Northern California River Watch v. Ecodyne Corportation

Filing 214

FURTHER ORDER REGARDING PROPOSED CONSENT JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 02/03/2015. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2015)

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.

FURTHER ORDER REGARDING
PROPOSED CONSENT JUDGMENT

9
10

FLUOR CORPORATION,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 194, 208

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

THE SHILOH GROUP,
Intervenor/Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
FLUOR CORPORATION,

16

Defendant.

17
18

FLUOR CORPORATION,
Third-Party Plaintiff,

19
v.
20
21
22

SHILOH ROAD, WEST COAST METALS,
INC., M&M SERVICES, INC.
Third-Party Defendants.

23
24
Plaintiff California River Watch and defendant Fluor Corporation presented a revised
25
Proposed Consent Judgment (Dkt. No.212-1) for review at the Case Management Conference this
26
afternoon. The revised Proposed Consent Judgment addresses the concerns I raised in the Order
27
Regarding Consent Judgment (Dkt. No. 208) and I will enter it once River Watch and Fluor
28

1

execute it. In this regard, the parties brought to my attention a typo that created an ambiguity on

2

page 3, line 14 of the Order Regarding Consent Judgment. The first “or” in that line should be

3

deleted, so that the sentence reads: “As currently drafted, the proposed judgment may preclude the

4

general public from bringing a RCRA or CWA suit in the future (i) based on facts not presently

5

known or (ii) if conditions at the Site change.” I thank the parties for their diligence in raising that

6

issue, and appreciate the manner in which River Watch and Fluor addressed my concerns about

7

the Consent Judgment.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 3, 2015
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2