Shah

Ecodyne Corp. v. Shah

Good Law
718 F. Supp. 1454·1989 WL 102286·20 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20172·30 ERC (BNA) 1500·1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10545
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaAugust 28, 1989C-88-4813-JPVCalifornia1,978 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vukasin, J.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISMISSING ACTION

INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), defendant Siddharth Shah (“Shah”), joined by defendants Ted and Gerta Rivas (the “Rivases”) and Shiloh Industrial Park, Inc. (“Shiloh”) (Shah, the Rivases and Shiloh are sometimes collectively “defendants”), have moved to dismiss plaintiff Ecodyne Corporation’s (“Ecodyne”) claims under the Comprehensive Enviromental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 §§ 107(a)(2) and 113(f)(1), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9607 (a)(2) and 9613(f)(1) respectively, and to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay Ecodyne’s pendent state law claims. Raymond C. Marshall of McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, San Francisco, CA represented plaintiff. Daniel Rapaport of Nichols, Doi, Rapaport & Chan, San Francisco, CA and Grant A. Barbour of Sonoma, CA represented defendant Shah. Barry Parkinson of Petaluma, CA represented defendants Ted and Gerta Rivas and Shiloh, Inc. After extensive briefing and thoughtful oral presentations, the Court hereby dismisses this action for the following reasons.

JURISDICTION

This Court.has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 9613 (b), federal…

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.