Pakootas, et al v. Teck Cominco Metals, et al

Filing 2617

ORDER GRANTING 2573 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; Plaintiff State of Washington's Seventh Cause of Action under the Model Toxics Control Act is DISMISSED, with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Stanley A Bastian. (TNC, Case Administrator)

Case 2:04-cv-00256-SAB

ECF No. 2617

filed 01/17/23

PageID.64819 Page 1 of 5

1
2

FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

3

Jan 17, 2023

4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

7
8

JOSEPH A. PAKOOTAS, an individual

9

and enrolled member of the Confederated

10

Tribes of the Colville Reservation; and

11

DONALD R. MICHEL, an individual and

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

12

enrolled member of the Confederated

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

13

Tribes of the Colville Reservation; and

14

THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF

15

THE COVILLE RESERVATION,

18

and
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,

19
20

v.

21

TECK COMINCO METALS, LTD., a

22

Canadian corporation,

23

2:04-CV-00256-SAB

Plaintiffs,

16
17

No.

Defendant.

24
25
26

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 2573. The

27

motion was considered without oral argument. Defendant Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd.

28

(“Teck”) is represented by Deborah Baum, Amanda Halter, Thomas Campbell, Mark
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION *1

Case 2:04-cv-00256-SAB

ECF No. 2617

filed 01/17/23

PageID.64820 Page 2 of 5

1

Elliot, and Bryce Wilcox. Plaintiff-Intervenor the State of Washington (the “State”) is

2

represented by Andrew Fitz, Joshua Osborne-Klein, Kelly Wood, Dylan Stonecipher, and

3

Kara Tebeau.

4

Teck moves the Court to reconsider its Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to

5

Dismiss, ECF No. 2564. Reconsideration of the Order is appropriate pursuant to Federal

6

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The Court finds the State has failed to plead a cognizable

7

claim under the Model Toxics Control Act. Accordingly, the claim is dismissed.
BACKGROUND

8
9

The Court granted the State’s request to file a Fifth Amended Complaint on March

10

31, 2022. The Fifth Amended Complaint added a Seventh Cause of Action for natural

11

resource damages and costs under Washington State’s Model Toxics Control Act.

12

In the Fifth Amended Complaint, the State alleges Teck is liable under the state statute

13

as a present or former owner, operator, and/or arranger of a facility: the Upper Columbia

14

River (UCR). Id. ¶¶ 11.7–11.9. It claims Teck has discharged hazardous substances in the

15

form of emissions from its smelter, and these airborne contaminants were disposed of at the

16

UCR. Id. ¶ 11.4.

17

The State alleges that Teck intentionally directed its airborne contaminants to the

18

UCR as a means to dispose of its wastes, and these discharges were not passive. The State,

19

in its response brief, indicated Teck constructed and over time modified its smokestacks for

20

the purpose of ensuring the contaminants were carried away by the valley’s air currents to

21

Washington. Id.

22

On April 14, 2022, Teck moved to dismiss the claim. The Court denied Teck’s motion

23

to dismiss on September 15, 2022, finding the State had plausibly alleged that Teck was an

24

arranger under the statute. Teck timely filed this motion on October 13, 2022.

25

LEGAL STANDARD

26

Federal courts have discretion to reconsider and vacate prior orders pursuant to

27

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). See Barber v. Hawai‘i, 42 F.3d 1185,

28

1198 (9th Cir. 1994); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION *2

Case 2:04-cv-00256-SAB

ECF No. 2617

filed 01/17/23

PageID.64821 Page 3 of 5

1

1262 (9th Cir. 1993). A district court may provide relief from a judgment or order under

2

Rule 60(b) for any reason “that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). This clause “gives

3

the district court power to vacate judgments ‘whenever such action is appropriate to

4

accomplish justice.’” Henson v. Fid. Nat’l Fin., Inc., 943 F.3d 434, 443 (9th Cir. 2019)

5

(citing United States v. Sparks, 685 F.2d 1128, 1130 (9th Cir. 1982)).

