San Francisco Baykeeper Sues Aviation Part Manufacturer Over Heavy Metal Pollution
Reposted with permission of Law Street Media and Fastcase.
On Tuesday in the Northern District of California, plaintiff San Francisco Baykeeper filed a civil action against defendants Allied Engineering & Production Corp., Allied Land Co. (collectively Allied), and Stone Boatyard to rectify the alleged past and ongoing contamination of canal shoreline near the San Francisco Bay. The plaintiff brings the suit under the private attorney general provision, asserting rights on behalf of the public against the defendants for supposedly dumping metal shavings in the Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal in violation of the law.
Baykeeper is an environmental non-profit organization with approximately 3,500 members who live and recreate in and around the San Francisco Bay area. The organization’s mission is “to defend San Francisco Bay from the biggest threats and hold polluters accountable to create healthier communities and help wildlife thrive.” It monitors and investigates pollution as part of its efforts to ensure that the bay is clean and safe for recreation.
Defendant Allied Engineering operated a machine shop from 1951 to about 2011, located in Alameda, Calif., on a property that Allied Land owned. The machine shop manufactured aviation industry components and stored hazardous materials, hydraulic oils, lubricants, greases, fuels, coolants, and solvents, the complaint avers. The defendants are charged with dumping materials onto an adjacent parcel that was formerly owned by the United States but is now owned by Stone Boatyard.
The plaintiff organization alleges that some of its members alerted it to a stretch of the canal’s shoreline contaminated with metal waste. Baykeeper staff investigated and discovered that the contamination consisted of metal shavings or swarf. The complaint also explains that “[s]ampling indicates the presence of lead contamination in the contaminated soil in excess of California Hazardous Waste Criteria.” On information and belief, the complaint avers, Allied knowingly dumped the swarf, thereby violating tort law and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Baykeeper contends that the canal’s heavy-metal concentrations “adversely affects the water quality of San Francisco Bay and San Leandro Bay and threatens the beneficial uses and ecosystem of those interconnected habitats, including key habitat for threatened and endangered species.” Baykeeper’s members suffer harm because they cannot safely hike, swim, fish, surf, kayak and observe wildlife, among other activities, in a toxified environment.
Baykeeper asserts an RCRA cause of action, nuisance per se, and public nuisance. The plaintiff asks that the defendants be enjoined from committing further violations, and that they be required to remediate environmental harm caused by the dumping.
The plaintiff is represented by Aqua Terra Aeris Law Group and its own representation.
Contaminated Sites and Long-Term Stewardship: Meeting Obligations for Residual Contamination
Contaminated Sites and Long-Term Stewardship: Meeting Obligations for Residual Contamination Best Practices for Counsel in Implementing, Maintaining, and Enforcing LTS Potential LTS obligations often flow from residual contamination. These obligations frequently center on the vapor intrusion (VI) pathway. VI is the migration of vapor-forming chemicals from any subsurface source into an overlying building. This evolving inhalation "pathway" presents significant challenges and complicates environmental remediation for Brownfield development projects, real estate transactions, and management of commercial/industrial real estate portfolios. The U.S. EPA's national Institutional Control (IC) Policy provides important guidance for investigation and remediation, and ultimately closing, contaminated sites. The IC Policy outlines an approach to help meet potential LTS obligations for managing residual risk and achieve site closure. LTS is an increasing part of cleanup programs to get contaminated properties ready for beneficial reuse. Ongoing monitoring and maintenance (especially for the VI pathway) are needed to ensure continued protection of human health and the environment. Environmental counsel to companies must understand the legal risks from the contaminated sites, when and how to implement LTS, what needs to be done to ensure LTS obligations are met, and the new LTS tools and technologies available to tailor a site-specific approach. Listen as our panel of experts examines LTS and what that includes from a monitoring plan to reporting requirements. The panel will discuss the viability of remedies and management of ongoing and future risks at contaminated sites and change of ownership issues arising when contaminated property exchanges hands. The panel will offer best practices for implementing, maintaining, and enforcing an LTS plan. David R. Gillay Partner Barnes & Thornburg Kyle Hoylman CEO Protect Environmental Dr. Henry Schuver, Ph.D. Environmental Scientist U.S. EPA CLE On-Demand Webinar This Strafford production has been specially selected for HB audiences. What factors should counsel consider when determining which LTS tools are to be implemented? What steps can counsel recommend to ensure LTS measures are effective and meet current compliance requirements? What framework does the EPA guidance provide to ensure the requirements for implementing LTS are met? [...]
