Schlesinger

Smith v. Schlesinger

Good Law
371 F. Supp. 559·4 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20·1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12831
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJanuary 11, 1974Civ. 73-2759-HPCalifornia1,190 words

Opinion

Opinion

Pregerson, J.

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

On 20 December 1973, under Rule 65 F.R.Civ.P., the court heard plaintiffs’ application for a preliminary injunction filed 28 November 1973. Pursuant to oral stipulation of the parties and upon order of this court, the trial of the action on the merits was advanced and consolidated with the hearing on plaintiffs’ application, as provided by Rule 65(a)(2) F.R.Civ.P.

Plaintiffs are represented by Attorney Peter A. Lewine of Demler, Perona, Langler, Bergkvist, Lauchengco & Lewine. Defendants are represented by William D. Keller, U. S. Attorney; Frederick M. Brosio, Jr., Assistant U. S. Attorney, Chief, Civil Division; and Assistant U. S. Attorneys Alan W. Peryam and Stephen E. Petersen.

Having read and studied the pleadings, briefs, affidavits, and exhibits filed herein, and having considered the arguments of counsel, the court now concludes that plaintiffs’ suit is foreclosed by the doctrine of laches; accordingly, the court makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The plaintiffs Smith and Hastings are residents of Long Beach, California, while plaintiff Peyton is a resident…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.