Richard G. Montevideo

Mr. Montevideo is a partner in the Government & Regulatory Law Section of Rutan & Tucker, LLP, where he specializes in environmental law, emphasizing Superfund and cost recovery litigation under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), the Hazardous Substance Account Act (“State Superfund”) and related provisions and common law theories of recovery.

Mr. Montevideo has worked on a number of matters involving various National Priority List Superfund Sites, such as the San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site, the McColl Site in the City of Fullerton, the Montrose Chemical NPL Site in Los Angeles (the Palos Verdes Shelf and the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Complex), as well as various other State and federal Superfund sites throughout Southern California.

Mr. Montevideo advises clients on a regular basis on a number of regulatory compliance matters, including issues arising under the Clean Water Act (including NPDES and TMDL issues), the California Porter-Cologne Act, State and federal Underground Storage Tank Laws, State and federal laws addressing hazardous materials and acutely hazardous materials, lender liability issues, Proposition 65 (the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986), the Polanco Act (H&S Code § 33459 et seq.) the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), and related laws and regulations.

Mr. Montevideo has extensive experience in dealing with local, State, and federal regulatory agencies, including the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency (the Department of Toxic Substances Control), the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, as well as local health departments, public works departments, and fire departments.

Mr. Montevideo also regularly advises clients in real estate transactions involving Brownfield properties and the purchase and sale of properties contaminated and potentially contaminated with hazardous substances and hazardous waste, including advising public entities in their acquisition and/or condemnation of contaminated properties.

Mr. Montevideo is presently the Chair of the Orange County Bar Association, Environmental Law Section, and has acted as either the Chair or Co-Chair of this organization since January 1995.

Mr. Montevideo has also chaired the firm’s Environmental Law Practice Group since 1992, which represents a concentration of the firm’s environmental expertise in both the transactional and litigation settings. He is a member of the Orange County Bar Association, the California State Bar, and a former Adjunct Professor of Environmental Law at Chapman University College of Law.

Mr. Montevideo is also trained in the skills of mediation, having completed training at Pepperdine University’s Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution.

Mr. Montevideo obtained his BA in 1981 from Ohio State University, graduating summa cum laude, and received his JD with honors from the Ohio State University College of Law in 1984. He has been with the law firm of Rutan & Tucker since 1984 and has been a partner since 1992.

Areas of Expertise

• Environmental Law
• Superfund and Toxic Tort Litigation
• Environmental Regulatory Compliance
• Public Law
• Litigation

