## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

____________ N o. 07

- 2311 V I LL AGE OF D E P UE, I LLINO IS, a M uni ci palCo r po r at i o n, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v . E X X ON M O BIL C ORPO RA T I ON, a l s o kn o wn as M O BIL C HE MI CALC ORPO RA T I ON, a nd V I A CO M I NT ERNAT I ONAL, I NCO RPORATE D , D efend a nts-A pp ellees
.

____________ A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 06 C1266— Jo e Bil ly Mc Dad e, Judge
.

____________ A RGUED F EB RU AR Y 1 4 , 2 0 0 8 —D ECIDED A UGUS T 11, 2008

____________
Befo re R IPPLE, S YKESa nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges . R IPPLE, Cir cu i tJudg e . T h e V illag e o f D eP u e (“ th e V ill age ”) br ought thi s a cti on in I l l i noi s s tat e co urt aga i nst Ex xo n M o b i l e Co r p. , V i a c o m I nt e r na t i o na l, Inc . a nd CB S Broadcas ti ng, Inc. ( col l ecti vel y, “Exxon”)
. Exxon rem ove d2 N o. 07

- 2311

W e sha ll discu ss the d istrict cou rt’ s j u risd iction to he ar th is 1 c as e i n the c our s e ofthi s opi ni on. W e have s ub j ectm att er j uris dicti on und er 28 U
. S. C. § 1291. 2 th e ca se t o the di st r i ctc o ur t unde r2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 44 1. The dist ri ct c ourtdeter m i ned that i t had di ver si ty j uri sdic

tion and , u p on E xx on’s m otion, d ism issed the V il lage’s 1 cl ai m s pursuant to Rule 12(b) ( 6) o fthe Fed er alRule s ofCi vi lPro cedure. The Vi l l age ti m el y a pp eal ed the m atter to thi s co ur t. F o rthe r ea so ns s ta te d i n thi s o pi ni o n, 2 w e a ffi rm the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.
I B AC KGR OUND A. T h e C o mp r e h e n s i v e E n v i r o n me n t a lR e s p o n s e , C o mpen sa ti o n, a nd Li ab i l i tyAct( “CERCLA” o r“ th e Superfund ”) , 42 U
. S. C. § 9 601 et seq. , was enact ed i n 198 0. I t char ges the En vi ro nm entalP ro tect i on Agency ( “EPA ”) wi thmoni to r i ng a nd, i n s o m e i ns ta nc es , c o nduc ting cl eanups on s i tes thathave sust ai ned envi ron m en tal da mag e a s a r e s ul to fh a z a r do us ma t e r i a l s . CE RC LA au th o r iz e s the govern m en t to i d en tify pa rties that are p oten tially resp ons ibl e for th e d am age an d to requ ire th em to cle an u p th e s ite
. Id. § 9 606. I t i s o ften r efer re d to as the S up e r fun d b e c a us e i ta l s o e s t ab l i s he d a l a r g e t r ust fund t o a dva nc e en vi r o nm en ta lc l ea nup g o al s, i nc l udi ng fi na nc ing gov e r nm en tal respon se activities at si tes w he re no pot enti al l y r esponsibl e p arty can be i denti fi edN o. 07

- 2311 3 to fina n c e t h e c lea n u p . Id. § 9611 ( a)
. CE RC LA autho ri zes th e feder alg o ve r nm en t to c o nduc t cl ea nup a ct i vi ti es , b ut it al so p erm its th e fed eral gove rnm en t to ente r i nt o coop erat i ve a g r ee m en ts wi ths ta te ag en ci es tha t the n co nduc t th e c lea n u p s u sin g Su p er fu n d m on ey . Id. § 9604
. CE RC LA i s c on n ecte d to the Nati onalPri or i ti es List ( “N PL”) a nd the N ati onalOi land H azar dous Subst ances P ollu tio n C on tin ge n c y P lan ( “N C P ”), 40 C .F.R . § 30 0.1 e ts e q. CE RC LA r equi re s the EP A t o ma i nt a i n the NPL , w hich i s inten d ed prim aril y to guid e the EP A i n d eterm inin g w h ich sites w arran t furth er i nv estigation. A site’ s cl eanup m ay not be fi nanced by Superfund m oni es unle ss the s i te is o n the N PL. Pl acem ent o n the l i st does not m ean, howe ve r, thatany re m edi alo r re m ova lact i on m ust be ta ken b y the gove rnm ent. T he N CP is a r egul ati on that w as prom ulg ate d by th e EPA i n 198 2 in or der t o i m ple m ent CERC LA
. The N CP se ts gui del i nes a nd pro cedur es f o rr es po ndi ngunde rCE RCLA t o r el ea se s an d thre ate ned re l eas es ofhaza rdous substa nces, pol l utants or co n ta m in an ts
. See 42 U
. S. C
. § 9621(f)
. The Superfund A m endm ents and Reauthor i zation A ct ( “ S ARA” ) wa s e na c t e d i n 1 9 8 6
. S ARA wa s de s i gned to speed up C E R CL A ’ s r em edi alpro cess es at eve ryphase and to m ake CE RC LA m or e e ffecti ve. A m ong othe r adj us tment s to CERCLA, S ARA i nc l ude d r es tr i ct i o ns that, except i n l i m i ted ci rcum sta nces, bar j u dici al re vi ew o fthe EPA ’ s choice o fr em ova lo r re m edi alact i on u n til aft er th e a c tio n h as be en co m p let ed or en f or c ed
. Id. § 96 13 ( h) ; 1 Al l anJ
. To po l& Re bec ca S no w, S upe r fund L aw and Pro cedure § 2 : 54, at11 9- 22 ( up dated by4 N o. 07

- 2311 Carol i ne Bro un, 2007 )
. S ecti on 1 13( h) i s the j uri sdic ti onal l i m i tat i on that w as add ed to CE RC LA by SAR A ; i t sta tes: N o Feder alco urt shal lh ave j uri sdic ti on un der F edera l l aw o th ertha n un ders ec ti o n 13 32 o fTi tl e 28 ( r el at i ng to dive rs i ty ofci ti zenshi p j uri sdic ti on) o r und er St at e la w w h ich is ap p lica b le or rele va n t a n d ap p ro p riat e unde r se ct i o n 96 21 o f th i s ti tl e ( r el at i ng to c l ea nup sta nd ar ds) to re vi ew any chal l enges to r em ova lo r r e m ed ial a c tio n se lec te d u n d er se c tio n 96 04 of th is ti tl e, or to re vi ew any or der i ssued under s ecti on 96 06 (a) o f th is t itle
. . . . 42 U
. S. C. § 9 613( h). S ecti on 113( h) then l i sts fi ve add i ti onal l i m i tat i ons on thi s ba r to j uri sdic ti on, n one ofwh i ch ar e a t iss u e in th is c as e. Se ei d. § 96 13 (h )(1) -(5)
.
B. The I l l i noi s Envi ro nm entalPro tect i on Agency ( “I EPA ”) w as cre ate d by I l l i noi s s tatute. 41 5 I LC S 5/4. I ts m andate i nc l ude s i nv es ti gati ngv i o l ati o ns o fthe I l l i no i s Env i r o nm en ta l Pr ot ec tio n A c t (“ Illino is A c t” ), i d. at5/ 1 e t s eq ., and undert aking acti ons i n re sponse to hazar dous subst an ce s. Ad di ti o na l l y, th e I EPA i s I l l i no is’ i m pl ement i ng a g e n c yfo rfe d e r a le n v i r o nm en ta ll aws , i nc l udi n gC E R C L A. Id. at5/4( l )
. In that capaci ty, the I EPA i s “ author i zed to ta ke al l ac ti o n n ec es sa r y o ra ppr o pr i at e to s ec ur e to the S ta te the benefi ts of[ federa lenvir onm entall aw s]
. ” Id. I l l i noi s a l so ha s th e I l li noi s H az ar do us S ubs ta nc es Po l l ut i o n Co nt i ng en cyPl an( “I CP” ) , 3 5 I l l
. Adm
. Co de Pt
. 7 50
. 10 1 ets eq . The I CP i s a st ate
- l aw co ro llar y t o the NC P that set sN o. 07

