Natural Resource Commission. The Commission (but not the EPA or any private party) directed Aviall to clean up the site. After voluntarily cleaning up the properties, Av-iall sought cost recovery under § 107 and contribution under § 113 from Cooper. The Court held that contribution under §113 was unavailable for Aviall because the claim was not brought “during or following any civil action” as contemplated under § 7 does not contain an “implied” cause of action for contribution brought by PRPs); compare Carrier Corp., 460 F.Supp.2d at 840 (concluding that an EPA Unilateral Administrative Order is a “civil action” within the meaning of § 106, thereby authorizing a suit for contribution under § 113), with Raytheon Aircraft Co. v. United States, 435 F.Supp.2d 1136, 1142-43 (D.Kan.2006) (<HOLDING>), and Pharmacia Corp. v. Clayton Chem.
holding that a period of paid leave does not qualify as a suspension holding that an attorneys negligence alone does not qualify for such relief holding under the circumstances that a criminal proceeding does not qualify as an alternate remedy under the federal fca holding that a section 106 administrative order wouldnot qualify as a civil action under  113f1 holding that a  106 administrative order does not qualify as a civil action and therefore does not authorize suit under  113f1