Amcal Multi-Housing, Inc. v. Pacific Clay Products

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.

Presently before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion for the Court to reconsider its October 10, 2006, Order in light of the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Atlantic Research Corp., — U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 2331 , 168 L.Ed.2d 28 (2007), so that plaintiffs (some of whom may be considered potentially responsible parties (“PRP”) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”)) may proceed with their existing section 107(a) cost recovery action against defendant without having to additionally establish a statutory defense to PRP designation status.

In the October 10, 2006, Order the Court held that, given binding Ninth Circuit case law, plaintiffs, some (if not all) of whom admittedly were PRPs, could not assert a section 107 claim (be it as a free standing implied contribution claim or a cost recovery action) against defendant absent a showing that they fell within one of the statutorily defined defenses to PRP designation status. See AMCAL Multi-Housing, Inc. v. Pacific Clay Products, 457 F.Supp.2d 1016, 1029 (C.D.Cal.2006). In reaching this conclusion the Court observed…