Crane–mcnab v. County of Merced
| Decision Date | 28 April 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV. 1:08–1218 WBS SMS.,CIV. 1:08–1218 WBS SMS. |
| Citation | 773 F.Supp.2d 861 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | Karen CRANE–McNAB, Bert Crane, and Mary Crane Couchman, individuals, Karen Crane–McNab, LLC; Bert Crane Orchards, L.P.; Mary Crane Couchman Trust; and Mary Crane Couchman Family Partnership, L.P., Plaintiffs,v.COUNTY OF MERCED, and Does 1 to 20, Defendants. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Justin Thomas Campagne, Campagne, Campagne, & Lerner, A Prof. Corp., Fresno, CA, for Plaintiffs.James Ethan Stone, Robert D. Gabriele, James Nathan Fincher, Roger S. Matzkind, Merced, CA, for Defendants.
This action involves land owned by plaintiffs,1 which they allege has been contaminated by a neighboring landfill operated by the Merced County (“County”). The court held a four-day bench trial, lasting from January 24, 2011, to January 27, 2011. This memorandum constitutes the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a).
Plaintiffs own approximately 4500 acres of land (“Crane property”) in Merced County to the west of Highway 59. Highway 59 is part of a Caltrans right of way that is approximately 120 to 150 feet wide. To the east of the right of way is a landfill owned by the Merced County Regional Waste Management Authority 2 and operated by the County. Most of plaintiffs' claims relate to six lots directly to the west of Highway 59 that are allegedly affected by the landfill.3 Other claims relate to portions of the Crane property further to the west, surrounding Canal Creek and Edendale Creek. 4 Cattle grazing is the highest and best use of the Crane property. Permanent crops or buildings are not permitted on most, if not all, of the landfill-related lots. For the past five or six years, 3300 acres of the Crane property have been rented to John McGill for $28 per acre annually for cattle grazing.
The landfill has been in operation since 1973, and consists of three waste disposal areas. Phases 1 through 4, which opened in 1973 and are unlined, are on the southeastern edge of the landfill and are approximately 500 feet from the Crane property at the closest point. Phase 5, which is newer and lined with a plastic barrier, is on the southwestern edge and is approximately 250 feet from the Crane property at the closest point. To the north of those phases is a mitigation area currently used for cattle grazing; above the mitigation area is Phase 6, which is not yet operational.
The County also operates two creeks that run through the Cranes' property and then into Castle Dam: Canal Creek and Edendale Creek (“the creeks”).5 In 1993, the United States took certain land in easements by fee in order to build Castle Dam and Reservoir Unit. This included a flood easement on the Crane property to account for any future flooding caused by the Dam, for which they were compensated. Plaintiffs are required to apply for a permit before planting any crops on the creek-related lots.
Plaintiffs' complaint can be separated into four distinct allegations: (1) volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”) have migrated through the soil from the landfill onto Lot 1; (2) trash and odors are blown onto the Crane property from the landfill by the wind; (3) runoff water from the landfill floods Lot 1; and (4) debris from the creeks accumulates on the Crane property.
After a partial grant of summary judgment in this case on several issues of fact and law (Docket No. 153), seven claims remain: (1) inverse condemnation under federal and state law regarding VOC migration, trash, and creek debris; (2) trespass regarding VOC migration; (3) nuisance regarding VOC migration, trash, and odors; (4) negligence regarding VOC migration; (5) negligent failure to warn regarding VOC migration; (6) violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (7) declaratory relief.
Under the California Constitution article I, section 19, property may not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation to the owner. Inverse condemnation is a constitutional remedy permitting recovery of consequential damages arising from public projects. Foreseeability is not required, Albers v. Cnty. of L.A., 62 Cal.2d 250, 263–264, 42 Cal.Rptr. 89, 398 P.2d 129 (1965), and tort concepts like fault or negligence are not applicable. Bunch v. Coachella Valley Water Dist., 15 Cal.4th 432, 436, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 89, 935 P.2d 796 (1997). Instead, the government is strictly liable for any physical injury to property substantially caused by a public improvement as it was deliberately designed and constructed. Bunch, 15 Cal.4th at 440, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 89, 935 P.2d 796; Pac. Bell v. City of San Diego, 81 Cal.App.4th 596, 602, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 897 (4th Dist.2000); Marshall v. Dep't of Water & Power, 219 Cal.App.3d 1124, 1139, 268 Cal.Rptr. 559 (2d Dist.1990) ().
