|
- EPA -
A plaintiff’s claims based on its interpretation of how the Environmental Protection Agency will apply an administrative rule in conducting risk determinations do not present a justiciable controversy because the plaintiff’s theory of injury is too speculative. Language in the preamble to an agency rule is not a final agency action, and thus is not reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act. Assuming the Toxic Substances Control Act requires the EPA to consider all conditions of use within the scope of a chemical substance’s risk evaluation, the provisions of the Risk Evaluation Rule challenged by the plaintiffs do not evince any contrary intent on the part of EPA. The EPA’s categorical exclusion of legacy uses and associated disposals from the definition of conditions of use is contradicted by the Toxic Substances Control Act, but the EPA’s exclusion of legacy disposals is not.
Safer Chemicals v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - filed Nov. 14, 2019
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 17-72260
Full text click here >
- Hazardous Waste -
A parent corporation has direct liability for the remediation of a subsidiary’s hazardous waste if it participated in activities specifically related to pollution; it need not have eccentric control over either compliance with regulations for hazardous waste or its disposal if the parent was in control over the activity resulting in pollution.
Atlantic Richfield v. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board - filed Sept. 13, 2019, publication ordered Oct. 15, 2019, Third District
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 3152
Full text click here >
- Land Use -
An initiative adopted by a city council created an impermissible conflict within the city’s general plan by amending the open-space element to prohibit residential development that the land use element continued to allow; a court may direct a city to correct inconsistencies in its general plan when the inconsistency is created by an initiative amending an existing plan.
Denham v. City of Richmond (Sierra Club) - filed Oct. 25, 2019, First District, Div. Four
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 3270
Full text click here >
- Tax Lien -
The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration’s asserted tax lien against a property was a concrete and actual interest giving it standing to challenge a competing claim to the proceeds of the sale of the property. Each claimant in a dispute under Civil Code §2924j has their own burden to prove each fact essential to their claim. A parcel number alone was not enough to resolve an ambiguity in a trust deed where the parcel number did not describe the property’s actual, physical location.
MTC Financial v. California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (Mehta) - filed Oct. 31, 2019, Fourth District, Div. Three
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 3411
Full text click here >
- Tax Sale -
A county that has sold a delinquent taxpayer’s property does not owe a fiduciary duty to the property owner; the owner has no right or property interest in any return on investment or interest the county may have earned on the excess proceeds from selling his property at a tax sale.
Hodges v. County of Placer - filed Oct. 29, 2019, Third District
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 3336
Full text click here >
|