Trash Haulers v. St. Louis County: The Final Frontier - Showdown in the Missouri Supreme Court

One month from today, May 10^th at 9:00 a.m. in Jefferson City, the seven judges of the Missouri Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the trash haulers case (American Eagle Waste Industries, LLC et al. v. St. Louis County).  The subject case was the first of four lawsuits that were brought against St. Louis County as a result of the county’s controversial trash districting program.  The other three cases have since been disposed of by the courts with the county prevailing in all three cases (Buchanan et al. v. St. Louis County, Grace v. St. Louis County, and Weber et al. v. St. Louis County).  In each of those cases, the courts’ ruled that the county did not violate its charter or any state statutes, and thus was within its legal powers to implement a trash districting program.
 

In May of 2008, American Eagle, Meridian, and Waste Management, filed suit against St. Louis County for its failure to provide a two-year notice prior to the implementation of a trash districting program, as required per Missouri statute.  St. Louis County prevailed at the circuit court level, but the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District reversed the decision of the lower court and held that the county owed damages to the three unsuccessful trash haulers in their bids for a trash district. 

The appellate court remanded the case back to the circuit court to determine the amount of damages.  Circuit Court Judge Barbara Wallace ruled that St. Louis County owed the trash haulers damages totaling roughly $1.16 million, as follows:  $261,086 to American Eagle, $99,224 to Meridian, and $799,593 to Waste Management.  Patricia Redington, St. Louis County Counselor, subsequently challenged the amount of the damages, as well as the circuit and appellate court’s ruling, which resulted in the present appeal to the state’s high court.

After four years of meandering through the state judicial system, the legal question to be decided appears to be whether the county owes the three trash haulers monetary damages and the amount of those damages, if any. 

The plaintiffs, defendant, and amicus briefs are 93, 85, and 24 pages, respectively, which equates to a rather large time of reading material at 202 pages. 

Within a few months after the conclusion of the oral arguments on May 10^th, the Missouri Supreme Court will render its written opinion, which should result in the final chapter of the controversial trash issue in St. Louis County.  Regardless of how the court rules, the county trash districting program will continue to operate as is.  Residents in the eight trash districts will forever be forced to use the county “designated hauler” for each respective trash district, with the sole exception being those subdivisions that wisely “opted-out” of the county program being forever exempt to choose their own hauler(s). 

There is one final important point to note with regard to the 300+ subdivisions that opted out of the county program:  Never opt back into the county program, even if your subdivision chooses to contract with a county designated hauler at some point; the reason being that once a subdivision opts back into the county program, it can never opt-out again.  The county may not advise a subdivision of this little known provision; however, this is one of the many reasons for the existence of this committee and the Subdivision Trustees – St. Louis Metro Area website.    

There will be more on this issue as new developments unfold.  In the interim, check out Subdivision Trustees – St. Louis Metro Area (www.subdivisiontrustees.blogspot.com) for updates on this issue and others of interest to residents in St. Louis County.

Anyone interested in joining the protected e-mail distribution list should send his/her name, e-mail address, and subdivision/area of residence to gregporter@prodigy.net.

Please forward and pass this communication on to other interested parties, especially to those who do not have internet access.

Missouri Supreme Court: Government May Criminalize Truthful, Harmless Information for Helping a Friend Find an Apartment

July 19, 2011 By Dave 2 Comments FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 19, 2011
CONTACT: Dave Roland, (314) 604-6621

Missouri Supreme Court: Government May Criminalize Truthful, Harmless Speech

St. Louis, Missouri—On July 19 the Missouri Supreme Court issued its opinion in Kansas City Premier Apartments v. Missouri Real Estate Commission, in which it upheld a state law that criminalizes the communication of truthful, harmless information. Although at trial the government’s own expert witness had testified that KCPA’s speech was both truthful and unlikely to cause any harm to the public, five of the high court’s seven judges ruled that Missouri citizens may not tell others about real estate unless the government has given them special permission to do so.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects nude dancing, burning the American flag, and images of animals being crushed to death,” said Dave Roland, director of litigation for the Freedom Center of Missouri, the public interest law firm challenging the speech restrictions. “But today the Missouri Supreme Court has ruled that you can be thrown in jail for helping a friend find an apartment.”

