Opinion ID: 1451436
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Divestiture of Jurisdiction by CERCLA Section 113(h)

Text: We next address the effect of CERCLA section 113(h). The district court concluded that the Village's claim [was] preempted by CERCLA Section 113(h) and as a result . . . [that the court] lack[ed] jurisdiction over the Village's claim. Vill. of Depue, Ill. v. Exxon Mobile Corp., 2007 WL 1438581, at  (C.D.Ill. May 15, 2007). We review de novo questions of statutory interpretation. Olson v. Risk Mgmt. Alternatives, Inc., 366 F.3d 509, 511 (7th Cir.2004). Section 113(h), titled Timing of review, states: No Federal court shall have jurisdiction under Federal law other than under section 1332 of Title 28 (relating to diversity of citizenship jurisdiction) or under State law which is applicable or relevant and appropriate under section 9621 of this title (relating to cleanup standards) to review any challenges to removal or remedial action selected under section 9604 of this title, or to review any order issued under section 9606(a) of this title.. . . 42 U.S.C. § 9613(h) (emphasis added). The provision then lists five additional exceptions to the divestiture of jurisdiction, none of which are at issue in this case. See id. Here, the sole question is whether the district court, which had jurisdiction under section 1332 of Title 28, nevertheless was divested of jurisdiction by section 113(h). Id. Section 113(h) is a blunt withdrawal of federal jurisdiction, Pollack v. U.S. Dep't of Defense, 507 F.3d 522, 525 (7th Cir.2007) (quotation omitted), but it is expressly limited by its own terms: It does not apply to federal courts sitting in diversity. 42 U.S.C. § 9613(h). Thus, section 113(h) permits a federal court to hear a challenge to a federal cleanup initiated under CERCLA if the challenge arises as, for instance, a state-law nuisance action. Pollack, 507 F.3d at 525. Section 113(h) is limited additionally in that, under the express terms of the statute, it applies only to bar jurisdiction over challenges to certain cleanups authorized under CERCLA, specifically to challenges to those remedial action[s] selected under section 9604 of this title, or to review any order issued under section 9606(a) of this title. 42 U.S.C. § 9613(h). In effect, section 113(h) applies only when the EPA has selected a remedial action under section 9604 or issued an order under section 9606(a), and only then if the challenge arises under federal law. In that limited circumstance, section 113(h) removes jurisdiction over challenges to the EPA's chosen remedial effort until after the cleanup has been completed. Pollack, 507 F.3d at 525. This interpretation is consistent with the statutory purpose of section 113(h), enacted as part of SARA to ensure that, once the EPA chooses a removal or remedial action for a particular site, litigation will not delay the completion or enforcement of a cleanup action. [7] In effect, section 113(h) prevents federal-law challenges to the EPA's selected remedy from going forward until after the remedy has been completed. Id. at 525. The legislative history of SARA also lends support to this holding. The Conference Report for SARA states that the [n]ew section 113(h) is not intended to affect in any way the rights of persons to bring nuisance actions under State law. H.R.Rep. No. 99-962, at 224, 1986 U.S.Code Cong & Admin.News at pp 3276, 3317 (1986) (Conf.Rep.). Similarly, the Congressional Record of Senate Proceedings indicates that unadopted bill language would have extinguished all federal review, but the language that was adopted permitted expressly diversity jurisdiction. 132 Cong. Rec. S17212-03 (daily ed. Oct. 17, 1986) (statement of Sen. Mitchell), 132 Cong. Rec. S17136-01 (daily ed. Oct. 17, 1986) (statement of Sen. Stafford). The two Senators who discussed the provision with regard to diversity jurisdiction both stated specifically that section 113(h) did not preempt nuisance cases that arose under state law and that federal courts were permitted to hear state-law nuisance actions if those cases arose in diversity. [8] The plain language of section 113(h) states that the bar to jurisdiction does not apply to a federal court sitting in diversity. This holding is supported by the plain language, purpose and statutory history of the statute. Here, where the district court sat in diversity, it was not divested of jurisdiction by section 113(h).