United States v. Gibson Wine Co.

摘要

Paragraphs in civil enforcement action complaint alleging winemaker violated Clean Air Act Section 112(r)(7)’s resource management plan requirements in storing and using anhydrous ammonia in process handling in excess of 10,000 pounds of hazardous substance will not be stricken as redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous, because: (1) winemaker does not allege paragraph explaining regulatory definition of process involving regulated hazardous substances falls into category that may be stricken, (2) winemaker asserts that motion to strike does not attempt to dismiss claims of complaint, (3) federal regulatory enforcement authority of stationary source safety management programs under act is not displaced by California occupational safety plan that has not yet received federal final determination of efficacy of state plan, and (4) winemaker claim that it does not handle requisite amount of anhydrous ammonia for plan applicability requirement is not basis for motion to strike.