Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. et al v. County of Los Angeles et al
| Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and Santa Monica Baykeeper |
| County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Flood Control District, Michael Antonovich, Yvonne B Burke, Don Knabe, Gloria Molina, Zev Yaroslavsky and Donald L Wolfe |
| 2:2008cv01467 |
| March 3, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Western Division - Los Angeles Office |
| XX US, Outside California |
| Rosalyn M. Chapman |
| George H. King |
| Environmental Matters |
| 33 U.S.C. ยง 1319 Clean Water Act |
| None |
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
461
JUDGMENT RETAINING JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE 460 by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this Court shall retain jurisdiction for the purpose of r esolving any disputes between the parties with respect to enforcement of any provision of the terms of the parties Settlement Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A. FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this action is dismissed with prejudice. Except as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, each party shall bear its owncosts and attorneys fees. (jp)
|
|
Filing
428
(IN CHAMBERS): ORDER RE: MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 389 ; MOTION TO DISMISS 394 ; AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 399 by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell: The Court rules as follows: Defendants' motion for reconsideration is DE NIED; Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part on the basis that Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief are moot, but that Plaintiffs' claims for monetary civil penalties remain active; and Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part in accordance with the Court's ruling on Defendants' motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration. IT IS SO ORDERED. (jloz)
|
|
Filing
345
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge A. Howard Matz: The Court GRANTS Defendants Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 324 . The Court lifts the stay in this action, vacates its previous grant of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on the Surfrider Bea ch portion of the First Amended Complaint fourth claim and its denial of summary judgment for both parties as to the adequacy of the 2008 Compliance Reports treatment of Surfrider Beach in the sixth claim, and GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Defendants as to those portions of claims four and six. (jp)
|
|
Filing
280
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge A. Howard Matz: On 9/8/2009, Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to liability as to claims two and three (as to the District); as to the Surfrider Beach violations in claim four; and as to all of claims fiv e and six. On 9/14/2009, Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment as to all counts. Plaintiffs have also filed a Motion for Leave to File Surreply in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 173 , which the Court DENIES. The court held a hearing on the summary judgment motions on 2/8/2010. Fof the following reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs Motion 87 . The court also GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants Motion 113 . Specificall y, the Court DENIES summary judgment for both parties as to the watershed claims (claims one, two, three, and the Malibu Creek portion of claim four). The Court GRANTS summary judgment for the Plaintiffs on claim five and on the Surfrider Beach porti on of claim four. The Court GRANTS summary judgment for the Defendants on all portions of claim six except for the adequacy of the 2008 Compliance Reports' treatment of Surfrider Beach. The Court DENIES summary judgment for both parties as to the adequacy of the 2008 Compliance Reports' treatment of Surfrider Beach. (See attached Minute Order for further information). (jp)
|
|
Filing
221
MINUTES IN CHAMBERS by Judge A. Howard Matz: Having reviewed the parties Responses to the Court's 1/6/2010 Order, the Court chooses to deny as moot Plaintiffs Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge's Order 177 . If at a later date the status of the case warrants the requested relief, Plaintiffs may file a notice to reopen the motion without refiling their moving papers. (jp)
|
|
Filing
217
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge A. Howard Matz: Denying 210 Ex Parte Application to Continue Pretrial and Trial Dates as framed, but grants a two-week extension for all remaining dates, as reflected in the attached Amended Scheduling Order. Jury Trial: 3/9/10 at 8:00 am; Final Pretrial Conference 2/22/10 at 11:00 am (see document for further details). (mg)
|
|
Filing
205
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge A. Howard Matz: The Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Evidence in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 195 and Defendants' Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Supplemental Evidence in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 187 . To permit the parties to supplement their contentions and evidence at this belated stage would be unfair in different ways to both sides and to the Court. (jp)
|
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 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.
