UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. The Marmon Group LLC

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 10 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by dks)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Case No. 2:10-CV-00526-EJL
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.

MARMON HOLDINGS, INC. and
MARMON WIRE & CABLE, INC.,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint (Dkt. 10). The motion is pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) and 9(b). Having fully reviewed the parties’ written briefing, the Court finds
that the motion is suitable for disposition without oral argument. For the reasons
explained below, the Court will deny the motion.
BACKGROUND
This case concerns Defendants’ liability under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) for mining related pollution
within the Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical Complex Superfund Site (“Bunker Hill
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

Superfund Site”) in northern Idaho. The following facts are taken from the Government’s
Amended Complaint, which the Court will accept as true for the purposes of this motion.
In 1927, Golconda Lead Mines, Inc. founded the Golconda Mine and Mill near
Lake Coeur d’Alene. The operation of the mine resulted in the release of hazardous
substances into the Coeur d’Alene Basin watershed. Through a series of mergers and
name changes, Golconda Lead Mines, Inc. became Group R. Co., Inc. (“Group R”). In
1985, Defendant Marmon Wire & Cable, Inc. (“Marmon Wire”) became the sole
shareholder of Group R. (Am. Compl. ¶ 24, Dkt. 2.) Subsequently, between 1986 and
1988 Group R transferred its assets to Marmon Wire, leaving Group R insolvent. (Id. ¶
25.) Marmon Wire then transferred the stock of Group R to its parent corporation,
Defendant Marmon Holdings, Inc. (“Marmon Holdings”), in 1991. (Id. ¶ 9.) Group R, a
Delaware corporation, filed a certificate of dissolution with that state in 2003. (Id. ¶ 31.)
Marmon Holdings, as the sole shareholder, signed a Plan of Liquidation with Group R.
The Plan of Liquidation included a “Plan of Distribution to Creditors.” (Mot. to Dismiss,
Ex. A, Dkt 10-3 at 5.)
Meanwhile, in 1983 the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) designated the
Bunker Hill Superfund Site on its CERCLA National Priorities List and noticed the
listing in the Federal Register. (Am. Compl. ¶ 23.) The EPA divided the Site into three
operable units. (Id. ¶ 22.) The EPA issued a Record of Decision for Operable Unit 1 in
1991 and Operable Unit 2 in 1992. (Id.) EPA issued an interim Record of Decision for
Operable Unit 3 in 2002. (Id. ¶ 30.) Unit 3 includes the former Golconda Mine and Mill
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

operation. (Id. ¶ 35-36.)
The United States now brings suit against Marmon Holdings, seeking recovery of
costs incurred in the clean-up of Unit 3 under 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a). It also seeks to void
the asset transfers made from Group R to Marmon Wire, alleging those transfers were
fraudulent under 28 U.S.C. § 3304(b)(1)(A). Defendants move to dismiss the complaint.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” in order to “give the defendant
fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal quotation omitted). While a
complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss “does not need detailed factual
allegations,” it must set forth “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. at 555. To survive a
motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
“state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. at 556.
The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more
than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. Where a complaint
pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant's liability, it “stops short of the
line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’” Id. at 557.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

In a more recent case, the Supreme Court identified two “working principles” that
underlie Twombly. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, __ U.S. __, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). First,
the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is
inapplicable to legal conclusions. Id. “Rule 8 marks a notable and generous departure
from the hyper-technical, code-pleading regime of a prior era, but it does not unlock the
doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions.” Id. at
1950. Second, only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion
to dismiss. Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will .
. . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense.” Id.
Providing too much in the complaint may also be fatal to a plaintiff. Dismissal
may be appropriate when the plaintiff has included sufficient allegations disclosing some
absolute defense or bar to recovery. See Weisbuch v. County of L.A., 119 F.3d 778, 783,
n.1 (9th Cir. 1997) (stating that “[i]f the pleadings establish facts compelling a decision
one way, that is as good as if depositions and other . . . evidence on summary judgment
establishes the identical facts”).
A motion to dismiss should not be granted “unless it appears beyond doubt that
Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief.”
Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F. 3d 752, 754 (9th Cir. 1994). All allegations of
material fact in the complaint are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party. See Buckey v. County of Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 794 (9th
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

