Laserfiche WebLink
the recent United States Supreme Court case Key Tronic Corp. v. <br /> United States, _U. S._, 128 L.Ed. 2d. 797, 114 S.Ct. 1960 <br /> (1994) . This case held that CERCLA does not provide for an award <br /> of private litigants' attorney' s fees associated with bringing a <br /> cost recovery action. Accordingly, Plaintiff LPL is not <br /> entitled, as a matter of law, to recover its attorney fees <br /> associated with prosecuting the private cost recovery action or <br /> for legal services connected with negotiations among Plaintiff <br /> LPL, Settling Dry Cleaning Defendants and/or any and all <br /> governmental agencies under CERCLA's NCP. Contrary to Key Tronic <br /> Corp. , it appears that the Settling Dry Cleaning Defendants may <br /> have agreed to reimburse Plaintiff LPL for its past attorney fees <br /> and pay future fees that are properly attributable to CERCLA cost <br /> recovery. <br /> Furthermore, Plaintiff LPL cannot and should not be <br /> permitted to recoup these costs and receive a double recovery if, <br /> in the future, it seeks to pursue the assigned third party claims <br /> against Equipment Manufacturers. For example, Plaintiff LPL' s <br /> counsel could charge $200. 00 per hour for legal oversight, <br /> monitoring, etc. and Plaintiff LPL could recoup the entire <br /> $200.00 per hour from the Settling Dry Cleaning Defendants. <br /> Plaintiff LPL may then attempt to pursue the assigned third party <br /> claims against Equipment Manufacturers for the exact same costs <br /> already reimbursed by the Settling Dry Cleaning Defendants and, <br /> if successful, Plaintiff LPL would receive a double recovery. <br /> LA\16207\031\5000MDCG.002 <br /> -10- <br />