Team Enterprises, LLC v. Western Investment Real Estate Trust
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15383
9th Cir.2011Background
- Team Enterprises leases a Modesto, California shopping center and operates a dry cleaning store using perchloroethylene (PCE) from 1980–2004.
- Team used Puritan Rescue 800, a filter-and-still device manufactured by Street, to filter and recycle PCE-laden wastewater.
- Wastewater was discharged into an open bucket; some PCE remained dissolved and was recaptured, while the remainder went to sewer and soil contamination occurred.
- California RWQCB deemed the property in need of cleanup; Team performed cleanup expenditures.
- Team sued Street and others in federal court for CERCLA contribution and state-law claims; district court granted Street summary judgment on CERCLA, trespass, and nuisance claims.
- Appellate court reviews whether Street can be liable as an arranger or through control over disposal, and whether nuisance or trespass claims survive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Street is an arranger under CERCLA §9607(a)(3) | Team asserts Street arranged disposal of hazardous substances | Street did not intend to dispose; Rescue 800 not a disposal device | No arranger liability; no intent to dispose established |
| Whether Street exercised control over disposal | Team claims Street had control over disposal process | No actual control; design/manuals do not prove control | No genuine dispute on Street's control over disposal |
| Whether nuisance or trespass claims survive | Team contends Street created/assisted creation of nuisance; trespass due to entry | Rescue 800 not a disposal system; no unauthorized entry; lack of evidence of Street involvement | Nuisance and trespass claims fail; dispositive evidence shows no creation or unauthorized entry |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States, 556 U.S. 599 (2009) (arranger liability requires intent to dispose; knowledge alone insufficient)
- Cal. Dep't of Toxic Substances v. Alco Pac., Inc., 508 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2007) (useful product doctrine; waste vs. useful product distinction)
- United States v. Shell Oil Co., 294 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2002) (control over disposal is crucial to arranger liability; mere ability not enough)
- City of Modesto Redev. Agency v. Superior Court, 119 Cal.App.4th 28 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (affirmative acts or instructions can support nuisance liability)
- Newhall Land & Farming Co. v. Superior Ct., 19 Cal.App.4th 334 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (continuing trespass theory discussed; relevance limited when entry not tortiously placed)
- Payless Cleaners, California Dep't of Toxic Substances Control v., 368 F.Supp.2d 1069 (E.D. Cal. 2005) (instruction manuals do not prove control over disposal)