Schlumberger Technology Corporation, Inc v. East Charleston, Inc et al

Filing 232

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting in part and denying in part 155 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 156 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 161 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/26/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

11
12

SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION, Inc., a Texas Corporation
Plaintiff,

13
v.
14
15
16
17

EAST CHARLESTON, INC., a California
Corporation; PACIFIC AMERICAN
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, a California
Limited Liability Corporation,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 11-CV-02587-LHK

ORDER RE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT
MOTIONS AND CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE

18
19
20
21
22
23

Clerk: Martha Parker Brown
Reporter: Lee-Anne Shortridge

Attorneys: Tom Boer for Schlumberger Technology
Corporation, Inc. (“STC”) and National
Semiconductor Maine, Inc. (“NSM”);
Jan Greben and Brett Boon for East Charleston,
Inc. (“ECI”) and Pacific American Management
Company (“PAMCO”);
Joseph Salazar and Glenn Friedman for Travelers
Casualty and Surety Company as alleged insurer
of Advalloy (“Travelers”);
Jon-Erik William Magnus for Great American on
behalf of Advalloy (“Great American”)

24
25
26
27

A summary judgment hearing and case management conference were held on April 25,
2013 at 1:30 p.m.
Before the Court were three motions for summary judgment: (1) PAMCO’s motion for
summary judgment, ECF No. 155; (2) Travelers’ motion for summary judgment or partial
summary judgment, ECF No. 156; and (3) STC and NSM’s motion for partial summary judgment,
ECF No. 161.

28

Case No.: 11-CV-2587-LHK
ORDER RE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

1

PAMCO’s MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

2

At the hearing, Travelers represented that it had dismissed all claims against PAMCO. A
stipulation of dismissal of these claims shall be filed by May 2, 2013.

3
4
5
6
7
8

For the reasons stated on the record, the Court DENIED PAMCO’s motion on STC’s
CERCLA claims for cost recovery pursuant to CERCLA § 107(a) and contribution pursuant to
CERCLA § 113(f). For the same reasons, the Court DENIED PAMCO’s motion on NSM’s,
Travelers’, and Great American’s CERCLA contribution claims pursuant to CERCLA § 113(f).
Per Great American’s concessions, the Court GRANTED PAMCO’s motion on Great
American’s claim under the Carpenter-Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act
(“HSAA”).
For the reasons stated on the record, the Court DENIED PAMCO’s motion on Great
American’s common law claims for contribution, indemnification, and equitable indemnification.

9
TRAVELERS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

11
12
13

For the reasons stated on the record, the Court DENIED Travelers’ motion on ECI’s claims
for relief against Advalloy for cost recovery pursuant to CERCLA § 107(a) and contribution
pursuant to CERLA § 113(f). For the same reasons, the Court DENIED Traveler’s motion on
ECI’s claims against Advalloy for statutory contribution and indemnity under the HSAA.
Per ECI’s representation that it will dismiss its negligence and negligence per se claims, the
Court GRANTED Travelers’ motion on these claims.

14
15
16
17
18

Per ECI’s concession, the Court GRANTED Travelers motion that ECI’s claims against
Advalloy for continuing nuisance and continuing trespass, equitable contribution, and equitable
indemnity are limited to the damages allegedly incurred by ECI in the three year period preceding
the filing of ECI’s third party complaint.
For the reasons stated on the record, the Court DENIED in part and GRANTED in part
Travelers’ motion on ECI’s claims for declaratory relief against Advalloy. As stated on the record,
the Court found that ECI’s claims for declaratory relief survive to the extent that the underlying
causes of action survive.

19
STC AND NSM’s MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
20
21

The Court first addressed the parties’ evidentiary objections. For the reasons stated on the
record, the Court OVERRULED ECI and PAMCO’s objection to the entire Haddad declaration,
but GRANTED the motion to strike paragraph 20.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

For the reasons stated on the record, the Court GRANTED in part and DENIED in part
STC and NSM’s request for judicial notice. The Court takes judicial notice of the documents listed
in the following paragraphs of STC and NSM’s Amended Request for judicial notice: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, and 38. The Court
declines to take judicial notice of the documents listed in paragraphs 3, 9, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34,
35, 36, and 37.
As stated on the record, the Court need not reach STC’s and NSM’s objections to the
O’Brien and Krasnoff expert reports because the Court does not rely upon these reports in ruling on
the pending motions.
For the reasons stated on the record, the Court DENIED STC’s motion on STC’s cost
recovery claims against ECI and Advalloy pursuant to CERCLA §107(a) and CERCLA § 113(f).
The Court did not reach the question of joint and several liability.
Case No.: 11-CV-2587-LHK
ORDER RE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

1

For the reasons stated on the record, the Court DENIED STC’s and NSM’s motion on
ECI’s claim for cost recovery pursuant to § 107(a).

2
3

Per PAMCO’s concessions, the Court GRANTED STC’s and NSM’s motion on all of
PAMCO’s claims against STC and NSM.

4

Per the parties’ concessions, the Court GRANTED STC’s and NSM’s motion on claims
asserted by ECI and Advalloy pursuant to the HSAA.

5
6

Per ECI’s concession, the Court GRANTED STC’s and NSM’s motion to limit the
damages period for ECI’s continuing nuisance and continuing trespass claims to three years prior
to the filing of ECI’s third party complaint.

7
8

For the reasons stated on the record, the Court GRANTED STC’s and NSM’s motion on
ECI’s claims of negligence and negligence per se.

9

Case Management Conference

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

11

The Court set an ADR deadline of May 31, 2013. The parties shall schedule an ADR
session, either before Judge Whyte on May 21, 22, or 28, or with a neutral of their choosing. By
May 3, 2013, the parties shall file an ADR process status report. By June 4, 2013, the parties shall
file a settlement status report.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

By May 2, 2013, STC and NSM shall file an opposition to ECI and PAMCO’s motion for
relief from Magistrate Judge Grewal’s Order on ECI and PAMCO’s motion to strike STC and
NSM’s Rule 26 disclosures. The opposition shall not exceed five pages. The hearing on the
motion will be on May 16, 2013.
By May 9, 2013, the parties shall file a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice as to Great
American, or Great American shall file a Certification of Interested Entities or Persons as required
by Civil Local Rule 3-16.
The Case schedule is amended as follows:
STC’s MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT was filed as ordered on
April 25, 2013. The opposition shall be filed by May 17, 2013. The opposition shall
address when STC was or should have been aware of a basis for its alter ego claims. The
reply shall be filed no later than May 24, 2013.

20
21
22
23
24
25

DAUBERT MOTIONS shall be heard on May 16, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. Experts are not required to
attend the hearing.
A PRETRIAL CONFERENCE will be held on June 20, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. At this hearing, the
Court will address STC’s motion for leave file an amended complaint, and the motions in
limine that have already been filed. No further motions in limine shall be filed in this case.
BENCH TRIAL DATES are July 15, 16, 19, 22, 23, 26, and 29, from 9:00 a.m. to noon, and from
1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. in courtroom 8, 4th floor. STC and NSM combined, ECI and
PAMCO combined, and Travelers will have 20 minutes for opening statements and 45 minutes for
closing arguments.

26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
27
28

Dated: April 26, 2013

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

Case No.: 11-CV-2587-LHK
ORDER RE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE