United States v. Alisal Water Corp.
Opinion
Opinion
Fogel, J.
ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL PENALTY; GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERT’S REPORT AND OTHER WISE DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE; AND DENYING MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 23, 2000, the Court granted partial summary judgment with respect to counts 1-9 of the complaint, establishing the liability of the Individual and Corporate Defendants for hundreds of violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”). On November 8, 2001, the Court granted partial summary judgment with respect to counts 11-13 of the complaint, establishing additional violations of the SDWA. The Court conducted a trial between December 4, 2001 and January 8, 2002 for the purpose of determining an appropriate remedy for the adjudicated violations.
On February 7, 2002, the Court issued a memorandum of intended decision concluding that an appropriate remedy would include divesting Defendants of all of their water systems except Aleo and imposing “a very substantial civil penalty.” The Court noted that this approach would be costly because it would require the appointment of a receiver to manage the smaller systems, to investigate the feasibility of selling Defendants’ small…