Facts

Joseph and Yvette Hardesty operated Hardesty Sand and Gravel, a 100-acre mine on property owned by the Schneider family, who had long been mining on the land with vested rights. The Hardestys sued the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District and others. The Schneiders sued the County of Sacramento and several county staffers, as well as a member of the county Board of Supervisors, Roger Dickinson.
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District was dismissed early in the action.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that a competitor Teichert Construction wanted HSG out of business and exerted undue influence over government officials to have Hardesty Sand investigated and ultimately found in violation of zoning ordinances.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: The plaintiffs contended the county revoked a vested right to mine. The damages sought by plaintiffs arose from the claimed inability to mine over the next 50 to 100 years. The county contended it never revoked the plaintiffs' vested right to mine, rather, the county required plaintiffs to apply for a conditional use permit, based on the undisputed evidence that plaintiffs' mining operation had expanded well beyond the parameters covered by plaintiffs' vested right.

In 1994, the county recognized a vested right to mine on only 300 acres of the plaintiffs' 3500 acres, based on historical evidence provided by the plaintiffs, establishing limited historical mining occurring on those portions of the property. In 2002, the plaintiffs submitted a reclamation plan for approval by the county, claiming that they were conducting a small mining operation, consisting of 3-4 acres per year, of limited volume and production. Within 4 years, plaintiffs had expanded the mining operation, excavating in excess of 80 acres of deep pits adjacent to the south bank of the Cosumnes River, and ramping up production to 20 times the previously stated limited volume of production.

The County Board of Supervisors made a determination that the expansion, enlargement, intensification and increased volume of production was not covered by the previous recognition of a vested right. Under the authority of the California Supreme Court case Hansen Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1996) 12 Cal 4th 540, the Board of Supervisors determined that the mining operation required a conditional use permit and a rezone, as the area where plaintiffs' property is located is not zoned for surface mining under the county's zoning code. Defendant claimed that, consistent with the plaintiffs' longstanding practice of avoiding compliance with zoning and other state law and regulations, the plaintiffs refused to apply for a conditional use permit and a rezone. The county at no time denied the conditional use permit, as plaintiffs never applied for one.

The county contended that the federal court lacked jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs' claims, as the plaintiffs had failed and refused to exhaust state judicial remedies available under CCP section 1094.5. In addition, because the decision of the Board of Supervisors requiring a conditional use permit was entitled to preclusive and binding effect, and could not be re-litigated or reconsidered by federal courts.

Result

The jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs and against Sacramento County. It awarded the Hardestys $75 million and the Schneiders $30 million. It also awarded almost $1.8 million in punitive damages against the individual defendants, including Supervisor Dickinson.

Other Information

The county will seek reversal of the verdict in post-trial motions.