- 2311 5

The s ui twas fi l ed under the I l l i noi s Envi ro nm en t al Pr ot ec t i on 3 A ct, 41 5 IL C S 5/2 2 .2 & 42 (d ), (e). g ui del i ne s an d pr o ce dur es f o r r es po ndi ng to r el ea se s an d thre ate ned re l eas es ofhaza rdous substa nces, pol l utants orco ntam i nants.
C. I ns i de th e Vi l l ag e o fDe Pue , I l l i no i s, i s anenv ironm en tal l y haz ar dous si te. Fr om 19 03 to 198 9, o perat i ons on th e 1 50 0 a c re s i t e g en er at ed w as te m at er ial th at se ve re ly con ta m i na te d the s i te a nd s o m e ar ea s ar o und i t. The EPA too k no te ofthe site in 19 80 and, ove r the ne xt te n yea rs , conducted seve ra lpre l i m i naryenvi ro n m en talas ses sm en ts an d in sp ec tio n s on th e site
. T h e I E P A b eg an inv es tigat i ng the si te pu rs uant to i ts author i ty und erst ate l aw i n M ar ch 199 2. A s a r esul t o fthe I EPA ’ s e xp an ded an aly sis of th e s ite , th e E P A ad d ed t h e s ite to th e N P L in 1999
. I n 1 9 9 5 , a tthe r e qu e s to fthe I EP A, the I l l i no i s At t o rney G en er al, alle gin g v iola tio n s o f Ill in ois law , fi led su it aga i nst Exxon’s corpor ate pre decesso rs i n Bureau County, I l l i noi s. The I EPA ’ s r ol e in the l aw sui t was co nd ucted

3 “pursuant t o i ts o w n authori ty und erthe [ I l l i noi s] A ct, an d reg u lat ion s p ro m u lga te d th er eu n d er .” R .1, E x . 1 p t.1 at 28. A s a r esul t o fthatsui t, the s tat e co urt enter ed an i nter i m con sent or der ( “Consent Order”) as a “part i al se tt l emento fa l li ss ue s” b etwee n the pe o pl e o fI l l i no i s an d E x x on . Id. at27
.6 N o. 07

- 2311

The i nt er i m r em edi al ac t i ons i nc l ude: des i gni ng, bui l di ng 4 and o per at i ng a wat ert re at m en tpl an tt o r em ove c ontam ina nts fro m sur face an d g ro u nd w ater tha t w a s form erly d is c har gi ng i nt o n ea rby DePue Lake ; r em edi at i ng a c ont am inat ed l andfi l l by e l i m i nating o r c l os i ng the f or m ere ffl uen t pon ds; i nst all ing a vegetat ive c over over the landfi ll ; building an en g inee red w e t l a n d to trea t an y efflue nt from the lan d fil l; c l ea ni ng o uta dra i nag e c han ne l thatc onn ec t s the si t e t o DePue (co n tin u ed ...) Un d e rth i s C o n s e n tOr de r, E x x o n mu s tp e r f o r m a p h as ed in ve st iga tio n of th e site an d im p lem en t c er ta in i nter i m r em ed ies . It a l so m ust pro pose fi nalr em edi es to the S tat e o fI l l i noi s be f or e co m ple tin g finalr em edi al acti on f orthe si te. The Consent Order r equi re s E x x on to p e r f o r m i t s i n v e s t i g a t i o n s a n d r e me d i a la c t i o n s i n c o mpli ance with both the I CP and the N C P . T he S tat e o f I l l i no i s, i n co ns ul ta ti o n wi th th e EPA, ha s “s o l e di sc r eti o n” to dec i de i f th e fi na l r emedi es pr o po se d by Exxon are a p p ro p ria te
. Id. p t
. 2 a t1
. T he a c t i v i t i e s c o mpl e t e d u nder the Conse nt Orderar e s u bj ect to approvalbythe St ate o f Ill i n o is. Id. at4. The Consent Order b i nd s, am ong othe r parti es, Exxon, the IEPA and the “Peopl e o fthe St ate o f I l l i noi s. ” Id. at3. Underthe Co ns entOr der, the “ fi na lr emedi ala ct i o n” pha se ha s no t y etb ee n r ea ch ed; Exxo n s ti l li s i nv es ti g at i ng and perf or m i ng i nter i m r em edi alact i ons. N o partydi sput es th at Exxo n i s ful fi l l i ngthe r equi r ement s o fthe Consent O rd er . Exxon has spent m or e than $30 m i l l i on to date o n invest i gat i ons and i nter i m r em ed i alact i ons at th e si te
. I n a ddi ti o n, Exxo n h as b egun inv es ti g at i ng

4N o. 07

- 2311 7

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 Lake t o pr eve ntc ont am i nan t s fro m thatar ea fro m be i ng w ashed i nto DeP ue Lak e i n the fu ture; condu ct ing an i nit ial he al th e v alua t i on ofan y s hor t
- t er m thr ea t s t o publ i c he al th; preventing onsite tr es pass; preventi ng cle an surf ace w ater f ro m c ont ac t i ng a ny c ont am i na nts; c om pl et i ng c l ea nup ofthe f or m ervan adi u m cat al ys tdi s pos al ar ea ; an d re

- vege t at i ng portions ofthe s it e. T he no tices d id n ot d efine the term s “m ater ials” o r “co nta m i- 5 nants ” and p rovided no f actual basi s f or the al le ged nuis ance. conta m i nants in the soi l s withi n the V il l age , DePue Lake a n d th e s u r r o u n d i n g w e t l a n d a n d fl o o d p l a i n a r e a s . As part ofthi s invest i gat i on, Exxon has gathere d i nfo rm ati on f oreco l ogi caland hum an heal th r i sk ass ess m ents. A fter com ple ti ng al lp hases of the re m edi ali nvest i gat i on, Exxon then w i l l conduct feas ibi l i ty or desi gn studie s. Eventual l y, i t wil lm ake per m anent r em edi alchange s t o the s i te. I n A ugust 2006 , w hi l e the invest i gat i on a nd r em edi ati on pr o ce ss r equi r ed bythe Co ns en t Or derwas o ng o i ng, the Vil l age post ed N oti ces to A bate N uis ance at the si te. These no ti ce s so ug htt o i m po se i m m edi at e, s ite- wi de cl ea nup obl i gat i ons on Ex xon. The noti ces or dered Ex xon to h av e t h e m at er ials rem ov ed an d th e s ite cle an ed of all conta m i nants t o the s ati sf acti on o fthe V illage withi n ten day s. I fExxo n f ai l ed to c o m pl y wi th i n t enda y s, the

5 noti ces re quir ed Exx on t o pay a nuis ance fi ne o f$750 per day u n ti lthe si te cl eanup w as com ple te and the s i te wa s r e mov e d fr o m t he NPL
.8 N o. 07

