McKelvey

McKelvey v. Boeing North American, Inc.

Bad Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 676·74 Cal. App. 4th 151·86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 645·99 Daily Journal DAR 7422·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5670
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 21, 1999B125285, B125298, B130137, B130146California8,137 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Vogel, J.

*155 Opinion

The issue in these consolidated cases is whether the plaintiffs have pled facts sufficient to establish delayed discovery of their claims or whether, instead, their complaints were filed too late. We conclude the actions are time barred.

A. The 1997 Actions

1. McKelvey

In October 1997, Barbara A. McKelvey and John Walakavage (collectively McKelvey) filed a class action against Boeing North American, Inc., Rockwell International Corporation, Rocketdyne, Inc., Atomics International, Inc., Hughes Aircraft Company and others. 1 In her first amended complaint filed in April 1998, McKelvey alleges that, beginning in the 1940’s and continuing into the 1980’s, Boeing “systematically, methodically and generally” caused the contamination of the land at and around four of its Southern California facilities (the Rocketdyne facilities), as a result of which McKelvey was damaged. 2 She alleges that tests conducted by Boeing during 1991 confirmed the existence of groundwater contamination and that, during the early 1990’s, both the federal government and the State of California issued clean up orders. She alleges that, in 1994, two physicists were killed and a technician was…

Opinion on Rehearing

By a petition for rehearing, plaintiffs contend that, notwithstanding our view of the current pleadings, we should have remanded all four cases to the trial court to give plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their complaints. We disagree. Although it is an abuse of discretion to sustain demurrers without leave to amend when there is a “reasonable possibility” that the plaintiffs can amend their complaints to cure the defects, the burden is on plaintiffs to show how the complaints can be amended and how such amendments will change the legal effect of their pleadings. (Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1386, 1388 [ 272 Cal.Rptr. 387 ].) Notwithstanding that such a showing may be made for the first time on appeal (id. at p. 1386), plaintiffs did not do so in this case, (lc) Assuming that such a showing could be made for the first time in a petition for rehearing, plaintiffs have not done so with regard to any of these cases. Accordingly, they have failed to establish that there is a reasonable possibility that an amendment would change the legal effect of their pleadings.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

Spencer, P. J., and…

Opinion

Certified for Partial Publication. [*]

MIRIAM A. VOGEL, J.

The issue in these consolidated cases is whether the plaintiffs have pled facts sufficient to establish delayed discovery of their claims or whether, instead, their complaints were filed too late. We conclude the actions are time barred.

In October 1997, Barbara A. McKelvey and John Walakavage (collectively McKelvey) filed a class action against Boeing North American, Inc., Rockwell International Corporation, Rocketdyne, Inc., Atomics International, Inc., Hughes Aircraft Company and others. [1] In her first amended complaint filed in April 1998, McKelvey alleges that, beginning in the 1940's and continuing into the 1980's, Boeing "systematically, methodically and generally" caused the contamination of the land at and around four of its Southern California facilities (the "Rocketdyne facilities"), as a result of which McKelvey was damaged. [2] She alleges that tests conducted by Boeing during 1991 confirmed the existence of groundwater contamination and that, during the early 1990's, both the federal government and the State of California issued clean up orders. She alleges that, in 1994, two physicists were killed and a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.