32 ELR 20642 -- FMC Corp. v. Vendo Co.

FMC Corp. v. Vendo Co.

No. CIV.F-00-5295 OWW LJO (196 F. Supp. 2d 1023) (UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA April 17, 2002)

ELR Digest

The court bars certain Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and state-law contribution claims that two settling potentially responsible parties (PRPs) at a California contaminated site brought against a nonsettling PRP, but allows certain other contribution claims against the nonsettling PRP to proceed. A company remediated the site and sued all three PRPs in order to recover its response costs. After the company and the settling PRPs reached a settlement, the settling PRPs brought CERCLA and state-law contribution claims against the nonsettling PRP. The court first holds that even if the settling parties settled for more than their fair share of the response costs, they cannot seek a CERCLA § 113 claim against the nonsettling PRP for the remediating company's response costs. Under CERCLA, a PRP cannot bring a CERCLA § 113 contribution claim for its fair share of the response costs from the party that remedied the site. The court next holds, however, that the settling PRPs can bring a CERCLA § 113 claim against the nonsettling party for those response costs it incurred independent of the remediating company's response costs. Further, the settling PRPs can bring a CERCLA § 113 claim against the nonsettling PRP for the settling PRPs' liability for non-CERCLA liability, such as that under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and state law. The court additionally holds that, although the California Hazardous Substance Account Act (HSAA) bars one of the settling party's contribution claims against the nonsettling party for the settling party's fair share of response costs, the settling party can bring HSAA contribution claims for any independent costs it incurred and any costs not incurred under CERCLA or the HSAA. Likewise, the settling PRPs' other state-law contribution claims are not barred. The court finally holds that the nonsettling party cannot subpoena the testimony and work product of the settling parties' experts, but because of a consolidation of actions, the court allows a modification of the trial schedule.

The full text of this decision is available from ELR (29 pp., ELR Order No. L-510).

Counsel for Plaintiff
Stephen R. Cornwell
Cornwell & Sample
5703 N. West Ave., Fresno CA 93711
(559) 431-3142

Counsel for Defendants
Mark E. Elliott
Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro
725 S. Figueroa St., Ste. 1200, Los Angeles CA 90017
(213) 488-7100

[OPINION OMITTED BY PUBLISHER IN ORIGINAL SOURCE]