During the period in which Texaco owned the property, 750 gallons of gasoline was lost due to a leak in an underground storage tank (UST); said UST was thereafter replaced. When FCA Associates (FCAA) purchased the property, they were aware that USTs on the property presented potential environmental concerns. Within eight months after FCAA purchased the property, three leaking USTs were removed. FCAA subsequently discovered and removed orphan tanks containing sludge that impacted the soil. Thereafter, in FCA Associates et al v. Texaco, Inc. et al, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8116 (W.D.N.Y. 2008), plaintiffs sued under RCRA (42 U.S.C. Section 6972(a)(1)(B)) and State law. The plaintiffs sought to recover clean-up costs, attorney's fees, and damages unrelated to remedial costs. As to the RCRA cause of action, the Court held that plaintiffs were not entitled to attorney's fees because (1) they were seeking to recover remedial costs, and RCRA does not provide for the recovery of remedial costs, (2) they were not the prevailing party since they lost on the remedial cost issue, and (3) the lawsuit was basically about a private dispute and did not involve "the public good". However, the Court did hold for plaintiff under N.Y. law in terms of recovering its remedial costs. As to nonremedial cost damages [losses related to a real estate sale], it held that the statute of limitations had run. The plaintiffs clearly were trying to use the RCRA attorney's fee provision to bootstrap recovering these outlays. However, by focusing on trying to use RCRA to recover remedial costs (knocked out in 1996 by the U.S. Supreme Court) rather than injunctive relief based on the contamination, their strategy was self-defeating.