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.

Judge cautioned about awarding damages to trash haulers

Trash haulers' attorney says firms lost 40,000 customers

Evan Young Staff Reporter, Call Newspaper
http://www.callnewspapers.com/Articles-i-2010-12-29-249762.112112-Judge-cautioned-about-awarding-damages-to-trash-haulers.html

December 29, 2010 - A Clayton attorney cautioned a St. Louis County Circuit Court judge last week against expanding the scope of unjust enrichment complaints by awarding actual damages to three trash haulers in their lawsuit against the county.

Attorney Kevin O'Keefe, principal at Curtis, Heinz, Garrett and O'Keefe, told Judge Barbara Wallace that if the court orders the county to pay the trash haulers compensatory damages when they haven't lost any money to the county, it could "promote litigation" against governments across Missouri.

O'Keefe, who is the city attorney for several area municipalities, made his comments during a hearing Dec. 20 in Wallace's courtroom.

American Eagle Waste Industries, Meridian Waste Services and Waste Management of Missouri sued the county in May 2008, contending the county failed to give two years' notice to waste haulers before establishing trash districts in unincorporated areas and awarding contracts for trash pickup.

The haulers did not win contracts in 2008 to serve the trash districts exclusively and are prohibited from offering service to district residents. The contracts were awarded through competitive bidding to Allied Services, IESI and Veolia Environmental Services.

The haulers cite Missouri Statute 260.247, which states in part, "Any city or political subdivision which annexes an area or enters into or expands solid-waste collection services into an area where the collection of solid waste is presently being provided by one or more private entities, for commercial or residential services, shall notify the private entity or entities of its intent to provide solid-waste collection services in the area by certified mail.''

Trash-collection services cannot begin until at least two years after the date of notification, according to the statute, which was modified in 2007 to include the county. The County Council approved legislation in December 2006 calling for the future establishment of trash districts. Eight districts were implemented by Oct. 1, 2008.

After spending nearly two years moving between county, state and federal courts, the haulers' case in March returned to circuit court, where Wallace in September ruled in their favor.

The judge ruled the county breached an implied contract with waste haulers when it neglected to notify them of its forthcoming trash district program. A trial on damages tentatively is scheduled Feb. 24.

The county plans to appeal the case once Wallace decides if the haulers are owed damages. Some estimate the judgment against the county will cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars, though county officials have disputed that claim.

Jane Dueker, the haulers' attorney, contended at last week's hearing her clients are entitled to actual damages, which she said are outlined in the notification statute as "at least equal to the amount the private entity would have received for providing such services" during the two-year period.

The county, Dueker said, must pay the revenue the haulers lost when it took an estimated 40,000 of their customers.

But County Counselor Patricia Redington argued the law doesn't spell out any damages a political subdivision must pay for not providing two years' notification.

"There are no damages implied for going forward with the program," Redington said. Further, because Wallace ruled the county breached an implied contract, the haulers' case is an unjust enrichment case, which calls for restitution and not actual damages, Redington said.

Therefore, the haulers aren't entitled to damages because they didn't pay the county money, she said. Also, the county is not profiting from the trash districts because it does not provide waste collection itself, she said.

O'Keefe said to Wallace,"There is not a single unjust enrichment case in Missouri where the plaintiff did not convey something of value to the defendant. There is no money involved here."

But Dueker said, "They took our customers ... It doesn't have to be monetary." If the court agrees with that argument, O'Keefe replied, "This will promote litigation against governments ... We are evading sovereign immunity and exposing taxpayers." Redington said even though the haulers did not receive "procedural" notice of the forthcoming trash districts, they were fully aware of the program before its implementation because they participated in council meetings when the matter was discussed and submitted bids for trash district contracts.

"Every single plaintiff submitted a bid," Redington told Wallace, noting the lawsuit was filed the day after bids for the trash contracts were opened. "They aren't here because of some moral objection to this program. It's because they were high bidders and they lost."

Dueker disagreed, contending the county as late as 2008 expressed in court that it could decide to abandon its trash program.

"Give me the date and the time we were supposed to know," Dueker said. "The statute requires notice by certified mail so real people and real businesses can adjust ... (The county) decided to take a gamble and ignore the statute, but that didn't work out. Unfortunately, in taking that chance, they took away 40,000 of our customers."

She added, "To say in 2006 we knew they were going to do this in 2008 is complete garbage."

Court decision backs county

 A three-judge panel of the Missouri Court of Appeals on Tuesday sustained most of St. Louis County Circuit Judge Robert Cohen's dismissal of a suit by three opponents of trash collection districts in unincorporated St. Louis County.

The opponents had sued the county and the three haulers who won contracts to collect trash in the districts. The opponents argued the districts were improper because they were special assessment districts set up without following a county charter requirement that voters in such districts authorize them.

The suit also wanted the court to order the haulers to return the money trash district householders had paid to them. The court sent the election issue back to Cohen for further consideration. Cathy Armbruster, one of the plaintiffs, said the plaintiffs want to read the decision and then decide their next move.

St. Louis County Loses Round in Legal Battle Over Trash Hauling; May Cost County Millions

By PAUL HAMPEL Post-Dispatch

Posted: Friday, September 24, 2010 3:23 pm

St. Louis County may have to pay millions of dollars in damages as a result of a judge's ruling in a lawsuit brought by small waste haulers who failed to win contracts when the county set up trash districts in 2008.

St. Louis County Circuit Judge Barbara W. Wallace ruled Thursday that the county violated state law when it failed to give the plaintiffs in the case -- American Eagle Waste Industries, Meridian Waste Services and Waste Management of Missouri -- two years notice before setting up the trash districts.

The trash issue has generated controversy since it was proposed more than two years ago.

The county asserted that it established the districts in response to complaints from residents about multiple trash trucks rumbling through the same neighborhoods.

Through bidding, the county selected a single hauler for each of eight districts, except in subdivisions that opted out of the program.

The county won the first round of the case, in May of 2008, when St. Louis Circuit Court Judge Steven H. Goldman dismissed the suit filed by the three waste haulers.

But in October of that year, a Missouri Appeals Court reversed Goldman and ordered the case remanded to the circuit court. The appeals court ruled that the county must obey a state law requiring two years' notice before establishing the new trash districting program.

A provision of the state law in question calls for compensating businesses that are not given two years' notice, stating that "the amount paid by the city shall be at least equal to the amount the private entity or entities would have received for providing such services during that period."

Wallace scheduled a hearing for Oct. 1 to rule on damages. One of the plaintiffs, Waste Management, had estimated in 2008 that they stood to lose $65 million over two years, including lost revenue, equipment and property.

Veolia wants the St. Louis County Council to let the Allied trash hauling company take over its contracts in three districts.

Cathy Armbruster, one of the leading opponents of the districts, said no company should get the contracts. She hopes many residents would go to Tuesday's county council meeting (9/28) to persuade the council to see the issue her way.

"We want citizens to have the right to chose their own trash hauler," she said.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/political-fix/article_1491918c-c81a-11df-bb9e-00127992bc8b.html

Court Says Voter Approval for Trash Districts Not Required

From The Call Newspapers - EVAN YOUNG
http://www.callnewspapers.com/Articles-i-2010-09-08-247165.112112_Voter_approval_not_needed_for_countys_trash_districts_judge_rules.html

St. Louis County did not have to seek voter approval of its trash district program, a circuit judge ruled last week.

County Circuit Judge Barbara Wallace on Sept. 2 denied a motion for summary judgment by plaintiffs in a lawsuit over whether the county's eight trash districts in unincorporated areas were improperly established because they were not approved by the voters of each district.

South county resident Brett Buchanan, north county resident Greg Porter and trash hauler American Eagle Waste Industries filed the suit in August 2008.

The plaintiffs alleged the county "directly violated the command of its own governing charter by imposing upon its citizens in unincorporated areas a mandatory trash-district program and service charge without an authorizing vote by the citizens in each district, as required by the charter."

They cited 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 ..."

But Wallace ruled last week that the ordinance establishing the trash district program "legally effectuates the County Council's authority to provide, license and regulate trash collection services" as outlined in other sections of the County Charter.

