ASARCO, LLC v. Union Pacific Railroad
765 F.3d 999
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Asarco and Union Pacific participated in historic mining operations at the Coeur d’Alene Site in Idaho; the EPA listed the site on CERCLA’s NPL in 1983 and cleanup has continued for decades.
- In 2008, Union Pacific and Asarco entered a settlement (UP Settlement) resolving UP’s claims and creating a mutual release of “Remaining Sites Costs” (including Coeur d’Alene) arising from UP’s CERCLA efforts.
- Asarco filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2005; the United States also filed claims related to Coeur d’Alene costs, leading to a separate US-CDA settlement in 2009 resolving most remaining claims against Asarco for Coeur d’Alene costs.
- On June 5, 2012, Asarco filed a contribution action under CERCLA § 113(f) seeking to recover a portion of $482 million paid under the US CDA Settlement.
- Asarco’s original complaint defined the Coeur d’Alene Basin broadly, excluding the North Fork drainage; less than two months later, Asarco amended to include the North Fork, expanding the basin definition.
- The district court dismissed the action, holding that the UP Settlement’s mutual release barred Asarco’s claim; the district court did not resolve other defenses, and the case proceeded on Rule 12(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Asarco’s FAC relates back under Rule 15(c)(1)(B) | Asarco argues FAC cleanly relates back due to same conduct and common core of facts. | Union Pacific contends the added allegations fall outside the original pleading’s scope. | Yes, FAC relates back under Rule 15(c)(1)(B). |
| Whether Asarco’s claim is timely under CERCLA § 113(g)(3) | Asarco contends timing aligns with Rule 6(a) anniversary method. | UP maintains calendar-date method or other counting rules apply. | Timely under Rule 6(a) anniversary method; CERCLA § 113(g)(3) does not specify a different method. |
| Whether the UP Settlement’s mutual release unambiguously releases Asarco’s contribution claim | Asarco argues the release is ambiguous and does not unambiguously cover Asarco’s claim. | UP argues the release broadly releases all claims related to Remaining Sites Costs. | Ambiguous; not unambiguously release of Asarco’s Coeur d’Alene contribution claim; remand for interpretation. |
| What is the outcome given the ambiguity? | Reversal of district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is warranted. | Dismissal could be affirmed if release clearly barred claim. | Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with ambiguity ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rural Fire Protection Co. v. Hepp, 366 F.2d 361 (9th Cir.1966) (liberal relation-back interpretation for amended pleadings; common core of facts)
- Percy v. S.F. Gen. Hosp., 841 F.2d 975 (9th Cir.1988) (relation back and liberal amendment policy)
- Martell v. Trilogy Ltd., 872 F.2d 322 (9th Cir.1989) (standard for relation back under Rule 15(c)(1)(B))
- City of Emeryville v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir.2010) (contract interpretation; absence of ambiguity standard on de novo review)
- Scott v. Kuhlmann, 746 F.2d 1377 (9th Cir.1984) (affirmative defenses on Rule 12(b)(6) motion; disputed issues of fact)
- Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243 (9th Cir.2001) (Rule 6(a) timing method not overridden by AEDPA-like language)
- In re Inn Foods, Inc., 383 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir.2004) (Rule 6(a) timing guidance applied to federal statutes)