as Civ, MAR ; U 2006 D P_ N UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Transcription

1 Donald W. Stever Bablu David Naidu KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART NICHOLSON GRAHAM LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, New York (2I2) Attorneys for the Plaintiffs MAR ; U 2006 D P_ N UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AMETEK INC., AMPACET CORPORATION, BURNHAM CORPORATION, ENGELHARD CORPORATION, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, INVENSYS, LITTON SYSTEMS, INC., MTA METRO NORTH RAILROAD, OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, PHELPS DODGE CORP., PRECISION VALVE CORP., REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY, SPRAYLAT CORP., THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, and WYETH CORPORATION, who have organized themselves as and are doing business as the CROTON POINT LANDFILL JOINT DEFENSE GROUP, as Civ, against- Plaintiffs, KRAFT FOODS NORTH AMERICA INC., HUDSON PHOTOGRAPHIC INDUSTRIES, INC., KINGS ELECTRONICS COMPANY, INC., COUNTY ASPHALT, INC., ROBERT MARKELL, MARVAL INDUSTRIES, INC., PASCAP COMPANY, fnc., PROCTOR PAINT & VARNISH CORP., ROBERT A. ROTI-I, ROBERT A. ROTH, INC_, I

2 SIEMENS BUILDING TECHONOLOGIES, INC., SIGMUND COHN CORPORATION, 3 SKIBO LANE CORP., STIK-II PRODUCTS, INC., TENSOLITE COMPANY, THE GILLETTE COMPANY, WARD LEONARD ELECTRIC COMPANY, CITY OF MOUNT VERNON, CITY OF NEW ROCHELLE, CITY OF PEEKSKILL, CITY OF RYE, CITY OF WHITE PLAINS, CITY OF YONKERS, LARCHMONT-MAMARONECK JOINT GARBAGE DISPOSAL COMMISSION, TOWN OF BEDFORD, TOWN OF CORTLANDT, TOWN OF EASTCHESTER, TOWN OF GREENBURGH, TOWN OF HARRISON, TOWN OF LEWISBORO, TOWN OF MAMARONECK, TOWN OF NEW CASTLE, TOWN OF NORTH CASTLE, TOWN OF NORTH SALEM, TOWN OF OSSINING, TOWN OF POUND RIDGE, TOWN OF RYE, TOWN OF SOMERS, TOWN OF YORKTOWN, VILLAGE OF ARDSLEY, VILLAGE OF BRIARCLIFF MANOR, VILLAGE OF BRONXVILLE, VILLAGE OF BUCHANAN, VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON, VILLAGE OF DOBBS FERRY, VILLAGE OF ELMSFORD, VILLAGE OF HASTINGS-ON-HUDSON, VILLAGE OF IRVINGTON, VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT, VILLAGE OF MAMARONECK, VILLAGE OF MOU IT DISCO, VILLAGE OF OSSINING, fl VILLAGE OF PLEASANTVILLE, VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER, VILLAGE OF SCARSDALE, 2

3 VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW, VILLAGE OF TARRYTOWN, VILLAGE OF TUCKAHOE, and JOHN DOES 1-3 Defendants. Plaintiffs, as the Croton Point Landfill Joint Defense Group ("Joint Defense Group"), by their undersigned counsel, allege as follows : NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is an action for contribution pursuant to Section 113 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. 9613, by the Joint Defense Group to recover from the defendants named herein their fair share of the remedial response costs already paid by the Joint Defense Group to reimburse the State of New York and County of Westchester for remediation of the Croton Point Sanitary Landfill ("Site') and to obtain a declaratory judgment in the event that Plaintiffs are required to pay additional remedial costs. JURISDICTION AND VENU E 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the cause of action, which arises under the laws of the United States, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 42 U.S.C and 42 U.S.C. 9613(b). The Court also has jurisdiction to enter a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C and 42 U.S.C. 9613(g)(2).

4 3. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9613(h) and 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because the threatened and actual release of hazardous substances that gives rise to this action occurred in this District and because the Site is located in this District. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 4. The Site is the Croton Point Sanitary Landfill located in Croton-on-Hudson, Westchester County, New York, also listed in the New York State Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites as the Croton Point Landfill Site with the Site No , pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law , and is a "facility" pursuant to Section 101(9) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601(9). 5. There has been a "release" or a "threatened release" of "hazardous substances" at the Site as the term "release" is defined in Section 101(22) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C (22) and as the term "hazardous subst ances" is defined in Section 101(14) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601(14). 6. By Complaint filed January 16, 2003, in a case styled The State of New York v. Alcolac Inc., et al.. 03 CV 0366 (S.D.N.Y.), the State of New York and Erin M. Crotty, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and as Trustee to the State's natural resources (together, the "State"), sued a group of companies that allegedly generated and disposed of, or arranged for the disposal of, hazardous substances at the Site. The State also sued the County of Westchester that owned and operated the Site. That action (the "State CERCLA Cost Recovery Litigation") sought (a) recovery of past response costs incurred by the State in response to the release and threatened release of hazardous substances into the environment at - 4 -

5 and from the Site and (b) a declaration of the defendants' joint and several liability for future response costs and natural resource damages, enforcement costs and interest, and oversight costs that the State had or may incur. 7. On March 5, 2003, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York approved and entered a Consent Decree that resolved the liability of the settling partie s ("Consent Decree"), a copy of which is attached hereto, as Exhibit 1. In that Consent Decree, the settling parties agreed to pay $9.5 million to reimburse the State for past response costs and for future response costs to be incurred by the State for the implementation of the remedial program set forth in the State Record of Decision for the Site (dated March 25, 1993), including post-construction, operation and maintenance, and monitoring response costs. The State also reserved its rights in the Consent Decree to institute proceedings or issue an administrative order seeking reimbursement from the settling parties for additional response costs if conditions at the Site, previously unknown to the State, are discovered or if information, in whole or in part previously unknown to the State, is received after the effective date of the Consent Decree. $. All of the underlying costs at issue in the State CERCLA Cost Recovery Litigation, and thus all the costs at issue in this action, were incurred to reimburse the State for response costs and activities consistent with the National Contingency Plan ("NCP") to address the release and threat of release of hazardous substances into the environment. 9. Plaintiffmembers of the Joint Defense Croup are only a small po rtion of the actual number of persons with liability under CERCLA ("PRPs") at the Site. The Site operated from - 5 -