Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-00071/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-00071-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

1

Case No.: 5:15-cv-03178-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINTS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CITY OF SAN JOSE,

Plaintiff,

v.

MONSANTO COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

CITY OF OAKLAND,

Plaintiff,

v.

MONSANTO COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

CITY OF BERKELEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

MONSANTO COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:15-cv-03178-EJD 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTIONS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTS

Re: Dkt. No. 103

Case No. 5:15-cv-05152-EJD 

Re: Dkt. No. 81

Case No. 5:16-cv-00071-EJD 

Re: Dkt. No. 71

Case 5:16-cv-00071-EJD Document 87 Filed 02/03/17 Page 1 of 14
2

Case No.: 5:15-cv-03178-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINTS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

In these related cases, Plaintiffs City of San Jose, City of Oakland, and City of Berkeley 

(the “Cities”) seek damages from Defendants Monsanto Company, Solutia Inc., and Pharmacia 

LLC (“Monsanto”). From the 1930s to the 1970s, Monsanto manufactured and sold products 

containing environmental contaminants called polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”). The Cities 

allege that Monsanto’s PCBs pollute the San Francisco Bay (the “Bay”) through stormwater and 

dry weather runoff from the Cities, forcing the Cities to spend money to reduce PCB discharge in 

order to comply with state and federal regulations.

The Cities each allege a single cause of action for public nuisance. Before the Court are

Monsanto’s motions to dismiss the Cities’ first amended complaints. Case No. 15-cv-3178, Dkt. 

No. 103; Case No. 15-cv-5152, Dkt. No. 81; Case No. 16- cv-71, Dkt. No. 71 (together, “MTD”; 

these motions are identical). The Cities have filed a single joint opposition. Case No. 15-cv-3178, 

Dkt. No. 106; Case No. 15-cv-5152, Dkt. No. 84; Case No. 16- cv-71, Dkt. No. 74 (“Opp.”).

The Court finds that the Cities have stated a claim for public nuisance. Monsanto’s motion 

to dismiss will be DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Facts

The Cities’ allegations are largely identical, with some variations (discussed below)

regarding their use of captured stormwater and their trusteeship of public land. Case No. 15-cv3178, Dkt. No. 91 (“San Jose FAC”); Case No. 15-cv-5152, Dkt. No. 81 (“Oakland FAC”); Case 

No. 16-cv-71, Dkt. No. 71 (“Berkeley FAC”) (together, “FACs”).

PCBs are synthetic chemical compounds that have become notorious as global 

environmental contaminants. Id. ¶ 1. PCB exposure can cause a number of health issues in 

humans, including cancer. Id. ¶ 2. PCBs also destroy populations of fish, birds, and other animal 

life. Id. ¶¶ 2, 4, 36–46. Until they were banned in the 1970s, PCBs were used in a variety of 

Case 5:16-cv-00071-EJD Document 87 Filed 02/03/17 Page 2 of 14
3

Case No.: 5:15-cv-03178-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINTS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

applications, including paint, caulking, electrical equipment, sealants, inks, and lubricants. Id. ¶¶

5, 33.

The Cities operate municipal stormwater and dry weather runoff systems, which collect 

runoff and discharge it into the Bay. Id. ¶ 13. When it rains, PCBs often leach into stormwater 

runoff, causing the Cities to discharge PCBs into the Bay Id. ¶¶ 5–6, 35. As a result, the Bay has 

become contaminated with PCBs. Id. ¶¶ 7–10.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has approved a PCB Total Maximum 

Daily Load (“TMDL”) for the Bay, which defines the maximum amount of PCBs that the Bay can 

receive while still meeting water quality standards. Id. Because they discharge stormwater into the 

Bay, the Cities are required to obtain Municipal Regional Stormwater Permits from the San 

Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Id. ¶ 13. Each of the Cities has received 

such a permit, which includes a TMDL that limits the amount of PCBs the Cities may discharge 

into the Bay through stormwater. Id. ¶¶ 14–15. In 2015, the Water Quality Control Board 

increased the PCB TMDL, which forced the Cities to spend money to meet the stricter 

requirements. Id. ¶¶ 17–19. The Cities now seek damages from Monsanto.

