San Diego Unified Port District v. Monsanto Company
3:15-cv-00578
S.D. Cal.Nov 22, 2017Background
- The City of San Diego sued Monsanto (and related entities) alleging Monsanto manufactured PCBs, knew they were toxic and would spread, instructed improper disposal, and that PCB contamination has entered San Diego Bay and the City’s municipal stormwater/MS4 system.
- The City filed a Second Amended Complaint asserting a single cause of action: continuing public nuisance (non‑representative) seeking damages and abatement for injury to City property (stormwater system, captured stormwater, Pueblo water rights, and tidelands/trust interests).
- Monsanto moved to dismiss the SAC on grounds that the City lacks standing/property interest, California law bars non‑representative nuisance damages (products‑liability disguise), the claim is time‑barred, and the City must exhaust administrative remedies before the Commission on State Mandates.
- The Court took judicial notice of Regional Water Board permits, test claims, and related public records and heard argument; parties briefed standing, nuisance law, statute of limitations, and administrative‑exhaustion issues.
- The Court found the SAC adequately alleges a property interest in the municipal stormwater system injuriously affected by PCBs and that Monsanto’s alleged conduct could have assisted creation of the public nuisance; it denied dismissal on statute of limitations and declined to require administrative exhaustion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / property interest to bring non‑representative public nuisance | City: alleges ownership/operation of MS4, capture/use of stormwater, Pueblo rights, and injury to stormwater facilities | Monsanto: City lacks cognizable property interest in Bay/uncaptured water; alleged costs are regulatory, not tort recoverable; AB statutes don't apply | Held: City sufficiently alleged property interest in municipal stormwater system injuriously affected; standing pleaded adequately |
| Whether non‑representative public nuisance damages are barred as disguised products liability | City: claims are aimed at remediation of a public health hazard and retrofit damages to public property | Monsanto: County of Santa Clara bars such damages as products‑liability in disguise | Held: Distinguishable from County of Santa Clara; City pleaded facts showing Monsanto assisted creation of nuisance and property injury, so non‑representative damages claim survives |
| Statute of limitations (permanent vs. continuing nuisance; 3‑yr bar) | City: alleges continuing nuisance; successive actions allowed; factual question precludes dismissal | Monsanto: claim is permanent nuisance and time‑barred under CCP § 338(b) | Held: Not appropriate to dismiss on statute at Rule 12(b)(6); timeliness not apparent on face of SAC |
| Administrative exhaustion before Commission on State Mandates | Monsanto: overlap with permit compliance costs means Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate reimbursement claims; prudential exhaustion/stay warranted | City: tort claim for nuisance is not an administrative remedy and Commission cannot award tort damages; exhaustion not statutorily required | Held: No statutory administrative‑exhaustion requirement bars this tort suit; prudential exhaustion not warranted and court declines stay/dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard and dismissal principles)
- Selma Pressure Treating Co. v. Osmose Wood Preserving Co., 271 Cal. Rptr. 596 (Ct. App. 1990) (public entity with property interest may pursue tort remedies for public nuisance)
- County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 313 (Ct. App. 2006) (limits on non‑representative nuisance damages as disguised products liability)
- City of Modesto Redev. Agency v. Superior Court, 13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 865 (Ct. App. 2004) (liability when defendant creates or assists in creation of disposal system causing improper hazardous waste disposal)
- Department of Finance v. Commission on State Mandates, 378 P.3d 356 (Cal. 2016) (Commission’s role adjudicating claims for reimbursement of state‑mandated local costs)
- Team Enters., LLC v. W. Inv. Real Estate Trust, 647 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2011) (assisting creation of nuisance theory)
- Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) (judicial notice of public records on Rule 12(b)(6) motions)