American Eagle Waste Industries, LLC v. St. Louis County
379 S.W.3d 813
| Mo. | 2012Background
- In 2008 St. Louis County assumed solid waste collection in unincorporated areas, shifting from private haulers American Eagle Waste Indus., Meridian Waste Services, and Waste Management of Missouri.
- SB 54, signed June 2007 and effective Jan 1, 2008, amended Mo. Rev. Stat. §260.247 to apply to cities and political subdivisions and to impose notice and two-year waiting period requirements before replacing existing haulers.
- Ordinance No. 23,023 (Dec 12, 2006) created designated waste collection areas and bidding procedures, including notice provisions and contract terms.
- Haulers were aware of the amended code and attended county meetings; the County advertised bids for new district contracts in 2008.
- County awarded contracts to new haulers beginning July 1, 2008 (District 3) and Sept 29, 2008 (other districts); Haulers sued May 29, 2008 seeking mandamus and declaratory relief.
- Circuit court found County liable on implied-in-law contract theory and awarded $1.2 million in damages, later reversed in part and remanded; court later held damages should be net profit during the two-year waiting period and allowed discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §260.247 applies to the charter county. | Haulers: law of the case requires applying §260.247. | County: charter status exempts it from §260.247. | Section 260.247 applies; law of the case controls. |
| Whether SB 54 violates article III, §23 (single subject, clear title). | SB 54 coherently relates to environmental regulation including solid waste. | SB 54 improperly blends subjects beyond environmental regulation. | SB 54 satisfies single-subject and clear-title requirements. |
| Whether Haulers may recover damages under an implied private right of action. | §260.247 creates rights to notice and two-year period; damages implied. | No private remedy implied; damages not authorized. | Implied private right of action recognized; liability affirmed; damages remanded. |
| What is the proper measure and accrual start for damages under §260.247? | Damages equal the two-year period’s net profits, starting when notice was unequivocally given. | Damages begin when contracts with new haulers were signed and enforcement began. | Damages measured as net profit during two-year waiting period; accrual begins on April 8, 2008 (District 3) and June 10/17, 2008 (other districts); remand for evidentiary calculation. |
| Whether prejudgment interest is appropriate under §408.020. | Interest should be awarded as damages are liquidated/ascertainable. | Damages uncertain; §408.020 not applicable. | Prejudgment interest affirmed on the basis that damages were uncertain; remand for calculation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of review for appellate judgments)
- Weber v. St. Louis County, 342 S.W.3d 318 (Mo. banc 2011) (notice and waiting period in §260.247; state-law policy considerations)
- American Eagle Waste Indus. v. St. Louis Cnty., 272 S.W.3d 336 (Mo.App.2008) (law of the case on §260.247 applicability to County)
- Corvera Abatement Technologies, Inc. v. Air Conservation Comm’n, 973 S.W.2d 851 (Mo. banc 1998) (single title and environmental-control scope of a broad environmental bill)
- Jackson Cty. Sports Complex Auth. v. State, 226 S.W.3d 156 (Mo. banc 2007) (single-subject constitutional interpretation; broad umbrellas allowed)