Narrative Opinion Summary
In a dispute arising from the remediation of the Li Tungsten Superfund Site, TDY Holdings LLC and TDY Industries sought to intervene in a lawsuit involving the United States and other potentially responsible parties (PRPs). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had issued a Record of Decision in 1999, identifying TDY among others as PRPs. Consequently, TDY incurred substantial costs undertaking remedial actions and initiated a contribution action against federal PRPs. The United States negotiated a Consent Judgment with certain PRPs, potentially excluding TDY, which would extinguish its contribution claims. TDY moved to intervene as of right under CERCLA § 113(i) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2), arguing it met the intervention criteria: timeliness, a protectable interest, potential impairment of this interest, and inadequate representation by existing parties. The court found TDY had established a sufficient interest in protecting its contribution claims, adopting the Eighth Circuit’s reasoning that the threat of losing these claims constituted an immediate interest. The court granted TDY’s motion to intervene, noting that the public review process under CERCLA and the court's review of comments did not adequately protect TDY's interests given its exclusion from settlement negotiations.
Legal Issues Addressed
Inability to Protect Interest Without Interventionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: TDY argued that without intervention, its contribution claims would be extinguished, as it was excluded from settlement negotiations, emphasizing the necessity of its intervention.
Reasoning: If the court accepts the Consent Judgment, TDY's contribution claims against the settling federal agencies would be extinguished. Therefore, TDY cannot protect its claims without intervention and is entitled to intervene under CERCLA § 113(i) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2).
Intervention as of Right under CERCLA § 113(i) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: TDY Holdings LLC and TDY Industries sought to intervene in a lawsuit to protect its contribution claims, asserting that it met the necessary criteria for intervention as of right.
Reasoning: TDY argues for intervention as of right based on CERCLA § 113(i) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2), asserting that it meets the necessary criteria: timely motion, relevant interest in the case, potential impairment of its ability to protect that interest, and inadequate representation by existing parties.
Protectable Interest for Interventionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court adopted the Eighth Circuit's approach, recognizing TDY's contribution interest as adequate for intervention in the context of CERCLA.
Reasoning: The court decides to adopt the Eighth Circuit's approach, concluding that TDY's contribution interest is adequate for intervention, especially given that the federal government negotiated a settlement with itself and TDY was excluded from these negotiations.