Case 2:21-cv-00782-GW-JPR Document 12 Filed 03/18/21 Page 1 of 24 Page ID #:394

Case 2:21-cv-00782-GW-JPR Document 12 Filed 03/18/21 Page 2 of 24 Page ID #:395

1 2. These cesspools take various forms from trenches located

2 directly under residences where raw sewage is dumped without

3
treatment and apparently stored to “seepage pits” measuring 16 -
4
30 feet deep where raw sewage “effluent” is dumped without
5
further treatment.
6
7
8 3. All of the aforementioned is occurring in areas with

9 known high ground water levels. It is extremely likely these

10
cesspools are polluting the aquifers of the San Fernando Valley
11
and create an incubator for disease spreading organisms.
12
13
14 4. Through the City’s own admissions 39% of Onsite

15 Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS) either experienced a major

16 failure or their owner’s have refused inspection likely knowing
17
their cesspools are mass polluters and will fail (Exhibit A) .
18
19
5. Plaintiff initially requested information pertaining to
20
21 failing “septic systems” from Calabasas via a FOIA request while

22 attempting to locate the source of a rabid fly problem which

23 plaintiff has documented through several Youtube videos
24
(Exhibit B).
25
26
27
28

-2-
Case 2:21-cv-00782-GW-JPR Document 12 Filed 03/18/21 Page 3 of 24 Page ID #:396

1 6. Additionally, there is a retched smell imitating from

2 this same area which is also quite profound even near the top of
3
Old Topanga Canyon Road where Plaintiff’s property is located.
4
City Officials have refused to acknowledge or address either
5
issue.
6
7
8 7. The flies and foul smell are bad enough to physically

9 interfere with Plaintiff’s enjoyment of said real property and

10
are very likely caused by Defendant’s failure to provide public
11
sanitation services or enforce applicable health laws.
12
13
14 II. JURISDICTION and PARTIES

15 8. United States Code 1331 provides “The district courts

16 shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising
17
under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
18
19
9. The City of Calabasas has permitted the operation of
20
21 failed sewage systems that are harmful to the environment and

22 create a public nuisance.

23
24
10. Plaintiff’s relevant legal relationship with the Goose
25
Trust which owns the vacant subject lots is in the form of a
26
27 land lease from said Trust.

28

-3-
Case 2:21-cv-00782-GW-JPR Document 12 Filed 03/18/21 Page 4 of 24 Page ID #:397

1 11. Defendant City of Calabasas is located within the

2 jurisdiction of the Central District Court of California.

3
4
5
III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
6
7 Old Topanga Canyon

8
9 12. The Old Topanga Canyon area of Calabasas extends
10
approximately 1 mile south of Mulholland Highway into the Santa
11
Monica Mountains. There are approximately 41 homes within the
12
subject area which are not served by a public sewer (it is
13
14 unclear where the remaining 133 OWTS (Onsite Wastewater

15 Treatment Systems) are located referenced in Exhibit A.

16
17
13. To date Plaintiff has received 34 septic reports out
18
of the 41 initially requested. ALL 34 reports indicate each
19
20 septic system has either failed, never operated correctly, or

21 violates State and County Plumbing Codes.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-
Case 2:21-cv-00782-GW-JPR Document 12 Filed 03/18/21 Page 5 of 24 Page ID #:398

1 Residences with Cesspools

2
3
14. Two properties utilize cesspools, one residence at 3477
4
Old Topanga Canyon Rd. has a cesspool located under the property
5
which is accessible via what appears to be some sort of trap
6
7 door (Exhibit C).

