FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 6, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 63 9

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 3- cv -0 13 45 -PWG
SOLUTIA INC, PHARMAC IA CORPORATION,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff s - C ou nt er - ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll an ts , ve rs us MCWANE, INC., ak a Uni on Fo un dry , ak a M& H Valv e, UNITED STAT ES PIPE AND FOUNDRY COMPANY, INC., MEADW ESTVACO CORPORATION, fk a Me adCo rp or at io n, fk a Uni on Fo un dry , fk a WoodwardIro n, fk a Alaba m a Pi pe Co m

pa ny, fk a Lync hb ur g F ou nd ry , fk a St an da rdFo un dry , fk a Ann is to n F ou nd ry , FMC CORPORATION,fk a Kil by Steel ,

UNITED DE FENSE, LP, et al ., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s - C ou nt er - ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Cl ai m an ts - App el le es , HURON VALL EY STEELCORPORATION, TULL CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC., RANSOM INDUSTRI ES, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees , US CASTINGS, etal., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 6, 2 01 2) Befo re MAR TIN, HILL andEBEL, Cir cu itJu dg es . * PER CURI AM: Pl ai nt iff s- App el lant s So lu ti a, In c. an d P ha rm aci a Co rp or at io n (S ol ut ia& Ph arm aci a) ap pe al th e Dis tri ctCo urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t ag ai ns t the ir cl ai m s u nd er § 10 7( a) o f th e Co m pr eh en si ve Env iro nm en ta l Re sp on se ,

The Honor able Da

vid M. Ebel, United States Circuit Judg e for the Tenth Circuit, sitting * by designation. 2Co m

pe ns at io n, an d Li ab il ity

Act (C ERCLA). Sol ut ia& Ph arm aci a al so ap pe al 1 th e Dis tri ctCo urt’s d en ia l o f th ei r Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 5 9( e) m ot io n t o cl ari fy or a m en d t he su m

m ary jud gm en t o rd er. The ap pe al requi res th is Co urt t o de ci de , as am at te r of

fir stim pr es si on , whet he r pa rti es subjec t t o aco ns en t d ecre e
m ay fil e cl ai m s fo r co streco ve ry un de r § 1 07 (a) o f CERCLA, o r whe th er the ir
rem ed ie s ar e li m it edto fil in g c la im s fo r co nt rib ut io n u nd er § 11 3( f) o f CERCLA. I. BACKGROUND As the Mag is tra te Ju dg e n ot edinhi s tho ro ug h ru li ng gra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t, “ [t]hi s ca se is co m pl ex , interm s o f it s u nd erl y in g fa ct s, i ts li ti ga ti on hi st ory , andth e le ga l i ss ue s i t p res en ts .” Mo ns an to Co m pa ny pro du ced po lychl or in at edbi ph ey ls (PCB s) at apl an t n ear d own to wn An ni st on , Alab am a fro m 19 29 to 19 71
. Mo ns an to ’s op erat io ns cau se d andco nt rib ut edto 2
en vi ro nm en ta l co nt am in at io n o f th e are as su rro un di ng th e Ann is to n p la nt . In 19 97 , Mo ns an to sp un off So lu ti a, whi chno w own s an d o pe rat es th e Ann is to n pl an t. In20 00 , th e m erg er o f Mo ns an to an d P harm aci a & Up joh n In c. res ul te d i n th e cre at io n o f Ph arm aci a Co rp or at io n. Pub. L . No. 96-510, 94 Stat. 2767 (1980), a mended by

Superfund Ame ndments and 1 Reauthorization Act of 1986, Pub. L . No. 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 (1986). The EPA has de termined that e x posure to PCBs has numer ous deleterious health 2 conseque nces, a

nd there fore reg

ulates their manuf

actur e and distribution. See 40 C.F.R. § 761.20. 3In20 02 , th e Uni te d S ta te s En vi ro nm en ta l Pr ot ect io n Ag en cy (EPA) fi le d a cl ean up en fo rcem en t ac ti on un de r CERCLA i n t he Dis tri ctCo urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Al ab am a ag ai ns t So lu ti a & Ph arm aci a (the Enfo rcem en t Ca se ). The EPA andSo lu ti a & Ph arm aci a res ol ve d the Enfo rcem en t Ca se inAug us t 2 00 3 b y
en te rin g i nt o aPart ia l Co ns en t Dec ree (P CD), whi chim po se d jo in t an d s ev eral ob li ga ti on s o n t he co m

