United States Third Circuit

In an on-going contribution claim against defendant under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), wherein the district court denied defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and certified the question of whether certain caselaw precedent limited subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's contribution claims under section 113(f)(1), the circuit court finds that: 1) the "civil action" requirement in section 113(f) is an element of the claim, and is not jurisdictional; 2) the district court retained its original jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues in this case; and 3) defendant waived its challenge to the applicability of section 113(f)(1).

Appellate Information

• Argued 11/02/2007
• Decided 05/13/2008
• Published 05/13/2008

Judges

• Before:  RENDELL, WEIS and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Third Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Dale E. Stephenson, Esquire (Argued), J. Van Carson, Esquire, Allen A. Kacenjar, Esquire, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P., Cleveland, OH, David E. White, Esquire, Thorp, Reed & Armstrong, Pittsburgh, PA, for Appellant The Mead Corporation.


• For Appellees:
  
• D. Matthew Jameson, III, Esquire (Argued), Mark D. Shepard, Esquire, Babst, Calland, Clements & Zomnir, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA, for Appellee Beazer East, Inc., John E. Frey, Esquire, Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon, Chicago, IL, for Appellee Koppers Industries, Inc.