Opinion ID: 203380
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Stay and Settlement Discussions Among Phase One Parties

Text: During the stay that followed, Bangor and Citizens informed the court that they were actively engaged in efforts to craft a remedy for the environmental problem at issue in this litigation that would comport with the court's Findings and Conclusions and also be acceptable to Maine, with whom they had been holding meetings. The parties also reported that they had held multiple meetings and conference calls to discuss the possibilities of settling all issues between them which, if successful, would leave only claims against the Third Parties for possible resolution by the Court in a Phase III trial. They noted that no third parties had participated in these discussions. The court continued to extend the stay throughout the end of 2006 in order to allow the participating parties to continue negotiations and attempt to reach[ ] an efficient global resolution of this matter. Faced with the prospect that the Phase One parties and the State might settle, the third- and fourth-party defendants became active. On December 18, 2006, third-party defendants Barrett Paving and Honeywell International and fourth-party defendant Colas filed a motion for judgment, arguing that the court's Findings and Conclusions limited Citizens's responsibility to its equitable share and there were therefore no remaining claims against them since Citizens has made claim against Barrett and Honeywell only for such share of liability as the Court may assign to Citizens that exceeds its equitable share. Citizens filed an opposition, arguing that the motion for judgment was improper because all proceedings concerning the moving parties have been stayed and bifurcated from the active dispute between the City and Citizens, and ... the dispute between the City and Citizens has itself been stayed. On January 18, 2007, the court extended the stay until February 16. On February 16, Bangor and Citizens submitted a joint status report indicating that they had executed a Settlement Agreement and were in the process of finalizing a Consent Decree with the State and the State DEP. The report noted that Bangor and Citizens had met and conferred with DEP and representatives of the Attorney General's office on multiple occasions, and have exchanged multiple drafts of the Consent Decree. It indicated that the State had no objection to the basic terms on which Citizens had agreed to settle, and the main issues still to be resolved center around the specific procedures under which the City ultimately will finalize the selection of the remedy with DEP at some later date. On February 23, Citizens and Bangor submitted a joint status report proposing a schedule for the Phase Three, or third-party, liability determinations. They noted that the determinations to be made included whether each of the third-party defendants qualified as a liable party under CERCLA section 107(a) and what responsibility the third parties should bear under the principles of equitable allocations. On March 5, 2007, third-party defendants Maine Central Railroad Company and Guilford Transportation Industries filed a motion to dismiss, and third-party defendants Dead River Company and Beazer East filed separate motions for judgment on the pleadings. Citizens objected to all of these motions, noting that the Third Party Motions rely heavily on the Court's initial Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law from the first phase trial. But those findings have not been entered as a final judgment, and cannot properly serve as a basis for the Third Party Motions. Moreover, the Court's findings actually point toward, not away from, the third parties' liability....