Preview
1 Andrew M. Morrow, III, Esq. - State Bar No. 128300
Sako Demirjian, Esq. - State Bar No. 348609
2 DOWNTOWN L.A. LAW GROUP
910 S. Broadway
Los Angeles, CA 90015
3 Tel: (213) 389-3765
Fax: (877) 389-2775
4 Email: Sako @downtownlalaw.com
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
Bertha Leticia Guerra Depaez
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
8
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
9
Downtown L.A. Law Group
Los Angeles, CA 90015
10
910 S. Broadway
BERTHA LETICIA GUERRA DEPAEZ, an Case No.:
individual,
11
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:
12 Plaintiff,
13 1. PUBLIC NUISANCE
v.
2. PRIVATE NUISANCE
14
3. NEGLIGENCE/GROSS NEGLIGENCE
CHIQUITA CANYON, LLC; WASTE
15 CONNECTIONS OF CALIFORNIA, INC.;
WASTE CONNECTIONS MANAGEMENT
16 SERVICES, INC.; WASTE CONNECTIONS US,
INC; and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
17
Defendants.
18
19 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
20
21
1
22
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
23
1 COMES NOW the Plaintiff, BERTHA LETICIA GUERRA DEPAEZ, and for
2 causes of action against the Defendants, complains and alleges as follows:
3 1. The relevant events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims and the conduct of the defendants
4 occurred in Los Angeles County and Venue is proper under California Code of Civil
5
Procedure § 395.
6 2. All of the facts and circumstances complained of herein occurred within the State
7 of California under circumstances that convey this Superior Court with jurisdiction over the
8 matter.
9 3. At all times relevant, Plaintiff BERTHA LETICIA GUERRA DEPAEZ, an
Downtown L.A. Law Group
Los Angeles, CA 90015
10 individual, was and is resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
910 S. Broadway
11 4. At all times relevant, CHIQUITA CANYON, LLC; WASTE CONNECTIONS OF
12 CALIFORNIA, INC.; WASTE CONNECTIONS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.;
13 WASTE CONNECTIONS US, INC.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive were and are corporations
or other business entities doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
14
15 5. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise
16 of Defendants DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore, sues
said defendants by such fictitious names under Code of Civil Procedure § 474. Plaintiffs are
17
informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the defendants herein designated as a
18
DOE is negligently responsible in some manner for the events and happenings alleged herein
19
and legally caused the injuries and damages alleged below.
20
21
2
22
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
23
1 6. At the time of identifying any DOE 1-100 Government Defendants, Plaintiff will
2 have exhausted all administrative remedies as required under Government Code Section 910
et. seq.
3
4 7. At all times herein mentioned, each defendant was acting in the course and scope of
5
her employment with the other defendants. Defendants are therefore vicariously liable for the
acts of each of the remaining defendants herein.
6
7 8. In addition, each defendant was at all times acting as the ostensible agent of the
remaining defendants, and was doing so at the behest of and with the approval of those
8
defendants. At all times herein relevant, Plaintiff reasonably and without negligence relied on
9
Downtown L.A. Law Group
the representations made by the defendants about the agency and employment of each of the
Los Angeles, CA 90015
10
910 S. Broadway
remaining defendants.
11
12
INTRODUCTION
13
9. Plaintiff herein is owner and resident of that certain property located at 28716 Calle
14
Plata, Valencia, CA 91354. Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants Chiquita Canyon,
15
LLC, Waste Connections of California, Inc., Waste Connections Management Services, Inc.,
16
and Waste Connections US, Inc. (hereinafter "Landfill Defendants"). Defendants own,
17
operate, manage, maintain and control the Chiquita Canyon Landfill which releases
18
poisonous pollutants, air contaminants, water contaminants and noxious odors, all of which
19 have caused and continue to cause injury to Plaintiff and its property through their continuing
20 negligence, nuisance and trespass. All the while the Defendant DOES 1-100 who govern and
21
3
22
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
23
1 regulate the Landfill (hereafter Government Defendants) have allowed such acts to continue
2 to occur despite Defendants ongoing violations of regulations and other related laws.
3 10. The Chiquita Canyon Landfill was first approved for a land reclamation project by
4 the Los Angeles County Planning Commission on December 21, 1965.
5 11. The Landfill site lies in extreme proximity to private residences, government
6 buildings, centers of commerce and educational facilities.
