Voggenthaler v. Maryland Square LLC
| Decision Date | 04 October 2013 |
| Docket Number | 11–15174,Nos. 10–17520,12–16412.,12–16409,11–15176,s. 10–17520 |
| Citation | 724 F.3d 1050 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
| Parties | Peter J. VOGGENTHALER; William Montero; Barbara Montero; Clifford Rogers; Sharon Rogers; Hermann Rosner; Marcus Rothkranz; Daniel Soldini; Charles Walker; Verna Walker; Jack Yencheck; Ofelia Yencheck; Richard Malm; Roger Ellsworth; Jo Ann Ellsworth; Margaret Rudelich–Hoppe; Patricia Mahoney; Richard Falen; Peter Learned; Kristian Meier; Eliza Acosta; Mirha Elias; Aiko Berge; Victor Becerra; Arthur Bodendorfer; Brenda C. Chaffin; Michael J. Solmi; Jason Cowles; Jane Gauthier; Honore Gauthier; Nikolas Konstantinou; Dragan Kurajica; Kenneth Lowther; James Luehmann; Jacqueline Luehmann; Ruth Mannheimer; State of Nevada, on behalf of Department of Conservation & Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Protection, Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. MARYLAND SQUARE LLC, Defendant–Appellant, and Maryland Square Shopping Center LLC; Herman Kishner Trust, DBA Maryland Square Shopping Center; Irwin Kishner; Jerry Engel; Bank of America, NA, Trustee on behalf of Herman Kishner Trust; Clark County School District; Melvin Shapiro; Shapiro Brothers Investment Company, Defendants. Peter J. Voggenthaler; William Montero; Barbara Montero; Clifford Rogers; Sharon Rogers; Hermann Rosner; Marcus Rothkranz; Daniel Soldini; Charles Walker; Verna Walker; Jack Yencheck; Ofelia Yencheck; Richard Malm; Roger Ellsworth; Jo Ann Ellsworth; Margaret Rudelich–Hoppe; Patricia Mahoney; Richard Falen; Peter Learned; Kristian Meier; Eliza Acosta; Mirha Elias; Aiko Berge; Victor Becerra; Arthur Bodendorfer; Brenda C. Chaffin; Michael J. Solmi; Jason Cowles; Jane Gauthier; Honore Gauthier; Nikolas Konstantinou; Dragan Kurajica; Kenneth Lowther; James Luehmann; Jacqueline Luehmann; Ruth Mannheimer, Plaintiffs–Appellees, Maryland Square Shopping Center LLC, Trustee on behalf of Herman Kishner Trust, Defendant–Intervenor, State of Nevada, on behalf of Department of Conservation & Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Protection, Plaintiff–Intervenor, Bank of America, NA, Trustee on behalf of Herman Kishner Trust; Jerry Engel, Trustee on behalf of Herman Kishner Trust; Herman Kishner Trust, Trustee on behalf of Herman Kishner Trust, DBA Maryland Square Shopping Center; Irwin Kishner, Trustee on behalf of Herman Kishner Trust, Defendants–Intervenors, v. Shapiro Brothers Investment Company, Defendant–Appellant, and Clark County School District; Melvin Shapiro; Maryland Square LLC, Trustee on behalf of Herman Kishner Trust, Defendants. Peter J. Voggenthaler; William Montero; Barbara Montero; Clifford Rogers; Sharon Rogers; Hermann Rosner; Marcus Rothkranz; Daniel Soldini; Charles Walker; Verna Walker; Jack Yencheck; Ofelia Yencheck; Richard Malm; Roger Ellsworth; Jo Ann Ellsworth; Margaret Rudelich–Hoppe; Patricia Mahoney; Richard Falen; Peter Learned; Kristian Meier; Eliza Acosta; Mirha Elias; Aiko Berge; Victor Becerra; Arthur Bodendorfer; Brenda C. Chaffin; Michael J. Solmi; Jason Cowles; Jane Gauthier; Honore Gauthier; Nikolas Konstantinou; Dragan Kurajica; Kenneth Lowther; James Luehmann; Jacqueline Luehmann; Ruth Mannheimer; State of Nevada, on behalf of Department of Conservation & Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Protection, Plaintiffs, v. Maryland Square Shopping Center LLC; Herman Kishner Trust, DBA Maryland Square Shopping Center; Irwin Kishner; Jerry Engel; Bank of America, Trustee on behalf of Herman Kishner Trust, Defendants–Appellees, v. Melvin Shapiro; Shapiro Brothers Investment Company, Defendants–Appellants, and Maryland Square LLC; Clark County School District, Defendants. Peter J. Voggenthaler; William Montero; Barbara Montero; Clifford Rogers; Sharon Rogers; Hermann Rosner; Marcus Rothkranz; Daniel Soldini; Charles Walker; Verna Walker; Jack Yencheck; Ofelia Yencheck; Richard Malm; Roger Ellsworth; Jo Ann Ellsworth; Margaret Rudelich–Hoppe; Patricia Mahoney; Richard Falen; Peter Learned; Kristian Meier; Eliza Acosta; Mirha Elias; Aiko Berge; Victor Becerra; Arthur Bodendorfer; Brenda C. Chaffin; Michael J. Solmi; Jason Cowles; Jane Gauthier; Honore Gauthier; Nikolas Konstantinou; Dragan Kurajica; Kenneth Lowther; James Luehmann; Jacqueline