Randtron

City of Lodi v. Randtron

Good Law
118 Cal. App. 4th 337·13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 107·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 682·2004 Daily Journal DAR 5402·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3890
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 5, 2004C037445, C038921California9,164 words

Opinion

Opinion

Blease, J.

In this consolidated appeal, defendant Randtron, a dissolved corporation, appeals from the summary judgment and mandatory injunction issued in favor of plaintiff, the “People of the State of California.” However, since the City of Lodi has no authority to act in the name of the People, we shall refer to plaintiff as the City of Lodi (hereafter the City).

The injunction requires Randtron to comply with an administrative order directing it to abate an environmental nuisance on property it formerly owned and operated and to reimburse the City for all abatement and adjudication costs incurred by the City in connection with the cleanup of hazardous substances on the property. The order was issued pursuant to a city ordinance, entitled the Comprehensive Municipal Environmental Response and Liability Ordinance (MERLO) (Lodi Mun. Code, ch. 8.24), which authorizes the City to investigate and remediate the contamination of its soil and groundwater.

On appeal, Randtron contends the administrative abatement order is void and unenforceable because it was issued pursuant to MERLO, which is preempted by the state Carpenter-Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act (HSAA) (Health…

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.