State of Ohio ex rel v. Cyprus Amax Minerals Company

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio
DecidedApril 3, 2025
Docket2:10-cv-00981
StatusUnknown

This text of State of Ohio ex rel v. Cyprus Amax Minerals Company (State of Ohio ex rel v. Cyprus Amax Minerals Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State of Ohio ex rel v. Cyprus Amax Minerals Company, (S.D. Ohio 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. RICHARD CORDRAY, OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:10-cv-981 Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. v. Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson

CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Joint Motion to Dismiss Chemetall Foote Corporation as a Party in this Matter (ECF No. 10) and the Joint Motion Approval and Entry of Proposed Modification to Consent Order for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 11). For good cause shown, the Court GRANTS both motions. I. Background The State of Ohio, acting as relator of the Ohio Attorney General, filed a Complaint on October 29, 2010, bringing claims against Defendants Cyprus Amax Minerals Company and Chemetall Foote Corporation for hazardous waste costs at a Jefferson County, Ohio facility known as the Satralloy Site. (Compl., ECF No. 2, ¶¶ 1–2.) At times between 1958 and 1974, chromium wastes were generated and disposed of at the Site. (Id. ¶¶ 10–11.) Cyprus Amax acquired title to part of the Site in 2010. (Id. ¶¶ 13–16.) Chemetall Foote, a former subsidiary of Cyprus Amax that was sold in 1998, is jointly and severally liable with Cyprus Amax for the hazardous substances disposed of at the Satralloy Site. (Id. ¶ 23.) As part of the subsidiary sale, Cyprus Amax agreed to indemnify Chemetall Foote for environmental liabilities at the Site. (Id. ¶ 22.) Contemporaneously with the Complaint, the Parties filed a Consent Order for Preliminary Injunction to Conduct a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study and to Pay Response Costs (“COPI”). (ECF No. 3.) Under the COPI, “Cyprus Amax ha[d] agreed to undertake the primary obligations of the [COPI].” (Compl., ¶ 22.) On December 1, 2011, the Court stayed the case

pending negotiation of a final consent order. (See ECF Nos. 7, 8.) On April 11, 2012, the Court administratively closed the case pending completion of the final remedy negotiations. (ECF No. 8.) On March 6, 2025, the Parties jointly moved this Court to enter a Modification to the Consent Order for Preliminary Injunction to Conduct a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study and to Pay Response Costs (“Modified COPI”). (ECF No. 11.) The Parties request an order entering the Modified COPI to memorialize the terms of a Natural Resource Damages (“NRD”) settlement reached by the Parties. (Id. PageID 172.) The terms of the Modified COPI include projects to resolve all NRD claims related to the Satralloy Site. (Id.) These projects include habitat improvements, creation of a new wetland, preservation of riparian habitat, and a $203,000 payment

to the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium. (Id. PageID 172–73.) The Parties represent that the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency supports these projects. (Id. PageID 173.) II. Dropping Chemetall Foote Corporation as a Party The Parties jointly move the Court to drop Defendant Chemetall Foote Corporation as a party under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 21, “[o]n its motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. “[W]hen evaluating a motion for dismissal under Rule 21, courts should consider Rule 41 standards as guidance for analyzing potential prejudice to the non-movants.” Igo v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 652 F. Supp. 3d 929, 936 (S.D. Ohio 2023) (Black, J.) (quotation and citation omitted). Under that standard, “a court should consider such factors as the defendant’s effort and expense of preparation for trial, excessive delay and lack of diligence on the part of the plaintiff in prosecuting the action, insufficient explanation for the need to take a dismissal, and whether a motion for summary judgment has been filed by the defendant.” Grover by Grover v.

Eli Lilly & Co., 33 F.3d 716, 718 (6th Cir. 1994). Here the Parties state that all four factors support dropping Chemetall Foote as a party, and the Court agrees. All Parties support dropping Chemetall Foote. There was no expense in preparing for trial because the COPI was negotiated by the State and Defendants before the Complaint was filed. The Parties agree there has been no excessive delay or lack of diligence. Defendant Cyprus Amax is implementing and fulfilling the requirements of the COPI to the State’s satisfaction, and all Parties agree Chemetall Foote’s participation in the COPI is no longer required. There were no motions for summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion to Dismiss Chemetall Foote Corporation as a Party in this Matter. (ECF No. 10.) The Court DROPS Chemetall Foote

Corporation as a Party. III. Modification of Consent Order The Parties jointly move this Court to enter the Modified COPI. (ECF No. 11, PageID 170.) The Parties provided a proposed order and a copy of the Modified COPI. (ECF No. 11-1.) Approval of a consent decree is within the informed discretion of the Court. See United States v. Union Elec. Co., 132 F.3d 422, 430 (8th Cir. 1997). In reviewing a consent decree, the Court must determine whether it is fair, adequate, reasonable, and consistent with the goals of the underlying legislation. See id. After review of the Motion and the Modified COPI, the Court finds that the Modified COPI is fair, reasonable, and consistent with the law and public interest. Accordingly, as requested by the Parties, the Court ORDERS the following: 1. Section XIII. Natural Resource Damages, Paragraph 66 of the COPI is hereby modified to read as follows:

“The Parties have negotiated in good faith to resolve all NRD claims related to the Site. The Parties agree to the following: a. Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Modification to the COPI, Defendant Cyprus Amax will submit an implementation schedule for Ohio EPA review and approval in accordance with the Review of Submittals Section of the COPI for the Work detailed in paragraphs 66.b through 66.d, below. b. On-Property Improvements to Cover Crop/Plantings. In accordance with the implementation schedule approved by Ohio EPA, Defendant Cyprus Amax shall revegetate the disturbed areas outside the footprint of the slag consolidation area using native plants and species specific to the Site geographic area that will provide

habitat improvements and food resources (e.g., pollinator food crops) to benefit small ground feeding birds, small mammals, insects and bat species. Defendant Cyprus Amax will time its mowing/burning sequence that will promote seed production and habitat improvements that can be employed on the revegetated areas of the Site. Defendant Cyprus Amax shall complete and maintain, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by Ohio EPA staff, the total enhanced seeding or plantings of 93.1 acres, including the following: i. Enhanced woodland habitat for 32.9 acres: As part of the implementation schedule submitted pursuant to paragraph 66.a., above, Defendant Cyprus Amax shall submit a list of suitable species and will propose a suitable sapling planting rate for Ohio EPA review and approval in accordance with the Review of Submittals Section of the COPI. Species identified in Section 02930 of the project specifications, Part 2.10, include: American Elm

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Grover v. Eli Lilly & Co.
33 F.3d 716 (Sixth Circuit, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State of Ohio ex rel v. Cyprus Amax Minerals Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-ohio-ex-rel-v-cyprus-amax-minerals-company-ohsd-2025.