The opinion of the court was delivered by: U. S. District Judge Honorable Edward J. Lodge
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (Dkt. 10). The motion is pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b). Having fully reviewed the parties' written briefing, the Court finds that the motion is suitable for disposition without oral argument. For the reasons explained below, the Court will deny the motion.
This case concerns Defendants' liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA") for mining related pollution within the Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical Complex Superfund Site ("Bunker Hill Superfund Site") in northern Idaho. The following facts are taken from the Government's Amended Complaint, which the Court will accept as true for the purposes of this motion.
In 1927, Golconda Lead Mines, Inc. founded the Golconda Mine and Mill near Lake Coeur d'Alene. The operation of the mine resulted in the release of hazardous substances into the Coeur d'Alene Basin watershed. Through a series of mergers and name changes, Golconda Lead Mines, Inc. became Group R. Co., Inc. ("Group R"). In 1985, Defendant Marmon Wire & Cable, Inc. ("Marmon Wire") became the sole shareholder of Group R. (Am. Compl. ¶ 24, Dkt. 2.) Subsequently, between 1986 and 1988 Group R transferred its assets to Marmon Wire, leaving Group R insolvent. (Id. ¶ 25.) Marmon Wire then transferred the stock of Group R to its parent corporation, Defendant Marmon Holdings, Inc. ("Marmon Holdings"), in 1991. (Id. ¶ 9.) Group R, a Delaware corporation, filed a certificate of dissolution with that state in 2003. (Id. ¶ 31.) Marmon Holdings, as the sole shareholder, signed a Plan of Liquidation with Group R. The Plan of Liquidation included a "Plan of Distribution to Creditors." (Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. A, Dkt 10-3 at 5.)
Meanwhile, in 1983 the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") designated the Bunker Hill Superfund Site on its CERCLA National Priorities List and noticed the listing in the Federal Register. (Am. Compl. ¶ 23.) The EPA divided the Site into three operable units. (Id. ¶ 22.) The EPA issued a Record of Decision for Operable Unit 1 in 1991 and Operable Unit 2 in 1992. (Id.) EPA issued an interim Record of Decision for Operable Unit 3 in 2002. (Id. ¶ 30.) Unit 3 includes the former Golconda Mine and Mill operation. (Id. ¶ 35-36.)
The United States now brings suit against Marmon Holdings, seeking recovery of costs incurred in the clean-up of Unit 3 under 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a). It also seeks to void the asset transfers made from Group R to Marmon Wire, alleging those transfers were fraudulent under 28 U.S.C. § 3304(b)(1)(A). Defendants move to dismiss the complaint.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," in order to "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal quotation omitted). While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss "does not need detailed factual allegations," it must set forth "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. at 555. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. at 556. The plausibility standard is not akin to a "probability requirement," but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. Where a complaint pleads facts that are "merely consistent with" a defendant's liability, it "stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of 'entitlement to relief.'" Id. at 557.
In a more recent case, the Supreme Court identified two "working principles" that underlie Twombly. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, __ U.S. __, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). First, the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Id. "Rule 8 marks a notable and generous departure from the hyper-technical, code-pleading regime of a prior era, but it does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions." Id. at 1950. Second, only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. Id. "Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will . . . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id.
Providing too much in the complaint may also be fatal to a plaintiff. Dismissal may be appropriate when the plaintiff has included sufficient allegations disclosing some absolute defense or bar to recovery. See Weisbuch v. County of L.A., 119 F.3d 778, 783, n.1 (9th Cir. 1997) (stating that "[i]f the pleadings establish facts compelling a decision one way, that is as good as if depositions and other . . . evidence on summary judgment establishes the identical facts").
A motion to dismiss should not be granted "unless it appears beyond doubt that Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F. 3d 752, 754 (9th Cir. 1994). All allegations of material fact in the complaint are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Buckey v. County of Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 1992). The Ninth Circuit has held that "in dismissals for failure to state a claim, a district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts." Cook, Perkiss and Liehe, Inc. v. Northern California Collection Service, Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990). While amendments are liberally permitted under Rule 15(a), the district court may deny leave to amend when there has been an undue delay in bringing the motion, and the opposing party would be unfairly prejudiced by the amendments. See United States v. Pend Oreille Public Utility Dist. No. 1, 28 F.3d 1544, 1552-53 (9th Cir. 1994).
Generally, the Court may not consider any material beyond the pleadings in ruling on a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 453 (9th Cir. 1994). If materials outside the pleadings are considered, the motion is converted to a motion for summary judgment governed by Fed. R. ...