Luehmann; Ruth Mannheimer, Plaintiffs, and State of Nevada, on behalf of Department of Conservation & Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Protection, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Maryland Square LLC; Maryland Square Shopping Center LLC; Herman Kishner Trust, DBA Maryland Square Shopping Center; Irwin Kishner; Jerry Engel; Bank of America, NA, Trustee on behalf of Herman Kishner Trust; Clark County School District; Melvin Shapiro, Defendants, and Shapiro Brothers Investment Company, Defendant–Appellant. Peter J. Voggenthaler; William Montero; Barbara Montero; Clifford Rogers; Sharon Rogers; Hermann Rosner; Marcus Rothkranz; Daniel Soldini; Charles Walker; Verna Walker; Jack Yencheck; Ofelia Yencheck; Richard Malm; Roger Ellsworth; Jo Ann Ellsworth; Margaret Rudelich–Hoppe; Patricia Mahoney; Richard Falen; Peter Learned; Kristian Meier; Eliza Acosta; Mirha Elias; Aiko Berge; Victor Becerra; Arthur Bodendorfer; Brenda C. Chaffin; Michael J. Solmi; Jason Cowles; Jane Gauthier; Honore Gauthier; Nikolas Konstantinou; Dragan Kurajica; Kenneth Lowther; James Luehmann; Jacqueline Luehmann; Ruth Mannheimer, Plaintiffs, and State of Nevada, on behalf of Department of Conservation & Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Protection, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Maryland Square LLC, Defendant–Appellant, and Maryland Square Shopping Center LLC; Herman Kishner Trust, DBA Maryland Square Shopping Center; Irwin Kishner; Jerry Engel; Bank of America, NA, Trustee on behalf of Herman Kishner Trust; Clark County School District; Melvin Shapiro; Shapiro Brothers Investment Company, Defendants. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Alexander Robertson, IV and Jennifer L. Taylor, Robertson & Associates, LLP, Las Vegas, NV; Jan Adam Greben, Greben & Associates, Santa Barbara, CA, for Plaintiffs–Appellees Peter J. Voggenthaler, et al.
Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, Carolyn E. Tanner (argued), Senior Deputy Attorney General, and Jasmine K. Mehta (argued), Deputy Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Plaintiff–Intervenor–Appellee Nevada Division of Environmental Protection.
Thomas Vandenburg, Joshua Levine, Christopher Smith and John A. Lawrence (argued), Dongell Lawrence Finney, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants–Intervenors–Appellees Maryland Square Shopping Center, LLC, et al.
Jeremy Gilman and Gregory J. Lucht (argued), Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, LLP, Cleveland, OH; Jeffrey T. Oberman, Levin & Oberman, Beverly Hills, CA, for Defendants–Appellants Melvin Shapiro and Shapiro Brothers Investment Co.
Franklin H. Levy and Joshua M.D. Segal (argued), Lawson & Weitzen, LLP, Boston, MA; Shan Davis, Shan Davis & Associates, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant–Appellant Maryland Square, LLC.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Robert Clive Jones, Chief District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:08–cv–01618–RCJ–GWF, D.C. No. 3:09–cv–00231–RCJ–GWF.
Before: MARY M. SCHROEDER, SIDNEY R. THOMAS, and BARRY G. SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Two environmental statutes everyone loves to hate are the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”). In combination, they make owners of contaminated property and contributors to contamination responsible for cleaning up toxic waste, and, if someone else cleans up the waste, liable for the costs of that clean up. This litigation illustrates the point. It involves seepage over several decades of a toxic dry cleaning chemical into the ground under a Las Vegas shopping center. There have been two district court actions leading to multiple appeals.
Neighboring homeowners brought the first action, seeking injunctive relief against the property owners of the shopping center and operators of the dry cleaning facility. The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (“NDEP”) brought the other action to recover its clean up costs. The district court granted summary judgment for both sets of plaintiffs on all claims. The current owner and the former operators of the dry cleaning facility appeal. There are numerous procedural issues, but the principal legal contention is that application of CERCLA to this conduct that occurred solely in Nevada violates the Commerce Clause.
