Ameripride Services Inc. v. Texas Eastern Overseas Inc.
782 F.3d 474
9th Cir.2015Background
- CERCLA action where AmeriPride seeks to recover response costs from TEO; AmeriPride settled with Chromalloy and Petrolane for $3.25 million; Cal-Am and Huhtamaki sue AmeriPride and are settled for $2M and $8.25M respectively; AmeriPride merged VIS which released PCE contamination affecting Huhtamaki wells and Cal-Am wells; contamination at Sacramento site is ongoing with state oversight; district court adopted UCFA as federal common law for settlements and allocated costs accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| How should settlements credit nonsettling parties under CERCLA §9613(f)? | TEO urges UCFA proportionate share. | AmeriPride argues district court may choose equitable method. | Court allows district court discretion; remands for methodology and consistent application. |
| Whether settlements with Huhtamaki/Cal-Am were for necessary costs and how prejudgment interest should accrue | AmeriPride contends settlements reimbursed necessary NCP costs; interest per §9607(a) governs. | TEO argues need for clear NCP-based allocation and statutory interest accrual. | District court must determine extent of reimbursement for necessary costs and apply statutory interest accrual rules on remand. |
| Whether district court could assign TEO's insurer claims to AmeriPride under California law | AmeriPride sought assignment of insurer claims. | TEO contends assignment under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §708.510. | Court erred; assignment of causes of action not permitted; remand. |
| Whether district court abused discretion by not explaining allocation factors and applying UCFA/UCATA methods | AmeriPride asserts equitable factors justify allocation. | TEO argues UCFA/UCATA framework should govern allocations. | Remand to articulate factors and ensure allocation complies with §9613(f)(1). |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Atl. Research Corp., 551 U.S. 128 (U.S. 2007) (supports proportionate fault/contribution framework)
- Capuano, 381 F.3d 6 (First Cir. 2004) (supports federal common law discretion under §9613(f)(1))
- In re Exxon Valdez, 229 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 2000) (endorses UCFA proportionate share approach in context of private settlements)
- McDermott v. AmClyde Shipyard, 511 U.S. 797? (note: actual cites: 511 U.S. 202) (U.S. 1994) (endorses UCFA proportionate share in admiralty context)
- Franklin v. Kaypro Corp., 884 F.2d 1222 (9th Cir. 1989) (advocates proportionate share under §77k(f) where applicable)