Zaman

MEMORANDUM **

ARCO has Article III standing because there was a real controversy here between *865 the parties. The Zaman Parties, through their representative Ebrahim, contended that ARCO was responsible for the contamination and demanded that the company help cover remediation costs. Therefore, ARCO has more than an abstract interest in remediating the Property. “There can be no doubt concerning [ARCO’s] personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.” Cole v. Oroville Union High Sch. Dist., 228 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 , 95 S.Ct. 2222 , 44 L.Ed.2d 600 (1975)).

Substantial evidence supports the district court’s findings of fact on each issue raised by the Zaman Parties. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing evidentiary sanctions for spoliation of evidence. The Zaman Parties knew that certain physical evidence was relevant to issues at trial, failed to notify ARCO of its existence, and subsequently destroyed it without notifying ARCO.

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Fox & Fields and related defendants because after four years of litigation the Zaman Parties had no…