7 12. On March 2, 1977, the Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 1010 for
8
continued operation and maintenance of a waste disposal facility and land reclamation
9 project and related facilities. On November 24, 1982, the Commission approved Conditional
Downtown L.A. Law Group
Los Angeles, CA 90015
10 Use Permit 1809 for expansion of the existing landfill with Class II and Class III disposal
910 S. Broadway
11 sites. The Board of Supervisors approved Conditional Use Permit 89-081 on May 20, 1997,
for continued operation of a Class III landfill, after an appeal of the Commission's approval
12
of Conditional Use Permit 89-081.
13
13. Conditional Use Permit 89-081 was scheduled to expire on November 24, 2019, or
14
when the landfill reached a waste disposal limit of 23,000,000 tons, whichever occurred first.
15
16 14. In or about 1997 the Landfill Defendants signed agreement with the Val Verde Civic
17 Association by which they agreed to close the Landfill no later than 2019.
18 15. In or about 2014, the Landfill Defendants applied for the current Conditional Use
19 Permit with the County’s Department of Regional Planning ("Regional Planning”) to
20 continue the operation and expansion of the landfill. The proposed expansion included an
21
4
22
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
23
1 additional 400 acres and sought a 100% increase in waste intake. The expansion also
2 required the removal of historic trees in the area.
3 16. At the time, the Defendants were also required to map the increased risk of cancer for
4 the surrounding area.
5 17. The Landfill Defendants requested that the DOES 1-100 Government Defendants
6 waive County Code Section 22.04.110 to allow the continued operation of the landfill during
7 the pendency of the Conditional Use Permit with the alleged goal to protect the health and
safety of the Plaintiffs.
8
9 18. DOES 1-100 Government Defendants granted the requested waiver on March 17,
Downtown L.A. Law Group
Los Angeles, CA 90015
2016, subject to interim operating conditions. The interim operating conditions purported to
10
910 S. Broadway
ensure that the Landfill Defendants continue to comply with Conditional Use Permit 89-081
11
conditions, with the exception of the 23,000,000-tonnage limit. Instead, the landfill, under the
12
waiver, could not exceed the 29,400,000- ton-threshold analyzed in the Environmental
13
Impact Report ("EIR") for Conditional Use Permit 89-081. The waiver allowed the Landfill
14
operations to continue on a temporary basis until the earlier of the following: (a) a final
15 action is taken on the Project (withdrawal, approval, or denial); (b) July 31, 2017; or (c)
16 revocation of the waiver by the County.
17 19. In June 2016, the landfill reached and exceeded the 23,000,000 tonnage limit, but it
18
continued to operate because the County had granted the waiver, and associated conditions.
19
20. An environmental impact report was prepared which indicated that air quality and
20
greenhouse gas emissions could not be completely mitigated.
21
5
22
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
23
1 21. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared to mitigate Project
2 impacts to geology and hydrology, surface water drainage, biological resources, cultural and
3
paleontological resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change.
4
22. The County claims that with implementation of mitigation measures, environmental
5
impacts to the Project will be reduced to less than significant levels, except for impacts to air
6
quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change.
7
23. However, it was and is clear that impacts to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions
8
and climate change could not be mitigated. As a result of those remaining significant
9
Downtown L.A. Law Group
unavoidable impacts, CEQA Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations
Los Angeles, CA 90015
10
910 S. Broadway
("CEQA Findings and SOC") were prepared for the Project.
11
24. The community contacted Government Defendants, including the County’s Regional
12
Planning office and the Landfill Defendants in writing, by phone, and gave oral testimony
13
expressing serious concerns about the continued operation of the Landfill’s impacts to public
14
health, air quality, odors, traffic, and environmental justice issues, biological resources,
15
greenhouse gases. The Val Verde Civic Association also argued that the Landfill Defendants
16 were attempting to breach conditions of the Conditional Use Permit 89-081 conditions, and
17 the 1997 agreement between the Val Verde Civic Association and the Landfill Defendants.
18 25. On July 25, 2017, the County approved another conditional use permit allowing the
19
Defendant’s to expand and operate for another 30 years. The expansion included increasing
20 the waste footprint from 257 acres to 400 acres, increasing the maximum elevation from
21
6
22
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
23
1 1,430 to 1,573 feet and increasing the daily disposal limits from 6,000 tons per day to 12,000
2 tons per day.
3 26. Section 12 of the Conditional Use Permit required that the Landfill operate in
4
compliance with conditions and all applicable laws, statutes and ordinances. Failure to
5 comply with any conditions or applicable laws, statutes and ordinances were clearly stated to
6 violate the Conditional Use Permit.
