“ “When legislation expressly provides a particular remedy or remedies, courts should not expand the coverage of the statute to subsume other remedies.’ ”
How later courts described this case
- “ “When legislation expressly provides a particular remedy or remedies, courts should not expand the coverage of the statute to subsume other remedies.’ ”
- noting that Cort is only a guide to determining Congressional intent, citing Thompson and Touche Ross
- denying plaintiffs a remedy for costs they incurred in a clean-up because court could not find congressional intent for such a remedy
- “Section 6972 gives the federal courts subject matter jurisdiction to hear citizen suits where specific equitable remedies are sought: prohibitory or mandatory injunctive relief ‘to enforce,’ ‘to restrain,’ and ‘to order . . . other action . . . necessary”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FAGG, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
For the reasons stated by the Ninth Circuit in KFC Western, Inc. v. Meghrig, 49 F.3d 518 (9th Cir.1995), I believe the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act’s citizen suit provision,’ 42 U.S.C. § 6972 (a)(1)(B), authorizes an innocent private purchaser of property contaminated with solid or hazardous waste to bring an equitable action for reimbursement of clean-up costs. Because the statute permits citizens to obtain injunc-tive or other equitable relief, “a restitution-ary remedy ... falls within the statutory allowance for district court orders that [polluters] take ‘such other action as may be necessary.’ ” KFC Western, 49 F.3d at 521 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 6972 (a)(1)(B)). Given this jurisdictional framework, I readily agree with the Ninth Circuit that it “would be unfair and poor public policy to interpret § 6972(a)(1)(B) as barring restitution actions.” Id. at 523. Thus, I would reverse the district court.