California Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Chico Scrap Metal, Inc.

Good Law
124 F. Supp. 3d 1007·2015 WL 4910437·81 ERC (BNA) 1581·2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108314
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 14, 2015No. 2:10-CV-01207-GEB-ACCalifornia11,441 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Burrell, J.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART EACH PARTY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION

Pending are cross motions for summary judgment on the claims alleged in Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint • (“TAC”) under the federal Clean Water Act (“CWA”) and California Health & Safety •Code section 25249. •

I. UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

Defendants “own and/or operate the [scrap metal recycling] facility located at 1855 Kusel Road in Oroville, California Cthe Facility’).” (Pl.’s SUF ¶¶ 1, 8, ECF *1015 No. 189.) “The [F]acility’s primary purpose is to receive, separate, and ship recyclable ... scrap metals, plastics, and CRV items (bottles and cans).... The received materials are separated at the facility, bailed and shipped.” (Packard Deck Ex. SS, Resp. No. 12 p. 9, ECF No. 168-7.) The Facility has “stockpiles of metal and other debris” and “[mjost of the industrial activities at the Facility occur outdoors.” (PI SUF ¶11.) When it rains, “[s]torm water associated with [the Facility's] industrial activities is discharged from the Facility.” (Pl.'s SUF ¶ 10.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 750 F.3d 1036, 1049 (9th Cir.2014) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a)) (citing Celotex Corp.…

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.