Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01514/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01514-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Torts to Land

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HONG JACQUELINE NGUYEN 

GARDNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHEVRON CAPITAL CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01514-JD 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS AND STAYING CASE

Re: Dkt. No. 30

In this environmental tort case, plaintiff’s first amended complaint alleges four claims for 

relief -- two under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(“CERCLA”), and two state law tort claims, i.e., negligence and “ultrahazardous strict liability.” 

Dkt. No. 27. 

Defendant Chevron Capital Corporation has moved to dismiss all four claims under 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(e). Dkt. No. 30.

Chevron’s primary argument for the dismissal of the state law claims is that they are barred 

by the statute of limitations. Dkt. No. 30 at 5. Significantly, plaintiff’s main response is not that 

she has sufficiently pleaded “the continuing nuisance and trespass theories,” Dkt. No. 32 at 3, but 

to request leave to amend so she can do so. See id. (“Plaintiff’s state law claims are not barred 

under the continuing nuisance and trespass theories. Therefore, leave to amend is requested.”). 

The Court construes this as a concession that the state law claims as pled in the first amended 

complaint are insufficient, and the Court dismisses those claims on that basis. The Court grants 

plaintiff’s request for leave to amend.

For plaintiff’s CERCLA claims, she again asks for leave to amend so she can “even more 

properly assert[]” those claims, while at the same time making cursory arguments that “the FAC 

Case 3:15-cv-01514-JD Document 40 Filed 12/03/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

properly asserts CERCLA claim[s].” Dkt. No. 32 at 4-5. But the Court previously laid out in 

detail the additional kinds of factual allegations plaintiff needed to plead in order to make her 

claims “plausible on their face” as required by Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 

544, 570 (2007), which plaintiff has failed to do. For example, the amended complaint still does 

not even say what hazardous substance was allegedly released from the underground tanks, and 

although plaintiff attempts to fill in that gap through her opposition brief, that is obviously not 

enough. The Court dismisses plaintiff’s CERCLA claims with leave to amend on that basis.

Plaintiff must file any amended complaint by January 6, 2016, and it must contain nonconclusory, factual allegations of the kind described in the 9-point list the Court included in its 

prior order of August 27, 2015. See Dkt. No. 25 at 2-3. If plaintiff again fails to do so, the Court 

will dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The complaint may not be amended to add other parties 

or claims without the Court’s prior approval.

In light of the procedural posture and circumstances of this case, the Court stays all other 

aspects of this case pending plaintiff’s amendment of the complaint and subsequent pleadings 

challenge by defendant, if any. 

A case management conference is set for February 24, 2016, at 1:30 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2015

________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01514-JD Document 40 Filed 12/03/15 Page 2 of 2