Examples of Significant Litigation

• Cities of Arcadia, et al. v. State Water Resources Control Board et al., Case No. GIC 803631 (2006), 135 Cal.App.4th 1392. Acted as lead trial and appellate counsel in successfully challenging a storm water regulation (Total Maximum Daily Load) on behalf of 22 Los Angeles County Cities, with the Court of Appeal upholding a judgment overturning the regulation on the ground that the State and Regional Boards failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.
• Cities of Arcadia, et al. v. State Water Resources Control Board et al., OCSC, Case No 06CC002974. This is a pending lawsuit challenging the application of the water quality standards in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region, to stormwater/urban runoff. As counsel for 18 Los Angeles County Cities and the Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation, we are pursuing a Judgment and Writ of Mandate that would require the State Water Resources Control Board and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board to comply with the California Porter-Cologne Act before applying water quality standards to stormwater/urban runoff.
• Cities of Bellflower, et al. v. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, et al., Case No. A-1280. We represented 33 Cities in Los Angeles County, appealing action taken by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board on the issuance of a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan for Los Angeles County (“SUSMP”). The SUSMP was issued pursuant to the then existing NPDES Permit for all Cities in Los Angeles County, excepting the City of Long Beach. The State Water Resources Control Board accepted the Administrative Petition for review, and conducted a two-day hearing on the Petition, making modifications to the SUSMP adopted by the Regional Board to accommodate various concerns raised by the 33 petitioning Cities.
• City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, LASC Case No. BC 174293. We represented the City of Long Beach in a challenge to the 1996 Municipal NPDES Permit that was issued for all cities in the County of Los Angeles. The challenge was resolved by a settlement enabling Long Beach, on their own, to negotiate a separate Municipal NPDES Permit for the City of Long Beach only.
• Orange County Great Park. As environmental counsel for the City of Irvine, negotiated a $100,000,000 Legal Liability Insurance Policy concerning personal injury, property damage and remediation covering the proposed Orange County Great Park.
• United States, et al. v. Montrose Chemical Corporation, et al., USDC Case No. 90-3122-AAH. We defended the Cities of Irwindale, Lawndale, San Fernando, Signal Hill and West Covina in this action for cleanup of the ocean waters off the coast of Southern California. The action was brought under the Natural Resource and Response Cost provisions of CERCLA as a result of DDT and PCB contamination to the ocean waters and the resulting damage to fish and wildlife. Over 150 local governmental entities have been named in third-party complaints. U.S. EPA had estimated the damages and estimated response costs to the Palos Verdes Shelf and former Montrose DDT Plant Site to be approximately $225 - $250 million. The Local Governmental Entities participated in extensive negotiations to arrive at an Amended Consent Decree with U.S. EPA, NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), and the State of California.
• City of West Covina v. BKK Corporation, et al., LASC Case No. KC018467 and Case No. BC084305. We represented the City of West Covina in its claims against the operator of the BKK Landfill to recover significant license fees that went unpaid from BKK Corporation and affiliated entities. After prevailing on a motion for summary judgment on a cross-claim against the City, the City entered into a very favorable settlement which exceeded over $10 million in payments from the defendants, along with other assurances from the operator in connection with future license fee payments.
• Signal Hill Redevelopment Agency v. WH Tank Lines, Inc., LASC Case No. BC172674. We represented the Signal Hill Redevelopment Agency in a cost recovery action brought by the Agency pursuant to California Health & Safety Code Section 33459.1, et seq., as well as under a sublease agreement and state common law. We were successful in obtaining a judgment for Agency for the entire costs incurred in assessing and remediating the contamination left on the property by the defendant.
• Adams, An, Barks, Burdick, Catling and Infante, et al. v. City of Fullerton, et al., OCSC Case Nos. 50-97-06, 50-97-07, 50-97-08, 50-97-09, 50-97-10 and 50-97-11. These lawsuits represented the second wave of lawsuits filed by homeowners against the City of Fullerton, a number of developers, oil companies, property owners, and various other defendants for damages the Plaintiffs allegedly incurred as a result of living in proximity to the McColl dump site in Fullerton. The Plaintiffs claimed damage from air pollution, alleged water contamination and soil contamination. Over 700 plaintiffs filed suit in this second wave of suits, initially collectively seeking over $5 billion in damages. Over twenty lawsuits had preceded these actions. After several years of litigation, the City of Fullerton's insurance carriers ultimately settled the lawsuit on behalf of the City, but over the City's objections. The insurance carriers thereafter sued the City to recover the settlement amount, and sued for declaratory relief on the basis they were not required to defend the City in the McColl II lawsuits. The litigation with the insurance carriers was ultimately settled with the City of Fullerton not paying any portion of the settlement funds, and with the City being reimbursed for a large majority of its defense costs in the underlying litigation.
• White & White Properties v. The United States of America, et al., USDC Case No. 95-5695 GHK (RNBx). We represented the Plaintiff White & White Properties in litigation in its attempt to force prior owners and operators of property in the City of Azusa to participate in the cleanup of groundwater in the San Gabriel Valley Superfund Basin. We also represented the client in discussions with U.S. EPA, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board and the PRP Steering Committee over participation in remedial activities and in the allocation of costs for investigating and remediating groundwater contamination in the Baldwin Park Operable Unit of the San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site. We were successful in having our client's insurance carriers assume responsibility for the litigation.
• Holchem, Inc. v. To-Be-Le, Inc., OCSC Case No. X633411. We represented the Plaintiff, Holchem, Inc., who operated a properly permitted hazardous waste facility in the City of Santa Ana. The Defendants were the prior owners and operators of the facility prior to Holchem's operations on the site. After being named in a Cleanup and Abatement Order by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Holchem brought suit to require the current owner and the previous operators on the property to remediate the soil and groundwater contamination on the site. The parties ultimately arrived at an agreement to settle the lawsuit with the Defendants agreeing to create a trust fund in the amount of approximately $1.4 million to be used to clean both the soil and groundwater contamination on the property. Both the Regional Board, as well as a representative of the State Department of Toxic Substances Control, participated in the discussions setting up the trust and both approved the creation of the trust fund.