pa ni es to fin an ce an d p erfo rm sp eci fie d c le anup op erat io ns . The PCD an d i ts in co rp or at eddo cu m en ts refe ren cedtwo area s o f co nt am in at io n th atare the subjec t o f th is ap pe al —the “ Ann is to n P CB Si te ” an d t he “ Ann is to n LeadSit e.” The PCD res erv edth e ri gh t o f So lu ti a & Ph arm aci a to see k
co nt rib ut io n fr om

ot he r po te nt ia ll y

res po ns ib le pa rti es (PRPs ) forcle anup co st s 3
as so ci at edwith t he Ann is to n Lea d S it e. 4 Nearl y two y ears aft er the Dis tri ctCo urt ap pr ov edth e PCD, the EPA “Potentially

responsible pa

rty” (PRP) is a term used unde r CERCLA to connote a 3 private pa rty who might be liable for c leanup c osts that stem from environmental c ontamination. See Cooper I

ndus., Inc. v. Aviall Servs., I nc., 543 U.S. 157, 161, 125 S. Ct. 577, 580 (2004). One of the documents incor

porate d into the PC D, the Non- time Critical Removal 4 Agree ment, specifie d: [R ]esidential properties c ontaining le ad in excess of 400 ppm ar e also pa rt of the Anniston L ead Site and [the] EPA is i n the proc ess of identify ing pote ntially responsible pa

rties (PRPs) under CERCLA. . . . I f [Sol utia & Phar macia] remove soil from any

proper ty havinglead in excess of 400 ppm . . . EPA ac knowledg es that [S olutia & Phar

macia] may

seek c ontribution for the costs of suc h remova l from the PRPs at the Anniston L ead Site and a ny other pa rties who may

be liable.

4en te redin to a se pa rat e CERC LA set tl em en t ag reem en t wi thth e Fo ot hi ll s

Co m m un ity Partne rs hi p. Th e se tt le m en t re qu ire d t he Partne rs hi p t o re im bu rs e th e EPA forit s p as t an d fu tu re co st s i n c le an in g up l eadco nt am in at io n i n t he Ann is to n
area . Alm os t al l Def

en da nt s i n t he pre se ntap pe al (“ Set tl in g Def en da nt s” ), with th e ex cep ti on of S ou th ernToo l LLC an d S ci en ti fic Atl an ta(“Non -Set tl in g Defen da nt s” ), were p art ie s t o t hi s C ERCLA se tt le m en t. So lu ti a & Ph arm aci a b el ie ve d t ha t the EPA’ s s ettl em en t wi th th e Part ne rs hi p u nd erm in edth ei r ri gh t, as de li ne at edinth e PCD, t o s eekco nt rib ut io n fro m ot he r po te nt ia ll y

res po ns ib le pa rti es for

cle anup co st s re la ti ng to th e Ann is to n Lea d S it e. Seek in g t o v in di cat e th is po si ti on , th ey fil eda m ot io n i n t he Enfo rcem en t Ca se . The Di stric t Co urt ag reedth atth e EPA ha d re pu di at edth e PCD an d i nd ic at edth at , up onm ot io n, h e wou ldsu sp en d S ol ut ia& Ph arm aci a’s ob li ga ti on s u nd er the co ns en t o rd er. Howe ve r, So lu ti a & Ph arm aci a n ev er t oo k th e Dis tri ctCo urt up o n i ts off er, thu s l eav in g t he PCD in effe ct . Then , inJu ly 20 06 th e EPA an d S ol ut ia& Ph arm aci a en te redin to a St ip ul at io n C la rif y in g t he Part ia l Co ns en t Dec ree ( St ip ul at io n) . In i t, So lu ti a & Ph arm aci a ag reedto cle an up sp eci fie d g eo gr ap hi cal area s ar ou ndAnn is to n—Zon es A, B, C, and D—i nc lu di ng area s tha t i nv ol ve d l eadco nt am in at io n.

5II. PROC EDURAL HISTORY

InJu ne 20 03 , Sol ut ia& Ph arm aci a fi le d t hi s ac ti on inth e Dis tri ctCo urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Al ab am a ag ai ns t the Defen da nt s- App el le es as p ot en ti al ly
res po ns ib le pa rti es un de r CERCLA. InCo un t I o f th ei r Am en de d C om pl ai nt , So lu ti a & Ph arm aci a as se rte d c la im s fo r co nt rib ut io n u nd er § 11 3( f) o f CERCLA (co di fie d a s 4 2 U.S.C. § 96 13 (f)) f orcle anup co st s i nc urredat t he Ann is to n Lea d Si te an d An ni st on PCB Si te . In Co un t II , Sol ut ia& Ph arm aci a as se rte d c la im s fo r
reco ve ry un de r § 1 07 (a) o f CERCLA (c od ifi edas 4 2 U.S.C. § 96 07 (a)) for cle anup
co st s i nc urredat the Ann is to n Lea d S it e o nl y . The Set tl in g Def

