Case 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS Document 228 Filed 08/27/20 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #:7928
`
`Rachel E. Morowitz SBN (326385)
`rmorowitz@kellerrohrback.com
`Amy Williams-Derry
`(pro hac vice forthcoming)
`awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
`Daniel P. Mensher
`(pro hac vice forthcoming)
`dmensher@kellerrohrback.com
`KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
`Seattle, WA 98101-3052
`(206) 623-1900, Fax (206) 623-3384
`
`Matthew J. Preusch SBN (298144)
`mpresuch@kellerrohrback.com
`KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
`801 Garden Street, Suite 301
`Santa Barbara, CA 93101-1598
`(805) 456-1496, Fax (805) 456-1497
`
`Attorneys for Initial Settlement Class Member
`City of Seattle
`
`Additional Counsel Listed on Last Page
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`WESTERN DIVISION
`CITY OF LONG BEACH a municipal
`No. 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS
`corporation; et al.,
`INITIAL SETTLEMENT CLASS
`MEMBER CITY OF SEATTLE’S
`OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR
`PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`REGARDING RELEASE AND
`CONTRIBUTION
`
`v.
`MONSANTO COMPANY SOLUTIA
`INC., et al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendants.
`
`September 17, 2020
`Date:
`10:00 am
`Time:
`Judge: Fernando M. Olguin
`Crtrm: 6D
`
`1
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS Document 228 Filed 08/27/20 Page 2 of 18 Page ID #:7929
`
`Action Filed: May 19, 2016
`Trial Date:
`May 11, 2021
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
`
`I.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`The City of Seattle (the “City”) asks the Court to deny preliminary approval of the
`
`proposed Settlement or to amend the settlement language. The definition of Released
`
`Claims in paragraph 41 of the proposed Settlement, in combination with the contribution
`
`protection provision in paragraph 106, impairs the City of Seattle’s rights and the rights
`
`of untold numbers of other persons. The Settlement should be amended before notice
`
`goes to class members to allow class members to evaluate their options in light of the
`
`amended language. If the Court grants oral argument on the Motion for Preliminary
`
`Approval, then the City asks for oral argument on its objection.
`
`II.
`
`PRE-FILING CONFERENCE1
`
`Counsel for the City of Seattle contacted Class Counsel, Scott Summy, to discuss
`
`the City’s concerns. Mr. Summy indicated that the plaintiffs would not consider
`
`amending the problematic provisions. The City’s counsel attempted to reach counsel for
`
`Monsanto by phone and, when that was unsuccessful, exchanged letters with counsel for
`
`1 The City is unsure whether a pre-filing conference was required given that the City is
`objecting to a pending motion, not bringing a new motion. The City nonetheless did its
`best to confer with counsel for the parties prior to this filing.
`2
`
`CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS
`INITIAL SETTLEMENT CLASS
`MEMBER CITY OF SEATTLE
`OBJECTION TO MOTION
`FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS Document 228 Filed 08/27/20 Page 3 of 18 Page ID #:7930
`
`Monsanto regarding the provisions. The City asked for clarification that the contribution
`
`protection provision would not bar the City’s current or future claims. Counsel for
`
`Monsanto replied, “[Y]ou request a legal opinion as to the potential application of
`
`contribution protection language in Paragraph 106 of the Settlement Agreement to claims
`
`the City of Seattle asserts or might assert in the future. We cannot offer legal opinions as
`
`to the application of fact and law.” Wishik Dec., Attachment A. Before filing this
`
`objection, the City reached counsel for Monsanto by phone but was unable to resolve the
`
`issues before the deadline for filing this objection. The City had no option left but to
`
`petition the Court for relief. Wishik Dec., ¶¶ 13 - 14.
`
`III.
`
`FACTS
`
`The City of Seattle sued Monsanto in 2016.2 The City’s primary claim is that
`
`Monsanto created a public nuisance in the City’s drainage system and the receiving water
`
`body, the Lower Duwamish Waterway, by producing and marketing PCBs for products
`
`such as exterior paint and caulk that release PCBs during normal use. Wishik Dec., ¶ 2.
`
`As a result, people who rely on fishing and collecting shellfish from the Lower
`
`Duwamish for food, including immigrants and low-income persons, have been warned
`
`not to eat any resident seafood from the Lower Duwamish due to PCBs. Id., ¶ 3.
