Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00186/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00186-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:9607 Real Property Tort to Land

---

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 On March 5, 2005, Third Party Defendants Wells Fargo

Bank, N.A., and F. Warren Hellman as Trustees of Trust A created

(continued...)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADOBE LUMBER, INC., a California )

corporation, ) NO. CV S-02-186 GEB GGH

)

Plaintiff, )

) 

v. ) ORDER

) 

HAROLD TAECKER, an individual, and )

GERALDINE TAECKER, an individual, )

)

Defendants. )

)

)

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM AND )

THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT. )

)

Pending are cross-motions for partial summary judgment. On

March 4, 2005, Defendants and Counter-claimants Harold and Geraldine

Taecker (“Taeckers”) filed a partial summary judgment motion on

Plaintiff Adobe Lumber, Inc.’s (“Adobe”) 42 U.S.C. § 9607 (“§ 107”)

and § 9613 (“§ 113”) claims, which are alleged under the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

of 1980, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675 (“CERCLA”).1 The Taeckers argue Adobe

Case 2:02-cv-00186-GEB-GGH Document 170 Filed 05/24/05 Page 1 of 4
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(...continued)

by the Estate of Marco Hellman, and F. Warren Hellman as Trustee

of Trust B created by the Estate of Marco Hellman, joined in the 

Taeckers’ motion for partial summary judgment. 

2

cannot assert a claim under § 113 because the recent Supreme Court

ruling in Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Aviall Servs., Inc., ___ U.S. ___,

125 S. Ct. 577, 584 (2004) (“Aviall”), forecloses a § 113 claim where

the private party has not been subject to a civil action under CERCLA. 

Adobe concedes the correctness of the Taeckers’ position. Therefore,

Adobe’s § 113 claim is dismissed.

The Taeckers also argue Adobe’s pled § 107 claim is not

actionable because of case precedent that precludes Adobe from

pursuing a joint and several theory of liability. Adobe agrees with

the Taeckers; therefore, Adobe’s claim for joint and several liability

under § 107 is dismissed.

However, Adobe argues that it is not prevented from pursuing

a recovery action on some form of liability other than joint and

several. On March 18, 2005, Adobe filed a motion for partial summary

judgment in which it seeks to establish the Taeckers’ liability under

§ 107 “for costs incurred by Adobe to respond to the release of the

hazardous substance perchloroethylene . . . from the Taeckers’ former

dry cleaning facility . . . at the ‘Woodland [Shopping] Center’ . . .

-- a small strip mall in downtown Woodland, California that Adobe

currently owns.” (Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Pl.’s Cross-Mot. Partial Summ. J.

at 1.) The Taeckers counter that this motion is untenable because it

erroneously assumes that Adobe has pled a § 107 contribution claim. 

The Taeckers also argue the motion fails because Adobe has not shown

compliance with the National Contingency Plan. 

Case 2:02-cv-00186-GEB-GGH Document 170 Filed 05/24/05 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Adobe rejoins it has sufficiently pled a contribution claim,

arguing: 

The Taeckers have known for nearly three years

(the Complaint was filed January 22, 2002) that

Adobe seeks to recover all or a portion of its

response costs from them in this action as

permitted under CERCLA and state law. That one of

Adobe’s claims pleads a higher standard of

liability than the standard of liability the

Taeckers actually face in this action cannot

reasonably be claimed to have caused prejudice.

(Pl.’s Reply Br. Supp. Cross-Mot. Partial Summ. J. at 16.)

Adobe’s Complaint sufficiently provided notice to the

Taeckers that Adobe seeks contribution under CERCLA. But the parties

dispute whether Adobe’s contribution claim is now actionable in light

of the Supreme Court’s holding in Aviall. Aviall does not foreclose 

Adobe’s contribution claim since the Supreme Court did not rule on

whether contribution is available under § 107. Aviall, 125 S. Ct. at

586 n.6 (stating “we do not address whether a § 107 cost recovery

action by Aviall” may be actionable under “some form of liability

other than joint and several”). Thus, Ninth Circuit precedent governs

this issue. The Ninth Circuit observed in Pinal Creek Group v.

Newmont Mining Corp., 118 F.3d 1298, 1301 (9th Cir. 1997), that “the

essence of a claim for contribution . . . is imbedded in the text of

§ 107.” Pinal Creek was explained in Western Properties Service Corp.

v. Shell Oil Co., 358 F.3d 678, 685 (9th Cir. 2004), as follows: 

“Pinal Creek held that the enactment of § 113 in 1986 did not replace

the implicit right to contribution many courts recognized in § 107(a);

rather, § 113 determines the ‘contours’ of § 107, so that a claim for

contribution requires the ‘joint operation’ of both sections.” Thus,

in the wake of Aviall, Adobe’s § 107 claim is construed as it was

before the congressional enactment of § 113. See Pinal Creek, 118

Case 2:02-cv-00186-GEB-GGH Document 170 Filed 05/24/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

F.3d at 1301 (stating that “[t]he legislative history behind § 113(f)

also supports the conclusion that, in enacting that provision,

Congress was only confirming and clarifying an existing claim for

contribution under § 107.”). Therefore, the Taeckers’ motion for

partial summary judgment on Adobe’s § 107 contribution claim is

denied. 

Adobe’s motion which seeks to establish the Taeckers’

liability is denied because it did not address all the elements of a

§ 107 contribution claim. See Carson Harbor Vill., Ltd. v. Unocal

Corp., 270 F.3d 863, 870 (9th Cir. 2001).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:02-cv-00186-GEB-GGH Document 170 Filed 05/24/05 Page 4 of 4