DOCUMENT PREPARED ON RECYCLED PAPER 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 -1- CONSENT JUDGMENT RE: AEROCRAFT, CFW, PF AND PRECISION CASTPARTS – CASE NO. BC 651485 LEXINGTON LAW GROUP Mark N. Todzo, State Bar No. 168389 Ryan B. Berghoff, State Bar. No. 308812 503 Divisadero Street San Francisco, CA 94117 Telephone: (415) 913-7800 Facsimile: (415) 759-4112 [email protected][email protected]Attorneys for Plaintiff CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, a non-profit corporation, Plaintiff, v. AEROCRAFT HEAT TREATMENT CO., INC; ANAPLEX CORPORATION; PRECISION CASTPARTS CORP.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, et al., Defendants. Case No. BC 651485 [PROPOSED] CONSENT JUDGMENT RE: AEROCRAFT HEAT TREATMENT CO., CARLTON FORGE WORKS, INC., PRESS FORGE COMPANY AND PRECISION CASTPARTS CORP. Complaint Filed: February 23, 2017 Trial Date: None set Department: 32 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. This Consent Judgment is entered into by Plaintiff Center for Environmental Health, a non-profit corporation (“CEH”), and Aerocraft Heat Treatment Co., Inc. (“Aerocraft”), Carlton Forge Works (“Carlton Forge”), Press Forge Company (“Press Forge”) and Precision Castparts Corp. (“Precision Castparts”) (together “Settling Defendants”) to settle claims asserted
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
DOCUMENT PREPARED ON RECYCLED PAPER
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
-1-
CONSENT JUDGMENT RE: AEROCRAFT, CFW, PF AND PRECISION CASTPARTS – CASE NO. BC 651485
LEXINGTON LAW GROUP Mark N. Todzo, State Bar No. 168389 Ryan B. Berghoff, State Bar. No. 308812 503 Divisadero Street San Francisco, CA 94117 Telephone: (415) 913-7800 Facsimile: (415) 759-4112 [email protected][email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, a non-profit corporation, Plaintiff, v. AEROCRAFT HEAT TREATMENT CO., INC; ANAPLEX CORPORATION; PRECISION CASTPARTS CORP.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, et al., Defendants.
Case No. BC 651485 [PROPOSED] CONSENT JUDGMENT RE: AEROCRAFT HEAT TREATMENT CO., CARLTON FORGE WORKS, INC., PRESS FORGE COMPANY AND PRECISION CASTPARTS CORP. Complaint Filed: February 23, 2017 Trial Date: None set Department: 32
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. This Consent Judgment is entered into by Plaintiff Center for Environmental
Health, a non-profit corporation (“CEH”), and Aerocraft Heat Treatment Co., Inc. (“Aerocraft”),
Carlton Forge Works (“Carlton Forge”), Press Forge Company (“Press Forge”) and Precision
subsidiaries, affiliated entities, and their respective successors and assigns (“Defendant
Releasees”), of all claims alleged in the Complaint in this Action arising from any violation of
Proposition 65 that have been or could have been asserted in the public interest against Settling
Defendants and Defendant Releasees, regarding the failure to warn about exposure to Chromium
emissions from the Facilities prior to the Effective Date.
DOCUMENT PREPARED ON RECYCLED PAPER
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
-15-
CONSENT JUDGMENT RE: AEROCRAFT, CFW, PF AND PRECISION CASTPARTS – CASE NO. BC 651485
7.2. CEH Release on Behalf of Itself. Provided Settling Defendants comply in full
with their obligations under Section 4 hereof, CEH, for itself, releases, waives, and forever
discharges any and all claims alleged in the Complaint against Settling Defendants and Defendant
Releasees arising from any violation of Proposition 65 that have been or could have been asserted
regarding the failure to warn about exposure to Chromium emissions from the Facilities prior to
the Effective Date. In furtherance of the foregoing, as to the alleged exposure to Chromium
emissions from the Facilities prior to the Effective Date, CEH on behalf of itself only, hereby
waives any and all rights and benefits which it now has, or in the future may have, conferred upon
it with respect to claims arising from any violation of Proposition 65 or any other statutory or
common law regarding the failure to warn about alleged exposure to Chromium emissions from
the Facilities by virtue of the provisions of section 1542 of the California Civil Code, which
provides as follows:
A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR.
