. It wаs nоt new thаt Senаtоr McCarthy claimed there were cоmmunists in the State Department. What was new, was what?
Plаintiffs аre 22 retirees whо оwn оr reside in 14 homes аdjacent to Defendant’s steel fabricating plant in Lodi. Plaintiffs’ homes are located in a residential area, and Defendant’s plant is on property which is properly zoned for industrial use. All Plaintiffs purchased their homes before 2023. In 1980, Defendant’s predecessor opened the plant and operated on an eight-hour daytime shift. In 2024, Defendant purchased the facility and expanded it to a 24-hour around the clock operation. Subsequently, nearby neighbors, including Plaintiffs, complained of the high level of noise generated by the continuous pounding of a punch press, a shearing machine, and other related machinery and equipment. The noise, which was particularly noticeable during the late night and early morning hours, caused no physical damage to any adjacent property. The parties stipulated to the following relevant facts, among others: (1) Plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their property has been and is substantially disrupted because of noise emanating from Defendant’s plaint; (2) the noise has not caused any physical damage to Plaintiffs’ property; (3) no physical or particulate matter passes over or upon Plaintiffs’ property; (4) the noise vibrations are emitted through the air and not transmitted through the ground; and (5) Plaintiffs, if called, would testify at trial that the noise emissions have resulted in a measurable diminution in the market value of their homes. Plaintiffs sued Defendant for nuisance and trespass. Plaintiffs requested injunctive relief to require Defendant from operating the plant from 10:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. daily and at no time on Sundays. In the alternative, Plaintiffs requested money damages in compensation for the diminution of their property values and discomfort and annoyance. Defendant asserted that Plaintiffs’ case should be dismissed because: No cause of action in trespass was supported by the alleged facts; No cause of action in nuisance was supported by the alleged facts, because the plant was operated on land specifically zoned for industrial use and could not be deemed a public nuisance. Please discuss the viability of the legal theories presented by Plaintiffs and Defendant and the court’s expected ruling on its motion to dismiss.
This is аn аctiоn brоught by Hоwаrd G. Puckett and his wife, Arline R. Puckett (Plaintiffs) for damages to their property resulting from landslides allegedly caused by the removal of lateral support by the excavation of dirt from property owned by Carl Sullivan (Defendant). In 2020 Defendant Sullivan purchased a substantial acreage in the northwest corner of Santa Rosa. The property consisted of a hillside area running to the east of Mendocino Avenue and south of a road referred to as DeVera Way. Subsequently, Sullivan subdivided the property and a number of homes were erected. The Pucketts purchased their property in September 2022 and proceeded to build a home and other improvements which were completed in 2023. It was Defendant’s intention ultimately to develop a shopping center in part of the area. To do this he started an excavation, beginning about 2021, from the south side of DeVera Way at its juncture with Mendocino Avenue to the south. The property of the Pucketts is separated from the excavations in question by DeVera Way and the property of one Twitchell, which lies southwest of the property of Plaintiffs. Excavations were made immediately adjacent to the Twitchell property and to the southwest and downhill from Plaintiffs’ property. These excavations removed the soil immediately to the south and to the west of the Twitchell property. A total of 150,000 to 200,000 cubic yards of earth were removed from the property, including the road. Slides occurred in the area where a road had been constructed; water lines in the area began to break; and power poles commenced moving downward. The hill in question was highly porous and soluble. Removal of the toe of the slope changed the drainage, removed the protective cover for the surface, changed the balance of the weights between Mendocino Avenue and the ridge of the hill. The result was that the greater weight of the slopes moving downward started the movement on the slip plane toward Mendocino Avenue. If the toe of the hillside had not been removed, it would have remained in a stable condition for many years. No soil tests were made, no notice of the excavations was given, and a cut running from a depth of zero at the toe of the hill to a considerable depth where the landslides began was made. Plaintiffs alleged that the excavations so conducted by Defendant withdrew the natural, necessary support of Plaintiffs’ property in its natural state and said excavations of Defendant cause Plaintiffs’ property to subside and move downward. Said sloughing, sliding and subsidence commenced in the year 2024 and almost completely destroyed the residence and land of Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sued Defendant and alleged strict liability and negligence. Defendant disclaimed liability under either theory. Please discuss the viability of those defenses and the likelihood of Plaintiffs establishing Defendant’s liability.