`
`2 City of Seattle v. Monsanto Company, et al., 2:16-CV-00107-RSL (WD WA).
`3
`
`CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS
`INITIAL SETTLEMENT CLASS
`MEMBER CITY OF SEATTLE
`OBJECTION TO MOTION
`FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS Document 228 Filed 08/27/20 Page 4 of 18 Page ID #:7931
`
`Although the Plaintiffs and Defendants argue that the amount of the proposed Settlement
`
`is adequate, in part, because PCBs are not the only contaminant in receiving water
`
`bodies, in Seattle, PCBs are the sole chemical that makes resident seafood inedible.
`
`PCBs are also the only chemical that EPA has identified as being a site-wide contaminant
`
`that requires reduction to a site-wide average concentration. For these and other reasons,
`
`PCBs are “the driver” of remediation in the City’s Lower Duwamish Waterway. Id., ¶ 5.
`
`The City already has incurred millions of dollars to abate the nuisance created by
`
`Monsanto’s PCBs. The City’s trial experts are continuing to calculate future costs to
`
`abate the nuisance, but it appears those costs will be more than $600 million. Id., ¶ 4.
`
`The City considers the proposed Settlement to be a gift to Monsanto and its new
`
`parent company, Bayer. The Settlement would allow them to close the books on
`
`enormous liability arising from Monsanto’s production and sale of PCBs. The proposed
`
`settlement, in the City’s view, is a Trojan Horse for many of the class members,
`
`providing them a pittance to monitor their stormwater for PCBs and blocking them from
`
`getting funds they will need if PCBs are found.
`
`The City was in the group of Litigating Entities until it became apparent that
`
`Monsanto would not settle for an amount of money commensurate with its liability.
`
`Indeed, the total amount of the proposed class settlement is less than Monsanto’s
`
`exposure in just the City’s case. The City plans to opt out of the class and continue with
`4
`
`CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS
`INITIAL SETTLEMENT CLASS
`MEMBER CITY OF SEATTLE
`OBJECTION TO MOTION
`FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS Document 228 Filed 08/27/20 Page 5 of 18 Page ID #:7932
`
`its separate action against Monsanto. Once the City opts out, the City will not be able to
`
`object to the Settlement, even though the Settlement as it stands potentially impairs the
`
`City’s rights. This is the only opportunity for the City to get relief.
`
`In addition to the City’s lawsuit against Monsanto, the City is currently
`
`participating in an alternative dispute resolution process with multiple parties to resolve
`
`their respective liability under CERCLA3 and the equivalent Washington statute, the
`
`Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA),4 for contamination in the Lower Duwamish
`
`Waterway. That process is known as the Duwamish Allocation. Id., ¶ 9. Two members of
`
`the proposed class action, King County and the Port of Seattle, are participating in the
`
`Duwamish Allocation. One of the Monsanto defendants, Pharmacia, is also participating.
`
`Pharmacia is participating due to its former ownership of a plant adjacent to the Lower
`
`Duwamish that allegedly released PCBs in the course of manufacturing other products.
`
`Id., ¶ 10. The Duwamish Allocation has been ongoing since 2014 and is expected to be
`
`completed in 2021. Id., ¶ 11.
`
`The City of Seattle, King County and the Port of Seattle signed an EPA
`
`Administrative Order in 2000 to investigate contamination in the Lower Duwamish.
`
`3 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 USC. §
`9601, et seq.
`4 RCW 70.105D.010, et seq.
`
`5
`
`CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS
`INITIAL SETTLEMENT CLASS
`MEMBER CITY OF SEATTLE
`OBJECTION TO MOTION
`FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS Document 228 Filed 08/27/20 Page 6 of 18 Page ID #:7933
`
`They have been incurring millions of dollars in costs to implement the order over the past
`
`twenty years. Id., ¶ 6.
`
`The City expects to sign a Consent Decree implementing EPA’s selected remedy
`
`for the Lower Duwamish. In 2016, EPA estimated the cost of its selected remedy would
`
`be $342 million dollars. By the time construction begins, the cost is expected to be
`
`around $500 million. Id., ¶ 8.
`
`The City, King County and the Port of Seattle are seeking to recover a portion of
`
`their past and future costs for investigating and remediating contamination in the Lower
`
`Duwamish from each other and from the other parties in the Duwamish Allocation,
`
`including Pharmacia. Id., ¶ 9. Thus, as explained further below, if either King County or
`
`the Port of Seattle remain in the class action, the Settlement’s contribution protection
`
`provision may serve to bar the City from recovering a portion of its past and future costs,
`
`even if the City opts out of the proposed Settlement.
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A. The contribution protection provision makes the Settlement unfair and
`unreasonable.
`
`The Plaintiffs and Defendants are asking the Court to rule that the proposed
`
`Settlement is fair and reasonable, as Civil Rule 23(e)(2) requires. The contribution
`
`protection provision in paragraph 106, in combination with the overbroad definition of
`
`6
`
`CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS
`INITIAL SETTLEMENT CLASS
`MEMBER CITY OF SEATTLE
`OBJECTION TO MOTION
`FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS Document 228 Filed 08/27/20 Page 7 of 18 Page ID #:7934
`
`Released Claims in paragraph 41, make the proposed Settlement unfair and unreasonable.
`
`The contribution protection provision states:
`
`Additionally, Defendant is entitled to protection from contribution and/or
`indemnity claims or actions asserted against Defendant by any person or
`persons who are not parties to this Settlement Agreement for all
`Released Claims and all matters alleged in the Action or the Underlying
`Actions.
`
`DKT # 213-2, Exhibit A (proposed Settlement Agreement), p.28, paragraph 106
`
`(emphasis added). This provision must be read in conjunction with the definition of
`
`Released Claims:
`
`“Released Claims” means all claims, demands, rights, damages, obligations,
`suits, debts, liens, contracts, agreements, and causes of action of every
`nature and description whatsoever, ascertained or unascertained, suspected
`or unsuspected, existing now or arising in the future, whether known or
`unknown, both at law and in equity which were or could have been alleged
`related to the manufacture, sale, testing, disposal, release, marketing, or
`management of PCBs, including but not limited to any claims based upon or
`related in any way to the subjects of the Action, the Underlying Actions, or
`this Settlement Agreement or any component parts thereof, and regardless of
`the legal theory or type or nature of damages claimed . . .
`
`Id., at p. 11, paragraph 41. As this Court noted in its order denying Preliminary Approval
`
`of the Settlement without prejudice, “With respect to absent class members, the court is
`
`not inclined to approve broad releases and waivers pursuant to California Civil Code §
`
`1542.” Dkt. # 202 (Order Denying Preliminary Approval), p. 4, para. I. California Civil
`
`Code § 1542 embodies the public policy that it is unjust to bar claims by parties that may
`7
`
`CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS
`INITIAL SETTLEMENT CLASS
`MEMBER CITY OF SEATTLE
`OBJECTION TO MOTION
`FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS Document 228 Filed 08/27/20 Page 8 of 18 Page ID #:7935
`
`not have known or realized the scope of what was being released. It would be even more
`
`unjust to bar claims by non-parties based on an extremely broad release.
`
`The Ninth Circuit has ruled that a class action settlement may only bar a class
`
`member from asserting a later claim when the later claim is based on the “identical
`
`factual predicate as that underlying claims in the settled class action.” Hesse v. Sprint
`
`Corp., 598 F.3d 581, 590 (9th Cir. 2010). The definition of Released Claims in the
`
`proposed Settlement goes far beyond the factual predicate for the underlying lawsuit.
`
`The factual predicate for the underlying lawsuit is:
`
`(1) Monsanto manufactured, distributed, marketed, and promoted PCBs in a
`manner that created or participated in creating a public nuisance that is
`harmful to health and obstructs the free use of stormwater and/or dry-
`weather runoff systems and impaired waterbodies.
`
`Dkt #189-2 (Class Complaint), at p. 32, paragraph 104.
`
`and (2) Monsanto knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have
`known that the manufacture and sale of PCBs was causing the type of
`contamination now found in stormwater and/or dry-weather runoff systems
`and impaired waterbodies.
`
`Id., at p. 32, paragraph 115. Together, these two predicates are much narrower than any
`
`claim “related to the manufacture, sale, testing, disposal, release, marketing, or
`
`management of PCBs,” as stated in the definition of Released Claims. Thus, under Ninth
`
`Circuit precedent, even a class member would not be barred from bringing claims against
`
`8
`
`CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS
`INITIAL SETTLEMENT CLASS
`MEMBER CITY OF SEATTLE
`OBJECTION TO MOTION
`FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS Document 228 Filed 08/27/20 Page 9 of 18 Page ID #:7936
`
`Monsanto in a wide variety of situations. If an overbroad release cannot bar later claims
`
`by class members, it also should not bar claims by persons that are not class members.
