George Torres v. Harold Igdaloff

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedOctober 4, 2022
Docket2:17-cv-04059
StatusUnknown

This text of George Torres v. Harold Igdaloff (George Torres v. Harold Igdaloff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
George Torres v. Harold Igdaloff, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

Case 2:17-cv-04059-MCS-JEM Document 489 Filed 10/04/22 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:11877

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 GEORGE TORRES, an individual; and Case No. 2:17-cv-04059-MCS-JEM ROBERTA TORRES, an individual, 11 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 HAROLD IGDALOFF, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 16 COMPANY, a Delaware corporation

17 Defendant and Cross-Claimant,

18 vs.

19 HAROLD IGDALOFF, et al..

20 Defendants and Cross-Defendants. AND RELATED CROSSCLAIMS 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Case 2:17-cv-04059-MCS-JEM Document 489 Filed 10/04/22 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #:11878

1 WHEREAS, Cross-Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company (“Union 2 Pacific”) and Cross-Defendants Harold Igdaloff, Estate of Evelyn Igdaloff, Deceased, 3 and Igdaloff 1993 Family Trust (collectively, the “Igdaloffs”) (Union Pacific and the 4 Igdaloffs are referred to herein as “Parties”) have stipulated and consented to the entry 5 of this Stipulated Final Judgment, and 6 WHEREAS, the Court having considered the matter and good cause appearing 7 therefor, 8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that: 9 1. This Court has current and continuing jurisdiction of the Parties hereto and 10 the subject matter hereof. 11 2. Plaintiffs George and Roberta Torres alleged claims against multiple 12 defendants, including Union Pacific and the Igdaloffs, in this action (“Action”). 13 3. Plaintiffs alleged that each of the defendants in the Action are current or 14 former owners and operators of the Site that caused or contributed to environmental 15 contamination at the Site and are thus responsible for costs to investigate and remediate 16 contamination at the Site. 17 4. Union Pacific alleged cross-claims against the Igdaloffs. 18 5. The Igdaloffs alleged cross-claims against Union Pacific. 19 6. The Action relates to contamination from tetrachloroethylene (“PCE”) and 20 trichloroethylene (“TCE”) in soil, soil vapor, and groundwater in and around 410 East 21 32nd Street and 317 East 33rd Street, Los Angeles, California. 22 7. The 410 East 32nd Street property is comprised of APN 5120-017-901 23 (“Parcel A”) and APN 5120-017-002 (“Parcel B”). Parcel A is a triangular section of 24 property located on the northwest corner of that lot; and Parcel B is located on the 25 remaining portion of the lot. The 317 East 33rd Street property is comprised of APN 26 5120-017-030 (“Parcel C”) (collectively, Parcels A, B and C are referred to herein as 27 “Site”).

28 2 Case 2:17-cv-04059-MCS-JEM Document 489 Filed 10/04/22 Page 3 of 8 Page ID #:11879

1 8. The Igdaloffs owned Parcels B and C from March 31, 1980 to June 7, 2006, 2 and leased Parcel A from Union Pacific’s predecessor, Southern Pacific Transportation 3 Company (“Southern Pacific”) from approximately July 30, 1980 until about January 4 14, 1991, and thereafter from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation 5 Authority (LA Metro) until June 7, 2006. 6 9. Union Pacific alleges that the Igdaloffs owned Parcels B and C, and leased 7 Parcel A from Southern Pacific during periods in which operations at the Site released 8 hazardous substances at or near the Site and contributed to contamination at or near the 9 Site. 10 10. Union Pacific further alleges that the Igdaloffs violated the terms of the 11 Igdaloffs’ lease with Southern Pacific, which lease, among other things, required the 12 Igdaloffs to indemnify Union Pacific for costs and damages at issue in the Action and 13 incurred by Union Pacific in connection with addressing contamination at the Site. 14 11. On March 26, 2019, the California Environmental Protection Agency, 15 Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) issued the Imminent and 16 Substantial Endangerment Determination and Order, and Remedial Action Order, 410 17 E. 32nd Street & 317 E. 33rd Street, Los Angeles (Site Code 401862) (“ISE Order”). 18 12. The ISE Order identifies, among others, the Igdaloffs and Union Pacific as 19 potentially responsible parties for contamination at the Site. 20 13. Union Pacific is the sole work party responding to the ISE Order and 21 conducting the investigation and remediation of the Site pursuant to the ISE Order and 22 the oversight of DTSC. 23 14. The Parties deny that any of them released hazardous substances at or near 24 the Site, deny that any of them contributed to contamination at or near the Site, and the 25 Parties each deny all claims and allegations asserted against them and against each other 26 in the Action. 27 15. The Parties have executed a written Settlement Agreement (attached as 28 Exhibit 1 to ECF No. 487) and have agreed to this Stipulated Final Judgment, both of 3 Case 2:17-cv-04059-MCS-JEM Document 489 Filed 10/04/22 Page 4 of 8 Page ID #:11880

1 which are intended to resolve the remaining claims in the Action. Except as expressly 2 and otherwise stated in this Stipulated Final Judgment, the terms of the written 3 Settlement Agreement remain in full force and effect. 4 16. The Igdaloffs shall pay in settlement to Union Pacific the total sum of 5 $4,900,000, plus interest at the federal post-judgment interest rate (currently estimated 6 to be approximately 2%), which interest shall begin accruing upon entry of this 7 Stipulated Final Judgment. The Igdaloffs, as between each of them, shall have joint and 8 several liability for this payment. 9 17. Following entry of this Stipulated Final Judgment, Union Pacific will 10 record Abstracts of Judgment creating liens on real property owned by the Igdaloffs to 11 secure the settlement payment. 12 18. Union Pacific will stay and forego enforcement of this Stipulated Final 13 Judgment and the Abstracts of Judgment until after Mr. Igdaloff’s death. 14 19. The Igdaloffs shall, to the best of their ability, provide to Union Pacific 15 notice of all real property owned (in part or in full) by the Igdaloffs, including the 16 address, APN, assignment/lien/encumberment status, and ownership information and 17 status of each piece/parcel of real property owned by the Igdaloffs. 18 20. Union Pacific shall provide to the Igdaloffs a list of real property believed 19 to be owned by the Igdaloffs as identified in publicly available information. 20 21. The Igdaloffs shall also provide any additional information necessary to 21 complete, execute and record the Abstracts of Judgment within seven (7) days of any 22 request for such information. 23 22. The Igdaloffs shall not sell, assign, encumber, or otherwise transfer any 24 interest in real property owned by the Igdaloffs until after the Abstracts of Judgment are 25 recorded. 26 23. In connection with any sale of property by the Igdaloffs, the Igdaloffs will 27 provide Union Pacific with written notice of such sale within three (3) calendar days of 28 executing purchase and sale documents. 4 Case 2:17-cv-04059-MCS-JEM Document 489 Filed 10/04/22 Page 5 of 8 Page ID #:11881

1 24. After the Abstracts of Judgment are recorded, the Igdaloffs may not sell, 2 assign, encumber, or otherwise transfer any interest in real property owned by the 3 Igdaloffs other than as described in Paragraphs 25-29. 4 25. During Mr. Igdaloff’s life, Mr. Igdaloff or the Igdaloffs may sell up to two 5 parcels of real property owned by the Igdaloffs pursuant to the terms of Paragraphs 25- 6 26, excluding property located at 810 East 18th St. and 815 East Washington Blvd., Los 7 Angeles, California 90021 (APN 5131-004-034). 8 26. In the event that, during his life, Mr. Igdaloff or the Igdaloffs sell one or 9 two pieces of real property as described in Paragraph 25, the proceeds of the sale of said 10 property or properties will be distributed to Mr.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Alvarado v. Table Mountain Rancheria
509 F.3d 1008 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
George Torres v. Harold Igdaloff, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-torres-v-harold-igdaloff-cacd-2022.