Search court records - party Jeffrey Lorell, page 2

No. 432 OPINION

Document BOROUGH OF EDGEWATER v. WATERSIDE CONSTRUCTION, LLC et al, 2:14-cv-05060, No. 432 (D.N.J. Apr. 29, 2022)

While a jury may find that argument (albeit based on facts) convincing, it falls well short of demonstrating that Arconic is entitled to summary judgment.

To the extent certain holdings in the August 17 Opinion applied only as to the Waterside Defendants as opposed to North River and 38 COAH, against whom Arconic filed a separate summary judgment motion (D.E.

The Court will issue an amended Order explicitly dismissing the breach of contract claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a).

The specific amendments to the August 17 Opinion are as follows: “The Waterside Defendants, however, assert that North River did not receive any blueprint drawings from Arconic depicting the Alcoa Property.” Op.

at 16 “The record presents a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Arconic was aware of the two undisclosed USTs at the time it entered into the contracts for the sale of the Alcoa Property and as to whether North River and RRIP were informed of the USTs.” Id. “While Arconic has evidence in the form of a letter that the blueprints were provided to Amir Daibes, the Waterside Defendants assert that North River did not receive them.” Id.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- Claire Cecchi
Analyze Party
- Borough of Edgewater
- Dennis M. Cavanaugh
Analyze Firm

No. 431 OPINION & ORDER denying 417 Edgewaters Motion for Reconsideration

Document BOROUGH OF EDGEWATER v. WATERSIDE CONSTRUCTION, LLC et al, 2:14-cv-05060, No. 431 (D.N.J. Feb. 24, 2022)

On remand, the New Jersey Appellate Division found that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether oil companies’ fuel deliveries had a reasonable nexus to the contamination, thereby precluding summary judgment.

Edgewater’s argument is perplexing in light of the following statement that it made its original brief: “In Dimant, the Supreme Court cited the prior holdings in Ventron, Kimber, and Marsh in the context of determining whether a party was ‘in any way responsible’ for the discharge that had occurred, but nevertheless had some control over the direct discharger.” D.E.

The letter then states that North River Mews Associates LLC/Aluminum Company of America/AP New Jersey Inc. “shall ensure that the Deed Notice ... is complied with” and “shall conduct monitoring for compliance and effectiveness of the institutional and engineering controls specified in this document.” Corriston Cert., Ex. OO, at

And there is no genuine dispute of material fact demonstrating that Arconic had ownership or control over either the Building 12 property or its contents (specifically, the PCBs) at the time of the discharge on Veteran’s Field.

Finally, Edgewater fails to address the Deed Notice termination, which did not involve Arconic and which was issued before Waterside imported and used PCB-contaminated material from Building 12 as fill on Veterans Field.

Cite Document

Analyze