Opinion ID: 201206
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Allocation of shares of liability

Text: 51 After trial, the district court concluded that the Capuanos, as operators, were liable for the total volume (100%) of waste dumped at the Picillo site. The Capuanos were also liable for a share of the waste dumped at the Picillo site as arrangers [and they were] liable as transporters for 7.94% of the total waste delivered to the site. The district court concluded that R & H was liable for 3.23% of the waste. 52 Before allocating percentage shares of liability, the district court informed the Capuanos that it would consider the relative fault of non-parties in arriving at an equitable allocation of liability. The district court did not ultimately consider the relative fault of non-parties when allocating liability because the parties failed to present evidence concerning the relative fault of non-parties. According to the district court, the Capuanos' decision not to present any evidence that may have mitigated their liability ... is one they will have to live with. The Capuanos, not wanting to live with it, appealed the issue, arguing that a district court cannot make a proper allocation unless it accounts for the shares of all PRPs, regardless of whether the PRPs are parties to the action and regardless of whether evidence was presented regarding the absent PRP's actions. 53 In resolving contribution claims, a district court has broad discretion to allocate response costs among liable parties using such equitable factors as the court determines are appropriate. 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f)(1). It is not unprecedented for a district court to reason that a fair and equitable allocation [can] only be achieved by comparing [a defendant's] role as a PRP to other PRPs. United States v. Consol. Coal Co., 345 F.3d 409, 414 (6th Cir.2003). However, the decision to allocate response costs among the named parties or all parties is within the Court's discretion to adopt and apply. United States v. Consol. Coal Co., 184 F.Supp.2d 723, 745 (S.D.Ohio 2002). Indeed, in some cases apportioning responsibility among all PRPs is not an attractive option as it could complicate an already difficult allocation process or saddle firms ... with excess costs and might take years of trial time. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Aigner Corp., 197 F.3d 302, 306 (7th Cir.1999). 54 R & H provided the district court with evidence indicating that the Capuanos were liable, as operators, for 100% of the waste at the Picillo site. The district court did not abuse its discretion in reaching such a conclusion since the district court found the evidence to be credible and, more important for the purposes of this discussion, unrefuted. See, e.g., United States v. Davis, 31 F.Supp.2d at 68 (allocating 100% liability among the parties to the action, even though many other PRPs existed).