California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Hearthside Residential Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
613 F.3d 910 (2010)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Hearthside Residential Corporation (plaintiff) purchased a tract of wetlands contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and agreed to remediate the PCB contamination. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (department) (defendant) found that PCBs from Hearthside’s wetlands tract had contaminated the residential area adjacent to the wetlands tract. After Hearthside denied responsibility for cleaning the residential site, the department handled the cleanup and then filed a cost-recovery action against Hearthside as the current owner of the PCB contamination source at the time of cleanup. After remediating the PCB contamination at the wetlands tract, but before the department filed its cost-recovery suit, Hearthside sold the wetlands tract. Hearthside countered, arguing it was not liable for the cleanup of the residential area because it was not the owner of the wetlands tract at the time the cost-recovery suit was filed. Hearthside further argued that defining current ownership based on the date of cleanup would require burdensome fact-finding. The district court ruled for the department, and Hearthside appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gould, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.