2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-8-2007 

# M ontvi lle v . W o o dmont B ldrs P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-4888

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " M ontvi lle v

. W oodmont B ldr s " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 604. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/604T he H onor abl e A r thurL . A l ar cón, U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge forthe N i nth J udi ci al * C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 05- 4888 M O N TV I LLE TO W N SH I P, A ppel l ant v. W OOD M ONT BUI LDE RS , LL C; D A V I D MA N D E L B A U M; N A T H A N MA N D E L B A U M; RO NAL D G. T AR GAN; RI CH AR D W. KOR AL E K; P OST , BUCKLE Y, S CHUH & J ERNI GAN , I NC. O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 03- cv- 2680 ( H onor abl e D i cki ns on R . D ebevoi s e) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 23, 2007 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , F U E N T E S a n d A L A R C Ó N , C i r cui tJudges . * ( Fi l ed A ugus t8, 2007 )

OPI NI ON O F THE COURTT h e f o rm e r o w n e rs in c lu d e D a v id M a n d e lb a u m a n d N a th a n M a n d e lb a u m , alo n g w ith 1 R o n a ld G . T a rg a n , L e slie J. K o ra lek , an d R ich a rd W . K o ra lek , co -tru ste e s u n d e r th e A n ita S. K or al ek Li vi ng T rus t . M ont vi l l e al s o br oughts ui tagai ns tthe envi r onm ent al engi neer i ng fi r m Post , B uckl ey , Schuh & J erni gan, I nc. , w hi ch i nform ed thi s C our tby l ett erdat ed M ar ch 23, 2006, thati ti s nota partyt o thi s appea l ( a poi ntthe Tow ns hi p does n o t app ea r t o h av e c o n test ed ). 2 S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge . T his app eal ari ses fr om an acti on broug ht byM on t vil l e T ow nship against W oodm ontB ui l der s , L L C , and s ever al form erow ner s ( “the M andel baum D efe ndant s ”) 1 of a c ont ami nat ed tr actof l and ( “the Pr operty ”) i n M ont vi l l e Tow ns hi p, N . J . T he T ow ns hi p s oughtt o r ecove ra s har e of the tr act ’ s cl ean- up cos t s underthe C om pr ehens i ve E nvi r onm ent al R es pons e, C om pens at i on, and Li abi l i tyA ctof 1980, 42 U . S. C . §§ 9601–9675 ( C E R C L A ) , as m odi fi ed bythe Super fund A m endment s and R eauthor i zat i on A ctof 1986, Pub. L . N o. 99- 499, 100 St at . 1613. T he Tow ns hi p fi l ed s ui tunder C E R C L A § 107( a) ( as w el l as ot hers t atut oryand comm on l aw pr ovi s i ons ) , butthe D istric t C o u rt d ism iss e d its c laim . T h e S u p re m e C o u rt’s r e c e n t in ter v e n in g d e c isio n in U ni t ed Stat es v. A t lant i c Rese ar ch C or p. , 127 S. C t . 2331 ( 2007) , di r ect l ycontr ol s the i s s ue. O n t hi s bas i s , w e w i l l r ever s e i n part , aff i r m i n part , vaca t e i n part , and r emand for pr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th t hatdeci s i on and thi s opi ni on. I. T he Pr opertyi s a 130- acr e tr actof l and thatw as pr evi ous l yus ed foragr i cul tur al purpos es . I n J ul y1999, the Tow ns hi p pur chas ed a 100- acr e par cel of the Pr opertyfr om3

the M andel baum D efe ndant s t o us e as open s pace . W oodm ontcontr act ed t o devel op t he r emai ni ng thi r tyacr es , obt ai ned perm i s s i on t o s ubdi vi de the l and forr es i dent i al us e, and a g re e d to re m o v e d e b ris f ro m th e P ro p e rtyb e f

o re th e tra n sa c tio n ’s c lo sin g . In A p ril 1998, the envi r onm ent al engi neer i ng fi r m Post , B uckl ey , Schuh & J erni gan, I nc. ( “PB S& J ”) had i s s ued a r eportt o t he Tow ns hi p aft erconduct i ng an envi r onm ent al a s s e s s m e n to f

