Chevron Environmental Management Company et al v. BKK Corporation et al

Filing 157

ORDER ADOPTING 153 154 155 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS on 137 138 139 Motions for Good Faith Settlement signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 03/25/2013. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

CHEVRON ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT COMPANY
AND CHEVRON USA,

11

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-1396 LJO-BAM

Plaintiffs,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS
RECOMMENDATIONS ON MOTIONS
FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

12
vs.
13

(Docs. 153, 154, 155)
14
15

BKK CORPORATION, et. al,
Defendants.
/

16
17

On January 24, 2013, Plaintiffs Chevron Environmental Management Company and Chevron

18

USA (“Plaintiffs”) filed several Motions for Good Settlement Determination (Docs. 137, 138, 139)

19

requesting approval of individual settlements and barring future claims against defendants: Burtch

20

Trucking, Inc. (Doc. 137), San Joaquin Refining Co., Inc. (Doc. 138) and Ensign United States Drilling

21

(California) Inc. (Doc. 139).

22

On March 6, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that the Motions

23

for Good Settlement Determination be GRANTED. (Docs. 153, 154, 155). The Findings and

24

Recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed

25

within fifteen (15) days of the date of service. More than fifteen (15) days have passed and no objections

26

have been filed. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c), this Court has

27

conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that

28

the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

3

The Findings and Recommendations issued March 6, 2013 (Docs. 153, 154, 155) are
ADOPTED IN FULL; and

4

2.

5

Plaintiffs’ Motions for Good Faith Settlement Determination (Docs. 137, 138, 139 ) are
GRANTED;

6

3.

Any and all claims for equitable comparative contribution, and partial and complete

7

comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault, against

8

Burtch Trucking, Inc., San Joaquin Refining Co., Inc., and Ensign United States Drilling

9

(California) Inc. are forever barred pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure

10

§877.6 (c);

11

4.

12

Burtch Trucking, Inc., San Joaquin Refining Co., Inc., and Ensign United States Drilling
(California) Inc. be DISMISSED with prejudice;

13

5.

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate docket numbers 137, 138 and 139.

14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
Dated:
17

March 25, 2013

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
66h44d
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2