Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02556/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02556-32/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:6901 Environmental Cleanup Expenses

---

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

and CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 

OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

STERLING CENTRECORP INC., 

STEPHEN P. ELDER and ELDER 

DEVELOPMENT, INC., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:08-cv–02556-MCE-JFM 

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 

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 

Case 2:08-cv-02556-MCE-DB Document 296 Filed 09/20/16 Page 1 of 2
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

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. 

Dated: September 19, 2016 

 

. 

 

 1

 Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter 

submitted on the briefing in accordance with Eastern District Local Rule 230(g). 

Case 2:08-cv-02556-MCE-DB Document 296 Filed 09/20/16 Page 2 of 2