Acme Printing Ink Co. v. Menard, Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 June 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-C-834.,89-C-834. |
| Citation | 891 F. Supp. 1289 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
| Parties | ACME PRINTING INK COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. MENARD, INC., a Wisconsin corporation; Ed's Masonry and Trucking, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation; Edward J. Fadrowski; Marcia Smith; Anthony Ivancich; Bel-Aire Enterprises; Concrete Contractors, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation; Brey Saw Shop, a partnership; Dan Brey; Max Brey; Cambridge Chemical, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation; Cardinal Fabricating Corp., a Wisconsin corporation; John A. Davis, Jr.; Commercial Heat Treating, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation; Herb Engel Realty Co., Inc., a Wisconsin corporation; Hartwig, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation, d/b/a Hartwig Exhibitions; Helmut's Building Service, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation; Kramer Brass Foundry, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation; Dennis J. Cortte, d/b/a Layton Motor Sales; Jerry Lesperance, d/b/a Lesperance Construction; Lincoln Savings Bank, S.A., f/k/a Lincoln Savings & Loan Association, a Wisconsin chartered savings and loan association; Vernin Tretow, d/b/a Loomis Center Garage; Lubricant, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation; Richard W. Drexler; Robert Howell; Miller Tilt-Top Trailer, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation; Lewis Miller; Robert Bera; Pemper Engineering Co., Inc., a Wisconsin corporation; Frank Povlick, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation; Charles E. Rickheim; Service Painting Corp., a Wisconsin corporation; Sun Control Corporation, a/k/a Milwaukee Venetian Blind Co., a Wisconsin corporation; Supreme Casting, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation; Texaco, Inc., a foreign corporation; Wauwatosa Savings & Loan, a loan association; Williams Petroleum, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation; Cigna Property and Casualty Companies, a Connecticut corporation; Ranger Insurance Company, a Delaware corporation; Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, a Connecticut corporation; Employers Insurance of Wausau, a Wisconsin corporation; and Reliance Insurance Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendants, v. TRAVELERS COMPANIES, INC., a Connecticut corporation and Home Insurance Co., Inc., a New Hampshire corporation, Third-Party Defendants. CAMBRIDGE CHEMICAL, INC., a Wisconsin corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO., a Connecticut corporation, Third-Party Defendant. |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
William S. Roush, Jr., Davis & Kuelthau, Milwaukee, WI, for Acme Printing Ink Co.
Robert W. Corey, Menard, Inc. Legal Dept., Eau Claire, WI, for Menard, Inc.
Edward R. Cameron, Milwaukee, WI, for Ed's Masonry and Trucking, Edward J. Fadrowski deceased.
Anthony Ivancich, Milwaukee, WI, pro se.
Timothy J. Strattner, Schellinger & Doyle, Brookfield, WI, for Bel-Aire Enterprises and Concrete Contractors, Inc.
Bruce C. O'Neill, Fox, Carpenter, O'Neill & Shannon, Milwaukee, WI, for Cambridge Chemical, Inc.
Daniel M. Leep, McNally, Maloney & Peterson, Milwaukee, WI, for Cardinal Fabricating Corp. and Robert Howell.
William Wiseman, O'Neil, Cannon & Hollman, Milwaukee, WI, for Chromium, Inc.
James A. Baxter, Mitchell, Baxter, O'Meara & Mathie, Milwaukee, WI, for Kramer Brass Foundry, Inc.
William H. Harbeck, Quarles & Brady, Milwaukee, WI, for John A. Davis, Jr.
Steve Enich, Charles Johnson, Milwaukee, WI, for Commercial Heat Treating.
Herb Engel Realty Co., c/o Gerald L. Engel, Milwaukee, WI, for Herb Engel Realty Co.
Raymond J. Pollen, Crivello, Carlson, Mentkowski & Steeves, S.C., Milwaukee, WI, for Hartwig, Inc. d/b/a Hartwig Exhibitions.
Stuart B. Eiche, Jacqueline E. Frakes, Eiche & Frakes, Milwaukee, WI, for Helmut's Building Service.
John A. Fiorenza, John P. Hayes, Fiorenza & Hayes, Milwaukee, WI, for Williams Petroleum.
Michael P. Carlton, von Briesen & Purtell, Milwaukee, WI, for Dennis J. Cortte d/b/a Layton Motor Sales.
