Cape Fear River Watch, et al v. Duke Energy Progress, Inc.
| Cape Fear River Watch, Inc., Sierra Club and Waterkeeper Alliance |
| Duke Energy Progress, Inc. |
| 7:2013cv00200 |
| September 12, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina |
| Southern Division Office |
| NEWHANOVER |
| Louise Wood Flanagan |
| Environmental Matters |
| 33 U.S.C. ยง 1319 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
71
ORDER granting 69 Consent MOTION to Hold Matter in Abeyance - THIS MATTER IS, THEREFORE, ABATED and all proceedings suspended until further order of this Court. Defendant is hereby ordered to advise this Court, in writing, of the disposition of the hearing scheduled on its Motion in the related proceeding in North Carolina State Court scheduled for September 14, 2015 within three business days of the entry of an Order or other disposition by the Superior Court of North Carolina. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 8/26/2015. (Tripp, S.)
|
|
Filing
50
ORDER granting 42 Motion for Reconsideration regarding 41 Order - To clarify, the court does not dismiss claims that rely on the state's regulation of groundwater, but only claims that rely on the independent jurisdiction of the CWA. The court hereby amends its June 9, 2014, order to strike the concluding sentence of Section B.2.b., including the entirety of footnote 13, and replaces it with the following sentence: "Therefore, plaintiffs' claim(s) relying on the independent jurisdiction of the CWA over groundwater, as opposed to state law, are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the CWA." Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 08/01/2014. (Baker, C.)
|
|
Filing
41
ORDER finding as moot 28 MOTION for Permission to Inform the Court Concerning Developments Regarding Criminal Investigation Into Sutton Site and Litigation and 32 Second MOTION for Permission to Inform the Court Concerning Developments Regard ing Criminal Investigation Into Sutton Site and Litigation; granting in part and denying in part 15 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim - The court GRANTS IN PART defendant's motion where itmoves to dismiss plaintiff's ground water-related claims for lack of jurisdiction, and DENIES IN REMAINING PART the motion to dismiss (DE 15). Plaintiffs' motions seeking permission to inform the court are DISMISSED AS MOOT (DE 28, 32). In accordance with the court's Novembe r 15, 2013, order, the stay on discovery is hereby lifted. With reference to the court's initial order regarding planning and scheduling, entered November 6, 2013, the parties shall conduct the Rule 26(f) conference within twenty-one (21) days f rom entry of this order and adhere to other requirements therein set out. If either side determines a conference by telephone with the court in advance of entry of the case management order is appropriate, that information shall be included in the parties' joint report. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 6/9/14. (Tripp, S.)
|
|
Filing
23
ORDER granting 20 Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion to Dismiss - Discovery is stayed in this matter pending resolution of Defendant's motion to dismiss. The pre-trial conference and discovery plan required under Rule 26(f) and the initial disclosures required under Rule 26(a) are stayed pending resolution of Defendant's motion to dismiss. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 11/15/2013. (Baker, C.)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
