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)

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
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)