Cir. 1992). The Ninth Circuit has held that “in dismissals for failure to state a claim, a
district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was
made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation
of other facts.” Cook, Perkiss and Liehe, Inc. v. Northern California Collection Service,
Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990). While amendments are liberally permitted under
Rule 15(a), the district court may deny leave to amend when there has been an undue
delay in bringing the motion, and the opposing party would be unfairly prejudiced by the
amendments. See United States v. Pend Oreille Public Utility Dist. No. 1, 28 F.3d 1544,
1552-53 (9th Cir. 1994).
Generally, the Court may not consider any material beyond the pleadings in ruling
on a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d
449, 453 (9th Cir. 1994). If materials outside the pleadings are considered, the motion is
converted to a motion for summary judgment governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. See
Jacobsen v. AEG Capital Corp., 50 F.3d 1493, 1496 (9th Cir. 1995).
But as Branch makes clear, there are times when documents other than the
pleadings can be considered without converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for
summary judgment. “[D]ocuments whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose
authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the pleading,
may be considered in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.” Branch, 14 F.3d at
453.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5

ANALYSIS
A. First Claim for Relief
Under the Government’s first claim for relief, it alleges that Marmon Holdings is
an “owner” and “operator” of Golconda Lead Mines, Inc. for CERCLA liability purposes,
because it is the “successor-in-interest” to Group R. (Am. Compl. ¶ 43.) The
Government contends that the language of Group R’s Plan of Liquidation is sufficient to
render Marmon Holdings liable under CERCLA.
As a preliminary matter, Defendants correctly note that the Ninth Circuit has not
resolved whether state law or federal common law governs successor liability under
CERCLA. See Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Brown & Bryant, Inc., 159 F.3d
358, 364 (9th Cir. 1998). As in Atchison, this Court need not decide whether federal or
state law controls, because the Amended Complaint alleges that Marmon Holdings
expressly assumed liability through the Plan of Liquidation. Express assumption of
liability is a standard basis for successor liability recognized both in federal common law
and in Delaware law. See id. at 361 (holding under federal common law, successor
liability is created when “[t]he purchasing corporation expressly or impliedly agrees to
assume the liability.”); Great American Ins. Co. of New York v. TA Operating Corp., No.
06 Civ. 13230, 2008 WL 1848946, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. April 24, 2008) (recognizing that
under Delaware law liability attaches when “the successor expressly or impliedly
assumed such liability.”).

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6

The disagreement between the parties turns on interpretation of the 2003 Plan of
Liquidation (“Plan”) signed by Group R and Marmon Holdings. The Plan includes a
section titled “Plan of Distribution to Creditors,” which restates in entirety the language
of section 281(b) of Delaware's General Corporation Law. (Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. A, Dkt
10-3 at 5.) This statutory language is followed by one sentence of unique language,
which provides that claims against Group R “may be made by obtaining an undertaking
from [Marmon Holdings] to return such part, or all, of any distribution(s) . . . as is
necessary in order to pay or provide compensation for such claims and obligations.”
(Am. Compl. ¶ 7.) The Government contends that this amounts to a direct assumption of
liability by Marmon Holdings. Defendants counter that this language, particularly when
read in the context of state law requirements concerning shareholder liability, only
commits Marmon Holdings to return disbursements in the event of a judgment against
Group R itself. (Defs. Brief in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss, Dkt. 10-1 at 11.)
Because the Plan was drafted by the parties under Delaware law, the Court applies
principles of contract interpretation from that state. “If a contract is unambiguous,
extrinsic evidence may not be used to interpret the intent of the parties.” Eagle Indus.,
Inc. v. DeVilbiss Health Care, Inc., 702 A.2d 1228, 1222 (Del. 1997). A contract is
ambiguous if it is “reasonably or fairly susceptible of different interpretations or may
have two or more different meanings.” Phillips Home Builders, Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co.,
700 A.2d 127, 129 (Del. 1997) (quotations omitted). When there is ambiguity, the
reviewing court may consider extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent. Eagle Indus., Inc.,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 7

702 A.2d at 1232.1
Whether the language of a contract is ambiguous is a question of law. In re U.S.
Financial Securities Litigation, 729 F.2d 628, 632 (9th Cir. 1984). The parties’ intent,
determined through extrinsic evidence, is a question of fact. Id.
Applying these principles, the Court looks first to the plain language of the Plan.
The Court finds that there is ambiguity as to whether its language exposes Marmon
Holdings to direct liability. The Plan commits Group R to “make such provision as will
reasonably be likely to be sufficient” to compensate claims likely to “arise or to become
known to the Company within 10 years after the date of dissolution.” (Mot. to Dismiss,
Ex. A, Dkt. 10-3 at 5.) The Plan then states that “[p]rovision for such claims and
obligations may be made by obtaining an undertaking from the sole stockholder” to return
distributions received during dissolution.” (Id.) This language might mean that Marmon
Holdings is only obligated to return distributions in the event of a judgment against Group
R. But it might also be read to mean Marmon Holdings “undertaking” commits it to
direct liability for claims against Group R once that corporate entity ceased to exist. The
Plan is silent as to whether Marmon Holding’s duty to provide compensation
encompasses the duty to defend against such claims. Because the language of the Plan is