en da nt s m ov edforsu m

m ary jud gm en t o n t he § 1 07 (a)
reco ve ry an d § 11 3( f) co nt rib ut io n c la im s. So ut he rnToo l an d S ci en ti fic Atl an ta , th e Non -Set tl in g Def

en da nt s, m ov edforsu m

m ary jud gm en t o nl y

on th e § 10 7( a)
reco ve ry cla im s. InJu ne 20 08 , th e Ma gi st rat e Ju dg e g ran te d S et tl in g Def en da nt s
su m m ary jud gm en t o n C ou ntI—the § 1 13 (f) co nt rib ut io n c la im s— be cau se th e cl ai m s wer e p recl ud edun de r § 1 13 (f)(2 ), whi chpro vi de s, “ [a] pers on who ha s
res ol ve d i ts li ab il ity

to th e Uni te d S ta te s o r a St at e in anadm in is tra ti ve or jud ic ia ll y ap pr ov edset tl em en t s ha ll no t b e li ab le forcla im s fo r co nt rib ut io n reg ard in g m at te rs ad dr es se d i n t he set tl em en t.” 4 2 U.S.C. § 96 13 (f)(2 ). As t o Co un t II , th e Ju dg e ru le d t ha t So lu ti a & Ph arm aci a were e nt it le d t o p ro ceed
6ag ai ns t al l Def en da nt s o n c la im s s eek in g c os t re co ve ry un de r § 1 07 (a) wi th reg ard to th e Ann is to n Lea d S it e. Howev er, aft er the Defen da nt s fi le d m ot io ns to reco ns id er i n Dec em be r 20 09 , th e Ma gi strat e Ju dg e v acat edhi s p rio r or de r an d e nt eredsu m m ary jud gm en t ag ai ns t So lu ti a & Ph arm aci a o n t he ir § 10 7( a) cl ai m s i n J ul y 20 10 . The J ud ge ba se d h is Ju ly 201 0 o rd er o n c as es de ci de d i n t he wake of Un it edSta te s v . Atl an ti c Res earc h C or

p., 5 51 U.S. 12 8, 1 37 S. Ct. 2 33 1 (2 00 7) , as wel l as th e Ju ly 20 06 Sti pu la ti on be twee n t he EPA andSo lu ti a & Ph arm aci a, whi chha d n otbe en pr es en te d t o t he Co urt atth e ti m e o f it s J un e 2 00 8 o rd er. The Ju dg e ru le d tha t be cau se th e PCD an d t he Sti pu la ti on gra nt edSo lu ti a & Ph arm aci a co nt rib ut io n rig ht s und er § 11 3( f) fo r certa in co st s, the y co ul d n otch oo se to bri ng th ei r cl ai m s
un de r § 1 07 (a) fo r th os e sa m e co st s. So lu ti a & Ph arm aci a fi le d aRu le 59 (e) m ot io n t o c la rif y or a m en d t he Ju ly 20 10 ord er, reque st in g t ha t the Mag is tra te Ju dg e rei ns ta te th ei r § 1 07 (a) c la im s fo r
res po ns e co st s tha t the y

ha d i nc urredpri orto en try of the Part ia l Co ns en t Dec ree. The Ju dg e d en ie d t he m ot io n, b ecau se So lu ti a & Ph arm aci a rel ie d o n a rg um en ts in th ei r Ru le 59 (e) m ot io n tha t the y ha d n otpre vi ou sl y

rai se d. III. SOLUTIA & PHARM ACIA’S § 1 07 (a) C LAIMS So lu ti a & Ph arm aci a arg ue th atth e Ma gi st rat e Ju dg e err ed , bec au se th e 7pl ai n l an gu ag e o f CERCLA al lo ws the m to reco ve r cl ean up co st s tha t the y di rect ly in cu rred , eve n i f th os e co st s ar e th e subjec t o f a co ns en t d ecre e b etweenth em an d th e EPA. Whe th er § 10 7( a) o f CERCLA g ran ts pa rti es a ri gh t t o re co ve r cl ean up co st s th atth ey di rect ly inc urinco m

pl y in g wi th a co ns en t d ecre e is a m at te r of st atut ory in te rp ret at io n s ub

ject t o d e n ov o re vi ew. Uni te d S ta te s v . Murrel l, 3 68 F.3d12 83 , 12 85 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). At the cen te r of

