Alexander v. Exxon Mobil
219 Cal. App. 4th 1236
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Exxon operated Athens Tank Farm (ATF); site contaminated soil/groundwater decades prior to housing complex built on it (Ujima Village).
- Ujima residents sued in 2010–2011 for personal injuries and property damages from contamination; hundreds joined, later consolidated into TAC with 800+ Cottle declarations.
- Trial court sustained demurrers for about 100 residents, holding their notices (2007) put them on inquiry notice, and dismissed others on various grounds; leave to amend and a Cottle order were used to require discovery-type proof.
- Fourth Amended Complaint (2012) incorporated Cottle declarations describing discovery timing (2008–2011) and alleged health risks from contaminants; some residents attended 2007–2008 meetings stating contamination posed no risk.
- Appellants challenge trial court’s legal conclusions on accrual under CCP 340.8 (discovery rule) and government-claims deadlines; court reverses in part, remanding for factual determinations as to discovery/new injuries.
- Dispositive posture: 58 appellants appeal demurrers; 43 abandon County claims; Johnson appellants preserve claims for injuries at their current residence; some property-damage claims against County survive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did 2007 notices trigger discovery-rule accrual as a matter of law? | Not necessarily; facts may show no reasonable person would suspect harm. | 2007 notices plus meetings put plaintiffs on inquiry notice, triggering accrual. | No; discovery is a question of fact at this stage; not decided as a matter of law. |
| Are Johnson appellants' government-claim pleadings timely and preserved against the County? | Johnsons preserved claims for injuries at current residence. | Government-claims deadlines bar some or all claims. | Johnson appellants preserved their claims for injuries at their current site; other claims limited to property-related issues. |
| Do CAMSI/Mangini preclude delayed accrual for off-site personal injuries? | CAMSI/Mangini concern real-property injury, not off-site personal injury. | These cases require accrual at early notices. | Not controlling for off-site personal injury; not dispositive of accrual here. |
Key Cases Cited
- CAMSI IV v. Hunter Technology Corp., 230 Cal.App.3d 1525 (Cal.App.3d 1991) (discovery and accrual in contamination cases involving real property)
- Mangini v. Aerojet-General Corp., 230 Cal.App.3d 1125 (Cal.App.3d 1991) (noting accrual when property contamination information arises, real-property claims)
- Slovensky v. Friedman, 142 Cal.App.4th 1518 (Cal.App.4th 2006) (toxic mold; timely discovery considerations for personal injuries)
- Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal.4th 797 (Cal. 2005) (discovery rule; inquiry notice standard for accrual)
- Broberg v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 171 Cal.App.4th 912 (Cal.App.4th 2009) (whether discovery rule applied at pleading stage or as a matter of legal question)
- Call v. Kezirian, 135 Cal.App.3d 189 (Cal.App.3d 1982) (reasonableness of delayed discovery; inference-based determinations)
- Cottle v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.App.4th 1367 (Cal.App.4th 1992) (demonstrates limits of Cottle-style declarations at pleading stage)
- Aryeh v. Canon Busi. Solutions, Inc., 55 Cal.4th 1185 (Cal. 2013) (discussion of discovery rule and accrual timing)