of its common-law claims as it may recover under its CERCLA claims. 42 U.S.C. 9614(b); Coppola, 935 F.Supp.2d at 1012 ("CERCLA prohibits a person from recovering compensation for the same removal costs or damages or claims pursuant to other state or federal law.” (citation omitted).) Because the court cannot determine at this stage in the litigation whether plaintiff will ultimately prevail on its CERCLA claims, or whether it seeks to recover the same costs under its state-law claims as its CERCLA claims, the court will permit plaintiff to plead both its CERCLA and state-law claims. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(3) ("A party may state as may separate claims ... as it has, regardless of consistency.”); cf. Santa Clara Valley Water Dist. v. Olin Corp., 655 F.Supp.2d 1066, 1079-80 (N.D.Cal.2009) (<HOLDING>) 6 . Moving defendants also cite several cases
recognizing authority stating that a plaintiff in a cercla action is allowed to plead alternative theories even if it cannot ultimately seek duplicate recovery recognizing cercla successor liability holding that the failure to plead a particular legal theory when the plaintiff pled two related legal theories was not a bar to recovery holding that separate theories of recovery all constituted a medicalmalpractice claim holding a shareholders derivative action even where the only relief allowed is a recovery of damages is nevertheless a suit in equity and not an action at law