NRC Environmental Services Inc. v. Barnards Holdings, Inc.

D. Oregon

NRC Environmental Services Inc. v. Barnards Holdings, Inc.

DecidedFebruary 14, 2022

Docket3:19-cv-01133

StatusUnknown

This text of NRC Environmental Services Inc. v. Barnards Holdings, Inc. (NRC Environmental Services Inc. v. Barnards Holdings, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

NRC Environmental Services Inc. v. Barnards Holdings, Inc., (D. Or. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

NRC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, No. 3:19-cv-01133-JR INC., a Washington Corporation, ORDER Plaintiff,

v.

BARNARDS HOLDINGS, INC., fka WATER TRUCK SERVICE, INC., an Oregon corporation, and BOB JONAS, an Individual domiciled in Oregon,

Defendant.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Russo issued a Findings and Recommendation on April 19, 2021, in which she recommends that this Court grant in part and deny in part the parties’ motions for summary judgment. F&R, ECF 78. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Defendants filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation. Defs. Obj., ECF 80. When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge’s report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

2003) (en banc). The Court has carefully considered Defendants’ objections and concludes that there is no basis to modify the Findings & Recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation. CONCLUSION The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Russo’s Findings and Recommendation [78]. Defendants’ Amended Motion for Summary Judgment [57] is granted as to Plaintiff’s breach of contract claims under Sections 2.8 and 2.13 of the APA as they relate to the Clutter Facility and

as to Plaintiff’s negligent misrepresentation claim. The motion is otherwise denied. Plaintiff’s first Motion for Summary Judgment [59] is granted as to the Clutter Facility’s unpermitted development and wastewater pretreatment operations and denied as to the Clutter Facility’s street sweeping operations. Plaintiff’s second Motion for Summary Judgment [61] is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: __F_e_b_r_u_a_r_y_ 1__4_, _2_0_2_2______.

___________________________ MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

NRC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, No. 3:19-cv-01133-JR INC., a Washington Corporation, ORDER Plaintiff,

v.

BARNARDS HOLDINGS, INC., fka WATER TRUCK SERVICE, INC., an Oregon corporation, and BOB JONAS, an Individual domiciled in Oregon,

Defendant.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Russo issued a Findings and Recommendation on April 19, 2021, in which she recommends that this Court grant in part and deny in part the parties’ motions for summary judgment. F&R, ECF 78. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Defendants filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation. Defs. Obj., ECF 80. When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge’s report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

2003) (en banc). The Court has carefully considered Defendants’ objections and concludes that there is no basis to modify the Findings & Recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation. CONCLUSION The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Russo’s Findings and Recommendation [78]. Defendants’ Amended Motion for Summary Judgment [57] is granted as to Plaintiff’s breach of contract claims under Sections 2.8 and 2.13 of the APA as they relate to the Clutter Facility and

as to Plaintiff’s negligent misrepresentation claim. The motion is otherwise denied. Plaintiff’s first Motion for Summary Judgment [59] is granted as to the Clutter Facility’s unpermitted development and wastewater pretreatment operations and denied as to the Clutter Facility’s street sweeping operations. Plaintiff’s second Motion for Summary Judgment [61] is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: __F_e_b_r_u_a_r_y_ 1__4_, _2_0_2_2______.

___________________________ MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

NRC Environmental Services Inc. v. Barnards Holdings, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nrc-environmental-services-inc-v-barnards-holdings-inc-ord-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack