Defense Claims - How Many Are Supported by Rules, Regulations, or Laws?


 

Plaintiffs cannot prove the noise is a legal nuisance.

Plaintiffs cannot bring a claim of runway noise against
CCSF  if they bought their home after 1979.

The runway project in 2015 only affected 30 homes.

The noise cannot have been caused by the
2015 runway project.

Under California Civil Code 3482, plaintiffs can't claim
the runway noise is a nuisance.

Plaintiffs cannot have experienced a significant change
in aircraft noise exposure.

The large increase in runway noise is a result of
NextGen.

The large increase in runway noise is a result of
a huge uptick in air traffic.

The airport has no legal control over the plaintiffs' alleged harms.

Plaintiffs must furnish documents to CCSF showing expenses .......due to
runway noise. 

The Judicial Council confirms that federal statues may be
abided by in small claims court.

Federal laws have preemption over local runway noise.

Federal laws bar a nuisance action and plaintiffs' claims
against a city-owned airport.

The defense can order the court to dismiss the plaintiffs'
claims.

The FAA is responsible for runway noise, not
CCSF.

The defense can request moving the hearings to
another county. 

The defense can request that the appeal process
be transferred to another county.

On the airport's website, the defense displayed
notice that the FAA has full control over aircraft

noise, preempting state and local control.