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.

Real Property
Cost Recovery
Negligence

Bruce Parcell v. Ultramar, Inc.

Published: Mar. 8, 1997 | Result Date: Jan. 21, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: C9659CW –  $0

Judge

Claudia Wilken

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Howard L. Hibbard


Defendant

Lawrence J. Straw Jr.


Facts

Since January 1992, plaintiff Bruce Parcell owned or operated real property in Pleasant Hill, adjacent to a service station operated by defendant Ultramar. The plaintiff claimed that beginning in 1984, the defendant released "hazardous substances" from its underground tanks which migrated onto the plaintiff's property, contaminating its soil and groundwater. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of this contamination he had and would incur substantial costs to remediate the soil and groundwater. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant based on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. ºº6901 et seq.), negligence and nuisance theories of recovery.

Settlement Discussions

The settlement discussions were not disclosed.

Damages

The plaintiff claimed an inability to refinance the property and dimunition in value because of the contamination.

Other Information

The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff's two RCRA causes of action on the basis of the plaintiff's concession that the contamination did not present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment as required by 42 U.S.C. º6972(a)(1)(b). Summary judgment was also granted to the defendant on the plaintiff's negligence cause of action on the basis that the statute of limitations had run on that claim. The court dismissed the nuisance cause of action at the plaintiff's request. Based upon the court's finding that the plaintiff had ample opportunity to investigate his RCRA claims prior to bringing the action, and that he conceded at the time of the hearing that the contamination of which he complained did not present an imminent and substantial endangerment, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's attorney's fee and costs in the amount of $17,869, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. º6972(e).


#79380

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

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