Northern California River Watch v. Ecodyne Corportation

Filing 193

ORDER DENYING WEST COAST METALS'S MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT by Hon. William H. Orrick denying 181 Motion to Dismiss. West Coast Metals shall answer the third-party complaint by January 7, 2015. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9
10

CALIFORNIA RIVER WATCH,
v.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

15

THE SHILOH GROUP,
Intervenor/Plaintiff,
v.
FLUOR CORPORATION,

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Re: Dkt. No. 181

Defendant.

13
14

ORDER DENYING WEST COAST
METALS’S MOTION TO DISMISS
THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT

FLUOR CORPORATION,

11
12

Case No. 10-cv-05105-WHO

Plaintiff,

Defendant.
FLUOR CORPORATION,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
THE SHILOH GROUP, WEST COAST
METALS, INC., M&M SERVICES, INC.
Third-Party Defendants.

23
24
25
26
27
28

INTRODUCTION
Third-party defendant West Coast Metals argues in its motion to dismiss that Fluor
Corporation’s third-party complaint is barred by res judicata because West Coast Metals
previously executed a settlement agreement related to the same environmental contamination

1

alleged here. Per Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), I find this motion suitable for determination without a

2

hearing and VACATE the hearing set for January 7, 2015. Res judicata does not apply. Fluor was

3

not a party to the settlement agreement and was not in privity with a party to that agreement. West

4

Coast Metals’s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint is DENIED.

5

BACKGROUND
This lawsuit involves three separate complaints relating to 53 acres of real property located

6
7

in Windsor, California (the “Site”): the underlying lawsuit, a complaint in intervention, and a

8

third-party complaint.
Plaintiff California River Watch filed a citizen suit against Fluor under the Resource

9

Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq., alleging that Fluor created an

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

endangerment to health or to the environment at the Site. Dkt. No. 146 ¶¶ 1-3 (fifth amended

12

complaint).Id. ¶¶ 1-3. California River Watch contends that Fluor owned and engaged in

13

operations on the Site from 1955 until 1972. Id. ¶ 14 (fifth amended complaint).

14

Intervenor plaintiff The Shiloh Group is the current owner of 28 of the 53 acres on the Site.

15

The Shiloh Group filed a complaint in intervention against Fluor, seeking contribution for cleanup

16

costs under CERCLA and asserting related claims. Dkt. No. 147 (complaint in intervention).

17

Fluor then filed a third-party complaint against M&M Services, Inc. and West Coast

18

Metals, Inc., who Fluor alleges are the current industrial operators of the site. Dkt. No. 157 (third-

19

party complaint). Fluor alleges that M&M and West Coast Metals operate recycling facilities on

20

portions of the Site which are a source of the contamination conditions alleged by River Watch.

21

Id. ¶ 1.

22

Third-party defendant West Coast Metals now moves to dismiss Fluor’s third-party

23

complaint as barred by res judicata because West Coast Metals previously settled a matter related

24

to the same alleged contamination at issue here. Dkt. No. 181 (motion to dismiss third-party

25

complaint).

26
27
28

LEGAL STANDARD
“Res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, bars litigation in a subsequent action of any
claims that were raised or could have been raised in the prior action.” Owens v. Kaiser Found.
2

1

Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). “The doctrine is

2

applicable whenever there is (1) an identity of claims, (2) a final judgment on the merits, and (3)

3

identity or privity between parties.” Id. (citation omitted).

4

“Privity—for the purposes of applying the doctrine of res judicata—is a legal conclusion

5

designating a person so identified in interest with a party to former litigation that he represents

6

precisely the same right in respect to the subject matter involved.” F.T.C. v. Garvey, 383 F.3d

7

891, 897 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). “Privity is a flexible concept dependent on the

8

particular relationship between the parties in each individual set of cases.” Id. (citation omitted).

9
10

DISCUSSION
West Coast Metals argues that Fluor’s third-party complaint against West Coast Metals is

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

barred by res judicata because West Coast previously settled a suit brought by the California

12

Sportfishing Protection Alliance relating to the same allegations at issue in Fluor’s third-party

13

complaint. West Coast Metals’s argument fails because there is no identity or privity of parties

14

between Fluor and any party to the settlement agreement.