7 27. Under Section 15 of the Conditional Use Permit, Regional Planning can order
8
cessation of the Conditional Use Permit if it is determined that it is necessary for the health,
9 safety, and/or welfare of the County’s residents or the environment.
Downtown L.A. Law Group
Los Angeles, CA 90015
10
910 S. Broadway
28. Under Section 20 of the Conditional Use Permit any person violating a provision of
11
this Permit would be guilty of a misdemeanor, pursuant to Section 22.60.340 of the County
12
Code. Authority was also granted to revoke or modify this Permit if the Commission or
13
Hearing Officer finds that the conditions have been violated, or that this grant has been
14
exercised so as to be detrimental to the public's health or safety, or so as to be a nuisance, or
15
as otherwise authorized pursuant to Chapter 22.56, Part 13, of the County Code.
16
29. Multiple sections of the current Conditional Use Permit make it clear that the facility
17
is not in compliance with the Permit if the Landfill allows odors to become a nuisance in
18
adjacent residential and business areas.
19
30. Under Sections 63-65 of the Conditional Use Permit the Landfill is required not to be
20
21
7
22
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
23
1 a nuisance to the community and to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management
2 District’s requirements.
3 31. Regional Planning can order cessation of the Conditional Use Permit if it is
4
determined that it is necessary for the health, safety, and/or welfare of the County’s residents
5 or the environment.
6
32. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) is under a
7
legal obligation to enforce air pollution regulations. These regulations are primarily meant to
8
ensure that the surrounding (or ambient) air meets federal and state air quality standards.
9
Downtown L.A. Law Group
33. On or about February 27, 2023, the South Coast Air Quality Management District
Los Angeles, CA 90015
10
910 S. Broadway
issued the Landfill Defendants a Notice of Violation under 42400(a) for failing to provide
11 laboratory analysis and Draeger tube reading for landfill gas from the preceding twelve
12 months in an Excel spreadsheet as required.
13
34. On or about April 6, 2023, the South Coast Air Quality Management District issued
14 the Landfill Defendants a Notice of Violation under 1150.1(d)(3) for failure to operate the
15 gas collection and control systems so that there are not leaks that exceed 500 ppmv TOC
16 measured as methane at any component under positive pressure.
17 35. The South Coast Air Quality Management District is responsible for taking reports of
18 nuisance, confirming these reports and issuing Notices of Violation where there is a violation
19 of the law.
20 36. Under Rule 402 – Nuisance, “A person shall not discharge from any source
21
8
22
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
23
1 whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury,
2 detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or
which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or
3
which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.
4
5
37. Pursuant to the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s policies and practices
to establish a violation of Rule 402, the agency must receive three calls to their hotline, 800
6
CUT SMOG, within an hour to dispatch an investigator. If an investigator then is able to
7
confirm the complaint with the members of the public who complained and the source of the
8
complaint and at least 6 complaints can be verified in a 24-hour period, then a Notice of
9
Violation is issued.
Downtown L.A. Law Group
Los Angeles, CA 90015
10
910 S. Broadway
38. On May 17, 2023, the South Coast Air Quality Management District issued the first
11
Notice of Violation against Chiquita Canyon for public nuisance in violation of the agency’s
12
Rule 402 and California Health & Safety Code Section 41700.
13
39. In May, South Coast Air Quality Management District began receiving hundreds of
14
odor complaints that Agency investigators traced back to the landfill.
15
16 40. As a result of its investigation, South Coast Air Quality Management District found
17 that the landfill was experiencing elevated levels of sulfur, specifically dimethyl sulfide, in
18 its landfill gas—which its gas treatment system is not designed to remove. The underlying
cause has been found to be caused by a subsurface chemical reaction.
19
20 41. On May 18, 2023, June 25, 2023, June 27, 2023, June 28, 2023, June 29, 2023, June
30, 2023, July 2, 2023, July 3, 2023, July 7, 2023, July 10, 2023, July 11, 2023, July 13,
21
9
22
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
23
1 2023, July 15, 2023, July 16, 2023, July 17, 2023, July 18, 2023, July 19, 2023, July 20,
2 2023, July 21, 2023, July 22, 2023, July 23, 2023, July 24, 2023, July 26, 2023, July 27,
2023, July 28, 2023, July 29, 2023, July 30, 2023, July 31, 2023, August 1, 2023, August 2,
3
2023, August 3, 2023, August 4, 2023, August 5, 2023, August 6, 2023, August 7, 2023,
4
August 9, 2023, August 10, 2023, August 11, 2023, August 12, 2023, August 13, 2023,
5
August 14, 2023, August 15, 2023, August 16, 2023, August 17, 2023, August 18, 2023,
6
August 19, 2023, August 21, 2023, and August 23, 2023 the South Coast Air Quality
7
Management District issued the Landfill Defendant’s Notices of Violation under Rule 402
8 and other Agency Rules. The Notice of Violations are ongoing to date.
9
42. On August 15, 2023 South Coast AQMD reported receiving more than 1,200 odor
Downtown L.A. Law Group
Los Angeles, CA 90015
10
910 S. Broadway
complaints coming from Val Verde, Hasley Canyon, Hasley Hills, Hillcrest, Williams Ranch
11
and Live Oak.
12
43. August 18, 2023, the County’s Department of Regional Planning issued a Notice of
13
Violation of the Conditional Use Permit, specifically condition 12.
14
15
16 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
17 PUBLIC NUISANCE
18 (Against All Defendants)
19
44. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation above as though fully set forth herein.
20
45. The noxious odors, pollutants, and air contaminants which entered Plaintiff’s
21
10
22
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
23
1 property originated from the Landfill constructed, maintained and/or operated by Defendants.
2 46. The odors, pollutants and air contaminants invading Plaintiff’s property are indecent
3
and/or offensive to the senses, and obstruct the free use of their property so as to interfere
4
with the comfortable enjoyment of life and/or property, including in but not limited to the
5 following ways: causing Plaintiff to remain inside their homes and forego the use of their
6 yards; causing Plaintiffs members to keep doors and windows closed when weather
7 conditions otherwise would not so require; causing Plaintiffs embarrassment and reluctance
to invite guests to their homes, and negatively impacting Plaintiff’s asset values.
8
9 47. Defendant owed and continues to owe a duty to Plaintiff to take positive action to
Downtown L.A. Law Group
Los Angeles, CA 90015
prevent and/or abate the interference with the public interest and/or the invasion of the
10
910 S. Broadway
private interests of the Plaintiffs.
11
48. By constructing, expanding, and then failing to repair and/or maintain its facility
12
13 reasonably, Defendants have negligently created an unreasonable risk of foreseeable harm by
14 causing the invasion of Plaintiff’s property by noxious odors, pollutants, and air
15 contaminants.
16 49. As a foreseeable, direct, and proximate result of the foregoing conduct of Defendants,
17
Plaintiff suffered personal injuries and damages to their property as alleged herein.
18
50. The injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff are specially injurious to themselves as
19
compared with the general public.
20
51. Plaintiff did not consent for noxious odors, pollutants, dust, debris, and air
21
contaminants to enter and settle upon their land and property.
11
22
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
23
1 52. By causing noxious odors, pollutants, and air contaminants produced and controlled
2 by Defendants to physically invade Plaintiff’s land and property, Defendants intentionally,
3 recklessly, and negligently created a nuisance which substantially and unreasonably
4 interfered with Plaintiff comfortable use and enjoyment of their property.
5 53. The rain fall drenched decomposing garbage and created an ideal environment for the
6 breeding of bacteria that release methane and smelly hydrogen sulfide.
7 54. The scorching temperatures within Chiquita Canyon Landfill have caused pressure to
8 build inside the 639-acre facility and forced contaminated water to burst onto the surface.
9 55. Defendants’ substantial and unreasonable interference with Plaintiff’s use, and
Downtown L.A. Law Group
Los Angeles, CA 90015
10 enjoyment of their property constitutes a nuisance for which Defendants are liable to Plaintiff
910 S. Broadway
11 for all damages arising from such nuisance, including compensatory, exemplary, injunctive,
and punitive relief. Such Defendants’ actions were; and continue to be, intentional, willful,
12
malicious and made with a conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiff, entitling Plaintiff to
13
compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorneys’ fees
14
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedures § 1021.5 and otherwise.
