State of California, on Behalf of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Neville Chemical Company, a Corporation (2004)
green
· 130 citation events
across 24 courts.
Showing the 50 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200420152026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
In Her Capacity as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of Philip Louis Cloud v. Cloud (2026)
Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2004).
green
Seaview Trading, LLC, Agk Inve v. Cir (2022)
Co., 358 F.3d 661, 666 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[W]e have been specially instructed by the Supreme Court to construe limitations periods in favor of the government.”); Tosello v. United States, 210 F.3d 1125, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he applicable statute of limitations . . . must be construed strictly in favor of the government.”); In re West, 5 F.3d 423 , 426 (9th Cir. 1993) (observing this holding in the context of tax collection in bankruptcy); United States v. Dos Cabezas Cor…
“[W]e have been specially instructed by the Supreme Court to construe limitations periods in favor of the government.”
green
United States v. Stephen Elder (2020)
Co., 358 F.3d 661, 672 (9th Cir. 2004).
green
MPM Silicones, LLC v. Union Carbide Corp. (2020)
Cal. Dept. of Toxic Substances Control v. Neville Chemical Co., 358 F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that “’provision of alternative water supplies’ is listed as both a type of ‘remedial action’ and as a type of ‘removal’”). 24See Colorado v. Sunoco, Inc, 337 F.3d 1233 , 1244–45 (10th Cir. 2003) (explaining that monitoring wells could be classified as “removal” or “remedial” under both statutory definitions). 37 hazardous waste” that address contamination at its source.
noting that “’provision of alternative water supplies’ is listed as both a type of ‘remedial action’ and as a type of ‘removal’”
green
MPM Silicones, LLC v. Union Carbide Corp. (2020)
Cal. Dept. of Toxic Substances Control v. Neville Chemical Co., 358 F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that “’provision of alternative water supplies’ is listed as both a type of ‘remedial action’ and as a type of ‘removal’”). 24See Colorado v. Sunoco, Inc, 337 F.3d 1233 , 1244–45 (10th Cir. 2003) (explaining that monitoring wells could be classified as “removal” or “remedial” under both statutory definitions). 37 hazardous waste” that address contamination at its source.
noting that “’provision of alternative water supplies’ is listed as both a type of ‘remedial action’ and as a type of ‘removal’”
green
ASARCO, LLC v. Celanese Chemical Co. (2015)
Co., 358 F.3d 661, 663 (9th Cir.2004) (quoting Carson Harbor Vill., 270 F.3d at 880, 883).
green
State of New York v. Next Millenium Realty (2013)
Co., 358 F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 2004) ("remedial actions generally are permanent responses") (quoting Geraghty and Miller, Inc. v. Conoco, Inc, 234 F.3d 917, 926 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
"remedial actions generally are permanent responses"
green
United States v. The Boeing Company (2023)
The Ninth Circuit construes “remedial action” in this context 9 to mean “action consistent with the final remedy,” which is “action taken after the final 10 remedial action plan has been approved.” Neville, 358 F.3d at 667-69, 671 (emphasis in 11 original).
emphasis in 11 original
green
Crescent Mine, LLC v. Bunker Hill Mining Corporation (2022)
Co., 358 F.3d 661 , 668 n.4 (9th Cir. 2004) (“As soon as the Department expended its first dollar, it could have sued Neville for this dollar and sought a declaratory judgment of Neville's liability for future response costs.”).
“As soon as the Department expended its first dollar, it could have sued Neville for this dollar and sought a declaratory judgment of Neville's liability for future response costs.”
green
Short Creek Development, LLC v. MFA Incorporated (2024)
According to the Ninth Circuit, an action cannot be “consistent with permanent remedy” unless a permanent remedy has already been adopted. 358 F.3d at 667 (“The first point at which both parties can be certain that any construction is consistent with a permanent remedy is when the permanent remedy is actually selected.”).
“The first point at which both parties can be certain that any construction is consistent with a permanent remedy is when the permanent remedy is actually selected.”
green
De Jaray v. Lattice Semiconductor Corporation (2023)
Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2004) (cleaned up).
cleaned up
green
California River Watch v. Fluor Corp. (2015)
Co., 358 F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir.2004)(internal quotation marks omitted).
green
Shame on You Productions, Inc. v. Elizabeth Banks (2015)
California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Neville Chemical Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir.2004) (“[D]enial of leave to amend is appropriate if the amendment would be futile,” citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 , 83 S.Ct. 227 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962)). 3.