th is di sp ut e are two CERCLA p ro vi si on s— § 1 07 (a) and § 1 13 (f) (c od ifi edas 4 2 U.S.C. § § 9 60 7( a), 9 61 3( f)). The Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt h as ex pl ai ne d i n t wo re cen t d eci si on s tha t ea chpro vi si on gra nt s p riv at e pa rti es a di st in ctrig htof a ct io n fo r rec oupi ng en vi ro nm en ta l cl eanup co st s. Cl ean up co st s i nc urredvo lu nt ari ly anddi rect ly by a party are reco ve rab le on ly
un de r § 1 07 (a)( 4) (B), ev enif the cla im an t i s n oten ti rel y in no cen t u nd er CERC LA. Atl . Res earc h, 5 51 U.S. at 1 39 , 13 7 S . Ct. at23 38 . Furt he r, § 1 07 (a) i m po se s jo in t
an d s ev eral li ab il ity

on CERCLA d efen dant s. Id . at 1 40 n.7 , 12 7 S . Ct. at23 39 n.7
. By co nt ras t, i f a p ers on is for cedto rei m bu rs e a thi rdpa rty for i ts cle anup effo rts , as m an da te d b y

a le ga l ju dg m en t o r se tt le m en t u nd er CERC LA, the n t ha t pe rs on m ay

on ly seekco nt rib ut io n fo r th os e rei m bu rs em en t co st s fr om

othe r 8po te nt ia ll y

li ab le pa rti es un de r § 1 13 (f). Co op er In du s., In c. v. Av ia ll , Inc ., 54 3 U.S. 15 7, 1 66 , 12 5 S . Ct. 5 77 , 58 3 (2 00 4) . Furt he r, whe re § 10 7( a) i m po se s jo in t
an d s ev eral li ab il ity , § 1 13 (f)’s ri gh t o f co nt rib ut io n i s p rem is edup on th e co m m on la w con cep t tha t the to rtf eas or -p la in ti ff “pa idm or e th anhi s o r he r pr op orti on at e sh are,” su chth atall oc at io n a cco rd in g t o faul t b etweenth e § 11 3( f) p la in ti ff an d de fen da ntis ap pr op ria te . Atl. Re se arch , 55 1 U.S. at13 8, 1 27 S. Ct. at23 38
. Sect io n 1 13 of C ERCLA co nt ai ns ad di ti on al pro vi si on s tha t d efi ne th e
sc op e o f av ai labl e rem ed ie s u nd er § 10 7( a) an d § 11 3( f). Fi rs t, u nd er § 11 3( f)(2 ), if apa rty has set tl edit s l iabi li ty to the Uni te d S tate s o r a s ta te go ve rn m en t, i t
can no t l at er b e h el d l iabl e to an ot he r cl ai m an t fo r co nt rib ut io n u nd er § 11 3( f). See 42 U.S.C. § 9 61 3( f)(2 ). Seco nd , § 1 13 (g ) of CERCLA p ro vi de s fo r di ffer en t st atut es of l im it at io ns , dep en di ng on whet he r th e cl ai m ori gi na te s u nd er § 10 7( a)
or§ 1 13 (f). See 42 U.S.C. § 9 61 3( g) (2 )– (3 ). InAtl an ti c Res earc h, the Supr em e Co urt ex pr es sl y de cl in edto de ci de th e is su e p res en te d h ere—whe th er a p arty who in cu rs di rectcle anup co st s p ur su an t t o
a co ns en t d ecre e fo ll owi ng a CERCLA l aws ui t u nd er § 10 6 o r § 1 07 m ay bri ng an act io n t o re co ve r th os e co st s u nd er § 10 7( a). 5 51 U.S. at 1 39 n.6 , 12 7 S . Ct. at

923 38 n.6
. Howev er, we are no t drawi ng on a co m pl et el y bl an k s la te . Sin ce 5 Atl an ti c Res earc h was de ci de d, o th er ci rcu it s h av e h el d t ha t § 11 3( f) p ro vi de s the

“ ex cl us iv e rem edy

fora li ab le pa rty com

pe ll edto in cu r res po ns e co st s p ur su an t t o
anadmin is tra ti ve or ju di ci al ly app ro ve d s et tl em en t u nd er § § 1 06 or 1 07 ,” in cl ud in g aco ns en t d ecre e. Mo rri so n En te r., LLC v. Drav o C or p., 6 38 F.3d59 4, 60 3 (8 thCir . 20 11 ); a cco rdAger e Sy s., In c. v. Adva nc edEnv tl . Tech . Cor p., 6 02 F.3 d 2 04 , 22 9 (3 d C ir. 2 01 0) (ho ld in g t ha t p art ie s s ub ject t o aco ns en t d ecre e
can no t b rin g acla im