The court’s ruling runs contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent emphasis on protecting free expression. As Judge Michael A. Wolff pointed out in his dissenting opinion, less than one month ago the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Vermont law that prohibited the sale of certain commercial information, powerfully reaffirming the constitutional principles that should have applied to the speech restrictions at issue in this case.

Wolff, whose opinion was joined by Chief Justice Teitelman, also highlighted the government’s failure to identify any likely harm that might justify the prohibition of KCPA’s speech: “If the state wants an injunction limited only to the use of false or deceptive information, the state may be able to make the required showing. But the broad prohibition of this injunction violates the First Amendment.”

The Freedom Center’s executive director Jenifer Zeigler Roland said, “The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that where the government seeks to restrict speech, it must show evidence as why that restriction is necessary. In this case the government offered no evidence to justify its criminalization of truthful speech. By failing to protect KCPA’s speech, the majority has left all Missourians at the mercy of overzealous bureaucrats.”

The Freedom Center of Missouri plans to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Founded in 2010, the non-profit, St. Louis-based Freedom Center of Missouri represents individuals statewide fighting to defend free speech rights and the right to earn an honest living in the occupations of their choice. Additional information about the Freedom Center’s mission, cases, and activities can be found online at www.mofreedom.org.

Reader Comments on Supreme Court Trash Suit

This is a simple case and the solution is simple

"Kick all the politicians out of office and vote someone else in.

Install term limits on any elected office -- higher number of years for the office 1 term the lower number of years 2 terms max/.

Get a petition together to put this on a ballot and vote.

People whine and moan and like Congress do nothing but sell a bill of goods.

If you feel your representative at any stage of government is not serving you Kick the Bastard out -- it is that simple.

Reader Comment from: M. Elliott on the Supreme Court decision on the STL County trash suit

Supreme Court Backs STL County on Trash Districts

Last week, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled in favor of St. Louis County in the class-action lawsuit brought by three county residents (Mike Weber, Paul Marquis, and Cathy Armbruster v. St. Louis County) in 2009, who argued that the county’s creation of eight trash districts violated the county charter.

By a vote of 5-2, the state’s court of last resort affirmed the decision of the Missouri Court of Appeals, thus ending any further litigation in one of the four trash lawsuits.

In its majority opinion, written by Judge William Ray Price, Jr., the high court held that:

(1) the county did not violate its charter by establishing the trash district areas,

(2) that the plaintiffs/taxpayers lacked standing (the right to sue) to challenge the two-year notice before replacing the previous trash haulers,

(3) that the county did not violate the state’s merchandising practices, and

(4) that the county’s ordinances were not improper/invalid.

Two of the seven judges dissented. The dissenting opinion was written by Judge Michael Wolff. In the dissenting opinion, Judge Wolff wrote that the county charter requires voter approval of trash districts for which a service charge will be collected and that the county charter does not specify whether the charge must be collected by the county. He also wrote that he would reverse the circuit court’s decision and let the county’s voters decide whether to approve the new trash collection arrangements.

There are still three trash lawsuits pending in the courts. In the first case, (American Eagle et al. v. St. Louis County), the trash haulers won their case against the county requiring a two-year notice before implementing a trash districting program. However, Circuit Judge Barbara Wallace withheld her decision on damages until the high court ruled in the present case. Now that the class-action case is final, it seems plausible that the three trash haulers (American Eagle, Meridian, and Waste Management) will be awarded damages, which could amount to $23 million.

With regard to the “right to vote” case (Buchanan et al. v. St. Louis County), which was the second lawsuit, filed by two residents in 2008, it appears likely that St. Louis County may prevail in that case.

