United States v. HVI Cat Canyon, Inc., Case No. CV 11–5097 FMO (SSx)

Citation213 F.Supp.3d 1249
Decision Date30 September 2016
Docket NumberCase No. CV 11–5097 FMO (SSx)
CourtU.S. District Court — Central District of California
Parties UNITED STATES of America, People of the State of California, ex rel. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HVI CAT CANYON, INC., f/k/a Greka Oil & Gas, Inc., Defendant.

213 F.Supp.3d 1249

UNITED STATES of America, People of the State of California, ex rel. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
HVI CAT CANYON, INC., f/k/a Greka Oil & Gas, Inc., Defendant.

Case No. CV 11–5097 FMO (SSx)

United States District Court, C.D. California.

Signed September 30, 2016


213 F.Supp.3d 1252

Angela Mo, Mark Sabath, US Department of Justice, Environmental Enforcement Section, Washington, DC, Davis H. Forsythe, United States Department of Justice, Denver, CO, Robert D. Mullaney, United States Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, Michael T. Zarro, Ross H. Hirsch, Gary E. Tavetian, Shanaira F. Udwadia, CAAG—Attorney General Office of California, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs.

James L. Meeder, Kamran Javandel, Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP, San Francisco, CA, Robert C. O'Brien, Stephen Gerard Larson, Larson O'Brien LLP, Emily L. Murray, Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP, Steven E. Bledsoe, Arent Fox LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant.

ORDER Re: PENDING MOTION

Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge

Having reviewed and considered all the briefing filed with respect to defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ("Motion") (Dkt. 92), the court concludes that oral argument is not necessary to resolve the Motion, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 78 ; Local Rule 7–15; Willis v. Pac. Mar. Ass'n , 244 F.3d 675, 684 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2001), and concludes as follows.

213 F.Supp.3d 1253

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of a series of oil spills that occurred between 2005 and 2010. On June 17, 2011, plaintiffs United States of America (the "Government"), and the People of the State of California ("State"), ex rel. California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW") and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region ("Regional Board" and together with the Government and CDFW, "plaintiffs"), filed a Complaint against HVI Cat Canyon, Inc., f/k/a Greka Oil & Gas, Inc. ("defendant" or "HVI") asserting claims for: (1) violations of § 311 of the Clean Water Act (the "CWA"), 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b) ; (2) violations of § 301 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a) ; (3) failure to prepare and implement and/or maintain Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plans as required by 40 C.F.R. Part 112; (4) failure to prepare and submit facility response plans in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 112.20 ; (5) recovery of removal costs under § 1002(a) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a) ; (6) violations of California Water Code § 13350 ; (7) violations of California Water Code § 13385 ; (8) violations of California Fish and Game Code § 5650 ; (9) recovery of natural resource damages pursuant to California Fish and Game Code § 12016 ; and (10) recovery of costs pursuant to California Fish and Game Code § 13013(c). (See Dkt. 1, Complaint at ¶¶ 180–215).

Defendant moved to dismiss the First, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth claims on September 9, 2011. (See Dkt. 6, Motion to Dismiss [ ] Claims for Relief in Plaintiffs' Complaint at 1). The court (Judge Pregerson presiding) denied the motion to dismiss on June 8, 2012. (See Dkt. 26, Court's Order of June 8, 2012, at 7). On June 27, 2012, defendant filed a Motion for Reconsideration and a Motion for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal.1 (See Dkt. 29, Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration at 1; Dkt. 30; Defendant's Motion for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) ). On January 16, 2013, the court (Judge Pregerson presiding) denied the motions (see Dkt. 50, Court's Order of January 16, 2013) and issued an Amended Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. (See Dkt. 51, Court's Order of January 16, 2013). On February 28, 2013, plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), the operative complaint, asserting the same claims. (See Dkt. 56, FAC).

Defendant filed the instant Motion on November 6, 2014. (See Dkt. 92, Motion at 1). The parties filed their respective supplemental briefs on November 20, 2014. (See Dkt. 111, Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum [ ] in Opposition to Defendant's Motion [ ] ("Plaintiffs' Suppl."); Dkt. 115, Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum [ ] in Support of Motion [ ] ("Defendant's Suppl.")). Defendant also filed a Motion for Terminating Sanctions on November 6, 2014. (See Dkt. 98, Motion for Terminating Sanctions or, in the Alternative, Other Appropriate Sanctions ("Motion for Terminating Sanctions")). The court stayed the proceedings pending a decision on defendant's Motion for Terminating Sanctions, (see Dkt. 122, Court's Order of December 17, 2014), and referred the motion to the then-assigned Magistrate Judge for a decision. (See Dkt. 123, Court's Order of December 18, 2014).

213 F.Supp.3d 1254

In the Motion for Terminating Sanctions, defendant claimed that the CDFW had failed to issue a litigation hold which resulted in the destruction of relevant documents, emails, other electronically stored information, and the spoliation of evidence. (See Dkt. 98, Motion for Terminating Sanctions at 1). On April 1, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R & R"), recommending in relevant part that witnesses Kelly Abe ("Abe"), Melissa Boggs ("Boggs"), Dave Brown ("Brown"), Dennis Chastain ("Chastain"), Mike Connell ("Connell"), Robin Lewis ("Lewis"), Becky Mack ("Mack"), Bill Scott ("Scott"), Beckye Stanton, and Charles Robert Todd ("Todd") be excluded from testifying at trial. (See Dkt. 134, R & R at 13, 16). The court accepted the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge with modifications. (See Dkt. 150, Court's Order of November 20, 2015). Specifically, the court found that only Brown, Lewis, Scott, and Todd should be excluded from testifying at trial on behalf of the State. (Id. at 4). However, the court did not exclude any witnesses from testifying on behalf of the Government. (Id. ). The court also ordered the State to pay the reasonable costs and attorney's fees for the taking of specified depositions. (Id. ).