`
`The contribution protection provision attempts to bar contribution claims by
`
`anyone in the world for anything related to Monsanto’s PCBs. As long as the
`
`contribution protection provision remains in the Settlement, the proposed Settlement is
`
`unfair and unreasonable.
`
`B. The Contribution Protection provision may impair the City’s recovery of past and
`future costs to investigate and remediate contamination in the Lower Duwamish
`Waterway.
`
`It is impossible for the City of Seattle or anyone else to determine all the situations
`
`in which the contribution protection provision would apply, but it is likely to apply in the
`
`context of claims under CERCLA and similar state statutes regarding contaminated sites.
`
`The definition of Released Claims in the proposed Settlement purports to preserve claims
`
`under CERCLA and equivalent state statutes, but it does not. The definition states:
`
`nothing in this Settlement Agreement will preclude or affect any action
`brought by governmental entities seeking response costs, penalties, or other
`remedies, under the Comprehensive Response, Compensation and Liability
`Act (“CERCLA”) or similar state Superfund statutes and applicable
`regulations, or under any other laws or regulations, related to Defendant’s or
`a Released Person’s discharge or disposal of PCBs.
`
`9
`
`CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS
`INITIAL SETTLEMENT CLASS
`MEMBER CITY OF SEATTLE
`OBJECTION TO MOTION
`FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS Document 228 Filed 08/27/20 Page 10 of 18 Page ID #:7937
`
`DKT #213-2, Exhibit A (Settlement Agreement), at pg. 11, para. 42 (emphasis added).
`
`CERCLA imposes liability for the “release or threatened release” of hazardous
`
`substances. 42 U.S.C. § 9601 (23), (24).
`
`The term “release” means any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting,
`emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing
`into the environment (including the abandonment or discarding of barrels,
`containers, and other closed receptacles containing any hazardous substance
`or pollutant or contaminant).
`
`42 USC 9601(22). The definition includes “discharging” or “disposing” as two modes of
`
`releases, but there are many more.
`
`The proposed Settlement expressly releases claims “related to the manufacture,
`
`sale, testing, disposal, release, marketing, or management of PCBs.” DKT #213-2,
`
`Exhibit A (Settlement Agreement), at pg. 11, para. 42 (emphasis added). It only excludes
`
`CERCLA claims related to “discharge or disposal” of PCBs. Thus, the proposed
`
`contribution protection language would bar contribution claims based on a release of
`
`PCBs that was not a “discharge or disposal.”
`
`It is overreaching for the definition of Released Claims to include any claims under
`
`CERCLA or similar state statutes. The Class Complaint does not assert such claims. To
`
`the City’s knowledge, none of the Litigating Entities asserted claims under CERCLA or
`
`similar state statutes against Monsanto. The reason is simple: CERCLA and similar state
`
`statutes impose liability on entities that own or operate sites where contaminants are
`10
`
`CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS
`INITIAL SETTLEMENT CLASS
`MEMBER CITY OF SEATTLE
`OBJECTION TO MOTION
`FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS Document 228 Filed 08/27/20 Page 11 of 18 Page ID #:7938
`
`released, or that arrange for disposal of contaminants that have been or may be released,
`
`or that transport such contaminants. 42 U.S.C. § 9607. None of those situations fit the
`
`factual predicate of the Class Complaint. Monsanto does not own or operate the
`
`buildings where PCB-containing paint or caulk is flaking off. Disposal and transport are
`
`not involved. Settlement of the Class Complaint does not need to include a release of any
`
`claims under CERCLA or similar state statutes and releasing those claims, in
`
`combination with the contribution protection provision, is overbroad and therefore unjust
`
`to non-parties.
`
`C. The Contribution Protection provision may impair the City’s recovery in the
`Duwamish Allocation.
`
`If King County or the Port of Seattle remain in the proposed class, then the
`
`contribution protection provision will greatly complicate the Duwamish Allocation just as
`
`it is nearing completion after five years. The broad definition of Released Claims would
`
`include any claims under CERCLA by King County or the Port of Seattle that were due
`
`to releases by Pharmacia that were not “discharges or disposal,” such as leaking, escaping
`
`and leaching.5 Therefore the contribution protection language may bar contribution
`
`5 The Duwamish Allocation is a confidential process and all communications are
`protected by the Mediation Privilege, therefore the City cannot provide this Court with
`specifics on the claims against Pharmacia.
