ASARCO v. Celanese Chem. Co., No. 12-16832 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
ASARCO appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment for CNA in ASARCO's suit for contribution under section 113(f)(3)(B) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9613(f)(3)(B). The district court dismissed the complaint. The court held that a judicially approved settlement agreement between private parties to a CERCLA cost-recovery suit starts the clock on the three-year statute of limitations in section 113(g)(3)(B), and that a later bankruptcy settlement that fixes the costs of such a cost recovery settlement agreement does not revive a contribution claim that has otherwise expired. The court's holding that a later bankruptcy settlement with the government cannot revive an otherwise expired contribution claim ensures that a party does not receive a benefit that it had not paid for in the bankruptcy
settlement. In this case, the court concluded that ASARCO's time to file contribution claims pursuant to the Wickland Agreement has expired, and that the Wickland Agreement covered all response costs at the Selby Site and the 2008 bankruptcy settlement merely fixed costs. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Environmental Law. Affirming the district court’s summary judgment, the panel held that a claim for contribution under § 113(f)(3)(B) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act was time-barred. In 1989 plaintiff ASARCO, LLC, entered into a settlement agreement arising from a cost-recovery lawsuit under CERCLA § 107. During bankruptcy proceedings in 2008, ASARCO entered into a second settlement agreement arising from response cost claims asserted by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. ASARCO filed its new contribution claim in 2011. The panel held that the judicially approved settlement agreement between private parties to the cost-recovery suit started the clock on the three-year statute of limitations in CERCLA § 113(g)(3)(B) in 1989. The panel held that the later bankruptcy settlement with the government, fixing ASARCO’s costs associated with the cost-recovery settlement agreement, did not revive a contribution claim that had otherwise expired. ASARCO V. CELANESE CHEMICAL CO. 3
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.