un de r § 1 07 (a)) ; Ni ag ra Mo ha wk Po wer Co rp . v. Ch ev ro n U.S.A., Inc., 5 96 F.3d11 2, 1 28 (2dCir . 20 10 ) (h ol di ng th atpa rti es th atset tl e CERCLA l iabi li ty w ith g ov ern m en t ag en ci es canon ly brin g § 11 3( f) co nt rib ut io n cl ai m s)
. Inad di ti on , th is is no t the fir stti m e th atth e Ele ve nt h C irc ui t h as
en co un te redco ns en t d ecre es inth e co nt ex t o f CERCLA. Infact , th is Co urt h as he ldth ata co ns en t d ecre e g iv es a pa rty a rig htto co nt rib ut io n u nd er § 11 3( f) i n Atl an taGas Li gh t Co . v. UGI Uti li ti es , Inc ., 46 3 F .3d12 01 , 12 03 –0 4 (1 1t h C ir. 20 06 ). In a cco rd an ce wi th ou r pr eced en t, we co nc lu de th atSo lu ti a & Ph arm aci a

The Supreme Court identified the problem that a rises in this situation as it relate s to the 5 party who “doe s not incur costs voluntarily [as required unde r § 107(a)] but does not reimburse the costs of a

nother pa rty [as required unde r § 113(f )].” Atl. Resear ch, 551 U.S. at 139 n.6, 127 S. Ct . at 2338 n.6 10are e nt it le d t o aco nt rib ut io n c la im un de r § 1 13 (f) o f CERCLA. Now we m us t de ci de whet he r a p arty

who ha s a c la im

un de r § 1 13 (f) fo r cl eanup co st s m ay als o ha ve a cl ai m

un de r § 1 07 (a) fo r th os e sa m e co st s. So lu ti a & Ph arm aci a arg ue th atth ere i s n o l an gu ag e in eithe r § 1 07 or § 11 3 to su gg es t tha t § 10 7( a) an d § 11 3( f) are m utua ll y ex cl us iv e rem ed ie s. Be th atas 6 itm ay , CERCLA m

us t “be readas awho le ,” Atl . Res earc h, 5 51 U.S. at 1 35 , 12 7 S. Ct . at 2 33 6 (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) , su chth atit s re m ed ie s re m ai n “ cl earl y di st in ct .” Id . at 1 38 , 12 7 S . Ct. at23 37 (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . If a pa rty
subjec t t o aco ns en t d ecre e co ul d s im pl y rep ack ag e it s § 11 3( f) cl ai m for
co nt rib ut io n a s o ne for

reco ve ry un de r § 1 07 (a), the n the stru ctur e o f CERCLA
rem ed ie s wo ul d b e co m

pl et el y un de rm in ed . For e xa m

pl e, pa rti es co ul d ci rcu m ve ntth e d iff

eren t s ta tu te s o f li m it at io ns th atatt ach to § 1 13 (f) co nt rib ut io n cl ai m s an d § 10 7( a) re co ve ry cla im s. See 42 U.S.C. § 9 61 3( g) (2 )– (3 ). Furth er, Soluti a & Pharmac ia also argue that we must defer to EPA regulation, 40 C.F.R. 6 § 300.700(c) (3)( ii). Section 107(a) only permits rec overy

claims for c leanup c osts that are “consistent with the national c ontinge ncy plan [NCP ].” 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4)( B) . The EPA regulation expl ains that, for pur poses of § 107(a) re cover y actions, “[a]ny

response action ca

rried out in compliance with the ter ms of an orde r issued by

EPA . . . or a c onsent dec ree . . . will be considere d ‘consistent with the NCP.’” 40 C.F.R. § 300.700(c) (3)( ii). Howeve r, Solutia & Pharmac ia over state the import of the r egulation. Definingcer tain responseactions as c onsistent with a national conting ency plan does not automatica lly authorize parties to bringclaims under § 107(a) if those claims otherw ise fall under § 113(f) . Instead, the r egulation may simply rec ognize that a party , who is not subject to a c onsent dec ree , may bringa § 107(a) cla im, if such an ac tion would be consistent with an exist ing c onsent dec ree betwee n the EPA and a third party
. Thus, the re gulation retains its meaning , even if it does not authorize parties subjec t to consent decr ees to bringclaims under § 107( a). 11pa rti es , li ke So lu ti a & Ph arm aci a, co ul d t hwa rt t he co nt rib ut io n p ro te ct io n

affo rd edto pa rti es th atset tl e th ei r li ab il ity with t he EPA, lik e th e Set tl in g Defen da nt s. See 42 U.S.C. § 9 61 3( f)(2 ). Thi s, i n turn, wo ul d d es tro y CERCLA’s st atut or il y -cre at edset tl em en t i nc en ti ve . Fin al ly, to all ow a § 10 7( a) cl ai m he re
wou ldall ow p art ie s, l ik e So lu ti a & Ph arm aci a, to im po se joi ntan d s ev eral li ab il ity
on Defen da nt s, an d o th er s im il arl y si tu at edpa rti es . Defen da nt s wo ul d t he n b e ba rredfro m

