policy sets forth specific examples of contaminants and/or irritants: ‘smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste.’ According to the principle of ejusdem generis, the proper construction of the term ‘pollutant’ is therefore ‘restricted’ to contaminants and irritants which are ‘of the same kind, class, or nature’ as the specific examples listed. [Citations.] Defendants argue that the use of the word ‘including’ before the specific examples means that the definition of ‘pollutants’ should not be limited to substances which are similar to the specified examples. However, the use of the word ‘including’ does not affect the application of the ejusdem generis doctrine. County of Yolo v. Los Rios Community College Dist, 5 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1254 [7 Cal.Rptr.2d 647] (1992) (<HOLDING>).” (Tsakopoulos, supra, 2003 WL 22595248 at p.
holding that the term include but need not be limited to does not preclude the application of the ejusdem generis principle holding that the cwa does not include a remedial scheme sufficient to preclude an ex parte young action holding that when a term is defined in the statute it need not be further alleged in the indictment recognizing principle recognizing same principle