ELR Citation: ELR 20036
No(s). 92-5636 (3d Cir. Sep 17, 1993)

The court holds that it lacks jurisdiction to review a district court order denying summary judgment to potentially responsible parties (PRPs) and refusing to enforce a settlement agreement under §113(f)(2) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Settlor-defendants' potentially responsible parties had claimed that a settlement agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency embodied in a 1988 consent decree provides them with immunity from liability for contribution to the plaintiffs. The court holds that the interlocutory order denying immunity from suit fails to satisfy all of the requirements of the collateral order exception to the final judgment rule. Although the district court's order is a final determination of the disputed question, the issues the settlor-defendants raise in defense of appellate jurisdiction under the collateral order are doubtfully distinct from the underlying merits of the lawsuit. Furthermore, it is clear that the settlor-defendants' contentions can be raised on direct appeal after final judgment. The court also holds that the consent decree does not grant settlor-defendants immunity from suit, because it is not a settlement agreement between parties to the litigation. The court disagrees with case law holding interlocutory orders denying enforcement of settlement or release agreements are immediately appealable, because these decisions undermine the final judgment rule and expand the concept of immunity beyond that which the U.S. Supreme Court has approved. The court notes there are no public policy justifications in this case to support expansion of the collateral order exception. Also, CERCLA §113(f)(2) states that parties "shall not be liable," rather than stating that parties have "immunity," which reinforces the conclusion that settlor-defendants have no immunity from suit. Finally, the court denies a petition for mandamus, due to settlor-defendants' failure to assert a cognizable basis for relief.

Counsel for Appellees
Dante J. Romanini, Richard M. Cohen
Kozlov, Seaton, Romanini & Brooks
1940 Rte. 70 E, Ste. 200, Cherry Hill NJ 08003
(609) 424-8200

Counsel for Appellants
David B. Graham, Steven L. Leifer
Howrey & Simon
1730 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC 20006
(202) 783-0800

Thomas Richichi
Beveridge & Diamond
1350 I St. NW, Ste. 700, Washington DC 20005
(202) 789-6000

Before Scirica and Nygaard, JJ.