KAMALA D. HARRIS, Attorney General of California, SUSAN S. FIERING, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, TIMOTHY E. SULLIVAN (Cal. Bar No. 197054), JASON A. MALINSKY (Cal. Bar No. 259761), Deputy Attorneys General, Oakland, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff Department of Toxic Substances Control.
BENJAMIN H. BALLARD, Attorney for Defendants Virginia Pellegrini; Virginia Pellegrini, Trustee of the Mario J. and Virginia E. Pellegrini Trust.
BRIAN M. LEDGER, Attorney for Defendants Technichem, Inc., and Mark J. Ng
ELIZABETH M. WEAVER, Attorney for Defendants Foasberg Laundry and Cleaners, Inc.: Celebrity Cleaners: John Kim dba Celebrity Cleaners: Hae Woon Chun dba Celebrity Cleaners.
THOMAS M. DOWNEY, Attorney for Defendants Virginia Cleaners. LTD: Michael J. McDonald.
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL'S PROPOSED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
CHARLES R. BREYER, District Judge.
Plaintiff the Department of Toxic Substances Control ("DTSC") and defendants Technichem, Inc.; Mark J. Ng; Virginia Pellegrini; Virginia Pellegrini, Trustee of the Mario J. and Virginia E. Pellegrini Trust; Foasberg Laundry and Cleaners, Inc.; Celebrity Cleaners; John Kim dba Celebrity Cleaners; Hae Woon Chun dba Celebrity Cleaners; Virginia Cleaners, LTD.; and Michael J. McDonald (collectively "defendants") by and through their counsel, stipulate as follows:
1. DTSC may file the attached proposed Second Amended Complaint on or before August 30, 2013, naming new defendants.
2. On July 24, 2013, the Court approved and entered the Consent Decree between DTSC and defendants Inter-City Cleaners, LLC; Hans Gelfand; County of Stanislaus; Hakuyosha International, Inc.; Chris and Ken Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Crown Cleaners; Paul's Dry Cleaners; M & M Cleaners; Pak Hee Kyoo dba M & M Cleaners; Irvin Pressman and Annette Pressman, dba E. Pressman & A. Pressman Partners Dollar Cleaners; Irvin Pressman; Annette Pressman; and Prudential Overall Supply (collectively "Settled Arranger Defendants"). (Dkt. No. 62.) The Consent Decree resolved the claims DTSC made against those parties in the January 17, 2013, First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 6).
3. The Second Amended Complaint will restate the allegations of the First Amended Complaint as to the Settled Arranger Defendants to ensure that the Court retains jurisdiction over the Settled Arranger Defendants for purposes of the Consent Decree. DTSC will not make any new allegations in its Second Amended Complaint against the Settled Arranger Defendants that DTSC believes require a response.
4. Because a Consent Decree with each of the Settling Defendants has been approved and entered by the Court, the Settled Arranger Defendants are not required to respond to the Second Amended Complaint.
5. Every other defendant's response to the First Amended Complaint will be deemed its response to the Second Amended Complaint.
6. The Second Amended Complaint will not include a prayer for relief against the Settled Arranger Defendants because the obligations of the Settled Arranger Defendants are as ...