California Department of Toxic Substances Control et al v. Jim Dobbas, Inc. et al

Filing 62

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 10/16/2014 GRANTING 27 Plaintiffs' motion to strike the jury demand of defendant David van Over, GRANTING 27 Plaintiffs' motion to strike the prayer for attorney's fees of defendant David van Over and DENYING 27 Plaintiffs' motion to strike David van Over affirmative defenses with respect to the ninth, tenth, and thirty-four affirmative defenses and GRANTED in all other aspects. David Van Over has 20 days from the date of this order to file an amended answer and counterclaim consistent with this order. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
----oo0oo---11
12
13

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL and
the TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL
ACCOUNT,

CIV. NO. 2:14-595 WBS EFB
ORDER RE: MOTION TO STRIKE

14
Plaintiffs,
15
v.
16
17
18
19
20
21

JIM DOBBAS, INC., a
California corporation;
CONTINENTAL RAIL, INC., a
Delaware corporation; DAVID
VAN OVER, individually;
PACIFIC WOOD PRESERVING, a
dissolved California
corporation; and WEST COAST
WOOD PRESERVING, LLC, a
Nevada limited liability
company,

22
Defendants,
23
24

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS AND
CROSS-CLAIMS.

25
26
27
28

----oo0oo---Plaintiffs California Department of Toxic Substances
Control (“DTSC”) and the Toxic Substances Control Account
1

1

(“TSCA”) brought this action under the Comprehensive

2

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

3

(“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et seq., to recover cleanup costs

4

from defendants Jim Dobbas, Inc. (“Dobbas”), Continental Rail,

5

Inc., Pacific Wood Preserving, West Coast Wood Preserving, LLC

6

(“WCWP”), and David van Over.

7

answered the Complaint.

8

of the Answer filed by van Over pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

9

Procedure 12(f), including van Over’s jury trial demand, request

Dobbas, van Over, and WCWP

Plaintiffs now move to strike portions

10

for attorney’s fees, and seventeen of van Over’s forty-five

11

affirmative defenses.1

12

For the reasons set forth in this court’s September 16,

13

2014 Memorandum and Order, (Docket No. 43), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

14

that:

15
16

(1) plaintiffs’ motion to strike the jury demand of
defendant David van Over be, and the same hereby is, DENIED;

17

(2) plaintiffs’ motion to strike the prayer for

18

attorney’s fees of defendant David van Over be, and the same

19

hereby is, GRANTED;

20

(3) plaintiffs’ motion to strike David van Over’s

21

affirmative defenses be, and the same hereby is, DENIED with

22

respect to the ninth, tenth, and thirty-fourth affirmative

23

defenses and GRANTED in all other respects;

24
25
26
27
28

David Van Over has twenty days from the date this Order
1

The seventeen challenged affirmative defenses are van
Over’s fifth, sixth, seventh, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth,
thirteenth, fourteenth, twenty-seventh, twenty-eighth, thirtyfourth, thirty-fifth, thirty-ninth, forty-first, forty-second,
and forty-fourth affirmative defenses. (Pls.’ Mem. at 11-21
(Docket No. 27-1).)
2

1

is signed to file an amended answer or counterclaim, if he can do

2

so consistent with this Order.

3

Dated:

October 16, 2014

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
3