United States v. Land O'Lakes, Inc.

摘要

In conclusion, Defendants' affirmative defenses are legally insufficient on their face. Neither the Bankruptcy proceedings nor the Government's earlier settlement with Hudson bars the Government's instant CERCLA action. As for their counterclaims, all fail as a matter of law as well: the declaratory judgment counter-claim is redundant; the citizen-suit provisions are inapt; and the anti-duplication provisions are not a vehicle to bring their cause of action. As for the Defendants' Motion to Strike, the Court finds that the Government's request to strike additional affirmative defenses was not procedurally improper.