For more information on this controversial law, visit: http://www.callnewspapers.com/Articles-i-2010-09-08-247165.112112_Voter_approval_not_needed_for_countys_trash_districts_judge_rules.html

While St. Louis County may not have to seek voter approval, they have acted indiscriminately in selecting different haulers who charge different rates for county citizens.  In fact, there are tens of thousands of families in St. Louis County who do not even use the county's designated trash haulers at all.

There is nothing stated in the regulation that allows the county to exclude certain residents. Regulations usually apply to all citizens . . . but not in this case.

A comment from a County resident . . .

Just another stake in the heart on this issue. St. Louis County has made mistake after mistake after mistake on this issue.

This has cost taxpayers Millions of dollars and will continue to.  25% of the county don't participate, how discrimintory is that.

Just more Dooley Dazzle that has failed.

Mo Court of Appeals ponders fate of Charlie Dooley’s trash program

Kevin Killeen, KMOX
http://kmox.cbslocal.com/2010/08/18/mo-court-of-appeals-ponders-fate-of-charlie-dooleys-trash-program/


A trash pickup program set up by St. Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley in 2008 is under review by the Missouri Court of Appeals.

The class action lawsuit could affect some 100,000 county residents. Trash haulers could — potentially — be ordered to refund to customers monthly trash fees going back to the plan’s inception, if the appeals court orders a trial, and if the county were to lose the trial.

In arguments heard today, lawyers fought over whether the case should go to trial, or remain dead after a St. Louis County Court dismissed the case.

An attorney for trash customers, Rob Schultz, argued that the county violated its charter when it set up new trash districts without a vote of the people.

“The county charter says you have to have an election before you set up a trash district,” Schultz said.

The county’s top lawyer — County Counselor Patricia Reddington — argued that the appeals court had already established in an earlier case that the county has charter authority to set up trash programs.

“We’ve always said it’s lawful under the charter, and this court has already decided that when the haulers challenged the action,” Reddington said, “This court said that we had the authority to do it under one of the provisions in the charter. That was our argument in this case also, so we’ll see what this court says.”

Schultz says the appeals court “overlooked” a subsection of the charter requiring an election to set up trash districts, when it ruled in favor of the county in the earlier case.

This case is one of four lawsuits challenging the trash districts set up by the administration of County Executive Charlie Dooley. One case filed on behalf of three trash hauling companies who were excluded from the new program alleges that the county failed to give a two-year notice of termination of their contract required by law.

Another suit alleges the trash program is a violation of the state’s Hancock amendment . The remaining suit seeks a vote of the people. No final decisions have been rendered in any of the four cases.

In today’s action, the three-judge panel is expected to take months to make a decision.

Missouri Appeals Court Agrees with Resident on Trash Ordinance.

David Skaer says he and his family do not produce even one scrap of trash, and therefore should be exempt from St. Louis County's trash pickup program. A Missouri appeals court agrees with him, and so far Skaer is the only person to prevail in fighting a ticket for violating the county's trash ordinance.

Skaer, of South County, acting as his own attorney, presented his case to the appeals court in June. Later that month, the court ruled in his favor. But St. Louis County counselor Patricia Redington has problems with the way the three-judge appellate panel conducted the hearing. Last month, she requested a rehearing before the full appellate court. That was rejected Friday; she is now considering an appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court.

In her petition, Redington cited a general mocking tone by the judges, and in particular a comment made by Judge Kenneth Romines.

The judge, during a presentation by assistant county counselor Vic Melenbrink, asked him if the trash plan was not simply intended to reward a political contributor to County Executive Charlie Dooley. Romines said: "You can't compel this man (Skaer) to enter into an agreement with somebody who's one of the county supervisor's contributors. Isn't that what this is about?"

Melenbrink, in an audiotaped account of the hearing, sounded surprised at Romines' comment. Redington, in her request for a rehearing, said: "Bias and bias alone" explains Romines' remark. She called his comment a gratuitous insult and declared: Romines "had no basis for the inflammatory and wrong comment" about waste contracts.

Veolia ES is the hauler in Skaer's trash district. The company has not donated money to Dooley in the current election cycle, which began in January 2009.

Romines declined to comment.

