United States v. Iron Mountain Mines

Good Law
724 F. Supp. 2d 1086·2010 WL 2793538·72 ERC (BNA) 1786·2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70734
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 13, 2010Case 91-0768-JAM-JFMCalifornia3,168 words

Opinion

Opinion

Mendez, J.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

This matter comes before the Court on a motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. # 1280) by Plaintiff the United States of America (“Plaintiff’), pursuant to Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) 42 U.S.C. § 9607 (a), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Defendants Iron Mountain Mines and T.W. Arman (“Defendants”) oppose the motion. (Doc. # 1310). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs motion is GRANTED.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Beginning in 1986, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) responded to the release of hazardous waste at what is now called the Iron Mountain Mines Superfund Site (“the site”). The EPA took action to reduce or eliminate acid mine drainage discharges from the site, and incurred costs in doing so (“response costs”).

The site has been the subject of litigation in this Court since 1991. In this motion, Plaintiff seeks only response costs incurred .through February 29, 1996. Costs incurred after this date to the present, as well as future costs, were part of a previous settlement (“the settlement” or “consent…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.