`11
`
`CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS
`INITIAL SETTLEMENT CLASS
`MEMBER CITY OF SEATTLE
`OBJECTION TO MOTION
`FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS Document 228 Filed 08/27/20 Page 12 of 18 Page ID #:7939
`
`claims against Pharmacia by the City or any of the other parties participating in the
`
`Duwamish Allocation.
`
`For example, hypothetically, if the Port has incurred $20 million so far to
`
`implement EPA’s Administrative Order, the Duwamish Allocator will determine how
`
`much of those costs should be reimbursed by each of the participating parties, including
`
`the City of Seattle and Pharmacia. Due to the proposed class Settlement, the Allocator
`
`will first have to decide whether Pharmacia’s liability is due to a “discharge or disposal”
`
`of PCBs or to a different type of release. If the Allocator concludes that Pharmacia’s
`
`liability is not due to a “discharge or disposal,” then the Port’s claim against Pharmacia
`
`would have been released in the class Settlement. Then the contribution protection
`
`provision in the proposed Settlement may bar contribution claims by the City and other
`
`parties against Pharmacia.
`
`The Duwamish Allocation would also be jeopardized if the Allocator determined
`
`that Pharmacia’s liability was due to a “discharge or disposal” and, therefore, the Port’s
`
`claim against Pharmacia had not been released. CERCLA bars double recoveries and the
`
`collateral source rule does not apply in the CERCLA context. 42 U.S.C. § 9614(b);
`
`United Alloys, Inc. v. Baker, 2011 WL 2749641, *25-26 (C.D. CA) (2011). Therefore,
`
`the Port should not be able to recover the same past and future costs for the Lower
`
`12
`
`CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS
`INITIAL SETTLEMENT CLASS
`MEMBER CITY OF SEATTLE
`OBJECTION TO MOTION
`FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS Document 228 Filed 08/27/20 Page 13 of 18 Page ID #:7940
`
`Duwamish in both the class Settlement and the Duwamish Allocation. However, the
`
`Duwamish Allocation is scheduled to be completed first.
`
`The success of the Duwamish Allocation depends on most of the parties resolving
`
`their respective liability for past and future costs. The parties will not agree to pay the
`
`Port millions of dollars for past costs and to commit to paying tens of millions in future
`
`costs when they do not know how much of the Port’s costs will be compensated in the
`
`class Settlement. This problem would be doubled if King County also remains in the
`
`proposed class. The Port and King County are two of the parties in the Duwamish
`
`Allocation with the largest monetary claims. If their claims are not resolved, the
`
`Duwamish Allocation cannot succeed.
`
`Someone might suggest that completion of the Duwamish Allocation be paused
`
`pending completion of the class Settlement. That is not possible. EPA intends to initiate
`
`negotiations for a Consent Decree governing remediation of the Lower Duwamish, with a
`
`$500 million price tag, in the near future. Wishik Dec., ¶ 8. Completion of the
`
`Duwamish Allocation prior to the start of those negotiations is essential in order for
`
`parties to be ready to commit to signing the Consent Decree or paying to “cash out” while
`
`others implement the remedy.
`
`The Lower Duwamish is just one contaminated site where this could happen. The
`
`City, King County and the Port of Seattle are also paying to address contamination in a
`13
`
`CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS
`INITIAL SETTLEMENT CLASS
`MEMBER CITY OF SEATTLE
`OBJECTION TO MOTION
`FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS Document 228 Filed 08/27/20 Page 14 of 18 Page ID #:7941
`
`CERCLA site downstream of the Lower Duwamish, called the East Waterway. The
`
`proposed Settlement includes the East Waterway as one of the Sediment Sites that will be
`
`addressed. DKT #213-2, Exhibit A (proposed Settlement), at p. 19, paragraph (b)
`
`(Qualifying Sediment Sites). Pharmacia may be a Potentially Responsible Party for the
`
`East Waterway due to releases of contaminants from its manufacturing plant that moved
`
`downstream. Thus, the same complexities and injustice could arise when the PRPs for
`
`the East Waterway try to resolve their respective liability.
`
`D. The injustice created by the overbroad release and the contribution protection
`provision can be easily addressed.
