Timec Company, Inc. et al v. Brown et al

Filing 35

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 3/13/14 ORDERING that Plaintiffs' MOTION for Summary Judgment 13 is DENIED, without prejudice. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California MARC A. LEFORESTIER Supervising Deputy Attorney General JOHN W. KILLEEN Deputy Attorney General (attorney for notice) State Bar No. 258395 1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: (916) 445-1968 Fax: (916) 324-8835 E-mail: John.Killeen@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for State Defendants 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 TIMEC COMPANY, INC., dba TRANSFIELD SERVICES; PETROCHEM INSULATION, INC.; SSP INDUSTRIAL PLANT RECLAMATION, A CALIFORNIA JOINT VENTURE, dba PLANT RECLAMATION; ANTHONY GILLISPIE; and RODOLFO LOPEZ, Case No. 2:13-CV-02521-JAM-DAD ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiffs, Date: Time: v. Dept: Judge: Trial Date: KAMALA HARRIS, IN HER OFFICIAL Action Filed: CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; CHRISTINE BAKER, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS; DIANE RAVNIK, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE CHIEF OF THE CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF APPRENTICESHIP STANDARDS; MATT RODRIQUEZ, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CALIFORNIA SECRETARY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, March 5, 2014 9:30 a.m. 6 Hon. John A. Mendez None Set December 5, 2013 Defendants. 28 1 [Proposed] Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (2:13-CV-02521-JAM-DAD) 1 2 STATE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA, AFL-CIO, 3 4 Intervenor. Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on January 22, 2014. Defendants and the 5 Intervenor filed oppositions to the motion for summary judgment on February 12, 2014. 6 Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for summary judgment on February 26, 2014. 7 The Court heard oral argument on March 5, 2014. At the March 5 hearing, the Court made oral 8 findings and conclusions. 9 Based on the pleadings submitted by the parties, the record in this case, the arguments of 10 counsel at the March 5, 2014 hearing, and the Court’s oral findings and conclusions at the March 11 5 hearing, it is hereby ordered that: 12 1. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is denied, without prejudice, on the basis that 13 no Plaintiff has produced sufficient evidence of an injury in fact that would satisfy the standing 14 requirement of Article III of the United States Constitution. 15 2. State Defendants’ objections to Plaintiffs’ evidence are overruled, without prejudice. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: March 13, 2014 /s/ John A. Mendez____________ Honorable John A. Mendez United States District Court Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 [Proposed] Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (2:13-CV-02521-JAM-DAD)