The opinion
Case 2:91-cv-00589-CJC Document 729 Filed 04/04/22 Page 1 of 20 Page ID #:10376
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et CV 91-cv-00589-CJC
al.,
PARTIAL CONSENT DECREE
Plaintiffs, BETWEEN PLAINTIFF STATE
OF CALIFORNIA AND OIL
v. COMPANY DEFENDANTS
Date: No Hearing
SHELL OIL COMPANY, et al., Requested Time:
Courtroom: 9B, Ronald Regan
Defendants.
Federal Building and
United States Courthouse
Judge: The Honorable Cormac
J. Carney
Trial Date:
Action Filed:
1
Case 2:91-cv-00589-CJC Document 729 Filed 04/04/22 Page 2 of 20 Page ID #:10377
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The government plaintiffs in this action, the United States of America
(“United States”), on behalf of the Administrator of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, and the State of California, ex rel., California
Department of Health Services, Hazardous Substance Account, and Hazardous
Substance Cleanup Fund (“State”), filed a Complaint in this matter pursuant to
Sections 107 and 113(g)(2) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9607 and 9613(g)(2), as
amended (“CERCLA”), on February 1, 1991.
2. The Complaint seeks, among other relief, reimbursement of response
costs incurred, and a declaration of liability for response costs to be incurred by the
United States and State for response actions in connection with the release or
threatened release of hazardous substances at the McColl Superfund Site in
Fullerton, Orange County, California (“Site”).
3. The release or threatened release of hazardous substances at or from the
Site has caused the United States and the State to incur response costs as defined by
Section 101(25) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601(25).
4. On September 28, 1993, this Court granted the United States’ and State’s
Motion for Summary Judgment and thereby held Shell Oil Company, Union Oil
Company of California, Atlantic Richfield Company, and Texaco, Inc. (“Oil
Company Defendants”) liable under section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C
§ 9607(a). The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed this
judgment on June 28, 2002 (Docket #505).
5. On December 12, 1994, the Court entered a consent decree entitled
“Partial Consent Decree Among Plaintiffs and Oil Company Defendants Regarding
Certain Cost Claims and Order” (“1994 Consent Decree”) (Docket #270). Pursuant
to the 1994 Consent Decree, the Oil Company Defendants paid $4,752,000.00 to
resolve State’s claim for Past State Response Costs (as defined in Section IV
2
Case 2:91-cv-00589-CJC Document 729 Filed 04/04/22 Page 3 of 20 Page ID #:10378
herein) as well as $13,248,000.00 to resolve the United States’ claim, as co-
plaintiff, for certain past response costs incurred by the governments at the Site,
which generally consisted of costs incurred by the United States and the State
during the 1980s and a portion of 1990. In Section VII of the 1994 Consent
Decree, the parties to the decree acknowledged that the Court’s September 28,
1993, judgment and order, described above in Section I, Paragraph 4 constitutes a
declaratory judgment pursuant to Section 113(g)(2) of CERCLA in favor of the
United States and the State against the Oil Company Defendants for “Ongoing
Response Costs,” as defined in the 1994 Consent Decree. In the 1994 Consent
Decree, the parties further acknowledge the rights of the United States and the State
to seek to recover these Ongoing Response Costs in this case and the rights of the
Oil Company Defendants to challenge such costs.
6. On September 18, 1995, this Court adjudged the United States, in its
capacity as a counterclaim defendant, to be a liable party at the Site pursuant to
Section 107(a)(3) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(3) (Docket #379). On June 28,
2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed this
judgment with respect to the wastes resulting from the production of benzol in
United States v. Shell Oil Company, et al., 294 F.3d 1045, 1059-1061 (9th Cir.
2002). Two petitions for certiorari filed by the Oil Company Defendants were
denied by the Supreme Court of the United States on January 13, 2003.
