Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
681 F.3d 503
3rd Cir.2012Background
- Lockheed sues Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and DCNR, with PADEP as plaintiff in CERCLA action seeking recovery of decommissioning costs over $20 million.
- Lockheed previously had a counterclaim against PADEP and a third-party complaint against Commonwealth, DCNR, and United States for contribution under CERCLA and state law.
- District Court dismissed Lockheed’s third-party complaint against Commonwealth and DCNR based on Eleventh Amendment immunity; PADEP’s CERCLA suit remained active against Lockheed.
- Lockheed contends immunity should not bar its recoupment/contribution defenses because other Commonwealth entities allegedly caused or contributed to the contamination.
- During proceedings, Commonwealth and Lockheed acknowledged potential liability could be offset by actions of other Pennsylvania entities; Commonwealth conceded Lockheed could recover contribution from Commonwealth/DCNR if liable under CERCLA.
- This concession mooted the immunity issue; the court vacated the dismissal and remanded to dismiss the third-party complaint against Commonwealth and DCNR.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the immunity mootness doctrine ends the appeal | Lockheed | Commonwealth | Appeal mooted; dismiss third-party complaints |
| Is there live controversy over Eleventh Amendment immunity | Lockheed | Commonwealth | No live controversy; concession moots immunity |
| Whether the third-party complaint against Commonwealth/DCNR was properly dismissed | Lockheed | Commonwealth | Remand with instructions to dismiss third-party complaint |
| Whether Lockheed can offset/recoup from Commonwealth entities for CERCLA costs | Lockheed | Commonwealth | Concession shows recoupment possible; offsets permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Weiss v. Regal Collections, 385 F.3d 337 (3d Cir. 2004) (mootness principles and completion of relief moots claims)
- Rand v. Monsanto Co., 926 F.2d 596 (7th Cir. 1991) (complete relief moots ongoing suits)
- Rendell v. Rumsfeld, 484 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 2007) (standard MOOTNESS remand guidance)
- United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950) (vacate judgment and remand when case becomes moot)
- In re Surrick, 338 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2003) (test for mootness in appeals)
- Donovan ex rel. Donovan v. Punxsutawney Area Sch. Bd., 336 F.3d 211 (3d Cir. 2003) (mootness and live controversy requirements)
- Rogin v. Bensalem Twp., 616 F.2d 680 (3d Cir. 1980) (jurisdictional considerations on mootness)