|
I
<br /> r
<br /> 818 F.Supp. 292
<br /> (Cite as:818 F.Supp.292,*293)
<br /> Page 6
<br /> whether the petroleum exclusion provision of include number of different dangerous chemicals
<br /> California's Hazardous Substance Account Act listed in uariousr state and federal laws. However,
<br /> excludes refined petroleum from the Act's regulation. section 25317 of the Act excludes from the definition
<br /> The court holds that, like the federal act(CERCLA, or (and therefore the Act) "[p]etroleum, including crude
<br /> "Superfund") after which it is modeled, the California oil or a4 fraction thereof which is not otherwise
<br /> Act excludes regulation of refined petroleum,including specifically listed or designated as a hazardous
<br /> gasoline. substance.!..." Cal'Health& Safety Code§ 25317. The
<br /> issue in this case is whether the exclusion applies to
<br /> I.BACKGROUND refined petroleum!products,such as gasoline.
<br /> Plaintiff Ulvestad owns property in Santa Ana "When interpreting state law, a federal court is bound
<br /> contaminated with gasoline leaked from underground by the decision :of the highest state court." In re
<br /> storage tanks. A former owner built a filling station on Kirkland, 915 F.2d 1236, 1238 (9th Cir.1990) (citing I
<br /> the property in 1926, and installed four underground Dimidowich v. Bell & Howell, 803 F.2d 1473, 1482
<br /> storage tanks between 1926 and 1938. In 1953 Signal (9th *294`Cir,1986), reh'g denied, op. modified, 810
<br /> Oil Company, predecessor of defendant Chevron, F.2d 1517 (9th Cir.1987). However, this court is
<br /> U.S.A., Inc., leased the property. Independent Signal unaware of any published opinion from either a higher
<br /> dealers operated the station from about 1953 to 1966, California.court or any federal court addressing the
<br /> when Signal quitclaimed its leasehold interest, and the issue of whether the petroleum exclusion provision in
<br /> property was sold to the plaintiffs mother. Title California's Act applies to refined petroleum.
<br /> subsequently passed to the Ulvestad trust.
<br /> [2] Although no controlling authority appears to exist,
<br /> Afterward, the service station was dismantled, and "[f]ederal courts are not precluded from affording relief
<br /> three of the four underground tanks were extracted. simply because neither the state Supreme Court nor the
<br /> Plaintiff was alerted to the existence of a fourth tank by state legislature has enunciated a clear rule governing a
<br /> the Santa Ana Fire Department, removed it in 1989, particular ;type ofd controversy." Paul v. Watchtower
<br /> and discovered that gasoline from the tanks had Bible and Tract Sok. of New York,Inc., 819 F.2d 875, '
<br /> contaminated the soil and groundwater. Plaintiff now 879 (9th Cir.), telt. denied, 484 U.S. 926, 108 S.Ct.
<br /> sues Chevron on various theories. 289, 98 E Ed.2d 249 (1987). When a decision turns
<br /> upon applicable state law, and the state's highest court
<br /> Chevron argues that plaintiffs third and fourth causes has not adjudicated the issue,a district court must make
<br /> of action for response costs and declaratory relief under a reasonable determination, based upon recognized
<br /> California's Carpenter-Presley-Tanner Hazardous sources such as statutes and published opinions, as to
<br /> Substance Account Act, Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ the result the court would reach if faced with the issue.
<br /> 25300-25395, should be dismissed because refined Henkin v. Northrop Corp., 921 F.2d 864, 867 (9th ;
<br /> petroleum is excluded from the reach of the Act. [FN I]
<br /> Cir.1990).
<br /> Defendant points out the Act contains a "petroleum !'
<br /> exclusion" provision that removes petroleum from the A.Plain Meanin& l
<br /> Act's definition of "hazardous substances." Plaintiff, !
<br /> joined by Amicus California Department of Toxic The California Supreme Court has long held that
<br /> Substances Control, argues the exclusion does not analysis of state statutes begins with "the fundamental
<br /> apply to refined petroleum products,such as gasoline. premise that the objective of statutory interpretation is
<br /> to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent." Kimmel
<br /> FNI. Defendant also argues that the Carpenter-Presley- v. Goland,#51 Cal!iM 202,208,271 Cal.Rptr. 191,793
<br /> Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act § 25363(e) P.2d 524-(1990)i[(citations omitted). In ascertaining
<br /> neither creates an independent private right of action nor intent, they court 1 look[S] first to the language of the r
<br /> provides for declaratory relief. In view of the courts Statute, giving eff0kt to its'plain meaning.' " Id. at 209,
<br /> ruling,these issues are not reached. 271 Ca1.Rptr. 191, 793 P.2d 524 (citing Tiernan v.
<br /> Trustees of Cal. State University&Colleges, 33 Cal.3d
<br /> Il.DISCUSSION 211, 21819, 188 Cai.Rptr. 115, 655 P.2d 317
<br /> (1982)). I
<br /> [1] Section 25316 of California's Hazardous Substance !
<br /> Account Act defines "hazardous substances"broadly to If the plain meaning is apparent,this court need not go
<br /> Copr. c0 West 1998 No Claim to Orig.U.S 1,Govt. Works '
<br /> !f
<br /> h
<br /> }
<br />
|