Merrick v. Diageo Americas Supply, Inc.
Decision Date | 02 November 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 14–6198.,14–6198. |
Citation | 805 F.3d 685 |
Parties | Bruce MERRICK, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. DIAGEO AMERICAS SUPPLY, INC., Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
ARGUED:Ryan A. Shores, Hunton & Williams LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. William F. McMurry, William F. McMurry & Associates, Louisville, KY, for Appellees. ON BRIEF:Ryan A. Shores, William L. Wehrum, Andrew D. Knudsen, Hunton & Williams LLP, Washington, D.C., Walfrido J. Martinez, Hunton & Williams LLP, New York, N.Y., John S. Reed, Rebecca A. Naser, Brooks D. Kubik, Megan L. Renwick, Reed Weitkamp Schell & Vice PLLC, Louisville, KY, for Appellant. William F. McMurry, William F. McMurry & Associates, Louisville, KY, Douglas H. Morris, Lea A. Player, Morris & Player PLLC, Louisville, KY, for Appellees. Peter D. Keisler, Quin M. Sorenson, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, D.C., J. Philip Calabrese, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP, Cleveland, OH, Robert L. Brubaker, L. Bradfield Hughes, Eric B. Gallon, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP, Columbus, OH, for Amici Curiae.
Before: SILER, ROGERS, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
This interlocutory appeal concerns whether the federal Clean Air Act preempts common law claims brought against an emitter based on the law of the state in which the emitter operates. The Clean Air Act's text makes clear that the Act does not preempt such claims. This conclusion is further supported by the Act's structure and history, together with relevant Supreme Court precedents.
Diageo Americas Supply, Inc. distills and ages whiskey at its Louisville facilities. The distillation and aging process results in tons of ethanol emissions. Ethanol vapor from the facilities wafts onto nearby real and personal property where the ethanol combines with condensation to propagate whiskey fungus. The whiskey fungus allegedly “creates an unsightly condition [on the property,] requiring abnormal and costly cleaning and maintenance, [and causes] early weathering of surfaces [and] unreasonable and substantial annoyance and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the property.”
Ethanol emissions are regulated under the Clean Air Act. As explained by the Third Circuit in a similar case, the Clean Air Act is:
Bell v. Cheswick Generating Station, 734 F.3d 188, 190–91 (3d Cir.2013), cert. denied sub nom. GenOn Power Midwest, L.P. v. Bell, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2696, 189 L.Ed.2d 739 (2014) (some internal citations omitted).
Diageo's Clean Air Act obligations with respect to the Louisville facilities are set out in the terms of a Federally Enforceable District Origin Operating Permit issued and overseen by the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District. The permit prescribes detailed requirements for data collection, recordkeeping, and reporting. It also expressly incorporates most of the regulations of the air pollution control district, including Regulation 1.09, which provides:
No person shall permit or cause the emission of air pollutants which exceed the requirements of the District regulations or which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public or which cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property.
Finally, the permit sets limits for emissions of various pollutants from the facilities. For purposes of these limits, the permit distinguishes between fugitive and non-fugitive emissions. Fugitive emissions are those emissions that “could not reasonably pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally equivalent opening,” i.e. , emissions that cannot reasonably be channeled through some kind of screening mechanism. 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(20). Non-fugitive emissions, by contrast, are those emissions that can reasonably be channeled through a screening mechanism. For volatile organic compounds, including ethanol, the permit caps non-fugitive emissions at 100 tons per year. The permit does not cap fugitive ethanol emissions, i.e. , those from Diageo's storage warehouses.
The plaintiffs in this case—owners, lessors, and renters of nearby properties affected by whiskey fungus—complained to the air pollution control district about the proliferation of whiskey fungus on their properties. In response, the district undertook an investigation that resulted in the issuance of a Notice of Violation letter to Diageo on September 7, 2012. In the letter, the district stated that, between June 2011 and May 2012, it received 27 complaints from residents living near the facilities of a “black, sooty substance covering ... everything exposed to the outdoors.” The district found that Diageo had violated District Regulation 1.09 because:
Diageo caused and allowed the emission of an air pollutant which crossed its property line causing an injury and nuisance to nearby neighborhoods and the public. Diageo's warehouse emissions present a current and continuing threat to [the] public, endangering the comfort and repose of its neighbors. Diageo's warehouse emissions cause damage to nearby property and have the natural tendency to continue causing damage.
The Notice of Violation letter instructed Diageo to “submit to the District for approval a compliance plan for the abatement and control of emissions from its warehouses that are contributing to a nuisance, in accordance with District Regulation 1.12 by October 5, 2012.” Diageo disputed that its operations at the facilities violated any district regulation, but nevertheless committed to vacating two of its whiskey aging warehouses to eliminate the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Products Co., L.L.C.
...‘[s]tate common law standards ... against preemption’ " (discussing 42 U.S.C. § 7416, and quoting Merrick v. Diageo Ams. Supply, Inc., 805 F.3d 685, 690, 691 (6th Cir. 2015), which cites in turn W. Va. Univ. Hosp., Inc. v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83, 98, 111 S.Ct. 1138, 113 L.Ed.2d 68 (1991) )). Al......
-
Gamboa v. Ford Motor Co.
...91 L.Ed. 1447 (1947) ). "Environmental regulation is a field that the states have traditionally occupied." Merrick v. Diageo Americas Supply, Inc. , 805 F.3d 685, 694 (6th Cir. 2015). The same is true of consumer protection and advertising regulations. See In re Ford Fusion & C–Max Fuel Eco......
-
Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey
...and air pollution control at its source is the primary responsibility of States and local governments.' " Merrick v. Diageo Americas Supply, Inc., 805 F.3d 685, 690 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 7401(a)(3) ). Further, the CAA "contains a separate savings clause entitled 'Retention of......
-
Ammex, Inc. v. Wenk
...so, the Court is mindful that there is a "strong presumption against federal preemption of state law." Merrick v. Diageo Americas Supply, Inc. , 805 F.3d 685, 694 (6th Cir. 2015).1. Ammex argues, "If Congressional regulation is so pervasive that it occupies the field on state taxation of bo......
-
The Supreme Court Opens a Door in ARCO v. Christian, Part Two
...U.S.C. §§136-136y, ELR Stat. FIFRA §§2-35. 15. 564 U.S. 410, 41 ELR 20210 (2011). 16. 42 U.S.C. §§7401-7671q, ELR Stat. CAA §§101-618. 17. 805 F.3d 685, 45 ELR 20209 (6th Cir. 2015). 51 ELR 10334 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 4-2021 Copyright © 2021 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC......
-
LOCATING LIABILITY FOR CLIMATE CHANGE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF RECENT TRENDS IN CLIMATE JURISPRUDENCE.
...332 (6th Cir. 1989). (167) Id. at 343 (quoting Ouellette, 497 U.S. at 492, 497). (168) Tenn. Valley Auth., 615 F.3d at 296, 303. (169) 805 F.3d 685 (6th Cir. 2015). (170) Id. at 686, 692-94. (171) Ouellette, 479 U.S. at 500. At least one commentator argues that this fact mandates preemption......
-
Air Pollution as Public Nuisance: Comparing Modern-Day Greenhouse Gas Abatement with Nineteenth-Century Smoke Abatement.
...public nuisance claim against fossil fuel producers). (69.) See Snowden, supra note 68, at 18; Merrick v. Diageo Americas Supply, Inc., 805 F.3d 685, 686 (6th Cir. 2015)(holding that the CAA did not preempt a state law nuisance claim against a whiskey distillery producing ethanol emissions)......