th e P r o p e r ty. P B S & J ’ s r e p o r ti d e n t i f i e d a r e a s o f

c o n c e rn o n th e P r o p e r ty, i ncl udi ng above- gr ound s t or age c ont ai ner s and debr i s , and not ed that , “[w ] hi l e none of th e o b se rv e d d e b ris w a s c o n sid e re d h a z a rd o u s, a d d iti o n a l m a ter ial in lo w e r la y e rs c o u ld b e c lassifi ed as su ch . N o sam p li n g is r ec o m m en d ed fo r th is area a t th is t im e; ho w ev er, w hen the debr i s i s r emoved, the l ow erl ay er s s houl d be ca r eful l yexami ned. ” Pr i ort o t he c lo sin g , the T o w n sh ip w a s to ld th e d e b ris h a d b e e n re m o v e d f ro m th e p ro p e rty , b u t d id nott ake s t eps t o i nves t i gat e pos s i bl e cont ami nat i on i n the l ow erl evel s . A ft erthe cl os i ng, the T ow nship di scovered the deb ri s had ac tuall yno tbeen rem ov ed, and l at er al so di s cover ed the s oi l w as cont ami nat ed. T he Tow ns hi p then conduc t ed a vol unt arycl eanup of the Pr opertyunderthe over s i ghtof the N ew J er s eyD epart m entof Envi r onm ent al Pr ot ect i on. T he T ow nship broug ht s uitun der C E R C L A §§ 10 7(a) and 11 3(f) , and al so as s ert ed var i ous s t at e and c om m on l aw cl ai m s i n i t s four t een- countcompl ai nt( fi l ed onCou n tI was b r o u g h tu n d e rCERCLA § 1 0 7 ( a ) ; Cou n tI I was b r o u g h tu n d e rCERCLA 2 § 113( f) ; C ountI I I w as fora dec l ar at oryj udgm entunderC E R C L A ; and C ountI V w as broug ht under t he N ew Jer seyS pil l A ct . T he rem ai ning cou nts w ere com m on l aw cl ai m s. “Pot ent i al l yr es pons i bl e party ” and “ PR P” ar e EP A - cr eat ed t erm s of artnot 3 s peci fi cal l yus ed i n C E R C L A , butthe Supr eme C our thas us ed them, not i ng that “ C E R C L A § 1 0 7 (a ) lists f o u r b ro a d c a teg o rie s o f

p e rso n s a s P R P s, b yd e f in iti o n liab le to otherper s ons forvar i ous cos t s . ” A t l . R es ear ch C or p. , 127 S. C t . at2336 n. 2 ( ci t i ng 42 U . S . C . § 9 6 0 7 (a)(1)– (4)). T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed ni ne of the tw el ve count s agai ns tthe M andel baum 4 D ef en d an ts, leav ing o n ly : a claim u n d er C E R C L A § 1 1 3 (f); a claim fo r a d ec laratory j udgm entunderC E R C L A ; and a c l ai m of negl i gentm i s r epr es ent at i on. T he D i s tr i ct C our tal s o di s m i s s ed t en of the thi r t een c ount s agai ns tPB S& J , l eavi ng onl y : a cl ai m for n e g lig e n t m isre p re se n tatio n ; a c laim f o r liab ili tya s a n in ten d e d b e n e f icia ry ; an d a c laim for neg l i gen ce. P B S & J had n ot y etm ov ed to di sm i ss these t hree cl ai m s, bu tl at er di d so i n Sept ember2005. T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed the mot i on on J anuary6, 2006, and the T ow ns hi p di d notappea l fr om thatdeci s i on. 4 J une 5, 2003) , s eeki ng t o r ecove rthe cos t s of i t s cl ean- up. B oth the M andel baum 2 De f e n d a n t s a n d P BS &J mo v e d t o d i s mi s s th e T o wn s h i p ’ s c l a i ms a g a i n s tth e m. On S eptem ber 14, 2004 , the D i stri ctC ou rtpart i al l ygrant ed the M and el bau m D efen dan t s’ m o tio n , d ism iss in g (a m o n g o th e r c laim s) th e C E R C L A § 1 0 7 (a ) a c tio n b e c a u se M o n tv ill e T ow ns hi p, as a “pot ent i al l yr es pons i bl e party ” ( “PR P”) thathad notas s ert ed an 3

“ in n o c e n t o w n e r” d e f

e n s e , c o u ld n o t s u e u n d e r t h a t p ro v is io n . Montvi l l e Tw p. v. W oo dmontBui lde rs , LLC , N o. 03- 2680 ( D . N . J . Sept . 14, 2004) . W oodm ontl at erm oved 4 fors um m aryj udgm entorj udgm enton the pl eadi ngs on al l cl ai m s agai ns ti t , w hi l e the M andel baum D efe ndant s m oved fors um m aryj udgm enton the thr ee c l ai m s r emai ni ng agai ns tthem. O n A ugus t17, 2005, the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favor o f th e M a n d e lb a u m D e f

e n d a n ts a n d W o o d m o n t, as w e ll as ju d g m e n t o n th e p lea d in g s inT he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n W oodm ont ’ s favoron the 5 T ow ns hi p’ s cl ai m s fori nj unct i ve r el i ef a nd negl i gentm i s r epr es ent at i on, and j udgm enton th e p lea d in g s in W o o d m o n t’s f a v o r o n th e T o w n sh ip ’s n in e re m a in in g c laim s a g a in st it.

5 f a v o r o f W o o d m o n t. W

oodm ont , N o. 03- 2680, 2005 W L 2000204, at*13 ( D . N . J . A ug. 17, 2005) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tfound the Tow ns hi p’ s fourcl ai m s underC E R C L A and the

5 N ew J er s eySpi l l A ctw er e barr ed bya J anuary22, 2004, s ett l ementagr eementbetw een th e T o w n sh ip a n d W o o d m o n t in a sta te c o u rt p ro c e e d in g th a t sta ted th e T o w n sh ip w o u ld

“ ‘m a k e n o c laim o f

a n yso rt u n d e r C E R C L A o r th e N e w Je rse yS p ill A c t . . . in connec t i on w i th t hi s cl eanup. ’ ” I d. at *6 (alt era ti o n in o ri g inal). A lt ern ati v ely , the c o u rt found al l fourcl ai m s s houl d be di s m i s s ed on the mer i t s : agai n, the courts t at ed the T o w n sh ip c o u ld n o t b rin g a n a c tio n u n d e r C E R C L A § 1 0 7 (a ) b e c a u se it w a s a P R P ; an d it al s o s t at ed the Tow ns hi p coul d nots eek c ontr i but i on forthe cos t s of i t s cl eanup unde r CE RC L A § 1 1 3 ( f

) b e c a u s e i tf

a c e d n o l i a b i l i tyu n d e rCE RC L A § § 1 0 6 o r1 0 7 ( a ) . On A ugus t30, 2005, the Tow ns hi p m oved forr econs i der at i on of the court ’ s A ugus t17, 2005, or der , and al s o s oughtl eave t o amend i t s compl ai ntt o as s ertan i nnocentow ner defe ns e ( w hi ch w oul d pr ecl ude i t s bei ng a PR P) and ther ebys t at e a CE R C L A § 107( a) c laim . T h e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied b o th m o tio n s o n S e p tem b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 5 , an d th e T o w n sh ip t i m el yappea l ed. II. T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1331 and w e have ju risd ictio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . O u r re v iew o f a d istric t co u rt’s g ra n t o f a m o tio n to6

d is m is s is p le n a ry. W

or ldcom , I

nc. v. G r aphnet

, I nc. , 3 4 3 F .3 d 6 5 1 , 6 5 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). In c o n sid e rin g w h e th e r th e c o m p lain t su rv iv e s a m o tio n to d ism iss , w e re v iew w h e th e r it

“ c o n tain [ s] e ith e r d ire c t o r in f e re n tial a lleg a tio n s re sp e c tin g a ll th e m a ter ial e lem e n ts n ec essa ryto su stai n rec o v eryu n d er s o me vi abl e l egal theory . ” B el lA t l . C or p. v. T w o m b ly , 127 S. C t . 1955, 1969 ( 2007) . W e al s o exer ci s e pl enaryr evi ew of a di s tr i ct c o u rt ’s g ra n t o f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a n d ju d g m e n t o n th e p le a d in g s . See Si ki r i ca v. N at i onw i de I

ns . C o. , 4 1 6 F .3 d 2 1 4 , 2 1 9

– 2 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). In c o n d u c tin g th is re v iew , all f a c t s a n d i n f

e r e n c e s a r e c o n s tru e d i n th e l i g h tm o s tf a v o r a b l e t o th e n o n - m o v i n g p a r ty, and “[ j ] udgm entw i l l notbe gr ant ed unl es s the movantcl ear l yes t abl i s hes ther e ar e no m at er i al i s s ues of fa ct , and he i s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” I d. a t2 2 0 . We re v ie w th e d e n ia l o f

le a v e to a m e n d a c o m p la in t f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . See G ar vi n v. C i t y of P hi la. , 354 F. 3d 215, 219 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . O urr evi ew of a de ni al of a mot i on for r econs i der at i on i s pl enaryw her e the deni al w as bas ed on “the i nt erpr et at i on and appl i cat i on of a l egal pr ece pt , ” butotherw i s e w e r evi ew s uch deni al s forabus e of d is c re tio n . Kos hatka v. P hi la. N ew s papers , I nc. , 7 6 2 F . 2 d 3 2 9 , 3 3 3 ( 3 d C i r . 1 9 8 5 ) . We e x e rc is e p le n a ry re v ie w o v e r q u e s tio n s o f s ta tu to ry in te rp re ta tio n . See U ni t ed Stat es v. E . I . D uP ontde N

em ours & Co. , 4 3 2 F . 3 d 1 6 1 , 1 6 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (en b an c).7 III . T h e tw o p ro v isio n s o f