- 2311

T he V illag e is a citizen of Illi no is. E xxo n M ob i l e C o r p . is a 6 N ew J e r se y corp or atio n w ith its pr incip al p lace o f b u siness in T exa s. V iaco m Inter na tion al, Inc., no w c a l led C B S O p era tion s, is a D elaw are cor p or atio n w ith i ts p rinc ip al p lace of b u si n e ss i n New Y or k. CBS Br oadc as t i ng, I nc . i s a N ew York c or por at i on with i t s pr i nc i pal pl ac e ofbus i ne s s i n New Y or k. D. The Vil l age o fDePue fi l ed i ts com pla i nt ag ai nst Exxon i n I l l i noi s sta te court. The co m pla i nt as ser ted thatExxon h ad vio lat ed an d co n tin u e d t o be in v iola tio n of th e V illag e’s n u isa n c e o rd in an c e. It so u gh t t h re e form s o f relie f: a j ud gm ent decl ar i ng that Ex xon had v i ol ate d the o rdi nance, dai l y fi ne s o fup to $750 f o rtha t al l eg ed vi o l at i o n a nd i nj unc ti ve r el i efr equi r i ngExxo n i m m edi at ely t o c l ea n the s i t e a nd h a v e i tr e mov e d fr o m t he NPL
. Ex xon r em ove d the ca se to the di str i ct cou rt under 28 U
. S. C. § 1 441. I t a sse rt ed j uri sd ict ion based upon dive rs i ty ofci ti zenshi p. T he d i str i ct courtd ete rm i ned that al lthe re quir em ents ofdi ver si ty j ur i sdic ti on had bee n m et. 6 T h e V illag e d isp u te d j u ris d ict ion on tw o gr ou n d s. Firs t, it fi l ed a m ot i on f orr em and on the gr ound that Yo un ger ab st en ti o n pre cl ude d fe der aladj udi ca ti o n ofthe cas e, a nd s e c o nd , i tc o nt e nd e d tha tthe Co ns e ntOr de rha d a j uri sdic ti on- sel ecti on cl ause that re quir ed the dist ri ct c ou rtto rem an d t h e c as e. T h e d ist ric t c ou rth eld th at it w as not precl ud ed fro m hear i ng the cas e by Yo un gero r by th e C ons en t O rd er. Exxo n the n fi l ed a m o ti o n t o di smi ss the com p l aint unde r F ede r al Rul e o f Ci vi l Pr o ce dur e 12 ( b) ( 6)
. I t con -N o. 07

- 2311 9 te nde d tha t th e ca us es o fa ct i o n s tated in the c o m pl aint w er e pr eem pted by federa land sta te l aw . The d ist rict c o ur ta g r e e d; i tc o nc l ud e d tha ts e c t i o n 1 1 3 ( h) o fCE RC LA ba r r ed th e Vi l l ag e’ s l eg alc ha l l enges. Al th o ug h n o ting that CE RCLA c o nt a i ns “ s a v i ng s” provi si ons that p reserve rem ed ies un d e r st ate an d l ocal l aw , the cou rt held th at, i fs ucha l aw c o nfl i ct s wi tha CERCLA-mandated re m edi alact i on, the baro fse cti on 1 13(h) appli ed an d de pr i ve d the c ou rt ofj ur i sdi ct i o n un ti lthe re m ed ial w or k w as co m p let ed . Th e d ist ric t c o u rth eld th at th e re lief so u gh t b y t h e V illag e c on flict ed sq u ar ely wi ththe de ta i l ed pr o ce ss mandat ed bythe Co ns en t Or de ra nd c o nc l ud ed tha ts e c t i o n 1 1 3 ( h) o fCE RC LA dive ste d i t o fj uri sdic ti on t o hearthe cl ai m s. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a l s o h e l d th a t th e V i l l a g e ’ s c l a i ms wer e pr ee m pte d b y I l l i no i s l aw. I t co nc l ude d tha t th e cl ai ms c o n fl i c t e d wi th th e p r o c e s s r e q u i r e d b y th e I EPA and i ts i m ple m enti ng r egul ati ons because the Vil l age was s ee k i ng im m edi at e an d unde fi ne d c o m pl et i o n o fthe cl eanup at the si te. S uch re l i ef, hel d the di str i ct c ourt, w ou ld c onfl i ct with the consi dered and phased proc ess o ut l i ne d i n the I CP a nd i m pl ement ed at th e s ite v i a th e Consent Order
. S uch i nter fer ence, r eas oned the court, w as p reem p ted by I ll inois l aw . I t the refore granted Ex xon ’s m oti on t o dism i ss the Vi l l age ’ s cl ai m s with prej ud i ce.
II DI S C US S I ON W e review d e n o vo a d istri ct cou rt’s dism issal of a c om p lain t fo r failu re to st at e a cla im
. M i ch al owicz v. Vi l l
. of10 N o. 07

- 2311 B edfo rd P a rk, 5 28 F
. 3d 53 0, 5 34 (7th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. In o ur rev iew , w e m us t acce p t the all egation s in the p lai nt iff’ s c om p lain t a s t r u e an d d ra w all rea so n ab le in fer en c es in fav or of th e p lain tiff. Id.

A. J uri sdict i on W e r e v i e w de n o v o the que s t i o n o fs ubj e c tma t ter j u ris d i c t i on . A lexa nd er v. M o un t Sin a i Ho sp. M ed. C tr. , 48 4 F
. 3d 88 9, 8 91 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. Be ca us e deter m i ni ngthe propri etyo fr em oving to the d istri ct c ourtan a cti on fi l ed i n s ta te c o ur t nec es sa r i l y r equi r es tha t we de te r m i ne the au th ority ofthe d istri ct cou rt to su p p lant th e state cou rt’s j u ris d ict ion w ith its ow n, see 28 U
. S. C. § 1 441( a) , we al so r ev i ew de n o v o th e d e n i a lo fa mo t i o n t o r e ma n d the c as e t o s ta te co u rt
. Alexand er, 4 84 F. 3d at8 91
. S ucha deci si on a m ounts to a deci si on bythe dist ri ct c ourtthat its assertion of j ur isdiction ove r that of the sta te cou rt w as l ega l l y per m i ssibl e. W e a l so “r evi ew de nov o a di str i ct cou rt ’ s deci si on t o dec l i ne t o abs ta i n fr o m e xe r ci singj ur i sdi ct i o n pur su an t to the Y o u ng er abst enti on doct rine. ” Fre e Eats
. co m , Inc . v. Indi ana , 502 F.3d 590 , 595 (7th C ir. 2007).

1. Forum Sel ect i on Cla use W e be gin b y no tin g th at th e d ist ric t cou rtp r op er ly co nc l ude d tha t i t po ss es se d di ve r si tyj ur i sdi ct i o n o ve rthe c as e. T h e p ar tie s c on c ed e, an d w e a g r e e , th at th er e isN o. 07

- 2311 11

co m pl et e di ve r si tyo fci ti ze ns hi p a nd tha t th e amoun t inco n tr ov er sy req u ire m en t is m etin t h is c as e. See 28 U
. S. C. § 1 332. T he Vill age con ten d s, how ever, that th e d istri ct cou rt er re d in re fu sin g t o r em an d th e c as e; inits vie w , a f or um se l ecti on cl ause i n the Consent Orderr ese rv ed j uri sdic ti on in the Cir cui t C ourto fBureau County, I l l i noi s. Even ass um i ng tha t the V illag e i s in a pos i ti on t o enf or ce th e te r m s o fthe Co ns ent Or derb etwee n Exx o n a nd Illino is

— a pro posi ti on f orwh i ch the Vil l age has fai led to offer a n y pers ua sive sup p ort