 And, in the “Hancock Amendment” case (Grace v. St. Louis County), which was the third lawsuit, filed in 2009, it seems that the county may also prevail in that case.

However, as the three plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit learned, anything can happen in the courts, especially in the U.S. and states’ Supreme Courts, since the decisions of those courts impact public policy, thus making them political, as well as judicial institutions.

State high court hears claims in lawsuit over trash districts

From the Call Newspapers
EVAN YOUNG
Staff ReporterMay 18, 2011 - JEFFERSON CITY —
http://www.callnewspapers.com/

Supreme Court judges ask attorneys about statute requiring two years' notice

Attorneys for parties in a class-action suit over the county's trash-collection districts argued their case last week before the Missouri Supreme Court.

The judges took the case — the first of several lawsuits over the trash program to reach their courtroom — under submission following roughly 40 minutes of oral arguments May 11.

Three county residents want three waste haulers to refund households all the fees they've collected since they began exclusively serving eight trash districts in unincorporated areas some three years ago.

Plaintiffs Cathy Armbruster of Lemay, Paul Marquis of Fenton and Mike Weber of Oakville in September 2009 sued the county and Allied Waste, IESI and Veolia Environmental Services, which remains a defendant despite pulling its operations out of the St. Louis area last October.

The plaintiffs contend the trash program is illegal and void because the county did not put it to a vote as they say is required by the Charter, and also because it did not provide waste haulers with a state-required minimum two years' written notification before establishing trash districts.

A state appellate court panel in November upheld most of a county circuit court's earlier dismissal of the case. The plaintiffs appealed, and the state Supreme Court in March agreed to hear their case.

"My clients are citizens, are taxpayers, are residents of three different trash districts established by St. Louis County and so they have standing because one, they are subject to the illegal ordinance; they have standing, two, because their tax moneys are being spent on this illegal scheme; and three, they were some of the people who were supposed to vote on this had St. Louis County had actually obeyed their Charter," plaintiffs' attorney Rob Schultz told the seven judges of the state Supreme Court last week.

The plaintiffs cite a section of the county Charter that states the County Council "shall have, by ordinance, the power to ... provide for the creation of districts in the unincorporated areas of the county within which may be provided ... garbage and refuse collection and disposal, and such kindred facilities as the voters therein by a majority of those voting thereon may approve, the same to be paid for from funds raised by special assessment, general taxation or service charge ..."

The county has argued that its Charter provides for the establishment of trash districts without an election, citing sections that state the council can "(c)ollect and dispose of ... garbage and refuse, or license and regulate such collection and disposal," and one that authorizes the council to "(f)urnish or provide within the part of the county outside incorporated cities any service or function of any municipality."

Schultz said while residents don't pay the county directly for trash service, they are required to pay their assigned trash-district hauler or face prosecution. That enforcement of the trash program is funded with taxpayer money, he added.

County Counselor Patricia Redington argued that residents pay their trash hauler for service; the trash districts themselves do not raise funds as described in the Charter section that requires an election, she said.

Redington also contended the state's two-year notice provision was "wholly irrelevant" to the class-action suit.

She asked the high court to correct a precedent set by the Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals in the separate case of three waste haulers that sued the county for it not providing two years' written notification of its forthcoming trash program.

While Redington has contended the 2007 Missouri law requiring a two-year notice doesn't apply because of the county's Charter status, the appellate court ruled in 2008 that statute 260.247 was a "general statute of statewide public policy" and that the county couldn't override it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Read more at: http://callnewspapers.com/

Three of four trash-district lawsuits now pending before state high court

EVAN YOUNG Staff Reporter for Call Newspapers
http://www.callnewspapers.com/

Haulers claiming $23 million in damages; May 31 trial set.

April 27, 2011 - Three of the four lawsuits filed over St. Louis County's trash-district program now are pending in some fashion before the Missouri Supreme Court.

The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals recommended on April 15 that the high court take the case of two residents who've sued the county over the establishment of eight trash districts in unincorporated areas without a vote.

