Environmental & Energy,
Civil Litigation
Mar. 4, 2022
Judge tosses both summary adjudication motions in pollution case
Los Angeles Judge David S. Cunningham III noted that Proposition 65 “makes no distinction regarding the timing of the conduct that causes exposures,” thus failing to answer the question at issue.
After finding neither side answered relevantly his questions regarding the timeliness of the facts, Superior Court Judge David S. Cunningham III denied two cross-motions for summary adjudication to reduce the scope of a case involving a battery recycling facility accused of not properly warning San Gabriel Valley residents of exposure to lead and arsenic.
The plaintiffs -- C...
To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In
