Litgo New Jersey Inc. v. Commissioner New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
725 F.3d 369
| 3rd Cir. | 2013Background
- Litgo New Jersey, Inc. owns the Litgo Property in Somerville, NJ, historically used for manufacturing and warehousing, with contamination in soil and groundwater traced to past operations and prior contractors.
- Columbia Aircraft (wartime contractor) used the site and degreased parts with TCE, leading to initial contamination; NJDEP oversight and a 1983-1984 Signo/JANR-related spill- and cleanup-event worsened conditions.
- Private party Goldstein acquired the Property in 1985 with a Sales Agreement that shifted ECRA-related cleanup costs (>$100,000) to Sanzari if not disclosed and to Goldstein if costs rose.
- Litgo, Sanzari, and the United States were sued in 2006 for CERCLA, Spill Act, and RCRA claims, seeking cost recovery, contribution, injunctions, and statutory remedies.
- District Court: found PRP liability among Litgo, Sanzari, and United States; allocated CERCLA costs 70% Litgo, 27% Sanzari, 3% United States; allocated Spill Act costs similarly; denied RCRA injunctive relief and prejudgment interest in part; later settlements affected damages and credits.
- This appeal challenges liability classifications, cost allocation, prejudgment interest, and RCRA jurisdiction and remedies; the panel largely affirms but remands on prejudgment interest and RCRA claim against Sanzari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CERCLA PRP liability classification | Litgo argues they were not liable as current operators, and United States should be liable as past owners. | Court correctly classified Litgo as current operator and United States as PRP due to disposal arrangements; past-owner liability not shown. | Litgo affirmed as current operator; United States not liable as past owner; CERCLA liability affirmed overall. |
| CERCLA cost allocation | Litgo contends allocation overly burdens Litgo given lack of direct disposal role. | Court properly weighed Gore factors and conduct; Litgo benefited from cleanup and delayed remediation. | Allocation upheld with Litgo 70%, Sanzari 27%, United States 3% after orphan share considerations. |
| Prejudgment interest under CERCLA | Litgo seeks mandatory prejudgment interest under §107(a). | Interests should be discretionary under §113(f) if settlement/silos apply. | Prejudgment interest awarded to Litgo; remand for calculation of interest amount. |
| RCRA jurisdiction and remedies | RCRA claims should be heard in federal court; state court theory foreclosed. | State courts can hear RCRA claims; entire controversy doctrine may apply. | Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over RCRA claims; remand for RCRA proceedings; but see dissent on concurrent jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States, 556 U.S. 599 (U.S. 2009) (establishes broad PRP liability framework and cost allocation under CERCLA)
- United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1998) (defines operator liability under CERCLA)
- United States v. Atl. Research Corp., 551 U.S. 128 (U.S. 2007) (contribution rights and allocation among PRPs)
- Alcan Aluminum Corp., 964 F.2d 252 (3d Cir. 1992) (distinct CERCLA liability considerations and allocation)
- Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. Donnelly, 494 U.S. 820 (U.S. 1990) (concurrent jurisdiction presumption in federalism context)
- Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (U.S. 1990) (dual sovereignty and state authority to adjudicate federal claims)