Bel Air Mart et al v. Arnold Cleaners, Inc. et al

Filing 302

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 1/13/2015 CONFIRMING AND APPROVING the settlement agreements attached as Exhibits A and B to the Declaration of Olivia M. Wright re 294 Motion for Good Faith Settlement Determination; DISMISSI NG WITH PREJUDICE all claims, counterclaims, and cross-claims asserted against Yolanda Panattoni, Ralph Armstrong, Robert Gern Nagler, Estate of Ronald G. Armstrong, Deceased, Han Hoi Joo, Chang Sun Joo and/or Peter Kim; DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE all claims, counterclaims, cross-claims, and third-party claims asserted by Yolanda Panattoni, Robert Gern Nagler, and Estate of Ronald G. Armstrong, Deceased against Bel Air Mart, Gene Wong, Paul Wong and/or Lillie Fong; DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE all c ross-claims made by Estate of John W. Burns, Deceased and Estate of Elice G. Burns, Deceased against Yolanda Panattoni, Ralph Armstrong, Robert Gern Nagler, Estate of Ronald G. Armstrong, Deceased, Han Hoi Joo, Chang Sun Joo and/or Peter Kim; ORDERIN G that the court retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement between the settling parties as to (a) Paragraph 1 of the Partial Global Settlement with the Settling Parties' Joint Motion; and (b) Paragraph 1 of the Panatto ni Settlement Agreement, attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Olivia M. Wright re 294 Motion for Good Faith Settlement Determination; BARRING all claims relating to the facts of this action pursuant to Section 6 of the Uniform Comparative Fa ult Act, 12 U.L.A. 147 (1996), and Section 877.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure; DENYING 295 Request to Set a Status Conference; ORDERING the parties to meet and confer and prepare and submit by 2/28/2015, a Joint Status Report that sets forth the parties' proposed scheduling for further proceedings. (Michel, G)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BEL AIR MART, et al., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 14 No. 2:10-cv-02392-MCE-EFB ORDER v. ARNOLD CLEANERS, INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 The Court has reviewed the Joint Motion for Good Faith Settlement Determination 17 18 (ECF No. 294), Bel Air Mart’s and Wong Family Investors, L.P.’s request to set a status 19 conference (ECF No. 295), and the Joint Stipulations and Statement of Non-Opposition 20 from the Estates of John W. Burns and Elice G. Burns (ECF Nos. 296-301). The Court 21 has determined that the agreements were made in good faith and are fair, reasonable, 22 and consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 23 Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq., and California 24 Code of Procedure (“CCP”) §§ 877 and 877.6. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 1. The settlement agreements between the Settling Parties,1 attached as 3 Exhibits A and B to the Declaration of Olivia M. Wright (ECF No. 294-2), are confirmed 4 and approved; 5 2. All claims, counterclaims, and cross-claims asserted in the above-entitled 6 action against Panattoni, Ralph Armstrong, Nagler, the Armstrong Estate, and/or the Joo 7 Parties are DISMISSED with prejudice; 8 9 10 11 3. All claims, counterclaims, cross-claims, and third-party claims asserted in the above-entitled action by Panattoni, Nagler and the Armstrong Estate against Bel Air, WFI, and/or the Wongs are DISMISSED with prejudice; 4. All cross-claims made by the Estate of John W. Burns and The Estate of 12 Elice G. Burns against Panattoni, Ralph Armstrong, Nagler, the Armstrong Estate and/or 13 the Joo Parties are DISMISSED with prejudice; 14 5. The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the following terms of the 15 settlement agreements between the Settling Parties: (a) Paragraph 1 of the Partial 16 Global Settlement with the Settling Parties’ Joint Motion; and (b) Paragraph 1 of the 17 Panattoni Settlement Agreement, attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Olivia M. 18 Wright (ECF No. 294-2); 19 6. All claims relating to the facts of this action, including but not limited to, 20 claims for contribution and indemnity that have been or could have been asserted by any 21 person or entity, in this action or otherwise, against Panattoni, Ralph Armstrong, Nagler, 22 the Armstrong Estate, or the Joo Parties with regard to the matters is in this action and 23 with regard to the dry cleaner site located at 4338 Arden Way, Sacramento, CA, whether 24 25 26 27 28 1 The Settling Parties include Bel Air Mart (“Bel Air”); Wong Family Investors, L.P. ("WFI"); Gene Wong, Paul Wong, Lillie Fong (collectively, "Wongs"); Yolanda Panattoni ("Panattoni"); The Estate of Ronald G. Armstrong, Deceased ("Armstrong Estate"), by and through its insurer Century Indemnity Company, as successor to CCI Insurance Company, as successor to Insurance Company of North America, pursuant to California Probate Code section 550 ("Century"); Ralph Armstrong; Robert Gern Nagler, individually and as Trustee of the John W. Burns Testamentary Trust (collectively "Nagler"); and Arnold Cleaners, Inc., Han Hoi Joo, Chang Sun Joo, and Peter Kim (the "Joo Parties") (collectively, the "Settling Parties"). The Estate of John W. Burns and The Estate of Elice G. Burns filed a later Statement of Non-Opposition to the settlement agreement. See ECF No. 296. 2 1 such claims are or could be brought pursuant to federal or state law, are BARRED 2 pursuant to Section 6 of the Uniform Comparative Fault Act, 12 U.L.A. 147 (1996), and 3 Section 877.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure; and 4 7. The request to set a status conference (ECF No. 295) is DENIED. Instead, 5 the remaining parties, if any, shall meet and confer and shall prepare and submit to the 6 Court a Joint Status Report by February 28, 2015, that sets forth the parties’ proposed 7 schedule for further proceedings. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 13, 2015 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?