Opinion ID: 203380
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Ruling on Third- and Fourth-Party Motions for Judgment

Text: The court then turned to the third and fourth parties' motions for judgment and deferred decision, observing that [f]ollowing entry of the Consent Decree, these arguments rest on a questionable premise and beg the question: to what extent, if at all, can the Court rely on its Phase One Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to make any decision regarding the viability of Citizens' outstanding claims against the Third Parties? Id. The court requested briefing from the parties on this question. With respect to Citizens's claims against the third parties, the court remarked that it seems that Citizens now has a single CERCLA claim for contribution that is primarily governed by 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f)(3)(B). Id. The court held that this claim would be best pursued as an entirely new case. Id. at . The court noted that absent a compelling objection, such a new case would also include the third and fourth parties' complaints. The court noted that its interest in seeing these claims proceed as a separate case is driven primarily by pragmatic, docket management concerns. Id. Various third and fourth parties filed motions for reconsideration of the court's rulings. Citizens filed a supplemental brief arguing that the court's Phase One Findings and Conclusions should not be considered the law of the case, noting that the court had never entered those as a final judgment, whereas it had entered the Consent Decree as a final judgment. Various third- and fourth-party defendants filed an opposing motion arguing that Citizens could not unilaterally expunge the record established over four years of litigation simply by entering a settlement after trial of the claims brought by and against it. On July 20, 2007, the court denied the third and fourth parties' motions for reconsideration of its approval of the Consent Decree. The court noted that it was not persuaded that the Third-Party and Fourth-Party Defendants are prejudiced by the entry of the Consent Decree as a final judgment.... [T]he entry of the Consent Decree as a final judgment will neither create unnecessary procedural complexities for the remaining action nor will it adversely affect orderly future proceedings or the expeditious final resolution of this matter.