JIM 72 Properties, LLC v. Montgomery Cleaners et al

Filing 29

ORDER STAYING ACTION PENDING INDEPENDENT SITE INVESTIGATIONS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Because the Court finds good cause for staying the action and because the Court wishes to facilitate an efficient and cost-effective resolution of this case , the Court hereby STAYS the entire action until December 31, 2016. Parties are directed to file quarterly reports updating the Court on the investigations progress and to alert the Court of any settlement negotiations. These reports are to be fil ed on or before May 2, 2016; August 1, 2016; and November 1, 2016. Should alternative dispute resolution attempts fail to result in a settlement, parties are to submit a new joint 26(f) Report by February 6, 2017, and the Court will set a trial date. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (vv)

O

1
2
3
4
5

United States District Court
Central District of California

6
7
8
9

JIM 72 PROPERTIES, LLC,
Plaintiff,

10
11

Case No. 2:15-cv-7543-ODW (FFMx)
ORDER STAYING ACTION

v.

12

MONTGOMERY CLEARNERS, d/b/a

PENDING INDEPENDENT SITE

13

MONTGOMERY CLEANERS &

INVESTIGATIONS

14

PRESSERS and MONTGOMERY C H;

15

ROBERT B. JASSO; VIOLA JASSO;

16

JOHN W. RICH; FELIPE P. RENDON;

17

RENDON PROPERTIES LLC; and DOES

18

1–100, inclusive,

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendants.

1

Plaintiff Jim 72 Properties, LLC brings suit against multiple defendants,

2

including Felipe P. Rendon and Rendon Properties, LLC (collectively “Rendon”).

3

Plaintiff claims to have a valid and lawful assignment to all rights to bring

4

environmental claims relating to a specific parcel of real estate in Wilmington,

5

California (the “Subject Property”).

6

Rendon owns certain real property located at 1363–1367 North Avalon

7

Boulevard, Wilmington, California, adjacent to the Subject Property. The property

8

located at 1365 North Avalon is a dry cleaning business. (Compl. ¶¶ 11–12.) Plaintiff

9

argues that prior dry cleaning activities performed on the Rendon property before and

10

during Rendon’s ownership caused chlorinated solvents to contaminate the soil and

11

groundwater of the Rendon property, which then migrated to the soil and groundwater

12

underneath the Subject Property. (Compl. ¶¶ 22–25.) Plaintiff alleges claims under

13

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B)1 (“RCRA”),

14

as well as state law claims for nuisance, negligence, and trespass. Plaintiff seeks

15

damages and injunctive relief. (Compl. ¶¶ 34, 39–45, 51–58, 60–69.)

16

Rendon moved to dismiss the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that

17

Plaintiff holds neither title to the Subject Property nor a perfect, absolute, and

18

complete assignment of rights, and thus lack standing to bring this claim. (ECF No.

19

15.) The Court denied the Motion. (ECF No. 23.) In response to a Court-ordered

20

scheduling conference (as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16), parties

21

now request that the Court refrain from setting a litigation schedule and instead stay

22

the entire action pending additional site investigations of the Subject Property and

23

Defendants’ adjacent property. (Joint 26(f) Report 2, ECF No. 27.)

24

As parties stipulate, the additional site investigation is necessary to determine

25

the nature and extent of the alleged environmental damage, the potential costs in

26

addressing the damage, and the timeframe in which the damage began. (Id.) This

27
28

1

Section 6972(a)(B) authorizes citizen suits under RCRA. Plaintiff here uses the authorizing statute
to allege violations of RCRA itself. 42 U.S.C. §§ 6921, et seq.

2

1

study must be conducted with the oversight of government regulators, and the process

2

itself will be lengthy. Therefore, the parties ask the Court to stay the action for the

3

duration of the site investigation process. (Id. 2–3.)

4

Because the Court finds good cause for staying the action and because the Court

5

wishes to facilitate an efficient and cost-effective resolution of this case, the Court

6

hereby STAYS the entire action until December 31, 2016. Parties are directed to file

7

quarterly reports updating the Court on the investigation’s progress and to alert the

8

Court of any settlement negotiations. These reports are to be filed on or before May 2,

9

2016; August 1, 2016; and November 1, 2016. Should alternative dispute resolution

10

attempts fail to result in a settlement, parties are to submit a new joint 26(f) Report by

11

February 6, 2017, and the Court will set a trial date.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

February 5, 2016

16
17
18

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3