United States v. Atlantic Research Corporation

Facts

P leased property operated by the Department of Defense. P retrofitted rocket motors for D. Using a high-pressure water spray, P removed pieces of propellant from the motors. It then burned the propellant pieces. Some of the resultant wastewater and burned fuel contaminated soil and groundwater at the site. P cleaned the site at its own expense and then sought to recover some of its costs by suing D under both §107(a) and 113(f). In Cooper Industries, the Supreme Court had held that a private party could seek contribution from other liable parties only after having been sued under §106 or §107(a). At least one court holds that § 113(f) provides the exclusive cause of action. D moved to dismiss, arguing that § 107(a) does not allow P to recover costs. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss, relying on Cooper Industries. P had not been sued. It was granted, and P appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed. It held that § 113(f) does not provide 'the exclusive route to recover cleanup costs.' It reasoned that §107(a)(4)(B) authorized suit by any person other than the persons permitted to sue under § 107(a)(4)(A). To prevent perceived conflict between § 107(a)(4)(B) and 113(f)(1), it held that those who 'have been subject to §§ 106 or 107 enforcement actions are still required to use §113, thereby ensuring its continued vitality.' The Supreme Court granted certiorari. D argues that 'any other person' refers to any person not identified as a PRP (potentially responsible party) in §§ 107(a)(1)-(4).2 Since P is a PRP it cannot take suit. P argues that subparagraph (B) takes its cue from subparagraph (A), not the earlier paragraphs (1)-(4). P believes that subparagraph (B) provides a cause of action to anyone except the United States, a State, or an Indian tribe--the persons listed in subparagraph (A).

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.