SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

I parties to the settlement file dispositional papers. Dispositional papers may include a request that the 2 court find that the settling defendants have settled in good faith. Those precise details need not be 3 repeated here except for a description of the condition subsequent to settlement. The condition 4 subsequent concerns"closure" of the environmental dispute with non-party San Joaquin County,and 5 indirectly,the present on-site landowner(also a non-party). Defendant Texaco will take the lead,and 6 will by itself,exercise good faith efforts to reach final agreement on those specific remediation 7 measures that the County will require before the County withdraws any administrative complaint(s) 8 that it has filed,or has proposed to file,with respect to site clean-up against the defendants to this 9 action. The settling defendants believed that they would,I be able to obtain a decision on closure within 10 � 150 days. 11 In recognition of the significant resolution of disputes that have been oracle between the 12 settling parties concerning monetary amounts to be paid to FDIC and the.individual contribution of 13 defendants thereto, as well as to facilitate the opportunity to resolve the equitable disputes before the 14 trial court concerning final remediation, andfinally, in order tominimize unnecessary fees and ,15 expenses in this litigation, the, action must,be stayed for a short.,period.of time. 16 Conclusion 17 Therefore,having obtained the approval of Judge Karlton..,this action is ordered stayed for 18 a period of one hundred and.fifty(150)days,from the filed date of this order. All dates scheduled in 19 this action are hereby vacated. and will be:reset,if necessary at the termination of the stay period. 20 ITIS SO ORDERM. 21 Dated: 41 /,,ZA U G! GLiews 22 ited States Ms iga st e Judge GGH:gh-.0p1-F61C.set 23 24 'The court,with the agreement of the settling parties, has considered and rejected the possibility 25 that the litigation could proceed at this time between the FDIC and defendant Douglas. If the condition subsequent were not to be satisfied.any discovery,motions, or other proceedings undertaken now 26 between FDIC and Douglas might well have to be duplicated if and when the settling defendants were forced back into litigation by failure ofthe:condition subsequent..