Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00783/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00783-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:6901 Environmental Cleanup Expenses

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Aggregate Products Co.,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Wilbur-Ellis Company, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-783-PHX-FJM

ORDER

In our order of October 5, 2007 (doc. 53), we asked the parties to supplement their

Joint Motion to Approve Settlement (doc. 47) with a memorandum explaining the legal basis

upon which the court could insulate them from liability to non-parties. In response, the court

received a “Joint Motion for Clarification of the Court’s order dated and filed 10/5/07" (doc.

54), which merely repeated the matters contained in the parties’ original motion. This was

uniquely unhelpful. We then received the parties’ “Supplemental Memorandum” (doc. 55),

which was more helpful.

Paragraph 4 of the proposed consent judgment is broad enough to purport to insulate

the parties from claims for contribution or indemnity from any and all non-parties to the

agreement. But the cases cited by the parties do not support such an extensive bar of all nonparty claims. Instead, the cases rely on the Uniform Comparative Fault Act which (1)

provides no bar protection to releasing plaintiffs and (2) provides bar protection to settling

Case 2:07-cv-00783-FJM Document 56 Filed 10/18/07 Page 1 of 3
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

- 2 -

defendants from claims of non-parties but only as they relate to plaintiff’s claims, not the

claims of others. This is consistent with A.R.S. § 12-2504, Arizona’s version of the Uniform

Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, which provides that a good faith settlement both (1)

reduces plaintiff’s claims against non-parties by the amount of the settlement and (2)

discharges the tortfeasor to whom it is given from all liability for contribution to any other

tortfeasor. Thus, if the plaintiff who gives the release sues a non-party, the settling tortfeasor

is protected from contribution claims by that non-party if the settlement is in good faith. But

that applies only to contribution claims made by non-parties in connection with claims made

by plaintiff. It does not purport to extend to claimants other than plaintiff.

As noted in our order of October 5, the rudiments of due process protect persons from

judgments and actions in which they were not parties. This is because they had no notice or

opportunity to be heard. The limited bar to contribution claims under A.R.S. § 12-2504(2)

is lawful because it neither enlarges the liability of a non-party nor deprives a non-party of

any right. The plaintiff’s claim against a non-party is reduced by the amount of the

settlement. 

The provisions of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq., that relate to contribution

follow this general path. For example, 42 U.S.C § 9613(f)(2) protects those who have settled

with the United States or a state from contribution claims regarding matters addressed in the

settlement. Note that the protection applies to the settling defendant only, and not the

plaintiff. And, as to the settling defendant, it protects against contribution claims only from

those who might otherwise be liable to the United States or a state regarding the same matter.

To the same effect is 42 U.S.C. § 9622(g)(5). And, 42 U.S.C. § 9657 renders any such

contribution bar ineffective whenever it would constitute a taking under the Fifth

Amendment.

This court has no problem approving this settlement and providing the parties with

the protection to which they may be entitled under federal and state law. But the contours

of that protection are more narrow than those proposed in paragraph 4 of the proposed

Case 2:07-cv-00783-FJM Document 56 Filed 10/18/07 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

consent decree. We shall be happy to sign the proposed consent decree if the parties will

substitute the following new paragraph 4 in place of the proposed paragraph 4.

4. Because of our finding in paragraph 3 above, the release

given by Aggregate Products to Wilbur-Ellis discharges WilburEllis from all liability for contribution to any other tortfeaser

who may be liable to Aggregate Products for claims arising out

of the subject matter of the settlement agreement. Similarly, the

release given by Wilbur-Ellis to Aggregate Products discharges

Aggregate Products from all liability for contribution to any

other tortfeasor who may be liable to Wilbur-Ellis for claims

arising out of the subject matter of the settlement agreement.

In the alternative, if the parties believe the above proposal is too specific, the

following substitute paragraph 4 would also be acceptable.

4. Because of our finding in paragraph 3 above, the parties are

entitled to whatever protection federal and state law might

afford them with respect to the claims of others arising out of

the subject matter of the settlement agreement.

If either alternative is acceptable to the parties, they may amend their proposed

consent judgment and file and lodge it with the court. 

DATED this 18th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00783-FJM Document 56 Filed 10/18/07 Page 3 of 3