U.S. v. R.W. Meyer, Inc., 89-2236
Citation | 932 F.2d 568 |
Decision Date | 09 May 1991 |
Docket Number | No. 89-2236,89-2236 |
Parties | , 60 USLW 2059, 21 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,062 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. R.W. MEYER, INC., Defendant/Third Party, Plaintiff-Appellant, Northernaire Plating Company, Willard S. Garwood, Defendants/Third Party, Plaintiffs-Appellees, City of Cadillac, Third Party Defendant, Fourth Party Plaintiff. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
Susan J. Bradley (argued), Jon D. VanderPloeg, Smith, Haughey, Rice & Roegge, Grand Rapids, Mich., for defendant-appellant R.W. Meyer, Inc.
Michael P. McCasey, Miles J. Murphy (argued), Cholette, Perkins & Buchanan, Grand Rapids, Mich., Susan E. Morrison, Gary R. Rentrop, P.C., Bloomfield Hills, Mich., for defendants-appellees Willard S. Garwood and Northernaire Plating Co.
Before GUY and BOGGS, Circuit Judges, and BERTELSMAN, District Judge. *
This appeal involved the construction of the provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) governing contribution actions among responsible parties following a cleanup of a hazardous waste site and an Immediate Removal Action by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 42 U.S.C. Secs. 9607, 9613(f)(1).
The facts and background necessary to place this opinion in context were well stated by Chief Judge Hillman in his unpublished opinion awarding contribution, as follows:
Garwood, Northernaire, and Meyer jointly and severally liable to plaintiff for the costs of the Immediate Removal Action under Section 107(a) of CERCLA. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9607(a). United States v. Northernaire Plating Co., 670 F.Supp. 742 (W.D.Mich.1987). The court awarded plaintiff $268,818.25 plus prejudgment interest. The court later determined the prejudgment interest due to be $74,004.97, making the total award to plaintiff $342,823.22.
Further details may be found in the opinions of the trial court and this court which imposed joint and several liability on the instant parties. 1 United States v. Northernaire Plating Company, 670 F.Supp. 742 (W.D.Mich.1987); aff'd sub nom., United States v. R.W. Meyer, Inc., 889 F.2d 1497 (6th Cir.1989), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 1527, 108 L.Ed.2d 767 (1990).
Apparently, the parties allowed the building to degenerate into a true environmental disaster area. As this court observed in the former appeal:
Meyer, 889 F.2d at 1498-99 (footnote omitted).
In the former appeal, this court affirmed the decision of the trial court finding that the damage to the site had been "indivisible" and imposing joint and several liability on the present parties to reimburse the EPA for the removal costs for the cleanup of the building. 2 The total cost of the cleanup plus prejudgment interest was $342,823.22. In this subsequent contribution action, the trial court held that two-thirds of the liability should be borne by Northernaire and its principal shareholder, each contributing one-third each. But the court held that the remaining one-third ($114,274.41) should be borne by the appellant property owner.
The appellant attacks this apportionment, arguing strenuously that its responsibility should be limited to an amount apportioned according to the degree that the sewer line mentioned in the above quote contributed to the cleanup costs. Applying this approach, the appellant generously offers to pay $1,709.03. Appellees accept the trial court's apportionment.
The appellant also quibbles about certain statements made by the trial court in its opinion, stating that some facts recited were not supported by the record.
The trial court held that it was within its discretion to apply certain factors found in the legislative history of CERCLA in making its contribution apportionment. Although these factors were originally intended as criteria for deciding whether a party could establish a right to an apportionment of several liability in the EPA's initial removal action, the trial court found "these criteria useful in determining the proportionate share each party is entitled to in contribution from the other." Joint App., at 417.
The criteria mentioned are:
Id. ( ).
The trial court recognized that the lessee was the primary actor in allowing this site to become contaminated. (Appellant argues that the lessee was the only actor.) The trial court found, however, that in addition to constructing the defective sewer line which contributed to the contamination, appellant bore significant responsibility "simply by virtue of being the landowner." Id. at 418. The trial court observed further that appellant "neither assisted nor cooperated with the EPA officials during their investigation and eventual cleanup of the ... site." Id.
Chief Judge Hillman concluded, "As it is well within the province of this court, I have balanced each of the defendants' behavior with respect to the equitable guidelines discussed." Id. at 421. As a result of the balancing, he made the apportionment described above.
The trial judge was well within the broad discretion afforded by the statute in making the apportionment he did.
Congress intended to invest the district courts with this discretion in making CERCLA...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Miami-Dade County, Fla. v. U.S.
...be considered in individual cases, rather than requiring courts to consider any particular factors. See United States v. R.W. Meyer, Inc., 932 F.2d 568, 571-72 (6th Cir.1991) (stating that "by using the term `equitable factors,' Congress intended to invoke the tradition of equity under whic......
-
Bedford Affiliates v. Sills
...be considered in their own discretion without requiring a court to consider any particular list of factors."); United States v. R.W. Meyer, Inc., 932 F.2d 568, 571 (6th Cir.1991) ("The trial judge was well within the broad discretion afforded by the statute in making the apportionment he We......
-
PMC, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co.
...equitable discretion (AL Tech Specialty Steel Corp. v. Allegheny Int'l Credit Corp., supra, 104 F.3d at 608; United States v. R.W. Meyer, Inc., 932 F.2d 568, 573 (6th Cir.1991)) in ruling that none of the clean-up costs should be borne by PMC. But the conclusion doesn't follow from the prem......
-
Dent v. Beazer Materials and Services, Inc.
...the parties with Federal, State, or local officials to prevent harm to the public health or the environment. See United States v. R.W. Meyer, Inc., 932 F.2d 568 (6th Cir.1991). A proper consideration of each one of these, and of other factors, weighs heavily in favor of allocating the entir......
-
Classifying CERCLA claims: a critique of Pinal Creek v. Newmont Mining.
...50 F.3d at 1536; Environmental Transp. Sys., Inc. v. ENSCO, Inc., 969 F.2d 503, 509 (7th Cir. 1992); United States v. R.W. Meyer, Inc., 932 F.2d 568, 574 (6th Cir. 1991). Thus, depending on the totality of the circumstances, a court may consider several factors or only one determining facto......
-
CHAPTER 3 CERCLA LITIGATION: HOT TOPICS IN COST RECOVERY AND CONTRIBUTION ACTIONS
...(1980). [131] Environmental Transp. Sys., Inc. v. ENSCO, Inc., 969 F.2d 503, 507 (7th Cir. 1992); United States v. R.W. Meyer, Inc., 932 F.2d 568, 572-73 (6th Cir. 1991); Bancamerica, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13100 at *137-38; Atlas Minerals, 41 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) at 1478-79; see also FMC C......