Dooley is a Democrat. Romines was appointed in 1987 to the county circuit bench by Gov. John Ashcroft, a Republican, and to the appellate bench in 2005 by Gov. Matt Blunt, a Republican.

More information available at: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_5676c0c5-9ffe-5961-be7d-f5b4af7573e6.html

Court Rules Against STL County on Trash Issue Suit; 2-Year Notice Required

Breaking News

Sections from the court ruling from Judge Barbara Wallace, August 5, 2010.

Pursuant to section 260.247.2 and .3, prior to expiration of the two-year notice period, the County must use existing haulers and pay them what they would have made had they provided the service directly. It is this legal obligation on the part of the County that gives rise to the implied in law contract.

County contends Plaintiffs' (trash haulers) claim fails as a matter of law becauseit received no benefit from (the haulers) Plaintiffs; however, the Court finds County was in fact benefited in that it fully implementedit s trash collection program without having to pay the existing haulers.

=============================

Haulers Vs. St. Louis County


The Lawyer for three trash haulers asked the court for a Summary Judgment.

On August 05,2010, the Haulers WON on two counts,but still pending before the judge.

A Trial Date is set for January 31, 2011 in St. Louis County Circuit Court.

STL County Takes Trash Case to Missouri Supreme Court

After losing in the Missouri Court of Appeals, a court in which parties to lawsuits are represented by attorneys, St. Louis County has filed an appeal against David Skaer, who represented himself in the case against him for not having the county mandated trash service. The Missouri Supreme Court is the court of last resort in the state judicial system, as well as the county’s last hope for a reversal, provided the court decides to hear the case.

To date, St. Louis County has not fared well with trash cases on appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals. This is second time in two years that the county has lost in this court, the first being the original lawsuit filed against the county by three trash haulers (American Eagle Waste Industries, LLC et al. v. St. Louis County) in 2008. That case has since been rejected by the U.S. District Court and remanded back to the state circuit court.

Meanwhile, St. Louis County continues to issue summonses to residents to appear in municipal court for not having the required trash service or for using a non-designated trash hauler for a particular trash district. The complete news article from the Call Newspapers is printed below for your reference.

There will be future updates on this issue as new developments unfold.

1 County, 3 Haulers, 8 Attorneys; Who Says The County Is Not Spending Money on Trash

BREAKING NEWS

Eight attorney's showed up in court last week all focused on the pending lawsuits filed by residents and trash haulers against St. Louis County. Two of the attorney's represented St. Louis County while three represented the three trash haulers filing suit and three others representing residents. The county continues to protest the court dates with repeated requests for delays or dismissal of which all were rejected by the court.

More information coming.

County Still Hauling Residents into Court for Questionable Trash Violations

The newest of three lawsuits was filed on September 11 in the Circuit Court for St.Louis County and it asks the three trash haulers (IESI, Veolia and Allied),who won the eight county trash districts, to repay county residents their trash fees plus damages. In addition, the suit claims that the trash districts are illegal and that the county charter requires elections when the county sets up special assessment districts, such as the trash districts.  (click on photo to enlarge)

Everyone in St. Louis County who is not a party to the first two lawsuits or a defendant is a plaintiff in this lawsuit, unless they have filed a request for exclusion.

While the three cases are on the docket and awaiting judgment, the county is still hauling residents into court for either not having the county mandated trash service or for not using the county designated trash hauler for area resident's respective trash district. However, in response to numerous complaints from residents and state legislators, the county counselor(Patricia Redington) said that the county will no longer suspend the driver's license privileges of those residents who fail to appear in municipal court for failure to participate in the county's trash program.

County Residents Being Intimidated Under Threat of Arrest and Loss of Drivers License for Unpaid Trash Bills

State Senator, Jim Lembke, says St. Louis County is intimidating county residents with threats of imprisonment and loss of their drivers license for unpaid trash bills. County residents say the regulation is illegal stating they had no voice in the trash selection process. They say St. Louis County has continued to carry out, contract, enforce, prosecute and convict persons under its invalid trash district ordinance.

A third law suit was recently filed as a class action suit to recover money paid to the trash haulers. The three haulers in question are IESI, Veolia and Allied Waste. St. Louis County was also named in the suit.

The County says they do not intend to suspend driving privileges, but this is so stated on documents issued by the court along with the threat of arrest.