ass ert in g a ny § 11 3( f) co un te rcl ai m s, b ecau se So lu ti a & Ph arm aci a ha ve alr eady

en te redin to a jud ic ia ll y

ap pr ov edset tl em en t wi th th e EPA. See 4 2 7 U.S.C. § 9 61 3( f)(2 ); Ag ere S y s., 6 02 F.3dat 2 28
. Fo r th es e rea so ns , we agr ee wi th ou r si st er ci rcu it s tha t we m us t d en y th e
av ai labi li ty of a § 10 7( a) re m edy un de r th es e ci rcu m st an ces inord er t o “ [t]o
en su re the co nt in ue d v it al ity of t he pre ci se an d l im it edrig htto co nt rib ut io n.” Mo rri so n En te r., 63 8 F .3dat 6 03 ; ac co rdNiag ara M oh awkPo wer, 5 96 F.3dat 1 28 (“ [P]roc eed [in g] un de r § 1 07 (a) wo ul d . . . ab ro ga te th e requi rem en ts Co ng res s pl acedon co nt rib ut io n c la im s u nd er § 11 3.” ).

Soluti a & Pharmac ia argue that cour ts could use their “ inhere nt equitable powe rs to 7 apportion liability” under a § 107(a) cla im. Whil e this sugg estion would cure the inequitable outcome desc ribed a

bove, it would also requir e this Court to challeng e the Supre me Court’s assumption in Atlantic Researc h that § 107(a) provides for joint and several liability . 551 U.S. at 140 n.7, 227 S. Ct . at 2338 n.7. Although Soluti a & Pharmac ia have cautioned this Court ag ainst “re writingthe statute,” their sug g estion would require substantial rewor king of CERCL A’s reme dial scheme
. 12IV. SCOPE OF PARTIAL CONSENT DECREE

So lu ti a & Ph arm aci a arg ue th at , eve n i f th is Co urt fi nd s § 11 3( f) t o b e th ei r
ex cl us iv e rem edy , th ey

do no t h av e a § 11 3( f) co nt rib ut io n a ct io n fo r th e Ann is to n LeadSit e, be cau se th ey

were n otob li ga te d t o c le anth e Si te un de r th e Parti al Co ns en t Dec ree ( PCD). The refo re, the y cla im en ti tl em en t t o b rin g § 10 7( a) cl ai m s fo r cl eanup co st s re la te d t o the Ann is to n Lea d S it e. W e rev ie w th e sc op e an d m ean in g o f a co ns en t d ecre e d e n ov o. Re yno ld s v . Ro be rts , 20 2 F .3d13 03 , 13 12 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). The PCD in co rp or at es a nu m be r of do cu m en ts an d s ch edul es to cla rif y it s pu rp os e an d s co pe . This in cl ud es “ al l wo rk an d o th er p la ns . . . se t fo rth he rei n o r de ve lo pe d b y

[So lu ti a & Ph arm aci a] andap pr ov edby E PA pu rs ua ntto th is Co ns en t Dec ree.” Acco rd in g t o t hi s cl au se , futur e p la ns de ve lo pe d p ur su an t t o t he PCD, s uc h a s the Ju ly 200 6 S ti pu lati on , sh ou ldbe co ns id eredas m uc h apa rt o f th e PCD as th e d oc um en ts inex is te nc e atth e ti m e itwas draft ed . There fo re, i t m ak es
m os t s en se to ex am in e th e Ju ly 200 6 S ti pu la ti on , bec au se itclarif ie s the sco pe of So lu ti a & Ph arm aci a’s ob li ga ti on s und er the Part ia l Co ns en t Dec ree. So lu ti a & Ph arm aci a h av e arg ue d t ha t the Sti pu la ti on is no t ad mis si bl e in to

13ev id en ce. Howev er, So lu ti a & Ph arm aci a d idno t co nt es t the admis si bi li ty of th e 8 St ip ul at io n i n t he ir o pe ni ng bri ef o n app eal , eve n t ho ug h t he Mag is tra te Ju dg e rel ie d e xt en si ve ly on t he Sti pu la ti on inhi s o rd er. The refo re, the y ha ve ab an do ne d th is arg um en t. Dav is v. Co ca-C ol a Bo tt li ng Co . Con so l., 5 16 F.3d95 5, 9 72 (11 th Ci r. 20 08 ). 9 The St ip ul at io n c la ss ifi es So lu ti a & Ph arm aci a’s rem ed ia l o bl ig at io ns by ge og rap hi c are a—Zo ne s A, B, C, an d D. InZon e A, andcert ai n p ro pe rti es in Zon e B tha t h av e al read y be ensampledforco nt am in at io n, the co m pa ni es ag reed to cle any ard s wi th a so il “ PCB c on cen tra ti on gre at er tha n o r equa l t o 1 pp m an d n o
su rfac e le adco nc en tra ti on gre at er tha n o r equa l t o 4 00 pm .” Inth os e Zon e B pr op ert ie s tha t h ady etto be sampled , th e co m pa ni es ag reedto cle any ard s wi th

