Opinion ID: 752161
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Summary Adjudication of the Defendants' Liability Under State Law

Text: 34 The defendants first argue that the district court should not have adjudicated their liability under state law without giving them more time to conduct discovery. They rely on Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states as follows: 35 Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that the party cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify the party's opposition, the court may refuse the application for judgment or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just. 36 District courts have wide latitude in controlling discovery, and [their] rulings will not be overturned in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion. Volk v. D.A. Davidson & Co., 816 F.2d 1406, 1416-17 (9th Cir.1987) (quoting Foster v. Arcata Assoc., Inc., 772 F.2d 1453, 1467 (9th Cir.1985)). Nevertheless, a district court should continue a summary judgment motion upon a good faith showing by affidavit that the continuance is needed to obtain facts essential to preclude summary judgment. See McCormick v. Fund American Cos., Inc., 26 F.3d 869, 885 (9th Cir.1994). Thus, the defendants must show (1) that they have set forth in affidavit form the specific facts that they hope to elicit from further discovery, (2) that the facts sought exist, and (3) that these sought-after facts are essential to resist the summary judgment motion.
37 References in memoranda and declarations to a need for discovery do not qualify as motions under Rule 56(f). Brae Transp., Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, 790 F.2d 1439, 1443 (9th Cir.1986). Rather, Rule 56(f) requires litigants to submit affidavits setting forth the particular facts expected from further discovery. We have stated that [f]ailure to comply with the requirements of Rule 56(f) is a proper ground for denying discovery and proceeding to summary judgment. Id. 38 The record does not show whether the defendants ever actually submitted affidavits setting forth the particular evidence that they had hoped to elicit from further discovery. It appears from the record that the defendants only implicitly moved for more time to conduct discovery. For instance, when addressing the defendants' request for an extension of time, the district court did not refer to any specific motion by the defendants. Instead, the district court stated that the [d]efendants imply that they will request further time for discovery of the facts upon which plaintiff bases its motion. The defendants' apparent noncompliance with the terms of the statute provides an adequate ground for us to affirm the district court's denial of the defendants' request for more discovery. See id.
39 In any event, as we have emphasized, [d]enial of a Rule 56(f) application is proper where it is clear that the evidence sought is almost certainly nonexistent or is the object of pure speculation. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1018 (9th Cir.1991). 40 Here, the defendants wanted more time to discover the source of the groundwater contamination at Stanley Park. There is undisputed evidence, however, that workers at Victor Industries dumped trichloroethylene at the 20th Street Property for almost twenty years, that groundwater under the 20th Street Property is contaminated with trichloroethylene, that a well located between the 20th Street Property and the Louisiana Pacific Property is contaminated with trichloroethylene, that the Louisiana Pacific Property is not contaminated with trichloroethylene, and that the groundwater is flowing from the 20th Street Property toward Stanley Park. Given these uncontroverted facts, evidence that the 20th Street Property was not the source of contamination at Stanley Park is almost certainly nonexistent or is the object of pure speculation. Id.
41 Moreover, Rule 56(f) mandates that the party seeking the continuance must show that it lacks the 'facts essential' to resist the summary judgment motion. McCormick, 26 F.3d at 885. But the facts that the defendants hope to elicit during discovery are not essential to resisting California's summary adjudication motion. 42 The undisputed evidence that trichloroethylene contaminated the soil and groundwater at the 20th Street Property is sufficient to establish the defendants' liability under California law. To succeed on its summary adjudication motion, California need not prove that property other than the 20th Street Property suffered from contamination. Under California law, the pollution at the 20th Street Property constitutes a public nuisance and violates California's environmental laws. See Carter v. Chotiner, 210 Cal. 288, 291, 291 P. 577 (1930) (polluted water is a public nuisance); Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25358.3 (when a release or threatened release of hazardous substances endangers the environment, those responsible may have to take remedial action). Therefore, any additional data about contamination at property other than the 20th Street Property is not relevant to oppose the summary adjudication motion. See McCormick, 26 F.3d at 885 (concluding that additional testimony would have made no difference on summary judgment, because the allegedly omitted material would not have altered the total mix of information available to the plaintiff). 43 The defendants therefore have not satisfied the requirements of Rule 56(f). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the defendant's request to stay summary adjudication and continue discovery.
