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.

Torts
Negligence
Continuing Nuisance and Trespass

SRC/SCH LLC, Beverly Hills Adjacent Senior Assisted Living LLC v. Union Oil Company of California dba Unocal, ConocoPhillips Company, Chevron USA Inc., and Does 1 through 10, inclusive

Published: Sep. 13, 2014 | Result Date: Mar. 17, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC471071 Verdict –  Defense

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Stephen E. Foster

Arthur B. Fine
(Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp LLP)


Defendant

Lawrence P. Riff
(Los Angeles County Superior Court)

James E. Smith
(Gilbert & Sackman)


Facts

SRC/SCH LLC and Beverly Hills Adjacent Senior Assisted Living LLC sued Union Oil Co. of California dba Unocal, ConocoPhillips Co., and Chevron USA Inc., in connection with plaintiffs' real property located in Los Angeles County.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs alleged that they owned five parcels of real property located in the City and County of Los Angeles that were located along the 1000's block of South La Cienega Blvd. Plaintiff alleged that defendant ConocoPhillipps' was the successor-in-interest to TOSCO Corp., which previously operated a gas station on one of plaintiffs' parcels. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants' underground storage tanks leaked gasoline, contaminating the soil and groundwater on plaintiffs' property. However, plaintiffs did not discover the leak until around 2006 or 2007. Plaintiffs argued that defendants should bear the costs of investigation, remediation, decontamination, and construction due to the leak. Plaintiffs argued costs would be at least $5 million. As such, plaintiffs sued defendants alleging claims for permanent nuisance, permanent trespass, negligence, continuing nuisance, and continuing trespass.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants denied plaintiffs' allegations, and asserted various affirmative defenses.

Result

The jury rendered a defense verdict.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Oct. 6, 2011.


#108138

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

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