Northern California River Watch v. Honeywell Aerospace
District Court, N.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND VACATING HEARING
WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.
INTRODUCTION
In this environmental action brought under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Clean Water Act, defendant moves to dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) and FRCP 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, defendant’s motion is Granted in Part and Denied in Part. The hearing is Vacated.
*763STATEMENT
Plaintiffs complaint alleges the following. Plaintiff is a non-profit corporation dedicated to protecting and restoring the waters of Northern California.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Jena Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department Al Olsen, Police Chief, Individually and as a Police AgentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- Chandler v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- Wolfe v. StrankmanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Community Ass'n for Restoration of the Environment, Inc. v. George & Margaret LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 2013
- Community Association for Restoration of the Environment Inc v. DBD Washington LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 2022
- Eagle Star Rock Products LLC v. PCC Structurals, Inc.District Court, D. Oregon · 2024
- Quantum Labs, Inc. v. Maxim Integrated Products IncDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2019
- Snake River Waterkeeper v. J.R. Simplot CompanyDistrict Court, D. Idaho · 2024