STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RRI ENERGY MID-ATLANTIC POWER HOLDINGS, LLC et al
| STATE OF NEW JERSEY |
| RELIANT ENERGY MID-ATLANTIC POWER HOLDINGS, LLC, RELIANT ENERGY POWER GENERATION, INC., RELIANT ENERGY, INC., CENTERPOINT ENERGY, SITHE ENERGIES, INC., METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. and GPU, INC. |
| 5:2007cv05298 |
| December 18, 2007 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Allentown Office |
| Outside the State of PA. |
| JAMES KNOLL GARDNER |
| Other Statutes: Environmental Matters |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 7401 Clean Air 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
411
OPINION/ORDER THAT DEFENDANT METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT CLAIMS ASSERTED AGAINST DEFENDANT METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY IN NEW JERSEY'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND CONNECTICUT'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ON 3/28/13. 3/28/13 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(ky, )
|
|
Filing
332
ORDER/OPINION THAT DEFENDANT METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY'S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS #270 FILED ON OCTOBER 5, 2012 IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE HENRY S. PERKIN ON 1/24/13. 1/24/13 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(ky, )
|
|
Filing
163
ORDER THAT THE NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLAINTIFF'S AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY IS GRANTED IN PART, GRANTED IN PART AS UNOPPOSED, AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE MOTION IS GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED TO THE EXTENT IT SEEKS TO STRIKE REFERENCES TO "EQUITABLE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF" AND THE "CONCURRENT REMEDY RULE" IN MET ED'S THIRD DEFENSE, AND TO THE EXTENT IT SEEKS TO STRIKE MET ED'S FIFTH AND TENTH DEFENSES. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT ALL REFERENCES TO "EQUITABLE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF" AND THE "CONCURRENT REMEDY RULE" ARE STRICKEN FROM MET ED'S THIRD DEFENSE; AND MET ED'S FIFTH AND TENTH DEFENSES ARE STRICKEN IN THEIR ENTIRETY. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE MOTION IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT IT SEEKS TO STRIKE MET ED'S NINTH AND FOURTEENTH DEFENSES. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT MED ED'S NINTH DEFENSE AND FOURTEE NTH DEFENSES ARE STRICKEN WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR MET ED TO ASSERT A DEFENSE, CONSISTENT WITH ITS ASSERTIONS IN ITS SIXTH AND EIGHTH DEFENSES, THAT THE STATES' INTERPRETATION OF THE GOVERNING REGULATIONS ARE AT ODDS WITH EPA'S HISTORICAL INTE RPRETATIONS AND/OR ENFORCEMENT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS, THE STATES' MOTION TO DISMISS MET ED' AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE NOTICE OF MOTION AND PLAINTIFF'S AND PLAINTIFF-INTER VENOR'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF RRI ENERGY MID-ATLANTIC POWER HOLDINGS, LLC, RRI ENERGY POWER GENERATION, INC. AND SITHE ENERGIES, INC., N/K/A DYNEGY, INC., IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ON 9/30/2010. 9/30/2010 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(lbs, )
|
|
Filing
131
ORDER THAT EACH MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT NEW JERSEY'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND CONNECTICUTS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION ARE DISMISSED TO THE EXTENT THEY SEEK INJUNCTIVE R ELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT DEFENDANT METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANYS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF NEW JERSEY'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANT METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY'S MOTION TO D ISMISS PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR CONNECTICUT'S COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION ARE DISMISSED AS MOOT, TO THE EXTENT THEY SEEK DISMISSAL OF COUNTS 5-6 AND 10 OF EACH COMPLAINT AGAINST METROPOLITAN EDISON. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT EACH MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT IT SEEKS DISMISSAL OF COUNT 11 OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND THE STATE OF CONNECTICUTS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS 1-5 AND 7- 11 OF NEW JERSEYS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANTS RELIANT MID-ATLANTIC POWER HOLDINGS, LLC, RELIANT POWER GENERATION, INC., AND SITHE ENERGIES, INC. IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT IT SEEKS TO STRIKE PARAGRAPHS 78, 88, 98, 107, 117, 127, 138 , 148, 158 AND 168 OF NEW JERSEY'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PARAGRAPHS 78, 88, 98, 107, 117, 127, 138, 148, 158 AND 168 OF NEW JERSEY'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ARE STRICKEN WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR NEW JERSEY TO SEEK LEAVE TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING, IF APPROPRIATE, AFTERDISCOVERY. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS 1-5 AND 7-11 OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR CONNECTICUTS COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANTS RELIANT MID-ATLANTIC PO WER HOLDINGS, LLC, RELIANT POWER GENERATION, INC., AND SITHE ENERGIES, INC. IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT IT SEEKS TO STRIKE PARAGRAPHS 73, 83, 93, 103, 113, 123, 134, 144, 154 AND 164 OF CONNECTICUT'S COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PARAGRAPHS 73, 83, 93, 103, 113, 123, 134, 144, 154 AND 164 OF CONNECTICUTS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION ARE STRICKEN WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR CONNECTICUT TO SEEK LEAVE TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING, IF APPROPRIATE, AFTER DISCOVERY. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS, EACH MOTION TO DISMISS IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ON 9/30/09. 10/1/09 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED.(er, )
|
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 Pennsylvania Eastern 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.
