actions over the shorter limitations period for § 113(f) contribution claims. Id. at 2338. “To maintain the vitality of § 113(f), however, PRPs who have been subject to a civil action pursuant to §§ 106 or 107 or who have entered into a judicially or administratively approved settlement must seek contribution under § 113(f).” ITT, 506 F.3d at 458 (citing Atlantic Research, 127 S.Ct. at 2338, but noting that the Supreme Court had acknowledged a possible overlap). The plaintiff in Atlantic Research was a PRP who had not been subject to an action under § 106 or § 107, and who had not entered into a judicially or administratively approved settlement. The plaintiff had incurred costs voluntarily and accordingly was unable to bring a -03-5985, 2008 WL 1958002, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. May 2, 2008) (<HOLDING>). Atlantic Research held that “the remedies
holding that where the defendants  107 claim was based on remediation costs they incurred and may incur in the future as the result of a lawsuit instituted under  107a they did not demonstrate that they incurred necessary costs of response within the meaning of  107a holding that investigatory costs are considered costs of response under cercla holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish unconscionability based upon the alleged excessive cost of arbitration because they failed to supply information as to the actual costs that might be incurred holding that because plaintiffs failed to prove that their incurred fuel characterization and loading costs would not have been incurred in the nonbreach world plaintiffs were not entitled to recovery for these costs holding that bankruptcy court could not enter judgment for 7402564 under  107a for incurred costs when such costs had not been incurred