NNADILI v. CHEVRON U.S.A., INC.

Chevron has moved for partial summary judgment with respect to the

NOS. CIV.A.02-1620 ESH, CIV.A.03-1593 ESH.

following claims: (1) emotional distress damages; (2) common law strict
liability; (3) statutory claims under the RCRA; and (4) claims by

435 F.Supp.2d 93 (2006)

individuals

whose

properties

are

not

situated

over

subsurface

Olachukwu NNADILI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.

contamination. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant

Defendant. Mary Abney, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.

summary judgment as to the

Defendant.
[435 F.Supp.2d 96]
claims for strict liability and for violation of the RCRA, but will deny
Chevron's motion in all other respects.

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

June 1, 2006.
Dennis C. Reich, Michael Todd Howell, Reich & Binstock, Houston, TX,
Susan Clare Silber, Silber & Perlman, PA., Takoma Park; MD, Nicholas A.
Migliaccio, The Mason Law Firm, PL, Alphonse M. Alfano, John M. Luchak,
Robert Stuart Bassman, Bassman, Mitchell & Alfano, Washington, DC, for
Plaintiffs.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs include approximately 500 current and former residents of, or
property owners within, the Riggs Park neighborhood of Washington, D.C.
(See

Nnadili Fifth

Amended

Complaint

("Nnadili Compl.")

9-

Anthony F. King, Richard E. Wallace, Jr., Susan Vanessa Watson, Wallace

King Marraro & Branson, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

129; Abney Third

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Chevron, or its predecessor-in-interest, owned and operated a retail

Amended

Complaint

("AbneyCompl.")

7-169.)

According to plaintiffs, from approximately 1956 through June 21, 1993,

gasoline service station at 5801 Riggs Road in Chillum, Maryland, which is

on the Maryland side of the border between Maryland and Washington,

HUVELLE, District Judge.

D.C. (Nnadili Compl. 130, 131; AbneyCompl. 171, 172)1 They allege
Plaintiffs in these consolidated cases assert various claims against Chevron

that during the time that Chevron owned and operated the service station,

U.S.A.

petroleum

gasoline was discharged or released into the ground from the station's

hydrocarbons in the soil and groundwater below certain properties in an

underground storage tanks ("USTs"). (See, e.g., Nnadili Compl. 133,

area of Washington, D.C. known as Riggs Park. They contend that the

134, 139, 140, 144, 146, 149, 150; Abney Compl. 2, 3, 176-78.)

contamination resulted from the discharge or release of gasoline from a

Plaintiffs further allege that the gasoline subsequently migrated into the

retail service station formerly owned and operated by Chevron and seek

Riggs Park neighborhood, contaminating the air, soil, and groundwater of

damages for diminution in the value of their properties and for emotional

the properties currently or formerly owned or occupied by plaintiffs. (See,

distress. They also seek injunctive relief under the Resource Conservation

e.g., Nnadili Compl. 136, 144; Abney Compl. 3, 178, 186, 187,

and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. ("RCRA").

189.)

Inc.

("Chevron")

based

upon

the

presence

of

In their initial complaints, plaintiffs asserted claims for wrongful death,

personal injury, and medical monitoring, in addition to the instant claims
for property and emotional distress damages. 2 On October 4, 2004,
however, after air sampling conducted by Chevron indicated that the air

the Court. As agreed to and proposed by the parties, fact and expert
discovery has been stayed pending disposition of the instant motion. (Dec.
5, 2005 Revised Stipulated Scheduling Order 4.) The Revised Stipulated
Scheduling Order further provides that additional dispositive motions, as
appropriate, shall be permitted following the completion of discovery.
(Id. 5.)

quality in selected Riggs Park homes did not exceed Environmental

Protection Agency ("EPA") thresholds, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all

ANALYSIS

claims predicated on evidence of actual exposure to gasoline constituents.

