SANTA CLARITA VALLEY WATER AGENCY V. WHITTAKER CORPORATION, No. 22-55727 (9th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
The Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency (SCVWA), a public water agency, sued Whittaker Corporation for contaminating groundwater that the agency pumps from wells. The jury found Whittaker liable for negligence, trespass, public nuisance, and private nuisance, and awarded damages for past harm and restoration or repair costs. The jury verdict was reduced to $64,870,000 due to SCVWA’s fault for failure to mitigate damages and an offset for a settlement between SCVWA and a third party. After a bench trial on the statutory claims, the district court denied SCVWA relief under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and apportioned costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) to SCVWA and Whittaker.
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the jury award on Whittaker’s appeal. On SCVWA’s cross-appeal, the court affirmed in part, holding that the district court’s denial of injunctive relief under RCRA, denial of prejudgment interest, and denial of attorneys' fees were proper. However, the court reversed in part, holding that the district court erred in denying SCVWA a finding of liability against Whittaker for one category of incurred response costs under CERCLA and by denying SCVWA declaratory relief under CERCLA. The court remanded the case for the district court to amend its judgment.
Court Description: Environmental Law. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s judgment, after a combined jury and bench trial, against Whittaker Corp. in an action brought under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and California state law by Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency.
SCVWA, a public water agency, alleged that Whittaker was responsible for contamination of groundwater that the agency pumps from wells. The jury found Whittaker liable for negligence, trespass, public nuisance, and private nuisance, and awarded damages for past harm and restoration or repair costs. The jury verdict was reduced to $64,870,000, reflecting a 10% reduction due to SCVWA’s fault for failure to mitigate damages and an offset for a settlement between SCVWA and a third party. Following a bench trial on the statutory claims, the district court denied SCVWA relief under RCRA and apportioned costs under CERCLA to SCVWA and Whittaker.
Affirming the jury award on Whittaker’s appeal, the panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by permitting SCVWA to assert restoration costs as a measure of damages for the first time after the close of discovery, SCVWA adequately established that groundwater treatment facilities were an appropriate measure of damages, and the jury award of restoration costs was reasonable.
On SCVWA’s cross-appeal, the panel affirmed in part, holding that the district court’s denial of injunctive relief under RCRA, denial of prejudgment interest, and denial attorneys' fees were proper. Reversing in part, the panel held that the district court erred in denying SCVWA a finding of liability against Whittaker for one category of incurred response costs under CERCLA. The panel also held that the district court erred by denying SCVWA declaratory relief under CERCLA. The panel remanded for the district court to amend its judgment.
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.