State of Oklahoma, et al. v. Tyson Food, Inc., et al.

Case Updates

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma granted Tyson Foods’ motion to dismiss with respect to the claims for damages under CERCLA, the claims for unjust enrichment, and the claims for damages under Oklahoma nuisance law and the common law of nuisance and trespass. The motion was denied with respect to the claims under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the state environmental statutes, and the claims for injunctive relief under the common law of nuisance and trespass. NCLC had urged the district court to dismiss the whole case against Tyson Foods.

Describing the illegitimate use of private contingency fee counsel by governments around the country to litigate cases involving their enforcement authority, NCLC urged the district court to dismiss Oklahoma’s case (brought pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act) against Tyson Foods. In this case, the government retained private counsel to litigate the case on behalf of the government with the promise of a share of the recovery. In its brief, NCLC explained that the use of contingency fees to compensate litigating counsel turns on its head the traditional dictum that the state achieves its goals whenever justice is done, not when it wins a large award.