B. Monsanto’s First Motion to Dismiss

In their original complaints, the Cities alleged causes of action against Monsanto for public 

nuisance and equitable indemnity. Case No. 15-cv-3178, Dkt. No. 1; Case No. 15-cv-5152, Dkt. 

No. 1; Case No. 16-cv-71, Dkt. No. 1. This Court granted Monsanto’s motions to dismiss, finding 

that (1) the Cities lacked standing to claim public nuisance because they failed to show that they 

have a property interest in polluted stormwater, and (2) the Cities did not state a claim for 

equitable indemnity because their costs arose from regulatory requirements rather than from an 

adverse judgment. Case No. 15-cv-3178, Dkt. No. 85. The Court granted leave to amend only as 

to the cause of action for nuisance. Id.

C. The Cities’ First Amended Complaints

The Cities filed their FACs on September 13, 2016, each bringing a single cause of action 

Case 5:16-cv-00071-EJD Document 87 Filed 02/03/17 Page 3 of 14
4

Case No.: 5:15-cv-03178-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINTS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

for public nuisance. The Cities now allege damage to three property interests:

(1) contamination of the Cities’ stormwater and dry weather runoff 

systems, which must be retrofitted to remove PCBs;

(2) contamination of tidelands and submerged lands in the Bay that 

the Cities hold as trustees; and

(3) contamination of stormwater and dry weather runoff that the 

Cities capture and use.

See Opp. at 1 (summarizing the three property interests at issue in the FACs).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of claims 

alleged in the complaint. Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 

1995). Dismissal “is proper only where there is no cognizable legal theory or an absence of 

sufficient facts alleged to support a cognizable legal theory.” Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732

(9th Cir. 2001). The complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

III. DISCUSSION

A. The Cities’ Public Nuisance Claims

i. The Cities allege a property interest in captured stormwater under AB 2594.

A public entity can bring a non-representative nuisance action for damages only if “it has a 

property interest injuriously affected by the nuisance.” Cty. of Santa Clara v. Atl. Richfield Co., 

137 Cal. App. 4th 292, 314 (quoting Selma Pressure Treating Co. v. Osmose Wood Preserving 

Co., 221 Cal. App. 3d 1601, 1616 (1990)).

This Court granted Monsanto’s earlier motion to dismiss because the Cities failed to show 

that they have a property interest in stormwater that flows through municipal pipes to the Bay. 

Dkt. No. 85 at 6–8. Under the California Water Code, public water belongs to the State of 

Case 5:16-cv-00071-EJD Document 87 Filed 02/03/17 Page 4 of 14
5

Case No.: 5:15-cv-03178-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINTS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

California, not to the Cities. Id.; see also Cal. Water Code §§ 1201 (“All water flowing in any 

natural channel,” unless used or appropriated, “is hereby declared to be public water of the State 

and subject to appropriation in accordance with the provisions of this code.”), 10574 (exempting 

rainwater from the permitting requirements, which implies that rainwater falls within § 1201 and 

thus belongs to the State); California v. United States, 438 U.S. 645, 652 n.7 (1978) (“Under 

California law, any person who wishes to appropriate water must apply for a permit from the State 

Water Resources Control Board.”).

But the tides shifted when California enacted AB 2594 on September 23, 2016—about one 

month after this Court granted Monsanto’s earlier motion to dismiss, and ten days after the Cities 

filed their FACs. AB 2594 added the following language to the California Water Code to allow 

public entities to capture stormwater and put it to use: “A public entity that captures stormwater 

from urban areas, in accordance with a stormwater resource plan, before the water reaches a 

natural channel shall be entitled to use the captured water to the extent that the water augments 

existing water supplies.” Cal. Water Code § 10561.7(a). Monsanto and the Cities agree that the 

new rule gives the Cities a right to use captured stormwater. See MTD at 16 (“AB 2594 gives 

new—but limited—use rights” to the Cities to use captured stormwater); Opp. at 6 (AB 2594 

creates both “a usufructuary interest . . . and a property right” in captured stormwater). Under the 

new rule, the Cities “shall be entitled to use the captured water,” but the State continues to own it. 

Cal. Water Code § 10651.7(a).

The right to use the captured water under AB 2594 is a sufficient property interest on 

which to state a claim for nuisance. See In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. 

Litig, 457 F. Supp. 2d 455, 460 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (“a usufructuary interest may be acquired and 

this interest will be deemed to be a ‘possessory property right’ ” for the purposes of a nuisance 

action); Nat’l Audubon Soc’y v. Sup. Ct., 33 Cal. 3d 419, 441 (1983) (“[T]he right of property in 

water is usufructuary, and consists not so much of the fluid itself as the advantage of its use. . . . 

Hence, the cases do not speak of the ownership of water, but only of the right to its use.”) 

Case 5:16-cv-00071-EJD Document 87 Filed 02/03/17 Page 5 of 14
6

Case No.: 5:15-cv-03178-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINTS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(citations omitted).

Yet, Monsanto argues, the Cities lack that right: even if AB 2594 granted the Cities a right 

to use captured water, they can have no property interest in water that they abandon and discharge

to the Bay. MTD at 16. AB 2594 creates a right to use “captured stormwater to the extent that the 

water augments existing water supplies.” Water discharged to the Bay does not augment existing 

supplies, and the alleged nuisance exists only in water discharged to the Bay. San Jose FAC ¶¶ 

121–35; Oakland FAC ¶¶ 121–36; Berkeley FAC ¶¶ 123–138.

The Cities respond that Monsanto’s distinction between “captured” and “abandoned” water 

overlooks the complexity of the Cities’ water systems. According to the Cities, their capture, 

filtration, and release of stormwater are inseparable parts of a “larger hydrologic system.” Jan. 26, 

2017, Hr’g Tr. at 29:5. The amended complaints explain how the Cities use a broad array of 

strategies to collect stormwater, use it, and reintegrate it into the water cycle. For instance, 

Oakland alleges that it implements rain capture techniques that include “trees that filter pollutants 

from up to 1,000 of gallons of water annual, rain gardens, disconnected downspouts, pervious 

surfaces, and rain barrels or cisterns, which capture roof runoff, releasing it safely and slowly into 

the landscape.” Oakland FAC ¶ 50 (quotation marks and citations omitted); see also id. ¶¶ 51–52 

(describing “rainwater capture systems that conserve water and reduce flooding, stormwater 

pollution and erosion, while protecting our local creeks and the Bay”) (quotation marks omitted). 

Berkeley likewise alleges that it implements “green infrastructure projects, catch basins, and rain 

cisterns/barrels, Rain Gardens, Curb Extensions, Bioswales, Permeable Pavement, and Green 

Roofs.” Berkeley FAC ¶ 55; see also id. ¶ 56 (“the ACCWP Green Streets program augments 

local water supply through groundwater recharge, ‘because less rainwater ends up as runoff and 

more absorbs slowly into the ground, where it is filtered by soil, feeds plants and replenishes 

ground water’ ”). And San Jose alleges that it aims to “maximize water supply” through

“infiltration trenches, pervious pavements, biotreatment in tree trenches, flow through planters, 

bioretention areas, and rainwater harvesting in cisterns.” San Jose FAC ¶ 50.

