Legal Opinion
California River Watch v. Fluor Corp.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided October 14, 2015No. Case No. 10-cv-05105-WHOPublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
Re: Dkt. No. 261
WILLIAM H. ORRICK, United States District Judge
INTRODUCTION
On August 7, 2015,1 granted Fluor Corporation’s motion for partial summary judgment that The Shiloh. Group, LLC (“TSG”) is a liable person under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) section 107(b) and that several of TSG’s affirmative defenses were meritless. Dkt. No. 260. TSG then asked that I clarify whether its statute of limitations defense, which Fluor did not originally address in its motion but which I discussed in my Order…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Exxon Corp. v. HuntSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- State of California, on Behalf of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Neville Chemical Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Schaefer v. Town of VictorCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2006
- United States v. W.R. Grace & Co. Kootenai Development, Corporation W.R. Grace & Co. Conn.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. Unocal Corp.District Court, C.D. California · 2003
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- United States v. The Boeing CompanyDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2023