The court lifted the stay of proceedings on November 23, 2015. (See Dkt. 152, Court's Order of November 23, 2015, at 2, 8). On December 28, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation and request to stay the proceedings for approximately 30 days due to defendant's financial distress caused by the steep drop in the price of crude oil. (See Dkt. 157, Stipulation of All Parties and Joint Request for Entry of Case Management Order No. 10 at 1, 3). The court approved the stipulation and stayed the action through January 29, 2016. (See Dkt. 158, Case Management Order No. 10 at 2). The court thereafter stayed the action through June 15, 2016. (See Dkt. 164, Case Management Order No. 11 at 2; Dkt. 166, Case Management Order No. 12 at 1; Dkt. 168, Case Management Order No. 13 at 2; Dkt. 173, Court's Order of June 15, 2016, at 7).

PLAINTIFFS' ALLEGATIONS2

Defendant owned and/or operated 12 oil and gas production facilities and the Bradley Three–Island Facility ("Bradley 3–Island") in Santa Maria, California.3 (See Dkt. 56, FAC at ¶¶ 57–58). These oil and gas production facilities inject heated water into the ground to extract crude oil from oil reservoirs. (Id. at ¶ 59). Defendant pumps fluids from the ground consisting of a combination of crude oil and produced water.4 (Id. ). The crude oil is then separated from the produced water in tanks, sumps, separators, and ponds. (Id. ). Produced water is produced to the surface along with crude oil. (Id. at ¶ 60).

On June 8, 2007, a six-inch water pipe ruptured at defendant's Bradley 3–Island Facility resulting in a spill of crude oil and produced water into a creek bed. (See Dkt. 56, FAC at ¶ 140). There were also numerous spills at defendant's Bell Facility in

213 F.Supp.3d 1255

Santa Maria, California.5 Specifically, on July 16, 2007, a flowline ruptured and spilled crude oil and produced water in harmful quantities into an unnamed tributary to Sisquoc Creek running along Palmer Road ("Palmer Road Creek")6 and its adjoining shorelines. (See id. at ¶ 91–93). On December 7, 2007, an injection pond at defendant's Bell Facility overflowed and spilled crude oil and produced water, which reached Palmer Road Creek and its adjoining shorelines in harmful quantities. (See id. at ¶¶ 94–96).

On January 29, 2008, another spill occurred after a corroded pipe at a settling pond at the Bell Facility failed, resulting in harmful quantities of crude oil and produced water reaching Palmer Road Creek and Sisquoc Creek and their adjoining shorelines. (See Dkt. 56, FAC at ¶¶ 97–99). On April 15, 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") found that crude oil and produced water were leaking from a surface impoundment at the Bell Facility located approximately 100 feet from Sisquoc Creek. (See id. at ¶¶ 100–101). On July 2, 2009, a leaking injection line at the Bell Facility resulted in the release of crude oil and produced water into an unnamed creek. (See id. at ¶ 143).

Plaintiffs also claim that crude oil and produced water were spilled from the Bell Facility on June 8, 2005, July 13, 2005, August 11, 2005, December 27, 2008, May 1, 2009, October 14, 2010, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • United States v. HVI Cat Canyon Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • February 25, 2023
    ...3). [2] The court adopts the findings and conclusions set forth in the Court's Order of September 30, 2016, (Dkt. 205, “MSJ Order I”), 213 F.Supp.3d 1249 (C.D. Cal. 2016), and the Court's Order of May 20, 2018, (Dkt. 307, “MSJ Order II”), 314 F.Supp.3d 1049 (C.D. Cal. 2018), to the extent t......
  • United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. v. Reg'l Water Quality Control Bd.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • November 27, 2019
    ...to protect the public are generally broadly or liberally applied in favor of that protective purpose."]; U.S. v. HVI Cat Canyon, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2016) 213 F.Supp.3d 1249, 1273 [applying rule of liberal construction to Porter–Cologne Act].)B. The Language of Section 13304 and the Trial Court......
  • United States v. HVI Cat Canyon, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • May 20, 2018
    ...a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, (Dkt. 92), which the court largely denied on September 30, 2016. See United States v. HVI Cat Canyon, Inc., 213 F.Supp.3d 1249 (C.D. Cal. 2016). The government now moves for summary judgment on defendant's liability: (1) under § 311(b) of the CWA, 33 U......
  • Zargarian v. BMW of N. Am., LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • March 3, 2020
    ...or analysis as to why any particular exhibit or assertion in a declaration should be excluded." United States v. HVI Cat Canyon, Inc., 213 F. Supp. 3d 1249, 1257 (C.D. Cal. 2016) ; see also Stonefire Grill, Inc. v. FGF Brands, Inc., 987 F. Supp. 2d 1023, 1033 (C.D. Cal. 2013) (refusing to "......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT