213 Cal. App. 4th 1511
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Soco West, Inc. sought to move cleanup oversight from Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.5 to Chapter 6.8 under §25187(b)(1)(A).
- DTSC declined Soco’s written requests to transfer, and denied reconsideration of those requests.
- Soco sued for mandamus and declaratory relief; DTSC cross-claimed for injunctive and declaratory relief.
- The trial court granted Soco judgment on the pleadings, concluding §25187(b)(1)(A) mandated the transfer after Soco’s written request.
- The court later found the order’s phrasing erroneous and amended it to reflect a transfer of oversight.
- As modified, the court affirmed the judgment with DTSC’s costs on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §25187(b)(1)(A) require a transfer upon written request? | Soco: mandatory transfer upon written request. | DTSC: discretion to decide whether to transfer. | Mandatory transfer required. |
| Does the legislative history support a mandatory transfer when requested? | History shows responsible party chooses the path; DTSC lacks discretion. | History supports DTSC flexibility in selecting the cleanup program. | History confirms the mandatory-transfer reading. |
| Should the judgment language reflect transfer of oversight or the action to take corrective action? | Language correctly instructed DTSC to transfer oversight. | Subpart (A) authorizes an order to take action, not transfer oversight. | Judgment modified to say take corrective action pursuant to Chapter 6.8. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hopp v. City of Los Angeles, 183 Cal.App.4th 713 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (de novo standard for judgments on pleadings; statutory interpretation guidance)
- Nolan v. City of Anaheim, 33 Cal.4th 335 (Cal. 2004) (look to words of statute for legislative intent)
- Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County Union High School Dist., 29 Cal.4th 911 (Cal. 2003) (statutory interpretation and legislative history considerations)
- Canister v. Emergency Ambulance Service, Inc., 160 Cal.App.4th 388 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (enrolled bill report as aid to ascertain legislative intent)
- McCarther v. Pacific Telesis Group, 48 Cal.4th 104 (Cal. 2010) (surplusage avoidance and interpretation of precise statutory language)
- EnPalm, LLC v. Teitler, 162 Cal.App.4th 770 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (precedent on interpreting statutory language and legislative history)
- Ameron Internat. Corp. v. Insurance Co. of State of Pennsylvania, 50 Cal.4th 1370 (Cal. 2010) (context for superfund and environmental liability framework)