The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge
ORDER RE: THE CITY OF FRESNO'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S APRIL 22, 2010 DISMISSAL OF THE CITY'S RCRA AND HSAA CLAIMS (Doc. 281)
Plaintiff The City of Fresno filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 281) concerning the Court's April 22, 2010 Memorandum Decision (Doc. 228) granting two motions filed by the United States: (1) for partial judgment on the pleadings or partial summary judgment as to Plaintiff's fourth claim under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") (Doc. 142); and (2) for partial summary judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff's third claim under the Hazardous Substance Account Act ("HSAA") (Doc. 143). The motions came on for hearing on June 14, 2010. All parties were represented by counsel at the hearing.
Order Re: The City of Fresno's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's April 22, 2010 Dismissal of the City's RCRA and HSAA Claims City of Fresno v. United States of America et al., No. 1:06-cv-01559-OWW-GSA After considering all papers filed in connection with the motion and hearing oral argument, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:
1. Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the April 22, 2010, Memorandum Decision Granting the United States' Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings or for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Claim Under RCRA (Doc. 142) is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the April 22, 2010, Memorandum Decision Granting the United States' Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiff's Claim Under HSAA (Doc. 143) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is DENIED in all respects, except that it is GRANTED only to the extent that the Memorandum Decision filed April 22, 2010 (Doc. 228) is amended as follows:
a. Deleting at Page 41, lines 6 through 9, the sentence: "The United States also maintains that the property leased by the federal government -- AVCRAD and CANG -- was remediated, therefore the City did not incur any response costs on federal property."
b. Deleting at Page 45, lines 1 through 3, the sentence: "Second, it is/was impossible for the City to incur response costs at either AVCRAD or CANG because the Corps remediated both sites many years ago."
c. Deleting footnote 24, at page 45, in its entirety.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw ...