Opinion
No. 03 Civ. 5150 (LBS).
March 7, 2005
ORDER AMENDING OPINION AND ORDER
On January 31, 2005, the Court filed an Opinion and Order in the above-captioned case, granting Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Counts I and II and for Dismissal of the Remaining State-Law Claims. That Opinion and Order is amended to reflect the following typographical changes:
(1) On page 20, the first sentence of the final paragraph previously read:
ECI argues, first, that because "one of the essential underlying premises on which cases like Bedford Affiliates were based [was] that all PRPs, including those who had not been subject to a prior 106 or 107(a) action, such as the plaintiff in Bedford Affiliates, can proceed with a contribution action under section 113(f)," Cooper Affiliates "calls into question" decisions like Bedford Affiliates.
That sentence shall now read (change appears in bold print):
ECI argues, first, that because "one of the essential underlying premises on which cases like Bedford Affiliates were based [was] that all PRPs, including those who had not been subject to a prior 106 or 107(a) action, such as the plaintiff in Bedford Affiliates, can proceed with a contribution action under section 113(f)," Cooper Industries "calls into question" decisions like Bedford Affiliates.
(2) The sentence running from the bottom of page 24 to the top of page 25 previously read:
The question of precisely how § 113(f) and § 107(a) were meant to coexist — the question that motivated the holding in Bedford Industries — is still an important and difficult one.
That sentence shall now read (change appears in bold print):
The question of precisely how § 113(f) and § 107(a) were meant to coexist — the question that motivated the holding in Bedford Affiliates — is still an important and difficult one.
(3) On page 25, the sentence running from the 15th to 18th lines previously read:
The Bedford Affiliates bar on § 107(a) actions by PRPs who do not have a § 107(b) affirmative defense, in conjunction with the Cooper Affiliates bar on § 113(f) actions absent a prior suit or settlement, would operate as such a "strong disincentive for nonsettling potentially responsible parties," 156 F.3d at 427.
That sentence shall now read (change appears in bold print):
The Bedford Affiliates bar on § 107(a) actions by PRPs who do not have a § 107(b) affirmative defense, in conjunction with the Cooper Industries bar on § 113(f) actions absent a prior suit or settlement, would operate as such a "strong disincentive for nonsettling potentially responsible parties," 156 F.3d at 427.
SO ORDERED.