Hobart Corp. v. Waste Management of Ohio, Inc.
923 F. Supp. 2d 1086
S.D. Ohio
2013

Background

  • Plaintiffs Hobart Corp., Kelsey-Hayes Co., and NCR Corp. sue PRPs for RI/FS-related costs at the South Dayton Dump/Landfill Site under CERCLA in Case Nos. 3:10-CV-195 and 3:12-CV-213.
  • EPA proposed Site listing on the National Priorities List; the ASAOC was entered in 2006 to govern RI/FS and future costs.
  • ASAOC creates immunity from contribution actions for matters addressed and resolves liability for the Work and Future Costs as of its Effective Date.
  • Prior decisions dismissed several CERCLA claims in Hobart I; discovery disputes and concurrent dispositive motions followed (DP&L, Cargill, Waste Management, Bridgestone).
  • Defendants move for summary judgment on cost-recovery under §107(a) and for dismissal of related claims; Hobart II defendants move to dismiss similar claims.
  • The court concludes ASAOC is an administrative settlement under §113(f)(3)(B), restricting Plaintiffs to contribution claims and barring §107(a) cost recovery; grants summary judgment for DP&L and Cargill and dismisses Hobart II; leaves other motions moot.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether ASAOC constitutes an administrative settlement under §113(f)(3)(B). Plaintiffs contend ASAOC did not fully resolve liability and did not qualify as an administrative settlement. Defendants argue ASAOC expressly resolves liability and qualifies as an administrative settlement under §113(f)(3)(B). ASAOC is an administrative settlement under §113(f)(3)(B).
Whether Plaintiffs may proceed with a §107(a) cost-recovery claim. Plaintiffs maintain §107(a) cost recovery remains viable despite the ASAOC. Defendants assert §107(a) costs are precluded when §113(f)(3)(B) applies due to settlement. Plaintiffs cannot pursue §107(a) cost recovery; §113(f) is exclusive after settlement.
Whether the §113(f) contribution claim is time-barred and/or viable. Plaintiffs previously argued §113(f) claim should be timely. Defendants maintain §113(f) claim was time-barred and/or precluded by ASAOC. Contribu­tion claim deemed viable but previously time-barred; court affirms dismissal on timeliness and ASAOC grounds.
Whether the declaratory judgment claim survives after §107(a) dismissal. Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief concerning CERCLA liabilities. Declaratory relief depends on viable substantive CERCLA claims. Declaratory judgment claim dismissed as no viable §107(a) claim remains.
Whether leave to amend should be granted or denied in light of the ruling on §107(a). Plaintiffs sought to add new parties and theories. Amendment would be futile given §113(f) exclusivity after ASAOC. Leave to amend denied; amendments would be futile.

Key Cases Cited

  • United States v. Atlantic Research Corp., 551 U.S. 128 (U.S. 2007) (two distinct CERCLA remedies; context for cost recovery vs. contribution)
  • IT T Indus., Inc. v. BorgWarner, Inc., 506 F.3d 452 (6th Cir. 2007) (remedy choice depends on circumstances; costs incurred voluntarily vs. settled)
  • Morrison Enters., LLC v. Dravo Corp., 638 F.3d 594 (8th Cir. 2011) (holding that §113 is exclusive where settlement resolves liability)
  • Solutia, Inc. v. McWane, Inc., 672 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2012) (confirms limitations when §113(f)(3)(B) is available)
  • Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Chevron USA, Inc., 596 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2010) (illustrates avoiding §107(a) when §113 provides remedy)
  • Bernstein v. Bankert, 702 F.3d 964 (7th Cir. 2012) (discusses when settlement resolves liability and triggers §113(f)(3)(B))
  • ITT Indus., Inc. v. BorgWarner, Inc., 615 F. Supp. 2d 640 (W.D. Mich. 2009) (remand discussion on administrative settlements; ITT distinguished ITT on remand)
  • Bernstein v. Bankert, 702 F.3d 964 (7th Cir. 2012) (consolidates understanding of settlement-triggered contribution rights)
Read the full case