Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04670/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04670-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1365 Environmental Matters

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RIVER WATCH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CANYON ROCK COMPANY, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-04670 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON APRIL 7, 2006:

The Court tentatively DENIES the motion for good faith settlement filed by Defendant

Canyon Rock Company, Inc., to which Plaintiff Northern California River Watch filed a

statement of non-opposition. The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and

authorities and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those

pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are

ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance

of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional

authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the authorities only, without argument

or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at

oral argument to explain their reliance on such authority.

Each party will have fifteen minutes to address the following questions:

Case 3:04-cv-04670-JSW Document 33 Filed 04/05/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

(1) Generally, a person who is not a party to an action may not be bound by a judgment in

personam in that action. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S.

100, 110 (1969) (“It is elementary that one is not bound by a judgment in personam

resulting from litigation in which he is not designated as a party or to which he has not

been made a party by service of process.” Here, the parties seek to have the Court enter

an order which would bar “[a]ny claims for contribution against Canyon Rock by third

parties regarding matters addressed in this settlement.” In United States v. Western

Processing Co., Inc., 756 F. Supp. 1424, 1433 (W.D. Wash. 1990), the case to which the

parties cite as support for this provision, the court dismissed all claims for contribution

by “any remaining defendant.” The court did not bar contribution claims by non-parties. 

Id. What authority supports the parties’ proposal to bind persons or entities who are not

a party to this litigation? 

(2) Plaintiff filed this action against both Canyon Rock Company, Inc. and River Ready

Mix, Inc., but the proposed settlement only includes Canyon Rock Company, Inc. Has

River Ready Mix, Inc. ever been served? If so, is either Canyon Rock Company, Inc. or

Northern California River Watch aware of River Ready Mix, Inc.’s position with respect

to the proposed settlement?

(3) Do the parties have anything further to add?

Dated: April 5, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04670-JSW Document 33 Filed 04/05/06 Page 2 of 2