![{ Banner Image }](https://www.mankogold.com/i/blog-banner.png)
Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Supreme Court Halts EPA’s Federal Air Quality Plan Citing Issues with Good Neighbor Provisions
- Fourth Circuit Rejects Maryland District Court’s Recognition of a Scienter Requirement for Arranger Liability under CERCLA
- District Court Dismisses Common Law Claims Based on Statute of Limitations in Paper Mill Emissions Case
- Government Plausibly Pleads Corporate Successorship in CERCLA Lawsuit, New Jersey District Court Holds
- Eleventh Circuit Holds that Plaintiff Still Has Standing to Challenge NEPA Review for Completed Project
Topics
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- Georgia
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- FIFRA
- 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
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Operator Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Environmental Covenants
- Federal Circuit
- National Contingency Plan
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- Strict Liability
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Historic Resources
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Gold King Mine
- New Mexico
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- Delaware
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Corporate Veil
- Alter Ego
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- PCBs
- Property Damage
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Innocent Party
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- PHMSA
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Hearing Board
- Civil Penalties
- Clean Streams Law
- Arranger Liability
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Tax assessment
- Fair Market Value
- Damages
- Stigma
- Property Value
- Storage Tank
- Fifth Circuit
- Electric
- Indemnification
- Energy
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- OPRA
- Attorney-Client
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Inspection
- Residential
- New York
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- D.C. Circuit
- HAPs
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Mercury
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Fifth Amendment
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Interior
- Tenth Circuit
- California
- Act 13
- Zoning
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Water
- Illinois
- Diligent Prosecution
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Citizen Suit
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Montana
- Navigability
- Riverbed
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- Delay Notice
- Consent Decree
- EPA
- Boiler MACT
- Rulemaking
- CISWI
- Enforcement
- Equity
- Laches
- Second Circuit
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Standing
- NPDES
- Procedure
- Medical Monitoring
- Dimock
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- Certification
- Contamination
- CLE
- Decisions of Note
- Cases to Watch
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Privilege
- Work Product
- CERCLA
- Cost Recovery
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Real Estate
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Rapanos
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- Odors
- Trespass
- Farming
- Hog Barn
- Informal Agency Action
- Administrative Hearing
- ISRA
- New Jersey
- Air
- Cancer
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Railroad
- RCRA
- Waste
- Speaking Engagements
- Toxic Torts
- Federal Procedure
- Removal
- Third Circuit
- Permits
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Clean Air Act
- Supreme Court
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Multi-District Litigation
- Statute of Repose
- Enforcement Action
- Wetlands
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Deeds
- Marcellus Shale
- Clean Water Act
- Mineral Rights
- Due Process
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
- Drilling
- Exploration
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.