Goodrich Corporation v. City of Rialto

Full title: GOODRICH CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF RIALTO et al.…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division

Date published: Dec 17, 2009

No. E045057 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2009)

Opinion

GOODRICH CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF RIALTO et al., Defendants and Respondents KEN THOMPSON, INC. et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents. E045057 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Second Division December 17, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. CIVSS704343

HOLLENHORST Acting P. J.

The petition for rehearing filed by plaintiff and appellant Goodrich Corporation is denied. The opinion filed in this matter on November 23, 2009, is modified as follows:

1. On page 14, lines 5 through 11, the sentences beginning with the words “Clearly, under the facts of this case,...” and ending with “Hindsight is 20-20-vision,” are stricken in their entirety and the following inserted in their place:

Under the facts of this case, the City approved the Project on June 4, 1987, and approved the grading plan so that grading could begin on July 15, 1987. However, perchlorate began to show up in several municipal water supply wells in the City’s area in 1997. The presence of perchlorate does not mean the City did not exercise its discretion and determine that the cleanup was satisfactory, nor does it mean the City’s determination was well founded.

2. On page 14, a new footnote No. 5 should be inserted at the end of the last sentence of the above insertion, after the words “well founded”:

5 We are not deciding whether Thompson completed a cleanup of the area, or the propriety of the City’s determination that the cleanup was satisfactory. This case came to us at the demurrer stage, prior to resolution of factual disputes.

Except for the above modifications, the opinion remains unchanged. There is no change in the judgment.

We concur: RICHLI J., GAUT J.