7. The Oil Company Defendants and the United States subsequently
stipulated that the United States was liable for a 6.25% share of costs at the McColl
Site based on the United States’ responsibility for benzol wastes at the Site. Joint
Req. for Status Conf., at 1-2, n.1 (Aug. 13, 2003) (Docket #507). On October 29,
2003, this Court denied the request of the Oil Company Defendants to conduct
further allocation proceedings regarding the non-benzol wastes at the Site and
associated response costs. Mins. for Status Conf. (Oct. 27, 2003) (Docket #510).
Pursuant to the stipulation between the United States and the Oil Company
3
Case 2:91-cv-00589-CJC Document 729 Filed 04/04/22 Page 4 of 20 Page ID #:10379
Defendants as to benzol wastes, the Oil Company Defendants are responsible for
93.75% of the State’s CERCLA response costs.
8. In addition to the Past Response Costs, the State incurred and paid
substantial additional costs in connection with the McColl Site. These costs are the
State’s “Ongoing Response Costs,” as defined by the 1994 Consent Decree and
include all of the State’s costs, including but not limited to direct and indirect costs,
incurred in connection with Site that were paid after the dates set forth in the
definition of “State’s Past Response Costs,” in Section IV of this Partial Consent
Decree.
9. A subset of the State’s “Ongoing Response Costs” are those costs defined
in Section IV of this Partial Consent Decree as the “State’s Current Response
Costs.” The total amount of costs claimed by the State as State’s Current Response
Costs is $8,855,179.36. These State-incurred costs constitute a subset of the
“Ongoing Response Costs” defined in the 1994 Consent Decree and do not include
any response costs incurred by the State in connection with the Site after September
30, 2019 or interest that has accrued after December 31, 2019. The State Response
Costs for the Period of October 1990 through September 30, 2019 include
$4,286,682.66 in response costs, including labor, indirect labor costs, contractor
costs, and travel costs. Interest (as defined in Section IV herein) on these costs
through December 31, 2019 amounts to $4,568,496.70.
10. The State and the Oil Company Defendants agree that pursuant to
CERCLA and prior proceedings in this case, the State is entitled to recover from the
Oil Company Defendants the portion of the State’s Current Response Costs that
constitutes the Oil Company Defendants’ allocable share of such costs incurred by
the State in connection with the release or threatened release of hazardous
substances at the Site, and this Consent Decree resolves the Oil Company
Defendants’ liability for costs through the date of lodging of this Consent Decree.
After conducting negotiations, the State and the Oil Company Defendants agree to
4
Case 2:91-cv-00589-CJC Document 729 Filed 04/04/22 Page 5 of 20 Page ID #:10380
compromise and resolve the Oil Company Defendants’ allocable share of liability
under CERCLA for their collective share of the State’s Current Response Costs
incurred in relation to the Site with a settlement payment to the State in the amount
of $8,100,000.00.
11. The State and the Oil Company Defendants agree, and this Court finds by
approving and entering this Partial Consent Decree, that settlement of this portion
of this case between the State and the Oil Company Defendants will avoid further
prolonged and complicated litigation and that this Partial Consent Decree is fair,
reasonable, and in the public interest.
THEREFORE, with the consent of the Parties to this Partial Consent Decree, it
is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:
II. JURISDICTION
12. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the matters alleged in this
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and CERCLA section 113(b), 42 U.S.C. §
9613(b), and the Court has personal jurisdiction over the Oil Company Defendants.
13. Venue is appropriate in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and
CERCLA section 113(b), 42 U.S.C. § 9613(b), because the claims asserted in the
Complaint and the release and/or threatened release of hazardous substances
occurred in this judicial district.
14. Oil Company Defendants waive all objections and defenses they may
have to the jurisdiction of the Court or to venue in this district in the
above-captioned action. The Oil Company Defendants agree not to challenge this
Court’s jurisdiction to enter and enforce this Partial Consent Decree.
15. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter for the purpose of
interpreting and enforcing the terms of this Partial Consent Decree, if necessary,
and for resolving any disputes concerning the State’s Ongoing Response Costs not
addressed by this or the prior partial consent decrees in this matter.
