Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07164/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07164-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: Environmental Matters

---

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

 This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports. 1

Case No. CV 06-07164 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING ROWE'S REQUEST TO FILE AN UNCONDITIONAL OPPOSITION

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 6/22/2010**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TYCO THERMAL CONTROLS LLC,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

REDWOOD INDUSTRIALS, et al.,

 Defendants.

ROWE INDUSTRIES, INC.,

 Counter-Claimant,

 v.

TYCO THERMAL CONTROLS, LLC,

 Counter-Defendant.

Case Number C 06-07164 JF (PVT)

Related Case No. C 10-01606 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING ROWE’S 1

REQUEST TO FILE AN

UNCONDITIONAL OPPOSITION

Re: Docket No. 210

On April 23, 2010, Defendants Redwood Industrials, Roland Lampert and Audrey

Lampert (collectively, “Redwood”) moved for an order approving their settlement with Plaintiff

Tyco Thermal Controls, LLC (“Plaintiff”) and barring contribution claims, indemnity, and other

claims. The motion was brought pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and

Case 3:06-cv-07164-NC Document 212 Filed 06/22/10 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

 In an order dated April 15, 2010, the Court determined that Rowe is the successor-in- 2

interest to Coleman Cable & Wire, Pacific Transformer Company, and in turn the

successor-in-interest to Hill Magnetics, Inc., Hill Industries, Inc. Dkt. No. 180 at 2 n. 2. 

2

Case No. CV 06-07164 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING ROWE'S REQUEST TO FILE AN UNCONDITIONAL OPPOSITION

(JFLC1)

Reauthorization Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. § 9601, et seq. (“CERCLA”), the Uniform Comparative

Fault Act (“UCFA”) and Cal. Code Civ. P. § 877.6. On May 21, 2010, Carlisle Companies Inc.,

Carlisle Corporation and Tensolite Company, sued erroneously herein as Tensolite Insulated

Wire Pacific Divisions, Inc. and Tensolite Insulated Wire Company, (collectively, “Carlisle”)

moved for an order approving their settlement with Plaintiff barring contribution and indemnity

claims pursuant to the UCFA, and determinating that the settlement is in good faith pursuant to

Cal. Code Civ. P. § 877.6. 

On June 4, 2010, Defendant Rowe Industries, Inc. (“Rowe”) filed a statement of 2

“conditional non-opposition” to both motions. Rowe conditioned its lack of opposition on the

Court’s determination that the protections afforded to it as a non-settling defendant under the

UCFA extend to the separate but related Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. §

6901 et seq. (“RCRA”) action that Plaintiff filed against Rowe on April 14, 2010. Rowe

contends that such a determination will protect it against non-apportionment of liability in the

RCRA action. 

On June 10, 2010, Carlisle and Redwood filed reply papers in which they both adopted

Rowe’s position that the UCFA should apply to Plaintiff’s RCRA action against Rowe. The next

day, Plaintiff filed reply papers opposing application of the UCFA to its outstanding RCRA

action against Rowe. In addition to contending that there is no right to contribution under

RCRA, Plaintiff also asserted its position with respect to the appropriate method of apportioning

liability under CERCLA. Plaintiff contends that this Court should adopt a pro tanto approach

rather than the proportionate share approach proposed by Redwood and Carlisle in their motions

for approval of settlement. 

Now Rowe has requested leave to file unconditional opposition to the pending motions

for good faith settlement. It explains that it “did not oppose the motions for good faith settlement

of the co-defendants solely because the settlement agreements mandated, and the settlement

Case 3:06-cv-07164-NC Document 212 Filed 06/22/10 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

Case No. CV 06-07164 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING ROWE'S REQUEST TO FILE AN UNCONDITIONAL OPPOSITION

(JFLC1)

motions requested, application of the [UCFA] and its Proportionate Share Method of

Allocation.” Rowe’s Request for Leave at 2. Plaintiff opposes Rowe’s request asserting that the

settlement agreements do not require application of the proportionate share method. 

The Court has not yet determined whether a proportionate share or pro tanto method of

allocation applies to the instant action. However, because this issue first was raised by Plaintiff

in its June 11 reply brief, and Rowe has not had the opportunity to brief the issue fully, the Court

will grant Rowe’s request for leave to file an unconditional opposition brief. On or before June

28, 2010, Rowe shall file a letter brief not to exceed five pages in length addressing the

appropriate method of allocation in this action as well as its challenge to the pending motions

should the Court adopt the pro tanto approach. Plaintiff and the settling defendants may file a

reply, not to exceed five pages in length, on or before July 2, 2010. The hearing on the pending

motions is hereby continued to July 16, 2010. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 6/22/2010

____________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07164-NC Document 212 Filed 06/22/10 Page 3 of 3