Case 5:16-cv-00071-EJD Document 87 Filed 02/03/17 Page 6 of 14
7

Case No.: 5:15-cv-03178-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINTS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The Cities’ allegations, taken as true, show that their stormwater systems involve more 

than a binary decision to capture stormwater or abandon it to the Bay. Rather, as Monsanto 

described it, stormwater management is a “complicated web of hydrology” (Jan. 26, 2017, Hr’g

Tr. at 15:14–15), involving capture, filtration, permeation, and discharge of rainfall and dry 

weather runoff. Whether the captured stormwater ultimately “augments existing water supplies” is 

a factual question that cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss. Under AB 2594’s amendments 

to the California Water Code, the Cities’ capture of stormwater establishes a property interest on 

which the Cities successfully state a claim for public nuisance.

ii. The Cities adequately plead causation.

Causation is a necessary element of a public nuisance claim. In re Firearm Cases, 126 Cal.

App. 4th 959, 987 (2005). A defendant is liable if it “created or assisted in the creation of the 

nuisance.” City of Modesto Redevelopment Agency v. Sup. Ct., 119 Cal. App. 4th 28, 38 (2004). 

Assisting in the creation of the nuisance can mean (1) instructing a polluter to improperly dispose 

of hazardous substances or (2) manufacturing or installing the disposal system. Team Enters., LLC 

v. W. Inv. Real Estate Trust, 647 F.3d 901, 912 (9th Cir. 2011).

According to the Cities, Monsanto knew that PCBs were dangerous, concealed that 

knowledge, promoted the use of PCBs in a range of applications, and gave disposal instructions 

that were likely to cause environmental contamination. Opp. at 22. The Cities allege that 

Monsanto believed that the only effective method of disposing of PCBs was high temperature 

incineration. San Jose FAC ¶ 108. Monsanto built an incinerator and made it available to its 

customers, for a fee, for disposal of liquid PCB waste—but Monsanto also instructed customers to 

dispose of solid PCB waste in landfills, where it would inevitably cause environmental 

contamination. Id. (quoting a Monsanto employee who testified that “we have to reluctantly 

suggest, because we don’t have a better answer, that they find a well operated, properly operated 

landfill and dispose of the material in that fashion”). Monsanto responds that those disposal 

instructions were proper because, at the time, no federal regulations prevented disposal of PCB 

Case 5:16-cv-00071-EJD Document 87 Filed 02/03/17 Page 7 of 14
8

Case No.: 5:15-cv-03178-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINTS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

waste in landfills; and, in any event, those instructions were guidelines, not mandatory 

instructions, and they were not distributed nationally. MTD at 27–28. The Court finds that the 

Cities’ allegations are sufficient to show a causal connection between Monsanto’s actions and the 

alleged public nuisance. Monsanto’s objections raise factual questions that cannot be resolved at 

this stage.

Monsanto further contends that it did not “specifically market[] PCBs for placement into 

the Bay” and that the alleged nuisance arises from third-party uses of PCBs several decades ago. 

MTD at 29. Yet, under California law, intervening acts by third parties do not break the causal 

chain where the acts are “reasonably foreseeable, and should have been anticipated.” Mosley v. 

Arden Farms Co., 26 Cal. 2d 213, 218 (1945). Here, the Cities allege that Monsanto was aware of 

the dangers of PCBs, the likelihood of widespread contamination, and the difficulties of disposal 

and containment—and that, despite those risks, Monsanto continued to promote the sale of PCBs

and continued to encourage third parties to use them in their products. Opp. at 22–24; San Jose 

FAC ¶¶ 90–96 (alleging that Monsanto was “aware that PCBs were causing widespread 

contamination of the environment, far beyond the areas of its use”), 105–06 (citing an internal 

Monsanto report that identified PCBs as “nearly global environmental contaminants,” but urged “a 

number of actions which must be undertaken to prolong the manufacture, sale and use of these 

particular Aroclors1”), and 107 (quoting an internal memo declaring that, despite the hazards of 

PCBs, Monsanto “can’t afford to lose one dollar of business”). The Cities’ allegations show that 

widespread PCB contamination was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of Monsanto’s actions. 

Monsanto cites Ninth Circuit authority in support of its view that the Cities cannot allege 

causation. MTD at 30–32. Its cases are distinguishable. First, in Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc., 403 F. 

