Plaintiffs need not identify exactly which hazardous substances were released by which defendants, in what manner, or on what specific dates. In Kalamazoo River Study Group, the court noted that the text of § 107 requires only that a plaintiff prove “that the defendant’s hazardous substances were deposited at the site from which there was a release and that the release caused the incurrence of response costs.” 228 F.3d at 655 (quoting United States v. Alcan Aluminum Corp., 964 F.2d 252, 266 (3d Cir.1992)). See also Ascon Properties, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir.1989) (“a plaintiff need not allege the particular manner in which a release or threatened release has occurred.”); Arkema Inc. v. Anderson Roofing Co., Inc., 719 F.Supp.2d 1318, 1332 (D.Or.2010) (<HOLDING>). In their Motions for Judgment on the
holding that complaint alleging location of release kinds of waste in volved and indicating time frame when defendant allegedly arranged for disposal at site was sufficient holding that inclusion of a general release was merely a suggestion of how to terminate the lawsuit and that acceptance was not qualified on use of the specific release and party was willing to discuss the terms of a release holding the time frame is crucial and evaluating reasonableness of officers use of deadly force at the time of the seizure irrespective of their prior unreasonable conduct in creating the circumstances holding that 24 hours is sufficient time for a plaintiff to review release holding that for purposes of revoking supervised release the applicable guidelines are those in effect at the time of the supervised release violations rather than those in effect at the time of initial offense