“ so il PCB c on cen tra ti on s g reat er than o r equa l t o 1 pp m . . . . reg ard le ss of the lev el of lea d fo un d i n t ha t yard.” InZon e C, So lu ti a & Ph arm aci a si m il arl y ag reedto
rem edy y ard s “ co nt ai ni ng su rfac e so il PCB c on cen tra ti on s g reat er tha n o r equa l t o 1p pm , reg ard le ss of t he lev el s o f le adfou ndinsu chy ard s.” AndinZon e D, th e
Soluti a & Pharmac ia argue that the ter ms of the Stipulation provide that “it shall not be 8 considere d an admission of liability and is not admissible in evidence ag ainst the Def endants in any judicial or administrative proc eedingother than a proce edingby

the United States.” Fur ther, the Ma g istrate Judge’ s decision to consider the Stipul ation was not an a buse of 9 discretion. As the Judge noted, the Stipulation is an agree ment betwee n the EPA and Solutia & Pharmac ia. Solutia & Pharma cia did not argue that “the defe ndants, who ar e not par ties to the Stipul ation, are prec luded from now relying upon it.” 14co m

pa ni es ag reedto rem edy

y ard s wi th “ PCB c on cen tra ti on s g reat er tha n o r equa l to 1p pm an d/ orsu rfac e so il lea d c on cen tra ti on s g reat er tha n o r equa l t o 4 00 pp m .” The Sti pu la ti on th us de m on st rat es th atSo lu ti a & Ph arm aci a were o bl ig at ed to cle anarea s i n wh ic h P CBs were co m m in gl edwith o th er h azar do us subs ta nc es , na m el y , lea d. Be y on d t ha t, the se ob li ga ti on s wer e d efi ne d a cco rd in g t o ge og rap hi c are as , no t ac co rd in g t o t he so ur ce o f th e co nt am in at io n, the reb y
un de rm in in g S ol ut ia& Ph arm aci a’s arg um en t t o t he co nt rary. Even if we wer e 1 0 to acce ptSo lu ti a & Ph arm aci a’s ot he r arg um en ts co nc ern in g the sco pe of t he Part ia l Co ns en t Dec ree a ndSti pu la ti on , itwou ldno t ch an ge th e fac t tha t So lu ti a 1 1 & Ph arm aci a were c om

pe ll edto cle anth e p ro pe rti es sp eci fie d i n t he Sti pu la ti on , an d t he refo re, h av e ex cl us iv e § 11 3( f) cl ai m s as to th os e co st s. V. RULE 59( e) MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT In t he ir Rul e 5 9( e) m ot io n u nd er the Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e,

Soluti a & Pharmac ia argue that the Par tial Consent Decr ee did “ not rest on any 1 0 particula r g eographic are a or a

ny particula r contaminant [ but] on the source s of the conta minants in eac h site.” As such, the y claim a right to bringa § 107(a) cla im for costs “incur red c leaning up wastes attributable to the defe ndants.” For example, Solut ia & Pharmac ia argue that, in the Stipulation, the parties expressly 1 1 rese rved the question of Solutia & Pharma cia’ s responsibility to clean the Anniston L ead Site. This does not alter the f

act that Solutia & Phar

macia w ereobligated to clea n the g eographic zones specified in the Stipulation. Further , the Stipulation s pecif ied that any

future liability

for the Anniston L ead Site would be “ in addition to S olutia & Phar macia’ s agree ment to perfor m lead c leanup in Z ones B , C, and D.” Thus, the rese rvation of the Anniston L ead Site issue did not affe ct Solutia & Pharma cia’ s obliga tions under the Stipulation. 15So lu ti a & Ph arm aci a as ke d t he Mag is tra te Ju dg e to ov erturn s umm ary jud gm en t as

itrel at edto $1 4 m il li on incle anup co st s fo r are as all eg ed ly notco ve redby the Part ia l Co ns en t Dec ree. Th e Ma gi st rat e Ju dg e d en ie d t he m ot io n fo r fai lu re t o rai se th e arg um en t b efo re en try of s umm ary jud gm en t. Acco rd in g t o S ol ut ia& Ph arm aci a, “ [t]hi s was erro r, be cau se de fen da nt s n ev er ar gu edth atth ey were
en ti tl edto su m

