Court Opinion

ID: 9634738
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:22:07.762711+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:09.203526
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING WITH THE LEAD OPINION’S ANALYSIS
RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I fully concur with the lead opinion’s analysis. I write separately only to note that I would remand this case with specific instructions to enter the proposed consent decree.
The civil penalty in this case represents a tiny fraction of the proposed consent decree’s overall cost. Specifically, the $425,000 civil penalty is less than two-tenths of one percent of the $250 million estimated minimum cost of remediation. And this calculation uses the low end of the predicted cost range of between $250 and $300 million. Given this, and the majority’s thorough explanation as to why the amount of the civil penalty is appropriate under the applicable law, a remand with instructions to enter the proposed consent decree is fully justified. See United States v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 804 F.2d 348, 352 (6th Cir.1986) (reversing and remanding to the district court “with instructions to enter the agreed judgment order”); United States v. North Carolina, 180 F.3d 574, 583 (4th Cir.1999) (reversing and remanding to the district court “with instructions to enter the consent decree”); Sierra Club, Inc. v. Elec. Controls Design, Inc., 909 F.2d 1350, 1356 (9th Cir.1990) (same).
By not issuing such a remand, the lead opinion implies that the district court could properly create some new rationale for rejecting the civil penalty that we would uphold on appeal. I believe, on the other hand, that there is no valid basis to reject the amount of the civil penalty and, as such, would give instructions to simply enter the proposed consent decree.