Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08104/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08104-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Anna L. Davis, an unmarried woman;

Ronald E. Gerhart and Shirley M. Gerhart,

husband and wife; Lois D. Pike, an

unmarried woman; Linda Schwab, an

unmarried woman; Keith R. Touw and

Connie Touw, husband and wife; Margaret

Valenta, an unmarried woman; Richard

Wasmer, an umarried man; James Helms

and Caroline Helms, husband and wife,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Lowe’s HIW, Inc., a corporation; John

Does I-V, Jane Does I-V, Black

Corporations I-V, White Partnerships, I-V,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-08104-PCT-FJM

ORDER

Plaintiff homeowners bring this action against defendant Lowe’s HIW, Inc. for

nuisance, trespass, and negligence arising out of the construction and operation of a home

improvement warehouse in Prescott, Arizona. The court has before it defendant’s motion for

partial summary judgment (doc. 71) and plaintiffs’ response (doc. 73).

In 2007, defendant began building a Lowe’s store in Prescott. Due in part to the

failure of an earth wall bordering an adjacent subdivision, the construction and ensuing

operation of the store subjected plaintiffs to noise, dust, and fumes. Several plaintiffs have

Case 3:08-cv-08104-FJM Document 74 Filed 11/18/09 Page 1 of 2
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

- 2 -

also mentioned house calls by individuals involved with the construction and trucks using

a driveway to turn around. Plaintiffs seek damages and an injunction due to these events,

which they claim constitute a nuisance and a trespass. They also claim injury caused by the

negligent construction of the wall.

Defendant now moves for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs’ trespass and

negligence counts. It contends that plaintiffs’ complaints either sound only in nuisance and

not in trespass or are insubstantial. And it contends that plaintiffs cannot make out a prima

facie case of negligence. Plaintiffs do not oppose defendant’s motion.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED GRANTING defendant’s motion for partial

summary judgment (doc. 71). Summary judgment is granted on plaintiffs’ trespass and

negligence counts. Plaintiffs’ nuisance count remains.

DATED this 18th day of November, 2009.

Case 3:08-cv-08104-FJM Document 74 Filed 11/18/09 Page 2 of 2