My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_1993-1996
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
P
>
PACIFIC
>
0
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0506203
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_1993-1996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/31/2020 3:10:16 PM
Creation date
3/31/2020 2:30:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
FileName_PostFix
1993-1996
RECORD_ID
PR0506203
PE
2960
FACILITY_ID
FA0007271
FACILITY_NAME
LINCOLN CNTR ENV REMEDIATION TRUST
STREET_NUMBER
0
STREET_NAME
PACIFIC
STREET_TYPE
AVE
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95207
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
PACIFIC AVE
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
002
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\sballwahn
Tags
EHD - Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
223
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
1 of the costs incurred and to be incurred by the Settling Dry Cleaning Defendants. Accordingly <br /> 2 Section XXIX of the Consent Decree is appropriate as proposed. <br /> 3 Comment#24• <br /> 4 Section Addressed: Section=11, Mutual Releases and Covenants Not to Sue, <br /> 5 Page 34, Line 23 to Page 35, Line 22 <br /> 6 Summary of Comment Received: <br /> 7 The Commenter objects to Section=11 of the Consent Decree in that this section <br /> 8 provides that the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act("UCTA") shall govern the effects <br /> 9 of the releases of specified claims in this action under CERCLA and RCRA, and that the Uniform <br /> 10 Comparative Fault Act("UCFA') shall govern the effects of the releases of contribution claims <br /> 11 under CERCLA and RCRA, if any. The Commenter proposes that the Court should make the <br /> 12 determination as to which Act applies in each context after providing all parties an opportunity to <br /> 13 fully brief the issue. <br /> 14 Settling Parties' Response: <br /> 15 The Settling Parties respond that this comment is clearly not a public comment on <br /> 16 the Consent Decree and seeks to raise issues that are neither appropriate nor suitable for inclusion <br /> 17 in the Consent Decree in that the Commenters are again seeking direct relief from the Court. <br /> 18 Moreover, the Commenters offer no rationale or reasoning as to why the proposed language of the <br /> 19 Consent Decree does not accurately reflect the state of the law in this area; nor do the Commenters <br /> 20 even suggest their own version of the appropriate statement of law under the facts of this case or <br /> 21 their reasoning therefor. In short, should the Commenters,who are parties to this litigation, <br /> 22 disagree with Settling Parties' statement of law in the Consent Decree,these concerns are more <br /> 23 appropriately addressed to the Court at the time the Settling Parties move the Court for entry of <br /> 24 the Consent Decree. <br /> 25 Notwithstanding the inappropriate nature of this comment, the Settling Parties <br /> 26 further respond that the Settling Parties believe Section XXIII of the Consent Decree accurately <br /> 27 and completely states the law in this area. This analysis and perspective was meticulously <br /> 28 negotiated between the Settling Parties, and the Settling Parties will so represent to the Court. <br /> JOINT SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS&RESPONSES REGARDING FIRST FINAL CONSENT DECREE -32- <br /> 0009203.10 10/03/94 @ 10:43 AM <br /> 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.