Opinion ID: 175352
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The 2006 State Court Action as to Site B

Text: In 2005, Emeryville began investigating contamination at Site B. A November 2005 report concluded that “[p]otential offsite sources of chemicals of concern” included the adjacent properties “formerly occupied by a Sherwin-Williams arsenicbased pesticide manufacturing facility” and that elevated arsenic at Site B’s southern border was “most likely due to residually contaminated soil from former Sherwin-Williams pesticide manufacturing site.” 3 Specifically, Emeryville agreed to pay the first $200,000, Emeryville and Sherwin-Williams agreed to bear equally the next $1,314,000, and the parties agreed to bear subsequent costs “95% by Sherwin-Williams and 5% by Emeryville.” There is no dispute that Sherwin-Williams made all payments required by the 2001 Settlement. 14144 CITY OF EMERYVILLE v. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS In May 2006, the Emeryville Redevelopment Agency filed the State Court Action, Emeryville Redevelopment Agency v. Robinson, No. RG06267594, alleging that Sherwin-Williams and other defendants were liable for “hazardous substances discharged, deposited, disposed of, or released onto or at [Site B] and/or emanating to and from [Site B].” The other defendants, including Intervenors and the City of Emeryville, each denied liability and filed cross-claims against SherwinWilliams and each other, seeking contribution and/or indemnity.4