Adobe Lumber Inc v. Hellman and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al
Filing
435
ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 3/4/2010 GRANTING 411 Motion for Order approving settlement and barring claims by Echco Sales Co.(Matson, R)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Eugene C. Blackard Jr. (Bar No. 142090) gblackard@archernorris.com Probal G. Young (Bar No. 188177) pyoung@archernorris.com Alissa R. Pleau-Fuller (Bar No. 258907) apleaufuller@archernorris.com ARCHER NORRIS 2033 North Main Street, Suite 800 Walnut Creek, CA 94596-3759 Telephone: 925.930.6600 Facsimile: 925.930.6620 Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant ECHCO SALES CO., INC. (erroneously sued herein as ECHCO SALES AND EQUIPMENT CO., INC.) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ADOBE LUMBER, INC., a California Corporation, Plaintiff, v. F. WARREN HELLMAN, and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustees of Trust A created by the Estate of Marco Hellman; et al.,F. WARREN HELLMAN as Trustee of Trust B created by the Estate of Marco Hellman; THE ESTATE OF MARCO HELLMAN, DECEASED; WOODLAND SHOPPING CENTER, a limited partnership; JOSEPH MONTALVO, an individual; HAROLD TAECKER, an individual; GERALDINE TAECKER, an individual; HOYT CORPORATION, a Massachusetts Corporation; PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation; OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION, a New York Corporation; CITY OF WOODLAND; and ECHO SALES & EQUIPMENT CO., Defendants.
Case No. 2:05-CV-01510-WBS-PAN
ORDER GRANTING ECHCO SALES CO., INC.'S MOTION FOR ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND BARRING CLAIMS Date: March 1, 2010 Time: 2:00 p.m. Judge: William B. Shubb Courtroom: 5, 14th Floor
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ECHCO'S MOT APPROVING SETT'L/BARRING CLAIMS
2:05-CV-01510-WBS-PAN
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
AND RELATED CROSS-CLAIMS
The motion for approval of the settlement and barring claims against the following settling party-defendants: (1) (2) Echco Sales & Co., Inc.; and Plaintiff Adobe Lumber; Channel Lumber; and Rossi Development,
which was filed by Third-Party Defendant ECHCO SALES & CO., INC. ("Echco") was heard by this Court. After considering the moving papers and any responses thereto and the record as a whole, the Court finds that the settlement as embodied in the Settlement Agreement set forth as Exhibit A hereto was made in good faith and is fair, reasonable and consistent with the purposes of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. § 9601, et seq. The matter having been briefed, argued and submitted for decision, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is granted, and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 1. The Settlement Agreement attached as Exhibit 1 hereto is hereby approved as a
good faith settlement. 2. Section 6 of the Uniform Comparative Fault Act, 12 U.L.A. 147 (1996), in
pertinent part, is hereby adopted as the federal common law in this case for the purposes of determining the legal effect of the Settlement Agreement. 3. The Court further finds and determines that the Settlement Agreement has been
entered into in good faith within the meaning of California Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6. 4. Pursuant to UCFA § 6 and the California Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6, any
and all claims against the settling defendant arising out of the matters asserted in this action or addressed in the Settlement Agreement, regardless of when asserted or by whom, are barred. Such claims are barred regardless of whether they are brought pursuant to CERCLA 42 U.S.C. § 2
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ECHCO'S MOT APPROVING SETT'L/BARRING CLAIMS
2:05-CV-01510-WBS-PAN
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
9601, et seq., or pursuant to other federal or state law.
Dated: March 4, 2010
H2081/875848-1
3
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ECHCO'S MOT APPROVING SETT'L/BARRING CLAIMS
2:05-CV-01510-WBS-PAN
]]>
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?