Supp. 2d 1019 (W.D. Wash. 2005), aff’d, 503 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2007), Israeli forces used 

bulldozers to demolish Palestinian homes and kill a peace activist. Victims sued the bulldozer 

manufacturer. The court granted the manufacturer’s motion to dismiss because the causal 

 

1

“Aroclor” was Monsanto’s brand name for PCB compounds. San Jose FAC ¶ 3.

Case 5:16-cv-00071-EJD Document 87 Filed 02/03/17 Page 8 of 14
9

Case No.: 5:15-cv-03178-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINTS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

connection between the sale of the bulldozers and the Israelis’ actions was too remote to impose 

liability on the manufacturer. Id. at 1031–32. Here, however, the Cities plausibly allege that 

Monsanto knew that ordinary uses of PCBs were likely to cause widespread contamination. San 

Jose FAC ¶¶ 74–116. Second, in Ass’n of Wash. Pub. Hosp. Dists. v. Philip Morris Inc., 79 F. 

Supp. 2d 1219 (W.D. Wash. 1999), aff’d, 241 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2001), public hospital districts 

sued tobacco companies to recover unreimbursed healthcare costs arising from their treatment of 

tobacco-related diseases. The court held that the claims must be dismissed because they were 

“completely derivative of the personal injuries to” individual smokers. Id. at 1225, 1229–30. Here, 

however, the Cities’ claims are not derivative: the Cities claim that Monsanto injured them, not 

others. San Jose FAC ¶¶ 121–35.

Monsanto also cites cases in other jurisdictions that have found a lack of proximate cause 

in public nuisance claims against Monsanto for PCB pollution. Those cases, too, are 

distinguishable. First, in City of Bloomington v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 891 F.2d 611 (7th Cir. 

1989), Westinghouse used PCBs from Monsanto to manufacture electrical equipment. 

Westinghouse failed to follow Monsanto’s instructions for disposal of PCBs, leading to 

contamination of the city’s sewer systems. As a result, the court held that Westinghouse was 

“solely responsible for the nuisance created by not safely disposing of the product.” Id. at 614. In 

this case, by contrast, the Cities contend that Monsanto itself is directly responsible for the 

nuisance. The Cities allege that Monsanto’s disposal instructions were improper—not that 

intervening third parties failed to follow them. Second, in Town of Westport v. Monsanto Co., No. 

14-12041-DJC, 2015 WL 1321466 (D. Mass. Mar. 24, 2015), the municipal plaintiffs sued for 

PCB contamination from products that were solely within the plaintiffs’ control. Citing City of 

Bloomington, the court held that the plaintiffs alone were responsible for safely disposing of the 

products (e.g., light ballasts containing PCBs that were installed in schools). Id. at *3. Both Town 

of Westport and City of Bloomington involved specific instances of contamination from identified 

products under the control of parties other than Monsanto; here, however, the Cities allege 

Case 5:16-cv-00071-EJD Document 87 Filed 02/03/17 Page 9 of 14
10

Case No.: 5:15-cv-03178-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINTS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

widespread contamination of the Bay by Monsanto itself. Third, in Town of Lexington v. 

Pharmacia Corp., 133 F. Supp. 3d 258 (D. Mass. 2015), the plaintiffs did not allege a nuisance 

cause of action; rather, the plaintiffs’ claims were based on design defects, failure to warn, and 

deceptive trade practices. Id. at 260.

Accepting the Cities’ claims as true, the Court finds that the Cities have alleged a causal 

connection between Monsanto’s distribution of PCBs and contamination of the Bay.

iii. The Cities may bring public nuisance claims for damages.

Monsanto argues that the Cities cannot seek damages based on a public nuisance claim 

against a product manufacturer. MTD at 23–24. Such claims, Monsanto says, are “strongly 

disfavored in California” because courts view them as “improper end-run[s] around products 

liability laws.” Id. at 24; City of Modesto, 119 Cal. App. 4th at 39 (“the law of nuisance is not 

intended to serve as a surrogate for ordinary products liability”); City of San Diego v. U.S. 

