Concrete Washout Systems Incorporated v. Neaton

Filing 63

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 2/3/09 DENYING plaintiff's 41 Motion for coercive sanctions. (Marciel, M)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Defendant. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. NEATON COMPANIES, LLC, a limited liability company, CONCRETE WASHOUT SYSTEMS, INC., a California corporation Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:08-cv-02088-GEB-KJM ORDER

Plaintiff seeks coercive sanctions to compel Defendant's compliance with a preliminary injunction ("PI") issued on October 22, 2008, which enjoined Defendant from "using . . . concrete washout boxes that [Defendant] obtained from [Plaintiff] or its authorized manufacturers." (Dkt. No. 36, PI, at 7:17-19.) The issue is whether

coercive sanctions are necessary to prevent Defendant from using thirteen concrete washout boxes that are on construction sites. Defendant argues sanctions are unnecessary, relying on the declaration of its Chief Operations Officer Kelly Neaton, in which she avers eleven of those thirteen boxes are not being used for 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

construction activity on those sites; and the other two are not currently being used due to present freezing weather conditions. (Neaton 2nd Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 3, 11-15.) Neaton further declares she

covered eleven of the thirteen boxes with tarps, which is a method Plaintiff suggested would prevent use of the boxes. Decl. ¶¶ 4, 11, 13, 15; Supp. Reply at 2:20.) (Neaton 2nd Supp.

Defendant indicates

belated compliance with the PI as to the use of these boxes, and that coercive sanctions are not necessary at this time. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion is denied. Dated: February 3, 2009

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge

2