dismiss requires the Court to address the question that was explicitly left unanswered by the Supreme Court in Atlantic Research: whether a PRP who was required to incur costs pursuant to a consent decree may bring a § 107(a) cost recovery action. The Consent Decree obligated ITT to perform work at the site and to reimburse the government for response costs the government had already incurred at the site. As noted in Atlantic Research, “§ 107(a) permits a PRP to recover only the costs it has ‘incurred’ in cleaning up a site.” Id. (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4)(B)). “When a party pays to satisfy a settlement agreement or a court judgment, it does not incur its own costs of response. Rather, it reimburses other parties for costs that those parties incurred.” Id. A 1, 764 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Although Atlantic Research overruled
holding that cleanup costs incurred pursuant to a consent decree were not incurred voluntarily and must be sought through a  113f contribution action holding that where the action was filed as a class action and a consent decree was entered into entry of the consent decree was sufficient certification of the action as a class action under rule 23 holding that bankruptcy court could not enter judgment for 7402564 under  107a for incurred costs when such costs had not been incurred holding that the plaintiffs suit for workrelated costs incurred pursuant to a consent decree was a contribution action under  113f holding that a motion to terminate a consent decree was moot because there was no  consent decree left to be terminated