Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL v. JIM DOBBAS, INC., 2:14-595 WBS EFB. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20141017784
Filed: Oct. 16, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 16, 2014
Summary: ORDER RE: MOTION TO STRIKE WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge. Plaintiffs California Department of Toxic Substances Control ("DTSC") and the Toxic Substances Control Account ("TSCA") brought this action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. , to recover cleanup costs from defendants Jim Dobbas, Inc. ("Dobbas"), Continental Rail, Inc., Pacific Wood Preserving, West Coast Wood Preserving, LLC ("WCWP"), and Dav
More

ORDER RE: MOTION TO STRIKE

WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.

Plaintiffs California Department of Toxic Substances Control ("DTSC") and the Toxic Substances Control Account ("TSCA") brought this action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et seq., to recover cleanup costs from defendants Jim Dobbas, Inc. ("Dobbas"), Continental Rail, Inc., Pacific Wood Preserving, West Coast Wood Preserving, LLC ("WCWP"), and David van Over. Dobbas, van Over, and WCWP answered the Complaint. Plaintiffs now move to strike portions of the Answer filed by van Over pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), including van Over's jury trial demand, request for attorney's fees, and seventeen of van Over's forty-five affirmative defenses.1

For the reasons set forth in this court's September 16, 2014 Memorandum and Order, (Docket No. 43), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) plaintiffs' motion to strike the jury demand of defendant David van Over be, and the same hereby is, DENIED;

(2) plaintiffs' motion to strike the prayer for attorney's fees of defendant David van Over be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED;

(3) plaintiffs' motion to strike David van Over's affirmative defenses be, and the same hereby is, DENIED with respect to the ninth, tenth, and thirty-fourth affirmative defenses and GRANTED in all other respects;

David Van Over has twenty days from the date this Order is signed to file an amended answer or counterclaim, if he can do so consistent with this Order.

FootNotes


1. The seventeen challenged affirmative defenses are van Over's fifth, sixth, seventh, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, twenty-seventh, twenty-eighth, thirty-fourth, thirty-fifth, thirty-ninth, forty-first, forty-second, and forty-fourth affirmative defenses. (Pls.' Mem. at 11-21 (Docket No. 27-1).)
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer