Gehr

Gehr v. Baker Hughes Oil Field Operations, Inc.

Good Law
165 Cal. App. 4th 660·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 1162·81 Cal. Rptr. 3d 219·38 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20191
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 30, 2008B201195California3,937 words

Opinion

Opinion

Suzukawa, J.

After granting defendants’ summary judgment motion and denying plaintiff’s summary adjudication motion, the trial court entered judgment for defendants. We affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

This action involves a 13-acre commercial property (the property or the site) in the City of Commerce. Allegedly, defendants, the former owners, polluted the property with chemical solvents before they sold it to plaintiff in 1985. In 2006, plaintiff sued defendants for damages under a continuing nuisance theory. Specifically, plaintiffs sought to recover interest rate differential damages, contending that because of the contamination, a prospective lender had refused to refinance plaintiff’s note secured by a first trust deed to the property.

Under California law, damages for diminution in value may only be recovered for permanent, not continuing, nuisances. (Santa Fe Partnership v. ARCO Products Co. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 967, 977-978 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 214 ] (Santa Fe Partnership).) In this case, it is undisputed that because the limitations period for bringing a permanent nuisance claim has expired, damages for diminution in value are unavailable. Plaintiff contends, however, that he…

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.