California Court of Appeal

On remand from the California Supreme Court, dismissal of plaintiffs' damages claims against two groups of water purveyor defendants -- one group regulated by the PUC, and another group of public entity water suppliers -- is affirmed over claims that: 1) the trial court adopted overly narrow definitions of the terms "federal and state drinking water standards" and "violations" as those terms were used in Hartwell Corp. v. Superior Ct., 27 Cal.4th 256 (2002); 2) the trial court erred in concluding that plaintiffs had failed to identify any enactment imposing a "mandatory duty" on the public entity defendants within the meaning of Government Code section 815.6; and 3) the trial court improperly limited plaintiffs' discovery.

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/24/2007
• Published 08/24/2007

Judges

• JONES, P.J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Barry I. Goldman, David A. Rosen, Christopher P. Ridout, Rose, Klein & Marias, Los Angeles, Walter J. Lack, Joy Robertson, Ann A. Howitt, Richard P. Kinnan, Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack; and Gary A. Praglin, Los Angeles, for plaintiffs and appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• W. Keith Lemieux, Lemieux & O'Neill, Westlake Village, Thomas H. Clarke, Jr., Terry Anastassiou, Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley, San Francisco, Mary Hulett, Ragsdale Liggett, Paul R. Fine, Daniels Fine Israel & Schonbuch, Los Angeles, Michael K. Stagg, E. Lee Horton, William K. Koska, Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, Los Angeles, Gary C. Ottoson, Bacalski, & Ottoson, San Diego, for defendants and respondents.