You are on page 1of 3

I

....-----_...... ,--"...,................
-,
i USDC
\e?CUMH'! \
...:..j.... FILED 1
DOC #: \
\
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
v:mm :1
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------- )(
OLIN CORPORATION,
Plaintiff, 84 Civ. 1968 (TPG)
-against-
INSURANCE COMPANY OF RULE S4(b) JUDGMENT
NORTH AMERICA, et al.
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------- )(
Upon consideration of Defendant American Home Assurance Company's ("AHAC")
motion for summary judgment based upon Olin Corporation's failure to assert ajusticiable
claim, and upon consideration of all of the filings and argument relevant to that motion, and
having directed, by order dated May 2, 2011 (after a hearing conducted on March 29,2011), that
final judgment upon certain issues against certain parties be entered, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:
I. There are no triable issues as to the Morgan Hill Site with respect to AHAC
Policy Nos. CE 351009, CE 355541, and CE 245707.
2. Olin's claims with respect to the Morgan Hill Site as to AHAC Policy Nos. CE
351009, CE 355541, and CE 245707 are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.
3. Under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court e)(pressly
determines that there is no just reason for delay in entering final judgment on those claims.
Accordingly, the Court e)(pressly directs that judgment be entered as set forth herein. This
particular judgment addresses only Olin's claims with respect to the Morgan Hill Site and only
Case 1:84-cv-01968-TPG Document 1644 Filed 09/20/11 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------- )(
OLIN CORPORA nON,
Plaintiff,
-against-
INSURANCE COMPANY OF
NORTH AMERICA, et al.
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------- )(
84 Civ. 1968 (TPG)
. ) U U ? ~ D RULE S4(b) JUDGMENT
Upon consideration of Defendant American Home Assurance Company's ("AHAC")
motion for summary judgment based upon Olin Corporation's failure to assert ajusticiable
claim, and upon consideration of all of the filings and argument relevant to that motion, and
having directed, by order dated May 2, 2011 (after a hearing conducted on March 29,2011), that
final judgment upon certain issues against certain parties be entered, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:
I. There are no triable issues as to the Morgan Hill Site with respect to AHAC
Policy Nos. CE 351009, CE 355541, and CE 245707.
2. Olin's claims with respect to the Morgan Hill Site as to AHAC Policy Nos. CE
351009, CE 355541, and CE 245707 are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.
3. Under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court e)(pressly
determines that there is no just reason for delay in entering final judgment on those claims.
Accordingly, the Court e)(pressly directs that judgment be entered as set forth herein. This
particular judgment addresses only Olin's claims with respect to the Morgan Hill Site and only
Case: 11-4055 Document: 3 Page: 1 09/28/2011 410866 3
with respect to AHAC Policy Nos. CE 351009, CE 355541, and CE 245707.
4. Entry of a Rule 54(b) judgment is appropriate. It is in the interest of the parties
and ofjudicial efficiency to resolve finally the dispute between Olin and AHAC as to the
Morgan Hill Site. While Olin and another defendant in this case have a dispute, which was the
subject of a jury and bench trial, regarding the defense costs owed to Olin relating to the private
third-party lawsuits at the Morgan Hill Site, that dispute is independent of and different from
Olin's dispute as to AHAC; Olin no longer has any claims against AHAC arising from the
Morgan Hill Site. Now that Olin's claims against AHAC in respect ofthe Morgan Hill Site have
been resolved, it would be impractical and unfair to place those issues on hold until all remaining
disputes concerning Morgan Hill or other sites have been finally adjudicated. That is particularly
true because the remaining Morgan-Hill-related disputes involve issues of fact and law that are
wholly separate from the issues regarding AHAC on which this Court has ruled.
5. The Second Circuit already has approved of entry of various Rule 54(b)
judgments finally disposing of certain parties' claims and defenses at particular sites in this case.
See Olin Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London and London Market Ins. Cos., 347
Fed. App'x 622 (2d Cir. 2009) (taking jurisdiction of 54(b) judgment); Olin Corp. v. Ins. Co. of
N. Am., 221 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 2000) (same); Olin Corp. v. Ins. Co. ofN. Am., 966 F.2d 718, 720
(2d Cir. 1992) (same); Olin Corp. v. Ins. Co. ofN. Am., 929 F.2d 62, 63 (2d Cir. 1991) (same).
This judgment is consistent with the prior Rule 54(b) judgments and is entered for similar
reasons.
2
Case 1:84-cv-01968-TPG Document 1644 Filed 09/20/11 Page 2 of 3
with respect to AHAC Policy Nos. CE 351009, CE 355541, and CE 245707.
4. Entry of a Rule 54(b) judgment is appropriate. It is in the interest of the parties
and of judicial efficiency to resolve finally the dispute between Olin and AHAC as to the
Morgan Hill Site. While Olin and another defendant in this case have a dispute, which was the
subject of a jury and bench trial, regarding the defense costs owed to Olin relating to the private
third-party lawsuits at the Morgan Hill Site, that dispute is independent of and different from
Olin's dispute as to AHAC; Olin no longer has any claims against AHAC arising from the
Morgan Hill Site. Now that Olin's claims against AHAC in respect ofthe Morgan Hill Site have
been resolved, it would be impractical and unfair to place those issues on hold until all remaining
disputes concerning Morgan Hill or other sites have been finally adjudicated. That is particularly
true because the remaining Morgan-Hill-related disputes involve issues of fact and law that are
wholly separate from the issues regarding AHAC on which this Court has ruled.
5. The Second Circuit already has approved of entry of various Rule 54(b)
judgments finally disposing of certain parties' claims and defenses at particular sites in this case.
See Olin Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London and London Market Ins. Cos., 347
Fed. App'x 622 (2d Cir. 2009) (taking jurisdiction of 54(b) judgment); Olin Corp. v. Ins. Co. of
N. Am., 221 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 2000) (same); Olin Corp. v. Ins. Co. ofN. Am., 966 F.2d 718, 720
(2d Cir. 1992) (same); Olin Corp. v. Ins. Co. ofN. Am., 929 F.2d 62, 63 (2d Cir. 1991) (same).
This judgment is consistent with the prior Rule 54(b) judgments and is entered for similar
reasons.
2
Case: 11-4055 Document: 3 Page: 2 09/28/2011 410866 3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: l' l:za(11
~ 0/ ..
~ 7 ~
/ ~
J ~ ~ ~
Honorable Thomas P. Griesa
United States District Judge
3
Case 1:84-cv-01968-TPG Document 1644 Filed 09/20/11 Page 3 of 3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: f L 70 (II
~ j ~ ~ 0/ ..
/ ~
J . ~ ~ ~
Honorable Thomas P. Griesa
United States District Judge
3
Case: 11-4055 Document: 3 Page: 3 09/28/2011 410866 3