UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

STEVE A. HARRIS, INCORPORATED; 

THE FASTEST CAR WASH, L.L.C.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.  No. 02-1957

KENYON OIL COMPANY,

INCORPORATED,

Defendant-Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.

Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge.

(CA-01-2925-S)

Argued: April 1, 2003

Decided: April 30, 2003

Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Senior

Judge Hamilton wrote a concurring opinion. 

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Stuart Scott Morrison, KATTEN, MUCHIN, ZAVIS,

ROSENMAN, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Patricia Maureen

Weaver, PALEY, ROTHMAN, GOLDSTEIN, ROSENBERG &

COOPER, CHARTERED, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellee. ON
BRIEF: Glenn M. Cooper, PALEY, ROTHMAN, GOLDSTEIN,

ROSENBERG & COOPER, CHARTERED, Bethesda, Maryland, for

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Steve A. Harris, Inc. ("Harris") and The Fastest Car Wash, LLC

appeal the judgment entered in favor of Kenyon Oil Company, Inc.

on their breach of contract claim. For the reasons set forth below, we

vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings. 

Harris contracted to purchase from Kenyon Oil a piece of improved

real property located in Silver Spring, Maryland.1 This property had

previously been used in part as a gasoline station, and it was

improved with gasoline station equipment, including several underground storage tanks ("USTs"). The contract provides in pertinent

part that the property was being sold "as is" with one exception: Kenyon Oil agreed to be responsible for the removal of the gasoline station equipment from the property, and it agreed that "such removal

shall be in compliance with all laws, rules, and ordinances of the Federal, state and local government, including without limitation the

[Maryland Department of the Environment ("MDOE")]." 

After the parties had entered into the contract, Kenyon Oil discovered and reported to MDOE and Appellants that the property was

contaminated. Kenyon Oil thereafter removed five USTs from the

property. As part of this process, Kenyon Oil also removed 82 tons

of contaminated soil from the UST excavation area. 

1Harris subsequently assigned its interest to The Fastest Car Wash,

LLC. We hereafter refer to these parties collectively as "Appellants." 

2 HARRIS v. KENYON OIL CO.
The parties then closed the contract. Subsequent to the closing,

MDOE issued a Report of Observations requiring Kenyon Oil to

monitor the groundwater at the property for four consecutive quarters.

The monitoring results have shown that the contamination level on

the property has increased. 

Appellants contend that Kenyon Oil breached the contract because

(among other reasons) it has not completed its contractual obligation

to remediate the contamination on the property. Appellants point specifically to the contractual language that requires Kenyon Oil to

remove the gasoline station equipment — i.e., the USTs — "in compliance with all laws, rules, and ordinances of the Federal, state and

local government, including without limitation, the MDOE," and they

assert that Kenyon Oil’s remediation obligation primarily arises under

§ 26.10.10.03 of the Code of Maryland Regulations ("COMAR").

That MDOE regulation provides that if contaminated soil or groundwater is discovered during the permanent closure of USTs, then the

owner or operator of the USTs "shall begin corrective action in accordance with COMAR [§] 26.10.09." COMAR § 26.10.10.03(C).2

 The

corrective action set forth in COMAR § 26.10.09 is a multi-step process that establishes, under proper circumstances, investigation,

reporting, monitoring, and remediation requirements for the UST

owner, operator, or other responsible party. 

On the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment, the district

court granted Kenyon Oil’s motion and denied Appellants’ motion. In

its memorandum opinion, the district court held that Kenyon Oil’s

contractual obligation concerning the USTs is limited to the physical

removal of the USTs from the property. The district court stated:

The contract only makes sense as an integrated whole when

the seller’s obligations with regard to the gasoline station

equipment are read as arising only in connection with the

physical removal of the tanks, which . . . plainly does not

comprehend expensive remediation of environmental contamination that predated the removal of the tanks. If such

had been the intention of the parties, they could have used

language that addressed responsibility for remediating envi2Kenyon Oil disputes the applicability of this regulation. 

HARRIS v. KENYON OIL CO. 3
ronmental contamination. Instead, they chose to deliver the

property as is, less the gasoline station equipment, which is

exactly what the buyer got, and they limited the seller’s

obligation to restoration, which, in its plain meaning, simply

covers a return to the status quo ante. 

Although the district court quoted the section of the contract that

requires Kenyon Oil to remove the USTs "in compliance with all

laws, rules, and ordinances of the Federal, state and local government,

including without limitation, the MDOE," the district court did not

address in any manner either the meaning of this language or the

potential applicability of any MDOE regulation (or other law). 

