Lewis, et al v. Russell, et al

Filing 444

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 5/9/2013 GRANTING 441 Notice of Settlement; CONFIRMING, APPROVING and DETERMINING that said settlement was made in good faith; DISMISSING, with prejudice, all claims asserted in this action against D efendant Safety-Kleen; FOREVER BARRING all claims relating to the facts of this action, including, but not limited to, claims for contribution and indemnity that have been or that could have been asserted against Safety-Kleen; ORDERING that the Uniform Comparative Fault Act (UCFA) be applied to the Lewis / Safety-Kleen Settlement. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4

S. Craig Hunter
CA State Bar No. 125247
Law Office of S. Craig Hunter
PO Box 13810
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
Tel: [phone]
email: [e-mail]

5
6

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Charles H. Lewis
and Jane W. Lewis (Deceased)

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
ROBERT D. RUSSELL; et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
AND RELATED COUNTER, CROSS AND )
THIRD PARTY CLAIMS.
)
CHARLES H. LEWIS and
JANE W. LEWIS,

Case No. CIV. S-03-2646 WBS CKD
ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT,
GRANTING APPLICATION FOR
DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH
SETTLEMENT, DISMISSING SAFETYKLEEN SYSTEMS, INC., AND BARRING
INDEMNITY AND CONTRIBUTION
CLAIMS

The Court, having received and considered the application and supporting materials of

20

plaintiff Charles H. Lewis, for himself and for plaintiff Jane W. Lewis, Deceased (“Lewis”),

21

and defendant Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc., erroneously sued as Safety-Kleen Corporation

22

(“Safety-Kleen”), for an order (1) approving the settlement between Lewis and Safety-Kleen

23

(the “Lewis / Safety-Kleen Settlement”), (2) determining that the Lewis / Safety-Kleen

24

Settlement is made in good faith, (3) dismissing all claims asserted against Safety-Kleen in the

25

above-entitled action, with prejudice (including, but not limited to, the claims asserted by

26

Lewis against Safety-Kleen in the Second Amended Complaint), and (4) barring all claims

27

relating to the facts of this action, including, but not limited to, contribution and indemnity

28

claims that have been or that could have been asserted by any person or entity, in this action

29

-1-

30

Order Approving Lewis / Safety-Kleen Settlement, Dismissing Safety-Kleen, and Barring Contribution Claims

1

or otherwise, against Safety-Kleen with regard matters asserted in this action and with regard

2

to the dry cleaner site located at 670 “G” Street, Davis, CA (the “Site”), whether such claims

3

are or could be brought pursuant to federal or state law, having received no opposition to the

4

application, no motion having been made contesting the application, and good cause

5

appearing therefor, the Court finds that the Lewis / Safety-Kleen settlement is made in good

6

faith, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6.

7
8

Therefore, good cause appearing:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, as follows:

9
10

1.

That the application of plaintiff Charles H. Lewis, for himself and for Jane W.

11

Lewis, Deceased (“Lewis”), and of defendant Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc., sued herein as

12

Safety-Kleen Corporation (“Safety-Kleen”) for approval of their settlement be, and hereby is,

13

GRANTED.

14
15

2.

That the settlement between Lewis and Safety-Kleen (the “Lewis / Safety-

16

Kleen Settlement”) be, and hereby is, confirmed and approved and determined to have been

17

made in good faith.

18
19

3.

That all claims asserted in the above-entitled action against Safety-Kleen,

20

including, but not limited to, the claims asserted by Lewis against Safety-Kleen in the Second

21

Amended Complaint, be, and hereby are, dismissed, with prejudice.

22
23

4.

That all claims relating to the facts of this action, including, but not limited to,

24

claims for contribution and indemnity that have been or that could have been asserted against

25

Safety-Kleen by any person or entity, whether in this action or otherwise, with regard to

26

matters asserted in the above-entitled action and/or with regard to the dry cleaner site located

27

at 670 “G” Street, Davis, CA (the “Site”), whether such claims are, or could be, brought

28

pursuant to federal and/or state law, be, and hereby are, forever barred.

29

-2-

30

Order Approving Lewis / Safety-Kleen Settlement, Dismissing Safety-Kleen, and Barring Contribution Claims

1
2

5.

That the Uniform Comparative Fault Act (“UCFA”) be applied to the Lewis /

Safety-Kleen Settlement.

3
4

Dated: May 9, 2013

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

-3-

30

Order Approving Lewis / Safety-Kleen Settlement, Dismissing Safety-Kleen, and Barring Contribution Claims