Michael W. Rohr, Krawczyk & Duginski, Milwaukee, WI, for Lincoln Savings Bank and Pemper Engineering Co.
Tom Duggan, John T. Lynch, Duggan, Lynch & Fons, Greenfield, WI, for Vernin Tretow d/b/a Loomis Center Garage.
Richard Drexler, c/o Lubricants, Inc., Milwaukee, WI, for Lubricants, Inc.
Thomas S. Sommers, Sommers & Sommers, Milwaukee, WI, for Richard W. Drexler.
David V. Meany, Michael, Best & Friedrich, Milwaukee, WI, for Service Painting Corp.
Richard E. Schmidt, Fellows, Piper & Schmidt, Milwaukee, WI, for Frank Povlick, Inc.
Michael P. Dunn, Davis & Kuelthau, Milwaukee, WI, for Supreme Casting, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Clark, Reinhart, Boerner, Van Deuren, Norris & Rieselbach, Milwaukee, WI, for Texaco.
Michael Pfau, Thomas Schrimpf, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Milwaukee, WI, for Ranger Ins. Co.
Richard M. Hagstrom, Zelle & Larson, Minneapolis, MN, Michael R. Wherry, Davis
& Kuelthau, Milwaukee, WI, for Employers Ins. of Wausau.
Ralph A. Weber, Kravit, Gass & Weber, Milwaukee, WI, for Travelers Companies, Inc. and Home Ins. Co.
Lawrence K. Rynning, Williams & Montgomery, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Home Ins. Co.
Paul J. Pytlik, Otjen, Van Ert, Stangle, Lieb & Weir, Milwaukee, WI, for Hartford Acc. & Indem.
Jeffrey Leavell, Kevin Harrington, Jeffrey Leavell, S.C., Racine, WI, for Waukesha Rubber Co.
DECISION AND ORDER
Now before the Court are the motions for entry of final judgment filed by defendants Cambridge Chemical, Inc. ("Cambridge Chemical"), Cardinal Fabricating Corp. ("Cardinal"), Hartwig, Inc. ("Hartwig"), Helmut's Building Supply Service, Inc. ("Helmut's"), Robert Howell, Lincoln Savings Bank ("Lincoln Savings"), Service Painting Corp. ("Service Painting"), and Texaco, Inc. ("Texaco") pursuant to Rules 54(b) and 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff Acme Printing Ink Co. ("Acme")1 opposes these motions and has asked the Court to reconsider its prior decision granting summary judgment to these defendants. Acme has also asked the Court to reconsider part of its decision denying Acme's summary judgment motion against defendant Menard, Inc. ("Menard").
The facts of this case have been fully recounted in this Court's prior decisions, (see Acme Printing Ink Co. v. Menard, 870 F.Supp. 1465 (E.D.Wis.1994), Acme Printing Ink Co. v. Menard, Inc., 812 F.Supp. 1498, 1507 (E.D.Wis.1992)), and will not be reiterated here. The following summary provides a general framework for the motions now pending before the Court:
This litigation relates to the clean-up of certain contaminated property ("the Fadrowski site") which had been used as an unregulated and unlicensed landfill for more than ten years. The owner of the site, Ed Fadrowski, also owned and operated a waste collection and transportation company called Ed's Masonry and Trucking ("Ed's Trucking"). Ed's Trucking hauled rubbish and solid waste for numerous clients and dumped it at several landfills in the Milwaukee area, including the Fadrowski site. Clients of Ed's Trucking include the plaintiff, Acme, and many of the defendants in this lawsuit. Defendant Menard eventually purchased the site from Fadrowski, and unearthed buried hazardous wastes on the property while undertaking an excavation project.
Hazardous wastes generated by Acme were discovered at the Fadrowski site. The plaintiff subsequently entered into a consent agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources ("DNR") to conduct a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study ("RI/FS") and played a major role in the remediation activities at the Fadrowski site. The plaintiff now seeks contribution from other parties — including the current and past owners of the site and other generators that allegedly disposed of hazardous wastes there—for the response costs it has incurred in connection with the site pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"). 42 U.S.C. § 9607. Acme also seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties from other responsible parties under the citizen suit provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"). 42 U.S.C. § 6972.
