Randall J Butterfield (Randy)

Randy Butterfield is a counsel in the Atlanta office of King & Spalding where he concentrates his practice on environmental and toxic tort litigation matters.  Mr. Butterfield handles individual, mass joinder, and class action cases, both at the trial and appellate levels in state and federal court.  Representative clients include Honeywell, General Motors, General Electric, Cargill, and Lincoln Electric.  His recent experience includes:

• Serving as lead counsel on behalf of General Motors, DuPont, and BFI Waste Industries in a Superfund cost recovery action brought in federal court against the prior owners and operators of the Crymes Landfill.
  
  
• Defending Columbian Chemicals Company in an ongoing mass joinder action filed by West Virginia plaintiffs who allege that emissions from the company’s carbon black manufacturing plant caused various personal injuries and contaminated their properties. 
  
  
• Representing the City of Atlanta and other local governments in the tri-state “water wars” litigation involving the States of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, including the successful defense of Florida’s claims that the operation of Georgia reservoirs on the Chattahoochee River have harmed endangered species.  See In re: Tri-State Water Rights Litig., No. 3:07-md-1-PAM-JRK, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108931 (M.D. Fla. July 21, 2010). 
  
  
• Representing DSM Chemicals North America, Inc. against claims for direct and vicarious liability related to the contamination of a former fertilizer manufacturing facility.  Following extensive fact and expert discovery, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of DSM on all claims.  See Ashley II of Charleston v. PCS Nitrogen, Inc., No. 2:05-cv-2782-MBS (D.S.C. Aug. 13, 2009). 
  
  
• Defending CERCLA cost recovery action brought against The Flint Group.  After demonstrating that an alternative cleanup standard should have been used in the remediation that would have significantly reduced the cost of cleanup, the property owner agreed to settle the case for 20% of the costs incurred.
  
  
• RepresentingTexaco, Inc. in the appeal of a $27 million jury verdict in a “dram shop” case asserting agency liability based upon the use of brand standards for independent service stations.  In a unanimous decision, the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the jury verdict and rendered judgment in favor of Texaco.  See Jamison v. Morris Texaco Mini Mart, 385 S.C. 215, 684 S.E.2d 168 (2009). 
  
  
• Defending the wastewater discharge permit issued by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division for Plant Washington, a proposed 800 MW $2.4 billion coal-fired power plant for a consortium of EMCs in Georgia. 
  
  
• Representing Honeywell International Inc. in a mixture of class actions and individual lawsuits filed in state and federal courts concerning alleged mercury and PCB contamination from Honeywell’s former chlor-alkali plant.  In these actions, plant neighbors sought compensatory damages and punitive damages for alleged harm to their properties as well as mandatory injunctive relief in the form of remediation beyond that required by regulatory agencies.  The cases were ultimately settled on favorable terms.
  
  
• Representing General Motors in federal court in Indiana against claims brought by neighboring landowners.  Plaintiffs contend that GM’s aluminum casting facility contaminated their properties with PCBs and sought compensatory damages for medical monitoring, emotional distress, and additional remediation.  After the district court granted summary judgment on the majority of plaintiffs’ claims, see Allgood v. General Motors Corp., No. 102CV1077DFHTAB, 2006 WL 2669337 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 18, 2006), the case was settled on favorable terms. 
  
  
• Representing Lincoln Electric Company and more than a dozen other manufacturers, distributors, or sellers of welding products in several Georgia cases brought on behalf of approximately 500 plaintiffs who allege personal injury due to inhalation of manganese particles produced by the welding process.
  
  
• Representing a large automobile manufacturer in investigation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of the unauthorized discharge of certain chemicals from a formerly-owned facility. 
  
  
• Representing the Henry County Water and Sewerage Authority in state administrative appeal and federal court challenge to the Section 401 water quality certification and the Section 404 dredge and fill permit issued to the Authority for construction of a water supply reservoir.  See Georgia River Network v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 334 F. Supp. 2d 1329 (N.D. Ga. 2003).
  
  
• Defending the State of Georgia and the Georgia Department of Transportation in several lawsuits brought by environmental groups related to compliance with the Clean Air Act and transportation conformity requirements, including the successful defense of an action seeking to invalidate the $1.9 billion three-year transportation plan for the Atlanta area.  See Sierra Club v. Atlanta Regional Commission, 171 F. Supp. 2d 1349 (N.D. Ga. 2001).

Publications

• J Kevin Buster & Randy J. Butterfield, Recurring Issues in Environmental Toxic Tort Cases, For the Defense, Mar. 2011, at 39.
  
  
• J Kevin Buster & Randy J. Butterfield, Understanding North Carolina v. Tennessee Valley Authority, Law360, Sept. 19, 2010 (Appellate, Energy, Environmental, and Product Liability newswires).
  
  
• J Kevin Buster & Randy J. Butterfield, Utilizing State and Federal Regulatory Standards in the Toxic-Tort Context, Toxic Torts Lit. Rep., Jan. 2, 2008.
  
  
• Randy J. Butterfield, Note, Recovering Environmental Cleanup Costs Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act:  A Potential Solution to a Persistent Problem, 49 Vand. L. Rev. 689(1997).

Prior to joining the firm in 1999, Mr. Butterfield served for two years as a law clerk to the Honorable Robert L. Echols of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.