United States v. FRC, No. 12-36065 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCDA entered into a settlement with the government under provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601-75, for payment of the costs of hazardous waste clean-up efforts at a mine site in Idaho. The district court approved the settlement over the objections of intervenor FRC. The court rejected FRC's contention that the district court was required to analyze the comparative fault of the parties in order to determine whether its consent decree was substantively fair where, because the decree was based on CDA's ability to pay, it is unclear what effect, if any, a comparative fault analysis would have had on the district court's determination. The court also rejected FRC's contention that the district court erred by failing to consider the substantial evidence submitted by FRC indicating the existence of liability insurance where the court saw no reason to reject the district court's determination that the record shows that the Government appropriately considered the financial health of the CDA and concluded that the proposed settlement represented the maximum amount of money it could contribute to the cleanup costs. The district court's conclusion was well supported. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: CERCLA. The panel affirmed the district court’s order granting the United States’ motion to enter a consent decree concerning payment of the costs of hazardous waste clean-up efforts at the Conjecture Mine Site in Bonner County, Idaho. The consent decree was made pursuant to the terms of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), which authorizes the United States to settle with a potentially responsible party for an amount less than that potentially responsible party’s proportionate share of the cost to clean up a polluted site if it has a limited ability to pay. The Coeur d’Alenes Company entered into such a settlement with the government, and the district court approved it over the objections of intervenor Federal Resources Corporation. The district court concluded that the consent decree was procedurally and substantively fair, reasonable, and consistent with CERCLA. The panel held that the intervenor failed to establish that the district court abused its discretion by forgoing a comparative fault analysis that it deemed irrelevant to the specific, permissible factors underlying the terms of the consent decree. The panel further held that the district court’s conclusion - that the record showed that the United States appropriately considered the financial health of the Coeur d’Alene Company when concluding that the proposed settlement represented the maximum amount of money it could contribute to the cleanup costs - was well supported.
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.