An 18-page tentative ruling in federal court Thursday offered a split decision for residents seeking relief from Chiquita Canyon Landfill, which is blamed for myriad health problems in a consolidated lawsuit with thousands of plaintiffs.
The tentative rulings — which were filed Tuesday, argued Thursday and yet to be finalized as of this story’s publication — also mark one more milestone in what’s expected to be a yearslong process for residents.
Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong ruled on two significant claims in a special master’s report, which states: residents’ trespass claim is sufficiently pleaded under federal law, and should not be dismissed; and the ultrahazardous strict liability claim is insufficiently pleaded and should be dismissed with prejudice.
Frimpong used a unique analogy in her ruling on why the ultrahazardous claim was really a negligence claim against the defendants, Waste Connections and Chiquita Canyon Landfill.
The plaintiffs have claimed the landfill’s overuse of its systems created the elevated temperature event, which is growing dozens of feet underground, according to the landfill’s regulators.
A host of local, state and federal agencies have been studying the issue for several years, but they’ve yet to pinpoint a cause or a way to stop it, as residents’ complaints have grown.
The plaintiffs have argued that the landfill’s “overpulling” and “overloading” its gas system was an “ultrahazardous” activity responsible for the incident.
But the case does not claim that the pulling or loading was ultrahazardous, only that the level of the landfill’s pulling and loading was, she wrote.
Similarly, Frimpong wrote that a car driven on a crowded street at 200 mph is always dangerous, but not the driving of the car itself, which makes the case a negligence claim, not strict liability, under the law.
John Musella, a spokesman for the landfill, did not respond to a request for comment on Thursday’s tentative ruling.
Frimpong did allow a trespass claim, rejecting the landfill’s motion to dismiss.
“Taken together, the (complaint) sufficiently pleads an invasion of a tangible substance (contaminated dust and water particulates and matter) that has invaded the Siegal and Aguilar plaintiffs’ properties,” according to Frimong’s ruling. “And even if the court characterized the dust and particulates as intangible substances, the (complaint) sufficiently pleads that such substances have caused physical damage to property.”
The case’s special master also declared that the plaintiff fact sheet portal will officially open on Oct. 6 and just before then, the plaintiffs will be divided into five groups, called “tranches,” according to a message Thursday from Oshea Orchid of Orchid Law, a local law firm involved in the lawsuit.
Each tranche has a deadline 90 days away from the previous one, she added.
“It is extremely important that our clients complete and submit their plaintiff fact sheets by the assigned deadlines,” Orchid said. “If plaintiffs fail to do so, they may be subject to deficiency proceedings and, ultimately, their cases could be dismissed.”
Once the tentative rulings argued Thursday are final, Chiquita is expected to answer within 30 days, and a bellwether-selection proposal would come roughly 30 days later, meaning “bellwether plaintiffs” could be identified by the end of the year.