The recommendation came two days after the county asked the state Supreme Court to intervene in a lawsuit filed by three waste haulers over the county's failure to provide a state-required two years' notice before establishing trash districts.

In addition, oral arguments are scheduled next month before the high court in a third case — class-action litigation by three county residents who claim the trash program is illegal.

A panel of state appellate judges in November upheld most of a county circuit court's earlier dismissal of that case.

But the judges sent back to trial court the plaintiffs' claim that the county violated its charter by not letting voters consider the trash-district program.

The plaintiffs successfully appealed the decision to the state Supreme Court, which has scheduled oral arguments for May 11.

Because the right-to-vote issue is identical in both the class-action suit and that of county residents Brett Buchanan and Greg Porter, the high court also should take the latter case, the appellate court recommended.

"This court believes that there is a question of general interest or importance involved regarding whether an election is required before the county can establish trash collection areas," the recommendation states. "Therefore, this court respectfully requests that the Missouri Supreme Court, on its own motion, transfer this appeal from this court to the Missouri Supreme Court."

County Counselor Patricia Redington has cited two sections of the charter — one which states the council can "(c)ollect and dispose of ... garbage and refuse, or license and regulate such collection and disposal," and one that authorizes the council to "(f)urnish or provide within the part of the county outside incorporated cities any service or function of any municipality" — as proof the program didn't have to go on the ballot.

County circuit Judge Barbara Wallace ruled in September that a vote wasn't required.

Two days before the appellate court handed down its recommendation, Redington asked the state Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition against Wallace and the three haulers because the circuit court has "exceeded its jurisdiction" in the case, she said.

Wallace last September ruled that the county breached an implied contract with the haulers when it neglected to give them two years' notice. She ruled in February that the haulers were owed damages based on two years' revenue and the "finite loss" of 40,000 customers.

A May 31 trial tentatively has been set to determine damages, which the haulers claim are more than $23 million.

State Supreme Court to Hear Trash District Case in May

Breaking News:

Class-action lawsuit seeks repayment of fees from haulers.

EVAN YOUNG, CallNewspapers.com
Staff Reporter March 09, 2011 -

The Missouri Supreme Court on Monday docketed oral arguments in a class-action lawsuit over St. Louis County's trash-district program.

Both sides will present their case before the state high court on Wednesday, May 11.

The high court on March 1 sustained the appeal of three residents who sued the county and three waste haulers over the establishment of eight trash districts in unincorporated areas.

Plaintiffs Cathy Armbruster of Lemay, Paul Marquis of Fenton and Mike Weber of Oakville sued the county and Allied Waste, IESI and Veolia Environmental Services in 2009. The county contracted with the three haulers in 2008 to serve the trash districts exclusively.

The plaintiffs contend the county violated a state statute by not providing two years' written notice of its forthcoming trash district program to other waste haulers, and its own charter by not putting the program to a vote.They also believe the trash-district haulers are being unjustly enriched.

Representing residents and other county property owners, the plaintiffs want Allied, IESI and Veolia to repay all the fees they've collected since the program began. The plaintiffs also want the ordinances establishing the districts, and prohibiting unauthorized haulers from providing trash removal within them, declared "illegal and void."

A state appellate court panel in November upheld most of a county circuit court's earlier dismissal of the case. But the judges sent back to trial court the issue of whether the county violated its charter by not letting voters consider the trash-district program.

Of the four lawsuits filed in connection with the county's trash program, this is the first case which the state Supreme Court has agreed to consider. The high court twice declined to hear a lawsuit brought against the county by three waste haulers alleging they did not receive a state-mandated two years' notification before the county established the trash districts.

A county circuit judge has ruled in that case that the haulers — American Eagle Waste Industries, Meridian Waste and Waste Management of Missouri — are entitled to damages, and a trial has been scheduled Tuesday, May 31, to determine an amount.

A May court date also has been set in a lawsuit against the county by unincorporated residents Brett Buchanan and Greg Porter that seeks a vote on the trash-district program.

