Wishtoyo Foundation v. Los Angeles Coastkeeper et al
| Friends of the Santa Clara River, Los Angeles Coastkeeper and Wishtoyo Foundation |
| Magic Mountain LLC, Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, Six Flags Magic Mountain and Six Flags Theme Parks Inc |
| 2:2012cv05600 |
| June 27, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Gary A. Feess |
| Margaret A. Nagle |
| Environmental Matters |
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
283
CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER by Judge Stephen V. Wilson: Upon Joint Motion 282 , the Consent Decree is entered into by and between Plaintiffs Wishtoyo Foundation and its Ventura Coastkeeper program, Los Angeles Waterkeeper, Friends of the Santa Clara Ri ver, and Defendants Magic Mountain, LLC and Six Flags Theme Parks, Inc. Defendants agree, inter alia, to comply with the provisions of this Consent Decree and to comply with the requirements of the Individual Permit with respect to stormwater dischar ges, including pollution control and treatment technology and Best Management Practices. Defendants shall make a payment of $7,500 to Los Angeles Waterkeeper and a payment of $7,500 to Wishtoyo Foundation within 30 days of the Effective Dat e to cover Plaintiffs' costs associated with Plaintiffs' Compliance Monitoring during the duration of this Consent Decree. Defendants shall make a payment of $300,000.00 within 20 days of the Effective Date to the Rose Foundation for C ommunities and the Environment for a project designed to analyze, reduce, prevent, or otherwise mitigate the effects of polluted stormwater and/or non-stormwater discharges into the Santa Clara River. Defendants shall partially reimburse Plaintiffs f or their investigation fees and costs, consultant fees and costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, and other costs incurred as a result of investigating and filing the lawsuit, and negotiating a resolution of this matter in an amount totaling $1,285,000.00. This Consent Decree constitutes a full and final settlement of this matter. See document for further details.( MD JS-6. Case Terminated ) (gk)
|
|
Filing
273
PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Margaret A. Nagle re Stipulation for Protective Order 263 (ec)
|
|
Filing
262
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Fourth Cause of Action by Judge Gary A. Feess. Having reviewed the briefs, supporting documents, and arguments, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment as to the fourth cause of action 131 . See document for details. (smo)
|
|
Filing
259
ORDER Denying Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to FRCP. 12(c) by Judge Gary A. Feess: After construing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the Court will not undo the facility's documented history of assent to the general permit as a matter of law. The motion is 220 DENIED. The hearing set for Monday, December 1, 2014 is VACATED. See document for details. (smo)
|
|
Filing
244
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER Granting Defendants' ex Parte Application to Hear Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Past the Motion Hearing Cutoff Date by Judge Gary A. Feess: Postponing resolution of the applicability of 40 C.F .R. § 122.28(b)(3)(iv) until trial risks wasting the Court's and the parties' resources on preparation for claims that may be rendered moot by Defendants' motion. The prejudice to Plaintiffs is minimal because a November 24, 2014 hearing date is only two weeks after the motion hearing cutoff date and because the motion addresses a purely legal argument. The Court therefore exercises its inherent authority to allow Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings to be heard on December 1, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. The ex parte application 219 is GRANTED. (smo)
|
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.