C E R C L A a t issu e in th is c a se “ a llo w p riv a te p a rties to r ecove rexpens es as s oci at ed w i th cl eani ng up cont ami nat ed s i t es . ” A t l . R es ear ch C or p. , 12 7 S . C t . at23 33 . S ect i on 10 7(a) (4) m akes P R P s l i able for, am on g o ther things: ( A ) al l cos t s of r emoval orr emedi al act i on i ncurr ed bythe U ni t ed St at es G overnm entora St at e oran I ndi an tr i be noti ncons i s t entw i th the nat i onal cont i ngencypl an; [and] ( B ) anyot hernece s s arycos t s of r es pons e i ncurr ed byanyotherper s on cons i s t entw i th t he nat i onal cont i ngencypl an. 4 2 U .S .C . § 9 6 0 7 (a )(4 ). S e c tio n 1 1 3 (f )(1 ), m e a n w h ile, p ro v id e s in re lev a n t p a rt: A nyper s on m ays eek c ontr i but i on fr om anyotherper s on w ho i s l i abl e or pot ent i al l yl i abl e unders ect i on 9607( a) of thi s t i t l e, dur i ng orfol l ow i ng any c iv il ac tio n u n d e r se c tio n 9 6 0 6 o f th is titl e o r u n d e r se c tio n 9 6 0 7 (a ) o f th is t i t l e. I d. § 4 6 1 3 (f)(1). I n A t lant i c Rese ar ch C or p. , the S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld th a t P R P s m a ya v a il th e m se lv e s o f

b o th § § 1 0 7 (a )(4 )(B ) a n d 1 1 3 (f )(1 ) to re c o v e r c lea n -u p e x p e n se s (a lb e it i n d iffe ren t ci rcu m stan ce s). It s statem en t th at “the p lai n lang u ag e o f [ § 1 0 7 (a)(4)(B )] author i zes cos t - r ecove r yact i ons byanypr i vat e party , i ncl udi ng PR Ps, ” A t l . R es ear ch C or p. , 127 S. C t . at2336, thus overrul ed ourr ece nthol di ng i n E . I. D uP on tde N em ou rs & Co. v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 460 F. 3d 515 ( 3d C i r . 2006) , that§ 113( f) pr ovi des the exc l us i ve caus e of a ct i on avai l abl e t o PR Ps. T he C our tdi s t i ngui s hed ac t i ons t o r ecove ri ncurr ed cl ean- up cos t s under§ 107( a) ( w hi ch maybe undert aken byanypr i vat e partyatanyt i m e) w ith a c tio n s f

o r c o n trib u tio n u n d e r § 1 1 3 (f ) (w h ich m a yo n lyb e u n d e rta k e n b ya p a rtySect i on 106 al l ow s the governm entt o or dera PR P t o t ake a ct i on. 42 U . S. C . § 9606. 6 O f cour s e, w e r ecogni ze the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on as t o § 107( a) w as a corr ect 7 i nt erpr et at i on of the l aw of thi s C i r cui tatthe t i m e, and onl ys ubs equent l ychange d byt he Supr eme C our t ’ s r ece ntdeci s i on i n A t lant i c Rese ar ch C or p. 8 f a c in g liab ili tyu n d e r § § 1 0 6 o r 1 0 7 (a ), an d o n lyw h e re th e re h a s b e e n a n in e q u itab le 6 d istri b u ti o n o f c o m m o n li ab il ity ): [T]he r emedi es avai l abl e i n §§ 107( a) and 113( f) compl ementeac h otherby p ro v id in g c a u s e s o f