(See Oct. 4, 2004 Stipulated Order ("Stip.Order").) Specifically, plaintiffs
stipulated as follows:
All plaintiffs agree that they do not now allege and' will not allege or
attempt to prove in these actions that any plaintiff was exposed to
petroleum hydrocarbons or other contaminants of a nature, intensity and
duration that can be linked through valid scientific evidence to personal
injury or to a risk of injury or death. Nor will plaintiffs attempt to argue or
prove that any emotional distress alleged to have been suffered by any
plaintiff is the result of any actual exposure to petroleum hydrocarbons or
other contaminants. In addition, plaintiffs will not attempt to argue or
prove that a valid scientific basis exists for any potential for exposure.
(Id. 1.) In connection with this stipulation, plaintiffs also sought and
were granted leave to file their current amended complaints, which do
not include claims for personal injury, wrongful death, or medical

I. Summary Judgment Standard

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a motion for
summary judgment shall be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers
to interrogatories, admissions on file, and affidavits show that there is no
genuine issue of material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). To be material, the fact
must be capable of affecting the outcome of the litigation, and to be
genuine, the issue must be supported by admissible evidence sufficient for
a reasonable trier of fact to find in favor of the non-moving party. Id. at
247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505; see also Laningham v. U.S. Navy, 813 F.2d 1236,
1242-43 (D.C.Cir.1987).

monitoring. (Id. 2.) As a result, plaintiffs are seeking based on claims

To avoid summary judgment the nonmoving party's opposition must

of trespass, nuisance, negligence, and common law strict liability

consist of more than mere unsupported allegations or denials and must be

damages only for diminution in the value of their properties and for

supported by affidavits or other competent evidence setting forth specific

emotional distress, as well as injunctive relief under the RCRA.

facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed.R.Civ.P.

On December 5, 2005, prior to the close of discovery, the Court entered a

Revised Stipulated Scheduling Order pursuant to which Chevron filed the
motion for partial summary judgment that is presently before
[435 F.Supp.2d 97]

56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91
L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The non-moving party must provide evidence that
would permit a reasonable jury to find in the non-moving party's
favor. Laningham, 813 F.2d at 1241. "If the evidence is merely colorable,
or

is

not

significantly

probative,

summary

judgment

may

be

granted." Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (citations
omitted). Nevertheless, "because summary judgment is a drastic measure,
courts should grant it with caution so that no person will be deprived of his
or her day in court to prove a disputed material factual issue." Greenberg

808 A.2d 776, 779 (D.C.2002); Estrada v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 488
A.2d 1359, 1361 n. 2 (D.C.1985). These include: (1) the place of injury;
(2) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred; (3) the
domicile, residence, place of incorporation and place of business of the
parties; and (4) the place where the relationship between the parties is
centered. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws . 145(2).

v. Food & Drug Admin., 803 F.2d 1213, 1216 (D.C.Cir.1986). For this
reason, in considering a motion for summary judgment, the "evidence of

Applying these factors to the instant facts, the Court finds that between

the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be

the District of Columbia and Maryland, the District of Columbia has the

drawn in his favor." Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505; see

greater interest in the outcome of this litigation. 3 While Chevron's conduct

also Wash. Post Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., 865 F.2d

occurred mainly in Maryland, where its former service station and USTs are

320, 325 (D.C.Cir.1989).

situated, and a handful of plaintiffs currently reside in that state, all of the
alleged contamination at issue in this litigation occurred in the District of

II. Choice of Law

"When

deciding

Columbia, all of the alleged injuries were sustained in the District of

state-law

claims

under

diversity

or

supplemental

jurisdiction, federal courts apply the choice-of-law rules of the jurisdiction

in which they sit." Ideal Elec. Sec. Co., Inc. v. Int'l Fid. Ins. Co., 129 F.3d
143, 148 (D.C.Cir.1997). The District of Columbia has adopted the
"substantial interest" approach to choice of law questions. Greycoat

Columbia, and the overwhelming majority of plaintiffs still reside in the

District of Columbia. Accordingly, the Court concludes that all of the tort
claims asserted in these consolidated cases are governed by the laws of
the District of Columbia.
III. Emotional Distress Damages

Hanover F Street Ltd. P'ship v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 657 A.2d 764, 76768 (D.C.1995). When faced with a choice of law in an action sounding in

Chevron first contends that plaintiffs cannot recover damages for

tort, a court in the District of Columbia will "balance the competing

emotional distress as a matter of law. Relying primarily on case law

interests of the two jurisdictions, and apply the law of the jurisdiction with

involving claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional

the more `substantial interest' in the resolution of the issue."Lamphier v.

