SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_1993-1996

Home Browse Search

I Comment#23• 2 Section Addressed: Section XXIX, Good Faith Settlement 3 Page 38, Lines 12-24 4 Summary of Comment Received: 5 The Commenters, the Equipment Manufacturers, state that before the Court can 6 make a good faith settlement determination,a monetary value must be ascribed to the assignments 7 from the Settling Dry Cleaning Defendants and the County of San Joaquin to plaintiff LPL of all 8 rights, claims and causes of action. The Commenter further asserts that this valuation must be 9 included in the total settlement and disclosed to the Court and the non-settling parties. 10 Settling Parties' Response; 11 The Settling Parties respond that"offsets"and the related valuation issues among 12 the Settling Parties are irrelevant and have no application to the Consent Decree. Offsets are 13 only applicable in the context of a settlement between some, but not all,jointly and severally liable 14 parties where direct,joint and several claims remain after settlement to be asserted against non- 15 settling defendants. This settlement fully and finally extinguishes aU of plaintiff LPL's existing 16 direct claims asserting joint and several liability for issues covered by the Consent Decree. As 17 plaintiff LPL has no direct,joint and several claims remaining against the Equipment 18 Manufacturers, no offsets are available to the Equipment Manufacturers. 19 The Settling Parties further respond that while all of the Settling Dry Cleaning 20 Defendants' direct and contribution claims have been assigned to plaintiff LPL as consideration 21 for the settlement of both this action and the related state court action,these claims may be asserted 22 without regard to offsets or valuation issues. By definition,these assigned contribution claims 23 against the Equipment Manufacturers are claims for apportionment of the Equipment 24 Manufacturers' fair share of the total,joint and several liability imposed on the Settling Dry 25 Cleaning Defendants. As these derivative claims are already claims for the Equipment 26 Manufacturers' equitable share of the total liability as determined by the Court after evaluation of 27 all equitable factors, a request for an`offset" is meaningless. In short, all that can be recovered 28 from the Equipment Manufacturers by virtue of the assigned contribution claims is their fair share JOINT SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS&RESPONSES REGARDING FIRST FINAL CONSENT DECREE -31- 0009203.10 10/03/94 @ 10:43 AM