Barken

United States v. Barken

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 27, 200503-50441California3,021 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS

Barken was indicted on October 28, 2002, with eleven of the twenty-one counts relating to events that took place nearly five years earlier. In 1997, Barken became president of a family-owned business, Barken’s Hard Chrome, located in Compton, California. The company’s business is chrome plat- ing and metal finishing. Beginning in the spring of that year, Barken spoke with Michelle Totten, the environmental facili- ties manager for Philadelphia Gear, a gear manufacturing company. Totten contacted Barken because Philadelphia Gear had decided to stop its copper plating business, and Totten was charged with finding a home for the equipment and chemicals the company would no longer need. She first tried to find a buyer, but when she had no success, Philadelphia Gear decided to look for a company that would take the equipment and chemicals at no cost. Barken agreed to take everything, and Philadelphia Gear and Barken’s Hard Chrome entered into a written agreement concerning the transfer of ownership and relocation of the items. Philadelphia Gear hired a company to pump the chemicals out of the equipment and separate them into waste product and good product. The chemicals were…

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.