distress,

Wash. Hosp. Ctr., 524 A.2d 729, 731 (D.C.1987); see also Jaffe v. Pallotta

consistently have barred such claims absent proof of physical injury or

TeamWorks, 374 F.3d 1223, 1227 (D.C.Cir.2004). To determine which

physical endangerment. (See Def.'s Mem. at 14-17.) To the extent that

jurisdiction maintains a more substantial interest, District of Columbia

District of Columbia case law does not expressly address claims for

courts consider the factors listed in Section 145 of the Restatement

emotional distress damages based on property damage alone, however,

(Second) of Conflict of Laws (1971). See Herbert v. Dist. of Columbia,

Chevron further asserts that the Court should look to the law of Maryland

[435 F.Supp.2d 98]

Chevron

argues

that

courts

in

the

District

of

Columbia

for guidance. See Conesco Indus., Ltd. v. Conforti & Eisele, Inc., 627 F.2d

312, 315-16 (D.C.Cir.1980); Whitaker v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit

Chevron thus argues that the Stipulated Order, as a matter of undisputed

Auth., 889 F.Supp. 505, 506-07 (D.D.C.1995).

fact, removes any reasonable basis for emotional distress.

According to Chevron, plaintiffs' claims for emotional distress damages

Stated simply, Chevron contends that property damage alone cannot serve

cannot survive under established Maryland precedent. (See Def.'s Mem. at

as a basis for recovering damages for emotional distress. The Court

11-14.) In support of it position, Chevron principally relies on the Maryland

disagrees.

Court of Appeals decision in Dobbins v. Wash. Suburban Sanitary

Comm'n, 338 Md. 341, 658 A.2d 675 (1995). In that case, the court held

Under District of Columbia law, it is firmly established that a plaintiff may

that "a plaintiff cannot ordinarily recover for emotional injuries sustained

recover damages for mental suffering unaccompanied by physical injury

solely as a result of negligently inflicted damage to the plaintiff's

where the plaintiff sues for an intentional tort. Adams v. George W.

property." Id. at 680. The court reasoned that "emotional injuries are not

Cochran & Co., Inc., 597 A.2d 28, 31 (D.C.1991); Parker v. Stein, 557

the `consequences that ensue in the ordinary and natural course of

A.2d 1319, 1322 (D.C.1989); Barnes v. Dist. of Columbia,452 A.2d 1198,

events' from negligently inflicted property damage," and that "such

1199 (D.C.1982). It is also clear that trespass is an intentional tort. E.g.,

injuries should not be contemplated, in light of all the circumstances, `as a

Cleveland Park Club v. Perry, 165 A.2d 485, 488 (D.C.1960). Although the

natural and probable consequence' of a negligently inflicted injury to

parties have not cited and the Court has been unable to find a

property." Id. at 679 (quotingState v. Baltimore Transit Co., 197 Md.

District of Columbia decision addressing the availability of emotional

528, 80 A.2d 13, 18 (1951)). For additional support, Chevron points to

distress damages in a trespass case, the decision in Parker is instructive.

instances where the Maryland Court of Appeals has refused

In that case, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, applying the
established rule regarding intentional torts, concluded that emotional

[435 F.Supp.2d 99]

to award emotional distress damages based on property damage caused
by trespass.See Wolf v. Levitt & Sons, Inc., 267 Md. 623, 298 A.2d 374,
377-78 (1973); Zeigler v. F St. Corp., 248 Md. 223, 235 A.2d 703, 705
(1967).
Finally, Chevron argues that the October 4, 2004 Stipulated Order
independently bars plaintiffs' claims for emotional distress damages
because it eliminates any factual basis for such claims. (See Def.'s Reply at
6-7.) According to Chevron, not only have plaintiffs stipulated that they
have

suffered

no

emotional

distress

from

actual

exposure

to

contamination, but they also have stipulated that (1) no plaintiff has ever
been exposed; and (2) no plaintiff will have the potential for exposure.

distress damages are available in an action for conversion of personal

property. Parker, 557 A.2d at 1322-23. Here, the Court can find no
meaningful distinction between personal and real property to suggest that
courts in the District of Columbia would permit recovery of emotional
distress damages for intentional torts involving personal, but not real,
property damage. Accordingly, the Court concludes that emotional distress
damages are recoverable for trespass actions under District of Columbia
law.4
Furthermore, with respect to all of plaintiffs' tort claims, including those
sounding in trespass, the Court concludes that District of Columbia law

permits emotional distress as an element of damages because District of

Chevron's reliance on District of Columbia cases addressing causes of

Columbia courts follow the Restatement (Second) of Torts. (See Pl.'s Mem.

