SFO Legal Action: Part 4 - A Split Decision

Many of the remaining 39 plaintiffs gathered in Small Claims court in Redwood City this morning to hear Judge Cristina Mazzei's ruling on our claims against SFO for runway noise.  You can read the background here.  The judge went the extra mile to render her decision live instead of the usual notice-by-mail.  We will have the full text of her ruling later, but I was scribbling madly so I could give you the main points.  I'll update it when I have all of the details.

As she started to speak about how the runway, back blast noise was "clearly bothersome" but also "known at the time of the purchase of the homes" I prepared for a denial of our claims.  When she noted that the airport operations were mostly the same over time (i.e. no new runways or flight patterns) that sense was heightened.  She noted that we had not provided expert testimony that operations had changed which is true.  She then reviewed the results of several prior lawsuits at other airports concluding that Civil Code 3482 was "not a total defense" for the City of San Francisco and SFO.  Her review of 49 USC 47506 "Limitations on recovering damages for noise" reminded everyone of the city's defense that anyone who purchased their home after 1980 was precluded from collecting damages unless certain conditions are met.  Many of us have thought at least a couple of the conditions had been met, but she apparently disagreed.

In a split decision, the judge awarded damages as requested ($2,500 each) to nine plaintiffs who bought their houses before 1980 and denied the rest.  It took awhile to digest the split decision as the team met afterwards.  It seems a bit contradictory to me (and the team) as the judge appears to say that there is a continuing nuisance, it's damaging to the enjoyment of people's property, SFO is liable for this damage, but only if someone has owned their home for 40 years or more.  As I said, many of us thought conditions had changed to obviate the 1980 limit.  Once we have the full text and get some legal advice (something we have not done, but the City of SF clearly has done), we will hopefully be better positioned for Round 2 of claims.  That will start soon.  In the meantime, we wait to see if SF appeals the decision or decides that $22,500 is a small enough amount to let the sleepless dogs lie.  I will also have more detailed information from the monitor I had for three weeks.

Comments

[Ted Yun]

Thanks for the summary Joe, and big congrats to the 9 plaintiffs who prevailed. That is a great victory, and if anyone purchased their house before 1940, they should be notified that they can start claiming up to $10,000/yr as long as the airport noise remains as loud as it is.

I am wondering however, how the judge ignored the exception in the statute that said if there is an increase in nighttime operations, we are allowed to collect damages. Data from the SFO website clearly shows an increase in nighttime take offs. If you apply a simple student's t-test, it meets the statistical definition of "significant" difference between 2017 and 2018. Thus, any way I read that statute, we should be eligible for damages. I have not yet compiled the 2019 data, but just perusing the past month's reports, it looks like there is a clear upward trend for the first 6 months.

Did the judge elaborate why she ignored this exception?

[Joe]

I think it is incumbent on us, in Round 2, to highlight what we think she missed and to do it with data as you suggest, Ted. There are a number of such areas where we need to dig deeper including how much late night maintenance testing/run-ups are happening. The 2 am whine has been bad this week.

[Sleepless Dogs]

I have to admit the let sleepless dogs lie is pretty damn funny. A lot of people just think we live next to an airport so deal with it, but you all have paved the way for things to improve. Thanks. I think.

[PEOPLEBITCH]

bad weather or FAA rerouting flights = flight noise. I've lived here for 40 + years and there has always been plane noise, train noise, and dogs barking. Has it gone worse? Of course! That's because there are MORE people living on the Peninsula. The next complaint will be about the traffic and banning cars.

[resident]

It's a good think the judge disagrees with you :-0

[Barking Dog]

As I've stated before here, I seem to fall with PEOPLEBITCH on this topic.

You must be 1 of the 9 plaintiffs to receive judgement Resident. If so congrats...good luck collecting. IMO, that is a bigger up hill battle than fighting and getting a favorable judgment. SFO just isnt going to writh the favorable judgements recipients a check.

For the other 32 plaintiffs, good luck if you continue your fight. I guess if you have the motivation, time, resources, money and patience is going to get you a favorable judgment, keep up the fight. To me it seems like pissing into the wind.

[Sally Meakin]

For those interested in accurate information on this topic, please visit sforunwaynoise.com. The runway back blast began about 3 1/2 years ago. The many implausible “explanations” that are lightly doled out can be ruled out. The city of San Francisco is responsible for the airport noise; we want the city to investigate and remediate the cause.

[PB2]

What's more entertaining than people bitching about other people's bitching, PEOPLEBITCH?