
Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- EPA Can Reconsider Rulemaking without Vacatur in Clean Air Act Citizen Suit, Sixth Circuit Holds
- In Rejecting J&J Bankruptcy Petition, Court Reminds that Financial Distress is a Prerequisite to Bankruptcy
- Third Circuit Confirms 27-Year-Old Clean Water Act Consent Decree Still Enforceable
- Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Finds Local Stormwater Charge Constitutes A Tax
- Nuns’ Religious Freedom Lawsuit Against Pipeline Held To Be Impermissible Collateral Attack On FERC Approval
Topics
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- National Priorities List
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- National Contingency Plan
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Strict Liability
- Historic Resources
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- New Mexico
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- Delaware
- National Forest Management Act
- FERC
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- PCBs
- Property Damage
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Innocent Party
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- Effluents
- FOIA
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Texas
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Clean Streams Law
- Hearing Board
- Civil Penalties
- Arranger Liability
- Retroactive
- Sovereign Immunity
- Damages
- Stigma
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Fair Market Value
- Storage Tank
- Indemnification
- Energy
- Electric
- Fifth Circuit
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Inspection
- Residential
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- D.C. Circuit
- HAPs
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Mercury
- Takings
- Condemnation
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Fifth Amendment
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- Interior
- California
- Zoning
- Act 13
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Illinois
- Water
- Diligent Prosecution
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Citizen Suit
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Montana
- Navigability
- Riverbed
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Green House Counsel
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Boiler MACT
- Rulemaking
- CISWI
- Enforcement
- Equity
- Consent Decree
- Laches
- Delay Notice
- EPA
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Second Circuit
- NPDES
- Procedure
- Standing
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Certification
- Contamination
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- CLE
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Decisions of Note
- Cases to Watch
- CERCLA
- Cost Recovery
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Real Estate
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- Odors
- Trespass
- Farming
- Hog Barn
- Administrative Hearing
- ISRA
- Informal Agency Action
- New Jersey
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Railroad
- RCRA
- Waste
- Air
- Cancer
- Speaking Engagements
- Toxic Torts
- Federal Procedure
- Removal
- Third Circuit
- Permits
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Clean Air Act
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Cleanup
- Statute of Repose
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Multi-District Litigation
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Deeds
- Clean Water Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Due Process
- Mineral Rights
- Enforcement Action
- Wetlands
- Royalties
- Drilling
- Exploration
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
In an opinion issued on February 12, 2018 in the case of Cooper Crouse-Hinds LLC et al. v. City of Syracuse et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-01201 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2018), Judge Mae D’Agostino of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York weighed in on the issue of when state court orders for removal and remediation resolve a potentially responsible party's liability to the government under Section 113 of CERCLA, and in this case allowing, for at least the time being, Section 107 claims to proceed where there was no clear guidance from the Second Circuit.
Cooper Crouse-Hinds involves a former landfill in Syracuse that was owned and operated by predecessors of the plaintiffs Cooper Crouse-Hinds (CCH) and Cooper Industries (CI). In the early 1960's the landfill was utilized by the City of Syracuse, and in 1972 a portion of the landfill was transferred to the County of Onodaga. In 1985 the landfill was designated as a hazardous waste disposal site under New York's version of CERCLA.
In 2004, CI entered into a Consent Order with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) for investigation and removal activities, and in 2011, CCH entered into a Consent Order with NYSDEC for remediation of the Site. The 2004 Order did not release CI from liability but, instead, stated that nothing in the Order "shall be construed as barring, diminishing, adjudicating or in any way affecting any of [NYSDEC's] rights." The 2011 Order provided that CCH's liability would be resolved "[u]pon [NYSDEC's] issuance of a Certificate of Completion."
In October of 2016, after investigation, removal and clean-up costs of approximately $12 million had been incurred, CCH filed a complaint against Syracuse and Onodaga to recover at least some of those amounts, which Complaint was later amended to add CI as a Plaintiff. Among other things, the Plaintiffs filed both CERCLA Section 107 and Section 113 claims against the Defendants, who in turn moved to dismiss the 107 claims on the basis that the Consent Orders resolved the Plaintiffs’ liability under CERCLA, leaving them with only contribution claims. Defendants also argued that the CERCLA Section 113 claims for costs incurred under the 2004 Consent Order were time-barred as being brought more than three years after entry of the Consent Orders.[1]
The Court denied the Motion to Dismiss the 107 claims. The Court found that the 2004 Consent Order, which explicitly reserved all of the State’s rights, did not resolve CI’s liability and that the 2011 Consent Order did not necessarily resolve CCH’s liability because the release was contingent upon the issuance of Certificate of Completion by NYSDEC, which had not yet occurred. As to the latter Order, the Court recognized that there was a split in authority on whether such a conditional release triggered a Section 113 claim and if so, when, and thus allowed the claim to go forward only because “[t]he parties did not brief [the] issue,” leaving open the possibility that the claim may later be dismissed.
With respect to CI's 113 claim, the Court held that because CI had not resolved its liability to the government in the 2004 Consent Order, the limitations period for any 113 claim had not yet run. But in coming to that conclusion, the Court also questioned whether CI even had a 113 claim, given the Court's ruling that CI had not resolved its liability to the government in either Consent Order. On that issue, the Court directed the parties to further brief the issue as to why CI’s 113 claim should not be dismissed.
[1] The Parties had entered into a tolling agreement within three years of the issuance of the 2011 Consent Order. The Court also addressed the Defendant's challenges to the viability of the Plaintiffs’ state law claims, which is not the subject of this blog post.