Black v. Metso Paper Usa, Inc.

Citations: 240 F.R.D. 155; 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53853; 2006 WL 3956466Docket: Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-1951

Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania; August 3, 2006; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Defendant Metso Paper USA, Inc. and co-defendants Pexco, Sandvik, Inc., and Pennsylvania Extruded Tube Company filed motions to partially dismiss the Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which the Court will grant in part and deny in part. The case, removed from the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, is under the Court's jurisdiction per 28 U.S.C. 1332(d). Plaintiffs James Jerome Black and Mary Alice Black allege a class action regarding medical monitoring, environmental testing and cleanup, and economic damages due to contamination from the defendants' industrial plants in Ivy Industrial Park, South Abington Township, Pennsylvania. They claim the release of trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (PCE) has contaminated local water sources, including their residential well. The Plaintiffs were notified of contamination levels in their well at 10.9 parts per billion (ppb) for both TCE and PCE, exceeding the unhealthy threshold of 5 ppb. They allege health risks associated with these contaminants and seek recovery for negligence and under the Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act, including a medical monitoring fund, environmental remediation, diminished property value, and expenses for obtaining safe drinking water.

Plaintiffs, under their HSCA claim, are seeking recovery for various response costs related to contamination, including costs for site testing, remediation, relocation, property value diminution, access to clean water, and medical monitoring for those exposed to TCE and PCE. Additionally, they are pursuing punitive damages. Multiple defendants—Metso, SEXTI, Sandvik, PEXCO, and Sandvik Extruded Tube—have filed motions to partially dismiss the claims, which are now fully briefed. The legal standard for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) requires that all factual allegations be accepted as true and that the court may only dismiss the case if no set of facts could support the plaintiff's claims. The court can consider the complaint, attached exhibits, public records, and certain undisputed documents. It does not assume facts not alleged or accept unsubstantiated legal conclusions. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' negligence claims should be dismissed because the Amended Complaint implies contamination was solely caused by Metso, a claim Plaintiffs attribute to a scrivener's error in their filing.

Plaintiffs seek the Court's permission to file a Second Amended Complaint, citing the interests of justice despite the unusual request format. Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties may amend pleadings with court approval, which should be granted liberally unless there is evidence of undue delay, bad faith, futility, or prejudice to the opposing party. The Court finds no undue prejudice to Defendants from granting this request. The Second Amended Complaint, which the Clerk will file, includes a revised paragraph detailing contamination and omits the request for treble damages. The Second Amended Complaint is otherwise identical to the previous Amended Complaint.

Defendants argue for the dismissal of Plaintiffs' negligence claims due to an alleged failure to establish a duty of care. Plaintiffs maintain they have met the notice pleading standards of Rule 8(a)(2), which requires only a short and plain statement of the claim. The Supreme Court has clarified that detailed factual allegations are not necessary, but the complaint must provide fair notice to the defendants. The Court emphasizes that it cannot assume Plaintiffs can prove facts not included in the complaint and that essential information must be presented to support each claim element.

Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a duty of care owed by Defendants Sandvik, PEXCO, Sandvik Extruded Tube, and SEXTI due to their proximity to the Plaintiffs' home and their use of TCE and PCE, which the Defendants knew could contaminate surrounding water sources. Consequently, the motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' common law negligence claims are denied, allowing Plaintiffs to present evidence for these claims.

Regarding the Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act (HSCA), Defendants claim that Plaintiffs did not meet the 60-day notice requirement for citizen suits under Section 1115, but Plaintiffs assert they are only seeking relief under Sections 702 and 1101, which do not impose a notice requirement. As a result, Plaintiffs can pursue claims under these sections and seek damages outlined in Section 702, which includes reasonable response costs and costs for health assessments but excludes compensatory damages like lost property value.

Defendants further argue against Plaintiffs' requests for statutory and treble damages, asserting that Section 702(a) does not allow for such recovery. Plaintiffs have withdrawn their claim for treble damages. They clarify that "statutory" refers to damages under the HSCA, which are limited to those specified in Section 702(a). 

Additionally, Defendants challenge Plaintiffs' claims for relocation costs and diminution damages, stating these are not recoverable under the HSCA. Plaintiffs may seek compensatory damages through their common law negligence claims. Lastly, while SEXTI contends that claims for health assessment costs are speculative, Section 702 explicitly allows for the recovery of such costs, thus affirming Plaintiffs' right to pursue them.

Plaintiffs have sufficiently notified Defendants of their claims and are entitled to pursue health assessments or studies costs under Section 702 of the Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act (HSCA). Defendants assert that Plaintiffs' claims for attorney’s fees and costs should be dismissed, citing the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling in In re Joshua Hill, which determined that litigation costs are not recoverable in private actions under Section 702 of the HSCA. The Third Circuit referenced that while Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court allows recovery of attorney fees under citizen suits (Section 1115), Section 702 lacks a comparable provision, implying that litigation costs cannot be included. Plaintiffs argue for recoverability based on the Redland Soccer Club decision, but the court distinguishes that Redland pertains only to Section 1115 and does not support the recovery of costs under Section 702. Consequently, claims for attorney’s fees and costs are dismissed. Regarding punitive damages, Defendants contend these are not permitted under HSCA; however, Plaintiffs maintain they have sufficiently pled a claim for punitive damages under common law negligence, a stance the court agrees with.

Allegations in the Plaintiffs' complaint, if proven true, could support claims for punitive damages. In Pennsylvania, the decision to award punitive damages lies within the discretion of the fact finder, allowing Plaintiffs to present evidence for these claims under common law negligence. The Court permits Plaintiffs to amend their complaint despite procedural irregularities, as it serves the interests of justice without causing undue prejudice to Defendants. The Second Amended Complaint contains minor revisions, specifically clarifying the source of contamination and removing a request for treble damages. 

The Court finds sufficient allegations to infer a duty of care owed by Defendants Sandvik, PEXCO, Sandvik Extruded Tube, and SEXTI, resulting in the denial of their motions to dismiss regarding common law negligence claims. Plaintiffs may pursue relief under Sections 702 and 1101 of the HSCA without a notice requirement, but cannot claim compensatory damages under HSCA; however, they can seek compensatory damages through common law negligence claims. Section 702 permits claims for costs related to health assessments or studies. Claims for attorney's fees and costs are dismissed as they are not authorized under Section 702. An appropriate order will be issued following these findings. The Court orders a partial grant and denial of Defendant Metso Paper USA, Inc.’s motion to dismiss.

Defendant Pexco’s Motion to Partially Dismiss the Plaintiffs’ Complaint is granted in part and denied in part. Similarly, the motion from Defendants Sandvik, Inc., Pennsylvania Extruded Tube Company, and Sandvik Extruded Tube, Inc. to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint is also granted in part and denied in part. Key rulings include:

- Plaintiffs can present evidence supporting their claims for common law negligence.
- Plaintiffs’ HSCA claims are based on Sections 702 and 1101 of the HSCA.
- The claim for treble damages has been withdrawn.
- Plaintiffs are allowed to seek damages under two categories authorized by Section 702(a) of the HSCA, although recovery of compensatory damages under this statute is not permitted.
- Compensatory damages can still be pursued under common law negligence claims.
- Plaintiffs may seek costs for health assessments or health effects studies as per Section 702 of the HSCA.
- Claims for attorney’s fees and costs have been dismissed.
- Plaintiffs may pursue punitive damages under their common law negligence claims.

The Clerk of Court is instructed to file the Second Amended Complaint, which is deemed served as of the date of this Order for response timing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).