Crescent Mine, LLC v. Bunker Hill Mining Corporation; and Placer Mining Corporation (d/b/a New Bunker Hill Mining Co.)

Summary

This memorandum decision and order addresses cross-motions for summary judgment in consolidated litigation involving the Crescent and Bunker Hill mines in Idaho. The court grants summary judgment to Bunker Hill Mining Corporation and Placer Mining Corporation on Crescent Mine’s CERCLA response-cost and declaratory-judgment claims, principally because Crescent did not establish that it incurred qualifying response costs before filing suit. The decision also considers CERCLA restrictions concerning challenges to EPA remedial actions and authorization for mine dewatering.

Holdings

1. Crescent could not establish the required element that it incurred response costs before filing suit because it presented no evidence that it paid or assumed a definite, noncontingent legal obligation to pay qualifying costs before suit.
2. A CERCLA plaintiff may not obtain a declaratory judgment concerning future liability under § 113(g)(2)(B) unless it first establishes liability for response costs in the initial § 107(a) action.
3. The requested judicial order requiring dewatering of the mine could not be entered without EPA or Presidential authorization under CERCLA § 122(e)(6), and the court granted summary judgment to defendants without prejudice on the requested injunctive relief.
4. Crescent's tort claims could not recover damages occurring before the applicable limitation periods, but factual disputes precluded summary judgment on damages occurring within those periods.
5. Crescent was entitled to summary judgment on Bunker Hill's common-law indemnity, subrogation, and contribution claims because Bunker Hill retained an adequate CERCLA § 113(f) remedy.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Crescent incurred response costs before filing suit sufficient to establish a CERCLA § 107(a) cost-recovery claim.
2. Whether Crescent could obtain a CERCLA § 113(g)(2)(B) declaratory judgment concerning future response costs without first establishing liability for past response costs.
3. Whether CERCLA §§ 113(h) and 122(e)(6) barred or required a stay or dismissal without prejudice of Crescent's requested dewatering injunction absent EPA authorization.
4. Whether Crescent's Idaho trespass, nuisance, and negligence damages were barred or limited by the applicable statutes of limitations and the permanent-versus-continuing-tort distinction.
5. Whether factual disputes concerning the nature, abatability, ownership, and continuing effects of the mine flooding precluded summary judgment on Crescent's state-law claims.
6. Whether Bunker Hill's common-law indemnity, subrogation, and contribution claims were unavailable because Bunker Hill retained an adequate CERCLA § 113(f) remedy.

Disposition

other