Managing Class Representative Discovery: Plaintiffs’ Strategies for Winning Certification
Statistics in Class Certification and at Trial: Leveraging and Attacking Statistical Evidence Lessons From Recent Cases on the Use of Statistics to Prove Classwide Liability and Damages Increasingly, statistical evidence is used by both sides to argue the makeup of the class, damages, liability, and certification in every type of case: employment, data breach, ESG, antitrust, consumer product, and commercial class action cases. Economists and practitioners can use statistics to measure the impact on individual members and show where there is no impact.Building on Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, Comcast v. Behrend, and Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal recently explored the use of statistical expert evidence in satisfying relevant requirements under Rule 23(b)(3) in Olean Wholesale Grocery Co-op Inc. v. Bumble Foods L.L.C. and once again shifted the certification landscape.Class action lawyers must be able to analyze both the methodology and inferential process that produce statistical evidence, and their effect on admissibility, relevance, and strength of the resulting evidence.Listen as our experienced panel of practitioners examines the use of statistics in class litigation and the implications of recent case law for class litigators seeking to use or restrict these kinds of evidence during class certification and trial. James Finberg Partner Altshuler Berzon Aphrodite Kokolis Counsel Schiff Hardin ON-Demand CLE Webinar This Strafford production has been specially selected for HB audiences. What are the implications of recent case law on using statistical sampling to prove classwide liability and damages? What types of statistics can be introduced during certification and trial, and what are the proper ways to use them? What are the most compelling challenges to the use of statistical evidence? Overview of statistical concepts and their uses Notable case law Strategic considerations
Managing Class Representative Discovery: Plaintiffs’ Strategies for Winning Certification
Managing Class Representative Discovery: Plaintiffs' Strategies for Winning Certification Preparing for Discovery Pre-Suit, Negotiating Fair Protocols, Defending Depositions, and Responding To Written Discovery Class representative discovery is an essential component of establishing Rule 23 class certification. Experienced plaintiffs' counsel will need to be well-versed in the many defense strategies for eliciting class representative testimony and discovery that could undermine the claims in a class action lawsuit and challenge class certification. Preparing for discovery begins before the case is filed, and class representatives must thoroughly understand their obligations in the discovery process. Plaintiffs’ counsel must think through and negotiate protocols related to several topics that affect the scope of discovery, including protective orders ESI protocols. Plaintiffs’ counsel must also carefully guide their class representatives through written discovery and depositions, where the class representatives’ responses are critical to the case. Listen as this panel of esteemed class action plaintiffs' lawyers shares strategies on how to best handle class representative discovery and avoid common issues that could present challenges at class certification. David Fernandes Attorney Baron & Budd Phong-Chau G. Nguyen Partner Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein Now On Demand! Recorded: 4/4/2023 90 Minutes What are the most difficult issues for plaintiffs to navigate during discovery? What protocols are the most important? What types of questioning techniques might be anticipated at depositions? What can counsel do during and after a deposition if the deponent performs poorly? Selecting the named plaintiff with an eye to discovery Selecting and gathering documents before commencing the case Anticipating key defense strategies Precertification Merits Negotiating protocols and protective orders ESI Depositions Confidentiality Responding to written discovery requests Preparing for and defending depositions
Insurance Coverage for Claims Alleging Breach of Preexisting Duty: Limitations on the Eaton Vance Rule
Insurance Coverage for Claims Alleging Breach of Preexisting Duty: Limitations on the Eaton Vance Rule Determining the Source of the Insureds Obligation to Pay an Underlying Claim Liability insurance covers, among other things, an insured’s legal obligation to pay damages to a third party arising out of a claim against the insured for breach of a duty owed to that third party. But what if the damages the insured becomes liable to pay – whether by settlement or court order after a judgment – constitute nothing more than amounts the insured already had a pre-existing contractual or statutory duty to pay, irrespective of whether any claim had been made alleging a breach? This latter category of damages is generally not covered by liability insurance because the insured’s obligation to pay does not result from the third-party “claim”; rather, it results from the pre-existing contractual or statutory obligation. The distinction between covered and non-covered damages for breach of a pre-existing duty is often difficult to see and even harder to explain coherently, for attorneys and judges alike. A significant body of confusing – and sometimes inaccurate, contradictory, and inartfully worded – case law has developed on these issues. Relying on these cases, it is now relatively common for insurers to look for every opportunity to disclaim indemnity coverage for any claim seeking damages based on an alleged breach of a duty imposed by contract or statute. As a result, the “Eaton Vance rule” has expanded beyond can be justified by the policy language and moral hazard concerns from which the rule was born. Strategies exist for protecting the policyholder's right to coverage and the insurer's concerns that it is being cast as a guarantor of performance. Getting and providing the coverage that both parties contracted for requires a more careful approach than has been utilized heretofore. Listen as the panel of insurer and policyholder counsel discusses the complex issues surrounding insurance coverage for damages related to breach of contract claims, the “Eaton Vance rule,” and how to sort through imprecise and confusing language in the [...]
