Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04393/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04393-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1365 Environmental Matters

---

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

SAN FRANCISCO HERRING 

ASSOCIATION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04393-WHO 

ORDER LIFTING STAY CONCERNING 

KNOWN CLARKE PROPERTY 

CLAIMS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 61, 62

This case involves two distinct, though potentially related, categories of claims: the known 

claims that concern plaintiff Clarke’s real property (the “Known Clarke Property Claims”) and the 

broader environmental claims brought by plaintiff Clarke and the San Francisco Herring 

Association (the “Broader Environmental Claims”). I entered a stay in this action on February 

25, 2015, to allow the parties to explore settlement. Dkt. No. 42. 

It is clear that the Broader Environmental Claims will require continued investigation for a 

period of time before they are ripe for resolution, either by negotiation or litigation. The Known 

Clarke Property Claims, on the other hand, are ripe for resolution. I have reviewed the parties’

contentions concerning the potential severance of the claims and while I recognize the possible 

overlap between the two categories of claims, I disagree with Clarke that the remediation of his 

property will necessarily be insufficient if I sever the claims. I agree with PG&E that cleanup of a 

known hazard is environmentally advantageous. I do not see a potential for inconsistent rulings. 

If further remediation of the problems affecting the Clarke property is warranted as determined 

when the Broader Environmental Claims are litigated, Clarke will get the benefit of that 

remediation. A claim for punitive damages is personal to Clarke, as PG&E contends.

Accordingly, I lift the stay concerning the Known Clarke Property Claims only. Trial on 

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 63 Filed 07/17/15 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

the Known Clarke Property Claims is set for February 22, 2016. The pretrial conference date is 

January 25, 2016. The last day for dispositive motions to be heard is November 25, 2015. Fact 

discovery cut off, and expert disclosure, is October 22, 2015. Rebuttal experts shall be disclosed 

by November 13, 2015, and expert discovery shall close on December 4, 2015.

A further Case Management Conference is specially set for August 4, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. in 

Courtroom 2. The parties shall meet and confer regarding their discovery plans and shall file a 

Joint Statement on July 31, 2015, identifying any general areas of dispute concerning the scope of 

discovery, questions concerning this order, and stipulations in the event modifications in the trial 

and pretrial schedule are desired. The parties shall also propose, in the Joint Statement, a 

delineation of the Known Clarke Property Claims and Broader Environmental Claims with 

reference to the Complaint, so that there is no misunderstanding which matters remain stayed and 

which will be tried. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2015

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-04393-WHO Document 63 Filed 07/17/15 Page 2 of 2