violation of any requirement of this chapter. Such an action may not be brought with regard to a removal where a remedial action is to be undertaken at the site. (5) An action under section 9606 of this title in which the United States has moved to compel a remedial action. 42 U.S.C. § 9613(h)(l)-(5). Plaintiffs do not dispute that the cleanup of Wingate is “a remedial action selected under section 9604” of CERCLA, nor do they dispute that section 113(h) bars federal judicial review of certain challenges to an ongoing CERCLA cleanup such as the one at Wingate until the cleanup is completed. Instead, they contend tha stion the selected EPA remedial or removal plan, the suit is not a “challenge” under section 113(h). See Beck v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 62 F.3d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). As the district court concluded in this case,
holding that plaintiffs who sought injunctive relief under 42 usc  1983 could get same relief in a state court mandamus action recognizing that implicit in language of  9 allowing civil action for damages or injunctive relief or both was a plain legislative intent to afford victims of discrimination the legal remedy of compensatory damages holding that the court will not parse the record for evidence of compensatory or nominal damage to justify an award of punitive damages only holding that plaintiffs action for compensatory damages but not injunctive relief could go forward because resolution of the damage claim would not involve altering the terms of the cleanup order holding that when compensatory damages are nominal a much higher ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages can be contemplated