Morton Intern., Inc. v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 19 July 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-3609 KSH.,No. 96-3610 KSH.,96-3609 KSH.,96-3610 KSH. |
| Citation | 106 F.Supp.2d 737 |
| Parties | MORTON INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED v. A.E. STALEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, et al. Velsicol Chemical Corporation, et al. v. A.E. Staley Manufacturing Company, et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Samuel Moulthrop, Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland & Perretti, LLP, Morristown, NJ, for Morton International, Inc.
Lorraine Teleky-Petrella, Hackensack, NJ, for Velsicol Chemical Corp., NWI Land Management Co., Fruit of the Loom, Inc. John Ralph Holsinger, Beattie Padovano, Montvale, NJ, for A.E. Staley Mfg. Co.
Michael L. Rodburg, Lowenstein Sandler PC, Roseland, NJ, for AIRCO Indust. Gases, Allied Chemical Corp., CIBA-Geigy Corp., Becton-Dickinson & Co., Inc., E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., Inc., Garfield Baring Corp., Union Carbide Corp., Allied-Signal, Inc.
Michael L. Rodburg, Lowenstein Sandler PC, Roseland, NJ, for Michael Rodburg, Defendants Liaison Counsel.
Denise D. Pursley, Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle, Garden City, NJ, Bobbie Anne Flower, Nixon Peabody LLP, Garden City, NJ, for Belmont Metals, Inc.
Pamela R. Esterman, Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C., New York City, for Crouse-Hinds Sepco Corp., Wagner Elec. Co.
Nan Astrid Bernardo, Shanley & Fisher, P.C., Morristown, NJ, for Crown Zellerbach Corp., Day & Baldwin.
Rosalind M. Dendellen, Rosalind M. Kendellen, Zucker, goldberg, Becker & Ackerman, Mountainside, NJ, for Dura Elec. Lamp Co., Inc.
Robert Gordon Rose, Pitney, Hardin, Kipp & Szuch, Morristown, NJ, for Duracell, Inc.
Jane Kozinski, Saul, Ewing, Remick & Saul, Princeton, NJ, for Eastern Smelting & Refining.
John H. Klock, Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, PC, Newark, NJ, for Henkel Corp.
Michael Kevin Mullen, Schenck, Price, Smith & King, Morristown, NJ, for Inmar Associates, Inc., Marvin H. Mahan.
Lynn Wright, Edwards Angell, LLP, Short Hills, NJ, for J.M. Ney Co.
Mark L. Manewitz, Grotta Glassman & Hoffman, P.A., Roseland, NJ, for Koppers.
Paul John Casteleiro, Hoboken, NJ, for Magnesium Elektron, Inc.
Harry M. Baumgartner, Shanley & Fisher, Morristown, NJ, for Marisol, Inc.
Russell Lyle Hewit, Dughi & Hewit, PC, Marlton, NJ, for Merck & Co., Inc.
Timothy Ignatius Duffy, McElroy, Deutsch & Mulvaney, Morristown, NJ, National Lead Co., Goldsmith Brothers Div.
Mark L. Czyz, Mttson & Madden, Newark, NJ, John H. Klock, Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, PC, Newark, NJ, for Occidental Chemical Corp.
John J. Delany, III, Voorhees, NJ, for Phillips & Jacobs, Inc.
Hugh J. Mahoney, Newark, NJ, for Public Service Elec. & Gas.
Bruce R. Rosenberg, Winne, Banta, Rizzi, Hetherington & Basralian, P.C., Hackensack, NJ, for Randolph Products Co.
Laura Farina, Law Offices of Laura Farina, Princeton, NJ, Karen A. Mignone, McGovern Noel & Benik, Inc., Milburn NJ, for Ray-O-Vac Div. of ESB.
Steven Richman, Gallagher, Brody & Butler, Princeton, NJ, for Redland Minerals Ltd.
Dante J. Romanini, Kozlov, Seaton, Romanini, Brooks & Greenberg, PC, Cherry Hill, NJ, for Scientific Chemical Processing, Inc., Scientific Chemical Treatment Co., Inc., Scientific, Inc., Transtech Industries, Inc.
Christine G. Mooney, Manko, Gold & Katcher, Bala Cynwyd, PA, for Sylvania/GTE.
David Joseph D'Aloia, Saiber Schlesinger Satz & Goldstein, Newark, NJ, for Tenneco, Inc.
Gerold C. Thompson, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Div., Washington, DC, for Jerold C. Thompson.
George Van Cleve, Washington, DC, pro se.
David Paul Schneider, Bressler, Amery & Ross, PC, Florham Park, NJ, for BASF Corp. Kenneth Howard Mack, Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, LLP, Lawrenceville, NJ, for FMC Corp.
Dear Counsel:
INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before me on the motion of Becton-Dickinson and Company, Inc., E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Garfield Refining Company, Inc., Union Carbide Corporation, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, the Connecticut Light and Power Company, Belmont Metals, Inc., Duracell, Inc., J.M. Ney Company, Merck & Co., Inc., and PSE & G ("site defendants") to amend their Answers. Defendant Occidental Chemical Corporation joins in the motion1. Plaintiffs Morton International, Inc., Velsicol Chemical Corporation, NWI Land Management Corporation and Fruit of the Loom ("plaintiffs") oppose the motion. I have considered the papers in support of and in opposition to the motion. There was no oral argument. Rule 78.
