Before the close of 2019, the Appellate Division held that NJDEP can enforce the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act (Spill Act) in municipal courts
Before the close of 2019, the Appellate Division held that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) can enforce the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act (Spill Act) in municipal courts. The ruling in New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. Alsol Corporation is significant given that the NJDEP is increasingly seeking to enforce Spill Act penalties in the municipal courts.
New Jersey Spill Act
The Spill Act provides that “any person who has discharged a hazardous substance, or is in any way responsible for any hazardous substance, shall be strictly liable, jointly and severally, without regard to fault, for all cleanup and removal costs no matter by whom incurred.” The statute, N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11f(a)(2)(a), also authorizes a private cause of action by a responsible party for contribution from other responsible parties.
Of particular relevance to the Appellate Division decision, the Spill Act provides that any person who violates a provision of the Spill Act or who fails to pay a civil administrative penalty will be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $50,000 per day for each violation and that “any penalty incurred under this subsection may be recovered with costs in a summary proceeding… in the Superior Court or a municipal court.” The Spill Act further provides that the “Superior Court and the municipal courts shall have jurisdiction to impose a civil penalty for a violation…in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Penalty Enforcement Law of 1999.”
Facts of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. Alsol Corporation
The NJDEP filed a complaint against Alsol Corporation (Alsol) in the Milltown Municipal Court, using the “Special Form of Complaint and Summons” prescribed by the Administrative Director of the Courts, for failure to remediate a property.
When the matter came before the Milltown Municipal Court, Alsol moved to dismiss the summons for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Alsol argued that municipal courts do not have the authority to adjudicate the merits of an enforcement action brought by the DEP involving alleged violations of the Spill Act.
The municipal court judge concluded that N.J.S.A. 58:10- 23.11u(d) only confers municipal courts with jurisdiction to enforce civil penalties “where a finding of liability has already been adjudicated.” The municipal court judge also rejected the DEP’s interpretation of N.J.S.A. 58:10- 23.11u(d) and held that municipal courts’ jurisdiction in matters arising out of the Spill Act are limited to conducting summary proceedings to enforce “a penalty previously imposed by either the administrative law court or the [S]uperior [C]ourt.” The NJDEP appealed to the Law Division, which reversed the municipal court’s decision.
Appellate Division Decision
The Appellate Division affirmed. “We conclude municipal courts have jurisdiction pursuant to N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11u(d) to impose civil penalties under the Spill Act in a summary proceeding conducted pursuant to the Penalty Enforcement Law of 1999, N.J.S.A 2A:58-10 to -12,” the court held.
[A] plain reading of the text in N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11u(d) reveals the Legislature intended to authorize the DEP to bring a penalty enforcement action against “[a]ny person who violates a provision of [N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11], or a court order issued pursuant thereto, or who fails to pay a civil administrative penalty in full or to agree to a schedule of payments.”
The appeals court highlighted that it reached a similar conclusion in a prior decision involving the Solid Waste Management Act. It also noted that the Supreme Court endorsed the NJDEP’s approach in Rule 7:2-1(h) by “making this type of summary action cognizable in the municipal courts using the Special Summons the DEP used here.”
Key Takeaway
Potentially responsible parties under the Spill Act should be aware that DEP may seek to pursue Spill Act penalties in municipal court. Given that the Appellate Division has sanctioned the approach, the agency may opt for this approach with greater frequency.
If you have any questions, please contact us
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Dan McKillop, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-806-3364.
BESS Project Agreements: Allocating Risk Among Developers, EPC Contractors, and Equipment Suppliers
Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]
IP Infringement: What Steps Can You Take If You're Affected?
IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Public Allegations, Unfinished Investigation: What New Jersey Businesses Should Do Next
When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
BESS Interconnection: Managing Grid, Cost, and Schedule Risk
For battery energy storage system (BESS) developers, securing equipment and site control is only part of the development equation. A project must also connect to the electric grid, and increasingly, BESS interconnection is one of the biggest sources of schedule, cost, and contractual risk. Key Takeaways This article is Part 3 of our Battery Storage […]
Navigating Director and Officer Liability in Times of Financial Distress
Director and officer liability increases sharply when a company is in financial distress. Decisions that would draw little attention in a healthy business can later be challenged by creditors, shareholders, bankruptcy trustees, and regulators as breaches of fiduciary duty, fraudulent transfers, or oversight failures. Understanding where that exposure comes from, and how to manage it, […]
Before You Buy: Managing Real Estate and Permitting Risk for BESS Projects in New York and New Jersey
For developers pursuing battery energy storage system (BESS) projects, finding the right property is only the beginning. BESS site selection is as much a legal and transactional exercise as a real estate decision, with risk analysis central to the project’s ultimate success. Key Takeaways The core questions for BESS site selection in New York and […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
