Santa Maria Enterprises Inc., B.H. and Ebba Richards Family Trust, Richards Holding Company v. Texaco Exploration and Production Inc., et al.
Published: Jun. 22, 2002 | Result Date: Apr. 18, 2002 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: SM114958TJS Verdict – $0
Judge
Court
Santa Barbara Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Allan Spivak
(technical)
Clay Bradfield
(technical)
Brian L. Larsen
(Law Offices of Brian L. Larsen)
(technical)
Bradley Cashion
(technical)
Thomas F. Gutcher
(technical)
Mary Sitton
(technical)
Defendant
Stephen J. Cullen
(technical)
Michael Elliot-Jones
(technical)
Kathy Chaloupka
(technical)
Edmund Medley
(technical)
M. Patricia Fisher
(technical)
Facts
In 1996 and 1997, the defendant Texaco Exploration and Production Inc. delivered more than 60,000 cubic yards
of soil to two parcels of property owned by the plaintiffs in Santa Maria. The soil was trucked to the sites by
the defendant RMR Inc. Texaco contended the plaintiffs were told the soil came from a former oil-producing
field, contained oil, and had been approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for limited use as
compacted base fill under asphalt parking areas.
The plaintiffs contended they were told the dirt was "clean recycled soil" without
restrictions on use. Two years after delivery, the plaintiffs contended they discovered the soil
contained large quantities of debris, oil and hazardous waste and alleged it was unacceptable for
use in their planned commercial building development. The plaintiffs alleged the soil contained
hazardous waste and was required to be disposed of at a Class 1 hazardous-waste disposal site.
Damages
The plaintiffs asked the jury to award $8 million in compensatory and unspecified punitive damages. The plaintiffs also requested injunctive relief to compel Texaco to remove the soil from the properties. The plaintiffs claimed the soil was unacceptable for use in their planned commercial development, causing delay in the construction project and resultant loss of rental income, as well as increase in construction costs. The plaintiffs also sought compensation for expenses for environmental response costs, including costs to test the soil and additional costs for interim measures to stockpile the soil, allegedly to protect the environment. The plaintiffs further contended that Texaco saved approximately $4.3 million by delivering the soil to their property rather than disposing of it at a hazardous-waste disposal site, and sought to recover that amount on a claim of unjust enrichment.
Other Information
The jury returned a special verdict, finding plaintiffs released Texaco and RMR from liability as alleged. In addition, Judge Zel Canter granted nonsuit in favor of Texaco on the claim for attorneys fees under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1029.8(a) and directed verdict for defendants on the claim of strict liability for ultra hazardous activity. In an advisory special verdict, the jury stated that Texaco had not violated environmental regulations and statutes but that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm if there were not an injunction requiring the soil to be removed from the plaintiffsÆ properties. Judge Canter, following the verdict, declined to award injunctive relief, stating that he would consider injunction if an action were filed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board in a separate lawsuit.
Deliberation
two days
Length
43 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390