California Department of Toxic Substances Control et al v. Jim Dobbas, Inc. et al
Filing
181
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 3/20/2018 ORDERING that plaintiffs' 177 Motion for Judicial Approval of the Consent Decree between plaintiffs and Van Over is GRANTED; all claims for contribution against Van Over arising out of response costs incurred at the Site are, DISMISSED pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f)(2). CASE CLOSED (Becknal, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL, et
al.,
13
14
15
Plaintiffs,
v.
CIV. NO. 2:14-595 WBW EFB
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION
FOR JUDICIAL APPROVAL OF
PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE
JIM DOBBAS, INC., et al.,
16
Defendants.
17
18
Plaintiffs California Department of Toxic Substances
19
Control and the Toxic Substances Control Account (collectively
20
“DTSC”) brought this action under the Comprehensive Environmental
21
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C.
22
§§ 9601 et seq., to recover cleanup costs incurred at 147 A
23
Street in Elmira, California (“the Site”) from several
24
defendants, including settling defendant David Van Over (“Van
25
Over”).
26
default judgments against all of the other defendants (Docket
27
Nos. 18, 19, 129, 141, 150), and Van Over is the last remaining
DTSC has previously reached settlements or obtained
28
1
1
defendant in this action.
2
judicial approval of a proposed consent decree between plaintiffs
3
and Van Over.
4
opposition.
5
Before the court is DTSC’s motion for
(Docket No. 176.)
Van Over has not filed an
DTSC states that as of September 30, 2016, its
6
unreimbursed response costs related to the Site exceeded $2.7
7
million.
8
responsible party pursuant to section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
9
§ 9607(a), and is therefore jointly and severally liable for the
This court has previously determined that Van Over is a
10
costs DTSC incurred at the Site.
11
Against Van Over (Docket No. 170).)
12
financial information submitted by Van Over and determined that
13
he is presently unable to pay penalties or a significant portion
14
of the costs incurred, or the future costs to be incurred, at the
15
Site.
16
(Order for Partial Summ. J.
DTSC has reviewed the
After determining this, the parties were able to
17
negotiate a settlement agreement resolving Van Over’s liability
18
in this case.
19
shall pay $250,000 to DTSC in multiple installments: $5,000 must
20
be paid within 30 days of the Consent Decree’s effective date and
21
additional payment(s) totaling up to $245,000 shall be made as
22
follows: (a) within 10 days of each sale of all, or a portion of,
23
the Site, in an amount equal to the Net Sale Proceeds; (b) within
24
10 days of receipt by Van Over of an Ability to Pay
25
Determination.
26
effective date, DTSC shall ensure that the existing property lien
27
on the Site is replaced by a judgment lien for $245,000.
28
judgment lien will remain in effect, accruing statutory interest,
Pursuant to the proposed Consent Decree, Van Over
Further, within 60 days of the Consent Decree’s
2
This
1
until paid in full.
2
of the Site, 100% of the Net Sale Proceeds of each such sale, up
3
to a total of $245,000, shall be paid to DTSC to satisfy the
4
judgment lien.
5
exceed $245,000, DTSC shall receive 80% of the excess sale
6
proceeds.
7
than $2.89 million in excess sale proceeds.
8
9
Additionally, if Van Over sells any portion
If the total net sale proceeds of such sales
However, Van Over will not be required to pay more
“In order to approve a CERCLA consent decree, a
district court must conclude that the agreement is procedurally
10
and substantively ‘fair, reasonable, and consistent with CERCLA’s
11
objectives.’”
12
(9th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Montrose Chem. Corp. of
13
Cal., 50 F.3d 741, 748 (9th Cir. 1995)).
14
approval of a consent decree must provide “evidence sufficient to
15
evaluate the terms of an agreement.”
16
parties agree that the Consent Decree has been negotiated in good
17
faith, that the settlement of this matter will avoid prolonged
18
and complicated litigation, and that this Consent Decree is fair,
19
reasonable, in the public interest, and consistent with the
20
purpose of CERCLA.
Arizona v. City of Tucson, 761 F.3d 1005, 1011-12
Parties seeking
Id. at 1012.
Here, the
21
After reviewing the proposed Consent Decree and the
22
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the decree
23
(Docket No. 179), the court determines that the Consent Decree,
24
which is the product of arms’-length settlement negotiations that
25
took place over many months between DTSC and Van Over, is
26
procedurally fair.
27
participated in drafting the terms of the Consent Decree, and the
28
parties exchanged multiple drafts of the decree.
Even though Van Over represented himself, he
3
Further, DTSC
1
published notice of the lodging of the Consent Decree in the
2
California Regulatory Notice Register, published notice in a
3
local newspaper, gave notice to the other defendants, and invited
4
comments on the Consent Decrees.
5
demonstrated that DTSC evaluated and considered Van Over’s
6
ability to pay in arriving at the settlement, and thus the
7
Consent Decree appears to be substantively fair as well. Also, by
8
reaching a settlement, the parties have been able to avoid
9
lengthy, complex, and costly litigation that would have entailed
10
Additionally, the parties have
significant discovery and a trial.
11
Furthermore, the Consent Decree will be effective in
12
ensuring cleanups of the Site and it will compensate the public
13
for the costs incurred, and thus the court concludes that the
14
parties have satisfied the “reasonableness” requirement as well.
15
Finally, because the Consent Decree holds Van Over accountable
16
and provides DTSC with funds necessary to protect the
17
environment, it therefore satisfies the goals of CERCLA.
18
foregoing reasons, the court approves of the Proposed Consent
19
Decree.
20
For the
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Motion for
21
Judicial Approval of the Consent Decree between plaintiffs and
22
Van Over (Docket No. 177) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
23
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all claims for contribution against
24
Van Over arising out of response costs incurred at the Site be,
25
and the same hereby are, DISMISSED pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
26
9613(f)(2).
27
Dated:
The Clerk of Court is instructed to close the case.
March 20, 2018
28
4
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?