Filed: Sep. 20, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 20, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr. , District Judge . Both the United States and the California Department of Toxic Substances (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs" or "government" unless otherwise specified) have designated the former Lava Cap Mine, located in Nevada County, California, as a Superfund site polluted by elevated levels of arsenic that were disseminated through tailings and waste materials generated by mine operations. Plaintiffs have undertaken cle
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr. , District Judge . Both the United States and the California Department of Toxic Substances (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs" or "government" unless otherwise specified) have designated the former Lava Cap Mine, located in Nevada County, California, as a Superfund site polluted by elevated levels of arsenic that were disseminated through tailings and waste materials generated by mine operations. Plaintiffs have undertaken clea..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge.
Both the United States and the California Department of Toxic Substances (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs" or "government" unless otherwise specified) have designated the former Lava Cap Mine, located in Nevada County, California, as a Superfund site polluted by elevated levels of arsenic that were disseminated through tailings and waste materials generated by mine operations. Plaintiffs have undertaken cleanup efforts designed to remediate that arsenic contamination. The present action, filed pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. § 9601, et seq. ("CERCLA"), seeks contribution for the costs of those activities both from former owners of the site and operators responsible for its mining.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed February 8, 2016, as to Defendant Sterling Centrecorp Inc.'s statute of limitations defense. By way of Sterling's Twelfth Affirmative Defense as set forth in its Amended Answer (ECF No. 33-2), Sterling asserts that the statute of limitations under Section 113(g)(2)(B) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9613(g)(2)(B), bars the recovery of a portion of Plaintiffs' costs associated with their investigation and removal activities at the Lava Cap site. Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on grounds that because the removal activities for which Plaintiffs incurred costs was a single, continuous process, their lawsuit to recover removal costs, filed within three years after completion of said removal action, was timely as a matter of law.
On March 17, 2016, Defendant Sterling filed a Statement of Non-Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion stating both that it does not oppose the Motion and that it "does not assert a statute of limitations defense with respect to any of [Plaintiffs' claimed] costs." ECF No. 282, 1:1-6. In light of that non-opposition, Sterling's representation, and good cause appearing, Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendant Sterling's Statute of Limitations Defense (ECF No. 267) is GRANTED.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
