664 F.3d 22
2d Cir.2011Background
- Solvent seeks contribution from DuPont and Olin for CERCLA cleanup costs at Solvent, DuPont, and Olin properties in Niagara Falls, NY.
- Solvent incurred past costs under a New York consent decree; future costs remained at issue.
- The district court found DuPont and Olin liable for past costs but declined to declare future cost liability, remanding allocation.
- Site history involves DuPont’s chlorinated aliphatics, Olin’s chlorinated benzenes (including BHC) and Gill Creek, with transfer of contamination among properties.
- Solvent commenced actions in 1998–2001; consolidated trial occurred in 2007; judgment issued May 2010.
- Second Circuit granted declaratory relief for Solvent regarding liability for future costs, reversing in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §113(g)(2) applies to §113(f) actions | Solvent asserts §113(g)(2) applies to future costs in §113(f) actions. | DuPont and Olin argue §113(g)(2) is limited to §107 actions and does not apply here. | Court need not decide applicability; DJA factors support declaratory relief. |
| Whether a declaratory judgment on future costs is proper under DJA | Solvent contends a declaratory judgment is appropriate to allocate future costs efficiently. | DuPont and Olin contend lack of finalized data and remedies foreclose JD relief on future costs. | Yes; DJA relief appropriate to determine liability for future costs. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying declaratory relief | Solvent argues factors favor declaratory judgment to avoid piecemeal litigation and limit statute-of-limitations issues. | DuPont and Olin contend the district court properly weighed uncertainties and remedies. | No; the court should grant declaratory relief to settle liability for future costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Harrods Ltd., 346 F.3d 357 (2d Cir. 2003) (Declaratory Judgment Act factors govern issuance)
- Boeing Co. v. Cascade Corp., 207 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2000) (detailed consideration of declaratory relief timing and efficiency)
- Goodrich Corp. v. Town of Middlebury, 311 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2002) (proper remedy for future response costs is declaratory judgment, not lump-sum payment)
- GenCorp, Inc. v. Olin Corp., 390 F.3d 433 (6th Cir. 2004) (§113(g)(2) applicability discussed in context of future costs)
- United States v. Davis, 261 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001) (declaratory relief in CERCLA context discussed)
- Tosco Corp. v. Koch Industries, 216 F.3d 886 (10th Cir. 2000) (declaratory judgments in future-cost contexts)