Legal Opinion

United States v. Montrose Chemical Corp. of California

District Court, C.D. California

Decided May 19, 1992No. CV 90-3122-AAHPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE

HAUK, Senior District Judge.

In this action Plaintiffs United States and the State of California have filed a Motion for entry of a consent decree entered into by Plaintiffs and PCBs Defendants Potlatch Corporation (“Potlatch”) and Simpson Paper Company (“Simpson”). 1 Pursuant to the decree, Potlatch and Simpson are jointly and severally obligated to pay $12 Million to Plaintiffs over the next 4 years in three equal payments of $4 million — the first payment to be distributed within ten days after entry of the decree. In exchange, the settling…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States v. Rohm & Haas Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1989
  2. United States v. Seymour Recycling Corp.District Court, S.D. Indiana · 1982
  3. United States v. State Of OregonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. United States v. Montrose Chemical Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
  2. United States v. Atlas Minerals and Chemicals, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1994
  3. United States v. Montrose Chemical Corp. of CaliforniaDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1993
  4. Nos. 93-55824, 93-55876Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API