And 16 the initiation of physical on-site construction “can only occur after the final remedial action 17 plan is adopted.” California v. Neville Chemical Co., 358 F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 2004). 18 The United States, joined by other Defendants, moves to dismiss the CERCLA claims as 19 time barred, but does not otherwise argue that Plaintiff has not pled the elements of their cost 20 recovery action.
green
Moffitt v. Winslow (2024)
Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 12 2004). 13 Here, leave to amend is unwarranted because it would be futile.
green
McCloskey v. Humboldt County Sheriff's Department (2023)
California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Neville 27 Chemical Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[D]enial of leave to amend is appropriate if the 1 DISCUSSION 2 Rule 8 requires that a complaint put forth “a short and plain statement of the claim 3 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” See Fed.
“[D]enial of leave to amend is appropriate if the 1 DISCUSSION 2 Rule 8 requires that a complaint put forth “a short and plain statement of the claim 3 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2
green
Santos v. County of Humboldt (2023)
California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Neville 27 Chemical Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[D]enial of leave to amend is appropriate if the 1 DISCUSSION 2 In its current iteration, Plaintiff’s operative complaint claims: that Defendant failed to 3 provide him a reasonable accommodation under the ADA; that Defendant retaliated against him 4 for having requested relief under the ADA; and, that Defendant interfered with Plaintiff’s exercise 5 of rights un…
Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2004), and when the amendments do not 7 adequately plead a cause of action and could not survive dismissal, Moore v. Kayport Package 8 Exp., Inc., 885 F.2d 531 , 537 (9th Cir. 1989).
Co., 358 F.3d 661, 672 (9th 1 Cir. 2004);3 Levin Metals Corp. v. Parr-Richmond Terminal Co., 2 799 F.2d 1312, 1317 (9th Cir. 1986)).) The court further noted 3 that while DTSC also asserted a claim for civil penalties under 4 the HSAA, that statute “expressly incorporates CERCLA’s liability 5 standards and defenses,” and thus Dobbas could not assert 6 defenses to the HSAA that it could not assert under § 107(a) of 7 CERCLA.
green
Dallaserra v. United States Probation and Pretrial Services for the United States District Court for the Dist… (2023)
Co., 358 F.3d 661, 674 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[D]enial of leave to amend is appropriate if the amendment would be futile.”).
“[D]enial of leave to amend is appropriate if the amendment would be futile.”
Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 11 2004), and when the amendment does not adequately plead a cause of action and could not survive 12 dismissal, Moore v. Kayport Package Exp., Inc., 885 F.2d 531 , 537 (9th Cir. 1989).
green
Clements v. T-Mobile USA, Inc (2023)
Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2004), and when the amendments do not adequately plead 8 a cause of action and could not survive dismissal, Moore v. Kayport Package Exp., Inc., 885 F.2d 9 531, 537 (9th Cir. 1989).
California Dep’t of Toxic Substances Control v. Neville Chemical Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2004).
California Dep’t of Toxic Substances Control v. Neville Chemical Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2004).
green
Monk v. DeJoy (2023)
See Kendall v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 518 F.3d 1042, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Dismissal 26 without leave to amend is proper if it is clear that the complaint could not be saved by 27 amendment.”); see also Livid Holdings Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 416 F.3d 940 , 946 (9th 1 Chemical Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[D]enial of leave to amend is appropriate if the 2 amendment would be futile.”) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). 3 DISCUSSION 4 In his…
“[D]enial of leave to amend is appropriate if the 2 amendment would be futile.”
green
Santos v. County of Humboldt (2023)
California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Neville 18 Chemical Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[D]enial of leave to amend is appropriate if the 19 amendment would be futile.”) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). 20 DISCUSSION 21 On November 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed his Original Complaint (dkt. 1) through which he 22 advanced two claims against his employer, a department of Humboldt County, California.
“[D]enial of leave to amend is appropriate if the 19 amendment would be futile.”
green
City of Lincoln v. County of Placer (2023)
Co., 358 F.3d 661, 663 (9th Cir. 2004)) (internal quotations 3 omitted).
Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th 12 Cir. 2004).
green
City of Lincoln v. County of Placer (2022)
Co., 358 F.3d 661, 663 (9th 3 Cir. 2004)) (internal quotations omitted).
green
Perrin Bernard Supowitz, LLC v. Pablo Morales (2022)
Co., 7 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2004).
green
City of Lincoln v. County of Placer (2022)
Co., 358 F.3d 661, 663 (9th 16 Cir. 2004)) (internal quotations omitted).
green
(PC) Smithee v. California Correctional Institution (2022)
Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Johnson v. Am.
quoting Johnson v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 834 F.2d 721 , 4 724 (9th Cir. 1987)
green
Ortega v. Chick-fil-A, Inc. (2021)
California Dept. of Toxic Substances Control v. Neville Chem. 12 Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[F]utility includes the inevitability of a claim’s defeat on 13 summary judgment” when a party “c[an] not point to a triable issue of material fact” (citation 14 omitted)).
