Northern California River Watch v. Ecodyne Corportation

Filing 199

ORDER VACATING CONSENT JUDGMENT re 198 Judgment. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 01/05/2015. Supplemental submissions by River Watch and Fluor shall be filed with the Court by Monday, January 12, 2015. Any response from Shiloh Road or The Shiloh Group shall be filed by Thursday, January 15, 2015. After reviewing these submissions, the Court may enter the proposed consent judgment or order additional briefing or a hearing, as appropriate. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CALIFORNIA RIVER WATCH,

Case No. 10-cv-05105-WHO

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER VACATING CONSENT
JUDGMENT

9
10

FLUOR CORPORATION,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 197, 198

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On December 31, 2014, I entered the consent judgment proposed by plaintiff California

14

River Watch and defendant Fluor Corporation. Dkt. No. 198. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

15

Procedure 60(a), I now VACATE that consent judgment to ensure that the judgment actually

16

reflects what I intended. See, e.g., Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., 918 F.2d 1439, 1445 (9th Cir. 1990)

17

(“A district court judge may properly invoke Rule 60(a) to make a judgment reflect the actual

18

intentions and necessary implications of the court's decision.”).

19

Third-party defendant Shiloh Road, LLC objects to the consent judgment “to the extent

20

that it purports to release claims that Shiloh Road, or other members of the general public, may

21

have against Fluor arising from Fluor’s historical operations on Shiloh Road’s property.” Dkt. No.

22

195. Plaintiff-in-intervention The Shiloh Group LLC similarly objects that “(a) River Watch has

23

no authority to waive or release any past, present or future claims against Fluor by any person that

24

is not a member of River Watch, and (b) members of the ‘general public’ are not members of

25

River Watch.” Dkt. No. 196.

26

When I entered the Consent Judgment, my understanding was that the judgment was

27

between River Watch and Fluor only, and would NOT release claims that Shiloh Road or The

28

Shiloh Group may have against Fluor. To the extent that River Watch and Fluor agree with my

1

understanding and those expressed in the objections of Shiloh Road and The Shiloh Group, River

2

Watch and Fluor shall file a stipulation to that effect. If, on the other hand, River Watch and Fluor

3

contend that their proposed consent judgment releases potential claims that Shiloh Road or The

4

Shiloh Group may have against Fluor, or broadly releases claims by members of the “general

5

public” who are not members of River Watch, they shall file a statement of authority in support of

6

that position and respond to the objections of Shiloh Road and The Shiloh Group.

7

Shiloh Road and The Shiloh Group also object that the proposed consent judgment does

8

not commit Fluor to remediating the site at issue and does not further the objectives of the RCRA.

9

River Watch and Fluor shall also address those objections in their submissions.

10

To the extent that River Watch and Fluor determine that a revised proposed consent

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

judgment which addresses the objections discussed above is appropriate, they shall file an

12

amended proposed consent judgment and a motion to approve that amended proposed consent

13

judgment.

14

The supplemental submissions by River Watch and Fluor shall be filed with the

15

Court by Monday, January 12, 2015. Any response from Shiloh Road or The Shiloh Group

16

shall be filed by Thursday, January 15, 2015. After reviewing these submissions, I may enter

17

the proposed consent judgment or order additional briefing or a hearing, as appropriate.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 5, 2015
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2