Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01257/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01257-37/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Property Damage

---

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

VIOLA M. COPPOLA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GREGORY SMITH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 11-cv-1257 AWI BAM

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO FILE A SIXTH AMENDED 

COMPLAINT IN PART

(Doc. 249)

INTRODUCTION

On January 9, 2015, Plaintiffs Gary Coppola, the Trust of Anthony M. Coppola and the 

Viola M. Coppola Irrevocable Trust (collectively “Coppola”), as an individual and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated (“Plaintiffs”), filed a Motion for Leave to File a Sixth Amended 

Complaint. Defendants Martin and Martin Properties, LLC (“Martin LLC”) filed an Opposition

on January 30, 2015. (Doc. 254). No other party filed an opposition. Plaintiffs filed a Partial 

Withdrawal of the Motion and a Reply on February 6, 2015. (Doc. 257). The Court took the 

matter under submission without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230 (g), and vacated the 

hearing set for February 13, 2015. Upon a review of the pleadings, Plaintiffs’ motion is 

Case 1:11-cv-01257-AWI-BAM Document 260 Filed 02/11/15 Page 1 of 5
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

GRANTED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

This is an environmental law case arising from the chemical contamination of property 

surrounding a dry cleaning business in Visalia, California. More specifically, Coppola has owned 

and operated a dry cleaning facility located at 717 W. Main St., Visalia, California (“717 W. 

Main”) since 1987. Coppola has used tetrachloroethylene (“PCE”) in their dry cleaning business 

since at least 1994. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) and the 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) investigated the business and concluded 

that there was a “release” or a “threatened release” of PCE from 717 W. Main into the soil and 

groundwater. In June 2011, DTSC issued an order requiring Coppola to investigate and remediate 

the contamination caused by their dry cleaning business.

Pursuant to this order, Coppola has been investigating the extent of the contamination and 

filed the instant lawsuit on November 15, 2010, in the Tulare County Superior Court naming 

various parties, including nearby property owners and operators. The case was removed to this 

Court on July 28, 2011. (Doc. 1). There have been numerous complaints filed. Currently, the 

operative complaint is the Fifth Amended Complaint that names several property owners, the City 

of Visalia, California Water Service, and Martin and Martin LLC as Defendants and alleges

violations of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(“CERCLA”). Defendants have filed numerous counterclaims and cross-claims. 

In this motion, Plaintiffs initially sought to file a Sixth Amended Complaint to add various 

claims against William Martin, Linda Martin, and Martin Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, “the 

Martin parties”) and the Visalia Unified School District (“V.U.S.D.”). Now, Plaintiffs have

withdrawn that portion of the motion seeking to name the Martin parties based on a recent ruling 

made by U.S. District Court Judge Anthony W. Ishii on January 15, 2015. (Docs. 250 and 257, at 

Case 1:11-cv-01257-AWI-BAM Document 260 Filed 02/11/15 Page 2 of 5
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

pg. 3). However, they still seek to add V.U.S.D as a party because they allege the school district 

contributed to the contamination at issue, most notably by operating ground water supply wells 

which has exacerbated the contamination plume. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend V.U.S.D. 

transported contaminants through these wells which has increased and will continue to increase 

Coppola’s response cost. 

DISCUSSION

Under Rule 15(a), a plaintiff may amend his complaint once “as a matter of course,” and 

without leave of court, before a response has been filed. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1); Bonin v. 

Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). However, a party can only amend the pleading with 

the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave once a responsive pleading has been 

filed. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Here, Defendants filed a responsive pleading to Plaintiffs’ Fifth 

Amended Complaint and have not agreed to the amendment so leave of the court is required.

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a) provides that a court “should freely give leave [to amend] when 

justice so requires.” The United States Supreme Court has stated:

[i]n the absence of any apparent or declared reason – such as undue delay, bad faith or 

dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by 

amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of 

allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc. – the leave sought should, as the 

rules require, be “freely given.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 

This policy is “to be applied with extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, 

Inc., 316 F. 3d 1048, 1052 (9th 2003) (citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has summarized these 

factors to include the following: (1) undue delay; (2) bad faith; (3) prejudice to the opponent; and 

(4) futility of amendment. Loehr v. Ventura County Cmty. Coll. Dist., 743 F.2d 1310, 1319 (9th 

Cir. 1984). These factors are not of equal weight as prejudice to the opposing party has long been 

held to be the most critical factor in determining whether to grant leave to amend. Eminence 

Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d at 1052 (“As this circuit and others have held, it is the 

Case 1:11-cv-01257-AWI-BAM Document 260 Filed 02/11/15 Page 3 of 5
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

4

consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight”); Jackson v. 

Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir.1990). Additionally, “leave to amend will not be 

granted where an amendment would be futile.” Theme Promotions, Inc. v. News Am. Mktg. FSI, 

546 F. 3d 991, 1010 (9th Cir. 2008). 

The Court has examined all of the factors listed above. There is no evidence that the 

filing of the Sixth Amended Complaint will be futile, that it will cause undue delay, that it was 

brought in bad faith, or that there will be prejudice to the Defendants. Moreover, no opposition 

has been filed, except as the Martin parties and that portion of Plaintiff’s motion has been 

withdrawn. Given that leave to amend is to be applied with extreme liberality, an amendment is 

proper. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the above reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiffs are

permitted to amend the operative pleading naming V.U.S.D. as a Defendant;

2) Plaintiff shall file the Sixth Amended Complaint within five days of this order and 

serve the V.U.S.D no later than February 20, 2015;

3) Once the Sixth Amended Complaint is filed, the Clerk of the Court is directed to add 

the new parties named in the amended pleading to the docket; 

4) Defendants’ Answers are due 21 days after the filing of the Sixth Amended 

Complaint; or the parties may file stipulations that their answers to the Fifth Amended 

Complaint are applicable to the Sixth Amended Complaint; and

///

///

///

Case 1:11-cv-01257-AWI-BAM Document 260 Filed 02/11/15 Page 4 of 5
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

5

5) The Court will hold a status conference in this case on Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 

9:00 a.m. At that conference, the parties should be prepared to discuss whether the 

case should be set for Scheduling Conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01257-AWI-BAM Document 260 Filed 02/11/15 Page 5 of 5