39 F. Supp. 3d 1051
D. Ariz.2014Background
- RID seeks CERCLA §107 cost recovery for groundwater contamination impacting its wells and property.
- Hazardous VOC contaminants (TCE, PCE, and others) are present; RID did not release them, others' facilities caused releases.
- RID added Reynolds Metals Company (as successor to Alcoa) as a defendant on May 1, 2014.
- Consent Decree (2002) between the State, ADEQ, and Reynolds provides a covenant not to sue and contribution protection for Covered Matters.
- Covered Matters broadly cover Reynolds’ CERCLA/WQARF liability for groundwater actions and contribution claims related to releases.
- RID argues its cost-recovery claims are not barred by the Consent Decree or res judicata; Reynolds contends RID is bound as a State subdivision and that claims are barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is RID bound by the Consent Decree as part of the State? | RID is a political subdivision, but not the State; no language makes it bound. | State includes RID as a subdivision bound by covenant not to sue. | RID not bound; Consent Decree does not extend to RID. |
| Is RID a “person” under the Consent Decree? | RID qualifies as a CERCLA CERCLA 9601(21) "person" and thus enjoys protection. | Even if RID is a person, that does not compel a bar to RID’s specific claims. | RID qualifies as a “person”; proceed to whether claim is a Covered Matter. |
| Are RID’s §107 cost-recovery claims Covered Matters under the Decree? | Consent Decree does not bar non-contribution §107 costs; cites its broad reach. | Consent Decree bars claims sounding in contribution; §107 costs are within Covered Matters. | RID’s cost-recovery claims are not Covered Matters; not barred by the Decree. |
| Does res judicata bar RID’s claims? | RID and State share common interests; privity should bind. | No privity between RID and State; not the same party or sufficiently aligned interests. | Res judicata does not bar RID’s claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Enomoto, 915 F.2d 1383 (9th Cir. 1990) (contract-based interpretation of consent decrees and state actions)
- Gates v. Shinn, 98 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 1996) (contract interpretation within consent decree context)
- United States v. Atlantic Research Corp., 551 U.S. 128 (Supreme Court 2007) (distinct remedies: cost recovery vs. contribution)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Mich. Consol. Gas. Co., 993 F. Supp. 2d 693 (E.D. Mich. 2014) (consent decree protections limited to contribution claims)
- Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2005) (privity concept and non-party binding under prior suits)