| |
Home
> Practice
Areas > Environmental/Pollution Practice |
| |
 |
| |
Environmental/Pollution Practice |
< BACK
TO PRACTICE AREAS |
| The Environmental/Pollution Practice of Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins & McCall counsels clients on a wide variety of matters arising from claims of alleged contamination and incurred property damage. WFB&M's environmental attorneys have prosecuted and defended thousands of motions in environmental/pollution matters in both state and federal court. The firm's handling of environmental litigation includes the representation of manufacturers, distributors, retailers, material suppliers, property owners, public utilities and municipalities involving various products or substances. |
|
PROPERTY DAMAGE CLAIMS
Environmental/pollution cases generally involve property damage or cost recovery claims arising from exposure to toxic chemicals or hazardous materials. WFB&M handles a large number of cases involving alleged damage to property, resulting in the following types of claims and damages:
| |
CLAIMS |
|
DAMAGES |
• |
CERCLA |
• |
Civil penalties |
• |
Clean Water Act/storm water matters |
• |
Diminution in value |
• |
NEPA/CEQA compliance |
• |
Natural resource damages |
• |
Polanco Act |
• |
Response costs |
• |
Proposition 65 compliance |
• |
Structural damage |
• |
RCRA |
• |
Water damage/mold |
• |
Soil and groundwater contamination |
|
|
• |
TOSCA |
|
|
CEQA COMPLIANCE
Through addressing CEQA compliance matters, the firm's attorneys have served as lead counsel in assisting and preparing numerous administrative records, Notices of Exemption (and opinions for reliance thereon), negative declarations, EIRs (master, Programmed, tiered, supplemental and subsequent, and EIR/EIS), Notices of Determination and Statements of Overriding Considerations. Within the land use and CEQA context, the firm's attorneys have also addressed endangered species habitat protection issues.
CERCLA, POLANCO ACT AND CLEAN WATER ACT
The attorneys at WFB&M have counseled clients through the NCP process, assisted in responding to numerous Section 104(e) letters, litigated cost recovery/contribution suits under Section 107 and 113, defended CERCLA natural resource damages suits, and prosecuted one of the first cost-recovery suits over the Polanco Act. The firm's attorneys have also defended dairies in criminal and civil matters under the Clean Water Act and have counseled over 10 entities in storm water compliance. Further, the firm's attorneys have represented many entities before the regional Water Quality Control Boards and State Water Resources Control Boards on issues involving loan funding, imposition of civil penalties, cleanup and abatement orders, voluntary cleanups, securing no further action letters, and grant procurement.
City v. So Cal Gas Co. et al.
Cost recovery matter, Orange County Superior Court. Represent plaintiff landowner to recover cost of cleanup of hazardous substances. Result: Settlement with some defendants; plaintiff judgment, partially reversed on appeal.
City v. Finn Industries
Cost recovery/breach of contract matter, Los Angeles County Superior Court. Represented lessor against lessee for recovery of costs to clean up hazardous substance release. Result: Judgment for plaintiff on complaint; judgment for cross-defendant on cross-complaint.
USA v. Montrose et al.
CERCLA cost recovery matter, US District Court, Central District of California. Represented 17 municipalities accused of facilitating hazardous substance releases through sewage outfall systems. Result: Settlement.
City v. Solvent Coating Co.
Cost recovery matter, US District Court, Central District of California. Represented plaintiff in action to recover cost of clean up of hazardous substance release. Result: Judgment for plaintiff.
USA v. Casmalia Resources et al.
CERCLA cost recovery matter, US District Court, Central District of California. Represent City of Oxnard, alleged generator of hazardous substances ultimately disposed of at Casmalia landfill. Result: Pending.
City v. James River
CERCLA cost recovery matter, US District Court, Central District of California. Represent plaintiff landowner to recover cost of clean up of hazardous substances. Result: Settlement.
City v. Uniroyal Goodrich
CERCLA cost recovery matter, US District Court, Central District of California. Represented landowner to recover cost of cleanup of hazardous substance release. Result: Settlement.
USA v. Rockview Farms
Felony Clean Water Act matter in US District Court, Eastern District of California. Main defenses: Act of God; lack of jurisdiction. Result: Plea agreement 1 week prior to trial.
City of Modesto Redevelopment Agency, et al. v. Various Defendants
Groundwater contamination matter, San Francisco Superior Court. Obtained defense verdict for client commercial laundry and dry cleaner in the jury phase of a four month trial. Client and one dry cleaning product distributor were the only defendants to receive defense verdicts. The jury found other defendants-the chemical solvent and equipment manufacturers-liable for defective products. Additionally, the jury found malice against two of the chemical manufacturers and one of the equipment manufacturers, eventually awarding verdicts in excess of $178 million against them.
City of Pomona v. John Michael Faull, et al.
Soil and groundwater contamination matter, Federal District Court. Plaintiff City of Pomona alleged that the Firm's client's 50 years of operating a bulk storage and distribution facility of hazardous chemicals resulted in the contamination of soil and groundwater on Plaintiff's site and adjacent areas. Result: Judgment for defense.
Citizens for a Better Environment v. Chemical Company
"Failure to warn" action under Proposition 65. Represented defendant. Result: Judgment for defense.
RCRA/HAZARDOUS WASTE
The background experience of WFB&M's hazardous waste attorneys lends a unique perspective to advising these matters. With an attorney who previously worked as an engineer for the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the firm is able to utilize the experience of one who was involved in permitting numerous hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities, enforcement actions, and site mitigation projects. In addition, the firm benefits from the experience of an attorney who has taught hazardous waste generator compliance courses at four community colleges, and who is counsel to the California CUPA forum.
Chemical Company v. Spencer & Jones Contractors
Negligence action against contractor for faulty installation of underground storage tanks, Los Angeles County Superior Court. Represented plaintiff. Result: Judgment for plaintiff.
People v. Raj.
Misdemeanor violation of hazardous waste storage laws, San Bernardino County Municipal Court. Main defense: legal inability to comply. Result: Plea agreement.
|
ADDITIONAL EXPERIENCE
In addition to the foregoing sampling of cases, WFB&M attorneys have prepared numerous writ cases involving CEQA, Public Records Act and Brown Act Issues. The attorneys at WFB&M also boast experience in the review of agency findings in over 100 CEQA, general plan, conditional/special use permit, telecommunications/cable television, and airport land compatibility matters. WFB&M's practice builds on the unique experiences of the attorneys, including service as mediators, arbitrators, and court-approved experts.
|
|
|
|
