435 F.Supp.3d 1103
D. Or.2019Background
- Plaintiff: Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation sued multiple defendants in District of Oregon asserting CERCLA response-cost and natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) claims related to Portland Harbor contamination.
- Procedural posture: Magistrate Judge Papak issued Findings & Recommendation (F&R) recommending denial of multiple dismissal motions, dismissal without prejudice of an NRDA assessment-cost-only claim, and entry of a stay while allowing amendment; the district judge adopted the F&R.
- Core pleadings: Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint alleges response costs and NRDA assessment costs but does not assert an NRD (natural resource damage) claim in this iteration.
- Disputed factual threshold: Whether alleged damages occurred inside the Portland Harbor NPL site (affecting statute-of-limitations accrual) remains unresolved because the EPA boundary is not yet finalized.
- Key procedural outcomes: Court denied several motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, lack of standing, and failure to join parties; granted a stay of discovery (preservation excepted), allowed a third amended complaint, and stayed dispositive motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to state a claim (response-costs & NRDA costs) | Allegations sufficiently plead CERCLA response-cost and declaratory NRDA assessment-cost claims. | Complaint is legally insufficient under Iqbal/Twombly. | Court (adopting F&R) held pleadings adequate to survive dismissal for both response-costs and NRDA assessment-costs (but see NRDA costs dismissal without prejudice below). |
| Whether NRDA assessment costs may be recovered alone | Tribe seeks recovery of NRDA assessment costs without asserting NRD damages now. | Defendants: CERCLA does not permit NRDA assessment-cost recovery separate from an NRD claim. | Court agreed with Magistrate that statutory text and regulations do not allow NRDA assessment-cost recovery in isolation; dismissed NRDA-cost-only claim without prejudice. |
| Statute of limitations / timeliness of NRDA cost claims | Tribe argues accrual depends on site boundaries and thus timeliness cannot be resolved now. | Defendants contend alleged harm occurred outside NPL boundaries; claim is time-barred. | Court declined to decide statute-of-limitations issue because EPA has not finalized NPL boundaries; accrual depends on site definition. |
| Failure to join necessary parties / double recovery concern | Tribe may sue on behalf of joint trustees; recovery by one trustee restoring resources will not jeopardize others' interests. | Defendants argue Rule 19 and CERCLA double-recovery bar require joinder of other trustees or dismissal. | Court agreed with Magistrate that joinder not required here; Rule 19 analysis permits recovery by one trustee for the shared interest in restoration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for federal complaints)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (standing requires injury‑in‑fact, traceability, redressability)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (standard of review for magistrate judge F&R objections)
- United States v. Reyna‑Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (scope of de novo review in Ninth Circuit)
- Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Nation v. United States, 616 F. Supp. 2d 1094 (discussed by parties re: NRDA claims)