Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

B.F. Goodrich v. Betkoski

B.F. Goodrich v. Betkoski, 112 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1997)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1997-04-25
Topic: general

How later courts describe this case

reliance on federal interest in uniformity insufficient absent actual, substantial conflict with state law

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed B.F. Goodrich v. Betkoski. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status: pending
Cited by: 17 opinions

B.F. GOODRICH v. BETKOSKI,112 F.3d 88(2nd Cir. 1997)

B.F. GOODRICH; UPJOHN COMPANY; DOW CORNING CORPORATION; ENVIRONMENTAL

WASTE RESOURCES, INC.; REYNOLDS ALUMINUM BUILDING PRODUCTS COMPANY;

UNIROYAL CHEMICAL CO., INC.; WHITE CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES; KERITE

COMPANY; UNISYS CORPORATION; RISDON CORP.;

Page 89

HOECHST CELANESE CORPORATION; CADBURY BEVERAGES, INC.; COLTEC INDUSTRIES,

INC.; KEN-CHAS RESERVE CO.; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; STATE OF

CONNECTICUT; NAUGATUCK GLASS CO.; NAUGATUCK TREATMENT CO.,

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. JOHN BETKOSKI; GEORGE CLARK; ARMSTRONG RUBBER

COMPANY; THOMAS ASHMORE; BOROUGH OF NAUGATUCK; BRISTOL FLOWED GASKET

COMPANY; CONNECTICUT RESOURCES RECOVERY AUTHORITY; DEE'S, INC., ALSO KNOWN

AS DEE'S REFUSE, INC.; DERBY TIRE COMPANY; EASTERN COMPANY; GENERAL

ROOFING SHEET METAL CO., INC.; GERALD METALS, INC.; C.R. GIBSON COMPANY;

HOSPITAL MARKETING SERVICES CO., INC.; IDEAL MANUFACTURING CO.; JACOB

BROTHERS, INC.; LITTON SYSTEMS, INC., ALSO KNOWN AS WINCHESTER

ELECTRONICS; MANAFORT BROTHERS, INC.; NASCO, INC.; NEW HAVEN HOUSING

AUTHORITY; NORTHEAST UTILITIES; FRANK PERROTTI SONS, INC.; QUALITY

RUBBER CO.; SANITARY REFUSE CO., INC.; SEYMOUR BRASS TURNING CO.; SPERRY

RAND CORPORATION; STAUFFER CHEMICAL COMPANY; TOWN OF MIDDLEBURY; TOWN OF

THOMASTON; TOWN OF WOODBURY; TRIANGLE INDUSTRIES, INC.; TURNER

CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; U.S. PROLAM, INC.; WATERBURY COMPANIES, INC.;

WATERTOWN HOUSING AUTHORITY; ZOLLO DRUM COMPANY, INC.; ATLANTIC RICHFIELD

CO.; ADAM'S SERVICE STATION; ARMAND'S AUTO SERVICE; HIGH RIDGE APARTMENTS;

ASHMORE TRUCKING; BEACON OUTING CLUB; BRASS RAIL RESTAURANT; COFFEE SHOP;

CRELAN CONSTR. CO.; CT. SHEET METAL/WOOD CO.; DADDIO'S; DAVID RUPSIS;

EDWARD BETOWSKI; ELK'S LODGE #967; GEORGE'S FLOOR COVERING; HORIZON HOMES;

KORVETTE SERVICES; LATELLA CARTING CO.; LOMBARD BROS., INC.; LONG MEADOW

CAFE; McDONALD'S RESTAURANT; MEYERS SCHWARTZ; NEAL'S COFFEE SHOPPE;

NELSON MENDES; PORTANOVA TRUCKING CO.; PORTUGUESE CLUB; RAY'S HARDWARE;

SHORE'S AUTO PARTS; STEVE'S TIRES; STOP SHOP; TRIANGLE SERVICES;

TROWBRIDGE APTS.; VALLEY MOTOR TRAILER SALES; VALLEY MOBILE HOMES PARK;

VIEIRA AGENCY; WATERBURY PRESSED METALS; TOWN OF BETHANY; CITY OF

WATERBURY; CAPOZZIELLO BROTHERS; TOWN OF KILLINGWORTH; TOWN OF BEACON

FALLS; NAUGATUCK Y.M.C.A.; E. ERIC ARSAN REFUSE; JOHN ASHMORE; JOSEPH

BETKOSKI; CONNECTICUT PHARMACARE, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS FORD PHARMACY;