15
56. Defendants and each of them by and through their officers, directors, managers and
16
employees have known about the dangerous conditions presented to the public by their
17
facility for a substantial time and failed entirely to take steps to either protect the public or
18
warn them of the imminent harm presented by worsening conditions at the site including
19 toxic gas and fire. Such failure was a concerted effort on the part of said defendants and their
20 officers, directors, managers and employees including but not limited to Nicole Ward, Steve
21 Cassulo, Ronald J. Mittelstaedt, Darrel W. Chambliss and James L. Little, among others, to
12
22
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
23
1 conceal the true conditions of the site in order to continue operating. Such conduct was in
2 contravention of p
Preview
1 Andrew M. Morrow, III, Esq. - State Bar No. 128300 Sako Demirjian, Esq. - State Bar No. 348609 2 DOWNTOWN L.A. LAW GROUP 910 S. Broadway Los Angeles, CA 90015 3 Tel: (213) 389-3765 Fax: (877) 389-2775 4 Email: Sako @downtownlalaw.com 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Bertha Leticia Guerra Depaez 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 9 Downtown L.A. Law Group Los Angeles, CA 90015 10 910 S. Broadway BERTHA LETICIA GUERRA DEPAEZ, an Case No.: individual, 11 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 12 Plaintiff, 13 1. PUBLIC NUISANCE v. 2. PRIVATE NUISANCE 14 3. NEGLIGENCE/GROSS NEGLIGENCE CHIQUITA CANYON, LLC; WASTE 15 CONNECTIONS OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; WASTE CONNECTIONS MANAGEMENT 16 SERVICES, INC.; WASTE CONNECTIONS US, INC; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 20 21 1 22 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 23 1 COMES NOW the Plaintiff, BERTHA LETICIA GUERRA DEPAEZ, and for 2 causes of action against the Defendants, complains and alleges as follows: 3 1. The relevant events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims and the conduct of the defendants 4 occurred in Los Angeles County and Venue is proper under California Code of Civil 5 Procedure § 395. 6 2. All of the facts and circumstances complained of herein occurred within the State 7 of California under circumstances that convey this Superior Court with jurisdiction over the 8 matter. 9 3. At all times relevant, Plaintiff BERTHA LETICIA GUERRA DEPAEZ, an Downtown L.A. Law Group Los Angeles, CA 90015 10 individual, was and is resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 910 S. Broadway 11 4. At all times relevant, CHIQUITA CANYON, LLC; WASTE CONNECTIONS OF 12 CALIFORNIA, INC.; WASTE CONNECTIONS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.; 13 WASTE CONNECTIONS US, INC.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive were and are corporations or other business entities doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 14 15 5. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise 16 of Defendants DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore, sues said defendants by such fictitious names under Code of Civil Procedure § 474. Plaintiffs are 17 informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the defendants herein designated as a 18 DOE is negligently responsible in some manner for the events and happenings alleged herein 19 and legally caused the injuries and damages alleged below. 20 21 2 22 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 23 1 6. At the time of identifying any DOE 1-100 Government Defendants, Plaintiff will 2 have exhausted all administrative remedies as required under Government Code Section 910 et. seq. 3 4 7. At all times herein mentioned, each defendant was acting in the course and scope of 5 her employment with the other defendants. Defendants are therefore vicariously liable for the acts of each of the remaining defendants herein. 6 7 8. In addition, each defendant was at all times acting as the ostensible agent of the remaining defendants, and was doing so at the behest of and with the approval of those 8 defendants. At all times herein relevant, Plaintiff reasonably and without negligence relied on 9 Downtown L.A. Law Group the representations made by the defendants about the agency and employment of each of the Los Angeles, CA 90015 10 910 S. Broadway remaining defendants. 11 12 INTRODUCTION 13 9. Plaintiff herein is owner and resident of that certain property located at 28716 Calle 14 Plata, Valencia, CA 91354. Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants Chiquita Canyon, 15 LLC, Waste Connections of California, Inc., Waste Connections Management Services, Inc., 16 and Waste Connections US, Inc. (hereinafter "Landfill Defendants"). Defendants own, 17 operate, manage, maintain and control the Chiquita Canyon Landfill which releases 18 poisonous pollutants, air contaminants, water contaminants and noxious odors, all of which 19 have caused and continue to cause injury to Plaintiff and its property through their continuing 20 negligence, nuisance and trespass. All the while the Defendant DOES 1-100 who govern and 21 3 22 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 23 1 regulate the Landfill (hereafter Government Defendants) have allowed such acts to continue 2 to occur despite Defendants ongoing violations of regulations and other related laws. 3 10. The Chiquita Canyon Landfill was first approved for a land reclamation project by 4 the Los Angeles County Planning Commission on December 21, 1965. 