Environmental Litigation: Piercing the Corporate Veil, Alter Ego, and Successor Liability
Environmental Litigation Piercing the Corporate Veil, Alter Ego, and Successor Liability Environmental investigations and remediation expenses are costly. Private litigants and state and federal governments often seek viable "deep pocket" entities or high net worth individuals to pay for the cleanup costs allegedly attributable to an otherwise defunct or underfunded company's historical operations that caused the environmental contamination. In the typical scenario, the separate entity (parent company, shareholder, or successor in interest) does not own, lease, or operate the facility at issue, nor did it directly release a hazardous substance into the environment. And often, the former company was dissolved years ago and incorporated in an entirely separate state. Thus, the parent company, shareholder, or successor-in-interest is blindsided by the claims letter, lawsuit, or enforcement order--all of which require a strategic and accurate response. This type of indirect liability can be a real threat in any environmental litigation if pleaded correctly and supported by facts, and not met by a strong, well thought out and supported defense. As such, environmental litigators must be adept at using or defending against these theories of liability before they arise. Listen as our panel provides environmental litigators with an analysis of legal theories of alter ego and successor liability as they relate to environmental liabilities at cleanup sites and provides guidance on factors to consider and best practices for defending against such allegations. Daniel Riesel Principal Sive Paget & Riesel driesel@sprlaw.com Dane Warren Attorney Sive Paget & Riesel dwarren@sprlaw.com Take this CLE webinar on your own schedule. It's now on-demand! Issues to consider when faced with a litigant that seeks to pierce the veil of your corporate client or hold your client responsible for the actions of a predecessor. Factors courts consider when deciding whether to apply the alter ego and successor liability theories. Key considerations and best practices for corporations and related entities defending alter ego and successor liability claims. Overview of liability of corporate parents, shareholders, and successors under common law for environmental derelictions Piercing the corporate veil [...]
The In Pari Delicto Defense to Bankruptcy and Other Claims Against Directors, Officers, and Third Parties
The In Pari Delicto Defense to Bankruptcy and Other Claims Against Directors, Officers, and Third Parties Anticipating or Raising the Defense in Bankruptcy and Other Asset Recovery Litigation Bankruptcy trustees, receivers, creditors, assignees for the benefit of creditors, investors, and other plaintiffs in asset recovery actions often aggressively pursue claims against the management as well as outside professionals and lenders of distressed and insolvent entities, including accountants, auditors, attorneys, banks, and advisers.A significant defense for professionals and banks in such cases is the in pari delicto doctrine. When the plaintiff stands in the shoes of the debtor entity--as do bankruptcy trustees, receivers, assignees for the benefit of creditors, and some others often do--and attempts to recover for the debtor's conduct in which the debtor's officers, directors, or employees were complicit, the defendants often seek to bar recovery arguing that the plaintiff is "of equal fault" with defendants.This defense has been rapidly evolving in the past few years, and its scope varies by jurisdiction. The Madoff and MF Global litigation, among many other high-profile cases, featured this defense prominently. Additionally, insight has emerged from the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal and the defense is expected to play a prominent role in the cryptocurrency bankruptcies.Listen as our authoritative panel of trial lawyers discusses recent trends in asset recovery litigation against officers, directors, and outside professionals of distressed companies, as well as banks, and the evolving scope and application of the in pari delicto defense as a potential shield to recovery by trustees, receivers, creditors, assignees for the benefit of creditors and investors. Questions Addressed: What are the trends in asset recovery litigation in which the in pari delicto defense may apply, and what are the conventional theories of liability? Is the in pari delicto defense or an asserted lack of standing a problematic obstacle to filing suit against professionals and professional firms who represented the distressed or insolvent company, or against banks and other third-party non-professionals alleged to have been complicit in the wrongdoing? What are some of the best arguments for and against the application of the defense? What are the most recent developments in case [...]