44 Next, the defendants argue that there are genuine issues of material fact about who polluted the groundwater at Stanley Park and other off-site locations. They also argue that California is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the defendants were not owners or operators of the 20th Street Property. In short, the defendants believe that California failed to meet the requirements for summary adjudication. 45 Summary adjudication shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). By its very terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Thus, the relevant inquiry in a summary adjudication motion is threefold: is there a genuine issue, is that issue about a material fact, and is the moving party entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
46 An issue of fact is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510. Of course, there must be sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. Id. at 249, 106 S.Ct. at 2511 (citing First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service, Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 1592, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968)). If the evidence is merely colorable ... or is not significantly probative, ... summary judgment may be granted. Id. at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. at 2511 (citations omitted). 47 The defendants contend that the district court erred by rejecting the testimony of Jay Lucas (their expert witness) and the contour maps that Lucas prepared. The contour maps allegedly depict a bull's eye of trichloroethylene contamination radiating from the Louisiana Pacific Property. According to the defendants, Lucas's maps and testimony support an inference that the Louisiana Pacific Property was the source of the contamination detected at Stanley Park. 48 The Lucas evidence does create a dispute-or, in the words of the summary adjudication statute, an issue-between the parties: Lucas's evidence suggests that the Louisiana Pacific Property contaminated the water at Stanley Park, and California's evidence suggests that the 20th Street Property contaminated the water at Stanley Park. 49 Merely showing that there is a dispute, however, is not enough. The defendants must show that there is a genuine dispute. This they have failed to do. 50 In the abstract, the defendants are right. A juror who accepted Lucas's maps as accurate could conclude that the contamination was originating from the Louisiana Pacific Property and was becoming more diluted as it spread outwards. But this case does not arise in the abstract. It arises in the context of undisputed facts, many of which mandate a different interpretation of Lucas's maps: namely, that the contamination flowed downhill from the 20th Street Property and accumulated at the bottom of the incline, which happened to be at the edge of the Louisiana Pacific Property. 51 Given the following facts, no reasonable juror could conclude that the Louisiana Pacific Property, rather than the 20th Street Property, was the source of the contamination at Stanley Park: (1) From 1963 to 1980, workers at Victor Industries used large quantities of trichloroethylene as a degreaser at the 20th Street Property and dumped it on the ground there; (2) scientists detected trichloroethylene contamination in the soil and in the water at the 20th Street Property; (3) water flows from higher ground to lower ground; (4) the Louisiana Pacific Property is downgradient from the 20th Street Property; (5) a well located between the two properties-in other words, downgradient from the 20th Street Property and upgradient from the Louisiana Pacific Property-is contaminated with trichloroethylene; and (6) testing of various sources of contamination at the Louisiana Pacific Property revealed no trichloroethylene. 3 Thus, if Lucas's maps were accurate and there really was more trichloroethylene near the Louisiana Pacific Property than there was away from it, then the trichloroethylene must have flowed from the 20th Street Property and accumulated at the edge of the Louisiana Pacific Property. No other conclusion is reasonable given the undisputed facts of this case. Accordingly, there is no genuine dispute about which property polluted the water at Stanley Park and the other off-site locations.
52 Besides failing to show a genuine dispute, the defendants fail to show that the parties dispute material facts. The defendants list many facts that the parties dispute, but as the defendants themselves point out, all of the disputed facts pertain to how the trichloroethylene ended up at Stanley Park and other off-site locations. As shown below, the facts pertaining to off-site pollution are not material to California's summary adjudication motion. 53 Substantive law determines which facts are material. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510. Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted. Id. 54 The relevant substantive law here is California nuisance law and California environmental law. Under these laws, polluted water is a public nuisance, Carter v. Chotiner, 210 Cal. 288, 291, 291 P. 577 (1930), and any person who creates or helps create and maintain a nuisance is liable for its abatement and damages. Selma Pressure Treating Co., Inc. v. Osmose Wood Preserving Co., 221 Cal.App.3d 1601, 1619-20, 271 Cal.Rptr. 596 (1990). Furthermore, when a release or threatened release of hazardous substances endangers the environment, those responsible may be ordered to take remedial action. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25358.3. 55 Thus, to state a claim under California law, California need not prove that trichloroethylene migrated from the 20th Street Property to other areas. It is enough that the water under the 20th Street Property itself was contaminated. In other words, the polluted water at the 20th Street Property created a public nuisance and endangered the environment. The cause of the trichloroethylene contamination at Stanley Park and other off-site areas is therefore immaterial to California's state law claims.
56 Given that there is no genuine dispute about any material fact, the defendants can defeat the summary adjudication order only if the facts do not entitle California to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) (summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law). The defendants argue that California is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the defendants were not owners or operators of the 20th Street Property at the time that hazardous chemicals were disposed there. 57 This argument presumably goes to the interlocutory CERCLA-liability issue, over which we have no appellate jurisdiction. As mentioned above, it is CERCLA-not state law-that imposes liability on owners and operators of facilities at which hazardous substances were dumped. 42 U.S.C. § 9607. 58 Unlike CERCLA, California law imposes liability on any person who maintains a nuisance-regardless of whether that person has an interest in the land. Hardin v. Sin Claire, 115 Cal. 460, 463-64, 47 P. 363 (1896) (holding administrator of an estate liable for maintaining a nuisance even though it was the decedent who had originally created the nuisance). As executors of Muscat's estate and trustees over Muscat's trusts, the appellants maintained a nuisance by administering property where hazardous chemicals were polluting the water. Therefore, the appellants are liable under California law regardless of whether they were owners or operators under CERCLA. Accordingly, the district court properly found that California was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the state law claims. 59 California has met the requirements for summary adjudication. The district court therefore did not err when it found as a matter of law that the defendants were liable under California's nuisance and environmental laws.