data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c999e/c999e27315b21aa6e851e6b0b4a742f8041e917d" alt="{ Banner Image }"
Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Ninth Circuit Upholds Vacatur of Some Oil and Gas Leases
- Court Dismisses Microplastics Consumer Protection Suit Citing Federal Preemption
- Montana Supreme Court Finds Constitutional Right to Stable Climate
- D.C. Circuit Issues Surprise Holding in NEPA Dispute: CEQ Regulations are Non-Binding
- New Mexico District Court Applies Pro-Rata Method to Settlement under CERCLA
Topics
- Federal Land Policy and Management Act
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Agency Action
- Loper Bright
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Public Trust Doctrine
- Environmental Justice
- Disparate Impact
- Title VI
- Massachusetts
- Internal Investigation
- Evidence
- Citizens Suit
- Georgia
- FIFRA
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- Major Questions Doctrine
- Lead Paint
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Successor Liability
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Operator Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- National Contingency Plan
- Apportionment
- Divisibility
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Strict Liability
- Historic Resources
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Fees
- Commonwealth Court
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Gold King Mine
- Utah
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- New Mexico
- Tribal Lands
- Delaware
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- United States Supreme Court
- Chevron Deference
- Endangered Species Act
- HSCA
- Corporate Veil
- Alter Ego
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- First Circuit
- Property Damage
- PCBs
- Building Materials
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Innocent Party
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- PHMSA
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- Effluents
- FOIA
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Pipelines
- Texas
- Missouri
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Drinking Water
- Michigan
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Penalties
- Hearing Board
- Clean Streams Law
- Arranger Liability
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Fair Market Value
- Tax assessment
- Damages
- Property Value
- Stigma
- Storage Tank
- Energy
- Fifth Circuit
- Electric
- Indemnification
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Discovery Rule
- Fourth Circuit
- Eighth Circuit
- Taxes
- Administrative Appeals
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Residential
- Inspection
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- New York
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Natural Gas Act
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- D.C. Circuit
- Mercury
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- HAPs
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Takings Clause
- Flooding
- Fifth Amendment
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- Interior
- California
- Zoning
- Act 13
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Landfill
- Eminent Domain
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Illinois
- Water
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Riverbed
- Navigability
- Montana
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Green House Counsel
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- EPA
- Laches
- Boiler MACT
- Delay Notice
- Rulemaking
- Equity
- CISWI
- Consent Decree
- Enforcement
- Declaratory Relief
- Second Circuit
- Contribution
- Procedure
- Standing
- NPDES
- Medical Monitoring
- Dimock
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Certification
- Contamination
- Louisiana
- Dukes
- CLE
- Cases to Watch
- Privilege
- Decisions of Note
- Expert Witness
- Discovery
- Work Product
- CERCLA
- Insurance
- Defense Costs
- Cost Recovery
- Real Estate
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Class Actions
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- Trespass
- Farming
- Odors
- Nuisance
- ISRA
- Informal Agency Action
- Administrative Hearing
- New Jersey
- Cancer
- Emissions
- Waste
- Air
- Combustion
- RCRA
- Railroad
- Speaking Engagements
- Toxic Torts
- Removal
- Federal Procedure
- Third Circuit
- Title V
- Clean Air Act
- Statute of Limitations
- Permits
- Supreme Court
- Superfund
- Cleanup
- Multi-District Litigation
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Statute of Repose
- Clean Water Act
- Wetlands
- Mineral Rights
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Enforcement Action
- Marcellus Shale
- Due Process
- Deeds
- Exploration
- Royalties
- Drilling
- Oil and Gas
- Leases
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Stanford University can proceed with its lawsuit against HP Inc. and Agilent Technologies, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled on September 19, 2022, holding that because certain soil contamination was a “continuous” or abatable nuisance or trespass, Stanford’s nuisance and trespass claims were not time barred and could continue. Accordingly, the court denied HP and Agilent’s motion for summary judgment on Stanford’s nuisance and trespass claims. Bd. of Trs. of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Agilent Techs., Inc., No. 18-cv-01199 (N.D. Ca. Sept. 19, 2022).
Stanford’s dispute with HP and Agilent involved the discovery of PCB and TCE soil contamination on property owned by Stanford during a housing construction project as we previously reported on here. On February 23, 2018, Stanford filed a complaint for cost recovery and damages, alleging that the soil contamination originated from the activities of HP and Agilent and their corporate predecessors who previously occupied the property. Stanford’s claims for relief were made under Section 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. Section 9607, and under theories of nuisance and trespass. HP and Agilent moved for summary judgment against Stanford’s nuisance and trespass claims on February 9, 2022, arguing that the claims were barred by the three-year statute of limitations. In particular, HP and Agilent argued that the nuisance and trespass were “permanent” (as opposed to continuous) because the impacted soil remained on the property, the extent of contamination was uncertain, and the contamination could not reasonably be abated.
The statute of limitations for a permanent nuisance and trespass is triggered on the date of entry or the date such nuisance or trespass is first discovered, which HP and Agilent argued was in 2004. Therefore, the statute of limitations would bar Stanford’s nuisance and trespass claims. Unlike a permanent nuisance or trespass, the injury from a continuous or, as referred to by the court, “abatable” nuisance is successive and continues anew each day, and a plaintiff can sue for any damages that occurred within the three years prior to that lawsuit.
The court rejected HP and Agilent’s arguments that the nuisance and trespass were permanent. Citing California state case law, the court held that the contamination need not be wholly abatable for it to be considered a continuous nuisance. Even if it is infeasible to remove or remediate all of the contamination, such contamination could still be abatable through minimizing the effects of such contamination. Stanford had already incurred costs to minimize the effects of the nuisance, such as building around the nuisance and installing vapor barriers, costs which Stanford could seek to recover. Further, the court disagreed that Stanford did not know the extent of the contamination, finding that Stanford presented sufficient evidence of the extent of the contamination for the issue to go to the jury. Accordingly, the court denied HP and Agilent’s motion for summary judgment.