Gypsum Co., 30 Cal. App. 4th 575, 585 (1994) (holding that where a city brought a public 

nuisance claim based on asbestos in its buildings, it had “essentially pleaded a products liability 

action, not a nuisance action”).

Public entities generally may not bring nuisance claims for damages against manufacturers 

who knowingly sold hazardous products or failed to alert customers to proper methods of disposal. 

County of Santa Clara, 137 Cal. App. 4th at 308–09; City of Modesto, 119 Cal. App. 4th at 41–42.

However, two exceptions exist: product manufacturers can be liable for damages under a public 

nuisance theory if they (1) “create or assist in creating a system that causes hazardous wastes to be

disposed of improperly” or (2) “instruct users to dispose of wastes improperly.” Id. at 40–41 

(emphasis added); see also id. at 41–42 (“we think a reasonable fact finder might conclude that 

defendants who manufactured equipment designed to discharge waste in a manner that will create 

a nuisance, or who specifically instructed a user to dispose of wastes in such a manner, could be 

found to have caused or permitted a discharge”).

As discussed above, the Cities have pled facts showing that Monsanto instructed users to 

Case 5:16-cv-00071-EJD Document 87 Filed 02/03/17 Page 10 of 14
11

Case No.: 5:15-cv-03178-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINTS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

improperly dispose of PCB waste. See San Jose FAC ¶ 108 (quoting testimony of a Monsanto 

employee who “reluctantly suggest[ed]” disposal of solid PCB waste in landfills, despite knowing 

that “the only effective method of disposing of PCBs was high temperature incineration”). Under 

the second City of Modesto exception, the Cities may pursue damages under a public nuisance 

theory.

Monsanto also argues that damages are unavailable because “[n]o court has ever awarded 

permit compliance costs as damages.” MTD at 17. The Cities respond that they “seek damages 

resulting from contamination” of their property, not permit compliance costs. Opp. at 25. “No 

California law,” they argue, “prevents a city from recovering damages because it also complies 

with certain regulations.” Id. The Court agrees that the existence of applicable environmental 

regulations does not preclude the Cities from pursuing a nuisance claim.

iv. The complaints do not establish that the Cities’ claims are time-barred.

Monsanto argues that the Cities’ claims are barred under the applicable three-year statute 

of limitations because Monsanto stopped manufacturing PCBs in 1979. MTD at 33; Cal. Code 

Civ. Proc. § 338(b). Any alleged misconduct, Monsanto argues, occurred no later than 1979; and, 

because the Cities began reducing PCB discharges in 2010 or earlier, the Cities must have known 

about the alleged harm for well over three years. Id. at 33–34.

However, dismissal based on a statute of limitations defense is only allowed where “the 

running of the statute is apparent from the face of the complaint.” Plascencia v. Lending 1st 

Mortg., 583 F. Supp. 2d 1090, 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2008). The extent of the Cities’ knowledge of PCB 

contamination, and whether that knowledge limits the available relief, cannot be decided on a 

motion to dismiss.

v. The Cities may seek punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.

Punitive damages are available when a defendant acts with “oppression, fraud, or malice.”

Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a). Contrary to Monsanto’s assertion, punitive damages are available even 

if Monsanto did not specifically intend to cause harm to Oakland, Berkeley, and San Jose. Id. § 

Case 5:16-cv-00071-EJD Document 87 Filed 02/03/17 Page 11 of 14
12

Case No.: 5:15-cv-03178-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINTS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

3294(c)(1) (defining “malice” to mean “conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause 

injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and 

conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others”) (emphasis added). The Cities have alleged 

facts showing that Monsanto may have acted maliciously. See, e.g., San Jose FAC ¶¶ 103–07 

(alleging that Monsanto concealed the hazards of PCBs while seeking to maximize profits from 

PCB sales).

