Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05632/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05632-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1Plaintiff has requested that the Court take judicial notice of a number of briefs and letters filed in

connectionwith the Court’s previous summary judgment order. The Court hereby GRANTS plaintiff’s request

for judicial notice (Docket No. 130). 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NANCY FERGUSON, individually and as trustee of

the FERGUSON FAMILY TRUST, and on behalf of

her subrogee,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ARCATA REDWOOD COMPANY, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 03-05632 SI

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT

QUEBECOR WORLD ARCATA

CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Now before the Court is defendant Quebecor World Arcata Corporation’s (“Quebecor”) motion for

summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim for contribution under section 107 ofthe Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9607. Quebecor argues that plaintiff

is a “potentially responsible party” (“PRP”) under CERCLA, and that plaintiff therefore is not authorized to

bring suit under section 107. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b), this Court findsthe motion suitable forresolution

without oral argument and therefore VACATES the hearing set for October 7, 2005.

Quebecor previously filed a motion for summary judgment challenging plaintiff’s ability to bring a

CERCLA action.1 In the briefing on that motion, Quebecor argued that plaintiff was not authorized to bring

a section 107 claim. The Court, in its August 5, 2005 Order denying Quebecor’s motion, explicitly rejected

this argument. August 5, 2005 Order, at 8-9 (Docket No. 118).

In its current motion, Quebecor once again argues that plaintiffis not authorized to bring a claim under

Case 3:03-cv-05632-SI Document 135 Filed 10/06/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

section 107. This claim is not based on any factual development that has occurred since the last motion;

Quebecor admitsthat its new motion is “a pure question of law.” Quebecor’s Mot. For Summary Judgment,

at 2. While Quebecor’s arguments are more thoroughly laid out in its renewed motion for summary judgment,

the arguments are nonetheless substantially the same as those that it raised previously. Quebecor argues, once

again, that the Supreme Court’s decision in CooperIndustries, Inc. v. Availl Services, Inc., 543 U.S. 157,

125 S. Ct. 577 (2004), and the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Pinal Creek Group v. Newmont Mining Corp.,

118 F.3d 1298 (9th Cir. 1997), bar plaintiff from asserting a section 107 claim for contribution.

Contrary to Quebecor’s position, this Court previously found that “the Ninth Circuit recognize[s] a

PRP’s right to bring a contribution claim under Section 107.” August 5, 2005 Order, at 8 (Docket No. 118).

Quebecor has not convinced the Court that this conclusion was incorrect. Accordingly, Quebecor’s motion

for summary judgment on plaintiff’s CERCLA contribution claim is DENIED (Docket No. 123). Given that

Quebecor’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s state law claims depended upon the absence of any

federal claim, the Court also DENIES Quebecor’s motion with respect to the state law claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 5, 2005

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-05632-SI Document 135 Filed 10/06/05 Page 2 of 2