Print EmailText:SmallMediumLarge

Kurt Weissmuller

Partner


Mr. Weissmuller, a partner with the firm’s Environmental & Land Development Group, focuses his practice on environmental litigation and compliance counseling. He practices in federal and state courts, and his matters involve a wide spectrum of environmental laws and regulations including Superfund, waste, air and water matters. He also specializes in defending citizen suit cases, particularly under California’s Proposition 65, the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and California’s unfair competition and false claims laws. In this capacity, he represents a wide range of clients, including energy, oil, chemical and aerospace concerns and industry trade groups.

Mr. Weissmuller also represents clients in transactions involving Brownfields and other contaminated properties, develops remediation strategies and counsels on environmental compliance issues including California’s Hazard Communication Standard and California’s unique Proposition 65 occupational, environmental and consumer product warning requirements.

Representative Experience

  • Currently represents one of the nation’s largest school districts in a lawsuit seeking the recovery of costs expended by the school district to remediate hazardous substance contamination at a future school site from former site owners and operators. The action represents one of the largest filed under California’s CERCLA-equivalent statute, the Hazardous Substances Account Act.
  • Currently represents a major cement manufacturer respecting to terminal operations at the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles for exposures of persons in and around the ports to diesel engine exhaust. He prevailed in the trial court level and is now defending the judgment on appeal.
  • Successfully defended a major plumbing manufacturer in a lawsuit alleging unlawful exposures to lead and illegal discharges of lead to drinking water, through the use of client’s plumbing products. After trial, the court agreed that plaintiff’s scientific testing methods were unreliable and plaintiff was therefore incapable of proving an essential element of its claim. As You Sow v. Conbraco Industries, et al., 135 Cal App 4th 431, 37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 399 (2005).
  • Defended a major petroleum company in a CERCLA cost recovery action, successfully arguing that plaintiff’s response costs incurred in addressing site contamination were inconsistent with regulatory requirements, namely the National Contingency Plan, and thus were barred. Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. Unocal Corporation, 433 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir. 2006); Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. Unocal Corporation, 287 F.Supp.2d 1118 (C.D.Cal. 2003).
  • Represented several international hotel chains and two petroleum companies in defense of a lawsuit filed under California’s Proposition 65 for unlawful exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke. Prevailed in the trial court and on appeal on the grounds that plaintiff failed to meet its standing obligations by failing to submit an adequate notice of intent to sue. Yeroushalmi v. Miramar Sheraton, 88 Cal.App.4th 738, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 332 (2001).
  • Represented an aluminum manufacturing company in a CERCLA cost recovery action filed by the United States in the Stringfellow Superfund Site. After an allocation trial, the Special Master agreed that the majority of costs were attributable to the actions of other parties, which allowed a successful settlement of the matter. United States v. Stringfellow, 1993 U.S. Dist. Lexis 19113 (C.D.Cal. 1993).
  • Successfully defended a major aerospace company in a Clean Water Act citizen suit on grounds that plaintiffs lacked standing and because action was barred by parallel state proceedings concerning similar violations.
  • Other Published Decisions: Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. Kintetsu Enterprises of America, 129 Cal. App. 4th 540, 28 Cal. Rptr. 3d 775 (2005) - (environmental, Proposition 65); Communities For a Better Environment v. Cenco Ref. Co., 179 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (C.D. Cal. 2001) - (environmental, Clean Air Act); Honolulu v. Churchill, 167 F. Supp. 2d 1143 (D. Haw. 2000) - (environmental, CERCLA); Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Interstate Non-Ferrous Corp., 99 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (E.D. Cal. 2000) - (environmental, CERCLA); and United States v. Hardage, 750 F. Supp. 1460 (W.D. Okla. 1990) - (environmental, CERCLA).


Kurt Weissmuller

333 South Hope Street
16th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3004
Phone: 213-576-1003
Fax: 213-576-1100

Education

  • Loyola Law School Los Angeles
    (J.D., 1984)
  • California State University, Northridge
    (B.A., 1980)

Admitted to Practice

  • California