Facts

According to plaintiffs Thomas R. and Pia Soper, defendants Jack M. and Patricia A. Van Dieren were owners of rural land that adjoined their land in the area of Agua Dulce in Northern Los Angeles County. Running along the south boundaries of the parties properties was a 58-foot wide roadway called Chickadee Court, a dedicated easement to Los Angeles County. Both parties used a portion of the narrow roadway, located at the north end of the easement, for access purposes.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiffs claimed private nuisance due to non-permitted commercial activities, nuisance due to improper and illegal re-grading of defendants' land, interference of an easement, and nuisance due to the existence of an illegal shooting range upon defendants' land. The property owned by defendants was zoned as A-1.

Settlement Discussions

According to the plaintiffs, a demand of $100,000 was made including an injunction and an offer of $0 was given.

Damages

The plaintiffs claimed $100,000 in damages.

Injuries

The plaintiffs claimed emotional distress.

Result

The court ruled that the claim asserting interference with easement was insufficient due to the fact that any narrowing of the roadway that happened as a result of defendants' grading was negligible and not of actual consequence. The court decided to enjoin defendants from creating, maintaining, or putting to use a shooting range, which the court ruled to be a nuisance. The court further ruled that plaintiffs were owed no money damages since the incidents were not frequent enough or near enough to plaintiffs to justify a compensatory violation of the right to peaceful, quiet enjoyment of property. Also, any complaints based on emotional distress were deemed not credible because evidence shown at trial proved that both parties had, in general, enjoyed the use of firearms. The court ruled that the grading that happened in 1995, at which time defendants erected a shop, had little effect on the easement. Further, the court ruled that the grading in 2002 that stopped in wait of proper permitting was inordinate and did not follow county regulations. On the other hand, the court ruled that the 2002 grading did not result in damage and the irritation of this event was little and not deserving of compensation. Regarding the argument for private nuisance, plaintiffs asserted that defendants' millwork shop was a nuisance due to noise, dust, workers, excessive traffic, and smells from lacquer. The court ruled that plaintiffs were owed $30,000 for nuisances as a result of traffic, odors, and noise coming from the shop. The court calculated this amount by looking at the period between 2002 and 2006. The period was calculated on the basis of the three years until 2005, which was in sync with the three-year statute of limitations and on the basis of laches. The court also mentioned that plaintiffs had not brought the action until 2005, even though the issues were in existence beginning, at least, in 1998. The nuisance was found to be abated but injunctive relief was required to limit defendants from going into business once again. Plaintiffs were given costs amounting to $7,456.

Other Information

According to the plaintiffs, insurance coverage was in dispute with the insurance carrier, Allstate . The judgment was later satisfied.