Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00387/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00387-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:6901 Environmental Cleanup Expenses

---

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

2:06-CV-0387-MCE-JFM

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

ALPHEUS KAPLAN, NEHEMIAH

DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,

Defendants.

______________________________

ALPHEUS KAPLAN and NEHEMIAH

DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,

Third Party Plaintiffs,

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

AMCAL, KIRK L. BRYSON,

GENEVIEVE FULLER, JOHN B.

ALLEN, SR., JANET ALLEN, JOHN

MUNN, ANN MUNN, ELGIN BOWERS,

CAROLYN BOWERS, ASSOCIATED

ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS, INC.,

WARREN NOTEWARE, JAMES

MESSINGER, STEEL BUILDING

SYSTEMS, INC., MYRTLE SALMON,

CHARTER MORTGAGE &

INVESTMENTS, INC., SHELDON

THOMSON, CHARLES C. BRUNER,

ROBERT E. MILLER, MEREDITH

MILLER, JACK BRUSATORI, ROBERT

EARL OLSON, MARTHA WADELL

Case 2:06-cv-00387-MCE -JFM Document 40 Filed 08/31/06 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

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h). 

2

OLSON, SUMMIT APARTMENTS,

WALTER E. HAMILTON, PHYLLIS

STUMPF,

Third Party Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This action involves a claim made by the United States under

the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and

Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9613, for costs incurred in

connection with the Central Eureka Mine Superfund Site (the

“Site”). Third Party Plaintiffs Alpheus Kaplan and Nehemiah 1

Development Company (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Third Party Complaint

(“Complaint”) against various Third Party Defendants seeking a

respective proportionate share of the response costs and other

costs recoverable by the United States.

In bringing the present motion, Plaintiffs seek leave to

amend their Complaint on the ground they discovered three

deficiencies that can be cured by amendment. Specifically, they

allege 1) some critical properties within the Site were omitted

from the properties identified in the Complaint, and their owners

were not identified as Third Party Defendants; 2) they failed to

name all general partners of a general partnership identified as

a responsible party under CERCLA; and 3) they failed to

completely identify the Central Eureka Mine Minehead Parcels on

which response costs were incurred.

///

Case 2:06-cv-00387-MCE -JFM Document 40 Filed 08/31/06 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

Defendant Jack Brusatori filed a Statement of Non-opposition

to Plaintiffs’ Motion on August 25, 2006. The remaining

Defendants named in Plaintiffs’ Complaint have neither opposed

Plaintiffs’ Motion nor filed a Statement of Non-Opposition which

the Court shall construe as itself non-opposition to the Motion.

Given Defendants’ non-opposition and good cause appearing

therefor, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend their Complaint

is GRANTED. Plaintiffs have ten (10) days following the date of

this Order to file their proposed First Amended Complaint. To

the extent necessary, Defendants shall answer or otherwise

respond to said First Amended Third Party Complaint within ten

(10) days after its filing and service.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 31, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00387-MCE -JFM Document 40 Filed 08/31/06 Page 3 of 3