Chen v. Hu

Background

Defendants Cheng Hu and Xiao Liang owned property next to the home of plaintiffs Donald Chen and Stephanie Chan. A landslide from defendants’ property moved into plaintiffs’ backyard. Soil and debris remained on plaintiffs’ property, including material that buried a retaining wall and partly filled a swimming pool. Plaintiffs sued for nuisance and trespass, based on defendants’ refusal to remove the soil and debris.

Evidence concerning the landslide

Plaintiffs’ expert, Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. (CSA), prepared preliminary findings after the landslide had occurred. CSA reviewed City of Hillsborough documents, aerial images, and the site. CSA reported that a GeoForensics report in the City’s files attributed the landslide to high groundwater on the upslope portion of defendants’ property. Neither party submitted the GeoForensics report itself.

CSA also reviewed a 2022 sewer-inspection report that showed an area of damage and root intrusion. During a 2022 site inspection, CSA observed seepage from a retaining wall installed after the landslide.

Donald Chen testified that he did not know of anything defendants intentionally did, or failed to do, that caused the landslide. Stephanie Chan gave similar testimony. At the hearing, plaintiffs argued that defendants had negligently maintained a retaining wall or sewer line, but the court found no evidence that defendants had a retaining wall before the landslide, knew or should have known about sewer damage before February 2017, or that the sewer line was damaged before the landslide.

Legal standard

The court explained that summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A material fact is one that could affect the outcome, and a genuine dispute exists only when the evidence could allow a reasonable fact finder to rule for the nonmoving party. Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the opposing party must identify specific evidence showing that a trial-worthy factual dispute exists.

Court’s analysis

The court stated that nuisance liability requires conduct that directly and unreasonably interferes with another person’s use and enjoyment of property, or creates a condition that does so. The conduct must be intentional and unreasonable, negligent or reckless, or an abnormally dangerous activity for which strict liability applies. When the alleged injury results from a natural condition, the court explained, nuisance liability generally requires negligence in dealing with that condition.

For trespass, the court stated that plaintiffs had to show ownership or control of the property, an intentional, reckless, or negligent entry by defendants, lack of permission, harm, and that defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm.

The court concluded that plaintiffs had no evidence showing defendants caused the landslide through intentional, reckless, or negligent conduct. The expert materials showed, at most, that high groundwater on defendants’ property caused the landslide and that debris moved onto plaintiffs’ property. They did not establish wrongful conduct by defendants. The court also found that the evidence about the sewer line and the post-landslide retaining wall did not show negligence before or during the landslide.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It stated that there was a complete lack of evidence that defendants intentionally, recklessly, or negligently caused or failed to prevent the landslide. The court said it would issue a separate judgment, and the Clerk was directed to close the file.