
Daniel T. McKillop
Partner
201-896-7115 dmckillop@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Daniel T. McKillop
Date: January 27, 2020

Partner
201-896-7115 dmckillop@sh-law.comBefore 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.

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.”
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.
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.
In reaching its decision, the Appellate Division found that the plain reading of the Spill Act authorizes NJDEP to bring a penalty enforcement action. The court explained:
[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.”
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 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.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Case law following the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 offers guidance on how courts are likely to address whether an expert witness’s AI records are subject to discovery. Key Takeaways Rule 26 Expert Discovery After the 2010 Amendments This article addresses the question courts and lawyers have faced in recent cases: […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

“Show how 3M is 0% at fault.” The absurd tale of how a 350-page ChatGPT history for 3M’s expert witness was produced during a deposition is more likely than you think. It’s an inevitable trend, and an unsettled question for federal courts as experts make generative AI part of their workflow. Key Takeaways Expert Witness […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

Screenshots have changed the risks of electronic communications. The screenshot problem is that messages intended for one person or a small group can be copied, forwarded, preserved, and ultimately presented to opposing counsel, regulators, journalists, customers, or a jury. Businesses should recognize that a truly private digital conversation is increasingly unreliable and ensure their policies, […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

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 […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

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. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

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 […]
Author: Sean M. Pena
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
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!