A federal court denied Chiquita Canyon Landfill’s request to appeal orders to add millions to a relocation fund for residents near the landfill last month, on the basis that the landfill hadn’t yet been ordered to fulfill one.
The appeals court ruled that the district court had ordered both the landfill’s owners and L.A. County, which brought the original suit against the landfill in December 2024, to meet and flesh out the terms of the relocation fund, according to a May 27 court filing.
They were also required to determine whether the county is required to post bond, in the case that the landfill was wrongly ruled against.
The decision comes a little under a year after the district court’s original ruling in August last year, and in the meantime has stalled payouts for the hundreds of Val Verde and Castaic households in the landfill’s orbit dealing with a laundry list of mysterious health issues.
John Musella, a spokesperson for the landfill, did not respond to requests for comment on the ruling.
L.A. County’s lawsuit had sought an injunction — a court-ordered command to perform or refrain from performing a specific action — that included requiring the landfill to set aside approximately $22 million in relocation funds.
That money would’ve included $4,000 a month in funds for almost 950 households for about six months.
Chiquita originally opened a relief fund in March 2024, closing it in February 2025 after concluding the landfill’s environmental issues were resolving. California environmental regulators later called the data the landfill had used to close the fund biased.
After the district court’s August ruling, Chiquita’s owners had appealed the injunction, but the three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined none existed — the lower court had merely ordered the landfill’s owners and L.A. County to “meet, confer,” file two separate statements regarding “a more narrowly tailored injunction” and whether the county is exempt from posting bond, according to the court filing.
In the August filing, District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong had asked both parties to narrow down “the households to be included; the availability of relocation versus home hardening; and the duration of any relocation.”
Frimpong had added that, while the county’s survey data confirming the landfill’s health impacts was somewhat limited, she concluded that it had shown “imminent, irreparable harm.”
At the time of that August filing, a spokesperson for the landfill had expressed gratitude that Frimpong agreed with the landfill that the approximately $20 million should not be immediately added to the Castaic and Val Verde residents’ relief fund.
Steven Howse, the lead plaintiff on a separate class action lawsuit against the landfill, said he was disappointed that the legal system allowed the landfill to postpone giving Val Verde and Castaic residents sorely needed relocation funds on a set schedule.
“It’s very frustrating. They’ve been playing a lot of games, saying things are getting better and manipulating numbers,” Howse said.
Howse was able to use a smaller payout from the landfill’s original fund to install better air filtration at his own home, but the fund’s open-ended end date made it impossible for many families to plan a move, he said, not knowing whether the fund would still be open even the next month.
Howse said he put his family’s house on the market in July 2025, and was able to move to Acton in January. Howse’s daughter had lost her sense of smell living near the landfill, he said — since the move, it’s come back.
“My son used to get two to three nose bleeds a week, and since we’ve moved, he hasn’t had one,” Howse said.