On December 5, 1994, this Court issued a Decision and Order ruling on several summary judgment motions which were before it in this case. See Acme Printing Ink Co. v. Menard, 870 F.Supp. 1465 (E.D.Wis.1994) (hereinafter "December 5th Order"). Therein, the Court:
1. Granted Acme's motion for partial summary judgment against defendant Menard on Acme's CERCLA claims but denied its motion on Acme's RCRA claims.
2. Granted defendant Bel-Aire Enterprises' motion for summary judgment on Acme's CERCLA claim, denied Bel-Aire Enterprises' motion for summary judgment on Acme's RCRA claim, and denied Acme's cross-motion for summary judgment.
3. Granted defendant Cambridge Chemical's motion for summary judgment on Acme's CERCLA and RCRA claims.
4. Granted defendant Cardinal's motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff's CERCLA and RCRA claims.
5. Granted defendant Hartwig's motion for summary judgment on Acme's CERCLA and RCRA claims.
6. Granted defendant Helmut's motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff's CERCLA claim but denied its summary judgment on the plaintiff's RCRA claim.2
7. Granted defendant Lincoln Savings' motion for summary judgment on Acme's CERCLA and RCRA claims.
8. Denied defendant Richard Drexler's motion for summary judgment, and denied Acme's cross-motion for summary judgment.
9. Granted defendant Robert Howell's motion for summary judgment on his liability under the plaintiff's CERCLA and RCRA claims, and denied Acme's cross-motion for summary judgment.
10. Denied defendant Pemper Engineering Co. Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, and denied Acme's cross-motion for summary judgment.
11. Granted defendant Service Painting's motion for summary judgment on Acme's CERCLA claim, denied Service Painting Corporation's motion for summary judgment on Acme's RCRA claim, and denied Acme's cross-motion for summary judgment.
12. Granted defendant Texaco's motion for summary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Freeport-McMoran Resource Partners v. B-B Paint
...present at the Site. Dana Corp. v. American Standard, Inc., 866 F.Supp. 1481, 1500 (N.D.Ind.1994); see Acme Printing Ink Co. v. Menard, Inc., 891 F.Supp. 1289, 1296 (E.D.Wis.1995). The Dana court also set forth the following helpful commentary regarding application of Federal Rule of Civil ......
-
Board of County Com'Rs v. Brown Group Retail, Inc.
...regulation, condition, requirement, prohibition, or order which has become effective pursuant to" RCRA—see Acme Printing Ink Co. v. Menard, Inc., 891 F.Supp. 1289, 1302 (E.D.Wis.1995)— Plaintiff alleges no facts showing Brown Group to be similarly in violation. Plaintiff's Section 6972(a)(1......
-
INTERFAITH COMMUNITY ORGAN. v. AlliedSignal, Inc.
...§§ 9604, 9606; Acme Printing Ink Co. v. Menard, Inc., 870 F.Supp. 1465, 1475 (E.D.Wis.1994), reconsidered in non-relevant part, 891 F.Supp. 1289 (E.D.Wis.1995). Section 106 of CERCLA specifies actions taken pursuant to the section are taken by the President of the United States (as delegate......
-
U.S. v. Power Engineering Co.
...(D.N.H. 1985) (same); Jones v. Inmont Corp., 584 F.Supp. 1425, 1435 (S.D.Ohio 1984) (same). See also Acme Printing Ink Co. v. Menard, Inc., 891 F.Supp. 1289, 1301-1302 (E.D.Wis. 1995) (collecting cases); Albert C. Lin, Application of the Continuing Violations Doctrine to Environmental Law, ......
-
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: the correct paradigm of strict liability and the problem of individual causation.
...may have caused release, defendant failed to meet burden of proof of sole cause), motion for reconsideration granted on other grounds, 891 F. Supp. 1289 (E.D. Wis. 1995); United States v. Wedzeb Enter., Inc., 809 F. Supp. 646, 653 (S.D. Ind. 1992) (noting that defense not available where mu......
-
Table of Cases
...Acme Printing Ink Co. v. Menard, Inc., 870 F.Supp. 1465 (E.D. Wis. 1994), on reconsideration, 891 F. Supp. 1289 (E.D. Wis. 1995): 13.3(1)(a) Aecon Bldgs., Inc. v. Zurich N. Am., No. C07-832MJP, 2008 WL 3927797 (WD. Wash. Aug. 21, 2008): 21.3(5)(d) Allstate Interiors & Exteriors, Inc. v. Sto......