requested permission to spread topsoil from the Town and later sent letters acknowledging that they had worked on the field in April 2013—again, months before the dumping began—does not suggest that they “manage[d]" or “directed] ... operations specifically related to pollution.” Id, At best, it might be inferred from the letters that the Church contracted with the Datre and Grabe defendants to deposit the material at the Park, but such a contractual arrangement is not a basis -for operator liability. See 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a) (distinguishing between liability for the “operator of a vessel or a facility” and for “any person who by contract, agreement, or otherwise arranged for disposal ... of hazardous substances. ... ”); Delaney v. Town of Carmel, 55 F.Supp.2d 237, 261 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (<HOLDING>). In any evént, the' Complaint- is devoid of
holding that minimum contacts exist if the defendant has purposefully directed his activities at residents of the forum and the litigation results from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities holding that minimum contacts exist if the defendant has purposely directed his activities at residents of the forum and the litigation results from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities holding that a town was not liable as an operator where it entered into a lease with private parties for the disposal of septic tank and cesspool waste but the plaintiffs offered no evidence  to suggest that the town carried out disposal activities at the site provided personnel equipment or supplies had or exerted any control over the activities or management at the site holding that construction company that carried general work site liability insurance did not control partiallyconstructed home at the time of accident when none of its employees had been at the site for a month holding that security interest was not perfected since debtor conducted business only in one town in the state and creditor did not file financing statement in that town