Weiss

MEMORANDUM **

The complaint filed in state court made no federal claim. Although it mentioned federal law, it did not make a claim for relief based on violation of federal law. The closest it got was to suggest that violation of federal law could support negligence per se under Montana law in a state tort claim for relief. That is not a federal claim.

It is true that the EPA had already commenced remedial action. The action that had been commenced was a “remedial investigation/feasibility study,” which we held in Razore v. Tulalip Tribes amounted to remedial action. 1 But the complaint filed in state court did not amount to a “challenge to remedial action,” because to qualify as a “challenge,” the claim must be “directly related to the goals of the cleanup itself.” 2 The complaint did not directly relate to the goals of the cleanup and in no way challenged anything about the “remedial investigation/feasibility study” in *932 which the EPA engaged. This case is controlled by Beck v. Atlantic Richfield Co., because in this case as in Beck, the plaintiffs’s alleged causes of action are based entirely on state law and do not challenge any CERCLA 3 cleanup plan. 4 Therefore, the…