1

These principles of contract interpretation are the same as those that would be applied
under federal law. See Pierce Cnty. Hotel Emp. & Restaurant Emp. Health Trust v. Elks Lodge,
827 F.2d 1324, 1327 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to contradict a clear
contract term, but if a term is ambiguous, its interpretation depends on the parties' intent at the
time of the contract's execution, in light of earlier negotiations, later conduct, related agreements,
and industrywide custom[.]”) (internal citations omitted).
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 8

susceptible to multiple reasonable interpretations, the Court finds that a resort to extrinsic
evidence is necessary.2
As Defendants emphasize, Delaware law is relevant extrinsic evidence of the
parties’ intent, given that the Plan incorporates § 281(b) of Delaware’s General
Corporation Law nearly verbatim. See Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, § 281(b). Unfortunately,
Delaware law does not deal squarely with the issue before the Court. Section 281(b)
operates against the backdrop of § 278, which provides that a dissolved corporation
continues to exist as a legal entity for three years after its dissolution, solely “for the
purpose of prosecuting and defending suits.” § 278. Sections 280 and 281(b) offer two
alternative avenues through which a dissolved corporation may provide for potential
claims by creditors during this winding down period. The purpose of these statutes is to
“balance the competing public policy interests of ensuring that claimants against the
corporation had a time period in which to assert claims against the dissolved corporation
and ensuring that directors, officers, and stockholders of a dissolved corporation could
have repose from claims regarding the dissolved corporation.” Territory of U.S. Virgin
Islands v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 937 A.2d 760, 789 (Del. Ch. 2007).

2

It is clear from the language of the Plan that if Marmon Holdings is directly liable, its
liability is limited to the extent of distributions made to it during Group R’s dissolution.
Defendants assert that this limited liability “is a far cry from direct CERCLA liability.” (Defs.
Brief in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss at 10.) But there is no reason that the contractual
assumption of liability cannot be limited in scope by the parties. See, e.g., Inamed Corp. v.
Medmarc Cas. Ins. Co., 258 F. Supp. 2d 1117, 1124-25 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (examining terms of
merger agreement to determine extent of successor liability).
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 9

The Government’s interpretation in this particular case is plausible because there is
an apparent gap in this statutory scheme. Section 278 extends the life of a dissolved
corporation for three years, while § 281(b) requires that the corporation make provision
for claims that could arise against the dissolving corporation within ten years. When a
corporation does not comply with § 281(b) by making provision “reasonably likely to be
sufficient,” and a claim arises within the seven year window after the corporation has
ceased to exist, it is not clear who, if anyone, remains liable.
Delaware courts have yet to address this statutory gap. Defendants appear to be
correct that there is not any Delaware case law that interprets § 281(b) as imposing
successor liability in this or any other circumstance. However, the Court is also unable to
find any precedent that squarely refutes the Government’s interpretation. The Delaware
courts have not resolved the dissonance between the three year wind up period in § 278,
and the ten year window in which the dissolved corporation must make provision for
claims under § 281(b), and it is not proper for this Court to do so at this time.3

3

There are a number of reasonable ways in which the Delaware Supreme Court could
respond to this statutory gap, making it particularly inappropriate for this Court to attempt an
authoritative interpretation. First, section 278 states that corporations shall be continued for
three years “or for such longer period as the Court of Chancery shall in its discretion direct.”
The court could determine that this is the remedy available to a party with a late arising claim.
Second, § 282(b) protects the stockholders of a dissolved corporation that winds down pursuant
to § 280 from liability for any suit brought after the three year period. Since this statute does not
specify that stockholders of corporations winding down pursuant to § 281(b) are similarly
protected, those stockholders might be directly liable under the principle of statutory
construction that “what is not included is excluded.” Third, the courts could adopt the position,
advanced by Defendants, that the unambiguous three year wind up period created in § 278 is not
expressly modified by the language in § 282(b), and therefore a late claimant simply has no
remedy.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 10

