From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sppi-Somersville, Inc. v. TRC Companies, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
May 27, 2005
C 04-02648 SI (N.D. Cal. May. 27, 2005)

Opinion

          KELLY A. JOHNSON, Acting Assistant Attorney General, PAMELA S. TONGLAO, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Environmental Defense Section, Washington, DC.

          KEVIN V. RYAN, United States Attorney, JAMES CODA, Assistant United States Attorney, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for the United States of America.

          John L. Kortum, ARCHER NORRIS, Walnut Creek, CA, ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS.

          Clifton J. McFarland, GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, Los Angeles, CA, ATTORNEYS FOR NON-FEDERAL GENERATOR DEFENDANTS.

          Jeremy Huie, Fred Blum, BASSI MARTINI EDLIN & BLUM, San Francisco, California, ATTORNEYS FOR OWNER/OPERATOR DEFENDANTS.


          STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER EXCUSING DEFENDANT UNITED STATES' APPEARANCE AT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ON JUNE 10, 2005

          SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.

         In accordance with Local Rule 7-11, the parties hereby stipulate that the United States Department of the Army, United States Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency, and United States Department of the Navy (collectively "Federal Defendants") be excused from appearing at the case management conference scheduled for June 10, 2005. The principal basis for this request is that counsel of record for the United States will be on vacation from June 1, 2005, through June 19, 2005. In further support of this stipulation, the parties state as follows:

         (1) Plaintiffs in this case seek relief from three categories of defendants: (i) defendants who allegedly arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances at the GBF and Pittsburg Landfills ("Generator Defendants"), (ii) defendants who previously owned and/or operated the GBF and Pittsburg Landfills ("Former Owner/Operator Defendants"), and (iii) defendants who currently own the landfills ("Current Owner/Operator Defendants"). The Federal Defendants fall within the first category. Thus, the Generator Defendants are comprised of Federal Defendants and Non-federal Generator Defendants.

         (2) The Federal Defendants contend that, under previously developed calculations, they are responsible for less than 3 percent, by volume, of the waste disposed at the GBF and Pittsburg Landfills.

         (3) All of the defendants, including the Federal Defendants, are named insureds under the same insurance policy.

         (4) In resolving a related action in this Court (C96-3147 SI), certain Generator Defendants agreed to indemnify and hold the United States harmless from any and all future claims for response costs in connection with the GBF and Pittsburg Landfills.

         (5) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 516, the conduct of litigation in which the United States is a party is reserved to the Department of Justice. Thus, unlike the Non-federal Generator Defendants, the Federal Defendants are unable to tender the defense of the claims in this case to outside counsel.

         (6) To date, all substantive discussions regarding the litigation and potential resolution of this case have principally involved Plaintiffs, Non-federal Generator Defendants, Former Owner/Operator Defendants, and Current Owner/Operator Defendants. The Federal Defendants have been kept apprised of the developments in the discussions between the main parties. Plaintiffs, Non-federal Generator Defendants, Former Owner/Operator Defendants, and Current Owner/Operator Defendants wish to continue to explore possible means of resolving this case without litigation. If such a resolution is reached, the parties expect that the Federal Defendants will be brought into the framework of any negotiated settlement under the indemnity agreement between certain Defendants and the United States. Given the Federal Defendants' unique position in this case, their appearance at the status conference is not necessary to the advancement of this case toward a final resolution.

         For the foregoing reasons, the parties stipulate that the Federal Defendants be excused from appearing at the status conference scheduled for June 10, 2005.

         SO STIPULATED.

         PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Sppi-Somersville, Inc. v. TRC Companies, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
May 27, 2005
C 04-02648 SI (N.D. Cal. May. 27, 2005)
Case details for

Sppi-Somersville, Inc. v. TRC Companies, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:SPPI-Somersville, Inc., et al. Plaintiff, v. TRC Companies, Inc., et al…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division

Date published: May 27, 2005

Citations

C 04-02648 SI (N.D. Cal. May. 27, 2005)