Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitsettlementplaintiffliabilityappealleasecorporation
lawsuitsettlementplaintiffliabilityappealleasecorporation

Related Cases

Simon v. KPMG LLP, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 1541048, 97 A.F.T.R.2d 2006-2806
View Case »
International Business Machines Corp. v. Levin, 579 F.2d 271, 1978-1 Trade Cases P 62,114
View Case »
In re Sulzer Hip Prosthesis and Knee Prosthesis Liability Litigation, 268 F.Supp.2d 907
View Case »
Goldin v. Bartholow, 166 F.3d 710, 13 Tex.Bankr.Ct.Rep. 1
View Case »
Joint Equity Committee v. Genovese, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr., 2014 WL 4162318
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Whittaker Corporation v. United States, 825 F.3d 1002, 82 ERC 1725, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6129, 2016 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5687

Facts

Whittaker Corporation acquired a munitions facility in Santa Clarita, California, in 1967, where it manufactured and tested munitions for the U.S. military until 1987. In the early 1980s, Whittaker began investigating hazardous substance releases at the site. In 2000, it was sued by the Castaic Lake Water Agency for contamination of water supplies due to perchlorate and other chemicals, resulting in a settlement in 2007 where Whittaker reimbursed the plaintiffs for specific cleanup costs. In 2013, Whittaker filed a new CERCLA lawsuit against the United States to recover additional cleanup expenses incurred since the 1980s.

Whittaker Corporation acquired a munitions facility in Santa Clarita, California, in 1967, where it manufactured and tested munitions for the U.S. military until 1987. In the early 1980s, Whittaker began investigating hazardous substance releases at the site. In 2000, it was sued by the Castaic Lake Water Agency for contamination of water supplies due to perchlorate and other chemicals, resulting in a settlement in 2007 where Whittaker reimbursed the plaintiffs for specific cleanup costs.

Issue

Whether Whittaker was required to bring its claims as a CERCLA contribution action due to its prior liability in the Castaic Lake lawsuit, or if it could pursue a cost recovery action for its cleanup expenses.

Whether Whittaker was required to bring its claims as a CERCLA contribution action due to its prior liability in the Castaic Lake lawsuit, or if it could pursue a cost recovery action for its cleanup expenses.

Rule

Under CERCLA, a party may bring a cost recovery action for its own incurred cleanup costs, while a contribution action is available for reimbursement of costs paid in excess of a party's fair share when multiple parties are liable.

Under CERCLA, a party may bring a cost recovery action for its own incurred cleanup costs, while a contribution action is available for reimbursement of costs paid in excess of a party's fair share when multiple parties are liable.

Analysis

The court analyzed the distinction between cost recovery and contribution actions under CERCLA, noting that while Whittaker had been found liable for certain costs in the Castaic Lake case, the expenses it sought to recover in the current action were separate and not covered by that prior liability. The court emphasized that a party's right to contribution is limited to costs for which it has been found liable, allowing Whittaker to pursue a cost recovery action for its own cleanup expenses.

The court analyzed the distinction between cost recovery and contribution actions under CERCLA, noting that while Whittaker had been found liable for certain costs in the Castaic Lake case, the expenses it sought to recover in the current action were separate and not covered by that prior liability.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's dismissal of Whittaker's complaint, allowing Whittaker to proceed with its cost recovery action against the United States.

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's dismissal of Whittaker's complaint, allowing Whittaker to proceed with its cost recovery action against the United States.

Who won?

Whittaker Corporation prevailed in the case because the court determined that it was not required to limit its claims to a contribution action and could seek recovery for its own cleanup costs.

Whittaker Corporation prevailed in the case because the court determined that it was not required to limit its claims to a contribution action and could seek recovery for its own cleanup costs.

You must be