5 11. The Landfill site lies in extreme proximity to private residences, government 6 buildings, centers of commerce and educational facilities. 7 12. On March 2, 1977, the Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 1010 for 8 continued operation and maintenance of a waste disposal facility and land reclamation 9 project and related facilities. On November 24, 1982, the Commission approved Conditional Downtown L.A. Law Group Los Angeles, CA 90015 10 Use Permit 1809 for expansion of the existing landfill with Class II and Class III disposal 910 S. Broadway 11 sites. The Board of Supervisors approved Conditional Use Permit 89-081 on May 20, 1997, for continued operation of a Class III landfill, after an appeal of the Commission's approval 12 of Conditional Use Permit 89-081. 13 13. Conditional Use Permit 89-081 was scheduled to expire on November 24, 2019, or 14 when the landfill reached a waste disposal limit of 23,000,000 tons, whichever occurred first. 15 16 14. In or about 1997 the Landfill Defendants signed agreement with the Val Verde Civic 17 Association by which they agreed to close the Landfill no later than 2019. 18 15. In or about 2014, the Landfill Defendants applied for the current Conditional Use 19 Permit with the County’s Department of Regional Planning ("Regional Planning”) to 20 continue the operation and expansion of the landfill. The proposed expansion included an 21 4 22 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 23 1 additional 400 acres and sought a 100% increase in waste intake. The expansion also 2 required the removal of historic trees in the area. 3 16. At the time, the Defendants were also required to map the increased risk of cancer for 4 the surrounding area. 5 17. The Landfill Defendants requested that the DOES 1-100 Government Defendants 6 waive County Code Section 22.04.110 to allow the continued operation of the landfill during 7 the pendency of the Conditional Use Permit with the alleged goal to protect the health and safety of the Plaintiffs. 8 9 18. DOES 1-100 Government Defendants granted the requested waiver on March 17, Downtown L.A. Law Group Los Angeles, CA 90015 2016, subject to interim operating conditions. The interim operating conditions purported to 10 910 S. Broadway ensure that the Landfill Defendants continue to comply with Conditional Use Permit 89-081 11 conditions, with the exception of the 23,000,000-tonnage limit. Instead, the landfill, under the 12 waiver, could not exceed the 29,400,000- ton-threshold analyzed in the Environmental 13 Impact Report ("EIR") for Conditional Use Permit 89-081. The waiver allowed the Landfill 14 operations to continue on a temporary basis until the earlier of the following: (a) a final 15 action is taken on the Project (withdrawal, approval, or denial); (b) July 31, 2017; or (c) 16 revocation of the waiver by the County. 17 19. In June 2016, the landfill reached and exceeded the 23,000,000 tonnage limit, but it 18 continued to operate because the County had granted the waiver, and associated conditions. 19 20. An environmental impact report was prepared which indicated that air quality and 20 greenhouse gas emissions could not be completely mitigated. 21 5 22 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 23 1 21. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared to mitigate Project 2 impacts to geology and hydrology, surface water drainage, biological resources, cultural and 3 paleontological resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change. 4 22. The County claims that with implementation of mitigation measures, environmental 5 impacts to the Project will be reduced to less than significant levels, except for impacts to air 6 quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change. 7 23. However, it was and is clear that impacts to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions 8 and climate change could not be mitigated. As a result of those remaining significant 9 Downtown L.A. Law Group unavoidable impacts, CEQA Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations Los Angeles, CA 90015 10 910 S. Broadway ("CEQA Findings and SOC") were prepared for the Project. 11 24. The community contacted Government Defendants, including the County’s Regional 12 Planning office and the Landfill Defendants in writing, by phone, and gave oral testimony 13 expressing serious concerns about the continued operation of the Landfill’s impacts to public 14 health, air quality, odors, traffic, and environmental justice issues, biological resources, 15 greenhouse gases. The Val Verde Civic Association also argued that the Landfill Defendants 16 were attempting to breach conditions of the Conditional Use Permit 89-081 conditions, and 17 the 1997 agreement between the Val Verde Civic Association and the Landfill Defendants. 