8
9 15. On December 16th 2020 Plaintiff inquired as to what
10
corrective measures have been made for 3477 Old Topanga Canyon
11
Road. The City replied merely with a permit application to
12
backfill said cesspool dated March 22nd 2011 (Exhibit D).
13
14
15 16. It’s unclear from the information provided if the above
16
residence followed through on backfilling and discontinuing use
17
of said cesspool or what kind of sewage system if any was
18
subsequently installed.
19
20
21 Seepage Pits
22
23
17. Twenty residences in the subject area use seepage pits
24
to dispose of raw sewage effluent. Most seepage pits in question
25
consist of one or more holes 16 to 30 feet deep and 3 to 4 feet
26
27 wide where raw sewage effluent is dumped. No further treatment

28 for the sewage is provided. (Please see Plaintiff’s Memorandum

-5-
Case 2:21-cv-00782-GW-JPR Document 12 Filed 03/18/21 Page 6 of 24 Page ID #:399

1 filed March 10th, 2021 for a complete report on all septic

2 failures)
3
4
18. Typical for the aforementioned 20 residences is a home
5
located at 23317 Valdez Rd. which utilizes a 750 gallon holding
6
7 tank for sewage solids that then dumps into two 20 foot deep, 4

8 feet wide “seepage pits.” (Exhibit E, page 1, paragraph 1.1)

9
10
19. During this particular inspection the inspector opted
11
not to perform a “hydraulic load test” which would test the
12
seepage pit’s absorption abilities because of concerns for
13
14 “illicit” doo doo “discharges” due to high effluent levels.

15 (Exhibit E, page 2, paragraph 2.5)

16
17
20. The City has not responded to Plaintiff’s request for
18
corrective measures taken for 23317 Valdez Rd. However, it
19
should be noted the above residence is a 1,510 square foot home
20
21 on a relatively small 8,004 square foot lot. It’s not clear if a

22 modern On-Site Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) could function

23 on such a small lot not to mention a cesspool seepage pit. Most
24
homes in this area are situated on similarly sized lots.
25
26
27
28

-6-
Case 2:21-cv-00782-GW-JPR Document 12 Filed 03/18/21 Page 7 of 24 Page ID #:400

1 High Water Table

2
3
21. Another residence located at 3220 Canon Place is
4
equipped with three 25 foot deep seepage pits and AGAIN is “in
5
the vicinity of a known high water table area.” (Exhibit F, page
6
7 2, paragraph 1).

8
9 22. The obvious problem with such a sewage disposal method
10
is given the depth of the seepage pits they could almost be
11
considered SHALLOW INJECTION WELLS under EPA guidelines (42 U.S.
12
Code § 6939b) that are literally dumping raw sewage into the
13
14 aquifers of the San Fernando Valley (Calabasas).

15
16 23. 3220 Canon Place like most of the other 41 residences
17
in question is located in the SAME high ground water area at the
18
BASE of the Santa Monica Mountains and is not unique.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-7-
Case 2:21-cv-00782-GW-JPR Document 12 Filed 03/18/21 Page 8 of 24 Page ID #:401

1 IV. CAUSES OF ACTION

2 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

3
Negligence
4
24. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation
5
set forth in paragraphs 1 through 23 of this Complaint.
6
7
8 25. Defendant has the sole responsibility to enforce the
9 municipal codes within the city of Calabasas and “ensure that
10
all new and existing OWTS in the City of Calabasas are
11
environmentally safe and free of health hazards” (Calabasas
12
Municipal Code, Appendix K, Introduction, 2nd paragraph).
13
14
15 26. Instead, Defendant has chosen to ignore the known
16 environmental and public health hazards posed by KNOWN failed
17
septic systems.
18
19
20 27. Though Calabasas Municipal Code conveniently omits

21 ground water requirements for seepage pits, State and County law

22 provide for a minimum of 10 feet clearance to the highest known

23
groundwater levels.
24
State Law – California Plumbing Code, Appendix H 301.1(4)
25
Los Angeles Plumbing Code 11.38.760(F)
26
27
28

-8-
Case 2:21-cv-00782-GW-JPR Document 12 Filed 03/18/21 Page 9 of 24 Page ID #:402

1 28. Defendant’s failure to enforce the aforementioned

2 regulations have foreseeably contributed to the continued

3
failure of said septic systems and the creation of a public
4
nuisance.
5
Plaintiff herein seeks equitable and injunctive relief.
6
7
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
8
Public Nuisance
9
10
11 29. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation
12 set forth in paragraphs 1 through 23 of this Complaint.
13
14
30. Defendant has intentionally permitted the operation of
15
known failed sewage systems which endanger public health,
16
17 pollute the groundwater and seasonal creeks, cause offensive

18 odors, and provide a breeding ground for disease carrying

19 insects.
20
21
31. Defendant’s intentional failure to act in any
22
meaningful way has created a public nuisance under California
23
24 Civil Code 3479.

