Hobart Corp. v. Dayton Power & Light Co.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20953
S.D. Ohio2014Background
- Plaintiffs (Hobart, Kelsey-Hayes, NCR) are potentially responsible parties (PRPs) under CERCLA for contamination at the South Dayton Dump and Landfill Site and entered into two separate EPA administrative settlements (2006 ASAOC for RI/FS; 2013 ASAOC for removal/vapor-intrusion work).
- Plaintiffs sued multiple defendants in three related actions (Hobart I, II, III) seeking § 107(a) cost recovery, § 113(f)(3)(B) contribution, declaratory relief, and unjust enrichment for response costs.
- In Hobart I and II the court held § 107 and § 113 remedies are mutually exclusive and dismissed time-barred § 113 claims arising from the 2006 ASAOC; those judgments are on appeal to the Sixth Circuit.
- Plaintiffs filed Hobart III after the 2013 ASAOC, asserting new response costs tied to the 2013 Work (vapor-intrusion/removal), and naming many of the same and additional defendants.
- Defendants moved to dismiss Hobart III on res judicata/collateral-estoppel grounds and for failure to state claims; DP&L separately moved to dismiss a groundwater "migration" owner/operator claim.
- The court ruled that the 2013 ASAOC and associated response costs are distinct from the 2006 ASAOC, so res judicata and collateral estoppel do not bar Hobart III; it dismissed the § 107 cost-recovery claim (Count I) but allowed the § 113 contribution claim (Count II), unjust enrichment limited to costs of identifying PRPs (Count III), and declaratory relief limited to § 113(f) liability (Count IV).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hobart III is barred by res judicata | Hobart contends 2013 ASAOC imposes new obligations and costs distinct from 2006 ASAOC | Defendants say same operative facts and prior final judgment bar relitigation | Res judicata rejected: 2013 ASAOC creates separate obligations and costs, so claims are not precluded |
| Whether collateral estoppel bars Hobart III | Hobart: the precise issues were not litigated before because 2013 obligations did not exist earlier | Defendants: prior rulings on liability/time-bar should preclude relitigation | Collateral estoppel rejected: issues in Hobart III were not actually litigated or necessary to prior judgments |
| Viability of § 107(a) cost-recovery claims after 2013 ASAOC | Hobart: § 107(a) independent claim survives for costs such as identifying PRPs per Key Tronic | Defendants: entering 2013 ASAOC makes exclusive remedy § 113(f); PRP-identification costs belong in contribution claim | § 107(a) dismissed: plaintiffs’ remedy is § 113(f); PRP-identification costs are recoverable under § 113(f) (so no separate § 107 claim) |
| Unjust enrichment and declaratory relief | Hobart: alternative recovery for costs not legally required (e.g., PRP identification); seeks declaration of future liability | Defendants: plaintiffs had legal obligations under ASAOC so unjust enrichment fails; declaratory relief dependent on substantive claims | Unjust enrichment sustained only as to costs of identifying PRPs (not ASAOC-mandated costs); declaratory relief sustained only concerning § 113(f) liability; other portions dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (standard for plausibility in pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards require factual support for legal conclusions)
- Key Tronic Corp. v. United States, 511 U.S. 809 (costs of identifying PRPs can be "necessary costs of response")
- RSR Corp. v. Commercial Metals Co., 496 F.3d 552 (6th Cir.) (statute of limitations for contribution claims measured by particular settlement)
- Kalamazoo River Study Group v. Menasha Corp., 228 F.3d 648 (6th Cir.) (elements of § 107 liability and relation to § 113 contribution)
- Village of Milford v. K-H Holding Corp., 390 F.3d 926 (6th Cir.) (requirements for PRP-identification costs to qualify as necessary response costs)
- Hobart Corp. v. Waste Mgmt. of Ohio, Inc., 840 F. Supp. 2d 1013 (S.D. Ohio) (prior dismissal ruling on parts of § 107 and unjust enrichment)
- Hobart Corp. v. Waste Mgmt. of Ohio, Inc., 923 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (S.D. Ohio) (held § 107 and § 113 mutually exclusive and dismissed time-barred § 113 claims)