Opinion ID: 203878
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Post-Injunction Proceedings

Text: On December 19, 2008, Esso moved for reconsideration of the preliminary injunction order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59, asking the court to modify certain factual findings, including the determination that Esso would be responsible for paying for all of the necessary testing, corrective actions, and removal of contamination within and adjacent to the site. Three days later, at a hearing on December 22, 2008, the court denied Esso's motion for reconsideration without explanation. Also at the December 22 hearing, the district court selected a site assessment team made up of court-approved experts from both sides and ordered that the bills for the work performed be submitted to the court for payment by Esso. Carlos Alvarez, an expert hired by plaintiffs to assist with the site assessment, estimated that the assessment would cost between $50,000 and $75,000, which was consistent with the $75,000 estimate offered by Jose Hernandez, Esso's expert. The court entered a scheduling order indicating that it would meet with counsel and the experts to discuss the comprehensive site assessment on January 15, 2009. On January 14, 2009, the day before the first status conference, Esso asked the court to require plaintiffs, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(c), to post a bond in the amount of $75,000 to cover the anticipated cost of the site assessment. In a written opinion denying the motion issued the next day, the court characterized Esso's request as predicated upon the fact that the court has ordered Esso to pay for the comprehensive site assessment that will let ... the court know the extent of the documented environmental damage caused by Esso's use of the [station] for the sale of gasoline and petroleum-based products for a good number of years. (Emphasis added.) The court stated that it would dispense with security altogether, because the grant of the preliminary injunction carrie[d] no risk of monetary loss for Esso in the face of the documented contamination resulting from Esso's violation of regulatory safeguards designed to prevent environmental contamination and pollution that adversely affect[ed] not only Plaintiff, but the general public. The only issue, the court stated, was the extent of the contamination and the extent of measures to be taken to remedy the situation. Because Esso was liable as a matter of law for any contamination and environmental damage resulting while it had the service station under its direct supervision and control, the court perceived no risk of monetary loss to Esso that would necessitate the posting of a bond: the only issue seem[ed] to be the extent of the liability. Indeed, the court characterized Esso's expenditures associated with the court's effort to fairly determine the extent of Esso's liability (i.e., the site assessment) as de minimis, and stated that they paled in comparison to the public interest in remediating damage to the environment. The district court also denied, on similar grounds, Esso's January 30, 2009 request to stay enforcement of the preliminary injunction pending this interlocutory appeal. The court repeated its conclusion that Esso had violated federal environmental regulations, listing six actions that Esso had failed to take in contravention of those regulations. Finally, the court noted that Esso had participated fully in proceedings to fashion interim measures, (presumably a reference to the comprehensive site assessment). It thus found the stay motion to be a belated delay tactic employed in bad faith.