The Court holds that the language of the Plan is ambiguous, and finds that the
extrinsic evidence of its meaning presented by the parties is insufficient for it to rule that
the Government has failed to present a plausible claim for relief. Further evidence of the
parties’ intent is necessary to determine if Marmon Holdings assumed direct liability for
claims against Group R. Therefore, the Government’s first cause of action survives the
motion to dismiss.
B. Second Cause of Action
Under the Government’s second cause of action, it seeks avoidance of the transfer
of assets from Group R to Marmon Wire that allegedly occurred between 1986 and 1988.
(Am. Compl. ¶ 25.) It alleges that the transfers were made with “actual intent to hinder,
delay or defraud” the United States as a creditor, in violation of the Federal Debt
Collection Procedure Act (“FDCPA”). 28 U.S.C. § 3304(b)(1)(A).
Defendants argue that this portion of the Amended Complaint is deficient in three
respects: First, it does not allege that Marmon Wire possessed the requisite state of mind.
(Defs. Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss at 17.) Second, Group R could not have possessed
actual intent to defraud, because “Group R had no notice of any potential CERCLA claim
by the EPA at the time of the dividend payments.” (Id.) Finally, relief under the FDCPA
is inappropriate because there has never been a judgment against Group R, so there is no
“judgment on a debt” that the Government may seek to collect. (Id. at 14 (quoting §
3307(b)(1)).

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 11

Fraud claims must satisfy the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b),
which provides, in relevant part, that “[i]n alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state
with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b);
see also Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir. 2009). The rule
requires that the complaint allege “the who, what, when, where, and how” of the alleged
fraudulent conduct, Cooper v. Pickett, 137 F.3d 616, 627 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal
quotations omitted), and “set forth an explanation as to why [a] statement or omission
complained of was false and misleading,” In re GlenFed, Inc. Sec. Litig., 42 F.3d 1541,
1548 (9th Cir. 1994) (en banc); see Fecht v. Price Co., 70 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir.
1995). “The purpose of this rule is to ensure that defendants accused of the conduct
specified have adequate notice of what they are alleged to have done, so that they may
defend against the accusations.” Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1502 (9th Cir. 1995).
The Court holds that the Amended Complaint meets the heightened pleading
requirement of Rule 9(b). The Amended Complaint alleges that Group R transferred
assets transferred to Marmon Wire “to avoid payment of response costs to the United
States under [CERCLA].” (Am. Compl. ¶ 46.) This is an adequate allegation of Group
R’s scienter under Rule 9(b). See Odom v. Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d 541, 554 (9th Cir.
2007) (en banc) (“While the factual circumstances of the fraud itself must be alleged with
particularity, the state of mind–or scienter–of the defendants may be alleged generally.”).
The Amended Complaint need not plead Marmon Wire’s actual intent to defraud, because
under the plain language of the statute, the scienter of the transferee is irrelevant in
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 12

establishing fraud. See United States v. Sherill, 626 F. Supp. 2d 1267, 1275 (M.D. Ga.
2009) (holding that “intent of the transferee is irrelevant”). “[A] transfer made or
obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent . . . if the debtor makes the transfer . . . with
actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor.” 28 U.S.C. § 3304(b)(1).4 While
there is little case law interpreting this provision of the FDCPA, courts have consistently
held transferee intent irrelevant under the analogous provision of the Uniform Fraudulent
Transfer Act. See Sherill, 626 F. Supp. 2d at 1275 (collecting cases).
The Amended Complaint also alleges, based upon information and belief, that
Group R transferred nearly all of its assets to Marmon between 1986 and 1988. (Am.
Compl. ¶ 25.) The Government grounds its allegation of actual intent to defraud with the
fact that in 1983 the EPA listed the Bunker Hill Superfund Site on its CERCLA National
Priorities List (“NPL”) and provided public notice through the Federal Register. (Id. ¶
23.) Defendants counter that the NPL listing could not have provided actual notice to
Group R, because it did not identify the Bunker Hill Superfund Site boundaries, and the
EPA later delineated the site so that it did not include the Golconda Mine and Mill.
(Defs. Reply Brief in Further Support of Mot. to Dismiss, Dkt. 14 at 10.) This factual
disagreement about the adequacy of notice is not grounds for dismissal at this stage.
Assuming that the factual allegations of the Amended Complaint are true, Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555, the Government has adequately pled that Group R transferred assets to

4

It is not before the Court whether the defenses the FDCPA establishes for transferees
are applicable here. See § 3307.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 13

Marmon Wire with knowledge of its liability under CERCLA.
Defendants also take issue with the remedy sought by the Government under the
FDCPA. Defendants argue that 28 U.S.C. § 3306(b)(1)(A) allows the Government to
seek avoidance of the transfer of assets only after it has obtained a judgment against the
now dissolved Group R. However, the Amended Complaint does seek a judgment against
Group R, through Marmon Holdings as its successor-in-interest. As the Government
concedes, its second cause of action is contingent upon the successor-in-interest argument
made in its first cause of action. But because a factual basis for successor liability is
adequately pled there, the second cause of action also survives the Motion to Dismiss.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (Dkt.
10) is DENIED.
DATED: September 19, 2011

Honorable Edward J. Lodge
U. S. District Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 14