5
Case 2:91-cv-00589-CJC Document 729 Filed 04/04/22 Page 6 of 20 Page ID #:10381
III. PARTIES BOUND
16. This Partial Consent Decree is binding on the State and the Oil Company
Defendants, and upon their successors and assigns. Any change in ownership or
corporate or other legal status, including but not limited to any transfer of assets or
real or personal property, shall in no way alter the status or responsibilities of the
State or the Oil Company Defendants under this Partial Consent Decree. The Oil
Companies Parties shall not contest the validity of this Partial Consent Decree, or
any of the terms therein, in any action to enforce it.
IV. DEFINITIONS
17. Unless otherwise expressly provided herein, terms used in this Partial
Consent Decree that are defined in CERCLA or in regulations promulgated under
CERCLA shall have the meaning assigned to them in CERCLA or in such
regulations. The terms listed below shall have the meaning and definition provided
in by this paragraph:
a. “CERCLA” shall mean the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 9601
et seq.
b. “Partial Consent Decree” shall mean this November 2021 partial
consent decree.
c. “Day” shall mean a calendar day. In computing any period of time
under this Partial Consent Decree, when the last day would fall on a Saturday,
Sunday, or federal or California state holiday, the period shall run until the close of
business of the next working day.
d. “DTSC” shall mean, collectively the State of California Department
of Toxic Substances Control and the Toxic Substances Account, and their
predecessors and successors. DTSC is a public health agency of the State of
California organized and existing under and pursuant to California Health and
Safety Code § 58000, et seq. Under California law, DTSC is the state agency
6
Case 2:91-cv-00589-CJC Document 729 Filed 04/04/22 Page 7 of 20 Page ID #:10382
responsible for determining whether there has been a release and/or threatened
release of hazardous substances to the environment and for determining the actions
to be taken in response thereto. The Toxic Substances Control Account is an
account within the State of California General Fund. Under California Health and
Safety Code section 25361(a), the account shall be a party in action for recovery of
response costs or expenditures incurred from the account under Chapter 6.8 of
Division 20 of the California Health and Safety Code.
e. “Effective Date” shall mean the date of entry of this Partial Consent
Decree by this Court.
f. “Interest,” in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), shall mean the
interest at the rate specified for interest on investments of the Hazardous Substance
Superfund established under subchapter A of chapter 98 of Title 26 of the U.S.
Code, compounded annually.
g. “Oil Company Defendants” shall mean Shell Oil Company, Union
Oil Company of California, Atlantic Richfield Company, and Texaco, Inc. and each
of their successors and assigns.
h. “Paragraph” shall mean a portion of this Partial Consent Decree
identified by an Arabic numeral.
i. “Parties to this Partial Consent Decree” shall mean the State and the
Oil Company Defendants.
j. “Past State Response Costs” shall mean all costs, including but not
limited to direct and indirect costs that the State has incurred in connection with the
Site and paid as follows: (1) California Department of Health Services costs
incurred and paid through September 30, 1990; and (2) California Department of
Justice costs incurred and paid through June 30, 1991, plus accrued Interest on all
costs described in this paragraph through July 31, 1993.
k. “State’s Current Response Costs” shall mean certain State costs
incurred in connection with the Site not previously recovered as “Past State
7
Case 2:91-cv-00589-CJC Document 729 Filed 04/04/22 Page 8 of 20 Page ID #:10383
Response Costs” pursuant to the 1994 Consent Decree, including but not limited to
unrecovered direct and indirect costs incurred by the State in connection with the
Site during the time period of October 1, 1990 through September 30, 2019, plus all
interest that has accrued on such costs through December 31, 2019. In keeping
with the State’s reservation of its separate claims against the United States, the
“Current State Response Costs” excludes any and all response costs incurred by the
State in connection with the Site after September 30, 2019 and any interest that has
accrued after December 31, 2019 on those cost incurred prior to September 30,
2019, however, the State acknowledges and agrees that in return for the Defendant
Oil Companies’ payment of the Settlement Amount set forth in paragraph 18
hereof, the scope of the State’s release from liability and covenants as provided
herein encompass all of the State’s incurred response costs and accrued interest at
or pertaining to the Site through the date of lodging of this Partial Consent Decree.
