Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05664/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05664-32/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:9601 CERCLA

---

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 

WALNUT CREEK MANOR, LLC, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 v. 

MAYHEW CENTER, LLC, and DEAN 

DUNIVAN,

 Defendants. 

________________________________/ 

No. C 07-5664 CW 

ORDER DENYING 

MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION 

(Docket No. 341) 

 

On December 30, 2013, Defendants Dean Dunivan and Mayhew 

Center LLC moved for reconsideration of the Court’s December 10, 

2013 order releasing the remaining escrow funds to Plaintiff 

Walnut Creek Manor. Defendants’ motion is based on a recent 

letter from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) which 

purportedly “shows that Dunivan and Mayhew are, contrary to 

Plaintiff’s allegations, working diligently and with the RWQCB to 

remediate the PCE [contamination]” and that “they are making 

progress.” Docket No. 341, Mot. Reconsideration, at 2. 

The RWQCB’s letter does not justify reconsideration of the 

Court’s order. As previously explained, Plaintiff is entitled to 

recover the remaining escrow funds under the express terms of the 

November 2010 injunction because Defendants failed to complete 

their cleanup and abatement obligations by the deadline set forth 

in the injunction and subsequently extended by this Court. The 

RWQB’s letter does not change this fact and, if anything, confirms 

that Defendants have yet to complete their cleanup and abatement 

obligations. 

Case 4:07-cv-05664-CW Document 342 Filed 01/03/14 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 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 

Defendants’ motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 341) is 

therefore DENIED. Plaintiff shall respond to the findings in the 

RWQCB’s letter in its supplemental brief on January 8, 2014. As 

stated in the December 10, 2013 order, whatever funds currently 

remain in the escrow account shall remain there pending the 

January 23, 2104 hearing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:07-cv-05664-CW Document 342 Filed 01/03/14 Page 2 of 2