936 F. Supp. 2d 1197
D. Idaho2013Background
- ASARCO filed a CERCLA §113(f) contribution action against UP in 2012; UP moved to dismiss and ASARCO amended the complaint.
- The FAC expands site geography to include North Fork/Box area within Coeur d’Alene Site; UP challenges relation back.
- The Bankruptcy Settlement between ASARCO and UP includes mutual releases covering Remaining Sites but excludes Future Costs.
- ASARCO argues its FAC claims were not released and relate to CN/Coeur d’Alene Site; UP argues broad mutual releases bar them.
- Bankruptcy Settlement predates CDA Basin Settlement, but CERCLA contribution claims can arise before/after action per §113(f); court considers timing and releases.
- Court grants UP’s motion to dismiss and finds ASARCO’s claims barred by the Bankruptcy Settlement and related releases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations under CERCLA §113(g)(3)(B) | ASARCO timely filed initial complaint | UP argues untimely due to three-year limit | Initial complaint timely under Rule 6(a) |
| Relation back of FAC to original complaint | FAC relates back to original pleading | New claims did not arise from original conduct | FAC relates back; timely overall |
| Effect of Bankruptcy Settlement mutual releases | Settlement did not release ASARCO’s claim | Mutual releases preclude ASARCO’s contribution claim | Bankruptcy Settlement mutual releases bar ASARCO’s claims |
| Existence of ASARCO’s CERCLA §113(f) claim before settlement | Claims existed and are actionable | Claims not allowed due to timing/release | Claim existed; but barred by mutual releases |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading; not merely possible allegations)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (face plausibility standard; conclusory assertions insufficient)
- Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Aviall Servs., Inc., 543 U.S. 157 (2004) (§113(f) timing; contribution claims before/after §106/§107 actions permitted)
- United States v. Atlantic Research Corp., 551 U.S. 128 (2007) (§113(f) permits contribution actions with common liability)
- Williams v. Boeing Co., 517 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2008) (relation back requires common core of operative facts)
- Martell v. Trilogy Ltd., 872 F.2d 322 (9th Cir. 1989) (amended pleadings relate back when same conduct/occurrence)