Otay Land Co. v. U.E. Ltd., L.P.

Bad Law
440 F. Supp. 2d 1152·2006 WL 2042600·2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53433
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaJuly 18, 200603CV2488BEN(POR)California15,356 words

Opinion

Opinion

Benitez, J.

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS ON FEDERAL CLAIMS AND DECLINING TO RETAIN JURISDICTION OVER STATE LAW CLAIMS

I. INTRODUCTION

When a gun enthusiast takes target practice at a public trap and skeet range and lead shot falls back down to earth, does the firing range become a hazardous waste “facility” as defined by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”), or does it come within the safe harbor provision created for consumer products in consumer use. In this case of first impression, the Court holds that a shooting range site used by the public for sport or recreation, where spent ammunition or targets have come to be deposited as a byproduct of target practice, is not a hazardous waste “facility” subject to CERCLA. It is not a case about whether former ranges should be remediated; it is a question of who should bear the cost.

On October 13,1998, Plaintiff Otay Land Company was formed by two large investors for the purpose of bidding on a 4,793 acre piece of real estate at an estate sale. On October 15, 1998, Otay Land Company successfully outbid other bidders with a bid of $19.5 million. Prior to the bidding and…

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.