Opinion ID: 791867
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Con Ed's Waiver and Failure-to-Plead Arguments

Text: 44 UGI argues that Con Ed cannot pursue any claim other than one under section 113(f)(1) because 1) Con Ed has waived any argument that an alternative provision might support its suit, and 2) Con Ed failed to assert any basis other than section 113(f)(1) in its First Amended Complaint. 45 As to the first assertion, we have discretion to consider an argument not passed on below where, as here, `the issue is purely legal and there is no need for additional fact-finding.' Baker v. Dorfman, 239 F.3d 415, 420-21 (2d Cir.2000) (quoting Readco, Inc. v. Marine Midland Bank, 81 F.3d 295, 302 (2d Cir.1996)). UGI's suggestion that Con Ed waived an argument supporting subject matter jurisdiction is particularly unpersuasive given that UGI itself declined to press the argument that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Con Ed's claim. UGI, in its appellate opposition brief filed on September 10, 2004, mentioned Cooper Industries, which was then pending on appeal to the Supreme Court, but assumed arguendo  that the court had subject matter jurisdiction despite Con Ed's not having been sued under section 106 or section 107(a). Apparently hoping that this court would simply affirm the district court summary judgment grant on the merits, UGI attempted to hold its subject matter jurisdiction argument in reserve. However, [t]he absence of [subject matter] jurisdiction is non-waivable; before deciding any case we are required to assure ourselves that the case is properly within our subject matter jurisdiction. Wynn v. AC Rochester, 273 F.3d 153, 157 (2d Cir.2001). Even after Cooper Industries was issued in December of last year, UGI did not submit additional briefing on this topic for a period of more than four months, only advancing its subject matter jurisdiction argument when urged by this court. Having failed to press its argument against subject matter jurisdiction without court prodding, UGI cannot now argue that we should refuse based on waiver to consider an argument in favor of jurisdiction. 46 UGI's second argument also lacks merit. As this court observed in Albert v. Carovano, 851 F.2d 561 (2d Cir.1988), [t]he failure in a complaint to cite a statute, or to cite the correct one, in no way affects the merits of a claim, because [f]actual allegations alone are what matters. Id. at 571 n. 3; see also Northrop v. Hoffman of Simsbury, Inc., 134 F.3d 41, 45-46 (2d Cir.1997) (citing Albert ). Here, the First Amended Complaint alleges that Con Ed has incurred and continues to incur cleanup costs, which were incurred voluntarily and not as a result of being held liable under an administrative or court order or judgment. 14 As we have explained, this suffices for Con Ed to proceed under section 107(a).