Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06199/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06199-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:6901 Environmental Cleanup Expenses

---

United States District Court

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

KLAMATH RIVERKEEPER, a nonprofit

public benefit corporation, HOWARD

McCONNELL, LEAF G. HILLMAN,

ROBERT ATTEBERY, and BLYTHE REIS, 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

PACIFICORP, INC., an Oregon Corporation, 

Defendant. /

No. C 07-06199 WHA

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

OF ORDER

In this environmental-tort action, plaintiffs move for clarification of the order

provisionally consolidating the instant action with McConnell v. PacifiCorp, Inc., C 07-02382

WHA. 

On May 2, 2007, Howard McConnell, Leaf G. Hillman, Robert Attebery, Frankie Joe

Myers, Terance J. Supahan, Michael T. Hudson, Blythe Reis, and Klamath RIVERKEEPER

filed suit against PacifiCorp, Inc., for private and public nuisance, trespass, negligence, and

unlawful business practices (McConnell v. PacifiCorp, Inc., C 07-02382 WHA). In the parties’

joint case management conference statement, plaintiffs stated their intent to seek leave to amend

their complaint to assert a claim under the Federal Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901

et seq. (also known as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, “RCRA”). The case

management order in the McConnell action provided that leave to amend pleadings must be

sought by September 27, 2007 (id. at Dkt. 48). Plaintiffs never sought leave to amend their

Case 3:07-cv-06199-WHA Document 36 Filed 02/28/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

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

complaint. Plaintiffs’ counsel candidly admitted at hearing that they dropped the ball and

allowed this deadline to pass.

On December 6, 2007, five of the eight McConnell plaintiffs, Klamath RIVERKEEPER,

Howard McConnell, Leaf G. Hillman, Robert Attebery, and Blythe Reis, filed the instant action

against PacifiCorp, Inc., for violations of the RCRA. On December 20, 2007, PacifiCorp

moved to dismiss this action as duplicative of the McConnell action. An order dated

February 22, 2008, found the instant action to be duplicative of the McConnell action, but held

that consolidation of the two cases, rather than dismissal of the instant action, was the

appropriate relief. Accordingly, the February 22 order denied defendants’ motion to dismiss

this action, and provisionally consolidated the instant action with C 07-02382 WHA, subject to

plaintiffs’ counsel’s signing and filing a written undertaking within seven calendar days to be

jointly and severally responsible for all incremental costs and fees attributable to the

two-and-a-half month delay in filing the RCRA claim. The seven-day deadline for such written

undertaking is tomorrow, February 29, 2008.

Plaintiffs now move for clarification of the February 22 order, particularly with respect

to whether fees for the recent motion to dismiss duplicative suit would be included in the

incremental costs and fees attributable to the delay. Without due consideration, the Court is

unwilling to declare instantly the extent to which the recent motion will be a part of the

incremental costs. The issue will be sorted out at a later time. Plaintiffs are asking the Court to

decide this issue in one day without briefing, and the Court will not do that. Plaintiffs’ motion

for clarification of the February 22 order is DENIED without prejudice and in due course may be

brought again.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2008. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-06199-WHA Document 36 Filed 02/28/08 Page 2 of 2