Opinion ID: 762018
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Decision in Prisco III

Text: 43 The bench trial from which this appeal arises was not the first occasion on which the district court addressed whether Prisco had proven the elements of a prima facie case under § 107. Before trial, in Prisco III, the court decided exactly this issue on cross-motions for summary judgment, finding that some of the elements of Prisco's claim were established. See 902 F.Supp. at 381-91. Specifically, the district court found in Prisco's favor as to the second (facility), third (release or ... threatened release of hazardous substances), and fourth (incurrence of costs in response to the release or threatened release) elements as a matter of law. See id. at 382, 385-86. The court found a triable issue of fact as to the fifth element, whether the costs incurred by Prisco were necessary. See id. at 387-88. As a result, it did not proceed to determine the presence or absence of a triable issue with regard to the additional requirement that the costs incurred be consistent with the National Contingency Plan, an issue it would not reach if the costs were not, in fact, necessary. See id. at 387-88. 44 The district court then turned to the first, potentially responsible party, element of Prisco's prima facie case, id. at 388-91, which lies at the heart of this appeal. It held that [d]efendant waste haulers are responsible parties pursuant to [§ 107(a)(4) ] because [i]t is undisputed that defendants transported [construction and demolition] material to the Prisco site and disposed of the material at the site. Id. at 388. 9 The court also rejected defendants' argument that they could not be responsible parties because the evidence did not link the clean-up costs to any particular defendant's waste. See id. (citing Alcan, 990 F.2d at 721). The issue of whether the defendants were potentially responsible parties thus being determined, the court appeared to leave for trial only the issues of response costs, compatibility of such costs with the National Contingency Plan, and any statutory defenses that might be asserted.