l. “Section” shall mean a portion of this Partial Consent Decree
identified by a roman numeral.
m. “Site” shall mean the McColl Superfund site located in Fullerton,
Orange County, California, encompassing twenty-two acres and the areal extent of
contamination therefrom.
n. “State” shall mean the State of California, ex. rel., California
Department of Health Services and its successors, the California Department of
Toxic Substances Control and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment, the Hazardous Substances Cleanup Fund, and its successor the Toxic
Substances Control Account, and the California Department of Justice.
o. “United States” shall mean the United States of America, including
all of its departments, agencies, and instrumentalities, which includes without
limitation the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
8
Case 2:91-cv-00589-CJC Document 729 Filed 04/04/22 Page 9 of 20 Page ID #:10384
p. “1994 Consent Decree” shall mean the “Partial Consent Decree
Among Plaintiffs and Oil Company Defendants Regarding Certain Cost Claims and
Order” entered in this action on December 12, 1994 (Docket #270).
V. REIMBURSEMENT OF RESPONSE COSTS
18. Oil Company Defendants shall pay to the State $8,100,000.00, which
shall constitute the compromise “Settlement Amount.”
a. Payment shall be made within 60 days after the approval and entry
of this Partial Consent Decree by the Court. Payment shall be made by wire transfer
to the California Department of Justice. The wire transfer shall be made to:
Institution: Bank of America, Concord, California
ABA Routing Number: 026009593
Beneficiary: California, Dept. of Justice
Beneficiary Information: McColl IV (SD2019500473)
Beneficiary Account Number: 01482-80005
Swift Code: BOFAUS6S
b. Payment will be reimbursement for the Oil Company Defendants’
allocable share of the State’s Current Response Costs, as further described in
Paragraph 17(k).
c. If the full balance of such payment is not made within 60 days after
approval and entry of this Partial Consent Decree by the Court, then Interest on the
unpaid balance shall accrue and be payable to the State commencing from the date
this Partial Consent Decree is lodged with the Court until full payment is made to
the State.
d. Interest shall accrue at the rate specified for interest on investments
of the Hazardous Substance Superfund established under subchapter A of chapter
98 of Title 26 of the United States Code.
19. Application of Costs Paid to Costs Incurred: The Parties to this Partial
Consent Decree acknowledge that the amounts paid under this Partial Consent
Decree are less than the total amount of the State’s Current Response Costs.
9
Case 2:91-cv-00589-CJC Document 729 Filed 04/04/22 Page 10 of 20 Page ID #:10385
Because the State will seek to recover the remaining portion of its claim from
entities other than the Oil Company Defendants, the State is applying the amounts
paid under this Decree to its total claim for the State’s Current Response Costs.
VI. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS
PARTIAL CONSENT DECREE
20. If the State must bring an action to enforce this Partial Consent Decree
and the State prevails in that action, the Oil Company Defendants shall reimburse
the State for all costs of such action, including but not limited to its reasonable
attorneys’ fees as determined by the Court.
VII. RELEASE, COVENANT NOT TO SUE AND RESERVATION OF
RIGHTS BY THE STATE
21. Release and Covenant Not to Sue: Except as expressly provided in
Section 22 (Reservation of Rights) of this Partial Consent Decree, the State in
consideration for the Settlement Amount payment unconditionally releases and
covenants not to sue the Oil Company Defendants pursuant to CERCLA,
California’s Hazardous Substance Account Act, or any other statutory or common
law claim, to recover the State’s Response Costs for the Period of September 1990
through the date of lodging of this Partial Consent Decree. This Release and
Covenant Not to Sue shall not relieve the Oil Company Defendants of any liability
for any response costs incurred after the date of lodging of this Partial Consent
Decree and any interest incurred on any response costs incurred after the date of
lodging of this Partial Consent Decree. This Release and Covenant Not to Sue shall
take effect upon receipt by the State of all payments required by Section V
(Reimbursement of Response Costs). This Release and Covenant Not to Sue is
conditioned upon the complete and satisfactory performance by the Oil Company
Defendants of their payment obligations under this Partial Consent Decree. This
Release and Covenant Not to Sue extends only to the Oil Company Defendants and
does not extend to any other party to this case or to any person or entity. Nothing in
10
Case 2:91-cv-00589-CJC Document 729 Filed 04/04/22 Page 11 of 20 Page ID #:10386
this Partial Consent Decree is intended to, or shall, affect the rights of any other
agency, board, department, or other entity of the State of California other than those
listed in Paragraph 17(m) of this Partial Consent Decree.