25
26 32. Plaintiff herein seeks equitable and injunctive relief.
27
28

-9-
Case 2:21-cv-00782-GW-JPR Document 12 Filed 03/18/21 Page 10 of 24 Page ID #:403

1
2 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
3
California Public Resources Code 21001(f)
4
5 33. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation
6 set forth in paragraphs 1 through 23 of this Complaint.
7
8
34. CPRC 21001(f) Requires “governmental agencies at all
9
10 levels to develop standards and procedures necessary to protect

11 environmental quality.” Defendant has failed to develop a

12 meaningful procedure to protect the public or the environment

13
from failed sewage disposal systems.
14
15
35. Defendant has the option to implement one of several
16
17 procedural options which would likely correct this problem, some

18 of which are relatively inexpensive considering costs would be

19 shared among 41 property owners. Solutions include:
20
(1) extending the sewer line from Mulholland Hwy (approximately
21
1 mile from ALL 40 properties in question.
22
(2) Compel installation evaporative treatment systems for each
23
24 property

25 (3) building a local sewage treatment plant to service area

26 residences.
27
Plaintiff herein seeks equitable and injunctive relief.
28

- 10 -
Case 2:21-cv-00782-GW-JPR Document 12 Filed 03/18/21 Page 11 of 24 Page ID #:404

1
2 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
3
Constitutional Violations
4
36. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation
5
set forth in paragraphs 1 through 23 of this Complaint.
6
7
8 37. The offensive odors and nuisance flies created by
9 failed sewage systems Defendant has neglected to regulate
10
physically interfere with Plaintiff’s enjoyment of said subject
11
vacant lot(s). Defendant’s purposeful neglect has created a
12
public nuisance which violates Plaintiff’s 5th and 9th Amendment
13
14 Rights under the United States Constitution.

15
16 Plaintiff herein seeks equitable and injunctive relief.
17
18
19
20 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

21 Violation of 42 U.S. Code § 6939b

22 38. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation
23
set forth in paragraphs 1 through 23 of this Complaint.
24
25
39. Forty Two U.S.C. 6939(b) prohibits the injection of
26
27 hazardous waste into a “well” within one quarter mile distance

28 to an underground source of drinking water. The seepage pits in

- 11 -
Case 2:21-cv-00782-GW-JPR Document 12 Filed 03/18/21 Page 12 of 24 Page ID #:405

1 question are 16 to 30 feet deep and function more as shallow

2 wells in known areas with high ground water levels.

3
4
40. It is therefore extremely likely raw sewage is being
5
introduced into the aquifers of the San Fernando Valley to the
6
7 detriment of anyone utilizing ground water supplies.

8
9 Plaintiff herein seeks equitable and injunctive relief.
10
11
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
12
13 California Penal Code 182(a)(1) Criminal Conspiracy
14
15
41. Plaintiff incorporates herein each and every allegation
16
set forth in paragraphs 1 through 23 of this Complaint.
17
18
19 42. In 2018 Plaintiff improved one of the subject vacant
20
lots owned by the Goose Trust with a 10 foot by 12 foot wooden
21
deck. This caused considerable contention with nearby residents
22
living below Plaintiff’s property and with City Officials.
23
24
25 43. The City Prosecutor’s Office prepared an extensive
26 report of said 10x12 wooden deck, primarily based upon existing
27
Oak Tree laws forbidding construction anywhere near an Oak Tree
28

- 12 -
Case 2:21-cv-00782-GW-JPR Document 12 Filed 03/18/21 Page 13 of 24 Page ID #:406

1 and labeled the wooded deck a public nuisance. (Plaintiff

2 occasionally used said vacant lot for recreational purposes such

3
as reading).
4
5
44. After several attempts to contact City Building
6
7 Officials with no response, in the Summer of 2020 Plaintiff

8 considered the previous issue over and began constructing a

9 wooden staircase to allow accessing said property easier.