CEH understands and acknowledges the significance and consequence of this waiver of the
California of Civil Code section 1542 is that even if CEH suffers future damages arising out of or
resulting from, or related directly or indirectly to, in whole or in part, claims arising from any
violation of Proposition 65 or any other statutory or common law regarding the failure to warn
about alleged exposure to Chromium from the Facilities prior to the Effective Date, CEH will not
be able to make any claim for those damages or injunctive relief against the Settling Defendants
or Defendant Releasees. Furthermore, CEH acknowledges that it intends these consequences for
any such claims arising from any violation of Proposition 65 or any other statutory or common
law regarding the failure to warn about exposure to Chromium from the Facilities as may exist as
of the date of this release but which CEH does not know exist, and which, if known, would
DOCUMENT PREPARED ON RECYCLED PAPER
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
-16-
CONSENT JUDGMENT RE: AEROCRAFT, CFW, PF AND PRECISION CASTPARTS – CASE NO. BC 651485
materially affect its decision to enter into this Consent Judgment, regardless of whether its lack of
knowledge is a result of ignorance, oversight, error, negligence or any other cause.
7.3. Provided Settling Defendants comply in full with their obligations under Section 4
hereof, Compliance with the terms of this Consent Judgment by Settling Defendants and the
Defendant Releasees shall constitute compliance with Proposition 65 by Settling Defendants and
Defendant Releasees with respect to any alleged failure to warn about Chromium emissions from
the Facilities from the Effective Date up through the date that monitoring is completed in
accordance with Section 3.1.
8. PROVISION OF NOTICE
8.1. When any Party is entitled to receive any notice under this Consent Judgment, the
notice shall be sent by first class and electronic mail as follows:
8.1.1. Notices to Settling Defendants. The persons for Settling Defendants to
receive notices pursuant to this Consent Judgment shall be:
Melissa A. Jones Stoel Rives LLP 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600 Sacramento, CA 95814 [email protected]
8.1.2. Notices to Plaintiff. The persons for CEH to receive notices pursuant to
this Consent Judgment shall be: Mark Todzo Lexington Law Group 503 Divisadero Street San Francisco, CA 94117 [email protected]
8.2. Any Party may modify the person and address to whom the notice is to be sent by
sending the other Parties notice by first class and electronic mail.
DOCUMENT PREPARED ON RECYCLED PAPER
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
-17-
CONSENT JUDGMENT RE: AEROCRAFT, CFW, PF AND PRECISION CASTPARTS – CASE NO. BC 651485
9. COURT APPROVAL
9.1. This Consent Judgment shall become effective on the Effective Date, provided
however, that CEH shall prepare and file a Motion for Approval of this Consent Judgment and
Settling Defendant shall support approval of such Motion.
9.2. If this Consent Judgment is not entered by the Court, it shall be of no force or
effect and shall not be introduced into evidence or otherwise used in any proceeding for any
purpose.
10. GOVERNING LAW AND CONSTRUCTION
10.1. The terms and obligations arising from this Consent Judgment shall be construed
and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
11. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
11.1. This Consent Judgment contains the sole and entire agreement and understanding
of CEH and Settling Defendant with respect to the entire subject matter hereof, and any and all
prior discussions, negotiations, commitments, or understandings related thereto, if any, are hereby
merged herein and therein.
11.2. There are no warranties, representations, or other agreements between CEH and
Settling Defendants except as expressly set forth herein. No representations, oral or otherwise,
express or implied, other than those specifically referred to in this Consent Judgment have been
made by any Party hereto.
11.3. No other agreements not specifically contained or referenced herein, oral or
otherwise, shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the Parties hereto. Any agreements
specifically contained or referenced herein, oral or otherwise, shall be deemed to exist or to bind
any of the Parties hereto only to the extent that they are expressly incorporated herein.
11.4. No supplementation, modification, waiver, or termination of this Consent
Judgment shall be binding unless executed in writing by the Party to be bound thereby.