Opinion ID: 203380
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Early Proceedings and Complaints Against Third and Fourth Parties

Text: Citizens filed an answer on December 26, 2002, arguing, inter alia, that because the City is a responsible party, it cannot maintain any claims against Citizens under CERCLA section 107. Citizens also filed a counterclaim, alleging that the City was responsible for contamination of Penobscot River and qualified as a responsible person under CERCLA, id. § 9607(a), and so was responsible for an equitable share of response costs under CERCLA, id. § 9613(f)(1). Bangor filed an Amended Complaint on April 17, 2003 that added the State of Maine to the case caption as a purported party-in-interest and asserted additional claims against Citizens under a provision of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), id. § 6972(a)(1)(B). [2] Citizens opposed adding the State as a party, arguing that this method of adding a new party was completely improper and that the State's inclusion would merely add confusion to the proceedings. The State sent a letter to the court saying it had two interests in the litigation: from its regulatory authority over uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, and from the State's property interest in the river bed on which a portion of the tar plume rests. The State indicated that it believed its status is correctly denominated as a `party-in-interest.' On August 6, 2003, the district court granted Citizens's Motion To Strike or Drop the State of Maine as a Party. The court rejected Bangor's suggestion that the court use its equitable powers to allow the State to participate as a party-in-interest, holding that Bangor had not demonstrated any legal authority for its doing so. The court suggested that if the State wanted to participate, it should either intervene under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24 or request to be included as an amicus curiae. Alternatively, the court noted that the plaintiff, Bangor, could move to join the State under Fed.R.Civ.P. 20. Bangor did not do so. In the interim, on April 30, 2003, Citizens filed third-party complaints, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 14, 19, and 20, against Barrett Paving Materials, Inc.; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Guilford Transportation Industries, Inc.; Honeywell International Inc.; S.E. MacMillan Company, Inc.; Dead River Company; Northwestern Growth Corporation; UGI Utilities, Inc.; North American Utility Construction Corp.; Beazer East, Inc.; and Centerpoint Energy Resources Corp., seeking contribution and/or indemnity for any environmental cleanup costs for which it might be held liable. On August 26, 2003, Citizens filed an additional third-party complaint against Maine Central Railroad Company. Various fourth parties were added. [3] Bangor filed a Second Amended Complaint on October 22, 2003, which did not seek to add any additional parties.