Berg

Berg v. Popham

Good Law
307 F.3d 1028·2002 WL 31206884
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 4, 2002No. 01-35807California1,393 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Graber, J.

ORDER

Presiding.

Pursuant to Rule 407(a) of the Alaska Rules of. Appellate Procedure, we respectfully request that the Alaska Supreme Court answer the following novel questions of Alaska law:

The Alaska Supreme Court’s answers may be determinative of this appeal, and we find no controlling precedent in decisions of the Alaska Supreme Court. We do not intend, by our phrasing of these questions, to restrict the Alaska Supreme Court’s consideration of this request. We acknowledge that, in its discretion, the Alaska Supreme Court may reformulate these questions.

I

David and Marge Berg (“the Bergs”) filed this action pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675 (1994), and Alaska Statute section 46.03.822. They seek contribution from Maytag Corporation (“Maytag”) for a portion of the costs incurred in remediation and payment of the State of Alaska’s administrative costs resulting from the discovery of pereholoroethylene (“PCE”) emanating from sewer lines in the ground connected to the Bergs’ dry-cleaning business.

The Bergs alleged in their second-amended complaint that they owned a dry-cleaning business…

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.