Exxon Must Face Trespass Suit Over Refinery Pollution

ExxonMobil is back in court—and this time, it’s for allegedly poisoning the ground beneath a Southern California neighborhood.

A federal appeals court on Monday 14th April, 2025 revived claims that the oil giant trespassed under California law by allowing toxic petroleum waste from its Torrance refinery to seep into the soil near nearby homes. The decision breathes new life into a yearslong legal battle over long-term pollution from one of the region’s oldest industrial sites.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided in part with plaintiff Jose Navarro, a Torrance resident who brought the suit in 2017 on behalf of himself and others living in the shadow of the refinery. Navarro alleged that the facility leaked hazardous materials into the surrounding soil and groundwater—pollution that then released harmful vapors into nearby residences.

In a short, unpublished decision, the court said Navarro’s claim that ExxonMobil committed trespass by contaminating the land beneath his property should not have been thrown out by the lower court. The panel found that his allegations, which included subsurface contamination, fell squarely within California’s definition of trespass—even though the pollution wasn’t visible.

The district court had dismissed the trespass claim, interpreting it too narrowly as focused only on vapor intrusion. But the Ninth Circuit said that view missed the broader allegations of soil and groundwater contamination at the heart of Navarro’s lawsuit.

“The district court’s dismissal...was based on an overly narrow interpretation of Navarro’s trespass allegations and is therefore reversed,” the panel wrote.

The appeals court also reversed a lower court ruling that decertified a group of residents Navarro hoped to represent—those allegedly impacted by ground contamination. That subclass will now return to the district court for reconsideration.

However, it wasn’t a full victory for Navarro. The Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal of his public nuisance claims, finding that he didn’t show enough evidence of serious or “substantial” harm under California law. Navarro had pointed to health risks associated with airborne pollutants from the refinery, but the court said those risks weren’t high enough to trigger regulatory intervention or legal action.

Without a viable nuisance claim, Navarro also lost his bid to represent a second group of residents—those affected by air pollution from the refinery. That part of the case remains closed.

What’s Next?

The ruling means ExxonMobil must now defend itself against allegations that it trespassed by contaminating private land—a charge that, if proven, could carry serious legal and financial consequences.

The case, which stretches back nearly a decade, has become a flashpoint in Torrance, where environmental and community groups have long accused the refinery of operating with too little oversight. The refinery, built in 1929 and once owned by Exxon, has changed hands in recent years but remains a major industrial presence in the Los Angeles basin.

For now, the lawsuit heads back to federal district court, where Navarro’s trespass claim and the reinstated subclass could move closer to trial.

ExxonMobil has denied wrongdoing and previously argued that Navarro’s claims didn’t meet the legal threshold for either trespass or nuisance. A spokesperson for the company didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.

📌 Top 5 Takeaways from Navarro v. ExxonMobil:

1. 🏠 Trespass Claim Revived

   • The appeals court reversed the dismissal of Navarro’s trespass claim, allowing it to proceed based on soil and groundwater contamination, not just vapor intrusion.

2. 👥 Ground Subclass Back in Play

   • The court vacated the decertification of the Ground Subclass, meaning those affected by underground pollution may still be part of a class action.

3. ❌ Nuisance Claim Dismissal Upheld

   • Navarro’s claim that air pollution caused substantial harm was rejected; the court found no triable issue of fact.

4. 🚫 Air Subclass Decertification Stands

   • Since the nuisance claim failed, Navarro can’t represent the Air Subclass, and the court declined to review that part of the appeal.

5. 🔄 Case Sent Back to Lower Court

   • The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings on the revived trespass claim and reconsideration of class certification.

🔎 You Might Also Like:

• 🏛️ Judge Paula Xinis and the Trump-Era Deportation Reversal
  A Maryland man’s mistaken deportation and the federal judge who challenged it.
  👉 Read more

• 🔥 Man Charged in Fire at Pennsylvania Governor’s Mansion
  A high-profile arson case unfolds at the heart of state government.
  👉 Read more

• 🌍 Ohio Moves to Ban Foreign Ownership of Farmland
  New legislation targets national security and land use across the Buckeye State.
  👉 Read more

• 💼 Clifford Chance Advises on GreenYellow C&I Stake Sale
  A major energy transition deal sees GreenYellow divest its commercial & industrial unit.
  👉 Read more