7:14-cv TMC Date Filed 02/20/14 Entry Number 24 Page 1 of 16

Transcription

1 7:14-cv TMC Date Filed 02/20/14 Entry Number 24 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA SPARTANBURG DIVISION Jay Easler, individually and as class representative of others similarly situated, vs. Plaintiffs, Hoechst Celanese Corporation, HNA Holdings, Inc., CNA Holdings, Inc., Hercules, Inc., Ashland, Inc., Hystron Fibers, Inc., Messer Greishiem, Inc., Arteva Specialties S.a.r.l d/b/a "KoSa", Johns Manville Corporation, INVISTA S.a.r.l d/b/a "Invista", Teijin Monofilament U.S., Inc., Teijin Holdings USA, Inc., Auriga Polymers Inc., Indorama Ventures USA, Inc., Defendants. MOTION TO DISMISS BY DEFENDANT JOHNS MANVILLE and MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT Defendant Johns Manville, registered to do business in South Carolina as Johns Manville, Inc. ("Johns Manville" 1 hereby files this Motion to Dismiss the Complaint and Memorandum in Support pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b(1 and 12(b(6 on the grounds that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 2 Plaintiff's Complaint includes three (3 causes of action pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA and three (3 causes of action pursuant to state tort law. The Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Defendant Johns 1 Johns Manville has been incorrectly identified in the Complaint as Johns Manville Corporation. Johns Manville is the proper defendant and responds to the Complaint with this Motion to Dismiss. See Defendant Johns Manville's Rule Disclosures for further information. 2 In addition, by filing this Motion to Dismiss, Johns Manville hereby reserves the right to contest jurisdiction by improper service on behalf of Johns Manville, and this Motion to Dismiss should not be considered a waiver by Johns Manville of any denial of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b(2.

2 7:14-cv TMC Date Filed 02/20/14 Entry Number 24 Page 2 of 16 Manville for any of the causes of action or to confer the required standing to bring the state law claims. Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient notice for the RCRA claims, which failure deprives the Court of subject matter jurisdiction over these claims. As such, Johns Manville is entitled to a dismissal of all causes of action against Johns Manville. In the Complaint, Plaintiff summarily alleges that all Defendants in this action have discharged pollutants into the environment resulting in injury to Plaintiff. Defendant Johns Manville brings its Motion to Dismiss on the basis that Plaintiff failed to allege a single fact to establish that Johns Manville ever handled any of the alleged pollutants or ever handled any substance in violation of law, regulation or permit. Johns Manville also joins in and incorporates by reference the legal arguments presented in the Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Hoechst Celanese Corporation, HNA Holdings, Inc., and CNA Holdings, Inc. (the "Hoechst Celanese Defendants" as additional grounds for dismissal of the Complaint against Johns Manville. STANDARD OF REVIEW A Rule 12(b(6 motion should be granted only if, after accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true, it appears certain that Plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of its claims that entitles it to relief. Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4 th Cir The complaint should not be dismissed unless it is certain that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief under any legal theory that might plausibly be suggested by the facts alleged. Mylan Labs, Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4 th Cir In Chao v. Rivendell Woods, Inc., the Fourth Circuit reaffirmed that the pleading standard is not onerous and that a complaint need only give fair notice of what the plaintiff s claim is Page 2

3 7:14-cv TMC Date Filed 02/20/14 Entry Number 24 Page 3 of 16 and the grounds upon which it rests. 415 F.3d 342, (4 th Cir The Chao decision held that a complaint must allege facts sufficient to state elements of the claim. 415 F.3d at 349 (emphasis in original. A plaintiff must plead factual allegations that have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b(3. GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL Plaintiff has brought six (6 causes of action against all Defendants, including Johns Manville. The first three causes of action are brought pursuant to RCRA and the remaining three causes of action are brought pursuant to state tort law: I. Injunctive Relief (42 U.S.C.A Cessation of All Activities Contributing to the Contamination of the Groundwater and Surface Water in the Cannon's Campground Community; II. Injunctive Relief (42 U.S.C.A Commencement of a Comprehensive and Diligent Program of Delineation and Remediation of Existing Contamination; and III. Injunctive Relief (42 U.S.C.A Institution of Community Medical Monitoring. IV. Public Nuisance V. Private Nuisance VI. Negligence The general factual basis for each of Plaintiff's claims is the allegation that Defendants have discharged pollutants into the environment resulting in injury to Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that the discharge of pollutants from the "Hoechst Celanese" plant and neighboring facilities have resulted in contamination. None of these allegations relate specifically to Johns Manville. The Complaint acknowledges that the wastewater at the "Hoechst Celanese" plant has been and is currently handled in accordance with a wastewater treatment system with an NPDES permit from the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control ("DHEC". (Compl. 15, 84, 110. The Complaint alleges that several defendants maintained Page 3

