SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

Seirviczs C�t Mead Data Central, Ina PAGE 3' Ii 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 30233, *2 Ehe site of the acid pits, but nearby properties as wel1. Plaint!ffs own one of those nearby properties. This case is about the Government's enlistment of plaintlffsl property, without plaintiffs , consent, in the battle againstl hollution, and� plaintiffsl :efforts to be recompensed for that use. In 1983 the.Government first undertook activities an plaintiffs land! In i984 plaintiffs filed suit in the Claims Court for !us I t compensatic n for the alleged taking1laf plaintiffs' property. The suit dragged an for years, with two different trial judges. Extensive discovery was undertaken. Before the first Trial judge, the Government moved for summ'ary judgment that there had been no regulatory 1*13 taking, and that the United Stites was not responsibli for the activitiesii.on the property undertaken by the State Of California. The court,. grantedboth motions. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment that there had been a physical occupation amounting to a taking. The court denied plaintiffs' iotion, and ordered trial. (ftlidler v. United States—., 11 Cl., Ctiv. 171 (1986) (Ren.,dlir 1) Then the matter took a sudden and rather unusual turn. Plaintiffs and the davernment, bec ' ame embroiled in a heated quarrel over whether plaintiffs, responses to certain interrogatories were sufficiently detailed and forthcoming,. .At the Government's insistence, the Claims Court ordered the plaintiffs to thmit additional and more complete responses to the Government's questidns.. :1?,,'laintiffs responded that they were answering fully in light of the information available'. to, them, and: that since certain of the Government's questions f' cused � 'f - P on finding out more about the :activities of the Government, itself, plaintiffs were continuing discovery of Government witnesses. The. Government, and �intimately the ,court, were not satisfied, and in December of 19,89 the surto now b4�f,ore a second Claims t*47 Court judge, was dismissed under Rule 37 the 0 14,f .. 4 court granted the Government's motion to sanction plaintiffs b n� the Y. case with prejUdiceand awarding court costs and attorney fees to the -Government....: keiidler v. :United States, 19 Cl. Ct. 2,17 6969 . (Nendler 11.1i Plainti.ffs ask. that we review' the :correctness Of that: dismissal, as weil as the correctness of the earlier rulings on the motions for summary Judgmen .it Th , � e: Government: is of the view that the dismissal was fully deserved and should. be Upheld. And evenshould we disagree,, the Government urges, the Claims: Court loci-sions. on the earlier summary judgment motions did not themselvesf ali.i.... :y: Mispose of the :case zhd therefore: are not properly before us,. We: fintf the::dismissal.: sanction was improvidentl granted d. an y -g1 ,n ted it is rev. And for the reasons we sh we conclude at the. Merf of. .. ..... all shortl:y explain ts the. rulings in ikendle:r .1 Arebefore us and should.. be decided, Un th.e. ..mer. ts we c6p.cludi :that. the Oirt%.tal: :su;Ma.rY. judgment in favor of the Government On he' question of the': role n-f the State :of California wasis a 0 in e r r or.t. and. it IS. �reversed;:: The ruling that-no: regulatory taking occurred is not� r45i ... only I tUr0#11. but?: as. we s.h 11 -explain,I : ian n so far as it is limited to the EPA iger per se. The denial� of plaintiffs': . : o I ftt tion for summary judgment physical gment aft a taking by .... ............. plaintiffs*. occupancy I reVersed- judgmentis ordered In favd f . .. rhe sale 5. r 0, remanded to the Claims Court. for further proceedings consistent with thiS. LEX11- 1S NEXISOLEXIS,"NEXISi.