Ruling on polluted mobile home site a win for Unocal.

FINALLY, a legal highlight for the city of Carson.

On Aug. 8, the South Bay city and Unocal Corp. won the latest round in a federal case brought by the owner of a mobile home park seeking reimbursement for its environmental clean-up.

Carson Harbor Village Ltd., owner of the site, is seeking more than $2.7 million in costs associated with cleaning up parts of the property contaminated by oil production or storm water run-off containing lead. Carson Harbor Village also sued the city of Compton, the County of Los Angeles and the park's former owners.

From 1945 to 1977, Unocal had an oil and gas lease on 17 acres of marsh within the site that left "tar-like and slag materials," according to Carson Harbor's allegations in the recent ruling.

An earlier ruling in the case had thrown out Carson Harbor's claims, but one aspect of the decision was reversed by a 9th Circuit panel. The panel ruled that the defendants violated the Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA, which allows property owners to seek clean-up costs from the alleged polluters.

On Aug. 8, a U.S. District Court judge in the Central District of California threw out Carson Harbor's CERCLA claims on a technicality.

"Unless reversed, this case would make it more difficult for innocent property owners to recover environmental clean-up costs," said Richard Close, a partner at Gilchrist & Rutter PC representing Carson Harbor. "It would allow polluters to escape liability."

Close could not say whether Carson Harbor plans to appeal the ruling, but he said the park would continue to seek more than $2.7 million from the former owners, which still are defending themselves from separate claims.

Lisa Bond, a partner at Richards Watson & Gershon PC representing Carson, said the ruling appropriately limits cities' liability for pollution matters. Peter Nyquist, an attorney at Weston Benshoof Rochefort Rubalcava MacCuish LLP representing Unocal, called the ruling fair.

Growing Pains 

L.A. Superior Court Judge Charles McCoy has thrown out unfair competition claims against dozens of networks, studios and talent agencies brought by 176 screenwriters. The screenwriters, all 40 years old or older, claimed the companies gained competitive advantage by discriminating against older writers.

The Aug. 14 ruling is the second blow for the screenwriters, who have appealed McCoy's Jan. 10 ruling tossing out claims of discrimination brought under the state's Fair Employment and Housing Act.

The ruling is a "bump in the road that will be smoothed out in due course," said Daniel Wolf, a partner at Sprenger & Lang PLLC in Washington, D.C. representing the screenwriters.

Glenn Pomerantz, a partner at Munger Tolles & Olson LLP and lead attorney representing the defendants, did not return calls.

Staff reporter Amanda Bronstad can be reached at [phone] ext. 225, or at [e-mail].