22. Reservation of Rights: The Release and Covenant Not to Sue set forth in
Paragraph 21 does not pertain to any matters other than those expressly specified
therein, and is not intended and shall not be construed to otherwise limit or restrict
in any way the State from exercising its authority under any law, statute, or
regulation. The State reserves, and this Partial Consent Decree is without prejudice
to, all rights and claims against the Oil Company Defendants with respect to all
other matters, including but not limited to:
a. Claims based on a failure of the Oil Company Defendants to meet a
requirement of this Partial Consent Decree;
b. Liability for damages for injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural
resources, as defined in CERCLA section 101(6), 42 U.S.C. § 9601(6), including
all costs incurred by any natural resources trustees;
c. Claims based on the alleged misrepresentation or omission of
material facts by the Oil Company Defendants leading to the entry of this Consent
Decree;
d. Liability arising from past, present, or future disposal, release,
and/or threat of release of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant outside
of the Site and not emanating from the Site;
e. Criminal liability;
f. Claims for past, present or future violations of federal or state law
other than those resolved by this Partial Consent Decree; and
g. Liability of the Oil Company Defendants for Ongoing State
Response Costs incurred after lodging of this Partial Consent Decree.
23. Unknown Conditions / New Information: Notwithstanding any other
provision in this Partial Consent Decree, the State reserves, and this Partial Consent
11
Case 2:91-cv-00589-CJC Document 729 Filed 04/04/22 Page 12 of 20 Page ID #:10387
Decree is without prejudice to, its right to institute proceedings in this action or in a
new action, and/or to issue an administrative order seeking to compel one or more
of the Oil Company Defendants to perform response activities at the Site and/or pay
the State for additional response costs if:
a. Conditions previously unknown to the State, for which the Oil
Company Defendants are liable under any statute or law, are discovered at the Site
after the Effective Date, and those previously unknown conditions indicate a release
or threatened release of hazardous substances into the environment; or
b. After the lodging of this Partial Consent Decree, DTSC receives
relevant new information, previously unknown to the State, that information DTSC
relied on in entering into this Partial Consent Decree is false or materially
inaccurate.
VIII. COVENANT NOT TO SUE BY THE OIL COMPANY
DEFENDANTS
24. Covenant not to sue: The Oil Company Defendants covenant not to sue
and agree not assert any claims or causes of action against the State with respect to
this Partial Consent Decree or the State's Current Response Costs, paid pursuant to
Section V of this Partial Consent Decree, including, but not limited to, any claim
against the State, or any agency, department, or instrumentality of the State of
California pursuant to CERCLA Sections 107 and 113 related to the Past State
Response Costs or the State’s Current Response Costs.
25. Reservation of Rights: Nothing in this Partial Consent Decree shall
restrict the rights of the Oil Company Defendants to assert any defenses they may
have to liability for State response costs related to the Site that were incurred by the
State or any department, agency or officer of the State after this Partial Consent
Decree is lodged with the Court.
12
Case 2:91-cv-00589-CJC Document 729 Filed 04/04/22 Page 13 of 20 Page ID #:10388
IX. EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT; CONTRIBUTION PROTECTION
26. Nothing in this Partial Consent Decree shall be construed to create any
rights in, or grant any cause of action to, any person not a party to this Partial
Consent Decree. The preceding sentence shall not be construed to waive or nullify
any rights that any person not a signatory to this Partial Consent Decree may have
under applicable law. Each of the Parties to this Partial Consent Decree expressly
reserves any and all rights (including, but not limited to, any right to contribution),
defenses, claims, demands, and causes of action which each party may have with
respect to any matter, transaction, or occurrence relating in any way to the Site
against any person not a party hereto.
