SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_1993-1996

Home Browse Search

I Manufacturers that it received in assignment as part of the consideration for settlement of this 2 action and its related state court action in that plaintiff LPL might recover for the same costs 3 already reimbursed by the Settling Dry Cleaning Defendants. The Commenter proposes that the 4 Consent Decree be amended to expressly prohibit plaintiff LPL from pursuing further recovery 5 through the Settling Dry Cleaning Defendants' claims for contribution from the Equipment 6 Manufacturers. 7 Settling Parties' Response: 8 The Settling Parties respond that this comment is clearly=a comment on the 9 Consent Decree and seeks to raise issues that are neither appropriate nor suitable for inclusion in 10 the Consent Decree in that the Commenters are seeking relief from Federal Court for claims that 11 have not yet been pursued. In essence,the Commenters are attempting to assert an affirmative 12 defense that properly should be asserted only when and if plaintiff LPL pursues the assigned 13 contribution claims that it received as partial consideration for the settlement of this action and the 14 related state court action. 15 Notwithstanding the inappropriate nature of this comment,the Settling Parties 16 further respond that plaintiff LPL has received both direct claims and contribution claims against 17 non-settlors in assignment. Clearly, pursuant to CERCLA § 114(b) and general principles of law, 18 anyone who receives compensation for removal costs or claims under CERCLA or any other 19 Federal or State law may not recover compensation for the same removal costs or claims recovered 20 under CERCLA. The remaining direct and contribution claims are not plaintiff LPL's claims, 21 rather those of the Settling Dry Cleaning Defendants which were taken in assignment as partial 22 consideration for the settlement of this action and the related state court action. Accordingly, 23 successful prosecution of these claims, whether achieved by the Settling Dry Cleaning 24 Defendants or plaintiff LPL, could not constitute a double recovery. The Equipment 25 Manufacturers' contention that any success achieved by plaintiff LPL in pursuing these 26 contribution claims should be barred as a double recovery is inapposite and without foundation in 27 the law. 28 JOINT SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS&RESPONSES REGARDING FIRST FINAL CONSENT DECREE -28- 0009203.10 10/03/94 @ 10:43 AM