The plaintiffs say the defendants conspired and agreed among themselves to have St. Louis County continue to enact, enforce and require obedience to the illegal trash ordinances because the trash ordinances result in millions of dollars per month being paid to defendants - Veolia, IESI and Allied Waste.

WARNING TO BE REVISED

The St. Louis County Municipal Court will soon change the form it sends to people who fail to appear on charges that do not involve traffic, County Counselor Patricia Redington said on Tuesday (10/22). The revised form will remove a warning that the county could take away their drivers license.

"It is a mistake," she said. State law limits the court's ability to seize drivers licenses to traffic cases, he said. Redington said the county municipal court has been using a single form for all cases without complaints.

Plaintiffs say this is not the only mistake.

County Residents Ask For Jury Trial in Pleading Not Guilty to Trash Reg Violation

Some South County residents are being fined for not having the correct trash service. They say it's not right.

Sixty St. Louis County residents appeared in court this past Tuesday for violating the county's trash policy. Many of these residents say they don't need trash service and they refuse to waste their money. Citizens in opposition of monopoly trash districts rallied before the start of court to show support to to homeowners deemed non-compliant. More than 55 individuals showed up to offer support.

Allan Fexer was one of the first ones called before the judge. He pleaded not guilty and asked for a continuance and a jury trial. He was granted a continuance and a jury trial for August 21.

Since he isn't cooperating with the county plan, Fexer's trash bill is now more than $150. Even though Allied Waste has never picked anything up from his home. "The aluminum cans are sold. The newspaper I give to the church the plastic is taken to Wilmore park and cardboard is taken to Wilmor park recycling bins so I have no trash." Allan Fexer - Opposed to Trash Districts

"We do not want to be going to court against people to enforce the law we'd like to coax people into it because the prices are so good." Pat Redington -County Counselor

We're told the Judge will look at every situation on a case by case basis. Those who plead guilty and work out a deal with a designated hauler will have their fines forgiven. Those who plead not guilty will go to trial.

In the meantime, all county residents are paying for the ever-increasing costs of this dispute with no real end in sight. County resident, Mike Roberts commented, "This is crazy taking this question to court rather than making corrections in the regulation. Patricia Redington's take on coaxing people because the prices are so good is ridiculous. If someone is paying for trash at their own business, they should not be forced to pay a second time for a service that is not used. County officials trying to force this down residents throats should be kicked out of office."

County residents who had not received a summons were prohibited from entering the court room to witness the proceedings. One person said she was there to testify in behalf of a neighbor and was "locked out." Many voiced the legality of such action.

(Click on comments below for reader's response)

Coming July 28: St. L County VS County Residents. Trash Battle Heads To Court

A number of county citizens recently received a summons initiated by St. Louis County to appear in Court on Tuesday, July 28 at 7:00 p.m. The hearings will take place in the court of Judge Robert Adler at the St. Louis County offices in Keller Plaza, 4544 Lemay Ferry across from Sams Club at Lemay and Mehl Avenue.

The County's suit is for enforcement of the county's trash program which is currently being contested in court.

Residents in two of the cases scheduled for July 28 say they dump their trash in a dumpster either at work or at an adjoining business. This has been the case for the past 20 years and now, suddently, it's illegal.

A rally in support of county residents being sued is planned for July 28 at the Countys South County Court location just prior to the hearing. Organizers suggest arriving prior to 6:45 p.m.

A state Court of Appeals ruled that the county had to respect the new law’s two-year waiting period. Meanwhile, the county forgot to establish penalties for haulers who sign up customers in the exclusive territories in violation of exclusive contracts.

The result has been confusion. Losing haulers are trying to entice their previous customers back into the fold, while haulers who thought they had exclusive contracts are discovering that they don’t.

Meanwhile, a second lawsuit lurks, this one claiming that setting up garbage districts requires a popular vote. And a possible third lawsuit may be in the making.

This could get awfully expensive for the county. One losing hauler, Waste Management Inc., says it expects to lose $65 million in business over two years as a result of the changes. “We had to park trucks and lay off over 60 employees,” says a spokeswoman. “It could be damages that we’ll ask for.”