ELR Citation: ELR 20143
No(s). 96-768 (E.D. Cal. May 6, 2010)

A district court held that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1870, 39 ELR 20098 (2009), did not constitute a change in law regarding the apportionment of liability under CERCLA. A mine operator's motion for reconsideration, therefore, was denied. The court previously held the operator liable for the full costs of cleanup of a contaminated site. The operator now seeks an order that its liability is subject to apportionment in light of Burlington Northern. But Burlington Northern does not constitute a change in law as required for reconsideration. Burlington Northern simply reiterated the law and examined the record to resolve a factual question of whether the record supported apportionment. Burlington Northern did not add a new mandate that district courts must apportion harm.

[Prior decisions in this litigation are published at 23 ELR 20651 and 20661, 25 ELR 21275, 27 ELR 20924, and 28 ELR 21055, 21059, 21064, 21130, and 21133 ]