Cooper Industries, LLC v. Toastmaster Inc. et al

Filing 231

MEMORANDUM OPINION Re 228 and 230 : [SEE MEMORANDUM FOR COMPLETE DETAILS]. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 11/20/2019. (TMT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
NORTHERN DIVISION
COOPER INDUSTRIES, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SPECTRUM BRANDS, INC.,
Defendant/Counter Plaintiff,
vs.
COOPER INDUSTRIES, LLC, et al.,
Counter Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:16 CV 39 CDP

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On September 12, 2019, I issued a Memorandum Opinion (Doc. 226) which
required Cooper to submit a proposed form of Judgment in accordance with the
Memorandum Opinion and the Court’s prior summary judgment ruling. (Doc.
158). I provided Spectrum the opportunity to object to Cooper’s proposed form of
Judgment and to provide an alternative proposed Judgment, which it did on
October 10, 2019. (Doc. 228). I ordered Cooper to respond to the issues raised in
Spectrum’s objections and to address Spectrum’s proposed alternative form of

Judgment, which it did on October 30, 2019. (Doc. 230). After full consideration
of the parties’ submissions, I will enter Judgment as follows.
At trial, I ruled that Spectrum was allocated 100 % of the response costs
associated with the east side of the property. (Doc. 208). The difficulty in entering
a judgment reflecting that ruling stems from the fact that, until my ruling at trial,
the invoices submitted to the parties by Arcadis for the work being done at the
property did not segregate costs by area (such as east side, west side, or building
footprint, etc.). Once I issued my ruling, however, Arcadis began segregating
those costs associated with the east side of the property. The total for work
performed on the east side of the property since I issued my ruling and Arcadis
began segregating those costs is $2,332.80, which amounts to 2.64% of the total
costs billed during that time. Spectrum proposes that I apply that same percentage
to allocate the past costs attributable to the east side, which would total
$20,469.14.1 Cooper disagrees with this approach and proposes instead that 26.7%
of the total past costs should be allocated to the east side. Cooper arrived at its
proposed percentage by submitting a document from Arcadis suggesting that

1

It appears that the parties are treating the segregated response costs attributed to the east side
after the Court’s ruling as future costs paid or payable solely by Spectrum, so the Court does not
include $2,332.80 in its calculation of past costs.
2

26.7% of the past costs could be allocated to the east side based upon the number
of soil samples and well borings on the east side. Importantly, this document does
not reflect an analysis of past invoices to determine what work was actually
performed on the east side of the property. Instead, it was created at the request of
Cooper and reflects one of several different approaches suggested by the parties as
a method for allocating costs.
I agree with Spectrum’s argument that the Court should award past response
costs attributable to the east side of the property as a percentage which is based on
numbers reflecting actual work performed on the east side. The Court understands
Cooper’s argument with respect to the ways in which the work has evolved over
time, but no party has submitted any evidence demonstrating what the actual east
side costs were prior to the Court’s ruling in January of 2019. Cooper’s suggestion
is simply too high and does not reflect the evidence introduced at trial. Arcadis’s
proposal of allocating 26.7% of the costs to the east side was simply one
suggestion made at Cooper’s request and is not based on any type of analysis of the
actual past work performed. It also makes little sense to attribute such a significant
percentage of the total past response costs to the east side given that the parties
(and the regulatory agencies) have focused almost exclusively on remediation of
the west, rather than the east, side of the property. In fact, the draft EE/CA Report
3

concluded that remediation on the east side is not even needed. While the Court
understands that the EPA might not ultimately adopt this recommendation, it is still
a reflection of how much (or in this case, how little) the east side contributes to the
overall remediation costs at the property. Having considered all the evidence and
the submissions of the parties, the Court concludes that it should allocate 2.64% of
the total past costs to the east side, which results in a judgment that Spectrum is
liable for $20,469.14 in past costs for the east side of the property, as well as all
future costs associated with the east side.
After the post-trial briefs in this case were filed, Cooper and Spectrum each
paid an additional $55,000.00 into the escrow account set up by the parties to fund
the EE/CA at the Macon Site. Cooper has therefore paid $406,000.00 in response
costs, while Spectrum has paid $948,144.46 in response costs. Total response
costs for the Macon Site therefore equal $1,354,144.46. As previously determined,
Spectrum cannot allocate the setoff amount of $480,000.00 and the past response
costs for the east side in the amount of $20,469.14 to Cooper. Once these costs are
deducted from the total response costs, $853.675.32 allocable response costs for
the contamination of the west side and under the building footprint remain. Those
remaining costs are allocable as follows: 96% ($819,528.31) to Spectrum, and 4%
($34,147.01) to Cooper. Cooper has therefore made an overpayment into the
4

escrow fund for past response costs in the amount of $371,852.99. As Cooper
concedes that it owes Spectrum $115.21 in accrued interest before it made its first
payment into the escrow account, the Court will deduct that amount from the total
amount due to Cooper as overpayment into the escrow fund. The Court agrees
with Cooper’s argument that once that first payment was made, interest stopped
accruing in Spectrum’s favor. Thus, the total amount Spectrum owes Cooper to
reflect its overpayment into the escrow fund will be reduced to reflect an interest
credit in Spectrum’s favor of $115.21. Spectrum therefore must reimburse Cooper
$371,737.78 in overpayments into the escrow fund. Final Judgment will be
entered herewith.

_______________________________
CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 20th day of November, 2019.

5