The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Agilent Technologies, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE Case No. 18-cv-01199-VC

LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR

UNIVERSITY,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

Plaintiff, SUMMARY JUDGMENT v. Re: Dkt. No. 216

AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants.

HP and Agilent’s motion for summary judgment on Stanford’s nuisance and trespass claims is denied. This ruling assumes that the reader is familiar with the summary judgment record and the arguments made by the parties. In addition, for simplicity, this ruling speaks solely in terms of nuisance, because the analysis for trespass is the same. I. California law distinguishes between two types of nuisances: “continuous” and “permanent.” McCoy v. Gustafson, 180 Cal. App. 4th 56, 84 (2009). A continuous nuisance is one that can be abated at a reasonable cost; a permanent nuisance cannot be. Id. The label “continuous nuisance” is quite confusing. California’s jury instruction on this issue is illustrative: it states, “A nuisance is continuous if it can be discontinued.” Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instruction 2030 (“Affirmative Defense—Statute of…