Laserfiche WebLink
1 The Settling Parties further respond that, pursuant to Section XXV, the Consent <br /> 2 Decree fully and finally extinguishes all of plaintiff LPL's existing, direct,joint and several claims <br /> 3 including those of the Equipment Manufacturers. Accordingly, equitable allocation among the <br /> 4 Settling Parties is irrelevant as the remaining direct and contribution claims of all Settling Dry <br /> 5 Cleaning Defendants have been assigned to plaintiff LPL. <br /> 6 Finally,the Settling Parties also respond that plaintiff LPL does retain the Settling <br /> 7 Dry Cleaning Defendants' claims for contribution from the Equipment Manufacturers, or other <br /> 8 potentially liable parties that it received in assignment as consideration to settle both this action <br /> 9 and the related state court action. These contribution claims are claims for the Equipment <br /> 10 Manufacturers' fair share of the total liability incurred and to be incurred by the Settling Dry <br /> 11 Cleaning Defendants as determined by the Court after evaluation of all equitable factors. As <br /> 12 these contribution claims are, by definition, actions for equitable apportionment and are necessarily <br /> 13 derivative of joint and several liability,plaintiff LPL may freely pursue these contribution claims <br /> 14 without regard to separate offset or equitable valuation issues. Thus, the disclosures sought by the <br /> 15 Equipment Manufacturers are irrelevant to any analysis or resolution of any remaining claims. <br /> 16 Comment#26• <br /> 17 Section Addressed: Section XXIX, Good Faith Settlement <br /> 18 Page 38, Lines 12-24 <br /> 19 Summary of Comment Received: <br /> 20 The Commenters, Equipment Manufacturers, assert that in addition to an allocation <br /> 21 of liability among the Settling Parties, an allocation must be made among the various claims to <br /> 22 facilitate an analysis of the recoverability of attorneys' fees under each respective claim. <br /> 23 Settling Parties' Response: <br /> 24 The Settling Parties again respond that this comment is clearly not a public <br /> 25 comment on the Consent Decree and seeks to raise issues that are neither appropriate nor suitable <br /> 26 for inclusion in the Consent Decree. The Settling Parties reiterate that the concepts asserted by <br /> 27 the Equipment Manufacturers regarding an equitable allocation among the Settling Parties and <br /> 28 "offsets" for the non-settling party have no bearing where all of the existing direct claims have <br /> JOINT SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS&RESPONSES REGARDING FIRST FINAL CONSENT DECREE -34- <br /> 0009203.10 10/03/94 @ 10:43 AM <br />