VON DUPRIN LLC v. MORAN ELECTRIC SERVICE, INC.
1:16-cv-01942
S.D. Ind.May 8, 2017Background
- Von Duprin, LLC (Duprin) was notified by IDEM as a potentially responsible party for contamination at the Columbia Avenue Facility and performed investigation, mitigation, and ongoing operation of residential mitigation systems.
- Duprin alleges hazardous substances migrated from the Source Area into nearby properties; Duprin paid remediation and mitigation costs and continues to maintain systems.
- IDEM later identified Moran Electric Service, Inc. (Moran) as another potentially responsible party based on Moran’s historical purchase/use/disposal of products containing the hazardous substances.
- Duprin sued under CERCLA §§ 107(a) and 113(g) and Indiana’s Environmental Legal Action (ELA) statute seeking cost recovery, contribution, and declaratory relief.
- Moran moved to partially dismiss Duprin’s contribution claim, arguing the ELA statute does not authorize contribution claims; Duprin replied it seeks contribution under the ELA, not § 107(a).
- The district court considered whether the ELA permits contribution claims and whether dismissal was warranted under Rule 12(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Indiana’s ELA statute permit a contribution claim? | Duprin: ELA allows recovery of reasonable removal/remedial costs and equitable allocation; Duprin incurred excess costs and may recover contribution. | Moran: ELA’s text authorizes recovery of removal/remedial costs but not contribution; statutory definitions and precedent show ELA isn’t a contribution vehicle. | Court denied motion: ELA permits allocation/contribution where a party pays more than its equitable share; dismissal denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim for relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: courts need not accept legal conclusions)
- Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074 (7th Cir. 2008) (at motion to dismiss, facts construed in plaintiff’s favor)
- Weigle v. SPX Corp., 729 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2013) (courts should not judicially expand statutory text)
- Peniel Grp., Inc. v. Bannon, 973 N.E.2d 575 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (ELA plaintiff not necessarily limited to contribution-only claims; ELA recovery differs from pure contribution action)