Whether a state's approval of a private environmental cleanup action is sufficient to establish substantial compliance with the National Contingency Plan under CERCLA

No question identified. : 24-758 (scheduled for argument on November 10, 2025). He has two additional petitions for writ of certiorari coming due in the months thereafter. An additional 30 days will allow a more studied presentation of the issues in this case arising under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CERCLA’). 3. This case raises important legal issues around the role state regulators play in determining substantial compliance with the National Contingency Plan (“NCP”). States play a central role under CERCLA, often substituting for federal regulators. Thus, state-run cleanups presumptively comply with the NCP. 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4)(a); 40 C.F.R. § 300.700(c)(1). And States may approve a private response action without the federal government’s authorization. 40 C.F.R. § 300.515(e)(2)(i1). Moreover, every private cleanup must comply with all state requirements. 40 C.F.R. § 300.400(g); 42 U.S.C. § 9621(d)(2). This statutory scheme has prompted the question whether a State’s approval of a private cleanup is sufficient to establish substantial compliance with the NCP. The circuits have divided on that issue. The sufficiency of state approval—and resulting ability to seek contribution from responsible parties—goes to the heart of CERCLA’s twin goals: (i) assuring prompt cleanup (ii) at the polluter’s expense. The forthcoming petition will ask the Court to resolve that issue. 4. An extension of time will not prejudice any party. Applicant Moreland Properties conducted a state-approved environmental response and sought to recover its costs from Respondent Goodyear under CERCLA § 107. The district court and Ninth Circuit denied Moreland’s request for cost recovery. As a result, there is no outstanding money judgment or injunction that would prejudice either party as a result of the requested extension. For the foregoing reasons, petitioner hereby requests that an extension of time to and including December 24, 2025 be granted within which petitioner may file a petition for a writ of certiorari. Respectfully submitted, De br Dominic E. Draye Counsel of Record GREENBURG TRAURIG LLP 2101 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 331-3100 drayed@gtlaw.com Stuart S. Kimball GALLAGHER & KENNEDY 2575 E. Camelback Road Phoenix, AZ 85016 (602) 530-8000 October 28, 2025 Counsel for Applicant IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. MORELAND PROPERTIES LLC, Applicant, Vv. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER Co. & GOODYEAR FARMS, INC., Respondents. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Dominic E. Draye, a member of the Supreme Court Bar, hereby certify that three copies of the attached Application to Associate Justice Elena Kagan for an Extension of Time to File a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit were served on: Jason M. Covault May, Potenza, Baran & Gillespie, P.C. 1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1600 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: 602.252.1900 Counsel for Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. and Goodyear Farms, Inc. Service was made by first-class mail on October 28, 2025. Der Dominic E. Draye Counsel of Record GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 2101 LM Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037