Legal Opinion
Enfield v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Decided October 17, 1989No. Nos. CIV-88-932-A, CIV-87-2032-A, CIV-88-1427-A, CIV-88-1508-A, CIV-88-1509-A, CIV-88-1525-A, CIV-88-1612-A and CIV-89-637-APublished
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
ALLEY, District Judge.
The defendant Atlantic Richfield Company (“ARCO”) has moved to strike certain portions of plaintiffs’ amended complaints, on the grounds that the new allegations are an attempt to circumvent the Court’s Order of August 25, 1989. For several reasons, ARCO’s motion is denied.
Initially, ARCO has failed to distinguish between cost of litigation and cost of mitigation. ARCO’s central complaint appears to be that plaintiffs want ARCO to pay for hiring experts to test, evaluate and make a clean-up plan for the pollution. ARCO believes that it has been absolved of paying…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Albers v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
- Casey v. Nampa and Meridian Irrigation DistrictIdaho Supreme Court · 1963
- Coury Bros. Ranches, Inc. v. EllsworthArizona Supreme Court · 1968
- Tulsa Municipal Airport Trust v. National Gypsum Co.Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1976