27. The Parties to this Partial Consent Decree agree, and by entering this
Partial Consent Decree this Court finds, that the Oil Company Defendants are
entitled, as of the Effective Date of this Partial Consent Decree, to such protection
from contribution actions or claims as provided by CERCLA Section 113(f), 42
U.S.C. § 9613(f)(2), for Past State Response Costs and the State’s Current
Response Costs. Such protection is conditioned upon the Oil Company Defendants’
compliance with the requirements of this Partial Consent Decree.
28. In any subsequent administrative or judicial proceeding initiated by the
State or any individual state entity plaintiff for injunctive relief, recovery of
response costs, or other relief relating to the Site, the Oil Company Defendants
shall not assert, and may not maintain, any defense or claim based upon the
principles of waiver, res judicata, collateral estoppel, issue preclusion, claim-
splitting, or other defenses based upon the any contention that the claims raised by
the State in the subsequent proceeding were or should have been brought in the
instant case, provided however, that nothing in this Paragraph affects the
enforceability of the Release and Covenants by Plaintiff set forth in section VIII.
13
Case 2:91-cv-00589-CJC Document 729 Filed 04/04/22 Page 14 of 20 Page ID #:10389
X. RELATIONSHIP OF THIS PARTIAL CONSENT DECREE TO
THE OIL COMPANY DEFENDANTS’ POTENTIAL CONTRACT
CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FOR
REIMBURSEMENT OF STATE RESPONSE COSTS
29. Nothing in this Partial Consent Decree shall in any way limit or restrict
the rights and obligations of the United States and the Oil Company Defendants or
their successors with regards to any current or potential future claims the Oil
Company Defendants have against the United States pursuant to contracts for the
production of high octane aviation gasoline (“avgas”) entered into between the
United States and the Oil Company Defendants and their predecessors during the
World War II era.
XI. NOTICES AND SUBMISSIONS
30. Whenever, under the terms of this Partial Consent Decree, notice is
required to be given or a document is required to be sent by one party to another, it
shall be directed to the individuals at the addresses specified below, unless those
individuals or their successors have notice of a change to the other Parties to this
Partial Consent Decree in writing. Written notice as specified herein shall constitute
complete satisfaction of any written notice requirement of this Partial Consent
Decree with respect to the State and the Oil Company Defendants, respectively.
a. As to the State:
Grant Cope
Deputy Director, Site Mitigation & Restoration Program
Department of Toxic Substances
1001 “I” Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
grant.cope@dtsc.ca.gov
and
14
Case 2:91-cv-00589-CJC Document 729 Filed 04/04/22 Page 15 of 20 Page ID #:10390
Sparsh Khandeshi
Deputy Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
600 W. Broadway, 18th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
sparsh.khandeshi@doj.ca.gov
b. As to the Oil Company Defendants
Shell:
Toni DeMayo
Principle Program Manager
Shell Oil Products US
20945 S. Wilmington Ave.
Carson, CA 90810
toni.demayo@shell.com
and: Edmond Bourke, Principal
C2 REM
2382 SE Bristol Street Suite B
Newport Beach, CA 92660
ebourke@c2rem.com
Union Oil Company of California and Texaco Inc.:
President
Chevron Environmental Management and Real Estate Company
6001 Bollinger Canyon Rd.
San Ramon, CA 94583
and: Zach Hughes
Chevron Upstream Law – North America Litigation Management
1400 Smith Street
Houston, Texas 77002
zach.hughes@chevron.com
Atlantic Richfield:
President
Atlantic Richfield Company
501 Westlake Park Blvd.
Houston, Texas 77079
15
Case 2:91-cv-00589-CJC Document 729 Filed 04/04/22 Page 16 of 20 Page ID #:10391
and: James L. Lucari
Managing Counsel – Litigation
BP America Inc.
501 Westlake Park Blvd.
Houston, Texas 77019
james.lucari@bp.com
XII. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION
31. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this matter for the purpose of
enforcing the terms of this Partial Consent Decree.
