Chitayat v. Vanderbilt Associates

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• dismissing a § 9607(a) claim because, in the court’s eyes, the plaintiff never “incurred” costs, as is necessary for a cost recovery action
• “Accordingly, the Court concludes that Chitayat’s § 113(f)(3)(B) claim is governed by a three year statute of limitations, which period began to run, at the latest, on the date of the Consent Order.”
• “Cooper Industries also suggests that the conclusion that there is no statute of limitations is incorrect.”
• “a prior § 106 or 107 action is a prerequisite to a § 113(f)(1) action”
• “Congress enacted CERCLA for the purpose of ensuring ‘that those responsible for any damage, environmental harm, or injury from chemical poisons bear the costs of their actions.’” (quoting S. Rep. No. 848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 13 (1980))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).