State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control et al v. W Daniel Isaacson et al

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit California Central District State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control et al v. W Daniel Isaacson et al

State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control et al v. W Daniel Isaacson et al

Case Number:	2:2004cv02145
Filed:	March 29, 2004
Court:	US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge:	Dale S. Fischer
Presiding Judge:	Victor B. Kenton
Nature of Suit:	Environmental Matters

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
August 6, 2019	Filing 191 RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT by Clerk of Court, Defendant W. Daniel Isaacson, shall be liable to pay the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control the total renewed judgment amount of: $298,849.31, which represents: (1) Total unpaid ju dgment: 150,000.00; (2) Interest after judgment: 148,849.31; (3) Total renewed judgment: 298,849.31. This renewal extends the period of enforceability of the judgment until 10 years from the date the Application for Renewal was filed with this court. In all other aspects, the original judgment remains the same. Related to: APPLICATION for Renewal of Judgment re Consent Judgment 183 , 184 189 . (jp)
August 7, 2009	Filing 184 CONSENT DECREE by Judge Dale S. Fischer: THEREFORE, the Court, with the consent of the Parties to this Consent Decree, hereby ORDERS, ADJUDGES, and DECREES (see attached Consent Decree for further information). The Fields shall pay to Plaintiffs the sum of $150,000. The payment shall be due within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of the Consent Decree. Within fifteen (15) days of the Effective Date of this Consent Decree, Mr. Field shall file with the Court a Request for Dismissal with prejudice of Mr. Field's Counterclaims against Plaintiffs in this action. (jp)

Date Filed

Document Text

August 6, 2019

Filing 191 RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT by Clerk of Court, Defendant W. Daniel Isaacson, shall be liable to pay the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control the total renewed judgment amount of: $298,849.31, which represents: (1) Total unpaid ju dgment: 150,000.00; (2) Interest after judgment: 148,849.31; (3) Total renewed judgment: 298,849.31. This renewal extends the period of enforceability of the judgment until 10 years from the date the Application for Renewal was filed with this court. In all other aspects, the original judgment remains the same. Related to: APPLICATION for Renewal of Judgment re Consent Judgment 183 , 184 189 . (jp)

August 7, 2009

Filing 184 CONSENT DECREE by Judge Dale S. Fischer: THEREFORE, the Court, with the consent of the Parties to this Consent Decree, hereby ORDERS, ADJUDGES, and DECREES (see attached Consent Decree for further information). The Fields shall pay to Plaintiffs the sum of $150,000. The payment shall be due within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of the Consent Decree. Within fifteen (15) days of the Effective Date of this Consent Decree, Mr. Field shall file with the Court a Request for Dismissal with prejudice of Mr. Field's Counterclaims against Plaintiffs in this action. (jp)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control et al v. W Daniel Isaacson et al
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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?