This case was last updated from PACER on 09/25/2021 at 08:47:26 (UTC).

CA Dept. of Toxic Substances Control et al., v. Exxon Mobil Corp. et al

Case Summary

On September 24, 2021, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) and the Toxic Substances Control Account (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), represented by Somerset Perry of Office of The Attorney General, filed an environmental lawsuit, against Exxon Mobil Corporation and others (collectively, “Defendants”), seeking declaratory relief and damages along with prejudgement interest among other relief for the alleged release of hazardous waste from Panoche. This case was filed in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of California with Judges William B. Shubb and Jeremy D. Peterson.

 

In the complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that, “Panoche was a Class I hazardous waste management facility from 1968 to 1986. Panoche also possessed a land use permit from Solano County to accept industrial solid, liquid, and sludge waste for treatment, recycling, storage, and land disposal” and “After Panoche ceased accepting hazardous substances for treatment, storage, and disposal, the IT Corporation undertook formal closure activities.”

 

Plaintiffs then alleged that, “the “IT Environmental Liquidating Trust” (“ITELT”) was established to oversee the long-term post closure operation, maintenance, and upkeep of Panoche” and “On February 29, 2016, DTSC determined that ITELT was in violation of the postclosure requirements, in that the amount determined necessary for the purpose of demonstrating adequate financial assurances for completion of the postclosure activities was underfunded by an amount no less than $7,501,025.75.” The Plaintiff also alleged that, “DTSC issued this order, which was amended on February 17, 2017, May 26, 2017, and December 6, 2017, to address threatened releases of hazardous substances if Panoche is not properly managed when existing funds are depleted, and a permanent remedy has not been implemented.”

 

Plaintiffs also alleged that, “Each Defendant arranged for disposal or treatment, or arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal or treatment, of hazardous substances at Panoche. Hazardous substances from Panoche have been released into the environment and there is a continuing threat of additional hazardous substance releases from Panoche. These releases and threatened releases have resulted, and will continue to result, in Plaintiffs’ incurrence of response costs” and “There has been a “release” or threatened release of hazardous substances, including, but not limited to, those included in this paragraph, from Panoche into the “environment,” within the meaning of sections 101(8) and 101(22) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(8) and 9601(22).”

 

There are two claims of relief laid down by Plaintiffs. The first claim is for the alleged Cost Recovery Claim Against All Defendants Pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA. The second claim is for the alleged claim for declaratory relief pursuant to section 113(g)(2) of CERCLA that each Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs for any response costs Plaintiffs have incurred, and for any further response costs Plaintiffs incur in the future, resulting from the releases and/or threatened releases from Panoche. 

 

In its prayer for relief Plaintiffs requested the court for a judgment that each Defendant is jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs for all costs of response, removal, and remedial actions, including, but not limited to, oversight costs, incurred by Plaintiffs and resulting from release(s) and/or threatened release(s) of hazardous substances at, beneath, above, and/or from Panoche along with all future costs. Plaintiffs also requested the court for cost of the suit and attorneys’ fees along with prejudgement interest and any other relief the court deems just.

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    2:21-CV-01739

  • Filing Date:

    09/24/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other - Environment

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

William B. Shubb

Referral Judge

Jeremy D. Peterson

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

California Department of Toxic Substances Control

Toxic Substances Control Account

Defendants

Exxon Mobil Corporation

E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company, Inc.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc.

Chevron Oronite Company LLC

Shell Oil Company

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Prologis, Inc.

FMC Corporation

Union Pacific Railroad Company

United States Steel Corporation

International Business Machines Corporation

Bayer CropScience, Inc.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Somerset Perry

Attorney at Office of The Attorney General

1515 Clay St., Ste 20Th Floor

Oakland, CA 94612

 

Court Documents

3 #2

VDRP

3 #1

Consent Form

3 #3

Main Document

#2

(#2) SUMMONS ISSUED as to *Bayer CropScience, Inc., Chevron Oronite Company LLC, Chevron U.S.A., Inc., E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company, Inc., Exxon Mobil Corporation, FMC Corporation, International Business Machines Corporation, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Prologis, Inc., Shell Oil Company, Union Pacific Railroad Company, United States Steel Corporation* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Somerset Perry* *Office of The Attorney General, Environment Section* *1515 Clay St., Ste 20th Fl* *Oakland, CA 94612*. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 09/24/2021)

1 #1

Civil Cover Sheet

1 #1

Main Document

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/24/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED; Initial Scheduling Conference SET for 1/18/2022 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form, #2 VDRP) (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 09/24/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) SUMMONS ISSUED as to *Bayer CropScience, Inc., Chevron Oronite Company LLC, Chevron U.S.A., Inc., E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company, Inc., Exxon Mobil Corporation, FMC Corporation, International Business Machines Corporation, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Prologis, Inc., Shell Oil Company, Union Pacific Railroad Company, United States Steel Corporation* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Somerset Perry* *Office of The Attorney General, Environment Section* *1515 Clay St., Ste 20th Fl* *Oakland, CA 94612*. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 09/24/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against Defendants by Toxic Substances Control Account, California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Attorney Perry, Somerset added. (Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ACAEDC-9837061) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Perry, Somerset) (Entered: 09/24/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Chevron Oronite Company LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where PROLOGIS, L.P. is a litigant

Latest cases where CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL is a litigant

Latest cases where Exxon Mobil Corporation is a litigant