California v. Neville Chemical Co.

Good Law
213 F. Supp. 2d 1142·2002 WL 1765598·2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14854
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJuly 11, 2002CIV.00-10205 CAS(Ex)California1,618 words

Opinion

Opinion

Snyder, J.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

The Court finds plaintiffs motion appropriate for decision without oral’ argument. Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; Local Rule 7-15.

I. INTRODUCTION

This case is a cost-recovery action brought by plaintiff State of California on behalf of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) against defendant Neville Chemical Company pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et seq. In an order dated May 16, 2002, the Court granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of defendant’s liability for response costs incurred by plaintiff pursuant to the CERCLA while supervising the cleanup of hazardous materials at defendant’s chemical manufacturing facility. In granting summary judgment, the Court found that defendant’s affirmative defense of equitable estoppel was not available under CERCLA, but did not explicitly address defendant’s counterclaim for equitable estoppel. May 16, 2002 Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Judgment (“May 16, 2002 Order”). Defendant communicated to plaintiff that it intended to proceed with its…

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.