Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01257/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01257-63/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Property Damage

---

- 1 -

STIPULATION AND ORDER ON UNDISPUTED MATTERS IN LIEU OF 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT BRIEFING

1:11-CV-01257-AWI-BAM

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

GREBEN & ASSOCIATES

125 E. DE LA GUERRA ST., STE 203

SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101

TEL: 805-963-9090

FAX: 805-963-9098

Jan A. Greben, SBN 103464

jan@grebenlaw.com

Christine M. Monroe, SBN 304573

christine@grebenlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs GARY COPPOLA, an individual; GARY COPPOLA, as SUCCESSOR 

TRUSTEE OF THE VIOLA M. COPPOLA IRREVOCABLE TRUST; and GARY COPPOLA, 

as TRUSTEE OF THE ANTHONY M. COPPOLA TRUST

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - FRESNO DIVISION

GARY COPPOLA, an individual, GARY 

COPPOLA, as SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF 

THE VIOLA M. COPPOLA IRREVOCABLE 

TRUST; and GARY COPPOLA, as 

TRUSTEE OF THE ANTHONY M. 

COPPOLA TRUST;

Plaintiffs,

v.

PARAGON CLEANERS (formerly sued as 

GREGORY SMITH, an individual); 

RICHARD LASTER, an individual; THE 

JANE HIGGINS NASH TRUST; JANE 

NASH AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE 

OF DECTAUR HIGGINS A/K/A THE 

ESTATE OF MABEL ELAINE HIGGINS; 

the CITY OF VISALIA, NASH 

PROPERTIES LLC [DOE #1], DAVID H. 

NASH, as the successor co-trustee of the 

JANE NASH TRUST, a trust created under 

the terms of the Last Will and Testament of 

Mabel Elaine Higgins Testamentary Trust and 

commonly known as the Jane Higgins Nash 

Trust [DOE #2], RICHARD P. NASH, as the 

successor co-trustee of the JANE NASH 

TRUST, a trust created under the terms of the 

Last Will and Testament of Mabel Elaine 

Higgins Testamentary Trust and commonly 

known as the Jane Higgins Nash Trust [DOE 

#3]

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:11-CV-01257-AWI-BAM

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER ON UNDISPUTED MATTERS IN 

LIEU OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

BRIEFING

Honorable Judge Anthony W. Ishii

Case 1:11-cv-01257-AWI-BAM Document 445 Filed 10/14/16 Page 1 of 4
- 2 -

STIPULATION AND ORDER ON UNDISPUTED MATTERS IN LIEU OF 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT BRIEFING

1:11-CV-01257-AWI-BAM

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

Plaintiffs Gary Coppola, an individual, Gary Coppola, as successor trustee of the Viola M. 

Coppola Irrevocable Trust, and Gary Coppola as trustee of the Anthony M. Coppola Trust 

(“Plaintiffs”) and the City of Visalia (“City”) (collectively, “the Parties”) enter the following 

stipulation and request for an Order to narrow the issue for trial and in lieu of briefing these matters 

in summary judgment motions. Good cause exists because this stipulation was reached voluntarily 

and in good faith following the Parties’ meet and confer efforts made pursuant to the Court’s 

Scheduling Order and Local Rule 260 regarding Plaintiffs’ intent to file a motion for partial 

summary judgment.

The Parties hereby agree, stipulate and request that the Court enter an Order establishing that 

the following facts and elements are undisputed and thus require no proof at trial as to Plaintiffs’ 

CERCLA claims.

1. The City’s sewer mains and trunks, only (without admission of any other portion of the 

sewer system, including the side sewers, laterals and/or wyes), are a facility within the 

meaning of CERCLA.

2. The City is a covered person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 9607 (a)(1) as the owner 

and operator of the sewer mains and trunks (facility).

3. Plaintiffs have incurred at least some necessary response costs to meet the minimal 

threshold required for establishing their CERCLA claims against the City.

As to Plaintiffs’ CERCLA claims, the Parties specifically dispute the third element of 

CERCLA’s prima facie case as to whether “a ‘release’ or ‘threatened release’ of any ‘hazardous 

substance’ [occurred] from the facility.” 42 U.S.C. § 9607 – see e.g. Stevens Creek Assoc. v. 

Barclays Bank of Cal, 915 F.2d 1355, 1358 (1990). Additionally, the issues of allocation and/or 

damages remain an issue for trial and the Parties’ stipulation is not intended to waive any argument 

regarding these matters.

The Parties further agree, stipulate and request that the Court enter an Order dismissing, 

without leave to amend, the thirty-sixth, thirty-seventh, thirty-eighth and fortieth affirmative 

defenses, only, raised by the City in its Answer to Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amended Complaint [Document 

Case 1:11-cv-01257-AWI-BAM Document 445 Filed 10/14/16 Page 2 of 4
- 3 -

STIPULATION AND ORDER ON UNDISPUTED MATTERS IN LIEU OF 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT BRIEFING

1:11-CV-01257-AWI-BAM

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

406]. All remaining affirmative defenses raised in the City’s Answer remain operative. The 

dismissal of said affirmative defenses is not intended to operate as an adjudication on the merits, and 

no admission shall be construed as a result of the dismissal.

Dated: October 14, 2016 GREBEN & ASSOCIATES

/s/ Christine Monroe

Jan A. Greben

Christine M. Monroe

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counter Defendants 

GARY COPPOLA, an individual; GARY 

COPPOLA, as SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF 

THE VIOLA M. COPPOLA IRREVOCABLE 

TRUST; and GARY COPPOLA, as TRUSTEE 

OF THE ANTHONY M. COPPOLA TRUST

Dated: October 14, 2016 HERR, PEDERSEN & BERGLUND LLP

/s/ Ron Statler (per authorization)

Leonard C. Herr

Ron Statler

Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF VISALIA

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The Court, finding that the Parties have stipulated and agreed, and good cause appearing 

thereon, HEREBY ORDERS:

1. With respect to Plaintiffs’ CERCLA claims, the following facts and elements are 

undisputed and thus require no proof at trial:

a. The City’s sewer mains and trunks, only (without admission of any other portion of 

the sewer system, including the side sewers, laterals and/or wyes), are a facility 

within the meaning of CERCLA.

Case 1:11-cv-01257-AWI-BAM Document 445 Filed 10/14/16 Page 3 of 4
- 4 -

STIPULATION AND ORDER ON UNDISPUTED MATTERS IN LIEU OF 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT BRIEFING

1:11-CV-01257-AWI-BAM

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

b. The City is a covered person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 9607 (a)(1) as the 

owner and operator of the sewer mains and trunks (facility).

c. Plaintiffs have incurred at least some necessary response costs to meet the minimal 

threshold required for establishing their CERCLA claims against the City.

2. The issue of whether “a ‘release’ or ‘threatened release’ of any ‘hazardous substance’ 

[occurred] from the facility” pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 9607, remains a disputed issue for 

trial as to the City’s liability. Additionally, the issues of allocation and/or damages 

remain an issue for trial and the Parties’ stipulation is not intended to waive any argument 

regarding these matters.

3. The City’s thirty-sixth, thirty-seventh, thirty-eighth and fortieth affirmative defenses, as 

set forth in its Answer to the Eighth Amended Complaint in the above captioned case, are 

hereby dismissed without leave to amend, but the dismissal of said affirmative defenses is 

not intended to operate as an adjudication on the merits, and no admission shall be 

construed as a result of the dismissal.

4. All remaining affirmative defenses raised in the City’s Answer remain operative. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 14, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01257-AWI-BAM Document 445 Filed 10/14/16 Page 4 of 4