This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Environmental Law
Environmental Contamination
CERCLA

Walnut Creek Manor LLC v. Mayhew Center LLC, Dean Dunivan, Etch-Tek Inc., and Does 1 through 50, inclusive

Published: Oct. 10, 2009 | Result Date: Jun. 1, 2009 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 4:07-cv-05664-CW Verdict –  $1,947,000

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Christian P. Foote

Brian A. Kelly


Defendant

Fred M. Blum
(Edlin Gallagher Huie Blum LLP)

Jonathan E. Meislin
(Bassi Edlin Huie & Blum LLP)


Experts

Plaintiff

Scott D. Warner
(technical)

Michael E. Williams
(technical)

Stanley Tish
(technical)

Defendant

Christopher Vais
(technical)

Jan Schutze
(technical)

Walter L. Ricci
(technical)

Facts

Plaintiff Walnut Creek Manor LLC operates a seniors-only apartment complex in Walnut Creek. It sued the owner of the adjacent property, defendant Mayhew Center, for allegedly contaminating the soil beneath the community with tetrachoroethene (PCE). Mayhew Center owns three buildings in the area, one of which was used by defendant Etch-Tek. Etch-Tek manufactured circuit boards. Plaintiff sought relief under private nuisance, public nuisance, trespass, negligence, negligence per se, and strict liability. Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Mayhew Center disputed that it was the source of the PCE and counter-claimed against Walnut Creek Manor asserting mirror allegations.

Damages

The plaintiff sought recovery for investigation costs and damage to its property based on the release of hazardous substances. Defendants alleged that their property value had been diminished based on the contamination.

Result

The jury found that the PCEs were released by defendants, not by plaintiff, and that defendants' slant boring was a substantial factor in causing harm. Accordingly, the jury awarded $1,947,000 to plaintiff.

Other Information

Etch-Tek dissolved and was not present at trial. On Oct. 2, 2009, the court ruled in favor of plaintiff on the remaining non-jury claims under CERCLA and the California Hazardous Substance Account Act. The court found defendant Mayhew Center LLC was the source of the contamination and denied defendant's request for contribution. The court granted plaintiff costs.

Deliberation

two hours

Poll

8-0

Length

15 days


#106293

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390