 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hartwell Corporation v. The Superior Court of Venture County9/1/1999
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
[And eight other cases.]
These eight writ petitions and one appeal, consolidated for decision, raise questions about the relationship between court actions and California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) proceedings. The primary question is whether the PUC's jurisdiction over public utilities providing water to customers in the San Gabriel Valley preempts damage actions by valley residents for injury to persons and property allegedly caused by harmful chemicals in the water. We conclude that the PUC's statutory authority over water quality and its exercise of jurisdiction in addressing water quality issues preclude private actions against the regulated utilities, but do not bar the plaintiffs' actions against defendants not regulated by the PUC.
Overview
San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court [Covalt] (1996) 13 Cal.4th 893 (Covalt), which we will discuss in some detail below, is at the center of the writ petitions and the appeal to this court. Covalt found the PUC's jurisdiction to be exclusive over issues involving the public health risks arising from electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) attributed to powerlines owned by regulated utilities. Long before the Covalt plaintiffs brought their action, the PUC had investigated and reported its Conclusion that EMF hazards were not scientifically established. (Id. at pp. 927-928.) These cases differ from Covalt because the PUC (acting jointly with the Department of Health Services ) recognizes that certain chemicals may be hazardous to water consumers and imposes maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for most of the chemicals involved in these actions. However, the PUC's investigation into the impact of these chemicals in the San Gabriel Valley and elsewhere commenced only after the four actions involved here were filed.
The questions presented to us are (1) whether, as plaintiffs claim, the Los Angeles County trial courts erred in staying plaintiffs' actions pending results of the PUC investigation and the Ventura County Superior Court erred in dismissing the action against the regulated utilities and (2) whether, as the regulated utility defendants claim, the Los Angeles courts should have gone a step further and dismissed plaintiffs' actions because the PUC's jurisdiction is exclusive. The aggrieved nonregulated water providers and industrial defendants present a third question in the action transferred to Ventura County Superior Court (the Santamaria action, discussed infra): (3) whether PUC exclusivity, if it exists, also should prevent plaintiffs from proceeding against water providers and industrial defendants the PUC does not regulate and is not directly investigating.
The Superior Court Complaints Adler Action (A085488, A085502)
On April 24, 1997, Jeff Adler and over 100 coplaintiffs, represented jointly by the 3 law firms, filed an action for damages in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging 9 causes of action against Southern California Water Company (SCWC) and 100 Doe defendants. The complaint alleged that SCWC had provided contaminated well water to plaintiffs, long time residents of San Gabriel Valley (Arcadia, Monrovia, Temple City, El Monte), over a period of many years.
Plaintiffs identified tricholoroethylene (TCE), perchloroethene (PCE) and carbon tetrachloride (CTC) and claimed other unidentified solvents had contaminated the water, soil and air.
The complaint noted that, as a result of testing performed in 1979 and 1980, the area was identified as a federal environmental superfund site. The complaint blamed SCWC for delivering contaminated water to plaintiffs without warning them, and it alle
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|