— the Vi l l age has f ai l ed to dem ons tr ate thatthe Consent Orderco ntai ns a re ser vati on o fj uri sdic ti on. The Vi l l age poi nts on ly to a provi sion in the Consent Or der s tat i ng tha t “ t heve nueof a ny acti o n co m m enced in [Illino is] C ircu it C o urtf o rthe pu rpos es ofi nter preta ti on, i m ple m entat ion and enf or cem en t o fthe t er m s an d c o nditi ons of th i s I nt er i m Co ns en t Order a s pro vi ded her ei n shal l be i n Bureau County, I l l i no i s. ” R. 1, Ex. 1 pt
. 1 at2 8. The Vi l l ag e co nt en ds, wi th o ut supp or t, thatthi s provis i on i s a j uri sdic ti on s el ecti on c lau se . W e c an n o t a g re e. O n its fac e, th e p ro vis ion in questi on does notpurportto vest j uri sdic ti on in any co urt. I ns te ad, i t st at es whi ch ve nuea m o n g t h e v ar iou s Illin ois counti es w oul d be a pp ro pri ate i n the eve nt that a n act i on was c o m m en ce d i n an I l l i no i s Ci r cui t Cou r t “fo rthe pu rpos es ofin ter preta ti on, i m ple m entat i on a nd enf or cem en t o f th e ter m s an d c on d itio n s” of th e C on se n t O rd er . Id. The V i l l a g e o ffe r s n o s u p p o r t f o r i t s c o n t e n t i o n th att he p ro vis ion is a ju r isd ict ion se lec tio n cla u se an d th e p lain text ofthe Consent Orderr eads to the contr ar y. T he di str i ct c o ur tp r o pe r l y f o un d tha tthe V i l l a g e wa s n o te nt i t l e d,12 N o. 07

- 2311 on the bas i s o fthi s pro vi si on in t he Consent Order, to have i ts case r em anded to the sta te cour t.

2. You nge r A bstent i on The Vil l age next conte nd s th at the c ase sho uld have been rem an d ed to th e state cou rt beca us e the district cou rt w as re quir ed by Young erv. Harris , 40 1 U.S
. 37( 1971 ) , to ab st ain from h ea r i n g t h e c as e. A s a ge n er al ru le, Yo un ger ab st en ti o n “ r equi r es f ede r alc o ur ts t o abs ta i n fr o m t ak i ng j uri sdic ti on o ver federa lco nsti tuti onalcl ai m s that invol ve or ca ll int o q u es tio n on go in g s ta te p ro c ee d in gs .” Fre e Eats
. co m , 5 02 F
. 3d at5 95
. The r ul e i n Yo un ger“is desi gned to per m i t s tat e co urts to tr y s tat e ca ses fre e fro m i nter fer ence by the fed er alco urts
. ” Id. A l though or i gi nal l y a p p li ed to pre vent i nter fer ence onl y with cri m i nal proce edi ngs, to day Yo un ger ap p lies t o so m e c ivil as w ell as cr im in al p ro c ee d in gs . Se e, e . g. , H uffm a n v . P ursu e, Lt d. , 42 0 U.S
. 59 2, 59 5, 61 2 ( 1975 ) ( applying Yo u n g er abst enti on t o preve nt i nter fer ence w i th a quasi

- cri m i nal st at e nui sa nc e su i t)
. The r ul e i n Yo un ger pr o te ct s the pri nci ple s o f “equity, co m i ty, and federa l i sm , ” which “have l i ttle force i n the abse nce o fa pend i ng st ate pro ceedi ng. ” Id. a t 6 02 -03 (qu ot at ion om itt ed ). I t a lso is c o nc e r ne d wi th pr e v e nt i ng“ du pl i cat i v e l e g a lp r o c e e di ng s, ” “ di srupt i o n ofthe s ta te c r i m i na lj us ti ce s y st em” a nd the ne gat i ve i m pli cati on that s tat e co urts ar e unabl e “ to enf or ce c onst i tuti onalpri nci ple s. ” Id. at60 4, 60 8. The Vil l age con tend s that r em oving an acti on fro m sta te cour t cr eat es a pend i ng st ate pro ceedi ng with w hi chN o. 07

- 2311 13 th e r e mo v e d a c t i o n, th e n i n fe d e r a lc o u r t, c o n fl i c t s . We ca nn o t a c c e pt thi s a r g ume nt
. I t i s we l l e s t ab l i s he d that Young er ’s conc ep ts o f com ity and “O ur Fed erali sm ” are i napp l i cabl e “ w hen no s tat e pr oce edin g was pending nor an y a ss er tio n o fim p or ta n t s ta te int er es ts m ad e.” Anke nbrandtv. Ri ch ar ds , 5 04 U. S
. 6 89 , 7 05 ( 19 92 ) ( “Abs en t any pen d ing pro ceedi ng i n sta te tr ibunal s, ther ef or e, ap p li cation by th e low er cou rts of Yo un ger abst enti on w as c learl y e rr oneo us. ”)
. The m er e f act that a ca se could be he ard in sta te cour t i s insuffi ci ent t o j usti fy Yo un ger ab st en tio n . C

f. id . Re m ov al u n d er 2 8 U .S.C . § 14 41 sim p ly does not l eave behind a p en d ing s tat e pr oce edi ng tha t w oul d perm i t Yo un gerab st en tio n . Se eIn reBur ns & Wi l co x, Lt d. , 54 F .3d 47 5, 47 7 (8t h C ir. 19 95 ), l i m i t e d on othe rgroun ds b y Q uacke nb us h v. All s t at e Ins. Co. , 517U .S. 70 6 (1 99 6). C f. Kirkb r i dev. C ont ’ l C as . Co. , 933 F. 2d 729, 73 4 ( 9th Ci r. 19 91) ( re fusi ng to abs tain on th e basi s o fthe C o lo rad o R iver ab st en tio n d o c tr in e fro m h ea rin g a d ive rs ity su it m er ely b ec au se it h ad be en re m ov ed fro m st at e c ou rt ); N o o na n S ., Inc. v. Co unty of Volusi a , 84 1 F
. 2d 380, 38 2 ( 11th Cir
. 19 88) (sam e). The Vi l l ag e’s r el i an ce o n H uf f m an t o s uppo r t th i s ar g um en t is m isp lac ed
. H uf f m an does notstand f orthe prem i se that Yo un gerabs te nt i o n re qui r es a di st r i ctc o ur t to de cl i ne to heara case m er ely because the c ase had bee n re m ove d fro m s ta te c o ur t. In H uf f m an , i ns t e a d o fa pp e a l i nga s t ate cour t’ s a dvers e deci si on, the pla i nti ffi nsti tuted a s epa rate fede r alpr o ce edingi n whi chhe attem pte d t o e nj o i n the st at e c ou rtfrom ca rry in g ou t it s e n f o r c em en t o f its n u isance j ud gm ent. H ad the federa lco urt enj oi ned the o ngoi ngs ta te pr o ce eding, that i nj unc ti o n wo ul d ha ve b ee n a14 N o. 07

- 2311 g r e a ti n t e r fe r e n c e a n d a n a ffr o n t t o c o mi t y a n d fe d e r a l i s m. H uf f m an , 420 U
. S. at 607. H er e, by contras t, the Vil l age has f ai l ed to poi nt to any ongo i ng sta te proce edi ng w i th wh i ch the r em ove d fe deralcas e co nfl i cts. N eit h er is th e C on se n t O rd er en te re d b y a st at e c ou rtin ane ar l i erpr o ce edingthe s o r t o fpe ndi ngs ta te pr o ce eding w ith w h ich th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s e x er c ise of j u ris d ict ion co u ld be sai d t o i m pli cate the const ra i nts o fthe Yo un gerdoctr i ne. I n the prese nt act i on, the dist ri ct cou rt w as not ask ed to conduct a proce edin g that would inter fer e with the sta te p ro c ee d in g t h at res u lte d in t h e c on se n t d ec re e. N or w as it as k e d t o e nj o i n a p r o c e e d i n g p e n d i n g i n s t a t e c o u r t
. The dist ri ct c ourtther ef or e pr oper l y re fused to apply Yo un ger abst enti on princi ple s.