4 7:14-cv TMC Date Filed 02/20/14 Entry Number 24 Page 4 of 16 responsibility for the wastewater at the facility, including responsibility for the NPDES permit conditions for the wastewater treatment system at the plant. (Compl. 15, 84, 109, and 110. The Complaint does not allege that Johns Manville has ever operated the wastewater treatment system or had any responsibility for the NPDES permit and compliance with its terms and conditions. The Complaint alleges that several of the defendants have violated the terms of the NPDES permit or have reported spills of pollutants to DHEC. (Compl. 34, 37, 74, 77-9, 82, 89-91, 94, The Complaint acknowledges that the Hoechst Celanese Defendants have accepted responsibility for any historic contamination and continue to work with DHEC to assess and remediate any such contamination. (Compl. 11, 84, 124. Yet, none of these specific factual allegations mentions Johns Manville. The Complaint does not contain any factual allegation that Johns Manville has ever handled the pollutants listed in the Complaint, violated the terms of the NPDES permit, had a spill of any kind, or handled any substance in violation of law or regulation. The Complaint alleges only that Johns Manville sends wastewater to the wastewater treatment system, which system operates pursuant to the NPDES permit issued by DHEC. (Compl. 12. The Complaint then summarily concludes that all defendants, including Johns Manville, have discharged pollutants into the groundwater and/or surface water of the Cannon's Campground community. (Compl There is no factual allegation in support of this conclusion or for any of the legal conclusions in each cause of action against Johns Manville. For all of the reasons set forth below and in the legal arguments of the Hoechst Celanese Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support, Johns Manville requests that this Court dismiss the Complaint against Johns Manville in its entirety. Page 4

5 7:14-cv TMC Date Filed 02/20/14 Entry Number 24 Page 5 of Defendant Johns Manville is entitled to a dismissal of all claims because Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts that would entitle him to relief against Defendant Johns Manville. a. The Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff's RCRA claims against Johns Manville because Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient notice to meet the notice requirements of 42 U.S.C Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient notice to Johns Manville of any violation of permit, standard, regulation, condition, requirement, or order or any contribution of solid or hazardous waste specifically by Johns Manville. Plaintiff provided a notice that purports to comply with 42 U.S.C and 40 C.F.R (the "Notice". The language of Plaintiff's Notice is similar to that of the Complaint and fails to provide Johns Manville with notice of any pollutants handled by Johns Manville, any acts that contributed to a discharge of pollutants, or any specific violations by Johns Manville. Plaintiff is, thus, barred from bringing the RCRA claims against Johns Manville. Before filing a citizen suit under RCRA, a plaintiff must provide notice as specified in 42 U.S.C. 6972, which provides as follows: (1 No action may be commenced under subsection (a(1(a of this section- (A prior to 60 days after the plaintiff has given notice of the violation to- (i the Administrator; (ii the State in which the alleged violation occurs; and (iii to any alleged violator of such permit, standard, regulation, condition, requirement, prohibition, or order, except that such action may be brought immediately after such notification in the case of an action under this section respecting a violation of subchapter III of this chapter;... (2(A No action may be commenced under subsection (a(1(b of this section prior to ninety days after the plaintiff has given notice of the endangerment to- (i (ii (iii the Administrator; the State in which the alleged endangerment may occur; any person alleged to have contributed or to be contributing to the past or present handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of Page 5