6
7
8

DISCUSSION
The Court concludes the State has not pled a plausible claim under MTCA, and the
deficiency cannot be remedied. As a result, the state-law claim is dismissed.

9

To establish a claim for natural resource damages under MTCA, a plaintiff must

10

allege four elements. First, the plaintiff must allege that the defendant falls within a class of

11

persons that is subject to liability. RCW § 70A.305.040(1)(a)–(e). Second, the plaintiff must

12

assert that the contaminated site in question is a “facility,” as defined by the statute. Id.

13

§ 70A.305.020(8). Third, there must have been a “release” or “threatened release” of a

14

hazardous substance at the facility. Id. § 70A.305.040(2). Fourth, the plaintiff must allege

15

the release or threatened release caused natural resource damages. Id.

16

The chief issue is whether Teck is a person subject to plausible liability under the

17

statute. The State alleges that Teck is liable as an “owner,” “operator,” and/or “arranger”

18

under MTCA. The statute provides that an owner or operator is “any person with any

19

ownership interest in the facility or who exercises any control over the facility.”

20

Id. § 70A.305.020(22)(a). An arranger is:

21
22
23
24
25

[a]ny person who owned or possessed a hazardous substance and who by contract,
agreement, or otherwise arranged for disposal or treatment of the hazardous substance
at the facility, or arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal or treatment of
the hazardous substances at the facility, or otherwise generated hazardous wastes
disposed of or treated at the facility can be liable.
Id. § 70A.305.040(1)(c) (emphasis added).

26

In this case, the State has failed to state sufficient facts to show Teck may plausibly

27

be an owner, operator, or arranger of the UCR. The State provides a conclusory assertion

28

that Teck owned and operated the UCR, but it proffers no factual statements to demonstrate
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION *3

Case 2:04-cv-00256-SAB

ECF No. 2617

filed 01/17/23

PageID.64822 Page 4 of 5

1

Teck had ownership of or control over any portion of the site. The State claims Teck’s

2

control is demonstrated by its ability to direct aerial pollution to the UCR from another

3

location. Absent plausible factual assertions to show Teck holds or held a management role

4

or ownership interest in or at the UCR, the State has not alleged Teck is an owner or operator

5

under MTCA.

6

The Court also finds Teck cannot be an arranger on the facts alleged by the State. The

7

State argues Teck can be liable because it intentionally and purposefully directed emissions

8

to the UCR. The State claims Teck’s emissions were not “passive,” and thus it does not rely

9

on a theory of passive migration.

10

The pertinent language under § 70A.305.040(1)(c) provides that a person is liable as

11

an arranger if they “generated hazardous wastes disposed of . . . at the facility.” Teck’s intent

12

to direct waste to the UCR does not demonstrate that any disposal to air occurred at the

13

UCR. The facts do not indicate Teck’s disposal of waste to the environment occurred at the

14

facility itself, despite the contaminants arriving there, and the State’s argument creates a

15

theory of arranger liability with no apparent limiting principle. Absent a clear definition of

16

“disposal” that expands arranger liability in the way purported by the State, the Court finds

17

the State has failed to state a plausible claim under MTCA.

18

For these reasons, the motion for reconsideration is granted. As the motion can be

19

resolved as a matter of statutory interpretation, the Court declines to rule on the parties’

20

remaining arguments. Since the prior Order is vacated, Teck’s motion to certify the Order

21

for interlocutory appeal is moot.

22

//

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION *4

Case 2:04-cv-00256-SAB

ECF No. 2617

filed 01/17/23

PageID.64823 Page 5 of 5

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

2

1.

Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 2573, is GRANTED.

3

2.

Plaintiff State of Washington’s Seventh Cause of Action under the Model

4
5
6
7

Toxics Control Act is DISMISSED, with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to enter this
Order and to provide copies to counsel.
DATED this 17th day of January 2023.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Stanley A. Bastian

Chief United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION *5