Laserfiche WebLink
1 extinguished as a result of this settlement and there is, therefore, no purpose for the Settling <br /> 2 Parties to value, or for the Court to determine, the amount of any "setoff'. <br /> 3 What remains in this action, are the direct and equitable contribution claims of the <br /> 4 Settling Dry Cleaning Defendants and others against these Equipment Manufacturers. Pursuant <br /> 5 to this settlement and the settlement of a related state court action,plaintiff LPL has accepted <br /> 6 assignment of these claims as an essential portion of the consideration to resolve these disputes. <br /> 7 Accordingly,these assigned direct and contribution claims will be adjudicated in a subsequent <br /> 8 phase of this litigation. To date, the nature and extent of these claims has not been the subject of <br /> 9 discovery by reason of this Court's Case Management Order phasing this action and, thus,their <br /> 10 value is unknown. In any event, by the very nature of the equitable allocation of joint and several <br /> 11 liability in a contribution action, the conceptual framework of"offsets"is inapposite. Simply <br /> 12 stated, the law has never provided for"offsets" in a contribution action since the sole question in a <br /> 13 contribution action is the determination of the equitable allocation of the total joint and several <br /> 14 liability; in sum, what is that party's fair share of the total joint and several liability. Accordingly, <br /> 15 the Equipment Manufacturers cannot be entitled to any offsets. Allocations among the Settling <br /> 16 Parties,to the extent that they could even conceivably be relevant,would be discoverable in any <br /> 17 action by plaintiff LPL on its assigned claims. Allocations among claims resolved by this <br /> 18 settlement is both unnecessary and inappropriate in that the Settling Parties never negotiated any <br /> 19 such allocations and more importantly, as a result of this settlement, all of plaintiff LPL's direct <br /> 20 claims have been extinguished. <br /> 21 Finally, the Settling Parties disagree with the Equipment Manufacturers' assertion <br /> 22 that the Consent Decree cannot constitute a good faith settlement if they are not included in the <br /> 23 settlement process. Such an assertion is utterly without foundation in the law or sound logic. A <br /> 24 determination of good faith settlement does not require that all parties to an action settle. A <br /> 25 determination of"good faith"merely requires a finding that the parties who did settle were <br /> 26 sufficiently adverse to assure that the settlement reached was not collusive and reflected the <br /> 27 relative strengths of the Settling Parties' positions. In the present case, the Settling Parties <br /> 28 ferociously contested each term, condition and concession of the Consent Decree over a period of <br /> JOINT SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS&RESPONSES REGARDING FIRST FINAL CONSENT DECREE -15- <br /> 0009203.10 10/03/94 n 10:43 AM <br />