6 7:14-cv TMC Date Filed 02/20/14 Entry Number 24 Page 6 of 16 any solid or hazardous waste referred to in subsection (a(1(b of this section U.S.C. 6972(b(1, (2. The applicable regulation as referenced in Plaintiff's Notice is 40 C.F.R , which provides as follows: (a Violation of permit, standard, regulation, condition, requirement, or order. Notice regarding an alleged violation of a permit, standard, regulation, condition, requirement, or order which has become effective under this Act shall include sufficient information to permit the recipient to identify the specific permit, standard, regulation, condition, requirement, or order which has allegedly been violated, the activity alleged to constitute a violation, the person or persons responsible for the alleged violation, the date or dates of the violation, and the full name, address, and telephone number of the person giving notice. The Fourth Circuit has held that the notice must be specific with respect to pollutants. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Gaston Cooper Recycling Corp., 629 F.3d 387, (4 th Cir In the Friends of the Earth case, the Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiff could not bring suit under 42 U.S.C. 6972(a(1(A for violations of pollutants that were not listed in plaintiff's notice where plaintiff's notice identified some but not all of the pollutants in the suit. Id. In the Friends of the Earth case, the Fourth Circuit considered notice required by the Clean Water Act but noted that the United States Supreme Court had reviewed notice pursuant to RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6972(b(1, as identical to the CWA notice requirement. Id. at (citing Hallstrom v.tillamook County, 493 U.S. 20, (1989. The purpose of the notice is to allow an alleged violator the opportunity to remedy the violation. Id. at 399. Where plaintiff fails to provide sufficient notice, the Court lacks jurisdiction. Id. The Notice provided by Plaintiff does not identify any specific pollutant handled by Johns Manville. The Notice alleges that all defendants handled the listed pollutants generally, but omits any specific basis or any alleged facts for making such a claim against Johns Manville. Page 6

7 7:14-cv TMC Date Filed 02/20/14 Entry Number 24 Page 7 of 16 The Notice references exhibits, but Johns Manville was never served with any of the exhibits. The Notice does not allege that Johns Manville has taken any action or inaction that would result in the violation of a permit, standard, regulation, condition, requirement, or order. The Notice is very similar to the Complaint in its failure to allege any fact specific to Johns Manville or any dates that any act of Johns Manville might have occurred. The Notice, like the Complaint, alleges a violation by several of the other defendants. The Notice fails to provide Johns Manville with notice of any act or omission that Johns Manville could change to remedy any of Plaintiff's complaints. The Notice and Complaint fail to provide this Court with any alleged action of Johns Manville that could be enjoined. Because a proper notice is a jurisdictional prerequisite to Plaintiff's RCRA claims, the RCRA claims in the Complaint should be dismissed against Johns Manville. b. Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim pursuant to RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6972, against Johns Manville. Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts that Johns Manville contributed solid or hazardous waste sufficient to state a claim against Johns Manville pursuant to 42 U.S.C The Complaint fails to identify any solid or hazardous waste handled by Defendant Johns Manville. The Complaint alleges only that Johns Manville sent wastewater to the wastewater treatment system, which operates pursuant to the NPDES permit from DHEC. RCRA specifically exempts this type of activity. A citizen suit under 42 U.S.C. 6972(a(1 may be brought: (A against any person (including (a the United States, and (b any other governmental instrumentality or agency, to the extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to the Constitution who is alleged to be in violation of any permit, standard, regulation, condition, requirement, prohibition, or order which has become effective pursuant Page 7

8 7:14-cv TMC Date Filed 02/20/14 Entry Number 24 Page 8 of 16 to this chapter; or (B against any person... who has contributed or who is contributing to the past or present handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of any solid or hazardous waste which may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment. See also Leister v. Black & Decker (U.S., Inc., 117 F.3d 1414 (4th Cir The allegations of the Complaint mirror the language of 42 U.S.C. 6972(a(1(B. A key element of this claim is that a defendant be a "contributor" to the handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of "solid or hazardous waste, as defined by RCRA." While the definition of solid waste is broad, it specifically exempts solid or dissolved materials where the discharge is subject to an NPDES permit. See 42 U.S.C. 6903(27. RCRA provides the following definition of "solid waste": The term "solid waste" means any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities, but does not include solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or industrial discharges which are point sources subject to permits under section 1342 of title 33, or source, special nuclear, or byproduct material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat. 923 [42 U.S.C et seq.]. 42 U.S.C. 6903(27(emphasis added. The statute expressly exempts industrial discharge pursuant to an NPDES permit governed by 33 U.S.C Plaintiff has not alleged any conduct or activity by Defendant Johns Manville other than to legally discharge its wastewater to a wastewater treatment system that operates pursuant to the NPDES permit issued by DHEC. The Complaint alleges only that Johns Manville has discharged wastewater to the wastewater treatment plant from 2000 to present. (Compl. 12. Page 8