To establish liability for inverse condemnation under the Albers standard, plaintiffs must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, four elements: “First, that [they] ha[ve] an interest in real or personal property; Second, the [County] substantially participated in the planning, approval, construction or operation of a public project or public improvement; Third, [plaintiffs'] property suffered damage; and Fourth, the [County's] project, act or omission was a substantial cause of the damage.” Yamagiwa v. City of Half Moon Bay, 523 F.Supp.2d 1036, 1088 (N.D.Cal.2007) (emphasis omitted).
Similarly, the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides in relevant part that “private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The Takings Clause is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.6 Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 383, 114 S.Ct. 2309, 129 L.Ed.2d 304 (1994). Physical possession of the property is not a necessary element of a takings claim. “A taking can occur simply when the Government by its action deprives the owner of all or most of his interest in his property ... it is the loss to the owner of the property and not the accretion to the Government which is controlling in fifth amendment cases.” Aris Gloves, Inc. v. United States, 190 Ct.Cl. 367, 420 F.2d 1386, 1391 (1970).
To establish a claim for trespass, plaintiffs must plead and prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the following: (1) plaintiffs owned the property; (2) the County intentionally, recklessly, or negligently entered plaintiffs' property or caused the contaminants or debris to enter plaintiffs' property; (3) plaintiffs did not give the County permission for the entry; (4) plaintiffs were harmed; and (5) the County's conduct was a substantial factor in causing that harm. See Vega v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 654 F.Supp.2d 1104, 1119 (E.D.Cal.2009). Martin Marietta Corp. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 40 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1132, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 670 (2d Dist.1995) (internal citation omitted).
California Civil Code section 3479 defines a nuisance as “[a]nything which is injurious to health ... or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property ....” Cal. Civ.Code § 3479. “The statutory definition of nuisance appears to be broad enough to encompass almost any conceivable type of interference with the enjoyment or use of land or property.” Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 919, 162 Cal.Rptr. 194 (5th Dist.1980). “The migration of pollutants from one property to another may constitute ... a nuisance ....” Marietta, 40 Cal.App.4th at 1132, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 670.
In their negligence claim, plaintiffs allege negligence per se for various violations of California law, and also argue that res ipsa loquitur applies. A presumption of negligence arises if: (1) the defendant violated a statute; (2) the violation proximately caused the plaintiff's injury; (3) the injury resulted from the kind of occurrence the statute was designed to prevent; and (4) the plaintiff was one of the class of persons the statute was intended to protect. Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Ctr., 140 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1285, 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 222 (6th Dist.2006). Plaintiffs argue that the County is negligent per se based on its violations of (1) California Civil Code section 3479 (nuisance); (2) California Health and Safety Code sections 25189(c) and (d) (); (3) California Health and Safety Code section 25359.4 (); (4) California Health and Safety Code section 25359.5 (); (5) California Civil Code section 851 ().
“In order to invoke res ipsa loquitur, the plaintiff has the burden to establish three conditions: ‘(1) the event must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence; (2) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; (3) it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff.’ ” Howe v. Seven Forty Two Co., 189 Cal.App.4th 1155, 1161, 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 126 (2d Dist.2010) ().
Plaintiffs' claim for negligent failure to warn is brought under California Health and Safety Code section 25359.5 and California Civil...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramirez v. Merced Cnty.
...found that the hourly rates of $325 and $250 for Matzkind and Stone, respectively, were reasonable.4 See Crane-McNab v. County of Merced, 773 F.Supp.2d 861, 883 (E.D. Cal. 2011). Ramirez does not object or challenge the requested hourly rates. In light of Crane-McNab, Matzkind's declaration......
- In re Polycom, Inc. Derivative Litig.
-
Lenk v. Monolithic Power Sys.
...frivolous state law claims” to a prevailing defendant. Crane-McNab v. Cty. of Merced, 773 F.Supp.2d 861, 884 (E.D. Cal. 2011). In Crane-McNab, the district court awarded prevailing defendant fees spent defending frivolous § 1983 claims and frivolous state law claims that arose from the same......
-
Wallis v. Centennial Ins. Co.
...central to the ultimate decision; the Rule is not intended to serve as a vehicle for a rehearing." Crane-McNab v. County of Merced, 773 F. Supp. 2d 861, 873 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (Shubb, J.) (citing Davis v. Mathews, 450 F. Supp. 308, 318 (E.D. Cal. 1978)). Therefore, "[a] motion to amend a cour......