“[F]utility includes the inevitability of a claim’s defeat on 13 summary judgment” when a party “c[an] not point to a triable issue of material fact” (citation 14 omitted)
green
Anthony Vinyards v. Natural Plant Protection (2021)
Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Johnson v. Am.
quoting Johnson v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 834 F.2d 721 , 24 724 (9th Cir. 1987)
green
City of Lincoln v. County of Placer (2021)
Co., 358 F.3d 661, 663 (9th 4 Cir. 2004)) (internal quotations omitted).
Co., 358 F.3d 661, 671 (9th Cir. 2004) (characterizing waiver and estoppel as “equitable defenses”); Danjag LLC v. Sony Corp., 263 F.3d 942 , 962 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]here is no right to a jury on the equitable defense of laches.” (citation omitted)); Metal Jeans, Inc. v. Metal Sport, Inc., 987 F.3d 1242, 1244 (9th Cir. 2021) (“The doctrine of unclean hands arises in equity.”).
characterizing waiver and estoppel as “equitable defenses”
green
Chavez v. Arias (2020)
Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Johnson v. Am.
quoting Johnson v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 834 F.2d 721 , 724 11 (9th Cir. 1987)
green
Crawford v. Combs (2019)
Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2004). 4 Here, the pertinent facts persuade the Court that granting leave to file a supplemental 5 complaint is unwarranted.
green
Bell Northern Research, LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. (2019)
Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673-74 (9th 1 || Cir. 2004) (“Futility includes the inevitability of a claim’s defeat on summary judgment.”’) 2 || (quoting Johnson v. Am.
“Futility includes the inevitability of a claim’s defeat on summary judgment.”’
green
West Virginia Hospitality and Travel Association, Inc. v. American Water Works Company, Inc. (2019)
Co., 358 F.3d 661, 672 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Every court of appeals that has considered the precise question whether § 9607 permits equitable defenses has concluded that it does not, as the statutory defenses are exclusive.”).
“Every court of appeals that has considered the precise question whether § 9607 permits equitable defenses has concluded that it does not, as the statutory defenses are exclusive.”
green
United States v. Raytheon Company (2018)
Co., 358 F.3d 661, 666 (9th Cir. 2004).
green
United States v. HVI Cat Canyon, Inc. (2018)
Co. , 358 F.3d 661 , 673 (9th Cir. 2004) ("This change in policy and pursuit of the full costs of oversight cannot be 'inconsistent with' the national contingency plan, as the national contingency plan does not direct the state to limit its recovery of response costs in any way.").
"This change in policy and pursuit of the full costs of oversight cannot be 'inconsistent with' the national contingency plan, as the national contingency plan does not direct the state to limit its recovery of response costs in any way."
green
ScripsAmerica, Inc. v. Ironridge Global LLC (2015)
California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Neville Chemical Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir.2004) (“[D]enial of leave to amend is appropriate if the amendment would be futile,” citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 , 83 S.Ct. 227 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962)).
green
California River Watch v. Fluor Corp. (2015)
Co., 358 F.3d 661, 671 (9th Cir.2004), where the Ninth Circuit held that “the initiation of physical on-site construction of the remedial action,”, which triggers the statute of limitations for remedial actions, “can only occur after the final remedial action plan is adopted.” Ne-ville concluded that “[t]he Department’s suit was brought within six years of the approval of the remedial action plan and is not, thus, barred by the statute of, limitations.” Id.
green
Warner v. Tinder Inc. (2015)
California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Neville Chemical Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir.2004) (“[D]enial of leave to amend is appropriate if the amendment would be futile,” citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 , 83 S.Ct. 227 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962)).
California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Neville Chemical Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir.2004) (“[D]enial of leave to amend is appropriate if the amendment would be futile,” citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 , 83 S.Ct. 227 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962)).
green
Aliya Medcare Finance, LLC v. Nickell (2015)
California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Neville Chemical Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir.2004) (“[D]enial of leave to amend is appropriate if the amendment would be futile,” citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 , 83 S.Ct. 227 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962)).
green
United States ex rel. Modglin v. DJO Global Inc. (2015)
California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Neville Chem ical Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir.2004) (“[Djenial of.leave to amend is appropriate if the amendment would be futile,” citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 , 83 S.Ct 227 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962)).
green
Griffin v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC (2015)
California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Neville Chemical Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir.2004) (“[Djenial of leave to amend is appropriate if the amendment would be futile,” citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 , 83 S.Ct. 227 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962)).
green
Scripsamerica, Inc. v. Ironridge Global LLC (2014)
California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Neville Chemical Co., 358 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir.2004) (“[D]enial of leave to amend is appropriate if the amendment would be futile,” citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 , 83 S.Ct. 227 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962)).