• Rosendale v. Moore, OCSC Case No. 727257. We successfully represented the City of Fullerton in an action brought against the City as a result of the existence of a small landfill alleged to have been used by the City in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. The City successfully defended against the claim on the grounds that the prior owners and operators of the facility "consented" to the City's use of the facility, and thus any claims for nuisance and/or trespass against the City were barred.
• Southern Pacific Transportation Company, et al. v. City of Signal Hill, Signal Hill Redevelopment Agency, City of Hawaiian Gardens, Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency, et al., USDC Case No. CV 91 1428 SVW (JRx). A Superfund action was filed by Plaintiffs Southern Pacific Transportation Company and Konoike Engineering and Transport Company for damages allegedly resulting from the disposal of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soil and allegedly other lead contaminated soil. We successfully represented the Cities and Redevelopment Agencies of Hawaiian Gardens and Signal Hill, in an important motion where the Court found the petroleum exclusion under CERCLA applied to limit the defendants liability. (See, Southern Pacific Transportation Co., et al. v. California (Caltrans) et al. 790 F. Supp. 983 (CD Cal. 1991).)   The Plaintiffs sought $3-4 million in cleanup costs and an additional $3-4 million in lost profits, lost opportunity costs and other damages. The action was eventually settled, with our client paying a small fraction of the claimed damages. The soil disposed on behalf of Signal Hill and Hawaiian Gardens on the Plaintiffs' property allegedly represented over one-third of the total alleged contaminated soil.
• Signal Hill Redevelopment Agency v. B.J. Hughes and Signal Hill Redevelopment Agency v. D.P. Investments, LASC Case Nos. C706123 and C706122 respectively. Two lawsuits were filed on behalf of the Signal Hill Redevelopment Agency to acquire property known to be contaminated with certain hazardous waste. The Redevelopment Agency proceeded to remediate the contamination on the properties and thereafter sued for the recovery of its cleanup costs. The Redevelopment Agency ultimately reached a satisfactory resolution with the previous owners and operators of the property, recovering a significant portion of its overall cleanup costs.
• OCERS The Orange County Employees Retirement System v. Moore Business Forms, Inc., USDC Case No. CV 93-7839 AAH. We represented the Orange County Employees Retirement System ("OCERS") in an action brought against a former tenant on the property as a result of contamination caused by the tenant's prior operations. The action was brought under the provisions of CERCLA, RCRA and a number of state common law theories of recovery. We were able to obtain a very satisfactory settlement for the plaintiff. Also, in subsequent proceedings before the U.S. District Court, we were successful in forcing the Regional Water Quality Control Board to provide expedited review and site closure for the property.
• Lois Shea v. DataCard Corporation, et al., USDC Case No. SA-CV-90-416 AHS (RWRx) and OCSC Case No. X639090. We represented Datacard Corporation in this action for cleanup of soil and groundwater contamination at a site in Santa Ana. Actions were filed both in federal district court and in state court, and a subsequent action was filed by our client DataCard Corporation against its insurance carriers in state court. We were successful in prevailing on a motion for summary judgment in federal court on the basis that the plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of the National Contingency Plan on the grounds there was insufficient evidence of a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance on the property. The state court action was subsequently resolved by settlement in the course of our resolution of a declaratory relief action filed against the Client’s insurance carriers.
• In re Chatham Brothers Barrel Yard Site. We represented a private party in a PRP Steering Committee concerning the Chatham Brothers Barrel Site in Escondido, California, a State Superfund site. The client was a member of the PRP Group whereby the PRP Group worked with the State of California in an effort to assess and prepare a remedial action plan for the site.
• State of California, Department of Food and Agriculture v. City of Fullerton, OCSC Case No. 625496. We represented the City of Fullerton in its dispute with the State of California over the use of Fullerton Airport for Medfly spraying operations by the State. The City successfully prevented the State from using the City's Airport as a staging base for its spraying operations in Orange County.
• Houser Company v. Shell Oil Company, LASC Case No. C712445. We prosecuted this action on behalf of Plaintiff Houser Company for cleanup of gasoline contamination of a former Shell service station. We were successful in arriving at a satisfactory settlement with Shell which in sum and substance provided for the assessment and remediation of the contamination.
• Houser Company v. Exxon Corporation, et al., USDC Case No. CV-92-0148 WDK (EEx). We prosecuted this action on behalf of Plaintiff Houser Company for cleanup of gasoline contamination of a former Exxon service station. We arrived at a satisfactory settlement for the client, which in large part provided for the assumption of responsibility for cleanup of the contamination by one of the defendants.
• Mushegain v. Taylor, et al., LASC Case No. KC004824. We represented the plaintiff against a former tenant circuit board manufacturer that had contaminated the property with heavy metals such as copper, lead, and nickel, along with various acids and other caustic materials and chemicals. The action was ultimately settled with payments to the plaintiff from the insurance carriers representing the defendants, along with a contribution from the defendants themselves.

Recent Presentations

Program co-chair, Southern California Stormwater Water Quality Program, Law Seminars International, and moderated a panel discussion on "The Most Effective Ways to Address Urban Run Off."

Publications

• Are You Making “All Appropriate Inquiries?” – New U.S. EPA Final Rule Strengthens Environmental Due Diligence Standards, by Richard Montevideo, Partner and Olivia Marr, Associate, Orange County Lawyer, September 2006.
• Environmental Responsibility In California: Mediate It Or Litigate It, by Richard Montevideo, Partner [copyright 1998 Rutan & Tucker].
• The 1996 Lender/Fiduciary Reforms To CERCLA Are Likely The Last Major Reforms To Superfund Until After The Millennium, by Richard Montevideo, Partner and Alan T. Schroeder, Jr. Senior Law Librarian [copyright 1998 Rutan & Tucker].