CRS Site RD/RA Group v. Chemical Solvents, Inc.
1:13-cv-01516
N.D. OhioSep 21, 2015Background
- CRS Site RD/RA Group (CRS Group) incurred approximately $5 million (and anticipated more) for response actions at the Chemical Recovery Systems Site in Elyria, Ohio, where solvent reclamation operations (ca. 1960–1980) contaminated soil and groundwater.
- EPA conducted an RI/FS under a 2002 Administrative Order by Consent (AOC RI/FS) and issued a 2007 Record of Decision prescribing remedial actions; a 2010 RD/RA Consent Decree obligated the CRS Group to perform and pay for the remedial design/actions.
- CRS Group sued multiple potentially responsible parties, including Chemical Solvents, Inc. (CSI), seeking contribution under CERCLA § 113(f)(1) for equitable shares of response costs (filed as part of consolidated litigation arising from the 2010 decree).
- CSI moved for summary judgment denying ownership, operation, arranging disposal, or generation of hazardous substances sent to the CRS Site; later conceded some documents could arguably implicate CSI but contends any transaction was minimal (e.g., $157.50) and that evidence is equivocal.
- CSI also argued CRS’s claims are time-barred by CERCLA § 113(g)(3) because the 2002 AOC RI/FS began the three-year limitations period; CRS Group counters that the claims arise from the 2010 RD/RA Consent Decree and thus are timely.
- The court found genuine disputes of material fact about CSI’s liability and unresolved factual questions about which settlement(s) trigger contribution claims and their respective statutes of limitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CSI is liable under CERCLA for disposal of hazardous substances at CRS Site | CSI admitted documents arguably show at least one disposal transaction implicating CSI; liability exists even if small | CSI denies ownership/operation or arranging disposal; claims documents are equivocal and any liability is de minimis | Denied summary judgment; material factual disputes remain about CSI's involvement |
| Whether CRS's contribution claims are time‑barred under CERCLA § 113(g)(3) | Claims arise from the 2010 RD/RA Consent Decree (filed 2013), so within three years and timely | Limitations began with the 2002 AOC RI/FS; claims are barred as more than three years elapsed | Denied summary judgment on limitations; unresolved factual issues about which settlement(s) give rise to claims |
| Whether earlier AOC RI/FS bars later contribution claims from separate consent decree | CRS: multiple, partial settlements can give rise to separate contribution claims tied to different obligations | CSI: earlier AOC triggered contribution protection and limitations | Court agreed multiple settlements can produce separate claims; insufficient record to decide here |
| Whether CSI’s partial admissions eliminate need for trial on liability | CRS: CSI’s admissions and documents warrant partial summary judgment on liability | CSI: admissions limited and factual context (purpose/recipient of transaction) is disputed, requiring trial | Court rejected partial summary judgment for CRS; factual disputes preclude resolution now |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden and framework)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine dispute and materiality standard for summary judgment)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (viewing evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Cox v. Kentucky Dep't of Transp., 53 F.3d 146 (nonmovant must produce evidence creating material factual conflict)
- Hobart Corp. v. Dayton Power & Light Co., 997 F. Supp. 2d 835 (multiple, partial CERCLA settlements may give rise to separate contribution claims)