18 25. On July 25, 2017, the County approved another conditional use permit allowing the 19 Defendant’s to expand and operate for another 30 years. The expansion included increasing 20 the waste footprint from 257 acres to 400 acres, increasing the maximum elevation from 21 6 22 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 23 1 1,430 to 1,573 feet and increasing the daily disposal limits from 6,000 tons per day to 12,000 2 tons per day. 3 26. Section 12 of the Conditional Use Permit required that the Landfill operate in 4 compliance with conditions and all applicable laws, statutes and ordinances. Failure to 5 comply with any conditions or applicable laws, statutes and ordinances were clearly stated to 6 violate the Conditional Use Permit. 7 27. Under Section 15 of the Conditional Use Permit, Regional Planning can order 8 cessation of the Conditional Use Permit if it is determined that it is necessary for the health, 9 safety, and/or welfare of the County’s residents or the environment. Downtown L.A. Law Group Los Angeles, CA 90015 10 910 S. Broadway 28. Under Section 20 of the Conditional Use Permit any person violating a provision of 11 this Permit would be guilty of a misdemeanor, pursuant to Section 22.60.340 of the County 12 Code. Authority was also granted to revoke or modify this Permit if the Commission or 13 Hearing Officer finds that the conditions have been violated, or that this grant has been 14 exercised so as to be detrimental to the public's health or safety, or so as to be a nuisance, or 15 as otherwise authorized pursuant to Chapter 22.56, Part 13, of the County Code. 16 29. Multiple sections of the current Conditional Use Permit make it clear that the facility 17 is not in compliance with the Permit if the Landfill allows odors to become a nuisance in 18 adjacent residential and business areas. 19 30. Under Sections 63-65 of the Conditional Use Permit the Landfill is required not to be 20 21 7 22 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 23 1 a nuisance to the community and to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management 2 District’s requirements. 3 31. Regional Planning can order cessation of the Conditional Use Permit if it is 4 determined that it is necessary for the health, safety, and/or welfare of the County’s residents 5 or the environment. 6 32. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) is under a 7 legal obligation to enforce air pollution regulations. These regulations are primarily meant to 8 ensure that the surrounding (or ambient) air meets federal and state air quality standards. 9 Downtown L.A. Law Group 33. On or about February 27, 2023, the South Coast Air Quality Management District Los Angeles, CA 90015 10 910 S. Broadway issued the Landfill Defendants a Notice of Violation under 42400(a) for failing to provide 11 laboratory analysis and Draeger tube reading for landfill gas from the preceding twelve 12 months in an Excel spreadsheet as required. 13 34. On or about April 6, 2023, the South Coast Air Quality Management District issued 14 the Landfill Defendants a Notice of Violation under 1150.1(d)(3) for failure to operate the 15 gas collection and control systems so that there are not leaks that exceed 500 ppmv TOC 16 measured as methane at any component under positive pressure. 17 35. The South Coast Air Quality Management District is responsible for taking reports of 18 nuisance, confirming these reports and issuing Notices of Violation where there is a violation 19 of the law. 20 36. Under Rule 402 – Nuisance, “A person shall not discharge from any source 21 8 22 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 23 1 whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, 2 detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or 3 which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. 4 5 37. Pursuant to the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s policies and practices to establish a violation of Rule 402, the agency must receive three calls to their hotline, 800 6 CUT SMOG, within an hour to dispatch an investigator. If an investigator then is able to 7 confirm the complaint with the members of the public who complained and the source of the 8 complaint and at least 6 complaints can be verified in a 24-hour period, then a Notice of 9 Violation is issued. Downtown L.A. Law Group Los Angeles, CA 90015 10 910 S. Broadway 38. On May 17, 2023, the South Coast Air Quality Management District issued the first 11 Notice of Violation against Chiquita Canyon for public nuisance in violation of the agency’s 12 Rule 402 and California Health & Safety Code Section 41700. 13 39. In May, South Coast Air Quality Management District began receiving hundreds of 14 odor complaints that Agency investigators traced back to the landfill. 15 16 40. As a result of its investigation, South Coast Air Quality Management District found 17 that the landfill was experiencing elevated levels of sulfur, specifically dimethyl sulfide, in 18 its landfill gas—which its gas treatment system is not designed to remove. The underlying cause has been found to be caused by a subsurface chemical reaction. 19 20 41. On May 18, 2023, June 25, 2023, June 27, 2023, June 28, 2023, June 29, 2023, June 30, 2023, July 2, 2023, July 3, 2023, July 7, 2023, July 10, 2023, July 11, 2023, July 13, 21 9 22 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 23 1 2023, July 15, 2023, July 16, 2023, July 17, 2023, July 18, 2023, July 19, 2023, July 20, 2 2023, July 21, 2023, July 22, 2023, July 23, 2023, July 24, 2023, July 26, 2023, July 27, 2023, July 28, 2023, July 29, 2023, July 30, 2023, July 31, 2023, August 1, 2023, August 2, 3 2023, August 3, 2023, August 4, 2023, August 5, 2023, August 6, 2023, August 7, 2023, 4 August 9, 2023, August 10, 2023, August 11, 2023, August 12, 2023, August 13, 2023, 5 August 14, 2023, August 15, 2023, August 16, 2023, August 17, 2023, August 18, 2023, 6 August 19, 2023, August 21, 2023, and August 23, 2023 the South Coast Air Quality 7 Management District issued the Landfill Defendant’s Notices of Violation under Rule 402 8 and other Agency Rules. The Notice of Violations are ongoing to date. 9 42. On August 15, 2023 South Coast AQMD reported receiving more than 1,200 odor Downtown L.A. Law Group Los Angeles, CA 90015 10 910 S. Broadway complaints coming from Val Verde, Hasley Canyon, Hasley Hills, Hillcrest, Williams Ranch 11 and Live Oak. 12 43. August 18, 2023, the County’s Department of Regional Planning issued a Notice of 13 Violation of the Conditional Use Permit, specifically condition 12. 14 15 16 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 17 PUBLIC NUISANCE 18 (Against All Defendants) 19 44. Plaintiff incorporates each and every allegation above as though fully set forth herein. 20 45. The noxious odors, pollutants, and air contaminants which entered Plaintiff’s 21 10 22 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 23 1 property originated from the Landfill constructed, maintained and/or operated by Defendants. 2 46. The odors, pollutants and air contaminants invading Plaintiff’s property are indecent 3 and/or offensive to the senses, and obstruct the free use of their property so as to interfere 4 with the comfortable enjoyment of life and/or property, including in but not limited to the 5 following ways: causing Plaintiff to remain inside their homes and forego the use of their 6 yards; causing Plaintiffs members to keep doors and windows closed when weather 7 conditions otherwise would not so require; causing Plaintiffs embarrassment and reluctance to invite guests to their homes, and negatively impacting Plaintiff’s asset values. 8 9 47. Defendant owed and continues to owe a duty to Plaintiff to take positive action to Downtown L.A. Law Group Los Angeles, CA 90015 prevent and/or abate the interference with the public interest and/or the invasion of the 10 910 S. Broadway private interests of the Plaintiffs. 11 48. By constructing, expanding, and then failing to repair and/or maintain its facility 12 13 reasonably, Defendants have negligently created an unreasonable risk of foreseeable harm by 14 causing the invasion of Plaintiff’s property by noxious odors, pollutants, and air 15 contaminants. 16 49. As a foreseeable, direct, and proximate result of the foregoing conduct of Defendants, 17 Plaintiff suffered personal injuries and damages to their property as alleged herein. 18 50. The injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff are specially injurious to themselves as 19 compared with the general public. 20 51. Plaintiff did not consent for noxious odors, pollutants, dust, debris, and air 21 contaminants to enter and settle upon their land and property. 11 22 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 23 1 52. By causing noxious odors, pollutants, and air contaminants produced and controlled 2 by Defendants to physically invade Plaintiff’s land and property, Defendants intentionally, 3 recklessly, and negligently created a nuisance which substantially and unreasonably 4 interfered with Plaintiff comfortable use and enjoyment of their property. 5 53. The rain fall drenched decomposing garbage and created an ideal environment for the 6 breeding of bacteria that release methane and smelly hydrogen sulfide. 7 54. The scorching temperatures within Chiquita Canyon Landfill have caused pressure to 8 build inside the 639-acre facility and forced contaminated water to burst onto the surface. 9 55. Defendants’ substantial and unreasonable interference with Plaintiff’s use, and Downtown L.A. Law Group Los Angeles, CA 90015 10 enjoyment of their property constitutes a nuisance for which Defendants are liable to Plaintiff 910 S. Broadway 11 for all damages arising from such nuisance, including compensatory, exemplary, injunctive, and punitive relief. Such Defendants’ actions were; and continue to be, intentional, willful, 12 malicious and made with a conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiff, entitling Plaintiff to 13 compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorneys’ fees 14 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedures § 1021.5 and otherwise. 15 56. Defendants and each of them by and through their officers, directors, managers and 16 employees have known about the dangerous conditions presented to the public by their 17 facility for a substantial time and failed entirely to take steps to either protect the public or 18 warn them of the imminent harm presented by worsening conditions at the site including 19 toxic gas and fire. Such failure was a concerted effort on the part of said defendants and their 20 officers, directors, managers and employees including but not limited to Nicole Ward, Steve 21 Cassulo, Ronald J. Mittelstaedt, Darrel W. Chambliss and James L. Little, among others, to 12 22 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 23 1 conceal the true conditions of the site in order to continue operating. Such conduct was in 2 contravention of p