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

Los Angeles Waterkeeper v. Hughes Brothers Aircrafters Inc.

Published: Feb. 24, 2023 | Result Date: Nov. 18, 2022 | Filing Date: Jun. 29, 2022 |

Case number: 2:22-cv-04458-DSF-JPR Settlement –  Non-monetary relief

Judge

Dale S. Fischer

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Daniel G. Cooper
(Sycamore Law Inc.)

Jesse C. Swanhuyser
(Sycamore Law Inc.)

Benjamin A. Harris
(Los Angeles Waterkeeper)

Barak J. Kamelgard
(Los Angeles Waterkeeper)


Defendant

Melissa A. Thorme
(Downey Brand LLP)


Facts

With a total acreage of 1.61 acres, and industrial area of about 1.25 acres, Hughes Brothers Aircrafters Inc. owns and operates an industrial facility serving the aerospace industry in South Gate. As the facility's industrial activities affects waters discharged into storm water, it obtained a permit that regulated the maximum amount of daily waste associated with storm water drainage. On June 29, 2022, the Los Angeles Waterkeeper, a non-profit benefit corporation, filed suit against Hughes Brothers Aircrafters for violations of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendant was violating not only the Clean Water Act but also the terms and conditions of its permit. Defendant's industrial facility discharged storm water and non-storm water contaminated with sediment, heavy metals, trash, and other pollutants contributing to impairment of downstream waters and aquatic dependent wildlife, exposing people to toxins, and harming the social and economic benefits of Los Angeles' waterways. The permit established numerical limits as to zinc and lead totals and a time schedule in which to complete the control measures. Although Hughes completed installation of the storm resistant containers as required, it had not yet collected adequate storm water data to determine if the controls affected storm water quality.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all allegations.

Result

The parties settled with defendant agreeing to certain storm treatment requirements, submitting and applying a treatment plan, and specific storm water pollution controls, including painting all uncoated galvanized siding and roofs and moving the nitrate rinse tank. Defendant also agreed to pay $40,000 to a foundation for environmental causes and $80,000 for costs.


#140284

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

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