9 7:14-cv TMC Date Filed 02/20/14 Entry Number 24 Page 9 of 16 The Complaint alleges that other defendants have violated the permit but makes no such allegation against Johns Manville, nor could it reasonably make such allegation since Johns Manville never operated the wastewater treatment system or maintained responsibility for the NPDES permit. (Compl. 3, 82. The Complaint then jumps to the legal conclusion that all Defendants contributed to the contamination (Compl. 179, 184, 189, which is general and insufficiently specific to state a claim against Defendant Johns Manville. Allowing Plaintiff to plead the legal conclusion that Johns Manville contributed to contamination without requiring some pleading of facts would effectively allow Plaintiff to avoid his Rule 11 obligations. For all of the reasons set forth below and in the Hoechst Celanese Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support, including specifically and without limitation the reasoning regarding Plaintiff's lack of standing to bring RCRA claims and the unavailability of medical monitoring as relief under either a RCRA claim or South Carolina common law, Defendant Johns Manville respectfully requests that this Court dismiss all causes of action under RCRA against Johns Manville. c. Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim pursuant to state law against Johns Manville. The Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for public nuisance, private nuisance, or negligence against Defendant Johns Manville. As set forth above, the Complaint only alleges that Johns Manville has sent wastewater to a wastewater treatment system that is covered by an NPDES permit. The Complaint does not allege a single fact to show contamination by Johns Manville. (1 Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to establish standing. Page 9

10 7:14-cv TMC Date Filed 02/20/14 Entry Number 24 Page 10 of 16 The Complaint fails to allege an injury in fact that was caused by acts or omissions on the part of Defendant Johns Manville or that a favorable decision would redress Plaintiff's alleged injury. Plaintiff's legal assertions without any factual support are insufficient to establish standing. Standing requires a plaintiff to show the following three elements: First, the plaintiff must have suffered an injury-in-fact which is a concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent invasion of a legally protected interest. Sea Pines Ass'n for the Prot. of Wildlife v. S.C. Dep't of Natural Res., 345 S.C. 594, , 550 S.E.2d 287, (2001. Second, a causal connection must exist between the injury and the challenged conduct. Id. Third, it must be likely that a favorable decision will redress the injury. Id. Carnival Corp. v. Historic Ansonborough Neighborhood Ass n, No , 2014 WL , at *5 (S.C. Jan. 22, For standing, a plaintiff must allege a causal connection and that a favorable decision would redress any alleged injury. See Beaufort Realty Co. v. Beaufort County, 346 S.C. 298, 551 S.E.2d 588 (Ct.App.2001(holding that plaintiff had not alleged injuries traceable to the challenged action of the defendant. Because the Complaint fails to allege any fact to suggest that Johns Manville ever handled or discharged any of the pollutants from which Plaintiff's alleged injury, Plaintiff fails to allege a causal connection necessary for standing. Failure to allege that Johns Manville had any responsibility for the wastewater treatment system at the plant or that Johns Manville ever spilled any of the pollutants listed in the Complaint also shows a lack of causal connection or that a decision against Johns Manville would redress Plaintiff's alleged injury. Page 10

