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

Filing 192

ORDER to Adopt FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/15/2014. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9

CHEVRON ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT COMPANY AND
CHEVRON USA,

10
11

1:11-cv-01396 LJO BAM
ORDER TO ADOPT FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS (Docs. 188, 189)

Plaintiff,
v.

12 BKK CORPORATION, et al.,
13

Defendants.

14
15

On June 30, 2014, Plaintiffs Chevron Environmental Management Company and Chevron USA

16 (“Plaintiffs”) filed Motions for Good Faith Settlement Determination requesting approval of individual
17 settlements and barring future claims against Defendants Golden Gate Petroleum Co. (Doc. 185) and
18 M.P. Environmental and MP Vacuum (Doc. 186).
19

On August 5, 2014, Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe issued Findings and

20 Recommendations that the Motions for Good Faith Settlement Determination be GRANTED. (Docs.
21 188 & 189). On August 19, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a stipulation to clarify statements appearing in both
22 documents regarding the ownership of the disposal facility site that is the subject of the lawsuit. (Doc.
23 190). Judge McAuliffe approved the stipulation on August 21, 2014. (Doc. 191).
24

The Findings and Recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that any

25 objections were to be filed within fifteen (15) days of the date of service. More than fifteen (15) days
26 have passed and no objections have been filed. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636
1

1

(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the

2

Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. As

3

discussed in more detail in the Findings and Recommendations, the Settlement Agreements are fair and

4

reasonable, as measured against the standards adopted by the California Supreme Court in Tech-Bilt,

5

Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates, 38 Cal. 3d 488, 499 (1985).1
This Court also finds that the Settlement Agreements are consistent with the objectives of the

6
7

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). “Aside from

8

the timely cleanup of polluted sites and imposing liability on responsible parties, one of the core

9

purposes of CERCLA is to foster settlement through its system of incentives and without unnecessarily

10 further complicating already complicated litigation.” Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc.,
11 710 F.3d 946, 971 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotations omitted). The Settlement Agreements at issue
12 here serve this purpose because they resolve CERCLA and state law claims in a manner that is fair,
13 reasonable and not objected to by any party to this litigation, while conserving the resources of the
14 federal judiciary.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15
1.

16

The Findings and Recommendations issued August 5, 2014 (Docs. 188 & 189), and

17 modified on August 21, 2014 (Doc. 191) are ADOPTED IN FULL; and
2.

18

Plaintiffs’ Motions for Good Faith Settlement Determination (Docs. 185 & 186) are

19 GRANTED;
3.

20

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

21 comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault, against Defendants
22 Golden Gate Petroleum Co. and M.P. Environmental and MP Vacuum are forever barred pursuant to
23 California Code of Civil Procedure §877.6 (c);
24
25
26

1

“A settling party in a federal action involving California claims can file a motion seeking a good faith determination.”
AmeriPride Servs. Inc. v. Valley Indus. Servs., Inc., CIVS 00-113 LKK JFM, 2007 WL 1946635, at *3 (E.D. Ca. July 2,
2007) (citing Federal Savings & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Butler, 904 F.2d 505, 511 (9th Cir. 1990). “And federal courts in
California have jurisdiction to apply the Tech–Bilt factors in ruling on such a motion.” Id. (citing Shamut Bank N.A. v. Kress
2
Assoc., 33 F.3d 1477, 1504 (9th Cir. 1994).

1
2
3

4.

Defendants Golden Gate Petroleum Co. and M.P. Environmental and MP Vacuum are

DISMISSED with prejudice;
5.

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate docket numbers 185 & 186.

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

September 15, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3