Angioli

MEMORANDUM

Hinds Investments, L.P. and Patricia MacLaughlin (collectively, “Hinds”) appeal the district court’s dismissal of their statutory and common law claims against dry cleaning equipment manufacturers Multi-matic Corporation, Multimatic Dry Cleaning Corporation, and Multimatic successor in interest Kirrberg Corporation; R.R. Street & Co.; and the Hoyt Corporation (collectively, “Defendants”). Because the facts are known to the parties, we repeat them only as necessary to explain our decision. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

Hinds seeks to hold Defendants liable as “arrange[rs]” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). See 42 U.S.C. § 9607 (a)(3). The district court properly found that Hinds’s allegations, taken as true, do not state claims for CERCLA arranger liability against Defendants. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 , 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 , 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 ,…