Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

California River Watch v. Fluor Corporation

United States District Court, N.D. California

November 25, 2014

CALIFORNIA RIVER WATCH, Plaintiff,
v.
FLUOR CORPORATION, Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Re: Dkt. No. 168

WILLIAM H. ORRICK, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Intervenor/plaintiff The Shiloh Group LLC ("TSG") has filed a complaint in intervention against defendant Fluor Corporation, alleging that Fluor's contamination of TSG's property entitles TSG to relief under various environmental laws and tort causes of action. Dkt. No. 147. In accordance with my order granting Fluor's motion to dismiss TSG's intervenor complaint, TSG moves for leave to file an amended complaint. TSG's motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. As discussed at the oral argument and set forth below, TSG's proposed amended complaint suffers from various defects. TSG may file a second amended complaint that addresses those defects, consistent with the discussion below.

BACKGROUND

TSG filed the present intervenor action on July 30, 2014, alleging seven causes of action:

(i) contribution for cleanup costs and natural resource and property damage under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et. seq.;
(ii) contribution for cleanup costs incurred under the Carpenter-Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act[1] ("HSAA"), California Health & Safety Code § 25363(e);
(iii) negligence;
(iv) trespass;
(v) private nuisance;
(vi) declaratory relief; and
(vii) injunction.

Dkt. No. 147. TSG also sought attorneys' fees for its causes of action.

On October 2, 2014, I granted Fluor's motion to dismiss and/or strike. Dkt. No. 165. I dismissed TSG's claims for natural resource and property damages under CERCLA within the first cause of action[2] and TSG's cause of action for injunctive relief in its seventh cause of action. I also struck TSG's requests for attorneys' fees without prejudice to its ability to move for fees at a later time pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, if appropriate. Fluor did not seek to dismiss the second through sixth causes of action.

TSG's proposed first amended complaint alleges causes of action for:

(i) recovery of cleanup costs incurred under CERCLA, 42 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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