Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01510/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01510-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:9607 Real Property Tort to Land

---

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

----oo0oo----

ADOBE LUMBER, INC., a

California corporation,

CASE NO. CIV. S-05-1510 WBS PAN

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

F. WARREN HELLMAN and WELLS

FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustees

of Trust A created by the

Estate of Marco Hellman, F.

WARREN HELLMAN as Trustee of

Trust B created by the Estate

of Marco Hellman, THE ESTATE

OF MARCO HELLMAN, deceased,

WOODLAND SHOPPING CENTER, a

limited partnership, JOSEPH

MONTALVO, HAROLD TAECKER,

GERALDINE TAECKER, HOYT

CORPORATION, a Massachusetts

corporation; PPG INDUSTRIES,

INC., a Pennsylvania

corporation, OCCIDENTAL

CHEMICAL CORPORATION, a New

York corporation, and CITY OF

WOODLAND,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On February 10, 2006, the court heard oral argument on

plaintiff Adobe Lumber and defendants Harold and Geraldine

Case 2:05-cv-01510-WBS -EFB Document 90 Filed 02/16/06 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

Defendants Joseph Montalvo, the Woodland Shopping 1

Center, and the City of Woodland joined with the Trustees of the

Hellman Estate in moving to certify the order for interlocutory

appeal.

2

Taecker’s motion to approve settlement and defendants’ motion to 1

certify the court’s January 3, 2006 order for interlocutory

appeal. The court granted defendants’ motion for certification

and orally extended the existing stay of discovery to a stay of

all proceedings in this case.

The motion to approve settlement is, however, still

pending before this court. The question certified for appeal,

whether plaintiff has a claim against defendants for contribution

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and

Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675 (“CERCLA”), may

impact the proposed settlement. The court will therefore make no

determination on the motion to approve the settlement in abeyance

while the appeal is pending. Additionally, as a practical

matter, this case should be administratively closed until the

Ninth Circuit issues its opinion. Dees v. Billy, 394 F.3d 1290,

1294 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he ‘effect of an administrative closure

is no different from a simple stay, except that it affects the

count of active cases pending on the court’s docket; i.e.,

administratively closed cases are not counted as active.’”

(discussing and quoting Mire v. Full Spectrum Lending Inc., 389

F.3d 163, 167 (5th Cir. 2004))).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the settling parties’

motion to approve settlement be, and the same hereby is, DENIED

without prejudice to renewal at an appropriate future date.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all proceedings in this

Case 2:05-cv-01510-WBS -EFB Document 90 Filed 02/16/06 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

matter shall be STAYED and the file ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED

without prejudice to reopen by motion of either party upon

determination of the appealable issue by the Ninth Circuit.

DATED: February 15, 2006

Case 2:05-cv-01510-WBS -EFB Document 90 Filed 02/16/06 Page 3 of 3