dismissed their claims and their requests for injunctive relief

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document 118 Filed 06/26/12 Page 32 of 56861 F. Supp. at 246-47; see Quinn v. Thomas H. Lee Co., 61 F.Supp. 2d 13, 20 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (dismissing negligence claimagainst parent company where “plaintiff alleges no relationshipbetween plaintiff and defendant sufficient to impose a duty ofcare upon defendant” as“[t]he only connection between plaintiffand the Lee defendants is that Thomas H. Lee Company was themajority shareholder in American Health Companies, of which DCIwas a wholly-owned subsidiary”). Similarly, Plaintiffs have notalleged any special relationship between UCC and UCIL -certainly no relationship beyond that of parent and subsidiary -nor is there any allegation of a relationship between UCC andPlaintiffs that would give rise to a duty on UCC’s part tochange UCIL’s waste disposal plans for the Bhopal Plant.Plaintiffs seem to suggest that UCC’s knowledge thatpesticide manufacturing processes produce waste, coupled withthe knowledge that the Bhopal site did not have a waterway forthe disposal of treated waste, gave rise to a duty to act. In aMay 16, 1972 memorandum on the topic of UCIL disposal of byproducthydrochloric acid, a UCC employee commented that “Icannot believe that we at the Tech Center would be heldblameless if we recognize potential problems here and did notspeak up.” (Handley Decl., Ex. C at UCC04516). But UCC didspeak up, numerous times. In a July 21, 1972 memorandum, Mr.Hattiangadi of UCC identified “acid-bearing process wastes” as32
Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document 118 Filed 06/26/12 Page 33 of 56“clearly the major disposal problem” for the proposed backintegrationproject because the Bhopal site did not have a“nearby waterway into which treated effluent can be discharged,”and sent the memorandum to at least one person who worked atUCIL, Mr. L. J. Couvaras. (2005 Heck Decl., Ex. D3 at UCC04127-28). That memorandum suggests UCIL employ a clay lining for theevaporation pond “[t]o avoid danger of polluting subsurfacewater supplies.” (Id. at UCC04129). Mr. Hattiangadi sentanother memorandum to several UCIL employees on June 15, 1973commenting on UCIL’s waste disposal plans for the Bhopal Plantand making pond size suggestions UCIL may not have followed.(Handley Decl., Ex. G at UCC04546). There can be no questionthat UCIL was well aware of the need to devise a waste disposalsystem appropriate for the Bhopal site and its lack of waterway.For example, UCIL’s 1973 Capital Budget Proposal includes anallotment of funds for the treatment and disposal of the “wastestreams of major concern,” i.e., streams that are “toxic andacidic,” using evaporation ponds. (2005 Heck Decl., Ex. D1 atUCC04205). However, with full knowledge of the potentialproblems, UCIL undertook the responsibility to design thenecessary waste disposal system in accordance with Government ofIndia regulations. (Handley Decl., Ex. MM; Ex. N at UCC05279;Ex. O at UCC05282 (Government of India required that waste bedisposed in solar evaporation ponds)).33
Page 1 and 2: Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document
Page 56: Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document

dismissed their claims and their requests for injunctive relief

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?