Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ameripride Services Inc., A Delaware v. Valley Industrial Services

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 12, 2011

AMERIPRIDE SERVICES INC., A DELAWARE
CORPORATION,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
VALLEY INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC., A FORMER CALIFORNIA CORPORATION AND TEXAS EASTERN OVERSEAS, INC., A FORMER DEPT.: 4 DELAWARE CORPORATION, HON. LAWRENCE K. KARLTON DEFENDANTS.

Date: July 18, 2011 Time: 10:00 a.m

STIPULATION AND ORDER RESOLVING TEXAS EASTERN OVERSEAS, INC.'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST AMERIPRIDE SERVICES INC.

Trial Date: January 18, 2012

Discovery Cut Off: May 1, 2011 Motion Cut Off: July 1, 2011 AND CONSOLIDATED ACTION AND CROSS AND COUNTER-CLAIMS.

Plaintiff AMERIPRIDE SERVICES INC., ("AmeriPride") and Defendant TEXAS EASTERN OVERSEAS, INC. ("TEO"), by and through their respective counsel, stipulate with respect to TEO's Motion for Sanctions against AmeriPride as follows: RECITALS

1. Whereas, on May 23, 2011, defendant TEO filed a Motion for Sanctions ("the

Motion") against AmeriPride (Docket Number ("Dkt.") 746). TEO did not meet and confer with AmeriPride prior to filing its motion.

2. Whereas, the Court previously awarded evidentiary sanctions in this action to Huhtamaki Foodservices, Inc. ("Huhtamaki") in the form of an adverse inference that AmeriPride would be prohibited from presenting any evidence which denies that Ameriride contributed PCE to soil and groundwater contamination from the wastewater system at the property located on Wilbur Way in Sacramento, California ("the Facility") where both Valley Industrial Services, Inc. ("VIS, Inc.") and then AmeriPride operated. (Order of August 8, 2006, Dkt. 544.)

3. Whereas, TEO claims in its Motion that it stands in Huhtamaki's shoes and it seeks the same adverse inference that the Court awarded to Huhtamaki on August 8, 2006. (Dkt. 746 at 15.)

4. Whereas, AmeriPride disputes that TEO stands in Huhtamaki's shoes, but does not dispute that some PCE probably was added to the groundwater contamination during AmeriPride's operation of the Facility.

STIPULATION

Based on the foregoing, the court will instruct the jury and/or the fact finder will find that the removed pipes leaked PCE-contaminated wastewater into the soil and groundwater and that this contamination was a cause of the contamination on the Huhtamaki property. AmeriPride will be prohibited from presenting any evidence which denies that AmeriPride contributed to the soil and groundwater contamination. However, the parties agree that there is a dispute about the amount of contamination caused by releases of wastewater during both VIS, Inc.'s and AmeriPride's operation of the Facility that must be resolved by the trier of fact.

Dated: July 8, 2011 HUNSUCKER GOODSTEIN & NELSON PC By Philip C. Hunsucker Brian L. Zagon Maureen B. Hodson Attorneys for AMERIPRIDE SERVICES INC. STOEL RIVES LLP Lee N. Smith Attorneys for AMERIPRIDE SERVICES INC. Dated: July 8, 2011 WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, ELDELMEN & DICKER LLP By: /s/Emily M. Weissenberger Ronald Bushner Bernard Gehlhar Emily Weissenberger Attorneys for TEXAS EASTERN OVERSEAS, INC. BASSI, EDLIN, HUIE & BLUM LLP Fred M. Blum William Noel Edlin Attorneys for TEXAS EASTERN OVERSEAS, INC.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110712

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.