context: As the court noted above, the issue of whether a PRP has standing to bring a cost recovery action is hotly-debated, and neither the Third Circuit nor the Supreme Court has directly confronted the issue. Based upon a thorough review of the existing case law, the statute, and the legislative history and policy goals of CERCLA, the court must side with those courts that have found that any person who incurs response costs, regardless of their own potential or actual liability, has standing to bring a cost recovery action.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 925 F.Supp. 631, 631
citation_a.parenthetical: noting that after careful consideration of all decisions on the issue, the court found the majority decisions less persuasive
citation_a.sentence: See Laidlaw Waste Systems, 925 F.Supp. at 631 (noting that after careful consideration of all decisions on the issue, the court found the majority decisions less persuasive); see also Charter Tp. of Oshtemo, 910 F.Supp. at 337 (finding that interpreting CERCLA such as to bar § 107 cost recovery actions by PRPs “ignores the plain language of section 107, serves some of the purposes of CERCLA less well, and appears to conflict with the Supreme Court’s language in Key Tronic ”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 910 F.Supp. 337, 337
citation_b.parenthetical: finding that interpreting CERCLA such as to bar SS 107 cost recovery actions by PRPs "ignores the plain language of section 107, serves some of the purposes of CERCLA less well, and appears to conflict with the Supreme Court's language in Key Tronic "
citation_b.sentence: See Laidlaw Waste Systems, 925 F.Supp. at 631 (noting that after careful consideration of all decisions on the issue, the court found the majority decisions less persuasive); see also Charter Tp. of Oshtemo, 910 F.Supp. at 337 (finding that interpreting CERCLA such as to bar § 107 cost recovery actions by PRPs “ignores the plain language of section 107, serves some of the purposes of CERCLA less well, and appears to conflict with the Supreme Court’s language in Key Tronic ”).