m ary jud gm en t wi th res pe ctto [th os e] areas ” n otco ve redby the PCD. Thi s C ou rt r ev ie ws the de ni al of am ot io n t o a lt er o r am en d ju dg m en t u nd er Ru le 59 (e) fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Sh uf or d v . Fid . Nat’l Pro p. & Cas . Ins . Co., 50 8 F .3d13 37 , 13 41 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). 1 2 Ineach of t he ir De cem

be r 20 09 m ot io ns forreco ns id erat io n o f su m m ary jud gm en t, Defe nd an ts eit he r reque st edth atth e Ma gi st rat e Ju dg e d is m is s al l o f So lu ti a & Ph arm aci a’s § 1 07 (a) c la im s, o r th atth e Ju dg e li m itall of S ol ut ia& Ph arm aci a’s cl ai m s t o § 11 3( f). Sol ut ia& Ph arm aci a arg ue d i n t he ir a ns wer tha t 1 3

Soluti a & Pharmac ia cite a Six th Circuit case f

or the proposition that this Court shoul d 1 2 revie w de novo a

Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider grant of summar y judgme nt. Nat' l L eadbur ners He alth & Welfa

re F und v. O.G. Ke lley

& Co., Inc., 129 F .3d 372, 374 (6th Cir. 1997). This argument is appare ntly unsupported by

Eleventh Circuit pre cede nt, and the Six th Circuit case is not bindi ng . There fore , the standar d of re view re mains abuse of discretion. Soluti a & Pharmac ia argue that De fenda nts’ motions for rec onsideration argued for 1 3 dismiss al of a

ny § 107(a) claims for which Solutia & Pharma cia ha d incurre d compe lled costs. There fore , Soluti a & Pharmac ia should still be entitled to bringtheir cla ims for any voluntarily incurre d costs. We rejec t this argument. Whil e De fenda nts’ leg al arguments might have 16§ 1 13 (f) was no t the ir e xc lu si ve st atut ory rem edy . They furth er ar gu edth atth e PCD d idno t co m

pe l the m to cle anup th e Ann is to n Lea d S it e an d tha t an y co st s in cu rredincle an in g up t ha t s it e were v ol un tary . Howev er, So lu ti a & Ph arm aci a li mit edth ei r arg um en ts to th e co nt en t o f th e Parti al Co ns en t Dec ree, an d t he de fin it io n o f th e Ann is to n Lea d S it e co nt ai ne d t he rei n. Th ey ne ve r actua ll y arg ue d p rio r to th e g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t, as th ey

do no w, th atth ey

“ vo lu nt ari ly inc urredco st s u nr el at ed to th e Co ns en t Dec ree.” Nor d idSo lu ti a & Ph arm aci a ci te th e p ro pe rti es by nam e th atth ey no w urg e sh ou ldbe ex em ptfro m
su m m ary jud gm en t. 1 4 As the Mag is tra te Ju dg e co rrec tl y no te d, “ [t]he re i s n o b ur de n upo n t he di st ric t co urt t o d is ti ll ev ery po te nt ia l ar gu m en t tha t co ul d b e m ad e b as edon th e
m at eri al s b efo re i t o n s umm ary jud gm en t. Rat he r, th e o nu s i s upo n t he pa rti es to fo rm ul at e arg um en ts ; g ro un ds all eg edinth e co m pl ai ntbu t n otrel ie d upo n i n
su m m ary jud gm en t ar e d eem edab an do ne d.” Res ol ut io n Tru stCo rp . v. Dunm ar Co rp ., 43 F.3d58 7, 5 98 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ). W it h t hi s p rin ci pl e in min d, the
discussed compe lled costs, Def endants c learly

moved for dismissal of all of Solutia & Pharmac ia’s § 107(a) claims, whethe r they related to compelled or

voluntary

clea nup costs. Soluti a & Pharmac ia see k $4 milli on for r ecove ry expenditures in the Choccolocc o 1 4 Creek Conser

vation Corridor, and $10 million in ex penditures at Quintard Mall, Oxford L ake Park, the Chocc olocco Cre ek Waste Water Tr eatment Plant, and c erta in Alabama D epar tment of Transpor tation Bridg es. 17Mag is tra te Ju dg e d idno t ab us e h is di sc ret io n b y de nyin g S ol ut ia& Ph arm aci a’s Ru le 59 (e) m ot io n t o a lt er o r am en d t he su m m ary jud gm en t o rd er. VI. CONCLUSION Fo r th e rea so ns st at edab ov e, we AFFIRM the grantof s umm ary jud gm en t.

18