3 . Di v e s t i t ur e o fJ ur i s di c t i o n byC E RCL A Se c t i o n 1 1 3 ( h) W e ne x t ad d ress th e effect of CE R C L A section 113 (h). The dis tr i ct cour t concl ud ed that “the Vil l age ’ s cl ai m [ w as] p re em p te d by C E R C L A Sec tio n 11 3(h ) an d as a res u lt . .
. [that the cou rt] l ack [e d ] j urisd iction over the V il lage’s cl ai m . ” Vil l
. of

D epue, Il l
. v. Exxon M ob i l eCorp. , 2 0 0 7WL 1438 581, at*9 ( C.D. I l l
. M ay 15, 20 07)
. W e r evi ew de nov o que st i o ns o fs ta tu to r y i nt erpr et at i o n. O ls on v. R is k M gm t. A lt er natives, Inc. , 366 F.3d 50 9, 51 1 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ). Se cti on 1 13( h), ti tl ed “Ti m i ng o fr evi ew , ” s tat es: N o Feder al cour t shal l have j uri sdic ti on under F edera l l a w o ther than und ers ec ti on 133 2 of Title28 (rel ating t o diversi ty of cit izens h ip jurisdic ti on) orunder S tat e l aw w hi ch i s appli cabl e or re l evantand appropri ate underN o. 07

- 2311 15 sect i on 9 621 ofthi s t i tl e ( re l ating to cl eanup standards) to re vi ew any chal l enges to re m ova lo r re m edi alact i on sel ecte d und erse cti on 9 604 ofthi s t i tl e, o r to re vi ew an y or d er iss u ed u n d er se c tio n 96 06 (a) o f t h is tit le
. . . . 42 U
. S. C. § 9 613( h) ( em phasi s a dd ed). The p ro visio n then l i sts fi ve add i ti o na le xcepti ons to the di vest i ture o fj uri sdic

tio n, no n e o f w h ich are atiss u e in th is c as e. Se ei d. H er e, th e sol e quest i on i s whether the di str i ct c ourt, w h ich h ad j u ris d ict ion “u n d er se c tio n 13 32 of T it le 2 8,” ne verth eless w as d ivested of j urisd iction by section 113(h). Id. Secti on 113( h) i s a “blunt w i thdrawal offedera lj uri sdic

ti on, ” P o lla ckv. U .S. D ep’t o f D efense, 50 7 F
. 3d 522, 52 5 ( 7th Cir
. 20 07) ( quotati on o m i tte d), but i t i s e xpressly l i m i ted by its ow n te rm s: It d oe s n ota p p ly to fed er al c ou rt s s itt in g in dive rs i ty. 42 U
. S. C. § 9 613( h). Thus, se cti on 1 13( h) perm i ts a fed er alc o ur t to he ara c ha l l en g e to a fede r alc l ea nup i ni ti ate d und erCE RC LA i fthe chal l enge ar i ses as , f or in st an c e, a s ta te -law n u isa n c e a c tio n . P ollack, 50 7 F
. 3d at 52 5. S ec ti o n 1 13 ( h) i s l i m i te d a ddi ti o na l l y i n th at, unde rthe express te rm s o fthe sta tute, it appli es onl y t o barj uri sdic

ti on o verchal l enges to cer tain cl eanups author i zed under CE RC LA , speci fi cal l y t o chal l en ges to tho se “r em edi al acti on[ s] se l ecte d und erse cti on 9 604 oft h i s t i tl e, o r to re vie w an y or d er iss u ed u n d er se c tio n 96 06 (a) o f th is t itle .” 42 U .S.C . § 96 13 (h ). In e f fec t, se c tio n 11 3(h ) ap p lies on ly w hen the EPA has sel ecte d a r em edi alact i on under s ecti on 96 04 or iss u ed an ord er u n d e r s e c tio n 96 06 (a), an d on ly then i f the chal l enge ar i ses und er federa l l aw . I n that lim ited ci rcum sta nce, se cti on 1 13( h) re m ove s j uri sdic ti on ov er ch alle n ge s t o t h e E P A ’s c h os en rem ed ial eff or t u n til16 N o. 07

- 2311

S ee 1 Al l an J . T opol & Rebec c a S now, Su per fund Law and 7 P ro ce d u re § 2 :54 , at11 9 -2 2 (u p d a te d b y C a ro lin e B r o u n, 20 0 7 ); se e al so Pol l ack, 50 7F .3d at 52 4 -2 5
. a f te r th e c lea n u p h as be en co m p let ed
. P ollack, 5 0 7 F
. 3 d at 525. T his interp retation is cons istentw ith th e statu tory pu rpos e o fse cti on 1 13( h), enact ed as p ar t of SA RA to ensure that, o nce the EPA choo ses a re m ova lo r re m edi al ac ti o n fo ra pa r ti cul ars i te, l i ti g at i o n wi l lno t del ay th e com ple ti on o r enf or cem ent o fa cl eanup acti on. In effect, 7 sect ion 113(h) p reven ts fede ral- law ch all en ges to th e E PA ’s s e l e c t e d r e med y fr o m g o i ngf o r wa r d un t i laft e rthe r e med y h as be en co m p let ed
. Id. at52 5. T h e le gis lat ive h ist or y of S A R A a lso len d s s u p p or t t o th is ho l di ng . The C onfere nc e Re po r t f o rS ARA s ta te s th atthe “[ n]e w se cti on 1 13( h) is not intended to affect i n any w ay the r i ghts ofper sons to bring nuis ance acti ons und erS tat e law
. ” H
. R
. Rep . N o . 9 9-962, at 224 (1986) ( C onf. R ep . ). Si m i l ar l y, the Congre ssi onalReco rd ofSenate Pro ceedi ngs i ndi ca te s th atuna d op te d b i l ll an g ua g e woul d ha ve e xt i ngui shed al lfedera lr evi ew , but the l angu ag e that w as adopted perm i tte d express l y di ver si ty j uri sdic ti on. 13 2 Cong. Rec. S 1721 2- 03 ( daily e d. Oct. 17, 1986 ) ( sta tem ent o f Se n. M i tchel l ) , 13 2 Cong. Rec. S 1713 6- 01 ( daily e d. Oct. 17, 19 86 ) ( st at ement o f S en . S ta ff o r d)
. The two S en ators w ho disc ussed the provi si on with re gar d t o dive rs i ty j uri sdic

ti on bo th st ate d speci fi cal l y that s ecti on 1 13( h) did not preem pt nuis ance case s that a ro se und erst ate l aw and thatN o. 07

- 2311 17

Sen ato r M itche ll said : “T he con fe re nc e l anguage wou ld p erm it 8 a s ui tt o li e in eith e r F e de r a l c ou r twhe r e j ur i s di c t i onc ou l d b e bas ed o n di ver s i t y ofc i t i ze nsh ip

