-E United Alloys Inc v. Baker, et al
| United Alloys Inc |
| Siskin Investment Co, South Pacific Trans, Union Pacific Railroad Company, Baker Metal Supply Co., Inc., Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, Does, Flask Chemical Corp, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co, Helen J Baker, Harold A Baker and Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company The |
| Siskin Investment Co, Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, Flask Chemical Corp and Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co |
| Siskin Investment Co, Baker Metal Supply Co., Inc., Englander Mattress Manufacturing Company, Flask Chemical Corp, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co, Reese Chemical Corporation, Roes and Helen J Baker |
| United Alloys Inc, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co and Siskin Investment Co |
| Baker Metal Supply Co., Inc., Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, Flask Chemical Corp, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co, Siskin Investment Co and Helen J Baker |
| Peter M Roan |
| Hon Harry R McCue |
| 2:1993cv04722 |
| June 13, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Western Division - Los Angeles Office |
| Charles F. Eick |
| Consuelo B. Marshall |
| Torts to Land |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1346 Tort Claim |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
327
JUDGMENT 326 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall is entered in favor of Plaintiff and Counter-defendant United Alloys, Inc. ("United Alloys") and against Defendant and Counterclaimant Flask Chemical Corporation ("Flask") pursuant to S ection 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA") for the release of hazardous waste at United Alloys' property located at 900 East Slauson Avenue in Los Angeles, California (&qu ot;the Property"), and because United Alloys is also responsible for the release of hazardous waste at the Property, the parties are jointly and severally liable for such contamination. With respect to all future recoverable response costs, Unit ed Alloys shall be responsible for one-third of such response costs and Flask shall be responsible for two-thirds of such response costs; United Alloys has incurred NCP-compliant response costs in the amount of $431,418.64; Flask is entitled to a credit of $340,000 for settlements paid to United Alloys by third party defendants, which reduces United Alloys' recoverable response costs to $91,418.64; As to the $91,418.64, United Alloys shall pay one-third of these response costs, or $30,442.41, and Flask shall pay two-thirds of these response costs, or $60,976.23; Flask shall also pay to United Alloys $17,024.19, which represents two-thirds of the prejudgment interest on United Alloys' recoverable response costs. (See attached Order for details.) (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lom)
|
|
Filing
326
SECOND AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW signed by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. The parties are jointly and severally liable for the contamination at the Property pursuant to Section 107 of CERCLA; While Flask is liable for the contam ination at the Property under the HSAA, CERCLA preempts United Alloys' right to recover response costs under the HSAA in addition to CERCLA; Flask is entitled to contribution from United Alloys pursuant to Section 113 of CERCLA, such that U nited Alloys shall be responsible for one-third of all recoverable response costs and Flask shall be responsible for two-thirds of all recoverable response costs; United Alloys has incurred NCP-compliant response costs in the amount of $431 ,418.64; Flask is entitled to a credit of $340,000 for settlements paid to United Alloys by third party defendants, which reduces United Alloys' recoverable response costs to $91,418.64; As to the $91,418.64, United Alloys sha ll pay one-third of these response costs, or $30,442.41, and Flask shall pay two-thirds of these response costs, or $60,976.23; Flask shall also pay to United Alloys $17,024.19, which represents two-thirds of the prejudgment intere st on United Alloys' recoverable response costs; Declaratory relief shall be entered as to the apportionment of liability and allocation of costs for future NCP-compliant response costs; The Court retains jurisdiction to address the recover ability of future response costs that cannot be resolved by the parties; and To the extent that any findings of fact constitute conclusions of law, they are adopted as such, and to the extent that the conclusions of law constitute findings of fact, they are adopted as such. (lom)
|
|
Filing
321
AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 319 signed by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. (lom)
|
|
Filing
319
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW signed by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. United Alloys has incurred NCP-compliant response costs in the amount of $449.923.04; Flask is entitled to a credit of $340,000 for settlements paid to United Al loys by third party defendants, which reduces United Alloys' recoverable response costs to $109,923.04. As to the $109,923.04, United Alloys shall pay one-third of these response costs, or $36,604.37, and Flask shall pay two-third s of these response costs, or $73,318.67. Further briefing is necessary for the Court to make a determination as to the amounts recoverable for prejudgment interest. Judgment shall be entered subsequent to the briefing as to prejudgment interes t and the Court's calculation thereof; and to the extent that any findings of fact constitute conclusions of law, they are adopted as such, and to the extent that the conclusions of law constitute findings of fact, they are adopted as such. (lom)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
