ELR Citation: ELR 21376
No(s). 92 Civ. 8771 (CLB) (S.D.N.Y. Mar 20, 1995)

The court holds that both the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provide a defendant in a CERCLA §107 cost recovery action the right to a jury trial. The court first holds that Congress intended there to be a right to a jury trial when a plaintiff seeks a judgment for money damages for cleanup costs as well as injury to natural resources under §107. Liability for damages for injury or loss of natural resources seems essentially tortious in nature, because a defense to liability is established if a defendant proves that the release or threat of release of a hazardous substance and the damages resulting therefrom were caused solely by an act or omission of a third party. Here, the state of New York's assertions that the defendant harmed natural resources and caused New York to incur response costs involve factual issues analogous to an action for damage to real property by tort or trespass. Also, the money damage issues go beyond mere restitution, involving matters particularly appropriate for resolution by a trial jury. Thus, the court holds that Congress impliedly preserved a right to a jury trial when a money judgment is sought to be collected from a wrongdoer. The court next holds that the defendant has a constitutional right to a jury trial. The Seventh Amendment requires that in suits at common law, where the amount in controversy exceeds $20 dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. "Suits at common law" refers to suits at which legal rights are to be determined, in contrast to those involving only equitable rights and remedies. The court holds that the right to a jury trial is not lost when legal and equitable issues are presented in a single case or when legal issues are only incidental to equitable issues are presented in a single case or when legalissues are only incidental to equitable issues. The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that the Seventh Amendment applies to actions enforcing statutory rights and requires a jury trial on demand if the statute creates legal rights and remedies that are enforceable in an action for damages in ordinary courts of law. The court holds that the relevant inquiry focuses on the nature of the claims and whether the remedy sought is legal or equitable in nature, and that a plain reading of CERCLA reveals that a pure equitable restitution of money is not the focus of §107. The fact that cleanup costs and expenses are recoverable is not determinative; expenses and costs incurred by tort victims customarily are recoverable as money damages. Accordingly, the court holds that with respect to the claim for natural resource damage, the Seventh Amendment protects a right to a jury trial, and in a case in which the issues are mixed, the entire case must be tried to a jury.

[A related decision is published at 25 ELR 20145.]

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Robert Herman, Ass't Attorney General
Attorney General's Office
New York State Department of Law
The Capitol, Albany NY 12224
(518) 474-7124

Counsel for Defendants
Joel Sachs
Keane & Beane
One N. Broadway, White Plains NY 10601
(914) 946-4777