11 7:14-cv TMC Date Filed 02/20/14 Entry Number 24 Page 11 of 16 Plaintiff has failed to make factual allegations sufficient for standing to bring the state law claims against Johns Manville, and Johns Manville is entitled to a dismissal of the state law claims. (2 Plaintiff's state law claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff failed to bring his state law claims within the three year statute of limitations. For the reasons set for the in the Hoechst Celanese Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support, Plaintiff's state law claims should be dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations. (3 Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for nuisance against Johns Manville. Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to establish a public nuisance or a private nuisance. The allegations of the Complaint show only that Johns Manville's actions were lawful and lack any connection to Plaintiff's alleged injury. A nuisance claim necessarily requires that the defendant's conduct cause the interference with the use and enjoyment of land. See Clark v. Greenville Cnty., 313 S.C. 205, 209, 437 S.E.2d 117, 119 (1993(holding that corporate defendants could not be liable for nuisance where they had no control over the landfill or the hazardous waste once it was deposited at the landfill. A public nuisance claim can be brought for an invasion of the rights of the general public but only if plaintiff pleads a special or particularized injury. See Overcash v. S.C. Elec. & Gas. Co., 364 S.C. 569, 575, 614 S.E.2d 619, 622 (2005. A cause of action for public nuisance is not available where the alleged acts are taken pursuant to law. See Home Sales, Inc. v. City of North Myrtle Beach, 382 S.E.2d 463, 299 S.C. 70 (S.C.App. 1989(citing Law v. City of Spartanburg, Page 11

12 7:14-cv TMC Date Filed 02/20/14 Entry Number 24 Page 12 of S.C. 229, 146 S.E. 12 (1928; see also NC v. TVA, 615 F.3d 291 (4 th Cir. 2010(denying a public nuisance cause of action against a defendant who was in compliance with state and federal air laws and permits. "Nothing is a public nuisance which the law itself authorizes." Home Sales, 382 S.E.2d at 469 (citations omitted. Plaintiff has not alleged any action by Defendant Johns Manville that contributed to any injury sufficient for a private nuisance. Plaintiff makes the bald legal conclusion that all Defendants have interfered with Plaintiff's rights by the following: i. S.C. Code Ann (Unlawful generation and/or disposal of hazardous waste ii. S.C. Code Ann (Unlawful discharge of pollution into the environment iii. 33 U.S.C (Discharge of pollutants in violation of the Clean Water Act. (Compl The Complaint fails to identify any specific action of Johns Manville that would meet this legal conclusion. There is no allegation that Johns Manville generated or disposed of a hazardous waste. There is also no allegation that Johns Manville unlawfully discharged a pollutant. The allegations show only that Johns Manville acted in accordance with the law by sending its wastewater to a system covered by an NPDES permit. By the face of the allegations, Johns Manville has acted in accordance with the law and is not subject to a public or private nuisance claim, and the Court should dismiss the nuisance causes of action against Johns Manville. (4 Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for negligence against Johns Manville. Plaintiff has not alleged that Johns Manville owed or breached a duty to Plaintiff sufficient to state a claim for negligence. As set forth above, the Complaint generally claims Defendant Johns Manville is liable without specifying any facts or grounds to support the bald Page 12

13 7:14-cv TMC Date Filed 02/20/14 Entry Number 24 Page 13 of 16 assertion. While Plaintiff has asserted a legal conclusion that Johns Manville owed Plaintiff a duty of care and breached that duty, the factual allegations of the Complaint are devoid of any support for such a legal conclusion. A cause of action for negligence requires a plaintiff to prove the following elements: 1 a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, 2 a breach of that duty by negligent act or omission, and 3 damage proximately caused by the breach. See Doe v. Batson, 345 S.C. 316, 548 S.E.2d 854 (2001. The first element is duty, which is generally defined as "the obligation to conform to a particular standard of conduct toward another." Hubbard v. Taylor, 339 S.C. 582, 588, 529 S.E.2d 549, 552 (2000(citing Shipes v. Piggly Wiggly St. Andrews, Inc., 269 S.C. 479, 483, 238 S.E.2d 167, 168 (1977. Johns Manville has a duty to handle its wastewater appropriately, which it has done by sending that wastewater to the wastewater treatment system that is operated in accordance with an NPDES permit. Johns Manville's actions in sending its wastewater to the wastewater treatment system are legally compliant and too far removed from any injury alleged by Plaintiff to establish a duty. The Complaint fails to allege a duty that Johns Manville owed to Plaintiff. Even if Johns Manville had a duty to Plaintiff, the factual allegations of the Complaint show only that Johns Manville handled its responsibilities with due care. For all of the reasons set forth above and in the legal arguments presented in the Hoechst Celanese Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support, Defendant Johns Manville respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the negligence claims against Johns Manville. Page 13

