Opinion ID: 201206
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The declaratory judgment in O'Neil

Text: 26 The district court, in O'Neil, issued a declaratory judgment holding R & H jointly and severally liable for all future costs of removal or remedial action incurred by the state relative to the Picillo site. This declaratory judgment did not trigger the statute of limitations for the groundwater cleanup because being held jointly and severally liable for all future costs of removal or remedial action is not a judgment for the recovery of such costs. 27 Reaching this conclusion requires us to dissect 42 U.S.C. § 9613. Section 9613(g)(2) provides that, in an initial action for the recovery of costs, the court shall enter a declaratory judgment on liability for response costs or damages that will be binding on any subsequent action or actions to recover further response costs or damages. 42 U.S.C. § 9613(g)(2)(B) (emphasis added). The O'Neil judgment was an initial action for the recovery of costs associated only with the soil remediation. The district court also entered a declaratory judgment by holding that the defendants are jointly and severally liable for all future costs of removal or remedial action incurred by the state relative to the Picillo site. O'Neil, 682 F.Supp. at 730. Although the district court entered a judgment on liability for future response costs, the district court did not enter a judgment for the recovery of such costs. The declaratory judgment is binding on any subsequent actions to recover response costs or damages, but it is not itself a judgment for the recovery of such costs or damages. 28