— or i n Stat e c ourt, w here bas ed o n n ui s anc e l aw. Thi s co ns t ru c t i on i s c onfi rm ed by the s t at em en tofthe m ana ge rs that‘ N ew s ec tion 113( h) i s no t i nt en ded t o a ffec ti n any w ay th e ri ght s ofpe rs ons t o br i ng nui s anc e ac t i ons under Sta t e l aw with r es pec tt o r el ea s es or thr ea t en ed r el ea s es ofha za rdou s s ubs t an c es , pol l ut ant s or contam inants
. ’ ” 13 2 C o n g. Rec. S17212- 03 ( daily ed. O ct
. 17, 19 86 ) (st atem en t of Sen
. M itche ll)
. Sen ato r M itche ll also stated tha t [ w ] hetheror n o t a chal le nge to a cl eanup w il l li e und er nui s anc e l aw i s det er m i ne d by thatb ody ofla w, nots ec t i on 113. N ew s ub se ct ion (h ) g o v erns only the s uits fil ed un der the ci rcum st ances enum erat ed i n paragrap hs ( 1) thr oug h ( 5) f or the r evi ew of“c hal l en ge s to re m ovalor r em edi al ac t i on se lect ed un der se ct ion 104, or t o revie w any order is sued under10 6( a) ”. The re i s no s uppor twhat s oe ver. . . for the pr o p o s i t i o n th a t“ a n y c o n t r o v e r s y o v e r a r e s p o n s e a c t i on se le ct ed b y the Pre si dent, w hethe r it aris es und er Federal l aw or St ate law , m ay be he ar d onl y i n Fe der al c our tan d only und er cir cu m st ances prov ided” in s ect ion 113. That s t at em en ti s c ont ra ry t o the e xpr es s l eg i s l at i ve l ang uage an d the statem en t of m an ag ers. Id. Se na t o r S t a ff o r d a l s o c o mm e n t e d o n s e c t i o n 1 1 3 ( h ) a n d t he d iv ersity jurisd iction p ro v ision
. 13 2 C on g . R ec. S171 36 -01 (da ily ed. Oct
. 17, 19 86 ) ( s t at em en tofSe n. St aff or d)
. He el abor at ed o n (co n tin u ed ...) federa lco urts were perm i tte d to hearst ate
- l aw nui sance acti ons i ftho se case s a ro se i n div er si ty. 818 N o. 07

- 2311

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 8 the Co nf erenc e R eport l angu age quoted abo ve, s tat ing that “[ n] ew s ec t i on 11 3( h) i s no ti nt en ded to a ff ec ti n a ny way the rig hts o f p erso ns to b ring nu isan ce actio ns un d er Sta te law w ith r e s pe c tt o r e l e a s e s o r thr e a t e ne d r e l e a s e s o fh a z a r do us s ub

st ances , pollut ants, o r contam inants
. ” Id. H e al so c om m ente d thatthe l angu age in se ct ion 113( h) d el iberat el y had been ch a n g ed to p er m it fe d er a l re v ie w o f ch a ll enges based on Stat e laws, such as nuisanc e. . . . C learly , . . . a com p lain t b ased on State n u isan ce law w ou ld fall w ithin the p hr ase “n o co u rt sha ll hav e ju r isd iction to rev i ew an y c hal l en ge ”. Bute qua l l y c l ea rl y, s uc h a claim w ould no t be barre d b y the c onfe rence l ang u a g e, which w ould p erm ita s uit to l ie i n ei ther F ed eral court ( w here jurisd iction cou ld b e b ased on d iv ersity of citizen ship ) or in Stat e c ourt. This const ructi on is confir m ed b y the s tat em ent ofm anagers explanat ion that

— N ew se ct ion 113( h) i s not i ntended to affecti n any w ay the r i gh t s o fpe r s on s t o br i ngn ui s a nc e a c t i on s under Stat e l aw w ith res pect t o rel eas es or thre atene d rele ase s of ha za rd ou s sub stan ces, po lluta nts o r con tam ina nts. Id. Se nat or St aff or d al s o c om m en t ed o n the l i m i t s ofsect i on 1 1 3 (h ). H e sa id : W hetheror not a chal le nge to a cl eanup w il l li e und er [ n] ui s anc e l aw is d et er m i ne d by thatbody o fl aw, no t se c t i o n 113 , b eca u se section 113 of CE R C L A go v ern s on ly c l ai m s ar i s i ng un der th e act.
. . . Si m i l ar l y, ne w subs ec t i on ( h) gov erns only the s uits fil ed un der the ci rcum st ances (co n tin u ed ...)N o. 07

- 2311 19

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 8 en um er at ed i n par agr aphs ( 1) thr ough ( 5) f or the r evi ew of “challen g es to r em oval or re m edial act ion s el ect ed un der se ct ion 104, or t o revie w any order is sued und er 106( a)
. ” Id. H e a lso sta te d th a t “ [n ]o th in g in th is a ct s h a ll a ffec t o r m o d ify in any w ay the obli gati ons or li abilit ie s ofany person und er other Fed eral or St ate law, incl ud ing com m on law, w ith res pect t o r el ea s es ofha za rdou s s ubs t anc es or othe r pol l ut ant s or contam inants
. ” Id. The pla i n l anguage o fse cti on 1 13( h) sta tes that the barto ju r i s d ict ion d oe s n otap p ly to a fed er al c ou rtsit tin g in dive rs i ty. Thi s ho l ding i s s up port ed by the pl ai n l anguage , p urp ose an d statu tory history of th e statu te. H ere, w he re the di str i ct c ourtsa t in div er si ty, i t was notdiv ested of j urisd iction by section 113(h).

B. Pr ee mpti o n byCE RCLA Feder alpre em pti o n i s a n affi rm ati ve defe nse upon wh i ch the de fe nd a nt s b e a rthe bu r de n o fpr o o f, an d we r e v i e w de novo a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s d et er m i nati on that federa ll aw p re em p ts a st at e law or m u n icip al or d in an c e. See Fift h Third Bank v. CSX Corp. , 415 F.3d 741 , 745 (7th C ir. 2005). A l though the di str i ct c ourtse em s t o have c oncl ud ed that i t was di vest ed ofj uri sdic ti on by secti on 113( h), its o pini on mi g htb e read a s h o l di ngtha t, mo r e g e ne r a l l y, CE RC LA p r e e mp t e d t h e V i l l a g e ’ s c l a i ms . Ev e n i fw e w e r e t o a s s u me thatEx xo n s o c o nt e nd s , i th a s n o tme ti t s b ur de n of proving tha t CER CL A pre em pted the Vi l l age ’ s cl ai m s.20 N o. 07

- 2311 C E R C L A ’s preem p tive sco p e i s not tota l. Th e statu tory text sta tes expre ssl y, i n sev er alpro vi si ons, thatatl eas t s o me c l a i ms un de rs t a t e l a w a r e p e r mi t t e d t o p r o c e e d. Se cti on 1 14( a) st ate s that “[ n]o thi ng in thi s chapte r shal lbe const rued o r i nter prete d as pr eem pti ng anyS tat e fro m i m posi ng anyaddit i onal l i abi l i ty orr equi re m ents w i th re spect to the re l eas e of hazar dous substa nces w i thi n such St ate s. ” 42 U .S. C. § 9 614( a)
. S ecti on 3 02( d) s tat es th at “[ n] o th i ng i n th i s ch apt ers ha l la ffec t o rmodi fy i n a ny w ay the obl i gat i ons orli abi l i ti es ofany pers on under o ther Feder alo r St ate l aw , i ncl ud i ng com m on l aw , with r espect to re l eas e o fhaza rdous substa nces or otherpol l utants or c o nt a mi na nt s . . . . ” Id. § 9652 ( d). CE RC LA co ntem pla tes “act i on[ s] br ought und erS tat e l aw f orper sonali nj u ry , o r proper ty dam age s, wh i c h are caused o r contr ibuted to by exposure to any hazar dous subst ance, orpol l utant o r conta m inant, r el eas ed i nto the e nvi ro nm ent fro m a f aci l i ty. ” Id. § 96 58 (a)( 1). Se c tio n 31 0(h ) st at es th at “[t ]h is chapterdoes notaffect oro therw ise im pai r the r i ghts of a n y p e r s o n u n d e rF e d e r a l, S t a t e , o rc o mmo n l a w, e xc e pt w i th r espectto the ti m i ng of re vi ew as pro vi ded i n sec ti on 113( h) of thi s ti tl e o r as othe rwis e pr ovi ded i n sec ti on 9 658 ofthi s t i tl e ( re l ating to act i ons un d er S ta te l aw )
. ” Id. § 9 659( h). Final l y, se cti on 1 13( h) i tse lf a p p li es to bar j uri sdic ti on o nl y o verfedera l

