A recent decision from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania offers insight into cost recovery claims under both the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and Pennsylvania's Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act (“HSCA”).  On March 6, 2026, in Blettner Avenue, LLC v. Central Uniform Services, Inc., the Middle District denied Defendants Rental Uniform Services, Inc. (“Rental Uniform Services”) and Cintas Corporation (“Cintas”)’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff Blettner Avenue, LLC (“Blettner”)’s HSCA claim, shedding light on HSCA’s time limitation provision and the scope of “response costs” under the statute.  On the other hand, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Blettner’s CERCLA claim, finding Blettner failed to comply with National Contingency Plan (“NCP”) requirements.  The decision provides useful insight for practitioners to consider regarding statute of limitation under HSCA, the scope of “response costs” under HSCA and CERCLA, and NCP compliance under CERCLA. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Cleanup, Contamination, Damages, Groundwater, HSCA, National Contingency Plan, Pennsylvania, Remediation, Statute of Limitations, Third Circuit, Water

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed a class action lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson entities and Kenvue, Inc. concerning the presence of per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) in Band-Aid products on grounds of standing. This case, Jo Aronstein, et al. v. Kenvue, Inc. et al., is one of many class action lawsuits that have been filed in recent years concerning PFAS in consumer products and offers some insight into how courts are approaching these suits in various jurisdictions. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Class Actions, Contamination, Drinking Water, New Jersey, PFAS, Pollutants, Standing, Water

A federal district court in Massachusetts recently issued companion decisions addressing the “useful product defense” in the context of biosolids that contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).  In twin orders dated December 30, 2025, the court held that biosolid pellets, or “biopellets”—which are produced from treated wastewater solids and used as fertilizer—are “useful products,” providing a defense to liability under Massachusetts’s analogue to the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Class Actions, Contamination, Drinking Water, Massachusetts, Negligence, Nuisance, PFAS, Pollutants, Water

In a reversal of a decision by the New Jersey District Court, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in In re Congoleum Corporation held 2-1 that the bankruptcy court did not have jurisdiction to reopen an earlier proceeding to interpret findings within a confirmation order, holding interpretation of such orders constitutes a bankruptcy core proceeding.  Chief Judge Chagares also reversed the district court as to the effect of that confirmation order in CERCLA proceedings currently pending before the district court. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Bankruptcy, CERCLA, Cleanup, Contamination, Contribution, Cost Recovery, New Jersey, Potentially Responsible Parties, Superfund, Third Circuit

This month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in Confederated Tribes of the Colville Rsrv. v. Teck Cominco Metals Ltd, No. 24-5565, 2025 WL 2525853 (9th Cir. Sept. 3, 2025) that CERCLA permits recovery of natural resource damages with a cultural use component, effectively reversing the district court’s holding that cultural resource damages are not authorized under CERCLA. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Citizen Suit, Citizens Suit, Contamination, Natural Resource Damages, Ninth Circuit, Pollutants, Tribal Lands, Water, Water Use

A recent decision sheds light on the U.S. government’s cleanup obligations in land sales involving former military sites.  In Hamilton Square, LLC v. United States, No. 20-1285 (Fed. Cl. July 15, 2025), the U.S. Court of Federal Claims allowed a key environmental remediation claim to proceed while dismissing others in a suit alleging the Navy breached its obligation to remediate newly discovered petroleum and chloroform contamination at a property in Novato, California. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Breach of Contract, CERCLA, Cleanup, Contamination, Court of Federal Claims, Oil and Gas, Pollutants, Remediation, Vapor Intrusion

On July 9^th, 2025, the Eastern District of New York ruled on a series of motions in Suffolk County Water Authority v. Dow Chemical Company, a case brought by the Suffolk County Water Authority (“Suffolk”) against chemical manufacturers for the alleged contamination of Suffolk’s groundwater supply with 1,4-dioxane (“dioxane”), a chemical classified by the EPA as a “probable human carcinogen.”  Judge Gershon issued an opinion allowing most of the plaintiff’s common law tort claims to proceed to trial while clarifying the standard for expert admissibility under recently amended Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Causation, Contamination, Drinking Water, Evidence, Expert Witness, Groundwater, Negligence, New York, Nuisance, Pollutants, Strict Liability, Trespass, Water

This post was written by MGKF summer associate Kennedy Reardon

On July 17, 2025, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in ELG Utica Alloys, Inc. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. affirming an order granting summary judgment against ELG Utica Alloys, Inc.’s (“ELG”) in its CERCLA cost recovery suit, on the grounds that the applicable six-year statute of limitations had expired.  The decision is significant because it establishes a rule in the Second Circuit that, for a multi-phase remediation involving a single source of contamination at a single “facility,” the statute of limitations begins to run at the initiation of the first phase of cleanup. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Contamination, Cost Recovery, New York, Remediation, Second Circuit, Superfund

This post was written by MGKF summer associate Ella Souder

In March 2023, the State of New Jersey sued Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) in state court alleging that Dow was responsible for contamination caused by the chemical 1,4-dioxane which was used as an inhibitor in cleaning agents which Dow had sold decades earlier to, among others, the United States Government and military (the “Government”).  Dow removed the case to United States District Court for the District of New Jersey under the federal-officer removal statute, claiming that in producing this chemical it was “acting under” the auspices of the Government.  The District Court remanded the matter back to state court and on June 11, 2025 the Third Circuit affirmed the remand, holding that simply providing a product to the Government, even if the product complied with government specifications, was insufficient to implicate the federal-officer removal statute. See New Jersey v. Dow Chemical Co., 2025 WL 1646963 (3^rd Cir. 2025). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Contamination, Federal Jurisdiction, Federal Procedure, New Jersey, Removal, Third Circuit

On May 1, 2025, the United Stated District Court for the Northern District of California evaluated a settlement agreement between a long-time generator of hazardous substances, an innocent plaintiff, and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”), and found that it met the requirements as a good faith agreement under both the California Code of Civil Procedure and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”).  See Maxim L Properties v. Moyer Products, Ind., 2025 WL 1261419.  The court ruled that a settlement agreement that, among other things, accounts for the “rough approximation” of liability is generally satisfactory in both California and under CERCLA. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Allocation, California, Certification, Cleanup, Consent Decree, Contamination, Contribution, Cost Recovery, Good Faith Settlement, Potentially Responsible Parties, Remediation, Superfund