Laserfiche WebLink
Services of Mead Data Central, Ina <br /> (,. PAGE b <br /> 1991 O S. App. LEXIS 30233, *10 <br /> dismissal: and any underlyinq erroneous rulings. <br /> OUGROUN€? <br /> A. <br /> a :r <br /> 6t a t <br /> Piaintiffs. own property in Alverside County, California near the hazardous <br /> wad=e disposal site known as the Stringfellow Acid Pits t Str�ingfellowl ., EFTA <br /> C <br /> bepame aware that a plume t*11,:1 of ground water contaminated with toxic <br /> substances from°; Stringfe1 1 was threatening to enter a nearby source of <br /> ..dri:Ainq and agricultrarjl. water EPA requested access to plaintiffs' property to <br /> iristel.l wel3;s for cnitorind ao'd extractit�q these migrating hazardous: K <br /> su'bstartd'is. P1;3€fn`tiffs refu5ed� <br /> Int September i983� EPA issued an administrative order gantinq itself and the <br /> State of California access to plaintiffs' property far, Triter alfa, 13.ocat1n�q, <br /> construct nq, operating ma064n. nq, and repairing monitor/extraction weiis. <br /> Henry Iiendlar Order t o Sept " 204 1983); see infra ;note 10. Shortly after, EPA <br /> went upon plaintiffs' property j;and began the installation of a series of wells, <br /> ff;Ye' were installed by contractors frrr the EPA, and tby the time of 'the f'.°rst <br /> hear nq3 at least another thirteen by the State of California , <br /> p <br /> Plaintiffs filed their infti=al complaint on September 5,, 1984. n4 Plaintl`ffs <br /> alleged that the EPA's actionsItanstituted a taking of their property they <br /> s6bght 4.5 million as compensation. The Government filed its answer on `4 <br /> November 1 , 198 •, After •an initial court conference at which the parties agreed <br /> that no Material facts were indispute, the court E*121 approved a briefing <br /> schedule that set May 29, 1985 [.as the final deadline for the fil.inq of responses <br /> to tiscovery requests. A few weeks Later, the parties filed Joint Fact <br /> Stipulations which set out thelevents leading up to the law suit; the document <br /> detailed the five wells ~placed l'on the property by the EPA and the thirteen <br /> installed by the State of California pursuant to its ;role under a cooperative ' <br /> agreement with the EPA. Hendler I at 98. , <br /> -Footnotes - _ _ _ <br /> 0 They filed a first amendl?d complaint on September 10 1984, and a second <br /> t <br /> amended complaint on Auqust 1;+ 1985. <br /> -Enid footnotes- .. .. <br /> firs Jdne 24, 1985, plaintiffs moved for an order permitt'inq additional <br /> discovery of activities occurrinq on the property after .lay 291 1985. The motion <br /> was granted. 5ubsequent3.y,V. plaintiffs filed a motidn for summary. �ludgment and. <br /> the Government filed across-mag on for summary judo I#endl r I at <br /> t <br /> !� In Hed3er i, the trial fudge, in his memorandum order of October 24, 1986,. <br /> determ'irled: that <br /> (1) the mere issuance ofthe EAA Order of September 1:983 did not 1*131 <br /> constitute a regulatory taking1of any of plaintiffs' property )'the court d.id not <br /> address the question ' <br /> a whetherl, the Order as subsequently applied might be <br /> F: <br /> de'emad ;such a taKftt#) t <br /> (2) the record. afforded insufficient evidence upon which to base a de l.Sidn <br /> i NEXTS* <br /> L IS'*LEXIS NEX <br /> t <br /> r n <br />