# Opposition Brief — Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Beck

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386006_1937%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opposition Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1996
- **Citation:** 517 U.S. 1167

## Text

\a) Supreme Court, U.S.
No. 95-1387 2

eo” oo oe
aan MAR 29 1996
Supreme Conrt of the Stetes :
o~

October Term, 1995

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation,

Petitioner,

vs.

WEST SIDE DITCH COMPANY, a Montana Corporation;
CITY OF DEER LODGE; RONALD KELLY; JERRY
RUTLEDGE; CHARLES BECK; RICHARD FORSON;
GEORGE REISTAD; THE MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF
FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS, UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL IROTECTION AGENCY; THOMAS A.
BECK; MELVIN R. BECK; ROBERT EVANS,

Respondents.

On Petition for Wit of Certiorari to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

RESPONDENTS’ BRIEF IN OPPOSITION

RUSS McELYEA | JOHN E. BLOOMQUIST
Counsel of Record '” DONEY, CROWLEY, ~

MOORE, O'CONNELL BLOOMQUIST AND

& REFLING, P.C. METROPOULOS, P.C.
Attorneys for Respondais West Attorneys for Respondents
Side Ditch Company, Cty of Deer Thomas A. Beck, Melvin
Lodge, Ronald Kelly, Jrry Rutledge, R. Beck and Robert Evans
Charles Beck, Richard ‘orson and P.O. Box 1185
George Reistad Helena, MT 59624-1185

P.O. Box 1288 (406) 443-7018

Bozeman, MT 5977+1288
(406) 587-5511

‘io (00) 3 APPEAL + (800) 5 APPEAL + (800) BRIEF 21 N
~ Va

i
QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether this Court should review the doctrine of
complete federal pre-emption, when the issue of pre-emption was
not raised by the Petitioner on appeal, and was no: discussed by
the appellate court in its opinion.

2. Whether the Respondents’ state law-based claims for
monetary damages constitute a “challenge,” or an effort to
“review” an EPA order within the meaning of CERCLA
§ 9613(h), when the EPA has concluded that Respondents’ claims
are nota “challenge” or an effort to “review” its cleanup orders.

ii
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS

The list of parties described in Petitioner’s brief is correct.

As required by Supreme Court Rule 29.6, Respondent West
Side Ditch Company states that it does not have a parent company,
or any subsidiaries or affiliates.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
IND cc idawkbs de dvedscccedveadcenes i
Pe GNI av cece ccccswesccccbonese ii
PE Guncabaduec Cacetedveserscececes iii
EE Cibclodcdotcerberbescececacveses iii
nc chveeteeseseecewreceoeowees l
iy ES Suéev's ce cccnviededvcvece l
ee I vecccee cs cvecesescoccess 4
1. Federal District Court Proceedings ....... 4
2. Ninth Circuit Proceedings .............. 5
Reasons for Denyingthe Writ ................000. 6
ae PPPPPTTTITITILITT TTT 7
II. Challenges Under 42 U.S.C. §9613(h)........ 20
GROIN doc 6 Sec cb eccecccacéessescccccccccces 27
TABLE OF CITATIONS

Cases Cited:

Aaron v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 876
EE DEED sé codeccoccensccccocecs 10

iv

Contents
Page
Atchison v. Peterson, 87 U.S. 507 (1874) ............ 3
Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge No. 735, 390 U.S. 557 (1968) . 19
Bartholet v. Reishauer A.G. (Zurick), 953 F.2d 1073 (7th

Fe Re res Ste ee erry i)
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S.386(1987) .....

Pe PP Pe ST et ee 8,11, 12,14, 15, 19,23
Deford v. Soo Line R. Co., 867 F.2d 1080 (8th Cir. 1989),

cert. denied, 492 U.S.927(1989) ................ 13,14
Exxon Corp. v. Eagerton, 462 U.S. 176(1983) ........ 24
Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S.

SRG HED cnccccccs déndbbséedbekssa ckebeebes
er ls win Mle Aud a alsa iON RA ae ss Se

(5) Anaction under section 9606 of this title in which the
United States has moved to compel a remedial action.

42 U.S.C.A. § 9659 (1995) Citizens suits
4 (a) Authority to bring civil actions

Except as provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section
and in section 9613(h) of this title (relating to timing of judicial
review), any person may commence a civil action on his own
behalf —

(1) against any person (including the United States and
any other governmental instrumentality or agency, to the
extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to the
Constitution) who is alleged to be in violation of any
standard, regulation, condition, requirement, or order which
has become effective pursuant to this chapter (including any
provision of an agreement under section 9620 of this title,
relating to Federal facilities);....

(h) Other rights

i This chapter does not affect or otherwise impair the rights of
| any person under Federal, State, or common law, except with

respect to the timing of review as provided in section 9613(h) of

aE Aaa had per

36a
Appendix E

this title or as otherwise provided in section 9658 of this title
(relating to actions under State law).

ca

SALERRO ERE ENAMEL IIS OR EN NT OL ee eye on NET!

S
ES
aa
¥

ee
=

2
+:
“3
5
xs
Pod
.
vi
% ~
as
bcos
&
¥

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386006_1937%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.