From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Adobe Lumber, Inc. v. Hellman

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 15, 2006
Case No. CIV. S-05-1510 WBS PAN (E.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. CIV. S-05-1510 WBS PAN.

February 15, 2006


ORDER


On February 10, 2006, the court heard oral argument on plaintiff Adobe Lumber and defendants Harold and Geraldine Taecker's motion to approve settlement and defendants' motion to certify the court's January 3, 2006 order for interlocutory appeal. The court granted defendants' motion for certification and orally extended the existing stay of discovery to a stay of all proceedings in this case.

Defendants Joseph Montalvo, the Woodland Shopping Center, and the City of Woodland joined with the Trustees of the Hellman Estate in moving to certify the order for interlocutory appeal.

The motion to approve settlement is, however, still pending before this court. The question certified for appeal, whether plaintiff has a claim against defendants for contribution under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601- 9675 ("CERCLA"), may impact the proposed settlement. The court will therefore make no determination on the motion to approve the settlement in abeyance while the appeal is pending. Additionally, as a practical matter, this case should be administratively closed until the Ninth Circuit issues its opinion. Dees v. Billy, 394 F.3d 1290, 1294 (9th Cir. 2005) ("[T]he `effect of an administrative closure is no different from a simple stay, except that it affects the count of active cases pending on the court's docket; i.e., administratively closed cases are not counted as active.'" (discussing and quoting Mire v. Full Spectrum Lending Inc., 389 F.3d 163, 167 (5th Cir. 2004))).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the settling parties' motion to approve settlement be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without prejudice to renewal at an appropriate future date.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all proceedings in this matter shall be STAYED and the file ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED without prejudice to reopen by motion of either party upon determination of the appealable issue by the Ninth Circuit.


Summaries of

Adobe Lumber, Inc. v. Hellman

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 15, 2006
Case No. CIV. S-05-1510 WBS PAN (E.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2006)
Case details for

Adobe Lumber, Inc. v. Hellman

Case Details

Full title:ADOBE LUMBER, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. F. WARREN…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Feb 15, 2006

Citations

Case No. CIV. S-05-1510 WBS PAN (E.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2006)