Asarco v. Noranda Mining
Filing
63
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER denying as moot 57 Motion for More Definite Statement; denying 59 Motion to Strike the Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 10/22/13 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
ASARCO LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
& ORDER
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:12-cv-00527
v.
NORANDA MINING, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
United States District Court Judge Tena
Campbell
Magistrate Judge Dustin Pead
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court pursuant to a 28 USC §636(b)(1)(A) referral from District
Court Judge Tena Campbell (doc. 34). Currently pending is Defendant Noranda Mining’s
(Noranda) Motion For More Definite Statement (doc. 57) and Noranda’s Motion to Strike
Plaintiff Asarco, LLC’s (Asarco) Second Amended Complaint (doc. 59).
I. BACKGROUND
On June 14, 2013, Judge Campbell issued an Order granting Asarco leave to amend its
Complaint in order to join the proper Defendant, Noranda Mining, Inc. (doc. 52).1
Thereafter, on June 18, 2003, Asarco filed an Amended Complaint naming Noranda
Mining Inc. as Defendant (doc. 53). In addition, Asarco amended the amount claimed to settle its
underlying liability relating to the Richardson Flat Park City Mining District (Site), pursuant to
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 9613(g)(3)(B), from approximately $8,850.000 to
1
The prior named defendant was Xstrata PLC, a UK corporation.
$10,413,646.19 (docs. 2, 53, ¶31).
On July 22, 2013, Noranda filed a Motion for More Definite Statement arguing that while
the Amended Complaint alleges “ the full amount [Asarco] paid to settle its liability, [Asarco]
has failed to allege the amount of overpayment that may be attributable to Noranda.” (doc. 57,
p.4). Specifically, Noranda requested that Asarco provide a more definite statement and clarify
with particularity “[t]he amount [Asarco] purportedly overpaid in its settlement with Atlantic
Richfield and/or US EPA and the amount [Asarco] now asserts Noranda owes as its share of said
amounts.” (doc. 57, p.6).
Instead of filing an opposition, on August 8, 2103, Asarco filed a Second Amended
Complaint stating that it has incurred approximately $8,707,455.57 for response action
amounting to $7.4 million in principal, plus $1,307,455.57 in interest and clarifying that “[t]his
amount represents more than Plaintiff’s allocable share of costs related to its releases or disposal
of hazardous substances in the Site.” (doc. 58).
On August 23, 2013, Noranda filed a Motion To Strike Asarco’s Second Amended
Complaint (doc. 59) arguing that the amendment was improperly filed and failed to address the
issues raised in Noranda’s Motion For More Definite Statement.
II. ANALYSIS
1. Asarco’s Second Amended Complaint Was Properly Filed.
In response to the original Amended Complaint (doc. 53), Noranda filed a Motion for
More Definite Statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). See Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(e) (“A party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive
pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare
2
a response.”). Thereafter, instead of filing an opposition, Asarco opted to file a Second Amended
Complaint (doc. 58). Currently, Noranda moves to strike the Second Amended Complaint (doc.
58) arguing that the filing “elevates form over substance” because the amendment fails to address
the issues raised by Noranda in its Motion For A More Definite Statement (doc. 62).2
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B) states that a party may amend its pleading
once as a matter of course within:
(A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive
pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days
after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A)(B). Here, Noranda’s Motion for More Definite Statement, filed
pursuant to Rule 12(e), required a responsive pleading and Asarco, pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1)(B),
appropriately filed a Second Amended Complaint, in response thereto, within the 21-day
requirement.
While Noranda admits that the filing of a Second Amended Complaint was procedurally
proper, it argues that “such formulaic compliance is inadequate in this instance” (doc. 62). The
Court disagrees. Asarco has complied with the express language of the Rule, and while Noranda
may be dissatisfied with the amendments made, the Court declines any invitation to re-fashion
procedural rules based upon “inadequacies”--- perceived or actual.
Accordingly, as there is no procedural basis to strike Asarco’s Second Amended
Complaint, Noranda’s Motion To Strike the Second Amended Complaint is hereby DENIED
2
Initially, Noranda argues that Asarco’s filing of a Second Amended Complaint in
response to its Motion For More Definite Statement was procedurally improper (doc. 59).
However, Noranda appears to abandon that argument as it later admits that the filing was
procedurally appropriate (doc. 62).
3
(doc. 59).
2. Based Upon The Filing Of Asarco’s Second Amended Complaint,
Noranda’s Motion For A More Definite Statement Is Moot.
As stated above, Asarco’s Second Amended Complaint was properly filed pursuant to
Rule 15(a)(1)(B). Thus, Noranda’s Motion For More Definite Statement with respect to the
original Amended Complaint is moot as the original Amended Complaint is no longer operative.
In so ruling, the Court does not consider the merits of Noranda’s Motion For More Definite
Statement.
Accordingly, Noranda’s Motion For More Definite Statement is DENIED as MOOT
(doc. 57).
III. ORDER
As stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Noranda’s Motion For More Definite Statement is DENIED as moot (doc. 57); and
2. Noranda’s Motion To Strike The Second Amended Complaint is DENIED (doc. 59).
DATED this 22nd day of October, 2013.
____________________________________
Dustin Pead
U.S. Magistrate Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?