10
11
45. Sometime around September 2020 the one parking spot
12
Plaintiff could use along Old Topanga Canyon Road (almost the
13
14 entire road is marked No Parking) was also changed to “No

15 Parking.” Plaintiff inquired about this change with City

16 officials and no reason was provided for the change.
17
18
46. The next closest residence up the road (Old Topanga
19
Canyon) from Plaintiff’s property is approximately 1/3 mile
20
21 distant and this area would likely be considered rural for Los

22 Angeles (downhill there are numerous residences beginning

23 approximately 1/4 mile distant.)
24
25
47. Plaintiff was required to park further along Old
26
27 Topanga Canyon Road in a wooded area that would make it more

28 difficult to keep watch on his vehicle. Shortly after

- 13 -
Case 2:21-cv-00782-GW-JPR Document 12 Filed 03/18/21 Page 14 of 24 Page ID #:407

1 Plaintiff’s vehicle was broken into on October 13th 2020 and

2 numerous items were stolen.

3
4
5
6
7 48. Following this theft nearby residents began hanging

8 out in this area and given the rural nature of the location this

9 appeared a little unusual. Plaintiff later recognized some of

10
the vehicles (namely an older junker truck) belonging to a
11
younger couple who lived with their parents down the hill.
12
13
14 47. Plaintiff believes the changing of said parking signs

15 and vehicle burglary are related and were planned with the
16 consent of certain unknown city officials yet to be determined.
17
Though Plaintiff’s insurance company compensated most of the
18
$2,400 loss, Defendant should be held accountable for it’s part
19
in this conspiracy.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 14 -
Case 2:21-cv-00782-GW-JPR Document 12 Filed 03/18/21 Page 15 of 24 Page ID #:408

1
2
3
V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
4
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for a judgment against
5
Defendant for:
6
7
8 1. Require Defendant to develop a viable plan to discontinue
9 allowing residents to dispose of raw sewage using cesspools,
10
seepage pits, or any other sewage disposal method which pollutes
11
ground water, seasonal creeks, creates a breeding ground for
12
disease spreading insects or produces obnoxious odors.
13
14
15 2. Require Defendant to test and monitor ground water
16 supplies near cesspools, seepage pits, and septic systems for
17
pollution. If higher than normal levels of pollutants are found
18
to require Defendant to implement corrective measures.
19
20
21
3. Require Defendant to provide updated operational tests for
22
all cesspools, seepage pits and septic systems which continue in
23
24 operation to monitor environmental damage.

25
26
27
28

- 15 -
Case 2:21-cv-00782-GW-JPR Document 12 Filed 03/18/21 Page 16 of 24 Page ID #:409

1 4. Require Defendant to implement effective measures to

2 control disease spreading organisms (i.e. flies) and manage

3
offensive odors.
4
5
5. Compensatory damages related to Defendant’s participation
6
7 in said vehicle burglary occurring on October 13 th 2020.

8
9
6. Costs of this lawsuit.
10
11
12 7. Any other relief as the court deems appropriate.
13
14
15
Dated: March 18th, 2021
16
17
18
19
20
21
Bruce Westin Bruce Westin
Plaintiff,
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 16 -
Case 2:21-cv-00782-GW-JPR Document 12 Filed 03/18/21 Page 17 of 24 Page ID #:410
Case 2:21-cv-00782-GW-JPR Document 12 Filed 03/18/21 Page 18 of 24 Page ID #:411
Case 2:21-cv-00782-GW-JPR Document 12 Filed 03/18/21 Page 19 of 24 Page ID #:412
Case 2:21-cv-00782-GW-JPR Document 12 Filed 03/18/21 Page 20 of 24 Page ID #:413
Case 2:21-cv-00782-GW-JPR Document 12 Filed 03/18/21 Page 21 of 24 Page ID #:414
Case 2:21-cv-00782-GW-JPR Document 12 Filed 03/18/21 Page 22 of 24 Page ID #:415
Case 2:21-cv-00782-GW-JPR Document 12 Filed 03/18/21 Page 23 of 24 Page ID #:416
Case 2:21-cv-00782-GW-JPR Document 12 Filed 03/18/21 Page 24 of 24 Page ID #:417