ELR Citation: ELR 20275
No(s). 3:07-229 (S.D. Ohio Oct 27, 2008)

A district court denied a company's motion to dismiss Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) claims filed against it in connection with its disposal of PCB-containing paper sludge on a nearby farm in the 1960s. The current owner of the farm property now seeks response costs from the company. The company argued that the CERCLA claim should be dismissed because any costs incurred to date have not been incurred by the property owner. The only quantified costs of response that have been incurred were incurred by a prior owner of the farm, not the current owner, and that prior owner's assignment of its cause of action to the current owner is insufficient for purposes of CERCLA. The court disagreed. Common sense dictates that §107(a) is the appropriate vehicle for a party that, as an assignee, "stands in the shoes" of the true plaintiff in a §107(a) claim. The court, however, dismissed without prejudice the property owner's Clean Water Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act claims because it failed to provide proper notice.