Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-05105/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-05105-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

CALIFORNIA RIVER WATCH,

Plaintiff,

v.

FLUOR CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 10-cv-05105-WHO 

ORDER VACATING CONSENT 

JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 197, 198

On December 31, 2014, I entered the consent judgment proposed by plaintiff California 

River Watch and defendant Fluor Corporation. Dkt. No. 198. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 60(a), I now VACATE that consent judgment to ensure that the judgment actually 

reflects what I intended. See, e.g., Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., 918 F.2d 1439, 1445 (9th Cir. 1990)

(“A district court judge may properly invoke Rule 60(a) to make a judgment reflect the actual 

intentions and necessary implications of the court's decision.”).

Third-party defendant Shiloh Road, LLC objects to the consent judgment “to the extent 

that it purports to release claims that Shiloh Road, or other members of the general public, may 

have against Fluor arising from Fluor’s historical operations on Shiloh Road’s property.” Dkt. No. 

195. Plaintiff-in-intervention The Shiloh Group LLC similarly objects that “(a) River Watch has 

no authority to waive or release any past, present or future claims against Fluor by any person that 

is not a member of River Watch, and (b) members of the ‘general public’ are not members of 

River Watch.” Dkt. No. 196. 

When I entered the Consent Judgment, my understanding was that the judgment was 

between River Watch and Fluor only, and would NOT release claims that Shiloh Road or The 

Shiloh Group may have against Fluor. To the extent that River Watch and Fluor agree with my 

Case 3:10-cv-05105-WHO Document 199 Filed 01/05/15 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

understanding and those expressed in the objections of Shiloh Road and The Shiloh Group, River 

Watch and Fluor shall file a stipulation to that effect. If, on the other hand, River Watch and Fluor 

contend that their proposed consent judgment releases potential claims that Shiloh Road or The 

Shiloh Group may have against Fluor, or broadly releases claims by members of the “general 

public” who are not members of River Watch, they shall file a statement of authority in support of 

that position and respond to the objections of Shiloh Road and The Shiloh Group. 

Shiloh Road and The Shiloh Group also object that the proposed consent judgment does 

not commit Fluor to remediating the site at issue and does not further the objectives of the RCRA. 

River Watch and Fluor shall also address those objections in their submissions.

To the extent that River Watch and Fluor determine that a revised proposed consent 

judgment which addresses the objections discussed above is appropriate, they shall file an 

amended proposed consent judgment and a motion to approve that amended proposed consent 

judgment. 

The supplemental submissions by River Watch and Fluor shall be filed with the 

Court by Monday, January 12, 2015. Any response from Shiloh Road or The Shiloh Group 

shall be filed by Thursday, January 15, 2015. After reviewing these submissions, I may enter 

the proposed consent judgment or order additional briefing or a hearing, as appropriate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2015

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-05105-WHO Document 199 Filed 01/05/15 Page 2 of 2