Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_98-cv-06359/USCOURTS-caed-1_98-cv-06359-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Enoch Packing Company
Counter Defendant
One Hour Martinizing
Counter Claimant
Team Enterprises
Counter Claimant

Document Text:

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

ENOCH PACKING COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

TEAM ENTERPRISES, INC., a New

Mexico corporation dba ONE HOUR

MARTINIZING,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:98-cv-6359 OWW SMS

ORDER AFTER SCHEDULING

CONFERENCE 

Further Scheduling

Conference Date: 12/13/06

8:45 Ctrm. 3

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

August 16, 2006.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Stoel Rives LLP by Lee N. Smith, Esq., appeared on behalf of

Plaintiff.

Greben & Associates by Jan A. Greben, Esq., appeared on

behalf of Defendant. 

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

1. This case involves a lawsuit by Enoch, former owner of

a shopping center (the “Property”), against its former tenant,

Team. Team operated a dry cleaning business on the Property and,

through its operations, allegedly contaminated the Property. 

Case 1:98-cv-06359-OWW -SMS Document 51 Filed 08/21/06 Page 1 of 6
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

Enoch alleges that it incurred response costs and diminution in

the value in the sale price of the Property as a result of that

contamination.

2. Enoch’s causes of action include:

a. CERCLA contribution;

b. Liability under California Hazardous Substances

Act;

c. Breach of contract;

d. Continuing trespass;

e. Continuing nuisance;

f. Permanent nuisance;

g. Negligence;

h. Negligence per se;

I. Waste;

j. Intentional interference with contractual

relations;

k. Negligent interference with contractual relations;

l. Declaratory relief;

m. Mandatory injunction.

3. Enoch seeks judgment for:

a. Declaratory relief that Team is liable for the

costs of remedying the release of hazardous substances on the

Property.

b. Declaratory relief that the release of hazardous

substances occurred solely due to actions by third parties and

that Enoch is not liable for any costs of remedying same;

c. Award of removal and response costs;

d. Award of such other damages as may be provided by

Case 1:98-cv-06359-OWW -SMS Document 51 Filed 08/21/06 Page 2 of 6
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

law according to proof;

e. Award of prejudgment interest on removal and

response costs incurred;

f. Award of attorney’s fees, costs, and

disbursements; and 

g. That the Court order Team to remediate the

property as required by law. 

4. Team brought a motion to dismiss the first cause of

action for cost recovery under CERCLA Section 7. Enoch

voluntarily dismissed without prejudice the first cause of action

on March 18, 1999. Team generally denies the allegations

pertaining to any claimed liability on its part.

5. Team’S causes of action in its counterclaim include:

a. CERCLA contribution.

b. Indemnity and contribution under California

Hazardous Substance Act.

c. Federal declaratory relief.

d. Negligence.

e. Negligence per se.

f. Private nuisance.

g. Nuisance per se.

h. Equitable indemnity.

i. Contribution.

j. State declaratory relief.

k. Trespass.

6. Team seeks judgment for:

a. Award of all response costs and costs incurred in

investigation, removal, cleanup and remediation.

Case 1:98-cv-06359-OWW -SMS Document 51 Filed 08/21/06 Page 3 of 6
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

b. Award of compensatory damages, including lost

profits and economic loss, and diminution in value of Team’S

business.

c. Award of incidental and consequential damages.

d. Award of prejudgment interest.

e. Award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

f. Indemnification for any judgment rendered against

Team.

g. Contribution and/or indemnity from Enoch

proportional to percentage of fault attributable to the parties.

h. Declaratory relief that Team is entitled to

indemnity and/or contribution from Enoch proportional to fault

attributable to the parties.

7. Enoch generally denies the allegations pertaining to

any claimed liability on its part.

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. The Bankruptcy Trustee for Plaintiff Enoch Packing

Company reserves the right to redesignate the status and capacity

of the Plaintiff. The parties, otherwise, do not anticipate

filing any amendments to the pleadings at this time. 

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. Team and Enoch had a continuous lease agreement at

the property from 1972, until the Property was sold in 1999.

2. Team operates a dry cleaning facility on the

property that may or may not be currently using PCE.

3. Team used perchloroethylene (PCE) in its business

Case 1:98-cv-06359-OWW -SMS Document 51 Filed 08/21/06 Page 4 of 6
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

operations at the Property.

4. There is PCE contamination located in the soil

surrounding the Property.

5. Enoch sold the Property to a third party in 1999.

6. It has not been deemed necessary to remove any of

the remaining PCE contamination from the soil surrounding the

site.

B. Contested Facts.

1. The liability of Team and/or Enoch.

2. Whether or not the original or subsequent sale of

the property by Enoch was affected by the contamination.

3. Whether Team and/or Enoch caused or contributed to

the contamination.

4. Whether Team breached its lease by causing

contamination and/or failing to add Enoch to its insurance as an

additional insured as required thereunder. 

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

3. The parties agree that for supplemental claims,

the substantive law of the State of California provides the rule

of decision. 

B. Contested. 

1. All legal issues, including the extent of the

claims associated with contamination, allocation and

responsibility for liability, and the amount of damages, if any,

are all in dispute.

Case 1:98-cv-06359-OWW -SMS Document 51 Filed 08/21/06 Page 5 of 6
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

6

VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

1. The parties have not consented to transfer the 

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.

VIII. Corporate Identification Statement.

1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

information. 

IX. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.

1. The parties are going to jointly endeavor, through

mediation or alternate dispute resolution, to resolve this case. 

Therefore, a further scheduling conference is set for December

13, 2006, at 8:45 a.m. in Courtroom 3. 

2. If the parties believe it will assist them, the Court

will provide the auspices of the Magistrate Judge to assist in

the settlement process. If the parties wish the assistance of

the Magistrate Judge, they are to notify the Courtroom Deputy

Clerk, who will arrange a date convenient with Magistrate Judge

Snyder’s schedule. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:98-cv-06359-OWW -SMS Document 51 Filed 08/21/06 Page 6 of 6