Los Angeles Waterkeeper v. Universal Molding Company Inc et al
| Los Angeles Waterkeeper |
| Does, North Star Acquisition, Inc., Universal Molding Company Inc and Universal Molding Extrusion Company Inc |
| 2:2016cv06976 |
| September 16, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Andre Birotte |
| Michael R. Wilner |
| 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
59
CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: It is the express purpose of the Parties entering into this Consent Decree to further the objectives set forth in the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Sections 1251, et seq., and to resolve those issues alleged by Plaintiff Los Angeles Waterkeeper ("Waterkeeper") in its Complaint. Defendant Universal Molding Company, Inc., Universal Molding Extrusion Company, Inc., and North Star Acquisitions, Inc. (collectively "Defendant") agre es, inter alia, to comply with the provisions of this Consent Decree, and to comply with the requirements of the Storm Water Permit and all applicable provisions of the Clean Water Act ("CWA"). Defendant shall pay a total of $40,000.00 to compensate Waterkeeper for costs and fees to be incurred for monitoring Defendant's compliance with this Consent Decree. The Defendant agrees to make a payment of $50,000 to be received within 15 calendar days of the Effective Date to T reePeople for projects related to water quality designed to analyze, reduce, prevent, or otherwise mitigate the ecological and/or public health effects of storm water and/or non-stormwater discharges into Los Angeles area waterbodies. The Defendant a grees to partially reimburse Plaintiff for its 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 a total amount of $185,500. See document for further details. ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated ) (gk)
|
|
Filing
10
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Andre Birotte Jr. The Court, on its own motion, orders Plaintiff(s) to show cause, in writing, on or before January 3, 2017, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds that this matter is appropriate for submission without oral argument. The Order to Show Cause will stand submitted upon the filing of Plaintiff(s) response. Failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause will be deemed consent to the dismissal of the action. (iv)
|
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.
