Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_98-cv-06264/USCOURTS-caed-1_98-cv-06264-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES

CONTROL,

Plaintiff,

v.

WITCO CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:98-cv-6264 OWW TAG

ORDER RE SUBMISSION OF

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Before the Court for decision is an unopposed request for

approval of a consent decree between the California Department of

Toxic Substances Control (“Plaintiff” or “DTSC”) and Western Farm

Services (“Western”).

Although CERCLA encourages early settlement, it is does not

condone “rubber stamp approval.” United States v. Montrose Chem.

Corp. of Cal., 50 F.3d 741, 747 (9th Cir. 1995); see also 42

U.S.C. § 9622(d)(1)(A). In evaluating the fairness of a consent

decree, a court should determine the proportional relationship

between the amount to be paid by the settling defendant and the

government’s estimate of the total projected cost of cleanup.

Montrose, 50 F.3d at 747. A district court can abuse its

discretion by having no evidence to support its decision. Id.

Case 1:98-cv-06264-OWW -TAG Document 187 Filed 07/22/05 Page 1 of 2
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

(holding that the district court’s failure to consider any

estimate of projected total damages in determining that CERCLA

consent decree was substantively fair constituted abuse of

discretion). Although perfect and complete information on the

total cost of cleanup is not required, the Parties must submit,

at minimum, a rough estimate for which the Court can base its

approval. See id.

Here, however, the Parties have not provided any estimate of

the total cost of remediation. Although Western has provided

evidence of fairness by citing to the amount of their payment to

DTSC--which will range from a minimum of $450,000, plus payment

of DTSC’s oversight costs, to a maximum of $1,100,000, plus

payment of DTSC’s oversight costs--it is impossible to even

roughly evaluate substantive fairness of the Decree without any

information on the projected total cost. Doc. 169, Reply to Opp.

at 4:4-21. 

The Parties shall submit such information to supplement the

record by August 20, 2005.

SO ORDERED. 

______________________________

 Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:98-cv-06264-OWW -TAG Document 187 Filed 07/22/05 Page 2 of 2