Trinity Industries, Inc. v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co.
735 F.3d 131
| 3rd Cir. | 2013Background
- South Plant in Greenville, PA; Trinity owned, then remediated site and entered Consent Order under HSCA/LRA; CB&I allegedly contaminated site through prior manufacturing activities; Trinity sued CB&I under CERCLA, RCRA, and state law for contribution and injunctive relief; District Court granted CB&I summary judgment on federal claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims; Trinity appeals; CERCLA and RCRA issues are addressed on first impression grounds; Pennsylvania remediation standards linked to CERCLA via LRA
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §113(f)(3)(B) requires CERCLA liability resolution for contribution | Trinity: settlement of state-law liability suffices | CB&I: settlement must resolve CERCLA liability | §113(f)(3)(B) does not require CERCLA-specific resolution |
| Whether injunctive relief under RCRA §7002(a)(1)(B) is available when remediation has begun | Trinity seeks mandatory injunction for continued cleanup | CB&I: existing Consent Order makes injunction unnecessary | Injunction denied; remediation ongoing suffices under current record |
| Whether district court abused its discretion by declining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims | State-law claims should be heard in federal court if federal claims resolved | Court can decline supplemental jurisdiction after federal claims resolved | Remand of jurisdiction issue; district court to reconsider supplemental jurisdiction on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc. v. UGI Utils., Inc., 423 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2005) (CERCLA §113(f)(3)(B) interpretation and ‘response action’ concept)
- W.R. Grace & Co. v. Zotos International, Inc., 559 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2009) (consent orders resolving non-CERCLA claims may preclude §113(f)(3)(B) actions)
- Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 596 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2010) (states’ role in CERCLA; CERCLA-like remediation authority)
- United States v. Rohm & Haas Co., 2 F.3d 1265 (3d Cir. 1993) (oversight costs under CERCLA §9607(a) can apply when actions not under CERCLA)
- Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc., 516 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1996) (RCRA §7002(a)(1)(B) injunctive relief framework)
- 87th Street Owners Corp. v. Carnegie Hill 87th Street Corp., 251 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (mandatory injunctive relief limitations in ongoing remedial contexts)
- Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. v. BP Am. Prod. Co., 704 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2013) (injunctive relief in ongoing remediation context)