|
by;Xerox reiecopiar 7020 ;� 7-92 3;05FM ; 11^
<br /> 1y 20 1992 7"nursk, ,illy 2, 1992 Dally Appellate Repot
<br /> 9197
<br /> iect miner ENVIRONMENTAL ,LAV use of the
<br /> I An Iction gas tanks an the same as those facts set forth
<br /> phich lacks in the December Order.DefendAnts PAUL and ELLEN
<br /> determinodry rent err Issue NELSON owned &U title to the property in question
<br /> )un of this from 1951 to NOYembcr 1976. In 1972,
<br /> the NELSONS
<br /> ung Of Contt'16ution to gas Leas Into Land inswcted defendant FR=NACHANT 00. to inaW
<br /> application Cita as 92 00Y Journal O.A.R, t the piping and pumps for gasoline tanks Wa service
<br /> ,notion, be station on this property.The NELSONS than operaW.
<br /> the subject SAMUEL ZANDS AND SARA ZANDS, the RAs station until 1975. In 1975, the NELSONS
<br /> rrtles.or if Plaintiffs, leased the liar stadon to defendants STEPHEN and
<br /> jurisdiction V. CLETUS KRAMER. Although the KRA•I1ERS
<br /> curt for the PAUL IMON NELSON. maintained their lease and operated the gasoline st;<tion
<br /> Jingly, we ELLEN ELIZA NELSON, PumPs from MAY 1975 to March 1979,the property was
<br /> municipal MILDRED TACEY, transferred to defendant M a-DRED TACEY, who
<br /> JAY GOODWIN. NORMA GOODWIN, owned the property from November 1976 to April
<br /> STElaM KRAMER, 1978, and thea to defendants JAY and NORMA
<br /> CI.I.T US GOODWIN, who owned the Property from April 1978
<br /> KRAMER,FRTIZ A. NACHANT, INC, to December it, 1980. In D=mber of 1980, the
<br /> and DOES 1 to 100,
<br /> rmt3nded Defendants. GOODWINS transferred the prpporty to the plaintiffs,
<br /> 'tattier till SAMUEL and SARA ?.ANDS. It is unclear from the
<br /> evidonfir, V 1h; go 11agt?ti We gyor OpMtfd of U the
<br /> &unty No. 0.0989-GT, 90-1144-GT KRANMRS' lease expired in 1979.
<br /> :don 396. United States District Court
<br /> Southern District
<br /> Filed June 25, 1992
<br /> kct#ng PJ. RS
<br /> On April 27, 1992 at 10;30 a.m., the above-
<br /> Captioned case,came on for hearing, The plaintiffs had Paul and Ellen Nelsons
<br /> filed 8 motion for summary judgment against all the 1976
<br /> defendants, and defendants Goodwins and Nelsons had Widred Tacey
<br /> filed motions for summary judgment. The Coun has 197E
<br /> fully considered this matter, including review of all Jay and Norma Goodwin
<br /> Papers and documents submitted by the, parties in 1980
<br /> support of and in opposition to the respective motions, Samuel and Sara Zands
<br /> I .
<br /> CONSOLIDATION, OPERATQRSS
<br /> Case numbers 89.0989-GT(CM)and 90-1144-OT 1975 Paul and Ellen Nelsons
<br /> (CM) aro hereby consolidated. Stephen and Cletus Kramer
<br /> 1979
<br /> I1 7
<br /> PR .CCEDUIt&BACKOROUND
<br /> JW iassm" On December 3. 1991, this Court ruled on
<br /> it appealabk previously filed motions for summary judgment. See In 1987, the Sostonia Fire Depament informed
<br /> 'etere(3dtar Zarids Ne_tom, 779 F. Supp. 1254 (S.D.CaI. 1991). the plaintiffs the underground gasoLno tanks had to be
<br /> w nd i The December opinion held that RCRA did not contain removed because the tames violated rho Uniform Fire
<br /> Inion or or it petroleum exclusion and that the creation of solid Code,The plaintiffs removed the tanks in Octob&1987.
<br /> briehWA,w waste Sufficiently supported a RCRA claim. At that time, they had the property tested for soil or
<br /> nd f*u wen Additionally, the Court, addressing the issue of groundwater contamination. and learned that
<br /> " "l"bt' contribution,held; "None of these individuals are so far hydrocarbon contamination had occurred.
<br /> is �t removed that it can be said"a matter of law the did
<br /> +ernkju fian< w.: Y It i8 undisputed that there has been lralc8ge of
<br /> ... .7 - a not contribute to the leakage." IL at 1264. Because gasoline into the $oil at the property in question. Tve
<br /> 'rL�,l 14tH discovery w:s not complete, however, the Court piaindffa' expert, Ste»- L. Repokis, mledthat he
<br /> gent postponed the resolution of the contribution issue until believed 30,000 to 40,OW gallons of contamination
<br /> at IN factual SUMMU'y judgm@m hearing. occurred; defendant Nelsons' consultant, I& Tapp, i
<br /> bn 11I beUeved that only 3.000 to 10,000 gallons of '
<br /> contamination occurred;and no defendant has submitted �.
<br /> qty o FA BACKGROUND any evidence that there Was no contamination.Although
<br /> a"' the plltintiffs claim there was no gasoline in the tanks at �
<br /> The pertinent facts of ownership of the land and any time after the plaintiffs purebawd the land. two
<br />
|