California Court of Appeal
CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, INC. v. EXXON MOBIL CORP., B153817
The "passive migration" or "continued presence" of a prohibited chemical in the soil does not constitute a "discharge or release" within the meaning of Health & Safety Code section 25249.5 (the codification of Proposition 65).
Appellate Information
- Decided 12/17/2002
- Published 12/17/2002
Judges
- CHARLES S. VOGEL, P.J.
Court
- California Court of Appeal
Counsel
- For Appellant:
- Environmental Law Foundation, James R. Wheaton, Oakland, Iryna Kwasny and Megan Evart; Yeroushalmi & Associates and Reuben Yeroushalmi, for Plaintiff and Appellant., Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Richard M. Frank, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Theodora Berger, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Craig C. Thompson and Edward G. Weil, Supervising Deputy Attorneys General, Dennis A. Ragen and Susan S. Fiering, Deputy Attorneys General, for People of the State of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant., Richard Toshiyuki Drury, San Francisco, and William B. Rostov, for Communities for a Better Environment as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
- For Appellees:
- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Jeffrey J. Parker and Lori A. Osmundsen, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent Exxon Mobil Corporation., McKenna, Long & Aldridge, Stanley W. Landfair, Los Angeles, and Michael J. Stiles; Steinhart & Falconer, Jeffrey M. Hamerling and Matthew S. Covington, San Francisco, for Atlantic Richfield Company, Mobil Corporation, Unocal Corporation, and Chevron U.S.A., Inc., as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.