Laserfiche WebLink
Services dfead Data Centratl Inc. <br /> PAGE, 6 <br /> 1991, U.S. Ap <br /> 30233, *1 <br /> ti <br /> dis*Issal and any underlying eirranOOU5 rulings. <br /> :,111 BACKGROUND <br /> A <br /> .. ........ <br /> plaintiffs ow.n n p.r.qp ey. In 4v..rt Riverside County, California-near the hazV Gus <br /> �w ste disposal =site known as the, Strin ldw EP <br /> pfellow Acid Pits ( :9tringfel A, <br /> became aware: that. plume 31 Of ground water contaminated x1th toxic <br /> ubstances 1:r0i Strintfellciw was threatening .0. e of <br /> to enter anearby s u.r.c <br /> d�inkinqlnd AorIcultu-i r. EPA requested access to plaintiffs' r.tT to <br /> ral. water. prupl�. <br /> install wells. for tdhitarl .q And 9)(tracttn3 thesem i q rat.ihO hazardous <br /> S&bstantg:A.. Vlaintiffs rkfds'ed. <br /> Plaintiffs...... 4 <br /> In issued an administrative order vantinq itself'i ind :the <br /> September 1.183 EPA i <br /> Alia, a. <br /> Sta r, linter lia.. . "locating:! <br /> it <br /> # of Wjfdrnia access to it in q <br /> 'property f <br /> c6hstructln:q, loperating, maintainingand repairinq manitor/extraction weilsit:0 <br /> Henry :Hendl r Order (EPA Sept. 201P 1983) ; See infra rate 1.0.. hortly at tir EPA <br /> went Upon: plathtif fs property and began the installation. a. 3. series of wells. <br /> five ete. installed t)V1 con, ractars for the EPA., and ity. the time of the <br /> by the State of taji.f <br /> R. rlfto) t lea.ist 'another thitteen ..:or <br /> Plaintiffs file.0 their initialcomplaint an Sept mbef 5 1984 nt Plai*.".ti f ft. <br /> alledtd that the EPA. Sactions constituted a taking of their property;. t h.ie.V. <br /> sought ht S. 4.5 million as compensation. The Government filed Ats. Ans:w9r,or-i <br /> NO`v e mbe.Ir 1 1 U. After :an initial court conference at 'Which the. parties. .gs aq.reed.. <br /> that no material facts were in disoute, the court E*113 approve.d. a brie fl_ng <br /> schedule �that Set May .291 1485 as 'the final deadline for the filing of responies <br /> _ <br /> 60 discovery requests. A few weeks later., the parties filed Joint Fact <br /> Stipulations which Set out the events leading u <br /> P: to the law suit- the document. <br /> dgtailed, the five wells <br /> placed on the property by the EPA and the thirte n <br /> installed by the State of California pursuant to its rale under a cooperAlive <br /> agreement with the EPA. Hendler I atl& <br /> - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - _ - - - <br /> n4 They filed a first amended complaint on September fli., 1984, and a Second <br /> amended complaint on August 19, 1985. <br /> -End Footnotes:-, - - - - - - - - - - - - <br /> 00June 24., '1985., plaintiffs �moved for an order� permitting additional <br /> discovery of activities occurring an the property after May Z9. 1985. The' motion <br /> was granted. Subsequently, far: summary,, plaintiffs filed a motion qmentiand <br /> tie. Gave rn men t,,-f i led a cross-motionfor summary judpent. Hendlir I at 931. <br /> In Hendle r I., the trialjuoye, in bi,s memorandum order of October Z.4. : jrm, <br /> ditermined that <br /> h <br /> (I the mere issuance of the EPA Order of September 1983 did not. [311.3.1 <br /> constitute ::a requiatory. taking of any Of plaintiffs' property (the :court did. ftdt <br /> address the question of: whether the Gtder as sUbsequently ap.plie..d ml.�aftt tie: <br /> J <br /> Oiqme <br /> d such; 4 tgkinq <br /> {2) the: r­ or afforded I.n.sufficient evidence upon which to base a decl sI1d: <br /> . <br /> 'Now" <br /> L&AXIS NEXIS <br />