U.S. v. NCR CORP., 10-C-910. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Number: infdco20161104h85
Visitors: 8
Filed: Nov. 03, 2016
Latest Update: Nov. 03, 2016
Summary: ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION WILLIAM C. GRIESBACH , Chief District Judge . Defendants P.H. Glatfelter and Georgia-Pacific have filed a motion seeking reconsideration of this court's October 11, 2016 orders approving stipulated resolutions of claims between the United States, Appvion and Kimberly-Clark. The motion asserts that some implications of the stipulations were not fleshed out in the stipulations themselves. For instance, the stipulations do not state how much Appvion's claims again
Summary: ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION WILLIAM C. GRIESBACH , Chief District Judge . Defendants P.H. Glatfelter and Georgia-Pacific have filed a motion seeking reconsideration of this court's October 11, 2016 orders approving stipulated resolutions of claims between the United States, Appvion and Kimberly-Clark. The motion asserts that some implications of the stipulations were not fleshed out in the stipulations themselves. For instance, the stipulations do not state how much Appvion's claims agains..
More
ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION
WILLIAM C. GRIESBACH, Chief District Judge.
Defendants P.H. Glatfelter and Georgia-Pacific have filed a motion seeking reconsideration of this court's October 11, 2016 orders approving stipulated resolutions of claims between the United States, Appvion and Kimberly-Clark. The motion asserts that some implications of the stipulations were not fleshed out in the stipulations themselves. For instance, the stipulations do not state how much Appvion's claims against the remaining Defendants might be reduced by virtue of its settlement. Nor do they specify that one or more other parties might still be able to appeal this court's decision finding Appvion not liable under CERCLA.
Glatfelter and Georgia-Pacific have not cited any principle of law that would require settlements to specify anything other than the agreement reached between the signatory parties. In other words, I am aware of no requirement that a settlement approved by a court must offer quasiadvisory rulings as to the implications, to other parties, of the settlement terms that are reached therein. Even if the concerns raised in the motion to reconsider and the response to the stipulation are valid, that does not mean those concerns must be addressed through the stipulations themselves, which are agreements to which the objecting Defendants are not a party. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