15

The parties to the settlement agreement in the earlier lawsuit were West Coast Metals and

16

California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, a non-profit public benefit corporation dedicated to

17

the preservation, protection, and defense of the environment, the wildlife, and the natural

18

resources of all waters of California. See Dkt. No. 181-1, Ex. C at 1 (settlement agreement).

19

California Sportfishing Protection Alliance had filed a citizen suit against West Coast Metals in

20

2011 to enforce the Clean Water Act. Dkt. No. 181-1, Ex. A ¶ 1 (Sportfishing complaint). Their

21

settlement occurred in 2012. Dkt. No. 181-1, Ex. C. West Coast Metals asserts that it “has spent

22

well over $70,000.00 to settle the Sportfishing Suit, while also working with regulatory agencies

23

to remediate the property with which it has been affiliated.” Dkt. No. 181 at 5. West Coast denies

24

Fluor’s claims in the present matter and contends that since it “settled the past claims [in the

25

Sportfishing action], as a matter of law Fluor may not commence anew the environmental issues

26

resolved and, indeed, still under the jurisdiction of the Court.” Id.

27
28

As Fluor points out, however, res judicata does not apply because the Sportfishing suit
involved different claims than the present one and Fluor was neither a party to that suit or the
3

1

resulting settlement, nor was it in privity with a party to the settlement.

2

It is undisputed that Fluor was not a party to the Sportfishing suit or the settlement.

3

Notwithstanding that pivotal fact, West Coast Metals contends that “Fluor must be considered in

4

privity with Sportfishing [Protection Alliance] in that Fluor, a prior owner of the site has a prior

5

succession interest in the property which is the subject of both its and Sportfishing’s claims

6

against West Coast.” Dkt. No. 189 at 2. West Coast Metals is wrong. Fluor is a corporation that,

7

apparently, has had no ownership or operating interest in the Site since 1969.1 There is no

8

allegation that it has any relationship with the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance

9

whatsoever. The mere fact that Fluor previously owned the Site at issue in the citizen suit filed by
the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance does not mean that Fluor is “so identified in

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

interest with” the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance that it “represents precisely the same

12

right in respect to the subject matter involved.” Garvey, 383 F.3d at 897 (citation omitted).

13

Indeed, such an identification of interest between Fluor and the California Sportfishing Protection

14

Alliance would be surprising given that Fluor is a corporation accused of discharging hazardous

15

chemicals on the Site, while California Sportfishing Protection Alliance is a non-profit public

16

benefit corporation dedicated to combating such alleged environmental violations. Cf Citizens for

17

Open Access to Sand & Tide, Inc. v. Seadrift Ass’n, 60 Cal. App. 4th 1053, 1070 (1998) (“A party

18

is adequately represented for purposes of the privity rule if his or her interests are so similar to a

19

party’s interest that the latter was the former’s virtual representative in the earlier action.”).
West Coast Metals cites various authorities stating that privity is a flexible concept and

20
21

should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Dkt. No. 189 at 2-3. That is true enough, but none

22

of the cases cited by West Coast Metals is analogous to the present case. Privity is not such a

23

flexible concept that it can bind Fluor to a settlement entered into by a non-profit with which it has

24
25
26
27
28

1

Fluor alleges that it sold the Site to previously-dismissed defendant Ecodyne in 1969 and “ceased
all ownership and operation of the Site” that year. Dkt. No. 157 ¶ 13. Fluor further alleges that
Ecodyne owned and operated the Site until approximately 1984. Id. ¶ 13. The site is presently
owned by third-party defendant Shiloh Road LLC and intervenor plaintiff The Shiloh Group LLC.
Id. ¶¶ 8-9. West Coast Metals operates a scrap metal recycling facility on a portion of the Site
owned by Shiloh Road. Id. ¶¶ 9-10.
4

1

no relationship or shared legal interests.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

CONCLUSION
West Coast Metals’s motion to dismiss Fluor’s third-party complaint is DENIED. Dkt.
No. 181. West Coast Metals shall answer the third-party complaint by January 7, 2015.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 22, 2014
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5