Hobart Corp. v. Waste Management of Ohio, Inc.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148224
S.D. Ohio2011Background
- Plaintiffs allege CERCLA cost recovery, contribution, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment claims regarding cleanup costs at the Site (South Dayton Dump/Landfill).
- Defendants include DP & L, Bridgestone, IRG Dayton I, and others; second amended complaint adds migration and direct-disposal theories.
- Plaintiffs settled RI/FS with EPA under Superfund program; settlement entered August 15, 2006.
- Site contaminants identified by EPA; alleged releases/threatened releases caused incurred and future response costs.
- Bridgestone is alleged to be successor to Dayton Tire; DP & L allegedly disposed of wastes directly and via adjacent-property migration; IRG alleged to have adjacent property migration.
- Court analyzes Rule 12(b)(6) standards and CERCLA provisions, focusing on Section 107(a) arranger liability, Section 113(f)(3)(B) contribution, and related state-law unjust enrichment issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether migration claims plead plausible arranger liability | Plaintiffs contend intent is satisfied by disposal/migration facts. | Defendants argue lack of pleaded intent for migration claims and no contract requirement for arranger liability. | Migration claims dismissed for lack of pleaded intent. |
| Whether base CERCLA §107(a) claim against DP&L and Bridgestone is plausible | Base disposal at Site alleges direct disposal of hazardous wastes. | Arguments focus on sufficiency of facts to show disposal and related costs. | Base disposal claims plausibly state a §107(a) claim against Bridgestone and DP&L. |
| Whether IRG's migration claim is plausibly §107(a) arranger liability | IRG adjacent-property migration constitutes disposal arrangement. | No sufficient intent shown; migration not a direct disposal. | IRG migration claim dismissed for lack of plausible intent. |
| Whether CERCLA §113(f)(3)(B) contribution claim is time-barred | Settlement and timing support continuing contribution rights. | 3-year statute of limitations applies from settlement date or administrative order. | §113 claim time-barred; counts dismissed. |
| Whether unjust enrichment claim is precluded or permissible | CERCLA does not preempt state-law unjust enrichment; alternative theories allowed. | Remediation duties and case law preclude unjust enrichment when a legal duty exists. | Unjust enrichment claim dismissed as plaintiffs remediate under a legal duty created by settlement. |
| Whether declaratory judgment claim survives | Request for declaration of CERCLA liabilities and future costs. | Dependent on survival of §107 and §113 claims. | Declaratory judgment survives to the extent §107 claim survives; otherwise dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. v. United States, 556 U.S. 599 (U.S. 2009) (intent required for arranger liability under §107(a)(3))
- United States v. Atlantic Research Corp., 551 U.S. 128 (U.S. 2007) (distinguishes §107(a) cost recovery vs §113 contribution)
- ITT Indus. v. BorgWarner, Inc., 506 F.3d 452 (6th Cir. 2007) (overlap of §107 and §113; clarifies interpretation)
- Kalamazoo River Study Group v. Menasha Corp., 228 F.3d 648 (6th Cir. 2000) (no direct causation required for §107(a); costs need not be caused by specific release)
- Township of Brighton, 153 F.3d 307 (6th Cir. 1998) (statutory causation considerations in §107(a))
- Reg’l Airport Auth. v. LFG, LLC, 460 F.3d 697 (6th Cir. 2006) (elements of §107(a) prima facie case; 'facility', 'release', costs, PRP categories)
- Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Aviall Servs., Inc., 543 U.S. 157 (U.S. 2004) (limits on claims under §113; contribution action requires settlement or action trigger)
- Vine Street, LLC v. Keeling, 460 F. Supp. 2d 728 (E.D. Tex. 2006) (CERCLA §114 precludes double recovery, not initial pleading)
- Ashtabula River Co. Group II v. Conrail, Inc., 549 F. Supp. 2d 981 (N.D. Ohio 2008) (preemption considerations; CERCLA claims vs state-law)
- Chem-Nuclear Sys., Inc. v. Arivec Chems., Inc., 978 F. Supp. 1105 (N.D. Ga. 1997) (unjust enrichment when legal duty to remediate exists)