Non-Settling Potentially Responsible Party May Intervene in CERCLA Action

US v. APW N. Am., No. 08-55996, involved an appeal from the denial of a motion to intervene in an action filed by the EPA under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).  The court of appeals reversed, holding that, under CERCLA, a non-settling potentially responsible party (PRP) may intervene in litigation to oppose a consent decree incorporating a settlement that, if approved, would bar contribution from the settling PRP.

Mendoza v. Holder, No. 08-71007, concerned a petition for review of the BIA's decision reversing an order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) and dismissing petitioner's appeal of the IJ's subsequent order of removal.  The court of appeals denied the petition, on the grounds that 1) res judicata did not bar the government from using petitioner's 2003 shoplifting conviction because it did not bring it up in its first removal proceedings; and 2) the vacatur of petitioner's conviction for shoplifting in Arizona was for rehabilitative purposes and therefore, the government could use this conviction in his subsequent removal proceeding.

Related Resources

• Full Text of US v. APW N. Am., No. 08-55996
• Full Text of Mendoza v. Holder, No. 08-71007