Laserfiche WebLink
1 To the extent that the Equipment Manufacturers object to this declaration of the applicable law, <br /> 2 their opportunity to challenge this analysis will be at the time the Settling Parties move the Court <br /> 3 for entry of the Consent Decree. <br /> 4 Comment#25• <br /> 5 Section Addressed: Section XXIX, Good Faith Settlement <br /> 6 Page 38, Lines 12-24 <br /> 7 Summary of Comment Received: <br /> 8 The Commenters, the Equipment Manufacturers, assert that, as a matter of law, <br /> 9 there is insufficient information before the Court and the non-settling parties to provide any basis <br /> 10 for a finding that this settlement was reached in good faith despite the obligation undertaken by the <br /> 11 Settling Dry Cleaning Defendants to perform all Work necessary to address the contamination at <br /> 12 Lincoln Center. The Commenters specifically object to (1)the lack of information available to the <br /> 13 Equipment Manufacturers regarding the basis for the payment of past'sums or future costs <br /> 14 associated with the investigation and remediation at Lincoln Center; and(2) the lack of any <br /> 15 disclosure as to the monetary scheme that allocates responsibility among the Settling Parties. The <br /> 16 Commenters seek disclosure of the following information: (a)the total amount of the settlement; <br /> 17 (b) either the proportional share of liability allocated to each Settling Dry Cleaning Defendant or <br /> 18 the amount to be paid by each Settling Dry Cleaning Defendant; and(c) the amount and terms of <br /> 19 the settlement among the Settling Parties' insurance carriers in Lincoln Properties, Ltd. v. AIU <br /> 20 Insurance Co., et al., San Joaquin County Superior Court Case No. 238274 to ensure that plaintiff <br /> 21 LPL does not collect funds from the Equipment Manufacturers which it has already received from <br /> 22 the Settling Dry Cleaning Defendants. <br /> 23 Settling Parties' Response: <br /> 24 The Settling Parties respond that this comment is clearly not a public comment on <br /> 25 the Consent Decree and seeks to raise issues that are neither appropriate nor suitable for inclusion <br /> 26 in the Consent Decree in that the Commenters seek information that is more appropriately <br /> 27 obtained, if at all, by discovery when plaintiff LPL pursues the direct and contribution claims <br /> 28 assigned to it by the Settling Dry Cleaning Defendants. <br /> JOINT SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS&RESPONSES REGARDING FIRST FINAL CONSENT DECREE -33- <br /> 0009203.10 10/03/94 @ 10:43 AM <br />