City of Pomona v. Sqm North America Corporation
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8308
9th Cir.2014Background
- Pomona sued SQM North America Corp. alleging SQMNA’s Chilean nitrate fertilizer caused groundwater perchlorate contamination.
- A Daubert hearing excluded Pomona’s isotope expert Dr. Sturchio from testifying about stable isotope analysis (CSIA) as a source-determining method.
- District court granted in limine exclusion of Dr. Sturchio’s opinions; parties stipulated to a conditional dismissal to facilitate appeal.
- California regulatory framework includes MCL of six ppb and varying Action Levels; Pomona acted to reduce perchlorate after MCL adoption in 2007.
Pomona sought remediation costs for groundwater contamination; district court denied summary judgment for SQMNA on economic loss rule and statute of limitations; court of appeals reversed exclusion and remanded.
The panel held that expert testimony under Rule 702 may be admitted if reliable and relevant, and that factual disputes about methodology weight are for the jury rather than the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dr. Sturchio’s stable isotope analysis is admissible under Rule 702/Daubert. | Sturchio’s CSIA is scientifically valid, peer-reviewed, and properly disclosed. | CSIA is unreliably novel, insufficiently tested, and the reference database is too limited. | Exclusion reversed; CSIA admitted for trial. |
| Whether district court erred by requiring EPA certification of CSIA for admissibility. | EPA certification not required; method supported by peer-reviewed sources. | Lack of EPA certification undermines reliability. | Error to require EPA certification; admissible. |
| Whether the reference database for isotopic sources is adequate to establish a dominant Chilean source. | Database size and cross-lab calibration support Atacama sourcing. | Database may be incomplete; reliability disputed. | Jury to evaluate weight of evidence. |
| Whether Pomona’s damages are barred by the economic loss rule. | Water damage to groundwater is separate property harm; not economic loss from product itself. | Pollution damages fall within economic loss rule. | Not barred; question for trial. |
| Whether Pomona’s claims are time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations. | Appreciable harm occurred when actionable contamination began or Actively required remediation. | Pre-2007 testing/reporting ticks the limitations. | Genuine disputes remain; not time-barred as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (gateskeeper standard for admissibility of expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (flexible Daubert reliability standards applied to all experts)
- Daubert II, 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995) (court may consider multiple reliability factors; not all factors required)
- Primiano v. Cook, 598 F.3d 558 (9th Cir. 2010) (flexible, case-specific reliability inquiry; credibility for jury to weigh)
- Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc., 740 F.3d 457 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc; reliability and gatekeeping responsibilities discussed)
- Chischilly v. United States, 30 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 1994) (admissibility; methodological concerns; adversarial testing in weight of evidence)
- Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 1997) (reliability can rest on peer review and inter-lab calibration)
- General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1997) (opinion not supported by underlying data may be excluded)