The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in that case on Wednesday, May 4.

State Supreme Court to hear trash-district program lawsuit

Suit seeking return of fees paid to haulers.
EVAN YOUNG Staff Reporter
Call Newspapers

March 09, 2011 - The state Supreme Court has agreed to hear a lawsuit related to St. Louis County's trash-district program.

The Missouri Supreme Court on March 1 sustained the appeal of three residents who sued the county and three waste haulers over the establishment of eight trash districts in unincorporated areas.

Plaintiffs Cathy Armbruster of Lemay, Paul Marquis of Fenton and Mike Weber of Oakville sued the county and Allied Waste, IESI and Veolia Environmental Services in 2009. The county contracted with the three haulers in 2008 to serve the trash districts exclusively.

In their class-action suit, the plaintiffs contend the county violated a state statute by not providing two years' written notice of its forthcoming trash district program to other waste haulers, and its own charter by not putting the program to a vote. Representing residents and other county property owners, the plaintiffs want Allied, IESI and Veolia to repay all the fees they've collected since the program began. The plaintiffs also want the ordinances establishing the districts, and prohibiting unauthorized haulers from providing trash removal within them, declared "illegal and void."

While Veolia last October pulled its operations out of the St. Louis area and transferred its trash-district contracts to Allied, it still is listed as a defendant in the suit.

Armbruster told the Call she and her co-plaintiffs seek "return of moneys paid to the illegal, monopoly trash haulers."

"We are seeking return of the money that has been taken from us by the threat of prosecution by the county," Armbruster said, referring to the county's mandate that all trash-district households set up service with their designated waste hauler. "All we want is to have our right of self-determination and our right to choose (a hauler). We want our locally owned trash companies back and to keep the money here."

A state appellate court panel in November upheld most of a county circuit court's earlier dismissal of the case. But the judges sent back to trial court the issue of whether the county violated its charter by not letting voters consider the trash-district program.

Of the four lawsuits filed in connection with the county's trash program, this is the first case which the state Supreme Court has agreed to consider. The high court twice declined to hear a lawsuit brought against the county by three waste haulers alleging they did not receive a state-mandated two years' notification before the county established the trash districts.

Attorneys on both sides of the case said last week they are pleased with the state high court's decision to consider it.

County Counselor Patricia Redington said, "We welcome the opportunity to present our case before the Missouri Supreme Court."

"It's exciting," said Lester Stuckmeyer, attorney for Citizens in Opposition to Monopoly Trash Districts. "We're glad the court has decided to take a look at it, and we're hopeful that it will restore all the causes of action and allow us to move forward. Of course, that remains to be seen, but I think it's very interesting that they decided to get involved with it."

Missouri Supreme Court Picks up Trash Lawsuit

BREAKING NEWS . . .

The Missouri Supreme Court pulled one St. Louis County trash lawsuit off the curb yesterday when it agreed to hear the case. The suit, which was dismissed by the trial court, stems from a 2006 ordinance that segmented 100,000 homes in unincorporated St. Louis County into eight trash districts.

More details to follow.

It's Now the Supreme Court - County Appeals Trash Case

http://www.callnewspapers.com/

July 21, 2010 - St. Louis County last week asked the state high court to hear its case against a Concord resident for not having trash service.

Assistant County Counselor Victor Melenbrink filed a motion July 14 to transfer the case against David Skaer to the Missouri Supreme Court.

The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals on June 29 reversed a county circuit court's guilty verdict against Skaer, who was cited last year for not having trash pickup.

Unincorporated residents are required to have an agreement for trash pickup with an assigned waste hauler as part of the county's trash district program.

Skaer has said his household produces only recyclable waste and doesn't need trash pickup.

While the circuit court at Skaer's trial accepted as "common knowledge" that all households produce some amount of non-recyclable waste, the appellate court ruled last month that whether Skaer produced trash was a "key element" in the case against him, and that it was the county's burden to submit evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

The county failed to do so, the appellate court contended.