action for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress is

at 14-15 nn. 14-16 and cases cited therein.) Section 905 of the

misplaced. Plaintiffs are not seeking damages for the separate torts of

Restatement, which applies to all torts, provides that: "Compensatory

intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress. 6 Rather, plaintiffs

damages that may be awarded without proof of pecuniary loss include

merely claim emotional distress as an element of damages for the

compensation (a) for bodily harm,

traditional tort claims they have asserted e.g., trespass, nuisance,

[435 F.Supp.2d 100]

and (b) for emotional distress." Restatement (Second) of Torts 905
(1979). Section 929 of the Restatement, which pertains specifically to
damages available in actions sounding in trespass, provides in pertinent
part: "If one is entitled to a judgment for harm to land resulting from a
past invasion and not amounting to a total destruction of value, the
damages include compensation for . . . discomfort and annoyance to
him as an occupant." Id. 929.
As Chevron accurately asserts, there is scant case law from the District of
Columbia

applying

Sections

905

and

929. (See Def.'s

Reply

at

5.)5 Nevertheless, the District of Columbia's established rule that a plaintiff

may recover damages for emotional distress for intentional torts, which
the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has endorsed with respect
to intentional torts involving personal property, see Parker, 557 A.2d at
1322-23, and the absence of any contrary suggestion with respect to real
property, lead the Court to conclude that the District of Columbia would
follow Sections 905 and 929 of the Restatement to permit emotional
distress as an element of damages for the tort claims plaintiffs have
asserted. Moreover, courts in other jurisdictions have applied these
sections of the Restatement to permit emotional distress damages in tort
cases similar to the instant claims. See, e.g., French v. Ralph E. Moore,
Inc., 203 Mont. 327, 661 P.2d 844, 847-48 (1983) (holding damages for
mental anguish recoverable for claims trespass, nuisance, and negligence
claims arising out of gasoline discharge from USTs).

negligence. Chevron, in fact, acknowledges as much. (See Def.'s Mem. at

4 ("In their most recent amended complaints, plaintiffs dropped their
claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress."); id. at
4 n. 2 (whereas prior complaints asserted "claims for intentional and
negligent

infliction

of

emotional

distress,"

current

versions

assert

"emotional distress damages as part of other claims") (emphasis added).)

The distinction between intentional and negligent infliction of emotional
distress as independent causes of action and emotional distress as an
element of damages for traditional tort claims is illustrated by the decision
in Adams, supra. In that case, the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia rejected plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional
[435 F.Supp.2d 101]
distress, because the plaintiff had failed to prove all of the elements for
such a cause of action, 7 but permitted the plaintiff to claim, as an element
of damages for the tort of wrongful termination, "compensation for any
emotional
distress
or
mental
anguish
resulting
from
the
discharge." Adams, 597 A.2d at 35. In other words, the court permitted
emotional distress as an element of damages for a tort claim, even though
the plaintiff could not meet the requirements of an independent cause of
action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id.; see also Williams
v. Baker, 572 A.2d 1062, 1064 (D.C.1990) ("This jurisdiction's
requirement that to be compensable [in claims for negligent infliction of
emotional distress] mental suffering must flow from physical injury is
consistent with the historic reluctance of the common law to allow
recovery for mental distress other than as an element of damages when
an independent tort is established.") (emphasis added).

Finally, Chevron's arguments regarding the Stipulated Order are without

In National Telephone Cooperative Ass'n v. Exxon Corp., 38 F.Supp.2d

merit. As plaintiffs contend, the Stipulated Order has reduced their claims

1 (D.D.C.1998), which is similar to these cases, the district court

for emotional distress damages to those arising from:

concluded that the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia "would

(1) fear of the unknown, consisting of (a) fear and anxiety over whether
plaintiffs or their families were exposed to toxic chemicals during the 15
year period from 1989, when the release was discovered, to 2004, when
the air test results were disclosed; and (b) fear and anxiety over future
exposure to toxic chemicals; (2) fear and anxiety over any possible
diminution in value of their homes; (3) fear, anxiety, and annoyance
resulting from the loss of the use and enjoyment of certain parts of their
properties; and (4) humiliation over the contaminated state of their
neighborhood.
(Pl.'s Opp'n at 7.) Chevron does not argue that these assertions are
directly contradicted by the Stipulated Order but instead argues that
plaintiffs' claims are "irrational and unreasonable" in light of the Order.
(Def.'s Reply at 7.) Questions about the reasonableness of plaintiffs'
alleged fear and anxiety, however, are for the jury.
Accordingly, the Court will deny Chevron's motion for partial summary
judgment with respect to plaintiffs' damage claims based on emotional
distress.
IV. Common Law Strict Liability
Plaintiffs allege that Chevron's storage of gasoline in USTs at the specific
service station at issue constitutes an abnormally dangerous activity, thus
giving rise to claims for common law strict liability. (Nnadili Compl.
186; Abney Compl. 230.) Chevron argues otherwise, and the Court
agrees.

likely follow the majority of jurisdictions that have held that a defendant
does not engage in abnormally dangerous conduct by storing gasoline [in]
USTs in commercial environments in which leaks are not likely to
jeopardize human safety." Id. at 8; see also id. ("Where USTs are buried
beneath

gasoline

stations

located

in

commercial

settings,

the

overwhelming majority of courts have concluded that such conduct is not

`abnormally
[435 F.Supp.2d 102]
dangerous.'") (citing Arlington Forest Assocs. v. Exxon Corp., 774 F.Supp.
387, 391 (E.D.Va.1991); Hudson v. Peavey Oil Co., 279 Or. 3, 566 P.2d
175, 178 (1977); Smith v. Weaver, 445 Pa.Super. 461, 665 A.2d 1215,
1219-20 (1995); Walker Drug Co. v. La Sal Oil Co., 902 P.2d 1229, 1233
(Utah 1995); Grube v. Daun, 213 Wis.2d 533, 570 N.W.2d 851, 856-57
(1997)). Applying the factors set forth in the Restatement for determining
whether an activity is abnormally dangerous, the Court reasoned:
Unlike archetypical abnormally dangerous activities such as blasting, there
is no evidence to suggest that the risk of seepage [from USTs] cannot be
eliminated by the exercise of reasonable care, or that the harm to be
anticipated from the underground seepage of gasoline is `grave.' Hudson,
566 P.2d at 178; see also Smith, 665 A.2d at 1220 (Gasoline and other
petroleum products can be stored and dispensed safely with reasonable
care. . . .); Walker Drug Co., 902 P.2d at 1233 ([W]e are not convinced
that the risk cannot be eliminated by the exercise of reasonable care.);
Grube, 570 N.W.2d at 857 (Absent negligence or application of an outside
force, use of a USTS does not create a high degree of risk of harm to the
person, land or chattels of another. Moreover those risks that do exist can
be minimized by the exercise of reasonable care by the owner or possessor
of the tank.). Perhaps because reasonable care will typically guard against
any harm that USTs may inflict, the storage of [gasoline] in tanks is a
common use and is valuable to a modern society. Smith, 665 A.2d at
1220; see also Walker Drug Co., 902 P.2d at 1233 ([T]he operation of a
gas station is common, appropriate, and of significant value to the

community.); Arlington Forest, 774 F.Supp. at 391 (holding that gasoline

stations fulfill essential transportation needs in modern society).
Id.
Here too, application of the Restatement factors 8 demonstrates that
Chevron's conduct was not abnormally dangerous as a matter of law.
Because plaintiffs derive their water from the District of Columbia's water
utility, rather than from the groundwater in the area, there does not exist
a high degree of risk that the utilization of USTs at the service station
location will cause great harm to plaintiffs or others through exposure to
contaminated water. (See, e.g., Def.'s Ex. 6) (EPA Press Release, Dec. 11,
2002) ("Since the drinking water supply to the residential area is from a

neighborhood and "virtually on top of a family's drinking-water well," Nat'l

Tel. Co-op. Ass'n, 38 F.Supp.2d at 9, constituted an abnormally dangerous
activity, Yommer,257 A.2d at 138. Again, by contrast, Chevron's USTs,
While located nearby a residential neighborhood, are not situated near any
sources of drinking water and are in an area populated with commercial
enterprises. As other courts have found, "USTs located beneath the ground
of gasoline stations in commercial zones are commonplace and are of
great utility to the community." Nat'l Tel. Co-op. Ass'n, 38 F.Supp.2d at 9.
Accordingly, the Court will grant Chevron's motion for partial summary
judgement with respect to plaintiffs' claims for common law strict liability
and

enter

judgment

in

favor

of

Chevron

on

Count

One

of

the Nnadili Complaint and Count v. of the Abney Complaint.

V. Statutory Claims Under the RCRA

public water supply, there is no known risk to the drinking water from
contamination."). Indeed, plaintiffs have stipulated that there exists no

Plaintiffs in the Abney case allege two claims under the RCRA. 9 In Count

possibility of harmful exposure to contaminants stemming from Chevron's

VII of the AbneyComplaint, plaintiffs assert a citizen suit under 6972(a)

operations.(See Stip. Order 1.) There is also no evidence in the record

(1)(A) to compel Chevron to comply with unspecified provisions of the

that gasoline cannot be stored in USTs safely with reasonable care. And

RCRA and the regulations promulgated thereunder. In Count VIII, they

finally, although the service station is located in close proximity to a

assert a citizen suit under 6972(a)(1)(B) to compel Chevron to perform

residential neighborhood, it is also situated among other commercial

certain remedial measures. Plaintiffs have, however, "withdraw[n] their

properties, including several other retail gasoline service stations and a dry

claim for injunctive relief under the RCRA" (Pl.'s Opp'n at 30), because the

cleaner.

EPA, on November 26, 2002, issued an Administrative Order, pursuant to

[435 F.Supp.2d 103]

Nothing in Brennan Construction Co. v. Cumberland, 29 App. D.C. 554
(1907), andYommer v. McKenzie, 255 Md. 220, 257 A.2d 138 (1969), on
which plaintiffs primarily rely, mandates a contrary result. In Brennan
Construction, the defendant "constructed, almost over the bed of the
[Potomac River], two large tanks, and stored therein some 14,000 gallons
of petroleum residuum, and permitted a considerable quantity to escape to
the
river,
remain
thereon
for
weeks,
and
injure
innocent
persons." Brennan Constr. Co.,29 App. D.C. at 561. Here, Chevron stored
gasoline in USTs away from any potable water supply. In Yommer, the
court similarly concluded that the placement of USTs next to a residential

6973 of the RCRA, requiring Chevron to investigate and, if necessary, to

develop a remedial approach to the conditions that are the subject of this
litigation. (See Def.'s Ex. 3 at III.) Therefore, because plaintiffs have
abandoned these claims, the Court will grant Chevron's motion for partial
summary

judgment

with

respect

to

Counts

VII

and

VIII

of

the Abney Complaint.

VI. Claims of Individuals Whose Properties Do Not Overlie Subsurface
Contamination

According to Chevron, at least some plaintiffs own or reside in homes that

claim for tort damages. Chevron asserts that those plaintiffs whose

are not situated over the subsurface contamination at issue in this

properties are not situated over the plume cannot prove the requisite

litigation. (Def.'s Facts 13.) For the purposes of its motion, Chevron

impact, and that under District of Columbia law, diminution of market

identifies six plaintiffs who it contends fall into this category: (1) Mary and

value alone, with no accompanying personal or property damage, does not

Eunice Minor, of 828 Jefferson Street, N.E., Washington, DC; (2) Jacob and

constitute an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of

Gloria Carey, formerly of 5204 12th Street, N.E., Washington DC; and (3)

land. See Nat'l Tel. Coop. Ass'n, 38 F.Supp.2d at 14 (so holding in context

Tometta and Fred Dendy, of 618 Oglethorpe Street, N.E., Washington, DC.

of private nuisance claim).

(Id.) In support of this contention, Chevron relies on certain maps

purportedly published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which tend to

Without considering the merits of Chevron's legal arguments, the Court

show that the properties of these six plaintiffs "and others" are not

must deny its motion as to these claims because Chevron has failed to

situated over the plume of contamination. (Id.; see also

submit admissible evidence to establish, as a factual matter, that one or

more plaintiffs own or reside on property that is not situated over

[435 F.Supp.2d 104]

Def.'s Ex. 5.)10 Chevron also notes that, instead of claiming that their
properties directly overlie subsurface contamination, these six plaintiffs
merely allege that their properties are "located adjacent to the
underground Plume of contamination." (Nnadili Compl. 115, 116, 125.)
Chevron argues that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all
claims asserted by these six plaintiffs and others whose properties are not
located over the subsurface contamination. (See Def.'s Mem. at 29-33.)
According to Chevron, a party cannot recover damages for alleged
diminution

in

value

based

upon

mere

proximity

to

environmental

contamination. Relying primarily on case law from other jurisdictions,

Chevron argues that a plaintiff either must prove actual physical impact
upon the subject property, see, e.g., Adams v. Star Enter., 51 F.3d 417,
422-25 (4th Cir.1995) (Virginia law); Berry v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 989
F.2d 822, 829 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1117, 114 S.Ct. 1067,
127 L.Ed.2d 386 (1994) (Mississippi law), or substantial interference with
the use and enjoyment of the property, see, e.g., Exxon v. Yarema, 69
Md.App. 124, 516 A.2d 990, 1004 (1986), in order to maintain a valid

subsurface contamination. It is "well-settled that only admissible evidence

may be considered by the trial court in ruling on a motion for summary
judgment." Bortell v. Eli Lilly Co., 406 F.Supp.2d 1, 11 (D.D.C. 2005)
(quoting Beyene v. Coleman Sec. Servs., Inc., 854 F.2d 1179, 1181 (9th
Cir. 1988)); see also Simpkins v. Wash. Area Metro. Transit Auth., 2
F.Supp.2d 52, 56-57 (D.D.C.1998). The maps on which Chevron relies are
presented without any affidavit explaining who prepared them, how they
were prepared, and whether they attempt to delineate the current extent
of contamination.11 Without anything to substantiate their authenticity, the
maps would be inadmissible at trial to establish the plume boundaries and
thus cannot be considered for that purpose on a motion
[435 F.Supp.2d 105]
for summary judgment. See Carmona v. Toledo, 215 F.3d 124, 131 (1st
Cir.2000) ("To be admissible at the summary judgment stage, documents
must be authenticated by and attached to an affidavit that meets the
requirements of Rule 56(e).") (internal quotations and citation
omitted); Orsi v. Kirkwood, 999 F.2d 86, 92 (4th Cir.1993) (same); Friedel
v. City of Madison, 832 F.2d 965, 970 (7th Cir.1987).

While the Court recognizes that evidence "should not be excluded on

ORDERED that defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [# 110]

summary judgment on hypertechnical grounds," Fowle v. C & C Cola, 868

is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; it is

F.2d 59, 67 (3d Cir.1989), strict adherence to the requirements of Rule

56(e) is particularly appropriate here because the delineation of the plume

FURTHER ORDERED that JUDGMENT shall be entered for defendant on

boundaries is arguably a matter of expert opinion rather than a pure

Count One of the Fifth Amended Nnadili Complaint and Counts V, VII, and

question of fact, see id. (unsworn expert report is not competent to be

VIII of the Third AmendedAbney Complaint; it is

considered on a motion for summary judgment). To the extent that the

maps were prepared by an expert, plaintiffs have not had the opportunity
to depose the expert or assess the facts and methodology on which the
expert relied to form an opinion about the scope of contamination.
Moreover, expert discovery on this issue and others has not yet been
completed in this litigation.
In short, because Chevron has failed to support its motion with admissible
evidence, the Court finds that genuine issues of material fact exist, which
preclude it from granting summary judgment on these claims. 12
CONCLUSION

FURTHER

ORDERED that

defendant's

Motion

for

Partial

Summary

Judgment is DENIEDin all other respects; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer on all
outstanding discovery issues and submit to the Court by June 19, 2006, a
joint proposal for the scheduling of the completion of discovery. A status
conference is set for June 26, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. Any plaintiff who intends
to proceed pro se must attend the status conference.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes

For the reasons presented above, Chevron's motion for partial summary
judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Judgment shall be entered
in favor of Chevron' on Count One of the Nnadili Complaint and Counts V,
VII, and VIII of the Abney Complaint. Its motion is denied in all other
respects. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
ORDER
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is
hereby

