Navarro v. Exxon Mobil Corporation
23-3274
9th Cir.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Jose Navarro sued defendants alleging trespass (from soil and groundwater contamination and soil vapor) and nuisance relating to contamination from a refinery.
- Navarro brought these claims both individually and on behalf of putative classes (Ground and Air Subclasses).
- The district court dismissed Navarro’s individual trespass claim on the pleadings, granted summary judgment to defendants on the nuisance claim, and decertified both subclasses.
- Navarro appealed the dismissal of his trespass claim, the summary judgment on his nuisance claims, and the decertification of the subclasses.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decisions de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dismissal of Trespass Claim | Trespass claim covers soil, groundwater contamination, and vapor intrusion. | Navarro only alleged soil vapor; not enough for trespass. | Reversed; broad contamination theory could support trespass. |
| Decertification of Ground Subclass | Certification should stand as trespass claim is broad. | Decertification warranted if claim is too narrow. | Vacated and remanded. Decertification based on an overly narrow reading. |
| Summary Judgment on Nuisance | Evidence of health risks from contamination shows substantial harm. | Health risks not shown to be substantial actual damage under law. | Affirmed; Navarro did not show substantial harm. |
| Decertification of Air Subclass | Challenge to decertification should be addressed. | Navarro cannot represent class if individual claim fails. | Did not reach; moot due to failure of individual claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Newhall Land & Farming Co. v. Super. Ct., 23 Cal. Rptr. 2d 377 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (soil and groundwater contamination can support trespass claims)
- KFC W., Inc. v. Meghrig, 28 Cal. Rptr. 2d 676 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (trespass claims can be based on environmental contamination)
- San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. Super. Ct., 13 Cal. 4th 893 (Cal. 1996) (nuisance requires substantial, actual harm)
- Lierboe v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 350 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (failed individual claim prevents class representation)