A California-based LLC is seeking justice for alleged environmental contamination caused by a former tenant. On July 24, 2024, Hari Hara, LLC filed a complaint against Team Enterprises, LLC in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The case has seen multiple appeals and remands, with significant legal battles over environmental damage claims.
Hari Hara, LLC purchased commercial property in Santa Clarita that had been occupied by various dry cleaning businesses for decades. Years after the purchase, Hari Hara discovered environmental contamination and sued Team Enterprises for damages related to hazardous waste released into the environment. The initial complaint was filed in 2017 and amended in 2018 to include causes of action under the Hazardous Substance Account Act (HSAA), equitable contribution, public and private nuisance abatement, negligence, continuing trespass, and declaratory relief.
In April 2019, Team Enterprises moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Hari Hara was bound by a settlement agreement signed by a previous property owner, Mark Weinstein. This agreement purportedly released Team from any liability related to environmental contamination. Additionally, Team argued that most of Hari Hara’s claims were time-barred. The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of Team Enterprises based on this release agreement but did not address the statute of limitations defense.
The case saw its first reversal when an appellate court found that there were unresolved issues regarding whether the release agreement was binding on Hari Hara. Specifically, the absence of Exhibit 1 from the settlement agreement left room for doubt about whether all parties intended to release liability without it. On remand, Team Enterprises sought to amend its answer to include specific statutes of limitation defenses and again moved for summary judgment.
The trial court allowed Team Enterprises to amend its answer and subsequently granted their second motion for summary judgment. However, this decision was again appealed by Hari Hara. The appellate court ruled partially in favor of both parties: it upheld that most of Hari Hara’s claims were indeed time-barred but reversed the summary judgment concerning the HSAA cause of action.
Hari Hara contends that it incurred significant costs related to monitoring and investigating ongoing contamination at the property. Despite Weinstein's earlier remediation efforts leading to a "No Further Action" letter from regulatory authorities in 2000, subsequent assessments revealed persistent contamination issues requiring further action.
Team Enterprises argues that as Weinstein's successor-in-interest, Hari Hara is bound by his settlement agreement releasing them from liability. They also claim that Hari Hara should have discovered this agreement through due diligence before purchasing the property. However, evidence suggests that even if such an investigation had been conducted according to industry standards at the time of purchase in 2013, it might not have uncovered all relevant details about past settlements or ongoing contamination risks.
Hari Hara seeks various forms of relief including damages for remediation costs incurred due to environmental contamination allegedly caused by Team Enterprises during their tenancy from 1967 through 1995.
Representing Hari Hara are attorneys Bret A. Stone and Kirk M. Tracy from Paladin Law Group while Steven S. Fleischman and Scott P. Dixler from Horvitz & Levy along with Jan A Greben from Greben Law Office represent Team Enterprises Judge Melvin D Sandvig presides over this case identified as B3826440