Ameripride Svc Inc v. Valley Industrial, et al

Filing 909

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 03/12/12 ORDERING that, pursuant to 908 Request for Clarification, the parties are correct in assuming that the questions the Court asked the parties to address in the 907 03/05/12 order are in addition to, and not in lieu of, the issues the court initially permitted the parties to brief at the conclusion of trial. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AMERIPRIDE SERVICES, INC.,
A Delaware corporation,
NO. CIV. S-00-113 LKK/JFM

12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15

VALLEY INDUSTRIAL SERVICE, INC.,
a former California corporation,
et al.,

O R D E R

16
Defendants.
/

17
18

AND CONSOLIDATED ACTION AND
CROSS- AND COUNTER-CLAIMS.
/

19
20

On March 5, 2012, the court issued an order instructing the

21

parties to assume several findings of fact in their post trial

22

briefs

23

questions:

24

responsibility for pollution, should the court apportion liability

25

as to past costs between the parties?; and (2) How, and on what

26

potential bases other than responsibility for pollution, should the

and,

given

(1)

How,

these
and

assumptions,
on

what

1

address

potential

the

bases

following
other

than

1

court apportion liability as to future costs between the parties?

2

Order, ECF No. 907.

3
4
5
6
7
8

On

March

9,

2012,

Defendant

TEO

filed

a

request

for

clarification which states:
[W]e write to confirm that the questions the Court
asked the Parties to address in the March 5, 2012
Order are in addition to, not in lieu of, the
issues the Court initially permitted the Parties to
brief at the conclusion of the trial. Both parties
assume this was the Court’s intent, but request
clarification from the Court if this shared
assumption is incorrect.

9
10

Def’s Req., ECF No. 908.

11

The parties are correct in assuming that the questions the

12

court asked the parties to address in the March 5, 2012 order are

13

in addition to, and not in lieu of, the issues the court initially

14

permitted the parties to brief at the conclusion of trial.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

DATED: March 12, 2012.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2