USA v. Sterling Centrecorp Inc. et al

Filing 40

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 10/16/09 ORDERING that MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Answer 33 and MOTION to Assign Counterclaim to Phase 2 of this litigation 36 are GRANTED. Accordingly the 10/15/09 MOTIONS hearing is VACATED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

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 This is an action brought by Plaintiffs pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. § 9601, et seq., seeking, inter alia, the recovery of response costs related to the release of hazardous substances from the Lava Cap Mine Superfund Site. By v. STERLING CENTRECORP INC., STEPHEN P. ELDER, and ELDER DEVELOPMENT, INC., Defendants. ----oo0oo---UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL, Plaintiffs, ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. 2:08-cv-02556-MCE-JFM

Order dated March 24, 2009, this Court bifurcated the case into two phases. Phase 1 is limited to discovery and trial as to the

Court's jurisdiction over Defendant Sterling, as well as whether Defendants bear any liability under CERCLA. 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

Phase 2, if necessary, will address the extent of Plaintiffs' entitlement to the response costs being sought, as well as any statute of limitations defenses to those potential damages. Presently before the Court is Defendant Sterling's Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Answer which incorporates a counterclaim against Plaintiff United States that was not set forth in Sterling's original answer. Defendant Sterling has also

filed a second motion seeking to assign that counterclaim to Phase 2 of this litigation. On September 25, 2009, the United States filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to both of Sterling's Motions. Given that non-

opposition, and good causing appearing therefor, Defendant Sterling's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer (Docket No. 33) and its Motion to Assign Counterclaim to Phase 2 of this litigation (Docket No. 36) are hereby GRANTED.1 October 15, 2009 motions hearing is vacated. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 16, 2009 Accordingly, the

_____________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 78-230(h). 2

1