|
Services of Mead Data Central,"Ina
<br /> PAGE 3
<br /> r�
<br /> 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 30233, *2
<br /> Ei
<br /> the :'[site of the'acid pits, but,.nearby properties as Well. Plaintiffs own one of
<br /> those nearby properties. This case is about the Government's enlistment of
<br /> Iintiffs ' property, without dlaintiffs' consent, in the battle against
<br /> ptllutiort', and plaintiffs' effdrrts to be recompensed for that use.
<br /> 4
<br /> " In 1983 the Government first undertook activities an plaintiffs' Land �In
<br /> 198 . plaintiffs 'fil:ed suit' in the Claims Court for Just compensation for the
<br /> alleged taking of plaintiffs' property. The suit dragged on for years, with two
<br /> different trial judges. Extensive discovery was undertaken. Before the first
<br /> trial judge, the Government mated for summary judgment that there had been no
<br /> regulatory E*31 taking, andll,that the united States was not responsible .for
<br /> the activities on the pro perty1;undertaken by the State of California. The court
<br /> granted troth motions. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment that there had
<br /> beerrt' a physical "occupation amodnting to a taking. The court denied plaintiffs=
<br /> modn, and ordered trials McAdler v.. United States, 11 Cl, Ct. 91 (198611
<br />: 'Hen filer I I
<br /> F
<br /> Then the matter took 'a, sudden and rather unusual turn, Plaintiffs and the
<br /> Government became embroiled in ;,a heated quarrel over whether plaintiffs'
<br /> responses to certain interrogatories were sufficiently detailed and forthcoming,,
<br /> At the Government's insistence; the Claims Court ordered the plaintiffs to
<br /> submit additional and more complete 'responses to the Government,'s questions.
<br /> Plaintiffs responded that they.;were answering fully in light of the informati`ctin
<br /> available to them_, and that. since certain of the Gove'rnment's questions focused..
<br /> an .finding out more Out the activities of the Government itself, plaintifft
<br /> wete continuing .discovery of Government witnesses. The Government, and
<br /> ultimately the court, were not „satisfied, and in December of 1989 the suit, now
<br /> before a second 'Claims 1*41 �Caurt judge, was dismissed under Rule 37 --� the
<br /> court granted the Government' ,motion to sanction plaintiffs by dismissing the
<br /> case with prejudice and awarding court costs and attorney fees to the
<br /> Government... Hendler v. t:)nitedMates, 19 Cl. Ct. 27 (1989) (Hendle-r lI) ..
<br /> Plaintiffs ask that we: review the correctness of that dismissal:-, as well a
<br /> the correctness ;.of the earlier rulings an the motions for summary. judgment, The
<br /> Government is of the view that the dismissal was fully deserved and. should be
<br /> upheld. And even s,tlduld -we disagree, the Government urges, the Claims Court`:s:
<br /> decisions on the earli;ar summary judgment motions did not themselves. finally
<br /> dispose of tile ca
<br /> e se and therefore are not properly before us.
<br /> QWe flAd the disthissal sanction Was improvidently granted -- it is reversed..
<br /> And.,, for the reasons we shall ihiortly explain, we conclude that the merit: a
<br /> the rulings in Hendler :I .are before us, and should be decided., tin the. meriX.
<br /> ts, :use
<br /> conclude that the partial summary judgment in favor of the Government an the.
<br /> questich of the rale of the State of 'California was also in error, and it. is
<br /> reversed. The ruling that na regulatory taking occurred is not
<br /> disturbed, but, is we shall ax "ia n, only in so far as it S limited to the E
<br /> er`,der per se. 5
<br /> ' The denial sof plaintiffs`' 'mdtion for summary judgment an a taking, by physial
<br /> occupancy is reversed; Judgment is ordered in favor of plaintiffs. The case i.s
<br /> re: artded to the::Claims curt for further proceedings tonsistent, with this ..
<br /> *pion.
<br /> 11. THE SCOPE f F REVIEW
<br /> IS-A*
<br /> LEX .
<br /> NEX1SwLEX1SzNEX1Se ..,
<br /> ,
<br />
|