse roundup

Madras HC orders status quo on tree felling in Tenkasi reserve forest; seeks report from officials

Hundreds of residents sue oil giants after disaster devastates major industry: ‘This is a no-win situation’

Employee DEI

Michigan Manufacturer to Pay $460K to Settle Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

Governance

Wash. bank rocked by scandal chooses new CEO

Quebec environmental lawyers group sues Ottawa over major projects bill

Manatee County joins SB 180 lawsuit

Toxic Substances and Human Health

4th Circuit Ruling on Medical Monitoring Could Increase Toxic Tort Risk

Nature’s Recipe dog food hit with class action lawsuit over preservative-free claim

Farmer files lawsuit against Smitty’s Supply over explosion damages to property, livestock

Family of Las Vegas man files lawsuit in 4th death linked to Real Water

Judge allows new contaminants in Oyster Bay’s allegations against Northrop Grumman

Waste Management

Gujarat High Court Reviews Plastic Waste Management Efforts During Ambaji Padyatra, Stresses Polluter Pays Principle

Plastics deception case against Exxon wins key ruling

NC Supreme Court mulls class-action status for Carteret solid waste fee dispute

Earth Island Institute Reaches Settlement with Danone in Landmark Plastic Pollution Lawsuit

Water and Hydrogeology

Kerala High Court Presses for Urgent Action to Address Pollution in Periyar River at Kuzhikandam Thodu

Napa County District Attorney Settles Civil Lawsuit Against Clover Flat Landfill for 2019 Leachate Spill

Protecting New Mexicans’ water and health requires transparency

‘It stinks’: Sewage problems at Carlsville mobile home park spark county lawsuit

Friant contractors ask U.S. Supreme Court to review water rights case

Initial hearing held in Whispering Pines lawsuit

DEQ issues $1 million civil penalty to wood treater in Yamhill County for water quality and other violations