ELR Citation: ELR 20360
No(s). 89-C-1786 (D. Colo. May 27, 1993)

The court holds that a consent decree between the United States and owners of a contaminated site does not bar a contribution action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) against the site owners by the corporate successor to the site operator, and the court grants summary judgment for the corporate successor on the amount and reasonableness of the costs for which it seeks contribution. The court first dismisses the site owners' motion for summary judgment on their liability for contribution, because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to the scope of the contribution protection afforded by their consent decree with the government. Evidence exists that the site owners defaulted under the decree by failing to pay $100,000 for past response costs incurred by the government. Also, the decree may be read as extending only to response costs incurred by the government but not recovered in earlier settlements, which would not include the costs the corporate successor incurred as a result of the site owners' conduct. The court dismisses the corporate successor's pendant state-law claims against the site owners, because those claims would predominate at trial. The court grants the corporate successor's motion for summary judgment on the amount and reasonableness of the costs for which it seeks contribution, because the motion is supported by a factual affidavit and the site owners submitted no evidence disputing the amount or reasonableness of the costs.

Counsel for Plaintiff
Stephen Taylor, Ass't U.S. Attorney
U.S. Attorney's Office
1200 Federal Office Bldg.
Drawer 3615, Denver CO 80294
(303) 844-3400

Counsel for Defendant
Timothy Gablehouse, Wayne Schroeder
1515 Arapahoe St., Ste. 1100, Tower II, Denver CO 80202
(303) 820-4359