Yates v. United States Environmental Protection Agency et al
| Kristine K. Yates |
| Nikki Anas, Blue Oak Energy, Cypress Creek Renewables Development LLC, Cypress Creek Renewables, LLC, Dick Anderson Construction Company, Does 1-20, Judy Dunn, Zoe Gamble Hanes, Patrick Leiback, Sam Lines, Marion County Planning Department, Gordon Moe, Jerome O'Brien, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Department of State Lands, Pine Gate Energy Capital, LLC, Pine Gate Renewables, LLC, Silverton Land Co. LLC, Silverton Solar LLC, TLS Capital Inc. and United States Environmental Protection Agency |
| 6:2017cv01819 |
| November 14, 2017 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Eugene (6) Office |
| Ann L. Aiken |
| Environmental Matters |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 6972 Resource Conservation & Recovery Act |
| Plaintiff |
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
174
OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 164 is GRANTED with respect to defendants Gordon Moe and Judy Dunn and DENIED with respect to defendants Cypress Creek Renewables, LLC; Cypress Creek Renewables Development, LLC; and Cypress Creek Holdings, LLC. On reconsideration, Moe and Dunn's Motion to Dismiss 81 is GRANTED as modified in this Opinion and the claims against them are DISMISSED without leave to amend. Signed on 5/8/2020 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (Mailed to Pro Se party on 5/8/2020.) (ck)
|
|
Filing
169
OPINION AND ORDER: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 148 is GRANTED. Signed on 4/14/2020 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (Mailed to Pro Se party on 4/14/2020.) (ck)
|
|
Filing
168
OPINION AND ORDER: Defendant Silverton Land Co., LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment 120 is GRANTED and its Motion to Strike 142 is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Silverton Solar, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment 145 is GRANTED. Defendant Dick Anderson Construction Company's Motion for Summary Judgment 112 is GRANTED. Signed on 9/20/2019 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (Mailed to Pro Se party on 9/20/2019.) (ck)
|
|
Filing
110
OPINION AND ORDER: Defendants' TLS Capital Inc.; Patrick Leibach et al.; Cypress Creek Renewables, LLC, et al.; Blue Oak Energy; and Gordon Moe and Judy Dunn's Motions to Dismiss 68 , 69 , 77 , 79 , and 81 are GRANTED. Defen dants' Pine Gate Energy Capital, LLC, et al.'s Motion to Dismiss and Alternative Motion to Make More Definite and Certain and Motion to Strike 82 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Signed on 11/9/2018 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. A copy of this Opinion and Order was mailed to pro se plaintiff Kristine K. Yates. (ck)
|
|
Filing
56
OPINION AND ORDER: Several of plaintiff's causes of action fail to state a claim. Plaintiff has already amended her complaint once as to each of those claims, but those amendments did not cure the deficiencies. At this point, I conclu de that further amendment would be futile. Plaintiff's equal protection, fraud, and conspiracy claims are therefore dismissed with prejudice. All claims against the EPA are also dismissed with prejudice. See Kendall v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 518 F .3d 1042, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) ("Dismissal without leave to amend is proper if it is clear that the [claim] could not be saved by amendment."). This action may proceed with respect to plaintiff's remaining claims: procedural due process, negligence per se, trespass, and nuisance. Signed on 4/30/2018 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. A copy of this Opinion and Order was mailed to pro se plaintiff Kristine K. Yates. (ck)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Oregon 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.