A district court is ordinarily not obligated to address every contention raised by the parties in a motion. Malbon v. Pennsylvania Millers

Mut. Ins. Co., 636 F.2d 936, 939 n.8 (4th Cir. 1980). However, we

believe that the district court erred by not addressing the "in compliance with" language or the MDOE regulations because these are the

crucial matters upon which Appellants’ claim is based. In light of

Appellants’ arguments, we cannot say that these matters would have

no effect on the outcome of this case.3 The district court may very

well have considered these matters in reaching its conclusion; however, because it did not explain its analysis, we are unable to satisfy

ourselves that it, in fact, did consider them. 

As the case is in this posture, our ability to review the judgment

is hindered. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand this case

to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. See Whittle v. Timesavers, Inc., 749 F.2d 1103, 1106 (4th Cir.

1984) ("because the district court’s opinion did not adequately discuss

this issue, we reverse the decision of the district court and remand the

case for further proceedings"). We express no opinion on the disposition of the case on remand.4

VACATED AND REMANDED

3Because the district court ruled on the motions without oral argument,

we do not have the benefit of a hearing transcript to review to ascertain

whether, and to what extent, the district court considered these matters.

4On remand, the district court should also reconsider the inextricably

intertwined issue of whether Kenyon Oil breached the contract by failing

to deliver the appropriate certificate at closing. 

4 HARRIS v. KENYON OIL CO.
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring specially: 

I concur in the judgment and write separately only to address the

Appellants’ contention, barely mentioned in the majority opinion, see

ante at 4 n.4, that the district court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Kenyon Oil with respect to the portion of their

breach of contract claim alleging breach of § 2(A)(10) of the contract.

Section 2(A)(10) of the contract required Kenyon Oil to provide the

Appellants, at closing, a certificate from the Maryland Department of

the Environment (the MDOE) "certifying that the Gasoline Station

Equipment, including without limitation, the underground storage

tanks, was removed in compliance with the laws of the State of Maryland . . . ." (J.A. 342). Without directly addressing this allegation of

error, the majority opinion merely remands the issue to the district

court with the instruction that "the district court should also reconsider the inextricably intertwined issue of whether Kenyon Oil

breached the contract by failing to deliver the appropriate certificate

at closing." Ante at 4 n.4. Unfortunately, this instruction does not

inform the district court that the two alternative bases upon which it

granted summary judgment in favor of Kenyon Oil, with respect to

the portion of the breach of contract claim involving § 2(A)(10), are

erroneous. Without such information and guidance, the district court

may inadvertently repeat the same errors that appear fully in the

record before us on appeal. While not binding on the district court,

an analysis of the § 2(A)(10) issue may prove helpful to the district

court on remand. 

The district court first granted summary judgment in favor of Kenyon Oil with respect to § 2(A)(10) of the contract on the basis that

Kenyon Oil provided the Appellants with a two-page document that

was issued by the MDOE, dated January 31, 2002, and entitled "CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION CLOSURE." (J.A. 787). The

Appellants challenge this as error, and I agree. Nowhere does the twopage document provided by Kenyon Oil state that the MDOE certifies

that Kenyon Oil removed the Gasoline Station Equipment "in compliance with the laws of the State of Maryland . . . ." (J.A. 342). In fact,

language in the document stating that "[t]his Certificate does not

address any active enforcement actions at this site" makes clear that

no such certification was intended by the MDOE. (J.A. 788). 

HARRIS v. KENYON OIL CO. 5
Alternatively, the district court relied on the doctrine of waiver in

granting summary judgment in favor of Kenyon Oil with respect to

§ 2(A)(10) of the contract. According to the district court, the Appellants waived their right to enforce § 2(A)(10) of the contract by closing on the contract without receiving a document as described in

§ 2(A)(10). The district court’s reliance on the doctrine of waiver in

this situation is misplaced. Prior to closing, the parties had expressly

agreed (as evidenced by a letter agreement dated November 13, 2001)

that closing on the contract would not effect a waiver of any parties’

rights and obligations under the contract. Accordingly, the doctrine of

waiver does not provide a proper basis upon which to grant summary

judgment in favor of Kenyon Oil with respect to § 2(A)(10) of the

contract. 

On remand, I would allow the district court to consider any and all

other arguments which the parties may offer with respect to Appellants’ contention that Kenyon Oil breached § 2(A)(10) of the contract

by failing to provide them, at closing, with a certificate from the

MDOE "certifying that the Gasoline Station Equipment, including

without limitation, the underground storage tanks, was removed in

compliance with the laws of the State of Maryland . . . ." (J.A. 342).

6 HARRIS v. KENYON OIL CO.