City of Pomona v. SQM, No. 12-55147 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseUsing a methodology known as "stable isotope analysis," an expert hired by the city determined that the most likely dominant source of the perchlorate found in the city's groundwater was sodium nitrate that had been used as fertilizer. The city sued SQM, the company that imported sodium nitrate into the United States. Before trial, the district court held an evidentiary hearing under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and excluded the city's expert. The court reversed the district court's exclusion of the expert's testimony. The district court should not have made credibility determinations that were reserved for the jury; the Federal Rules of Evidence did not require an endorsement from the EPA approving the expert's results and the district court's conclusion to the contrary was an abuse of discretion; the district court erroneously ruled that the expert's methodologies have not been and cannot be tested; and the district court's resolution of the reference database was an abuse of discretion and sufficient grounds for reversal where the matter was for the jury to decide. The court affirmed the district court's denial of SQM's motion for summary judgment where SQM failed to show that there was no genuine factual dispute as to whether the city's claims were barred by the economic loss rule or by the applicable statute of limitations.
Court Description: Expert Testimony. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s order, and remanded for trial in a case involving perchlorate contamination found in the City of Pomona’s water system. The City of Pomona alleged that SQM North America Corporation’s importation of sodium nitrate for fertilizer was the primary source of Pomona’s perchlorate contamination. The district court denied SQM’s motion for summary judgment, and following a pre-trial Daubert hearing, granted SQM’s motion in limine to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Neil Sturchio, Pomona’s expert witness on causation. The parties stipulated to a conditional dismissal and sought review of the district court’s order excluding the testimony, and other rulings. Reversing the district court’s exclusion of the expert testimony, the panel held that facts casting doubt on the credibility of an expert witness and contested facts regarding the strength of a particular scientific method are questions reserved for the fact finder. Affirming the district court’s denial of SQM’s motion for summary judgment, the panel held that there was a genuine factual dispute as to whether the City of Pomona’s claims were barred by California’s economic loss rule or by the applicable statute of limitations. The panel remanded for a trial.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.