My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
COMPLIANCE INFO
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
E
>
EL DORADO
>
1419
>
1900 - Hazardous Materials Program
>
PR0513434
>
COMPLIANCE INFO
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/23/2019 2:23:41 PM
Creation date
10/23/2019 2:11:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
1900 - Hazardous Materials Program
File Section
COMPLIANCE INFO
RECORD_ID
PR0513434
PE
1919
FACILITY_ID
FA0001507
FACILITY_NAME
EDDIES PIZZA CAFE
STREET_NUMBER
1419
Direction
S
STREET_NAME
EL DORADO
STREET_TYPE
ST
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95206
APN
16702103
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
1419 S EL DORADO ST
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
001
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
FRuiz
Tags
EHD - Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
218
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
1 to allege essential facts with such particularity and definiteness as to inform defendant of the <br />2 relationship of parties and nature of cause which would create his liability, and this rule is <br />3 particularly applicable with respect to facts peculiarly with knowledge of defendant.Miller v. <br />4 Pacific Constructor. Inc. (1945) 68 Cal.App.2d 529.) A complaint is good, as against special <br />5 demurrer, where it set forth essential facts of plaintiff's case with sufficient particularity and <br />6 precision to acquaint defendants with nature, source and extent of his cause of action; plaintiff need <br />7 not particularize matters presumptively within knowledge of demurring defendant. Strozier v. <br />8 Williams (1960, 2nd Dist) 187 Cal.App.2d 528.) A special demurrer should not be sustained if the <br />9 allegations are sufficiently clear to apprise the defendant of the issues that must be met, even if not as <br />10 clear and detailed as might be desired. (Merlino v. West Coast Macaroni Mfg. Co. (1949) 90 <br />11 Cal.App.2d 106) <br />12 Ambiguity, as defined by Webster, signifies "the quality or state of being ambiguous; <br />13 doubtfulness or uncertainty, particularly of signification"; equivocal. (Kraner v. Halsey (1899) 82 <br />14 Cal 209.) Nothing in this complaint is ambiguous. The government knows only a small portion of <br />15 what goes on at these businesses, and that is a good thing. The government does not know all of the <br />16 chemicals, nor the quantities of these chemicals located at the businesses owned or controlled by Mr. <br />17 Badway. However, there is nothing ambiguous about the quantity or the chemicals which require <br />18 compliance with Chapter 6.95. The defendant is required to comply with this law for all chemicals <br />19 that are liquid, solid and/or gas at standard temperature and pressure. <br />20 <br />THE DEFENSE HAS PROVIDE NO AUTHORITY THAT <br />21 THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION <br />22 <br />23 As stated above, Health and Safety Code § 6382 does not exist. Carbon dioxide is a <br />24 hazardous substance pursuant to several criteria, including but not limited to the fact that it is a listed <br />hazardous material pursuant to Title 49 of the Federal Code of Regulations. Carbon dioxide is a gas <br />25 <br />a standard temperature and pressure. The complaints allege unknown violations regarding Chapter <br />26 <br />27 6.95 of the Health and Safety Code due to the uncertainty associated with the failure to file the <br />28 required paperwork with the Office of Emergency Services. However, these complaints allege that <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.