Opinion ID: 703200
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of the interest here

Text: 54 In this case, we feel compelled to follow the more cogent reasoning of the minority position. We hold that the prospective intervenors here had both a recognized interest in the subject matter of the litigation and that their interest was likely to be impaired in this litigation. Mille Lacs, 989 F.2d at 997. In reaching this conclusion, we consider each of the proper factors courts must consider to determine whether intervention is appropriate. We must begin our analysis, however, by discussing factors it is inappropriate for courts to consider in determining whether to allow intervention as of right under either the rule or the CERCLA provision. 55 Policy and legislative history. We noted above our disapproval of the district court's reliance primarily on policy arguments instead of on the factors that should be considered in determining whether intervention should be allowed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2) and Sec. 113(i). Accord In re Sierra Club, 945 F.2d at 779 (policy considerations, although relevant to permissive intervention, have no place in analysis of a claim to intervention as of right). The error here of considering policy rather than the factors dictated by Rule 24(a)(2) and Sec. 113(i) of CERCLA was further compounded by considering legislative intent when no ambiguity in the statute could make such an inquiry appropriate. The task of resolving the dispute over the meaning of [a statute] begins where all such inquiries must begin: with the language of the statute itself. United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 241, 109 S.Ct. 1026, 1030, 103 L.Ed.2d 290 (1989); Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 842-43, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 2781-82, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984); United States ex rel. Harlan v. Bacon, 21 F.3d 209, 210 (8th Cir.1994) (When construing a statute, we are obliged to look first to the plain meaning of the words employed by the legislature, and the court must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress, citing Chevron ); United States v. Manthei, 979 F.2d 124, 126 (8th Cir.1992) (When interpreting statutory language, the court must first look to the plain meaning of the language, citing North Dakota v. United States, 460 U.S. 300, 312-13, 103 S.Ct. 1095, 1102-03, 75 L.Ed.2d 77 (1983)). The Supreme Court describes this rule as the one, cardinal canon before all others. Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253, 112 S.Ct. 1146, 1149, 117 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992). Thus, courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there. Id. (citing Ron Pair, 489 U.S. at 241-242, 109 S.Ct. at 1030-31; United States v. Goldenberg, 168 U.S. 95, 102-103, 18 S.Ct. 3, 4, 42 L.Ed. 394 (1897); Oneale v. Thornton, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 53, 68, 3 L.Ed. 150 (1810)). 56 When the language of the statute is plain, the inquiry also ends with the language of the statute, for in such instances the sole function of the courts is to enforce [the statute] according to its terms. Ron Pair, 489 U.S. at 241, 109 S.Ct. at 1030 (quoting Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 485, 37 S.Ct. 192, 194, 61 L.Ed. 442 (1917)); Melahn v. Pennock Ins., Inc., 965 F.2d 1497, 1502 (8th Cir.1992) (plain meaning of a statute governs over ambiguous legislative history, citing Ron Pair ). The plain meaning of a statute is decisive, except in the rare cases [in which] the literal application of a statute will produce a result demonstrably at odds with the intentions of its drafters. Ron Pair, 489 U.S. at 242, 109 S.Ct. at 1031 (quoting Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564, 571, 102 S.Ct. 3245, 3250, 73 L.Ed.2d 973 (1982)); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 452, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 1223-24, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment) (ordinary meaning governs unless implementing it would be patent absurdity). 57 Here, CERCLA's intervention provisions unambiguously provide for intervention by any person when such person meets the requirements of the statute. CERCLA Sec. 113(i), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9613(i); Acton, 131 F.R.D. at 433. There is no restriction on persons who have refused to settle claims and are seeking to intervene in consent decree litigation to preserve contribution claims under Sec. 113(f)(1). Nor does the court find any patent absurdity or a result demonstrably at odds with the intentions of [the] drafters. Ron Pair, 489 U.S. at 241, 109 S.Ct. at 1031; Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 452, 107 S.Ct. at 1223-24 (1987) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). The EPA and settling PRPs stress a supposed conflict between allowing intervention under Sec. 113(i) to protect contribution claims under Sec. 113(f)(1) and the intent of Sec. 113(f)(2) to induce prompt settlement. There is no contradiction among these provisions requiring resort to legislative intent. This court finds that all can be read together and each given its proper effect. Under this reading, the incentive to prompt settlement in Sec. 113(f)(2) remains intact; it simply is not the sole purpose of Sec. 113 taken as a whole. By its terms, subsection 113(f)(1) provides for contribution, subsection 113(f)(2) provides for the termination of that interest as to settling PRPs, and subsection 113(i) provides for intervention to protect that and other interests of persons affected by the litigation. 58 Our rejection of legislative intent and policy as the primary considerations in the analysis of whether or not to permit intervention under Sec. 113(i), of course, puts us at odds with the majority of courts to decide the issue. Nonetheless, we find reliance for a determination of intervention solely on the basis of the factors identified in Sec. 113(i) to be the appropriate course, because we are to apply the factors identified by Congress. Germain, 503 U.S. at 253, 112 S.Ct. at 1149. Although Congress has identified a number of factors as relevant to intervention in CERCLA litigation pursuant to Sec. 113(i), policy and legislative intent are not among them. 59 Recognized interest. Turning therefore to consideration of the factors identified in both Sec. 113(i) and Rule 24(a)(2), we consider first whether the applicants here have an interest relating to the subject of the action. CERCLA Sec. 113(i), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9613(i); Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2). The non-settling PRPs' interest was created by provisions of the precise statute under which the litigation was brought. CERCLA Sec. 113(f)(1), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9613(f)(1), provides for the right of contribution as follows: 60 (f) Contribution 61
62 Any person may seek contribution from any other person who is liable or potentially liable under section 9607(a) of this title, during or following any civil action under section 9606 of this title or under section 9607(a) of this title. Such claims shall be brought in accordance with this section and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and shall be governed by Federal law. In resolving contribution claims, the court may allocate response costs among liable parties using such equitable factors as the court determines are appropriate. Nothing in this subsection shall diminish the right of any person to bring an action for contribution in the absence of a civil action under section 9606 or section 9607 of this title. 63 CERCLA Sec. 113(f)(1), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9613(f)(1). This litigation has been brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Secs. 9606 and 9607, and the settling PRPs and the non-settling PRPs seeking to intervene are all persons who are or are potentially liable in this action. The contribution interest created by Sec. 113(f)(1) is directly related to the subject matter of the litigation, because it may be asserted during or following that litigation, and arises from the liability or potential liability of persons as the result of that litigation. CERCLA Sec. 113(f)(1), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9613(f)(1); Mille Lacs, 989 F.2d at 997 (recognized interest in the subject matter of the litigation). That interest is also substantial and legally protectable: CERCLA Sec. 113(f)(1) itself provides for legal protection of the interest in the primary litigation by providing for contribution claims. Flight Transp., 699 F.2d at 949 (interest asserted must be  'significantly protectable interest' in the primary litigation, quoting Corby Recreation, Inc., 581 F.2d at 177). 5 64 Contrary to the arguments of the EPA and settling PRPs here, it is precisely because Sec. 113(f)(2) would cut off the interest established by Sec. 113(f)(1) that the non-settling PRPs have an interest in the present litigation sufficient to warrant intervention. Settlement under Sec. 113(f)(2) purports to cut off the rights of persons not necessarily present in the litigation. The threat of cutting off contribution rights of non-settling PRPs creates a direct and immediate interest on the part of non-settling PRPs in the subject matter of the present litigation. 65 We find the conclusion that the contribution interest is speculative or too contingent to support intervention to be wrong in law. The interest does not arise only after the daisy-chain of events identified here by the EPA and settling PRPs and in other decisions by other courts as including litigation against the prospective intervenors, a finding of liability against them, and assessment of excessive liability. Rather, under the terms of Sec. 113(f)(1) itself, the interest arises at any time during or following litigation pursuant to Sec. 106 or Sec. 107 between persons who are or are potentially liable. CERCLA Sec. 113(f)(1), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9613(f)(1). Thus, no finding of liability is required, nor assessment of excessive liability, before the contribution interest arises. Only the recovery on a contribution claim must await the outcome of this or further litigation, not the right to bring such a claim. Even were it true that the contribution interest is somehow contingent upon further litigation, either to determine its monetary value or whether it indeed vests or the actual extent of any impairment, that contingency alone would not bar intervention. Jenkins by Agyei, 967 F.2d at 1248; Little Rock Sch. Dist., 738 F.2d at 84; Flight Transp., 699 F.2d at 948. The interests here may be inchoate to the extent that the value of any contribution claim has not yet been determined, but the interest is nonetheless sufficiently certain once a person has been identified as a PRP to support intervention. Flight Transp., 699 F.2d at 949. However, we conclude that the interest itself is not contingent nor speculative, but statutory, and that it existed from the inception of this litigation pursuant to Secs. 106 and 107 of CERCLA. See Acton, 131 F.R.D. at 433 (the interest is statutory, not contingent). 66 Impairment. Certainly, the contribution interest of the prospective intervenors may as a practical matter be impaired by the present litigation. Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2); Kansas Pub. Employees Retirement Sys., 60 F.3d at 1307-08; Mille Lacs, 989 F.2d at 997; Jenkins by Agyei, 967 F.2d at 1248; Little Rock Sch. Dist., 738 F.2d at 84. CERCLA Sec. 113(f)(2) expressly states that the contribution rights of non-settling parties are impaired as to settling parties: 67
68 A person who has resolved its liability to the United States or a State in an administrative or judicially approved settlement shall not be liable for claims for contribution regarding matters addressed in the settlement. Such settlement does not discharge any of the other potentially liable persons unless its terms so provide, but it reduces the potential liability of the others by the amount of the settlement. 69 CERCLA Sec. 1113(f)(2), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9613(f)(2). Thus, disposition of the present litigation could bar or reduce the monetary value of the contribution claims of the prospective intervenors against the settling PRPs. See Mille Lacs, 989 F.2d at 998 (litigation could result in impairment of value of property, thus impairing property interest of prospective intervenor); J & N. Logging Co., 848 F.2d at 1439 (interest in payment of claims impaired by litigation to determine payment); see also Sierra Club, 18 F.3d at 1207 (interest in contract rights was legally protectable when threatened by potential bar at issue in litigation). The prospective intervenors here therefore have a sufficient stake in the litigation to be allowed to intervene. J & N. Logging Co., 848 F.2d at 1439. 6 70 Similarly, we find that an interest in the fairness of the Consent Decree is also legally protectable and otherwise sufficient support intervention, at least to the extent that applicants here have been able to give concrete contours to that interest so that it is not merely an indirect interest or amorphous concern of any settlement. The non-settling PRPs specifically challenge the fairness of the allocation formula used in the Consent Decree as placing upon them excessive liability. The ability of the non-settling PRPs to recoup excessive allocation of liability to them by way of contribution claims against the settling PRPs is again cut off by entry of the Consent Decree. We therefore hold that the applicants for intervention here have presented a protectable interest that may, as a practical matter, be impaired in the disposition of the present litigation. We turn next to the question of whether those interests are adequately protected by existing parties. 71