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.
The Intersection of Privacy and Antitrust Webinar Now Available On-Demand on the West LegalEdcenter
Available as part of your subscription to The Thomson Reuters West LegalEdcenter®. Don't subscribe to the West LegalEdcenter? This webinar is still available directly from HB. Take it now! Questions for speakers Questions@LitigationConferences.com CLE questions CLE@LitigationConferences.com Check out the MoginRubin blog for more insights on antitrust and privacy law. What attorneys and companies need to know about the increasing interplay between these critical areas of the law. Highly publicized cases and investigations in the U.S. and Europe of big technology, e-commerce, and social media companies demonstrate how anti-competition laws are being used to scrutinize and challenge not only how these corporations conduct themselves in the marketplace, but the very core of their colossal success: the mass collection and utilization of user data. Are the privacy and antitrust worlds beginning to cross over? Or do they simply run parallel while addressing entirely different types of conduct? Whatever the answer, data is the raw material that drives the likes of Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon, so how it is handled is a critical question when counseling clients on mergers and acquisitions. Moderator Daniel J. Mogin | Managing Partner, MoginRubin LLP Speakers Jennifer M. Oliver, CIPP/US | Partner, MoginRubin LLP Thomas N. Dahdouh | Director, Western Region, Federal Trade Commission Franklin M. Rubinstein | Partner, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Randi W. Singer, CIPP/US, CIPT | Partner, Weil, Gotshal & Manges Contributor Dina Srinivasan | Independent Researcher & Author of The Antitrust Case Against Facebook Dina was unable to present but we thank her for her content contributions. Agenda Who should regulate privacy violations in the U.S.? Which antitrust issues implicate privacy concerns? What role does machine learning play on the competitive landscape? What is big data really? How is it different from “data”? What are the elements of effective merger reviews? What are the appropriate remedies? What are “notice-and-choice” versus “harms-based” approaches? Plus answers to your questions. Send them to Questions@LitigationConferences.com.
Settlement Psychology: Who is in Control? Homer Simpson or Mr. Spock? | Complimentary Webinar
Settlement Psychology Who's in charge? Homer Simpson or Mr. Spock? Cognitive obstacles to finding common ground. Complimentary On-Demand Webinar From HB! 1 CLE credit CLE questions? CLE@LitigationConferences.com Questions for speakers? Questions@LitigationConferences.com SPEAKERS Jeff Trueman Mediator / Negotiator John Philip Miller Baltimore City Circuit Judge (ret.) This course is also available via the West LegalEdcenter. Improve your negotiation strategy and outcomes. Mediator, arbitrator and settlement conference neutral Jeff Trueman says the lawyer’s mind can sometimes play tricks on them when it comes time to settle a claim. “The central question on the minds of counsel, their clients, and insurance professionals in civil litigation is, of course, ‘What’s the case worth?’ For mature torts there is enough historical settlement and verdict data exist for counsel to argue why a particular case should or should not fit within a certain settlement range. In the midst of these discussions, the human brain plays tricks on us. For example, litigators sometimes assume that their trial experience can determine how jurors will negotiate with one another and resolve factual discrepancies after closing arguments. This assumption is a ‘heuristic’ – a cognitive shortcut called attributional error or illusion of control.” Backed by his decades of psychological and economic sciences research, Trueman says there is a lot of room for attorneys to change their mindset when moving into settlement mode. Litigation Chicken “When differences over case value intensify, litigators return to threats of relinquishing control: ‘Maybe we have to try this case;’ or ‘We feel good about our chances in front of a jury.’ Underneath the games of litigation chicken that are the hallmark of settlement negotiation, heuristics lead to erroneous valuations and assessments of risk.” He says attorney would be well served, and would serve their clients well, if they make adjustments depending on their role at a given point in the process. “Many lawyers default to their role as advocates for legal rights without considering the quality of counsel they give to clients regarding risk management. This plays [...]