Vopak North America Inc. et al v. CMAC Construction Company
| Vopak North America Inc. and Vopak Terminal Los Angeles Inc. |
| CMAC Construction Company |
| 2:2016cv06526 |
| August 30, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Steve Kim |
| Terry J. Hatter |
| Other Statutory Actions |
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
256
JUDGMENT by Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. It is Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that Judgment be, and hereby is, Entered in favor of Plaintiffs Vopak North America, Inc., dba Vopak Americas, and Vopak Terminal Los Angeles, Inc., and against Defendant C MAC Construction Company on Plaintiffs claim for contribution under the Federal Oil Pollution Act in the amount of $3,020,961.78. It is further Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that Judgment be, and hereby is, Entered in favor of Defendant CMAC Construction Company and against Plaintiffs Vopak North America, Inc., dba Vopak Americas, and Vopak Terminal Los Angeles, Inc. on Plaintiffs claims for indemnity under the Federal Oil Pollution Act and breach of contract. It is further Ordered th at Plaintiffs negligence claim be, and hereby is Dismissed with prejudice as Plaintiffs elected to accept the remedy for their claim under the Federal Oil Pollution Act in lieu of the remedy for their negligence claim. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (shb)
|
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.