a c tio n to p e rs o n s in d if f e re n t p ro c e d u ra l c ir c u m s ta n c e s . Sect i on 113( f) ( 1) author i zes a contr i but i on act i on t o PR Ps w i th comm on l i abi l i tys t emm i ng fr om an ac t i on i ns t i tut ed under§ 106 or§ 107( a) . A nd § 1 0 7 (a ) p e rm its c o st re c o v e ry(a s d istin c t f ro m c o n trib u tio n ) b ya p riv a te part ythathas i t s el f i ncurr ed cl eanup c os t s . H ence , a PR P t hatpay s m oney t o s at i s fya s ett l ementagr eementora courtj udgm entm aypur s ue § 113( f) contr i but i on. B utbyr ei m bur s i ng r es pons e cos t s pai d byotherpart i es , the PR P has noti ncurr ed i t s ow n cos t s of r es pons e and ther efor e ca nnotr ecove r under§ 107( a) . A s a r es ul t , though el i gi bl e t o s eek c ontr i but i on under § 1 1 3 ( f ) ( 1 ) , th e P RP c a n n o ts i mu l t a n e o u s l ys e e k t o r e c o v e rth e s a me ex p en ses u n d er § 1 0 7 (a). I d. at2338 ( ci t i ng D uP ont , 4 6 0 F . 3 d at 54 8 (S lov it er, J. , d issen ti n g )). A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ctC our tw as corr ecti n concl udi ng the Tow ns hi p coul d not su e f o r co n tr ibu ti o n u n d er § 1 1 3 (f) (be ca u se itfa ce d n o li ab il ityu n d er § § 1 0 6 o r 10 7 (a)), buti ncorr ecti n concl udi ng the Tow ns hi p coul d nots ue t o r ecove rcos t s under§ 107( a) (because i tw as a PR P ). O n rem and , the D i stri ctC ou rtshou l d recon si der C ou nts I 7 (C E R C L A § 1 0 7 (a)) an d III (de clarato ryjud g m en t un d er C E R C L A ) of the T o w n sh ip’s compl ai ntagai ns tthe M andel baum D efe ndant s and W oodm onti n l i ghtof A tla n ticG i ven the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s focus on the mer i t s of the C E R C L A cl ai m s agai ns tthe 8 M an d elba u m D ef

en d an ts an d W o o d m o n t i n it s su m m aryjud g m en t op inion , the c o u rt sh o u ld also re-v isi t th e q u esti o n o f w h ethe r th e se tt lem en t agre em en t bars the T o w n sh ip’s § 1 0 7 (a ) c laim a g a in st W o o d m o n t. 9 R es ear ch C or

p. B oth the M and el bau m D efen dan t s and W oo dm on tcon t end that, becau se 8 the Tow ns hi p fr amed i t s C E R C L A § 107( a) cl ai m i n i t s br i ef a s an “i m pl i ed r i ghtof a c tio n f o r c o n tr ib u tio n ,” T o w n s h ip B r. 2 2 , A t lant i c Rese ar ch C or p. i s i nappos i t e. I ndeed, th e S u p r e m e C o u r tc a r e f u l l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d b e tw e e n § 1 0 7 ( a ) ’ s r i g h tt o “ c o s tr e c o v e ry” and § 113( f) ’ s r i ghtt o “contr i but i on. ” See At l . R es ear ch C or p. , 1 2 7 S . C t. a t 2 3 3 8 . Fur ther , the M andel baum D efe ndant s and M ont vi l l e cont end the Tow ns hi p w ai ved the argum ent that i thad an “im pli ed ri gh tof ac t i on for con tri bu t i on ” un der § 10 7(a) , becau se i thad no trai sed t hat ar gu m ent before the D i stri ctC ou rt , w here i ti nst ead f ram ed it s § 1 0 7 (a ) c laim a s a c o st re c o v e rya c tio n u n d e r a n e x p licitlyc o n f e rre d rig h t. W e re

jec t b o th o f th e se a rg u m e n ts: th e T o w n sh ip ’s c o m p lain t p ro p e rlyso u g h t to re c o v e r c lea n -u p c o sts u n d e r C E R C L A § 1 0 7 (a ) in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s s u b se q u e n t A tla n tic R es ear ch C or

p. deci s i on, and s emant i c di s t i nct i ons i n br i efi ng thatal s o pr e- dat ed A tla n tic R es ear ch C or

p. shou l d n ot barus from con si deri ng and rem and i ng tho se § 10 7(a) cl ai m s. I V. W e w i l l r ever s e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s pos i t i on of C ount s I and I I I of the T ow ns hi p’ s compl ai ntagai ns tthe M andel baum D efe ndant s and W oodm ont , and r emand forpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th A t lant i c Rese ar ch C or p. an d this op inion . W e w il l aff irm10

the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s pos i t i on of C ountI I . T he part i es ’ br i efi ng di d notanal y ze the rem ai ning N ew Jer seyS pil l A ctand com m on l aw cl ai m s, w hich i s not s urpri si ng becau se the foc us of thi s act i on i s on the C E R C L A cl ai m s . N onethel es s , w e w i l l vaca t e the D istric t C o u rt’s d isp o sitio n o f th e re m a in in g c laim s f

o r re c o n sid e ra tio n , if n e c e ss a ry , in l i ghtof thi s opi ni on.