1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

GARRISON SOUTHFIELD

PARK LLC, 

 

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:17-cv-783

 JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

 

CLOSED LOOP REFINING

AND RECOVERY, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

OLYMBEC USA LLC, 

 

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:19-cv-1041

 JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

 

CLOSED LOOP REFINING

AND RECOVERY, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER APPROVING GREEN WAVE, DYNAMIC, AND ACI SETTLEMENT 

AGREEMENTS

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Garrison Southfield Park LLC and Plaintiff 

Olymbec USA LLC’s (together, the “Plaintiffs”) motions to approve settlements with Defendants

Green Wave Computer Recycling, LLC (“Green Wave”) (Garrison ECF No. 756; Olymbec ECF 

No. 616), Dynamic Lifecycle Innovations, Inc. (“Dynamic”), and ASUS Computer International 

(“ACI”) (together, the “Defendants”) (Garrison ECF No. 766; Olymbec ECF No. 627).

This Court previously held in abeyance the motions for settlement approval and directed 

Plaintiffs to file notices informing the Court whether the parties intended to either (1) accept the 

Court’s approval of the settlement agreements on the understanding that the contribution bar does 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 820 Filed: 02/28/22 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 10170
2

not extend to claims for express breach of contract and contractual indemnification; or (2) 

withdraw from the settlement agreements. (Op. & Order, ECF No. 808.) Plaintiffs notified the 

Court that they accept the conditions for Court settlement approval. (Garrison ECF Nos. 818, 819; 

Olymbec ECF Nos. 677, 678.) The Motions for Approval of Settlement (Garrison ECF Nos. 756, 

766; Olymbec ECF Nos. 616, 627) are GRANTED and the following are hereby ordered:

1. The Settlement Agreements between Plaintiffs and Defendants (“Settlement 

Agreements”), attached to the Motions as Exhibit A, are approved, and the terms and conditions 

of the Settlement Agreements are hereby incorporated by reference into this Order as if fully 

restated herein.

2. Except for the exceptions stated in the Settlement Agreements and for claims for 

express breach of contract and contractual indemnification, all claims asserted, to be asserted, or 

which could be asserted against Defendants by persons who are defendants or third-party 

defendants in this case (whether by cross-claim or otherwise) or by any other person or entity 

(except the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”), the United States acting on U.S. 

EPA’s behalf, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (“Ohio EPA”), and the State of Ohio 

acting on Ohio EPA’s behalf) in connection with the presence, generation, transportation, storage, 

treatment, disposal, abandonment, release, threatened release, removal, remediation, monitoring, 

or engineering control of electronic waste at, to or migrating from Garrison’s properties located at 

1655 and 1675 Watkins Road in Columbus, Ohio and Olymbec’s property located at 2200 

Fairwood Avenue in Columbus, Ohio under Sections 107 or 113 of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 9607 

and § 9613, and/or any other federal, state or local statute, regulation, rule, ordinance, law, 

contract, common law, or any other legal theory are hereby discharged, barred, permanently 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 820 Filed: 02/28/22 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 10171
3

enjoined, dismissed with prejudice, satisfied, and are otherwise unenforceable in this case or in 

any other proceeding.

3. The payment by Defendants to Plaintiffs shall be credited pro tanto, and not pro 

rata, during any equitable allocation of response costs among liable parties by the Court in this 

matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f)(1). The liability of the remaining liable parties shall 

accordingly be reduced by the dollar amount of Defendants’ settlement payments, and the Court 

need not determine Defendants’ proportionate share of liability.

4. Because there are no crossclaims for express breach of contract and contractual 

indemnification asserted against Defendants, they are dismissed from this lawsuit. 

5. For the reasons previously outlined by this Court in the Kuusakoski settlement 

approval (See Op. & Order, ECF No. 808), this Order shall have the full force and effect of a final 

judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 and 58. This Court nevertheless retains jurisdiction after entry 

of final judgment to enforce the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreements.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2/28/2022 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.

DATE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 820 Filed: 02/28/22 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 10172