Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02087/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02087-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

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

1 Docket 122 at 2.

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1

2:05-CV-02087-RRB-JFM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. 2:05-CV-02087-RRB-JFM

ORDER

Before the Court are Defendants Burlington Northern and

Santa Fe Railway Company and Union Pacific Railroad Company

(“Defendants”) with a Motion for Reconsideration of Memorandum of

Opinion and Order Filed June 19, 2007 (Docket 122); wherein,

Defendants argue said “. . . Order was based on an erroneous

interpretation of California nuisance law, and that all of the

Court’s decisions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants were

based on that error.”1 Plaintiff the Redevelopment Agency of the

THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF

THE CITY OF STOCKTON, a public

body, corporate and politic,

Plaintiff,

vs.

BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA

FE RAILWAY CORPORATION; UNION

PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY; and

DOES 1 through 100,

Defendants.

Case 2:05-cv-02087-JAM-JFM Document 127 Filed 11/26/07 Page 1 of 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

2 Docket 123 at 18.

3 Docket 122-2 at 8 (quoting McConnell v. Lassen County,

2007 WL 2345009 at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2007); and citing School Dist. No.

1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th

Cir. 1993)).

4 Indeed, inasmuch as Judge Levi correctly concluded that

Defendants “assisted in the creation of the nuisance,” the Court

further concludes his ruling does not amount to “clear error.”

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2

2:05-CV-02087-RRB-JFM

City of Stockton, a public body, corporate and politic

(“Plaintiff”), opposes at Docket 123 and argues “[r]econsideration

is not warranted here because no ‘clear error’ of law occurred and

no other basis has been asserted for [Defendants’] Motion.”2

Plaintiff is correct.

Generally, reconsideration of an interlocutory order is

appropriate only where: “(1) the party presents the court with

newly discovered evidence; (2) the court committed clear error or

the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) there is an

intervening change in controlling law.”3 None of the aforesaid

standards and/or conditions are present here.4

For this reason, and for additional reasons more

carefully articulated within the applicable pleadings, papers,

affidavits, etc., Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration at Docket

122 is hereby DENIED. This matter shall proceed forward in due

course.

ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2007.

S/RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02087-JAM-JFM Document 127 Filed 11/26/07 Page 2 of 2