USA v. Sterling Centrecorp Inc. et al

Filing 296

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 9/19/16 ORDERING Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendant Sterling's Statute of Limitations Defense (ECF No. 267 ) is GRANTED. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
and CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL,

13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiffs,

No. 2:08-cv–02556-MCE-JFM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

v.
STERLING CENTRECORP INC.,
STEPHEN P. ELDER and ELDER
DEVELOPMENT, INC.,
Defendants.

18
19

Both the United States and the California Department of Toxic Substances

20

(hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs” or “government” unless otherwise

21

specified) have designated the former Lava Cap Mine, located in Nevada County,

22

California, as a Superfund site polluted by elevated levels of arsenic that were

23

disseminated through tailings and waste materials generated by mine operations.

24

Plaintiffs have undertaken cleanup efforts designed to remediate that arsenic

25

contamination. The present action, filed pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental

26

Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. § 9601, et seq.

27

(“CERCLA”), seeks contribution for the costs of those activities both from former owners

28
1

1

of the site and operators responsible for its mining.

2

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,

3

filed February 8, 2016, as to Defendant Sterling Centrecorp Inc.’s statute of limitations

4

defense. By way of Sterling’s Twelfth Affirmative Defense as set forth in its Amended

5

Answer (ECF No. 33-2), Sterling asserts that the statute of limitations under Section

6

113(g)(2)(B) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §9613(g)(2)(B), bars the recovery of a portion of

7

Plaintiffs’ costs associated with their investigation and removal activities at the Lava Cap

8

site. Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on grounds that because the removal

9

activities for which Plaintiffs incurred costs was a single, continuous process, their

10

lawsuit to recover removal costs, filed within three years after completion of said removal

11

action, was timely as a matter of law.

12

On March 17, 2016, Defendant Sterling filed a Statement of Non-Opposition to

13

Plaintiff’s Motion stating both that it does not oppose the Motion and that it “does not

14

assert a statute of limitations defense with respect to any of [Plaintiffs’ claimed] costs.”

15

ECF No. 282, 1:1-6. In light of that non-opposition, Sterling’s representation, and good

16

cause appearing, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendant

17

Sterling’s Statute of Limitations Defense (ECF No. 267) is GRANTED.1

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated: September 19, 2016

20
21

.

22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter
submitted on the briefing in accordance with Eastern District Local Rule 230(g).

2