Abarca

Abarca v. Franklin County Water District

Good Law
761 F. Supp. 2d 1007·2011 WL 140371·2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1603
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 5, 20112:07-mj-00388California21,716 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wanger, J.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: BAC DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DAUBERT MOTIONS

I. INTRODUCTION.

This lawsuit arises out of a now-closed cooling tower manufacturing facility (the “BAC site”) that pressure treated wood and was operated by entities formerly owned by the BAC Defendants (“BAC”). Plaintiffs, current or former residents of residential neighborhoods (“Beachwood”) near the BAC Site, allege that two contaminants from the BAC Site migrated from the treating area via groundwater, surface water, surface soil, private well, and air pathways to locations where plaintiffs were exposed to them. Also named as defendants are various municipalities, water districts, and developers, including the Franklin County Water District, Merced Irrigation District, the City and County of Merced, and the Meadowbrook Water District.

Before the court for decision is BAC Defendants’ motion to summarily adjudicate Plaintiffs’ tenth, twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth causes of action. According to Defendants, Plaintiffs have failed to present any admissible evidence of actual exposure to contaminants from the BAC site, via any pathway, which was required under “Phase 1”…

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.