FIRST NATIONAL SUPERMARKETS, INC.; P. FRANCINI COMPANY; TOWN OF HAMDEN;

JETZON TIRE CO.; CITY OF MILFORD; NRS CARTING CO., INC.; TOWN OF ORANGE;

PETER PAUL CADBURY; TOWN OF PLYMOUTH; TOWN OF SEYMOUR; TOWN OF STRATFORD;

TOWN OF WATERTOWN; TOWN OF WESTPORT, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

Nos. 1268, 1269, 1270, 1271, Docket Nos. 95-6074, 95-6088, 95-6090,

95-6098.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

August Term 1995.

Petition for Rehearing Filed: February 6, 1997.

Decided: April 25, 1997.

Page 90

Peter A. Appel, Washington, D.C. (David C. Shilton, Peter M. Flynn, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher F. Droney, United States Attorney, John B. Hughes, Assistant United States Attorney, New Haven, Connecticut; Daniel H. Winograd, Margery Adams, EPA Region I, Boston, Massachusetts, of counsel), for Plaintiff-Appellant United States.

Kenneth N. Tedford, Assistant Attorney General, Hartford, Connecticut (Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, Robert D. Snook, Assistant Attorney General, State of Connecticut, Hartford, Connecticut, of counsel), for Plaintiff-Appellant State of Connecticut.

John O'LEARY, Portland, Maine (Catherine R. Connors, David P. Littell, Pierce, Atwood, Scribner, Allen, Smith Lancaster, Portland, Maine, of counsel), for Plaintiff-Appellant Members of the Laurel Park Coalition.

Nicholas J. Harding, West Hartford, Connecticut (Kosloff Harding, West Hartford, Connecticut, of counsel), for Defendants-Appellees NRS Carting Company, Inc.; and Zollo Drum Company, Inc.

Robert D. Fox, John F. Gullace, Manko, Gold Katcher, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania, of counsel, filed a brief on behalf of Amicus Curiae National Solid Waste Management Association in support of petition for rehearing.

William G. Beck, Alok Ahuja, Lathrop Gage L.C., Kansas City, Missouri, of counsel, filed a brief on behalf of Amicus Curiae Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. in support of petition for rehearing.

Petition for rehearing of this Court's November 1, 1996 opinion,99 F.3d 505, inasmuch as it held that federal common law should govern issues of successor liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).

Petition denied.

Before: CARDAMONE, WALKER, and McLAUGHLIN Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:

[1] Following our November 1, 1996 decision in this case, B.F. Goodrich v. Betkoski,99 F.3d 505(2d Cir. 1996), familiarity with which is assumed, defendants-appellees NRS Carting Co., Inc. and Zollo Drum Company, Inc. petitioned for rehearing with respect to our determination that federal common law governs the question of successor liability under CERCLA. Appellees suggest that our choice of federal common law to govern the issue is inconsistent with the approach set forth in Pescatore v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.,97 F.3d 1(2d Cir. 1996), for deciding when state law should be displaced in favor of a federal common law rule. We disagree. Although we deny the petition, we write to clarify our prior opinion.

[2] As we noted in Pescatore, when determining whether to fashion a special federal rule, we consider "(1) whether the issue requires `a nationally uniform body of law'; (2) `whether application of state law would frustrate specific objectives of the federal program'; and (3) whether `a federal rule would disrupt commercial relationships predicated on state law.'" 97 F.3d at 10 n.7 (quoting United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc.,440 U.S. 715, 728-29Page 91(1979)). In conducting this analysis, we bear in mind that absent a "significant conflict between some federal policy or interest and the use of state law," a mere federal interest in uniformity is insufficient to justify displacing state law in favor of a federal common law rule. See O'Melveny Myers v. FDIC,512 U.S. 79, 87-88 (1994).

[3] Our prior opinion in this matter does not establish a contrary rule. Although we noted the desirability of uniformity in the CERCLA context, our primary reason for adopting a federal common law rule was our concern that allowing state law rules such as the inflexible and easily evaded "identity" rule to control the question of successor liability would defeat the goals of CERCLA.

[4] Each of the Kimbell Foods factors supports our decision — there is a significant need for a uniform rule, allowing lenient state law rules to control would defeat federal policy, and we perceive no danger that our decision to adopt a federal rule of "substantial continuity" will unduly upset existing corporate relationships.

[5] With this clarification, the petition for rehearing is hereby denied.