Whittaker Corp. v. United States, No. 14-55385 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseAfter Whittaker was found liable for injuries caused by its pollution and paid to clean up the pollution, Whittaker filed suit under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., against the United States to recover expenses that it had incurred. The district court concluded that the Castaic Lake lawsuit triggered Whittaker’s right to bring an action for contribution, and that the instant lawsuit sought expenses that could have been reimbursed through such a contribution action. The court held, however, that Whittaker was not required to bring its claims in this case in a section 113(f) contribution action after its liability was resolved in Castaic Lake. In this case, Whittaker was found liable to the Castaic Lake plaintiffs for the expenses specifically related to removing perchlorate from the plaintiffs’ wells and replacing their water. Whittaker now seeks reimbursement from the government for a different set of expenses, for which Whittaker was not found liable in Castaic Lake. The court did not believe that Congress mandated parties who have been sued in section 107 cost recovery actions to bring all of their own CERCLA claims in the form of a contribution action, on an accelerated timeframe, regardless of the merit or the result of the section 107 cost recovery suit. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.
Court Description: CERCLA. The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of Whittaker Corporation’s lawsuit against the United States under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to recover expenses that Whittaker incurred since the 1980s from investigating and cleaning the Bermite Site, a munitions facility in Santa Clarita, California. The district court dismissed the case based on its conclusion that because Whittaker had been sued in Castaic Lake Water Agency v. Whittaker Corp., 272 F. Supp. 2d 1053, 1069 (C.D. Cal. 2003), it could bring only a CERCLA contribution action – not a cost recovery action – against the United States, and the statute of limitations for a contribution claim had expired. Whittaker was found liable to the Castaic Lake plaintiffs for the expenses specifically related to removing perchlorate from the plaintiffs’ wells and replacing water; in this case, Whittaker sought reimbursement from the government for a different set of expenses for which Whittaker was found not liable in Castaic Lake. The panel held that because Whittaker sought to recover expenses that were separate from those for which Whittaker’s liability was established or pending, Whittaker was not WHITTAKER CORP. V. UNITED STATES 3 required to bring this suit as a claim for CERCLA § 113(f) contribution. The panel concluded that Whittaker was not barred on this basis from bringing a CERCLA § 107(a) cost recovery action against the United States. Judge Owens concurred in all but Part III D because in his view the case law has drifted from Congress’s intent when it passed and amended CERCLA in the 1980s.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.