Monsanto argues that the Cities cannot establish grounds for winning attorneys’ fees. 

However, at this stage of litigation, the Court cannot determine whether a basis for a fee award 

may arise.

B. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Under California law, parties seeking reimbursement for costs to comply with unfunded 

State mandates must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking relief from courts. Abelleira 

v. Dist. Ct. of App., 17 Cal. 2d 280, 292 (1941).

On August 29, 2016—one week after this Court granted Monsanto’s earlier motion to 

dismiss—the California Supreme Court issued an opinion holding that certain water permit 

obligations constitute an “unfunded State mandate,” not a federal mandate, and therefore the State 

of California must reimburse municipalities for the costs of compliance. Dep’t of Fin. v. Comm’n 

on State Mandates, 1 Cal. 5th 749 (2016). The scenario in Department of Finance was similar to 

the events underlying this case. Various municipalities operated storm sewer systems that 

discharged waste and pollutants. Id. at 754–755. A State agency issued a permit that required the 

operators to take steps to reduce contamination, including installing trash receptacles and 

conducting inspections of industrial and commercial sites. Id. Under California law, the State must

reimburse local governments when it creates rules that exceed the requirements of federal 

mandates. Id. at 762–64. The operators argued that they were entitled to reimbursement because 

the State’s pollution control mandate was stricter than the federal requirements. Id. at 760–61. The 

California Supreme Court agreed. Id. at 767–61.

Case 5:16-cv-00071-EJD Document 87 Filed 02/03/17 Page 12 of 14
13

Case No.: 5:15-cv-03178-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINTS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

In light of Department of Finance, Monsanto argues that the Cities cannot seek relief in 

this Court until they exhaust their administrative remedies to recover permit compliance costs 

from the State. MTD at 8–10; Reply at 3–5. According to Monsanto, the Cities are currently 

pursuing administrative actions before the Commission on State Mandates for reimbursement for 

the same compliance costs that they seek to recover from Monsanto in this case. Reply at 5 n.4. 

The Commission has requested additional briefing regarding the effect of Department of Finance

and has set a tentative hearing for May 2017. Id.

The Cities argue that Department of Finance does not apply because it did not involve 

reimbursement for damages caused by third-party tortfeasors. Opp. at 28. During the hearing on 

this motion, the Cities clarified that this case seeks relief for damages that are not at issue in the 

pending administrative proceedings. Jan. 26, 2017, Hr’g Tr. at 47–48. 

The Court finds that further argument is required to assess the impact of Department of 

Finance on this case. The Court will invite the parties to submit additional briefing on whether this 

case should be dismissed or stayed until the Cities have exhausted their administrative remedies.

IV. REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Under Fed. R. Evid. 201, the Court GRANTS Monsanto’s Request for Judicial Notice in 

Case No. 15-cv-3178 (San Jose), Dkt. Nos. 104 and 108; Case No. 15-cv-5152 (Oakland), Dkt. 

Nos. 82 and 86; and Case No. 16-cv-71 (Berkeley), Dkt. Nos. 72 and 76.

V. CONCLUSION

The Cities have stated a claim for public nuisance based on PCB contamination. The Court 

orders as follows:

1. Monsanto’s motions to dismiss are DENIED.

2. Monsanto may file a motion to dismiss or stay this case. Monsanto’s motion shall 

only address whether this case can proceed if the Cities have not exhausted their administrative 

remedies in light of Dep’t of Fin. v. Comm’n on State Mandates, 1 Cal. 5th 749 (2016). 

Monsanto’s motion shall be no longer than 15 pages of text. The Cities may file a joint opposition 

Case 5:16-cv-00071-EJD Document 87 Filed 02/03/17 Page 13 of 14
14

Case No.: 5:15-cv-03178-EJD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINTS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

that shall be no longer than 15 pages of text. Monsanto may file a reply that shall be no longer 

than 10 pages of text.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2017

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-00071-EJD Document 87 Filed 02/03/17 Page 14 of 14