ELR Citation: 42 ELR 20214
No(s). 4:11-CV-00864-JAR (E.D. Mo. Sep 28, 2012) (Ross, J.)

A district court denied a mining company's motion to dismiss a smelting company's contribution claim against it for response costs and natural resources damages incurred at an old smelting operation in the Southeast Missouri Mining District. The mining company argued that the smelting company, which has filed for bankruptcy, lacked standing to pursue its contribution claim because it failed to preserve this claim in its bankruptcy plan. But at this stage of the litigation, the smelting company has asserted facts that plausibly state a claim against the mining company as a potentially responsible party. The mining company also argued that the contribution claim must be dismissed because it fails to allege a plausible theory that the mining company was an "owner," "operator," or "arranger" under CERCLA. But a heightened pleading standard does not apply to CERCLA cases. The issue for the court's determination on a motion to dismiss is whether the complaint gives the mining company fair notice of the CERCLA claim and the grounds on which it is based. The court found that it does. And the court found that the smelting company alleged sufficient facts to support its contribution claims. The issue is not whether plaintiffs will ultimately prevail, but rather whether they are entitled to offer evidence in support of their claims.