Jim 72 Properties, LLC v. Montgomery Clearners

Good Law
151 F. Supp. 3d 1092·2015 WL 9093421·82 ERC (BNA) 1081·2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168374
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaDecember 16, 2015Case No. 2:15-cv-7543-ODW (FFMx)California4,077 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Wright, J.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS FELIPE P. RENDON AND REN-DON PROPERTIES, LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS [15]

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Jim 72 Properties, LLC brings suit against multiple defendants, including Felipe P. Rendon and Rendon Properties, LLC (collectively “Rendon”). Plaintiff claims to have a valid and lawful assignment to all rights to bring environmental claims relating to a specific parcel of real estate in Wilmington, California (the “Subject Property”). Rendon argues that the assignment is conditional and not absolute, and therefore Plaintiff lacks standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to pursue this action. For the reasons discussed below, the Court’finds that Plaintiff does have standing and DENIES Rendon’s Motion. (ECF No. 15.)

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs case relates to the alleged contamination of a dry cleáning business. The Subject Property is located at 1355 North Avalon Boulevard, Wilmington, Cal- ■ ifornia. (Complaint [“Compl.”] ¶5, EOF No. 1.) Anulfo Estrada and Rosa Estrada (“the Estradas”) have owned the property for many years, though neither are parties in this action. (Id. ¶ 26; Motion [“Mot.”] 1, ECF No. 15.). In May 2013,…

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.