`
`The simplest way to address the injustice of the contribution protection provision
`
`would be to strike it entirely or for the Court to deny preliminary approval of the
`
`Settlement until the parties remove it. Monsanto may still be able to argue that it is
`
`entitled to contribution protection in a specific case but would not have a blanket
`
`imprimatur from this Court.
`
`The definition of Released Claims also should be amended to preserve all claims
`
`under CERCLA or equivalent state statutes, as follows:
`
`nothing in this Settlement Agreement will preclude or affect any action
`brought by governmental entities seeking response costs, penalties, or other
`remedies, under the Comprehensive Response, Compensation and Liability
`Act (“CERCLA”) or similar state Superfund statutes and applicable
`regulations, or under any other laws or regulations, related to Defendant’s or
`a Released Person’s discharge or disposal of PCBs.
`14
`
`CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS
`INITIAL SETTLEMENT CLASS
`MEMBER CITY OF SEATTLE
`OBJECTION TO MOTION
`FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS Document 228 Filed 08/27/20 Page 15 of 18 Page ID #:7942
`
`The wording “brought by governmental entities seeking response costs, penalties, or
`
`other remedies” should be stricken because it is unclear whether that wording only
`
`preserves claims brought to recover costs under CERCLA section 107 and not claims for
`
`contribution under CERCLA section 113.6 Since the Class Complaint does not include
`
`claims under CERCLA or similar state statutes, it is unnecessary for either type of claim
`
`to be covered by Released Claims.
`
`Striking the contribution protection provision and amending the definition of
`
`Released Claims would address the injustice created by the combination of those
`
`provisions. It also would avoid unnecessarily complicating and jeopardizing the ongoing
`
`Duwamish Allocation.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`The City of Seattle respectfully asks the Court to deny Preliminary Approval of the
`
`proposed Settlement or to amend the settlement language to eliminate the injustice
`
`created by the combination of the overbroad definitions of Released Claims and the
`
`contribution protection provision.
`
`A proposed order is submitted herewith.
`
`6 See 42 U.S.C. § 9607; § 9613(f).
`
`15
`
`CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS
`INITIAL SETTLEMENT CLASS
`MEMBER CITY OF SEATTLE
`OBJECTION TO MOTION
`FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS Document 228 Filed 08/27/20 Page 16 of 18 Page ID #:7943
`
`DATED this 27th day of August, 2020.
`
`KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
`
`By s/ Rachel E. Morowitz
`Rachel Morowitz (SBN 326385)
`rmorowitz@kellerrohrback.com
`Amy Williams-Derry
`(pro hac vice forthcoming)
`awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
`Daniel P. Mensher
`(pro hac vice forthcoming)
`dmensher@kellerrohrback.com
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
`Seattle, WA 98101-3052
`(206) 623-1900, Fax (206) 623-3384
`
`KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
`
`By s/ Matthew J. Presuch
`Matthew J. Preusch SBN (298144)
`mpresuch@kellerrohrback.com
`801 Garden Street, Suite 301
`Santa Barbara, CA 93101-1598
`(805) 456-1496, Fax (805) 456-1497
`
`PETER S. HOLMES
`Seattle City Attorney
`
`By: s/Laura B. Wishik
`Peter S. Holmes, WSBA # 15787
`Laura B. Wishik, WSBA #16682
`(pro hac vice pending)
`Laura.Wishik@seattle.gov
`SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2050
`
`CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS
`INITIAL SETTLEMENT CLASS
`MEMBER CITY OF SEATTLE
`OBJECTION TO MOTION
`FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`16
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS Document 228 Filed 08/27/20 Page 17 of 18 Page ID #:7944
`
`Seattle, WA 98104-7097
`(206) 684-8200
`
`Attorneys for Initial Settlement
`Class Member City of Seattle
`
`17
`
`CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS
`INITIAL SETTLEMENT CLASS
`MEMBER CITY OF SEATTLE
`OBJECTION TO MOTION
`FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS Document 228 Filed 08/27/20 Page 18 of 18 Page ID #:7945
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that on 27th day of August, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with
`
`the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notice of such filing to
`
`all known counsel of record.
`
`By: s/ Rachel E. Morowitz
`Rachel Morowitz
`
`4820-1580-0521, v. 1
`
`18
`
`CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS
`INITIAL SETTLEMENT CLASS
`MEMBER CITY OF SEATTLE
`OBJECTION TO MOTION
`FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`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
`
`