ELR Citation: 42 ELR 20075
No(s). 11-1597 (N.D. Cal. Mar 12, 2012) (Hamilton, J.)

A district court held that a property owner may go forward with its RCRA claims against neighboring property owners for groundwater and soil contamination, but it dismissed the owner's CERCLA claim against a water district that operated a sewer line between the two properties. The owner adequately stated a RCRA claim against the neighboring property owners. They argued that the owner failed to allege facts that an "imminent and substantial endangerment" may exist on the property, but their arguments focused more on whether the owner has provided "proof" for his claim rather than whether there are sufficient facts pled to make out a "plausible" claim. Because the owner alleged in some detail that there is groundwater contamination under its property, that the contamination migrated there from the neighboring property, and that the neighboring property contributed to the contamination, the complaint sufficiently alleged imminent endangerment, at least to the environment, to survive this stage of the litigation. But the court dismissed the owner's claim that a water district that operated a sewer line between the two properties should be held liable as an arranger or transporter under CERCLA. The district installed and maintained a sewer line and imposed a fee on property owners for access to the sewer line. However, there is no allegation that the fee was assessed only on the defendant property owners and not on all property owners. Nor is there any allegation that the fee was assessed in connection with some grant of permission or authorization to any property owner to discharge hazardous substances into the sewer line. The court also granted motions to dismiss the owners' trespass, nuisance, and equitable indemnity claims.