Schultz, et al. v. Ichimoto, et al.
Filing
166
MEMORANDUM, DECISION; GRANTING Defendants' 142 Motion for Judgment on the pleadings or Summary Judgment on Federal Claims for want of subject matter jurisdiction and for dismissal of State Law Claims 142 and VACATING Oral argument set for 3/22/2010, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 3/10/2010. (Kusamura, W)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Plaintiffs, 12 vs. 13 14 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Defendants George A. Wolfe and Frances E. Wolfe have filed a 19 motion for judgment on the pleadings or for summary judgment that 20 Plaintiffs' First Claim for Relief for cost recovery under CERCLA 21 § 107, the Third Claim for Relief for declaratory relief under 22 CERCLA § 113, and Fourth Claim for Relief for contribution under 23 California Health & Safety Code § 25363(e) on the ground that 24 Plaintiffs failed to comply with the statutory 60-day pre25 litigation notice requirements under both federal and state law, 26 1 SAKAYE ICHIMOTO, et al., RODNEY SCHULTZ AND PATRICIA SCHULTZ, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-F-08-526 OWW/SMS MEMORANDUM DECISION GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON FEDERAL CLAIMS FOR WANT OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND FOR DISMISSAL OF STATE LAW CLAIMS (Doc. 142) AND VACATING ORAL ARGUMENT SET FOR MARCH 22, 2010 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
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
which notices are mandated in order to confer subject matter jurisdiction on this Court over their citizen suit.1 also request that the state law claims for equitable indemnity/contribution, continuing nuisance, negligence, trespass, products liability, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).2 Defendants Wolfe's motion is joined by Defendants Margaret Jamison, William O. Jamison, Cinda A. Jamison, Sakaye Ichimoto, individually and as Trustee of the Ichimoto Trust Agreement dated September 22, 1988, and Vic Manufacturing Company. Joinders or timely oppositions to the motion have not been filed by Defendants Estate of George T. Ichimoto; Walter Colburn Tuttle, individually and as Trustee under the Walter Colburn Tuttle and June Hadley Tuttle Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated April 22, 1981; Estate of Mary J. Tuttle aka June Hadley Tuttle, deceased; Drew A. Ratzloff and Cindy Ratzloff, individually and as Trustees of the Ratzloff Family Trust; Jewel Donathan; Clarence Soltau; Edeltrude Soltau; Anthony Alves, individually and dba Alves and Williams Enterprises, Devere Williams dba Alves and Williams Enterprises; Juanita Price; Technichem, Inc.; M.B.L., Inc.; and Hoffman/New Yorker, Inc. dba Defendants
The Second Claim for Relief for contribution under CERCLA § 113, was dismissed with prejudice by Order filed on September 16, 2009 (Doc. 138). 2 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) provides that the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if "the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." 2
1
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
NJHNY, Inc.3 Plaintiffs have filed a Statement of Non-Opposition to dismissal of the First, Third and Fourth Claims for Relief for want of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs also do not
oppose to the dismissal of the state law claims pursuant to Section 1367(c)(3). This case is at an early stage, there is no
federal interest in purely local claims, and the state courts are better equipped to deal with matter of state law. See
Imagineering, Inc. v. Kiewit Pac. Co., 976 F.2d 1303, 1309 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1004 (1993). Accordingly: 1. Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or For
Summary Judgment on Federal Claims for Want of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and For Dismissal of State Law Claims is GRANTED; 2. 3. Oral Argument set for March 22, 2010 is VACATED; Counsel for Defendants George A. Wolfe and Frances E.
Wolfe shall prepare and lodge a form of order and judgment,
Defendants Anthony Alves, Estate of Mary J. Tuttle, Clarence Soltau, Edeltrude Soltau, Hoffman/New Yorker, Inc. dba NJHNY, Inc., and Jewel Donathan have not filed an Answer to the Complaint. Jamison & Chappel, counsel for Defendants Drew A. Ratzloff, Cindy Ratzloff, Drew A. Ratzloff and Cindy Ratzloff as Trustees of the Ratzloff Family Trust, moved to withdraw as counsel of record. By Order filed on April 8, 2009, counsel's withdrawal became effective upon the filing of a Notice of Withdrawal setting forth the current or last known address and telephone number for these defendants. No Notice of Withdrawal has been filed. Defendant Technichem, Inc. appeared by through its Chairman, Mark J. Ng. By Order filed on October 22, 2009, Technichem, Inc. was ordered to a file a notice of appearance by its attorney within 30 days. No notice of appearance by counsel on behalf of Technichem, Inc. has been filed. 3
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
including dismissal of all counter-claims and cross claims, consistent with this Memorandum Decision within five (5) court days following service of this Memorandum Decision. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 668554 March 10, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