- l aw chal l enges “t o re m ova l o rr emedi ala cti on s el ec te d unde rs ec ti o n 9 60 4” o r“ an y or der i ssued under s ecti on 9 606( a)
. ” Id. § 9613(h). The preci se conto urs ofCE RC LA pre em pti on overst ate envi ro nm entalcl eanup acti ons orm un ici pal o rdi nances that affect federa lrem ova lor rem edi alacti ons are notea syN o. 07

- 2311 21

S ee, e . g. , F ire m a n ’s F u n d In s. C o . v . C ity o f L o d i, C a l. , 3 0 2 F. 3d 9 928, 943 ( 9th Cir
. 2002) ( holding t h a t a ci ty ordinance is preem pt ed by CER CLA i f i t“i nt er fer e[ s ] with the ac c om pl i s hm en t and e xe c ut i on ofCERC LA’ s ful l pur pos e and o bj e c t i v e s ” ( s ec ond a lte ra tio n o m itt ed )); U n i te d S tat es v. C i ty & C ou n ty of D env er, 100 F. 3 d 1 5 0 9 ( 10th Ci r . 1 9 9 6 ) ( ho l di ngtha tCERC LA p r e e m pt e d a l oc a l z on i ng or di na nc e tha t was i n a c t ua l c on fl i c t wi th a rem edi a l o r de r o fth e E P A) ; 1 Al l a nJ
. T opol & Re b e c c a S n o w, Supe rfund Law and Pro c edur e § 2: 20 , at 59 ( updat ed by Car ol i ne B ro u n , 2 007) ( noti ng that som e c ourts have held that, even when th e fede ra l gove rn m en tha s ne got i at ed a r em edy with a p ote ntia lly resp on sible p arty an d it is ap p ro v ed b y the co u rt in the f or m ofa c on s e ntde c r e e , the c on s e ntde c r e e h a s n o pr e e m pt i ve effectonthe e nf or c em en tofa t oughe r s t at e en vi ro nm en ta l la w ). to disc er n. W e nee d not a dd re ss thi s ar ea i n any com pre-

9 h en siv e way, however, bec ause Ex xon has not m et i ts burden ofsho w i ng t h at ther e i s anyfed eral l aw or effor t w i th wh i ch the Vil l age ’ s nuis ance or dinance coul d confl i ct. Exxo n’ s so l e ar g um en t i s th ats ec ti o n 1 13 ( h) b ar s th e Vi l l a g e ’ s c l a i ms b e c a us e tho s e c l a i ms c ha l l e ng e a CE RC LA r e me dy

— th e Con se ntOr derpr ev i o us l y e nt er ed bythe sta te cour t. The Consent Order was insti tuted bythe Il li nois EPA, ho wev er, no t b y the fede r alg o ve r nm en t, a nd the I EPA’s r o l e i n the law su it a nd Co ns en t Or derwas c o nd u c te d “p u rs u an t t o i ts ow n au th or ity u n d er th e [Illin ois Act]
. ” R. 1, Ex. 1 pt. 1 at 28
. Exxo n ha s f ai l ed to po i ntt o “ an y chal l enge[ ] to r em ova lo r re m edi alact i on s el ecte d und er sect i on 9 604 ofthi s t i tl e, ” o r to “any or de r iss u ed und er sect i on 9 606( a)
. ” See 42 U
. S. C. § 9 613( h). In f act, Exxon has f ai l ed to sho w thatany CE RC LA

- author i zed r em edi ati on22 N o. 07

- 2311 effo rtor, in d ee d , an y fe d er al in vo l v e m e n t w h at so ev er is im p li ca te d i n thi s ca se wi thwhi chthe a ppl i ca ti o n o fthe Vil l age ’ s nui sance or dinance coul d confl i ct. Exxon ther ef or e has f ai l ed to car ryi ts burde n of proving federa l p re em p tio n of t h e V illag e’s cla im s. Se eFi f t h Thi r d Bank, 41 5 F. 3d at 745.

C.

Pree m pti on by Sta t e Law I n I l l i no i s , mun i c i pa l i t i e s tha ta r e n o th o me- r ul e u ni ts h av e lim ite d p ow er s. Hawth or nev. Vi l l . o f O l ym pi a F i e l ds , 79 0 N .E .2d 83 2, 84 0 (Ill. 20 03 ). Th e V illag e, a n on -h om e-r u le uni t, may ex er ci se o nl y tho se po wer s enum er at ed inthe I l l i noi s Cons tit uti on o r confer re d up on i t, expre ssl y o r im p lied ly, by st at e s ta tu te
. Id. Be ca us e th e Vi l l ag e i s a no nho m e- r ul e uni t, a ny o fi ts or di na nc es tha t “c o nfl i ctwi ththe spi ri t a nd purpose ofa state s ta tu te ar e pr eem pted by sta tute. ” Id. a t 842. “W he r e th er e i s a co nfl i ctb etwee n a st at u te an d an ord in an c e, th e ord in an c e m u st giv e w ay .” Id. ( alteration om itted ) (qu otation om itted ). The parti es do n ot dis pute that the Vil l age h ad the power to adopt the nuis ance o rdi nance that i t s eek s t o apply to E x x on in t h i s c as e. See 65 I LC S 5/ 11- 60- 2 ( “The co rpor ate au th o r i ti es o fea chm uni ci pal i tym ayde fi ne , pr ev en t, a nd abat e nui sances . ”) ; Vil l. of Sugar G rove v. R ich , 80 8 N
. E.2 d 52 5, 53 1 (Ill. A p p . C t. 20 04 ) ( “ H ist or ica lly, nu isa n c e o rd in an c es h av e b ee n h eld to be inv alid on ly w h en th e m u n icip alit y’s d et er m in at ion of w h at c o n s tit u te s a n u isa n c e is cl ear l y e rr oneo us. ”)
. The di spute her e i s whether th e Vil l age ’ s nui sance or dinance, as appli ed, exce eds i tsN o. 07