We largely affirm the district court, including its rejection of that constitutional challenge. We vacate the grant of summary judgment under CERCLA against the current owner and remand so the owner may have an opportunity to make the additional showing that would be necessary to establish that it meets an exception to CERCLA liability. We reverse on procedural grounds the grant of summary judgment under RCRA against the current owner and the operators because those defendants did not have an adequate opportunity to respond to plaintiffs' claims. We also reverse the grant of summary judgment against one guarantor, because there is no evidence of spills during the term of his guaranty.
CERCLA and RCRA, passed by Congress within a few years of each other, both address the problem of environmental contamination from hazardous waste disposal, but they employ different means. Congress passed CERCLA in 1980, motivated by several environmental catastrophes, especially the infamous Love Canal disaster in Niagra Falls, New York. S.Rep. No. 96–848, at 8–10 (1980). The statute authorizes governments or private parties to clean up polluted sites and seek compensation from the polluters. 42 U.S.C. § 9607. It is designed to ensure that the cost of clean up is “borne by those responsible for the contamination.” Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States, 556 U.S. 599, 602, 129 S.Ct. 1870, 173...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foundation v. Gas
...district court did not reach these merits-related questions, we remand so that they may be considered. See Voggenthaler v. Maryland Square LLC , 724 F.3d 1050, 1066 (9th Cir. 2013).VII. ConclusionThe district court erred in applying RCRA's anti-duplication provision, RCRA section 1006(a), w......
-
Orange Cnty. Water Dist. v. Sabic Innovative Plastics United States, LLC
...substances need not actually reach the environment for an action to constitute a disposal. ( Voggenthaler v. Maryland Square LLC (9th Cir. 2013) 724 F.3d 1050, 1064 ( Voggenthaler ).)In their motions, several defendants challenged the District's ability to prove one or both of these element......
-
Orange Cnty. Water Dist. v. MAG Aerospace Indus., Inc.
...or ... [any] water[s].’ " (United States v. Fleet Factors Corp. (S.D.Ga. 1993) 821 F.Supp. 707, 723 ; see Voggenthaler v. Maryland Square LLC (9th Cir. 2013) 724 F.3d 1050, 1064.)In its statement of decision, the trial court recited the correct standard for determining whether MAG was a lia......
-
Coppola v. Smith
...hazardous waste sites promptly and ensuring that the responsible parties pay the costs of the clean-up. Voggenthaler v. Maryland Square, LLC, 724 F.3d 1050, 1061, 1064 (9th Cir.2013). To establish a prima facie claim for recovery of response costs under § 9607(a), a private-party plaintiff ......
-
CERCLA, RCRA, And Vapor Intrusion: Does What Happens In Vegas Really Stay In Vegas?
...Voggenthaler v. Maryland Square LLC, 724 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2013), the defendants argued that contamination that happened in Vegas, stayed in Vegas, and therefore the Commerce Clause barred the application of CERCLA. The district court disagreed. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district cou......
-
Supreme Court Poised To Limit Tort Claims For Historic Pollution
...care evidenced by owner's failure to promptly clean and fill sumps and remediate debris pile); Voggenthaler v. Md. Square LLC, 724 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2013) (property purchaser's affidavit from its environmental consultant in the state's suit to recover response costs allegedly resulting fr......
-
CERCLA Liability
...is broader than ‘disposal’ because disposal is included within the deinition of release.”). 42. See Voggenthaler v. Md. Square, LLC, 724 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2013). 43. See United States v. 150 Acres of Land, 204 F.3d 698, 705–06 (6th Cir. 2000) (“disposal” requires active human conduct); Sa......
-
CONSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, OR, THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONSEQUENCES OF INSISTING THAT THE ENVIRONMENT IS EVERYBODY'S BUSINESS.
...Commerce Clause does not give Congress the authority to support legislation as broad as the ESA). (60) Voggenthaler v. Md. Square LLC, 724 F.3d 1050. 1059-61 (9th Cir. 2013); Freier v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 303 F.3d 176, 200-03 (2nd Cir. 2002); United States v. Olin Corp., 107 F.3d 1506......
-
The Particle Problem: Using RCRA Citizen Suits to fill Gaps in the Clean Air Act.
...940, 947 (S.D. Ohio 2015) (footnote omitted). (171.) Id. (172.) 42 U.S.C. [section] 6903(3). (173.) See Voggenthaler v. Md. Square LLC, 724 F.3d 1050, 1064 (9th Cir. 2013) ("Because the phrase 'enter the environment' is qualified by the word 'may' in the definition of 'disposal,' the statut......
-
Redevelopment Rewind: a Look at the Current Status of Public and Private Brownfields Redevelopment
...for response costs to the extent the action increases the value of the property. 42 U.S.C. § 9607(r).74. 714 F.3d 161 (4th Cir. 2013).75. 724 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2013).76. While not discussed in this article, CERCLA's liability defenses are applicable to liability under California's CERCLA ......