Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01510/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01510-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:9607 Real Property Tort 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

ADOBE LUMBER, INC., a

California corporation,

CASE NO. CIV. S-05-1510 WBS PAN

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY 

F. WARREN HELLMAN and WELLS

FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustees

of Trust A created by the

Estate of Marco Hellman, F.

WARREN HELLMAN as Trustee of

Trust B created by the Estate

of Marco Hellman, THE ESTATE

OF MARCO HELLMAN, deceased,

WOODLAND SHOPPING CENTER, a

limited partnership, JOSEPH

MONTALVO, HAROLD TAECKER,

GERALDINE TAECKER, HOYT

CORPORATION, a Massachusetts

corporation; PPG INDUSTRIES,

INC., a Pennsylvania

corporation, OCCIDENTAL

CHEMICAL CORPORATION, a New

York corporation, and CITY OF

WOODLAND,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-01510-WBS -EFB Document 88 Filed 02/14/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Pursuant to defendants’ motion, the court hereby

certifies its January 3, 2006 order, denying defendants’ motion

to dismiss for failure to state a claim under CERCLA, for appeal.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), a district court may certify

for appeal an interlocutory order which is not otherwise

appealable if the district court is “of the opinion that such

order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is

substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an

immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the

ultimate outcome of the litigation.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). 

Plaintiff does not dispute that the court’s previous order

involved a controlling question of law that has generated several

differing opinions. The only contested matter is whether an

appeal in this case will materially advance the ultimate outcome

of this litigation.

In light of the representation that every other judge

who has considered this issue has granted a certificate of

appealability, this court likewise finds that an appeal in this

case will materially advance this litigation. See City of Rialto

v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, No. 05-56749 (9th Cir. filed Nov. 5,

2005) (scheduled to be fully briefed in April, 2006); Kotrous v.

Goss-Jewett Co., No. 05-80120 (9th Cir. filed Oct. 21, 2005);

Aggio v. Estate of Aggio, No. 04-4357, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3183

(N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2006) (granting defendants’ motion to certify

for interlocutory appeal). Eliminating the CERCLA and CERCLAdependent claims from this action would significantly limit the

complexity of this litigation, and thereby materially advance the

case.

Case 2:05-cv-01510-WBS -EFB Document 88 Filed 02/14/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion to

certify this court’s January 3, 2006 order in this case for

interlocutory appeal be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. 

DATED: February 14, 2006

Case 2:05-cv-01510-WBS -EFB Document 88 Filed 02/14/06 Page 3 of 3