M.C. v. Pactiv Corporation, et al (LEAD CASE)

Filing 453

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ORDERING and ADJUDGING: (1) the 447 joint motion for order approving settlement agreement is hereby granted and the Court approves the Settlement Agreement, deems it as having been reached by all parties and counsel in good faith, and deems it binding and enforceable as to all parties;(2) notwithstanding any dismissals in any Related Cases and/or the conclusion of this litigation, the Court shall retain jurisdiction over the settlement of these Related Cases, the A mended Settlement Agreement, and all claims and disputes arising with respect thereto, including all claims and disputes as to the Amended Settlement Agreements enforceability or any of its terms; (3) any violation of any terms of the Amended Settlem ent Agreement determined by this Court to have been in bad faith shall also be deemed an intentional violation of this Order, as further set out in order; (4) that this Order applies to this and all Related Cases; (5) That the parties 449 joint motion to dismiss with prejudice is granted and this case and the Related Cases are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Lyle E. Strom on 10/3/08. (djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION M .C ., who sues by and through her m o th e r and next friend, GAIL TATUM, ) ) ) P la in tif f , ) ) v. ) ) P A C T IV CORPORATION and ) L O U IS IA N A -P A C IF IC CORPORATION, ) ) D e f e n d a n ts . ) ____________________________________)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06CV83-LES (L E A D CASE)

O P I N I O N and ORDER T h is matter is before the Court on the parties' joint motion for order ap p rov ing settlement agreement (Filing No. 447), joint motion for pro ami order (Filing N o . 448) and joint motion to dismiss with prejudice (Filing No. 449). On September 24, 2 0 0 8 , the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this case to which no timely o b jec tio n s have been made (Filing No. 451). Upon an independent review of the file in th is case and upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, IT IS ORDERED that the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is h ere b y adopted and the joint motion for pro ami order (Filing No. 448) is hereby granted. P la in tif f s collectively filed lawsuits styled M.C. v. Pactiv Corp., et al., Civ. N o . 2:06-CV-0083-LES-CSC; Phillips v. Pactiv Corp., et al., Civ. No. 2:06-CV-0084L E S -C S C ; Thompson v. Pactiv Corp., et al., Civ. No. 2:06-CV-0085-LES-CSC; Edwards v . Pactiv Corp., et al., Civ. No. 2:06-CV-0086-LES-CSC; Madden v. Pactiv Corp., et al.,

C iv . No. 2:06-CV-00186-LES-CSC; Davis v. Pactiv Corp., et al., Civ. No. 2:06-CV0 0 1 8 7 -L E S -C S C ; Douglas v. Pactiv Corp., et al., Civ. No. 2:06-CV-0188-LES-CSC; T h o m p s o n v. Pactiv Corp., et al., Civ. No. 2:06-CV-0189-LES-CSC; Kelley v. Pactiv C o rp ., et al., Civ. No. 2:06-CV-00190-LES-CSC; Cravey v. Pactiv Corp., et al., Civ. No. 2 :0 6 -C V -0 1 9 1 -L E S -C S C ; Adams v. Pactiv Corp., et al., Civ. No. 2:06-CV-0660-LESC S C ; Cassady v. Pactiv Corp., et al., Civ. No. 2:06-CV-0679-LES-CSC; Brooks v. Pactiv C o r p ., et al., Civ. No. 2:06-CV-0680-LES-CSC; Anderson v. Pactiv Corp., et al., Civ. N o . 2:06-CV-0739-LES-CSC; Harrison v. Pactiv Corp., et al., Civ. No. 2:06-CV-0757L E S -C S C ; Lawrence v. Pactiv Corp., et al., Civ. No. 2:06-CV-0758-LES-CSC; Hamilton v . Pactiv Corp., et al., Civ. No. 2:06-CV-0759-LES-CSC; K.C. v. Pactiv Corp., et al., C iv . No. 2:06-CV-0904-LES-CSC; Vann v. Pactiv Corp., et al., Civ. No. 2:07-CV-0050L E S - C S C ; and Caver v. Pactiv Corp., et al., Civ. No. 2:07-CV-0051-LES-CSC (c o lle c tiv e ly the "Related Cases"), each of which has been pending for more than two ye a r s . P la in tif f s assert numerous personal injury and/or property damage claims re la tin g to activities at a lumber mill and wood treatment facility in Lockhart, Alabama, o v e r a forty-plus year period dating back to at least the early 1960s. Plaintiffs' claims ra is e complex scientific and legal questions of exposure, causation, injury, liability, and d a m a g e s as to each individual plaintiff.

-2-

C o n tin u a tio n of this litigation would be extremely costly for all parties, c o n su m e significant judicial resources, involve substantial and unavoidable uncertainties f o r all parties, and potentially delay the resolution of claims by most or all plaintiffs for an e x te n d e d and indefinite period. T h e parties have negotiated and agreed to an "Amended Settlement A g re e m e n t and Final Release of Claims," which has been filed with the Court under seal. All parties have been represented in connection with this litigation and the Amended S e ttle m e n t Agreement by competent counsel of their own choosing. Moreover, all parties h a v e been advised by their respective counsel that compromise and settlement of this litig a t io n is in their best interests. T h is Court appointed a guardian ad litem to represent and defend the in te re sts of all minor plaintiffs and incompetent plaintiffs in this litigation. The guardian a d litem has determined that as to each minor and incompetent plaintiff, the settlement is f a ir, reasonable and in his or her best interest. T h is Court is familiar with the pleadings, claims, and issues in this matter, a n d believes that settlement consistent with the Amended Settlement Agreement is in e a ch party's best interest. The Amended Settlement Agreement is expressly conditioned u p o n this Court's approval and a determination that the settlement was reached in good f a ith . Based on the Court's interactions with the parties as well as all other available

-3-

in f o r m a tio n , this Court finds that the parties' settlement is the product of extensive, arms' len g th , good faith negotiations with duly zealous representation by all counsel. It is the parties' intent that the Amended Settlement Agreement be deemed b in d in g and enforceable, including as to each individual plaintiff. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. T h a t the joint motion for order approving settlement agreement

(F ilin g No. 447) is hereby granted and the Court approves the Settlement Agreement, d e e m s it as having been reached by all parties and counsel in good faith, and deems it b i n d in g and enforceable as to all parties. 2. T h a t notwithstanding any dismissals in any Related Cases and/or the

c o n c lu s io n of this litigation, the Court shall retain jurisdiction over the settlement of these R e la te d Cases, the Amended Settlement Agreement, and all claims and disputes arising w ith respect thereto, including all claims and disputes as to the Amended Settlement A g r e e m e n t 's enforceability or any of its terms. 3. T h a t any violation of any terms of the Amended Settlement

A g re e m e n t determined by this Court to have been in bad faith shall also be deemed an in ten tio n a l violation of this Order. In that event, the violating party may be subject to s u c h actions (including sanctions) as this Court, in its discretion, deems appropriate. 4. T h a t this Order applies to this and all Related Cases.

-4-

5.

T h a t the parties' joint motion to dismiss with prejudice is granted

a n d this case and the Related Cases are dismissed with prejudice (Filing No. 449). A f in a l judgment will be entered this date. D A T E D this 3rd day of October, 2008. B Y THE COURT: /s / Lyle E. Strom ______________________________ L Y L E E. STROM, Senior Judge U n i te d States District Court

-5-