Hobart Corporation et al v. The Dayton Power and Light Company et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
HOBART CORPORATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
V.
DAYTON POWER AND LIGHT
COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:13-cv-115
JUDGE WALTER H. RICE
DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING PHARMACIA LLC'S MOTION TO ENFORCE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND DISMISS PHARMACIA LLC (DOC. #1482);
SUSTAINING IN PART AND OVERRULING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND
PHARMACIA LLC (DOC. #1487)
This case is before the Court on two motions related to a purported
settlement between Plaintiffs Hobart Corporation, et al. ("Plaintiffs") and Defendant
Pharmacia LLC ("Pharmacia"). First is a Motion to Enforce Settlement and Dismiss
Pharmacia LLCfiled by Pharmacia. Doc. #1482. With leave of Court. Pharmacia filed
its supporting documents under seal. Doc. #1484. Plaintiffs filed a response in
opposition. Doc. #1490, and Pharmacia filed a reply in support of its motion. Doc.
#1501.
Prior to responding to Pharmacia's motion. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for
Approval of Settlement Agreement Between Plaintiffs and Pharmacia. Doc. #1487.
Case: 3:13-cv-00115-WHR Doc #: 1524 Filed: 12/30/25 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Pharmacia's reply to their own motion doubted as their response in opposition to
Plaintiffs'motion. Doc. #1501. Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion. Doc.
#1504.
For the reasons contained herein, Pharmacia's Motion to Enforce Settlement
and Dismiss Pharmacia, Doc. #1482, is SUSTAINED and Plaintiffs' Motion for
Approval of Settlement Agreement Between Plaintiffs and Pharmacia, Doc. #1487,
is SUSTAINED IN PART and OVERRULED IN PART
I. Procedural and Factual Background
Plaintiffs seek contribution from numerous defendants under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
("CERCLA"), 42 U. S. C. § 9613(f), for response costs incurred at the South Dayton
Dump and Landfill Site ("SDD" or "site").
Plaintiffs' claims stem from two settlement agreements they entered into
with the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"): (1)
Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for Removal Action
("2013 ASAOC"); and (2) Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on
Consent for Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ("RI/FS") for Operable Unit 1
and Operable Unit 2 ("2016 ASAOC"). These ASAOCs required Plaintiffs to perform
certain work at the site, including investigation and testing of the contamination.
Case: 3:13-cv-00115-WHR Doc #: 1524 Filed: 12/30/25 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

On September 8, 2020, the Court approved a settlement agreement between
Plaintiffs and the eight remaining Defendants with respect to response costs
incurred in connection with the 2013 ASAOC, which was limited to vapor intrusion
risks at the Site. Doc. #1172. With that agreement completed, the 2013 ASAOC was
resolved, leaving only the 2016 ASAOC for adjudication. The Court administratively
processed the case until the completion of a feasibility study. Doc. #1188.
In mid-2023, now knowing that the feasibility study would take significantly
longer than originally anticipated. Plaintiffs moved for a pretrial conference and a
trial setting. Docs. #1194 & 1205. The Court, construing Plaintiffs' requests as a
motion to bifurcate the trial on liability, sustained the motion. Doc. #1206. In June
2025, Plaintiffs and Pharmacia reported to the Court that they had reached a
settlement.
II. Analysis
This dispute boils down to a single word. In briefing the pending motions,
both Plaintiffs and Pharmacia filed various copies of the same signed settlement
agreement and urge the Court to approve the settlement which was reached. Where
the parties disagree is in the precise wording of the proposed Court Order which
will approve the settlement. The language submitted by Plaintiffs is as follows:
Subject to the Settlement Agreement, all claims asserted, to be
asserted, or which could be asserted against Pharmacia LLC by the
defendants in this case (whether by cross-claim or otherwise) or by
any other person or entity (except the United States and the State of
3
Case: 3:13-cv-00115-WHR Doc #: 1524 Filed: 12/30/25 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Ohio) for matters in connection with the South Dayton Dump and
Landfill Site located at 1975 Dryden Road (also known as Springboro
Pike) in Moraine, Ohio (the "Site") under Sections 106, 107 or 113 of
CERCLA and/or any other federal, state or local statute, regulation,
rule, ordinance, law or common law, as the same may be amended or
superseded, are hereby barred, permanently enjoined, dismissed with
prejudice, satisfied and are otherwise unenforceable in this case or in
any other proceeding.
Doc. #1487, PagelD #61122-23 (emphasis added). This language, and specifically
the use of the term "defendants" at the beginning of the third line, aligns with
orders issued approving previous settlement agreements between Plaintiffs and
other defends nts.
Conversely, Pharmacia seeks to employ similar language but substitutes the
term "Parties" rather than use Plaintiffs'choice of "defendants. " Doc#1501, PagelD
#62996. This slight change allows the language to track that which was included in
the Order approving the global settlement agreement which finally ended the 2013
ASAOC claims. Doc. #1172, PagelD# 45047.
The Court has reviewed the arguments submitted by both sides but has not
been able to discern a practical difference between the two options. Plaintiffs'
proposal would limit the ability of any co-defendants to bring claims, whereby
Pharmacia's preference would extend that limit to apply to Plaintiffs as well. Yet,
the settlement itself relinquishes Plaintiffs' ability to bring claims. Therefore, neither
party has shown to the Court's satisfaction how a difference in language alters the
potential meaning or effect of the settlement or the Order recognizing the
4
Case: 3:13-cv-00115-WHR Doc #: 1524 Filed: 12/30/25 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

settlement. As a result, the Court will simply recognize the settlement agreement in
an Order which this Court believes is sufficient.
To the extent that Pharmacia's motion seeks an order to enforce the
settlement agreement, that motion is SUSTAINED. To the extent that Plaintiffs'
motion seeks approval of the settlement agreement, that motion is SUSTAINED IN
PART, in that the Court will approve the settlement as offered, hlowever, the Court
OVERRULES IN PART the portion of the motion that sought the issuance of the
proposed order. Instead, the Court will exercise its inherent authority to draft its
own orders and will make a slight alteration to the proposed Order submitted by
Plaintiffs. The Court will issue the Order Approving the Settlement Agreement
concurrently with this Entry.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons contained herein, Pharmacia's Motion to Enforce Settlement
and Dismiss Pharmacia, Doc. #1482, is SUSTAINED, and Plaintiffs' Motion for
Approval of Settlement Between Plaintiffs and Pharmacia, Doc. #1487, is
SUSTAINED IN PART and OVERRULED IN PART.
Date: December 30, 2025 /<t-<-V- ^ (
WALTER H. RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 3:13-cv-00115-WHR Doc #: 1524 Filed: 12/30/25 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>