Case Background Sample Clauses

Case Background. Corporate Entity. At all relevant times, Long Beach was organized under the laws of California as a limited liability company and conducted business in the State of California.

Case Background. Corporate Entity. At all relevant times, Amika was organized under the laws of North Carolina as a limited liability company and conducted business in California.

Case Background. The project was located in a section of the city that was annexed from the county 25 years ago. The project team had access to the as-builts the county created when the utilities were originally installed; however the as-builts were not very accurate.

Case Background. On January 4, 2016, the United States, on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”), filed a complaint against Volkswagen AG, et al. (“Volkswagen”) alleging the manufacture of vehicles with prohibited defeat devices that caused emission control systems to perform differently during normal vehicle operation than during emissions testing. As a result of the defeat devices, the vehicles emitted NOx in excess of federal vehicle emission standards. Approximately 500,000 (model year 2009 to 2015) vehicles containing 2.0 liter diesel engines and approximately 80,000 (model year 2009 to 2016) vehicles containing 3.0 liter diesel engines were affected in the country. Approximately 23,600 of the affected vehicles are registered in Illinois. The U.S. EPA has indicated that NOx emission levels from the 2.0 liter vehicles with defeat devices were 10 to 40 times higher than federal emission standards, and NOx emission levels from the 3.0 liter vehicles were up to nine times higher than federal emissions standards. (U.S. Envir. Prot. Agency, Frequent Questions about Volkswagen Violations, available at ▇▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇▇.▇▇▇/vw/frequent-questions-about-volkswagen- violations)

Case Background. This project was the renovation of an existing manufacturing facility to be used as a data warehouse. The renovation required the demolition of on part of the facility, as well as the removal of existing material from the rest of the facility. The facility was designed to hold three large rooms of servers, and the associated electrical infrastructure required for these servers and their battery backups. This infrastructure included a gas fire suppression system in the server rooms, as using water around the electrical equipment was a last resort. Constructing this system required the placement of dozens of tanks to hold the gas on the lower level, and the piping required to distribute the gas (separate from the water-base system). The renovation was performed to meet LEED Silver requirements, and the demolition was a major component of this certification.

Case Background. On April 20, 2020, Plaintiffs filed this action challenging the adequacy of sanitation measures, and DOC efforts to reduce the risk of contracting the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the virus that causes COVID-

Case Background. The concept for a new tollway was developed approximately sixty years ago. While the tollway made it to the design phase and land was acquired for the right of way, it was never constructed (▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2003). It remained on the master plan until the 1990’s when the design was re-evaluated to address environmental concerns about the proposed highway. Proponents for the highway claimed that it would improve regional traffic flow and alleviate congestion on local roads. It would also increase national security by allowing an evacuation route should Washington need to be evacuated. Opponents to the project claim that the new highway would disrupt local traffic patterns, disturb communities, and have detrimental effects on the surrounding environment (EDF, 2005). The ICC finally became a reality when the state governor ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ his campaign promise by conducting a formal groundbreaking in October 2006 (▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2003) with construction officially beginning on November 13, 2007. d.). The contract for Contract B was awarded on July 22, 2008 to the design-build team for $559.7 million, which was 22% higher than anticipated (▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2008). The contract award was protested by another design-build team that was not awarded the bid, despite having a lower bid price by $670,000. There was concern that this would delay the start of construction for Contract B, but this protest was rejected by the state procurement officer. Environmental sensitivity was an emphasis for this project since Contract B traverses some of the area’s most sensitive environments. Contract B has several innovative features designed to sustain the area’s plant and wildlife. A special environmental crew was present during the construction to ensure that disruption to the ecosystem was kept at a minimum (▇▇▇▇▇▇, n.d.). During construction, 8 foot high fences were erected along the jobsite to keep out deer. These fences have smaller openings towards the bottom to keep out smaller animals. Box turtles in the path of the highway alignment were located by a team of trained retriever dogs and safely relocated. Over 200 box turtles were relocated over the course of the project. Over 1000 trees were also removed with roots intact to be placed along a future stream stabilization project. Culverts were designed to allow fish to swim through and fish in the work zone were safely relocated using electroshock methods. Environmental Defense Fund. (2005, March 16). Proposed Highway Would Hurt Air, Congestion. Retriev...

Case Background. Corporate Entity. At all relevant times, Tutor Perini Corporation and O & G Industries, Inc., a Joint Venture, and Frontier ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Constructors Inc. and Tutor Perini Corporation, a Joint Venture, each conducted, and still conduct, business in the State of California, and collectively have a large fleet under the Off-Road Regulation. Each of them are jointly and severally responsible for each of the terms of this Settlement Agreement.

Case Background. The football stadium is located on the campus of a large public university in northern Virginia. The university has a strong athletic program with the last few seasons of football bringing over 20,000 fans to the stadium, which is well over the stadium’s capacity of 15,000. Other special events such as homecoming, family weekend games, and graduation are held at the stadium and extra temporary seating is typically required. The university determined to expand the stadium as part of the overall campus master plan. The original stadium was constructed in 1975 with seating capacity for 5,200 fans (JMU, n.d.). The new stadium served as home for the football, track and field, lacrosse, and field hockey programs, as well has having indoor racquetball courts, classrooms, space for the ROTC program and offices for varsity athletic teams and media relations. The stadium received its first expansion in 1981 when a second set of stands were built, increasing the overall capacity of the stadium to 12,500. The stadium received a new scoreboard with video replay capability in 2004. The $62 million stadium expansion project began in December 2009 with the removal of the old concrete bleachers on the west side of the stadium and construction of new double-deck steel stands with a new press box, hospitality suites, club-level seating, and additional stands enclosing the north end of the field. The new stands would allow the stadium to accommodate 24,877 fans. This project was funded through ticket sales (including pre-orders) and a state bond package that voters passed in 2002. Construction on the west stands was completed in August 2011. The opening game for that season had a sellout crowd of 25,102 fans in attendance (ESPN, 2011). ESPN. (2011, September 10). Central Connecticut State versus ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇. Retrieved from ▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇.▇▇.▇▇▇/ncf/boxscore?gameId=312530256 on 1 August 2014. JMU. (n.d.). The Hillside Gang. Retrieved from ▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇▇.▇▇▇/centennialcelebration/hillside.shtml on 1 August 2014.