ELR Citation: ELR 20771
No(s). C-93-0466 MHP (N.D. Cal. Nov 2, 1993)

The court holds unripe takings claims under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution against a California county landfill operator by residents and property owners living near, or owning property adjacent to, the landfill, and holds time barred civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §§1983 and 1985 against the county for locating the landfill where a high proportion of the county's minorities reside. The court first holds that plaintiffs' taking claims are unripe because plaintiffs failed to avail themselves of adequate state procedures for obtaining just compensation from the landfill operator. Despite plaintiffs' claim that no action for inverse condemnation will lie against the landfill operator under California law, it is far from clear that California courts would not recognize an inverse condemnation action against a private entity acting as a state actor. The court also finds that plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they have been denied just compensation from the county, although such a cause of action exists under California law.

Turning to plaintiffs' civil rights claims against the county, the court notes that the parties agreed that a one-year statute of limitations applies. The court holds that the "continuing wrong" exception to the statute of limitations does not apply, because the gravamen of plaintiffs' complaint is that it was the decision to site the landfill that was discriminatory. That decision was made in 1988, five years before plaintiffs filed their complaint. At most, any discriminatory conduct continued only until approval of the landfill plan in 1989. This is not a case, however, where there is an allegedly continuing pattern of intentional wrongdoing, or where repeated acts each constitute an illegal act. Rather, this is a case where there was one allegedly unlawful act, from which other consequences flowed. Plaintiffs' claims that they continue to be exposed to noise and harmful windborne substances may constitute continuing torts, and may be the effect of a §1983 or §1985 violation, but such injury does not constitute a continuing civil rights violation. Also, it is clear from plaintiffs' complaint that any allegedly discriminatory intent by defendants occurred well before construction on the landfill began in late 1989. The court rejects plaintiffs' argument for application of the "speculative damages" exception to the rule that a civil rights cause of action accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury that is the basis of the action. The court holds that although the nature and extent of plaintiffs' damages might not have been known with precision one year before they filed their complaint, sufficient injury existed by that time to begin the running of the statute of limitations. By that time, not only had the siting decision been made, but construction on the landfill had already begun. Also, according to plaintiffs' original complaint, soon after construction began in 1991, the public began making a steady stream of complaints about the landfill. Finally, the court holds that because plaintiffs' federal takings claim is unripe and their federal civil rights claim is time barred, the court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state-law claims.

Counsel for Plaintiffs
William Kershaw
Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard
400 Capitol Mall, 27th Fl., Sacramento CA 91814
(916) 321-4500

Counsel for Defendants
Scott Gordon
Bruen & Gordon
1990 N. California Blvd., Walnut Creek CA 94596
(510) 295-3131