1. Chevron is a Pennsylvania corporation headquartered in California.

(Answer to Nnadili Compl. 130.)
2. Only the Nnadili plaintiffs asserted claims for wrongful death.
3. Although Chevron acknowledges that this litigation "raises questions
about the choice of law," it nevertheless contends that "[t]hose questions
are immaterial to this motion, however, because the laws of both Maryland
and [the District of Columbia] entitle Chevron to judgment on the selected
claims." (Def.'s Mem. at 11.) Put another way, Chevron necessarily
acknowledges that the choice is limited to the laws of Maryland or the
District of Columbia, but it takes no position as to which law in fact should
apply. Moreover, while Chevron is a Pennsylvania corporation
headquartered in California, neither Chevron nor plaintiffs argue that
Pennsylvania or California law should apply.
4. Although the Court concludes that emotional distress damages are
available in trespass cases under District of Columbia law as a general

matter, the decision in Parker further supports the Court's conclusion in

the context of the trespass claims at issue in these cases. In Parker, the
court noted that its decision to apply the established rule regarding
intentional torts in the case before it was buttressed by the fact that
"Parker's evidence, if credited, shows that the defendant was guilty of a
willful or wanton tort committed under circumstances of insult and
contumely so that mental disturbance was a reasonably foreseeable
consequence." Parker, 557 A.2d at 1323 (citation omitted). Here, plaintiffs
have alleged that the conduct giving rise to their trespass (and nuisance)
claims was willful and wanton and was undertaken with a reckless
disregard for plaintiffs' safety. (Nnadili Compl. 177, 180, 182, 210, 21315, 225; Abney Compl. 203-06, 208, 210, 213, 214, 222, 224, 225.)
5. In such situations, "the District of Columbia courts [typically] look to the
law of Maryland for guidance." Sigmund v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., 374
F.Supp.2d 33, 36 (D.D.C.2005) (quotingConesco, 627 F.2d at 316). In
doing so, however, the Court has concluded that the laws of Maryland and
the District of Columbia diverge. Compare Abbott v. Forest Hill State
Bank, 60 Md.App. 447, 483 A.2d 387, 391 (1984) (conversion of personal
property does not give rise to emotional distress damages) with
Parker, 557 A.2d at 1322-23 (emotional distress damages are available in
action for conversion of personal property).
6. As Chevron accurately asserts; in causes of action for negligent infliction
of emotional distress, courts in the District of Columbia have held that only
plaintiffs within the so-called "zone of danger" can recover damages. See
Williams v. Baker, 572 A.2d 1062, 1067 (D.C.1990). That is to say, the
courts have "adopted the zone of danger approach . . . as the basis for
liability" in such actions. Id.at 1069.
7. Under District of Columbia law, the elements of a claim for intentional
infliction of emotional distress are "(1) extreme and Outrageous conduct
on the part of the defendant which (2) intentionally or recklessly (3)
causes the plaintiff severe emotional distress." Howard Univ. v. Best,484
A.2d 958, 985 (D.C. 1984) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
8. These factors are:(a) existence of a high degree of risk of some harm to
the person, land or chattels of others; (b) likelihood that the harm that
results from it will be great; (c) inability to eliminate the risk by the

exercise of reasonable care; (d) extent to which the activity is not a matter
of common usage; (e) inappropriateness of the activity to the place where
it is carried on; and (f) extent to which its value to the community is
outweighed by its dangerous attributes.
Restatement (Second) of Torts 520 (1977).
9. Plaintiffs in the Nnadili case have not asserted any claims under the
RCRA.
10. Although, "[g]iven the state of discovery," Chevron identifies only
three such properties and six such plaintiffs, it estimates "that more than
50 out of approximately 200 properties at issue in this case are not
situated over the plume, and that more than 100 out of approximately 500
plaintiffs allegedly own or reside at properties that are not over the
plume." (Def.'s Mem. at 29.)
11. Because certain evidence on which Chevron otherwise relies
establishes that (1) the contamination at issue in this litigation has
migrated from the service station location into the soil and groundwater
underlying the Riggs Park neighborhood; and (2) at various times the full
extent and nature of the soil and groundwater contamination was unknown
(see, e.g., Def.'s Ex. 3 at IV.E & F), the Court finds that
certain Nnadili plaintiffs' assertion that their properties were "located
adjacent to the underground Plume of contamination" at the time that
the Nnadili Complaint was filed does not necessarily establish that those
plaintiffs'
properties
have
not
physically
been
impacted
by
contamination. See Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505 ("all
justifiable inferences are to be drawn" in the favor or the non-movant).
12. Even though plaintiffs have not submitted any evidence to oppose
Chevron's motion with respect to these claims, "where the evidentiary
matter in support of the motion does not establish the absence of a
genuine issue, summary judgment must be denied even if no opposing
evidentiary matter is presented." Torres-Rosada v. Rotger-Sabat, 335 F.3d
1, 9 (1st Cir.2003) (citation omitted)