14 7:14-cv TMC Date Filed 02/20/14 Entry Number 24 Page 14 of 16 CONCLUSION For all of the reasons set forth above and in the legal arguments presented in the Hoechst Celanese Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support, Johns Manville respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the allegations of the Complaint with respect to Johns Manville pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b(1 and 12(b(6. Charleston, South Carolina February 20, 2014 Respectfully submitted, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP By: s/ G. Mark Phillips Newman Jackson Smith Federal Bar No G. Mark Phillips Federal Bar No Wendy Parker Federal Bar No Meeting Street / Sixth Floor Post Office Box 1806 ( Charleston, SC ( Attorneys for Johns Manville Page 14

15 7:14-cv TMC Date Filed 02/20/14 Entry Number 24 Page 15 of 16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 20th day of February, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: Graham L. Newman Richard A. Harpootlian, P.A Laurel Street (29201 Post Office Box 1090 Columbia, South Carolina gln@harpootlianlaw.com Herbert W. Louthian, Sr. Herbert W. Louthian, Jr. Louthian Law Firm, P.A Blanding Street, Suite 300 (29201 Post Office Box 1299 Columbia, South Carolina herb@louthianlaw.com bert@louthianlaw.com I have served the following counsel in this action with a copy of the pleading by electronic mail to the following address(es: Weston Adams III, Esquire Doc Morgan, Esquire McAngus Goudelock & Courie 1320 Main Street, 10th Floor Columbia, South Carolina wadams@mgclaw.com;dmorgan@mgclaw.com and Scott A. McMillin, Esquire Brian Stansbury, Esquire Kirkland & Ellis LLP 300 North LaSalle Chicago, Illinois SMcMillin@kirkland.com ; BStansbury@kirkland.com and Katheryn Coggon, Esquire Celanese Corporation Katheryn.Coggon@celanese.com Attorneys for Defendants Hoechst Celanese Corporation, HNA Holdings, Inc., and CNA Holdings, Inc. Douglas Henderson, Esquire Troutman Sanders LLP 600 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 5200 Atlanta, Georgia Douglas.Henderson@troutmansanders.com and Kevin Dunlap, Esquire 100 Dunbar Street, Suite 206 Spartanburg, SC kevindunlap@parkerpoe.com and Marina Schwarz, Esquire Steven A. Swedlow, Esquire Quinn Emanuel 300 North LaSalle Chicago, Illinois marinaschwarz@quinnemanuel.com stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com Attorneys for INVISTA S.a.r.l d/b/a "Invista"

16 7:14-cv TMC Date Filed 02/20/14 Entry Number 24 Page 16 of 16 Ricky Raven, Esquire Jonathan Shoebotham, Esquire Christopher D. Smith, Esquire Thompson & Knight LLP 333 Clay Street Suite 3300 Houston, Texas and Benjamin Johnson, Esquire Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A. 140 East Main Street Suite 420 Rock Hill, South Carolina Attorneys for Ashland, Inc. and Hercules, Inc. Ben Hagood, Esquire David Fox, Esquire Peter McGrath Jr., Esquire Moore & Van Allen PLLC 78 Wentworth Street Charleston, SC and Nicholas San Filippo, IV Esquire James Stewart, Esquire Lowenstein Sandler LLP 65 Livingston Avenue & 6 Becker Farm Road Roseland, New Jersey nsanfilippo@lowenstein.com jstewart@lowenstein.com Attorneys for Auriga Polymers Inc. and Indorama Ventures USA, Inc. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP By: s/ G. Mark Phillips Newman Jackson Smith Federal Bar No jack.smith@nelsonmullins.com G. Mark Phillips Federal Bar No mark.phillips@nelsonmullins.com Wendy Parker Federal Bar No wendy.parker@nelsonmullins.com 151 Meeting Street / Sixth Floor Post Office Box 1806 ( Charleston, SC ( Attorneys for Johns Manville Corporation 2