XIII. LODGING OF THIS PARTIAL CONSENT DECREE
32. This Partial Consent Decree shall be lodged with the Court for a period
of at least 30 days for public notice and comment. The State reserves the right to
withdraw or withhold its consent if the comments regarding this Partial Consent
Decree disclose facts or considerations that indicate that this Partial Consent Decree
is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Oil Company Defendants consent to
entry of this Partial Consent Decree without further notice.
33. If for any reason the Court should decline to approve this Partial Consent
Decree in the form presented, this Partial Consent Decree is voidable at the
discretion of any of the Parties hereto, and the terms of this Partial Consent Decree
may not be used as evidence in any litigation.
XIV. SIGNATORIES/SERVICE
34. The undersigned representatives of the State and the Oil Company
Defendants certify that they are fully authorized to enter into the terms and
conditions of this Partial Consent Decree and to execute and legally bind the party
they represent to this document.
35. The Oil Company Defendants hereby agree to not oppose entry of this
Partial Consent Decree by this Court or to challenge any provision of this Partial
16
Case 2:91-cv-00589-CJC Document 729 Filed 04/04/22 Page Page ID #:10392
Consent Decree, unless the State has notified the Oil Company Defendants in
writing that the State no longer supports entry of this Partial Consent Decree.
36. Each Oil Company Defendant shall identify, on the attached signature
page, the name and address of an agent who is authorized to accept service of
process by mail on behalf of that Party with respect to all matters arising under or
relating to this Partial Consent Decree. The Oil Company Defendants hereby agree
to accept service in that manner and to waive the formal service requirements set
forth in Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any applicable local
rules of this Court, including but not limited to, service of a summons.
XV. FINAL JUDGMENT
37. Upon entry of this Partial Consent Decree by the Court, this Partial
Consent Decree shall constitute the final judgment between and among the State
and the Oil Company Defendants. The Court finds that there is no just reason for
delay and therefore enters this judgment as a final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P.
54 and 58.
XVI. APPROVALS OF PARTIES
The parties consent to this Partial Consent Decree by their duly authorized
representative as follows:
FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EX REL., CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCE ACCOUNT, AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE
CLEANUP FUND
Date: 11/09/2021 <Gel
Grant Cope
Deputy Director
Site Mitigation and Restoration Program
California Department of Toxic
Substances Control
17
DocuSign Eewaiens 64 □□ IEDREM BGceHTARTY 29 Filed 04/04/22 Page 18 of 20 Page ID #:10393
FOR SHELL OIL COMPANY nocuSigned by
Date: 09" Nov=2021
Vice President Legal Shell 0711 Company
FOR UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA
Date:
FOR TEXACO INC.
Date:
FOR ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY
Date:
Patricia A. Gallery
President
ORDER
SO ORDERED THIS DAY OF , 2021
CORMAC J. CARNEY
United States District Judge
18
DocuSign Eewsiens 'D: GEA RO PrOeuiTTetY 729 Filed 04/04/22 Page 19 of 20 Page ID #:10394
FOR SHELL OIL COMPANY
Date:
FOR UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA
Date: 2021-Nov-08 | 2:32 PM PST ( Hope K. Tiwann
Harpreet &. itwana
Assistant Secretary
FOR TEXACO INC, nocusigned by
Date: 202!-Nov-08 | 2:55 PM PST [_ ttle
Scott M. Banks
Assistant Secretary
FOR ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY
Date:
Patricia A. Gallery
President
ORDER
SO ORDERED THIS DAY OF , 2021
CORMAC J. CARNEY
United States District Judge
18
Case 2:91-cv-00589-CJC Document 729 Filed 04/04/22 Page 20 of 20 Page ID #:10395
FOR SHELL OIL COMPANY
Date:
FOR UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA
Date:
FOR TEXACO INC.
Date:
FOR ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY
Date: +t J OV 202) 7 LAL Natio
iCia A. Gallery .
President
ORDER
SO ORDERED THIS 4th DAY OF _ , April 2022
. a iinet □
CORMAC J. CABANEY
United States District Judge
18