Pacific Resources Associates LLC v. Suzy Cleaners, 3:20-cv-00234

Pacific Resources Associates LLC owned property at 1680 East Valley Parkway, Escondido, California, alleging it was contaminated with perchloroethylene (PCE) from nearby dry-cleaning businesses operated by multiple parties, including Jeong-Soon Long.
Pacific Resources sued past and present owners/operators of the adjacent 1654 and 1718 properties, alleging that releases from these locations caused and contributed to subsurface contamination.
The Kim Parties (owners of 1654) and the Hortman Parties (owners of 1718) filed cross- and third-party claims seeking contribution and/or indemnity for cleanup costs under CERCLA, California’s HSAA, and common law, including against Ms. Long, who operated the dry cleaner at 1654 from 1999-2001.
Ms. Long entered into a proposed settlement to resolve all claims asserted against her by the Hortman Parties, agreeing to pay $7,500, representing 1% of estimated cleanup costs, subject to court approval.
Ms. Long moved for a determination of good faith settlement under California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 877 and 877.6, seeking bar orders that would preclude future claims for contribution or indemnity related to the claims settled, and also sought contribution protection under CERCLA § 9613(f).
No party filed opposition to the settlement motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the settlement was made in good faith under CA law (CCP §§ 877, 877.6)	Settlement is equitable; minimal liability for Long	Settlement is fair, amount reflects minor role; no opposition	Settlement deemed in good faith; bars all future contribution/indemnity claims
Whether to grant CERCLA contribution protection to Ms. Long	CERCLA permits protection in judicially approved settlements	Ms. Long contributed minimally; settlement is fair and equitable	Court grants contribution bar and protection under CERCLA
Whether non-settling parties lose contribution/indemnity claims against Long	Settlement must meet notice and fairness requirements	Settlement is proper, notices given, no collusion	All parties with notice are bound by the bar order
Appropriateness of $7,500 as settlement sum	Settlement reflects lesser share, consistent with proportional liability and Long’s financial means	Ms. Long had limited and historic involvement; minimal resources	Amount accepted as fair and reasonable given the circumstances

Mason & Dixon Intermodal, Inc. v. Lapmaster Int’l LLC, 632 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2011) (Federal courts apply state substantive law for state law claims under supplemental jurisdiction)
Abbott Ford, Inc. v. Superior Ct., 43 Cal. 3d 858 (Cal. 1987) (Good faith settlements bar contribution claims and reduce claims against remaining defendants)
Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assocs., 38 Cal. 3d 488 (Cal. 1985) (Factors for assessing good faith of settlements)
City of Emeryville v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2010) (Contribution bar orders should only bind parties with notice and as expressly contemplated)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States, 556 U.S. 599 (2009) (CERCLA imposes strict liability on PRPs)
AmeriPride Servs., Inc. v. Tex. E. Overseas Inc., 782 F.3d 474 (9th Cir. 2015) (Courts have discretion to allocate costs and afford contribution protection between private parties under CERCLA)