Asarco v. Noranda Mining
Plaintiff: Asarco
Defendant: Xstrata
Case Number: 2:2012cv00527
Filed: June 5, 2012
Court: US District Court for the District of Utah
Office: Central Office
County: Summit
Presiding Judge: Evelyn J. Furse
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
November 23, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 255 MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order denying 237 Motion to Lift Stay. The parties shall continue to submit quarterly status reports. When the EPA approves a remediation plan, the parties shall submit a status report within fourteen days and file a motion to lift the stay. Concurrent with the motion to lift the stay, the parties shall file a proposed schedule for resolution of claims remaining in this case with an attorneys' planning meeting report and a proposed scheduling order. Signed by Judge David Barlow on 11/22/2022. (mh)
July 11, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 187 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 176 Motion to Stay: stay will be lifted after the EPA approves a remediation plan for the Lower Silver Creek site. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 7/11/17 (alt)
March 31, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 159 Amended MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 132 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 134 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Tena Campbell on 3/31/16 (alt)
March 29, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 157 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 132 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 134 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Tena Campbell on 3/29/16 (alt)
May 14, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 117 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER: Expert Discovery due by 9/11/2015; Motions due by 9/25/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 5/14/15 (alt)
April 28, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 110 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 86 Motion to Quash; granting 97 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 4/28/15 (alt)
October 22, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 63 MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER denying as moot 57 Motion for More Definite Statement; denying 59 Motion to Strike the Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 10/22/13 (alt)
June 14, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 52 ORDER AND MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 39 Motion to Dismiss Party; granting 42 Motion to File Amended Complaint. Plaintiff is hereby directed to file its proposed amended complaint as soon as practicable. Signed by Judge Tena Campbell on 6/14/13 (alt)
February 26, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 38 MEMORANDUM DECISION & RULING denying 33 Motion to Quash. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 2/26/13 (alt)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 Utah District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Asarco v. Noranda Mining
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Asarco
Represented By: Gregory Evans
Represented By: Tanya Guerrero
Represented By: James A. Holtkamp
Represented By: William R. Pletcher
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Xstrata
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?