National Clothesline

A 12-year legal battle over groundwater contamination in California took another step toward conclusion when a Superior Court judge ruled that three companies aren’t responsible for causing or cleaning up the contamination.

The case began in 1998 when the City of Modesto sued drycleaners and numerous manufacturers and distributors of equipment and supplies, claiming that the misuse of perc had contaminated the city’s water supply.

The first phase of the trial brought a $3.2 million award to the city for compensatory damages in 2006. That award was offset by recoveries the city made in settlements with other parties.

In the second phase of the trial, a jury assessed punitive damages against Dow Chemical Co., Vulcan Chemical Co. and R. R. Street & Co. Inc. The punitive damages, which totaled more than $175 million, were later reduced by the trial judge.

In the trial’s third phase, the city sought an additional $140 million for alleged contamination at more than 25 additional sites. In that phase, which included a trial that began in November, 2008, and included four weeks of jury deliberation, the city received an additional award of $18.3 million in compensatory damages against Dow Chemical and PPG Industries.

In the May 2009 decision, the jury dismissed claims against Street, saying the company had no liability for any of the contamination. The jury also found no liability for one other defendant, distributor Goss-Jewett, which is no longer in business.

In the latest phase of the litigation, the Modesto Redevelopment Agency claimed that Dow, PPG and Street were liable for contamination at five drycleaner sites under the Polanco Act, which addresses clean-up of hazardous substances in the context of a redevelopment project.

The development authority argued that the defendants “were responsible because they created or assisted in the creation of a nuisance by instructing users of their products to dispose of perc waste improperly.”

Evidence submitted to the court attempted to show that the defendants provided both written and oral instructions to cleaners that led them to dispose of perc in ways that led to contamination. The court found, however, that the redevelopment authority failed to prove that improper disposal instructions were provided to the cleaners at the time the contamination occurred.

In a March 26 ruling, California Superior Court Judge Ernest Goldsmith said the redevelopment agency failed to show that the defendants took “affirmative steps directed toward the improper discharge of perc.” The equipment was not designed to dispose of perc improperly nor were the users of the products told to dispose of wastes improperly, the ruling said.

With respect to Street, the ruling specifically found that the agency “failed to prove that this defendant published improper PCE disposal instructions or that the company’s representatives discharged [perc] at the [relevant dry cleaning] sites. Therefore, Street is not a responsible party under the [Polanco] Act.”

“We are pleased Judge Goldsmith carefully reviewed the facts in this case and found no wrongdoing by our client,” said John Thomas, a partner in Houston-based Hicks Thomas LLC and lead counsel for Street.

Ross Beard, CEO of R. R. Street, said, “R.R. Street has always worked with the highest standards for safety, and has a well-documented track record for promoting safe handling and good product stewardship practices.”

The ruling is still subject to a judge issuing a final decision in the case; both sides can appeal the ruling.

Since the case began, Modesto has collected about $40 million from various parties toward an estimated $200 million clean-up. Cleanup work has begun on one of the sites, according to The Modesto Bee.



								National Clothesline


						Companies not at fault in perc case 12-year legal battle continues in Calif. A 12-year legal battle over groundwater contamination in California took another step toward conclusion when a Superior Court judge ruled that three companies aren’t responsible for causing or cleaning up the contamination. The case began in 1998 when the City of Modesto sued drycleaners and numerous manufacturers and distributors of equipment and supplies, claiming that the misuse of perc had contaminated the city’s water supply. The first phase of the trial brought a $3.2 million award to the city for compensatory damages in 2006. That award was offset by recoveries the city made in settlements with other parties. In the second phase of the trial, a jury assessed punitive damages against Dow Chemical Co., Vulcan Chemical Co. and R. R. Street & Co. Inc. The punitive damages, which totaled more than $175 million, were later reduced by the trial judge. In the trial’s third phase, the city sought an additional $140 million for alleged contamination at more than 25 additional sites. In that phase, which included a trial that began in November, 2008, and included four weeks of jury deliberation, the city received an additional award of $18.3 million in compensatory damages against Dow Chemical and PPG Industries. In the May 2009 decision, the jury dismissed claims against Street, saying the company had no liability for any of the contamination. The jury also found no liability for one other defendant, distributor Goss-Jewett, which is no longer in business. In the latest phase of the litigation, the Modesto Redevelopment Agency claimed that Dow, PPG and Street were liable for contamination at five drycleaner sites under the Polanco Act, which addresses clean-up of hazardous substances in the context of a redevelopment project. The development authority argued that the defendants “were responsible because they created or assisted in the creation of a nuisance by instructing users of their products to dispose of perc waste improperly.” Evidence submitted to the court attempted to show that the defendants provided both written and oral instructions to cleaners that led them to dispose of perc in ways that led to contamination. The court found, however, that the redevelopment authority failed to prove that improper disposal instructions were provided to the cleaners at the time the contamination occurred. In a March 26 ruling, California Superior Court Judge Ernest Goldsmith said the redevelopment agency failed to show that the defendants took “affirmative steps directed toward the improper discharge of perc.” The equipment was not designed to dispose of perc improperly nor were the users of the products told to dispose of wastes improperly, the ruling said. With respect to Street, the ruling specifically found that the agency “failed to prove that this defendant published improper PCE disposal instructions or that the company’s representatives discharged [perc] at the [relevant dry cleaning] sites. Therefore, Street is not a responsible party under the [Polanco] Act.” “We are pleased Judge Goldsmith carefully reviewed the facts in this case and found no wrongdoing by our client,” said John Thomas, a partner in Houston-based Hicks Thomas LLC and lead counsel for Street. Ross Beard, CEO of R. R. Street, said, “R.R. Street has always worked with the highest standards for safety, and has a well-documented track record for promoting safe handling and good product stewardship practices.” The ruling is still subject to a judge issuing a final decision in the case; both sides can appeal the ruling. Since the case began, Modesto has collected about $40 million from various parties toward an estimated $200 million clean-up. Cleanup work has begun on one of the sites, according to The Modesto Bee.