- 2311 23

au th o r i tya nd i s i m per m i ss ibl e i n l i g hto fthe s pi r i t o fthe law s an d p olic ies of Illin ois
. Se ei d. ; Hawth or ne, 790 N
. E.2 d at 841. The Suprem e Cour t o fI l l i noi s has lo n g h el d that, as a re sul t o ft h e Illino i s Act’s expre ss pu rpos e o f “e st ab l i sh [ i ng ] a uni fi ed, st at e- wi de pr o g r am to pr o te ctthe envi ro nm ent, the A ct was intended to preem pt non- hom erul e r egul ati ons. ” Vil l
. of Carpe nt e rs vi l l e v. Pol l ut i on Cont r ol Bd. , 553 N .E .2d 36 2, 36 4 ( Il l. 19 90 ) (alt er at ion in o rig in al) ( i nter nalquotat i on m ar ks om i tte d) ( i nter nalci tat i on om i tte d ). B ecause the Vil l age i s a non- hom e- rul e uni t, i ts or dinances m ay not “co nfl i ct with the spi ri t a nd purpose of a sta te sta tute. ” Hawth or ne, 7 90 N. E. 2d at8 42
. The Illino is A c t w as en ac te d in p ar t b e c a u se of th e Illino is GeneralA sse m bl y’ s fi nd i ngs that, “be cause envi ro nm e nt al dam age does notr espectpol i ti calbo und ar i es, i t i s nec essa r y t o e st ab l i sha uni fi ed st at e- wi de pr o g r am f o re nv i r o nme n t a lp r o t e c t i o n, ” a n d th a t“ e n v i r o n me n t a lp r o b l e ms ar e cl ose l y inter re l ate d and m ust be d eal t w i th as a unifi ed who l e i n o r de rt o s a fe g ua r d the e nv i r o nme nt
. ” 4 1 5 I LCS 5/2( a) ( i i ) , ( i i i )
. The purpose ofthe I l li noi s Act i s “ to est abl i sh a unifi ed, st ate
- w i de prog ra m supplem ented by pr i vate re m edi es , t o r es to r e, pr o te cta nd e nha nc e th e quali ty of th e e nvi ro nm ent, and to as sure that advers e effects u pon the e nvi ro nm ent a re fully c onsi dered and bor ne bythose wh o cause them
. ” Id. a t 5/2(b)
. The I l l i noi s Act author i zes the I l l i n ois A tto rneyGenera lto “i nsti tute a ci vi lact i on f oran inj uncti on, pro hibi tory o r m andator y, to r est ra i n vi ol ati ons ofthi s Act,
. . . o r to re quir e s uch otheract i ons as m ay be ne cess ar y t o add re ss vi ol ati ons ofthi s Act .
. . . ” Id. at 5/42(e).24 N o. 07

- 2311 H er e, th e Illino is A tt or n ey G en er al in st itu te d a c ivil ac ti o n aga i ns t Exxo n in o r dert o a ddr es s vi o l at i o ns o fthe Illino is A c t. Se ei d. The r es ul t o f th ata ct i o n was the Co ns en t Order, wh i ch detai l s a phased and consi de re d p lan f or c lea n in g up th e en vir on m en ta l h az ar d at th e site t h a t is l oca ted i n and nearthe Vil l age . The Vil l age ’ s a pp l i cati on o f i ts nuis ance or dinance see ks to add re ss, i n a hea vy- hand ed m an n er , a d ifficu lt en vir on m en ta l p ro b lem th at ce rt ain ly is n oton ly of loc al c on c er n . Se eCity o f D e s Pla i ne s v. Chi cago & N
. W
. R. R. Co. , 35 7 N
. E.2 d 433, 43 6 ( I l l
. 1976 )
. I f the Vi l l age w er e per m i tte d to apply i ts nuis ance o rdi nance t o f or ce Ex xon to co m ple te i m m e di at e ly the c l eanup oft he si te, o n p en alt y of $ 75 0 p er d ay fo r n on c om p lian c e, th en it co u ld preve nt com pli ance w i th the m eas ured cl eanup p roces s ado pte d b y I l l i no i s th r o ug h th e Con se ntOr derunde rthe au th or ity of Illin ois law
. Com pareHawth or ne, 790 N
. E.2 d at 84 3. S ucha r es ul t woul d fr us tr at e th e pur po se o fthe I l l i noi s Act, w hi ch p er m i ts the I l l i noi s Attor ney Gener alto enterco nsent or ders preci sel y l i ke thi s one fo r the purpos e of re m ov in g a n d rem ed iat in g e n vir on m en ta l ha za rd s. See i d. The Vi l l ag e’ s r el i an ce o n C arpent ersvil lei s without m er i t. C arpent ersvil lehe l d tha t a vi l l ag e co ul d i m po se z o ni ng requ irem en ts t h a t directly con fl ict w ith I ll inois’ un iform pr o g ram o fe nv i r o nm en ta lr egul at i o n if the I l l i noi s Act conta i ned a speci fi c p ro vi si on p er m i tting the l oca lr egul atio n o f the i ssue i n questi on. 553 N
. E.2 d a t 367. There, a vi l l age’ s z oni ng o rdi nance l i m i ted sm oke sta cks to 30 feet i n h ei g ht, a nd the I EPA had i ss ue d a pe r m i t to a c o m pan y condi ti oned on the c om pany r ai si ng i ts disc ha rg e sm oke

st ac k t o 1 00 fee t. Id. at 363. A l though the fac i l i ty coul d notN o. 07

- 2311 25

co m pl y wi ththe r equi r ement s in its pe r m i t an d wi ththe l oca lzo ni ng o rdi nance, the I l l i noi s Act cont ai ns a provi si on that condi ti oned the p er m i t o n com pli ance with l oca l zo n in g re gu lat ion s. Id. ( “[ T]he gr anti ng o fa perm i t under th i s Act sh al lno t r el i ev e th e appl i ca ntfr o m me etinga nd secur i ng all n eces sar y z oni ng appro val s fro m the unito f gov er nm ent havi ng zoni ng j uri sdic ti on o verthe propos ed facil ity. ” (qu otation om itted ))
. I n C arpent ersville, the l oca lzo ni ng r egul ati on di d not confl i ct with the sta te- i ssued per m i t be cause the s tatute ex p ressly cond it ion ed the p erm it up on th e facil ity’s c om p lian c e w ith th at ve ry zo n in g re gu lat ion
. Id. at36 7. In th e pre sen t case, how ever, neither th e C o ns en t O rd er, en te re d u n d er th e Illino is A c t, n or th e Illino is A c t it se lf c o nt a i ns l a ngua g e p e r mi t t i nga di r e c tc o nfl i c tb e t w een t he I E PA ’s Con sen t O rd er w ith E xx on an d the V il lage’s ap p lica tio n of its n u is a n c e ord in an c e. H er e, E x x on is r e q ui r e d to p er for m its w or k inc om p lian c e w ith th e Illino is A c t, as d ire c te d by th e C on se n t O rd er ; th e V illag e s im p ly i s s eek i ng to f or ce i t t o act i n a m an n er inconsi ste nt with thos e s tat e r equi re m ents. The I l l i noi s l egi sl atur e e na c te d the I l l i noi s Act i n or der to safeguar d the e nvi ro nm ent a nd to re sto re co ntam i nated ar eas thr ough a phased and careful l y c onsi dered pro cess . I gn or in g thi s pro cess byco nd ucti ng and co ncl ud i ng a c lea n u p to th e s at isfa c tio n of th e V illag e is n ota p lan in se rv ice t o th e g oa ls of t h e Illino is A c t. T h e V illag e’s ap p lica ti o n o fi ts nui sa nc e o r di na nc e i n thi s ca se i s o ve r r ea ch i ng bec au se it a ttem p ts to regulate an env ironm en tal haza rd that i s no t l oca li n nature a n d that a l re ady i s s ubj ect to a cl ea n u p u n d e r th e a u th o r i z a t i o n a n d d i r e c t i o n o ft he26 N o. 07

- 2311 state
. A ccord ingly, w e hold that the V il lage ’s clai m s are preem pted by the I l l i noi s Act.
Conclusi on For the forgoing reason s, w e a ff ir m the d istri ct cou rt’s R ule 12(b)(6) d ism issal on the grou nd th at th e V ill age’s c l a i ms a r e p r e e mpt e d b y I l l i n o i s l a w. A FFI RMED

8- 11- 08