Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> 1 Action Plan has not been developed. Accordingly, the Commenter states that Section XVI must be <br /> 2 deleted in its entirety. <br /> 3 SettlingPartes' Response; <br /> 4 The Settling Parties respond that the costs incurred to date are, and have been, both <br /> 5 appropriate and consistent with the NCP. The Consent Decree's order that all future costs <br /> 6 incurred in compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree are determined to be consistent with <br /> 7 the NCP is appropriate in light of the extensive requirements contained in the Consent Decree <br /> 8 regarding the Work which must be undertaken and the extent to which the Settling Dry Cleaning <br /> 9 Defendants will be liable for that Work. These extensive requirements which include an <br /> 10 overarching requirement that costs incurred be consistent with the NCP, together with the <br /> I 1 extensive dispute resolution provisions of the Consent Decree, are sufficient to ensure consistency <br /> 12 with the NCP. Accordingly, only those costs incurred in the future which are in compliance with <br /> 13 the Court's order, and are therefore necessarily consistent with the NtP,will be recoverable under <br /> 14 the terms of this Consent Decree. <br /> 15 Furthermore,the rights and remedies available to the Equipment Manufacturers are <br /> 16 not adversely impacted. Any dispute as to costs incurred to date, as reflected by the lump sum <br /> 17 payments to be paid pursuant to this settlement, should be asserted at the time the Settling Parties <br /> 18 move for entry of the Consent Decree by challenging the reasonableness of the settlement in light <br /> 19 of respective positions of and relative risks to the Settling Parties arising from the claims in this <br /> 20 asserted in this action. If and when plaintiff LPL were to recover a declaratory judgment in an <br /> 21 action on the assigned contribution claims determining the Equipment Manufacturers' equitable <br /> 22 share of the costs to be incurred in the future pursuant to this settlement, the Equipment <br /> 23 Manufacturers would have an opportunity to challenge whether those costs actually incurred were <br /> 24 consistent with the standards set forth in the Consent Decree each time plaintiff LPL periodically <br /> 25 moved to reduce the declaratory judgment to a lump sum judgment. <br /> 26 <br /> 27 <br /> 28 <br /> JOINT SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS&RESPONSES REGARDING FIRST FINAL CONSENT DECREE -30- <br /> 0009203.10 10/03/94 rci 10:43 AM <br />