Plaintiffs commenced this action in August of 1996 seeking contribution under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA"), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq., the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 6901, et seq., the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act ("Spill Act"), N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11 et seq., the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., and under common law, for investigation and remediation costs undertaken at a former mercury manufacturing plant in Wood Ridge, New Jersey, now known as the "Ventron/Velsicol Superfund Site" (the "Site").2 The costs were the result of significant mercury and other hazardous substance contamination.3 The Site had been used for mercury processing operations for fifty years.4 State v. Ventron, 94 N.J. 473, 503, 468 A.2d 150 (N.J. 1983).
Plaintiffs were adjudicated liable for the contamination. Ventron, 94 N.J. at 482, 468 A.2d 150. In insurance coverage litigation, plaintiffs were found to have knowingly and intentionally polluted the Site. Morton Int'l., Inc. v. General Accident Ins. Co., 134 N.J. 1, 95, 629 A.2d 831 (1993). Plaintiffs commenced this action, contending that site defendants are liable under CERCLA § 107(a)(3) and/or § 113(f) because they arranged for the disposal and/or treatment of mercury and/or other hazardous substances at the Site, therefore contributing to the Site's contamination. This action is now in its advanced stages. Discovery is closed, having resulted in the production of over 300,000 pages of documents related to Site operations, conditions, and remedial activity, and the depositions of forty witnesses were conducted. Expert disclosures were exchanged, and a Final Pretrial Order was entered on November 17, 1999.
Before me is site defendants' motion to amend their Answers to add a defense. The defense is provided for in newly enacted legislation signed into law on November 29, 1999 by President William Jefferson Clinton, three years after the commencement of this action. The legislation is a rider to the Omnibus Budget Appropriations Act of 1999 (H.R.3194), Public Law No. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501A-598 (1999).5 The new enactment, 42 U.S.C. § 9627 ("Section 127") provides for an exemption from liability under CERCLA § 107(a)(3) and (a)(4) for certain persons who arranged for recycling of recyclable material. 42 U.S.C. § 9627(a)(2). Section 127 includes a fee-shifting provision which provides that, "[a]ny person who commences an action in contribution against a person who is not liable by operation of this section shall be liable to that person for all reasonable costs of defending that action, including all reasonable attorneys' fees and expert witness fees." 42 U.S.C. § 9627(j). Section 127's application to pending cost recovery actions has not been addressed in this Circuit.
On December 6, 1999 and January 3, 2000, site defendants sought plaintiffs' withdrawal of their claims or consent to amend their Answers to assert the recycling defense and a claim for attorneys' fees pursuant to Section 127. The requests were denied. Site defendants now move to amend their Answers to assert the new defense and claim for attorneys' fees.
Rule 15(a) provides in relevant part that,
[a] party may amend the party's pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, if the pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed upon the trial calendar, the party may so amend it at any time within 20 days after it is served. Otherwise a party may amend the party's pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice requires.
Leave to amend generally may be denied for four reasons: 1) undue delay; 2) bad faith or dilatory motive; 3) undue prejudice; or 4) futility of amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962); see Burlington Coat Factory Secs. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1434 (3d Cir.1997). The federal rules reflect the "principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits," and that if the underlying facts relied on by a party might be a proper subject of relief, that party should have the opportunity to test its claims on the merits. Foman, 371 U.S. at 182, 83 S.Ct. 227 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 48, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). Therefore, courts should liberally permit amendments, and the discretion to do so rests with the trial court. See, e.g., Heyl & Patterson v. F.D. Rich Housing of Virgin Islands, 663 F.2d 419, 425 (3d Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1018, 102 S.Ct. 1714, 72 L.Ed.2d 136 (1982); Elf Atochem North America, Inc. v. United States, 161 F.R.D. 300, 301 (E.D.Pa.1995).
Site defendants did not delay in making their motion. Within one week of the enactment of Section 127, site defendants requested the consent of plaintiffs to amend their Answers. After plaintiffs refused, site defendants promptly filed their motion. Thus, there has been no undue delay, as there is no evidence of bad faith or dilatory motive given that Congress so recently enacted the legislation.
Plaintiffs argue that granting leave to amend would result in undue prejudice to them....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Mountain Metal Co.
...(E.D.Cal. 2000); RSR Corp. v. Avanti Dev., Inc., No. IP 95-1359-CM/S, 2000 WL 1449859 (S.D.Ind.2000); Morton Int'l., Inc. v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co., 106 F.Supp.2d 737, 749-760 (D.N.J.2000); Gould, Inc. v. A & M Battery & Tire Serv., 232 F.3d 162, 169-70 (3rd Cir.2000). The Court in the instan......
-
Baldinger v. Ferri
...district court (Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330 (1970); see also Morton International, Inc. v. A.E. Staley Manuf. Co., 106 F. Supp. 2d 737, 744 (D.N.J. 2000)). The Court "has discretion to deny the request only if the [movant's] delay in seeking to amend is......
-
Eisai, Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC
...district court (Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330 (1970); see also Morton International, Inc. v. A.E. Staley Manuf. Co., 106 F. Supp. 2d 737, 744 (D.N.J. 2000)). The Court "has discretion to deny the request only if the [movant's] delay in seeking to amend is......
-
Marlowe Patent Holdings LLC v. Dice Elecs., LLC
...court (see also Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330 (1970); see also Morton International, Inc. v. A.E. Staley Manuf. Co., 106 F. Supp. 2d 737, 744 (D.N.J. 2000)). Further, the Court notes that it "has discretion to deny the request only if the party's delay in......