Courthouse News Service

Transcription

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO CINCINNATI DIVISION DANIEL AND ALITA BROCKMAN CASE NO.: PO BOX LAWRENCEBURG ROAD JUDGE: NORTH BEND, OHIO DEAN CALLON PO BOX HOOVEN ROAD MASTER CONSOLIDATED HOOVEN, OHIO COMPLAINT NOEL AND VELMA CATES WITH JURY DEMAND 208 JEFFERSON AVENUE P.O. BOX 14 HOOVEN, OH ODIS DAVIS 6449 CAPPEL ROAD AURORA, INDIANA LINDA ECKENROTH, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIIX OF THE ESTATE OF JACOB BIHR 5378 RAPID RUN ROAD CINCINNATI, OHIO ALBERT HUFFMAN PO BOX MONROE STREET HOOVEN, OHIO GEORGE AND MELISSA HUNT PO BOX OHIO AVENUE HOOVEN, OHIO DOUGLAS KING PO BOX HOOVEN ROAD HOOVEN, OHIO JENNIFER KLEM STATELINE ROAD LAWRENCEBURG, INDIANA Courthouse News Service 1

2 SCOTT MATTLIN 106 HOOVEN ROAD HOOVEN, OHIO RUSSELL MCKERNAN 3962 WEST 8 TH STREET CINCINNATI, OHIO TERESA MORGAN PO BOX OHIO AVENUE HOOVEN, OHIO MELISSA NIXON 2619 LAKE HAVEN SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS VIRGINIA PAPPIN PO BOX CHIDLAW HOOVEN, OHIO LARRY STAFFORD PO BOX CHIDLAW AVENUE HOOVEN, OHIO DELMAR TAYLOR PO BOX OHIO AVENUE HOOVEN, OHIO Plaintiffs, vs. CHEVRON USA, INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation for Profit, individually and Successor to Gulf Oil Company c/o Prentice-Hall Corporation System Inc 50 West Broad Street, Suite 1800 Columbus, Ohio And 2

3 CHEVRON PIPELINE, INC., A Pennsylvania Corporation for profit c/o Prentice-Hall Corporation System Inc 50 West Broad Street, Suite 1800 Columbus, Ohio And CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS L.P. Csc-Lawyers Incorporating Service 50 West Broad Street, Suite 1800 Columbus, Ohio And CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS MANAGEMENT L.L.C. Csc-Lawyers Incorporating Service 50 West Broad Street, Suite 1800 Columbus, Ohio And CHEVRON ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY Csc-Lawyers Incorporating Service 50 West Broad Street, Suite 1800 Columbus, Ohio And CHEVRON ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COMPANY Csc-Lawyers Incorporating Service 50 West Broad Street, Suite 1800 Columbus, Ohio And CHEVRONTEXACO CORPORATION Delaware Corporation for Profit; 6001 Bollinger Canyon Road San Ramon, CA Defendants. Now come Plaintiffs, demanding trial by jury, and for their complaint against the Defendants, allege as follows: 3

4 I. INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 1. The former Gulf Oil Refinery (hereinafter referred to as the Refinery is and has been at all times material herein, located largely within the limits of the town of Cleves and Hooven, in Hamilton County, Ohio. 2. Gulf Oil operated the facility as a fuel and asphalt petroleum refinery from In approximately1985, Gulf Oil Company merged with Chevron U.S.A. Company, which eventually ceased manufacturing and refining gasoline and other related products at the Cleves and Hooven Refinery in The principal products produced at the former Refinery were leaded, unleaded and diesel gasoline of various grades, stored onsite and then shipped to various parts of the country. Other products produced at the Refinery included jet fuels, home-heating oils and asphalt. 4. The former Refinery was divided into the following: tank farm area, process area, cooling water tower area, and wastewater treatment area. The former Refinery is two hundred and fifty (250 acres. The tank farm was approximately fifty-five (55 acres. Various buildings, above ground storage tanks, underground storage tanks, concrete foundations and piping comprised the physical structures at the former Refinery. 5. During the period of the Defendants' ownership, occupancy, operation, use, and/or maintenance of the former Refinery, millions of gallons and/or pounds of gasoline, fuel oil, diesel, kerosene, and other highly toxic contaminants and abnormally dangerous substances were released into the air, soil, surface waters, and groundwater in and near the town of Hooven and Cleves Ohio, and neighborhood communities. 6. Said gasoline, fuel oil, diesel, kerosene, and other highly toxic contaminants and abnormally dangerous substances migrated by means of air, soil, surface water and groundwater onto and underneath properties owned, occupied, and/or lawfully used by the Plaintiffs. 7. Upon information and belief, Defendant Chevron, U.S.A., and its affiliate entities, ChevronTexaco Corporation are business corporations for profit organized and existing under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania. Defendant Chevron is registered and engaged in business within the State of Ohio and is the successor to the Gulf Oil Company and its subsidiaries. Defendant Chevron, U.S.A. assumed the liability of the Gulf Oil Company for all claims that may be brought against these predecessor corporations relating to the operations of the former Gulf Oil/Chevron Oil Refinery. Defendant Chevron Energy Solutions L.P. and Defendant Chevron Energy Solutions Management L.L.C. are Delaware corporations also registered and engaged in business within the State of Ohio. Chevron Pipeline, Inc., is a for profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware. Defendant Chevron Pipeline is also registered and engaged in business within the State of Ohio. Defendant Chevron Environmental Management Company is a for profit corporation, organized in California. Defendant Chevron Environmental Management Company is registered and engaged in centrally managing Chevron's environmental remediation activities and associated liabilities in Ohio. Defendant Chevron Environmental Services Company is a for profit company organized in Delaware, who 4

5 is registered and engaged in holding certain environmental remediation assets within the State of Ohio. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. This Court has jurisdiction over this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C and 28 U.S.C There is complete diversity between Plaintiffs and Defendants. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs. 9. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(a because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the southern district of Ohio, Hamilton County. Further, this court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action and personal jurisdiction over the parties by virtue of the fact that Defendants own property within the Southern District of Ohio, transact business and/or have committed tortuous conduct within the Southern District of Ohio. III. PLAINTIFFS WITH PROPERTY CLAIMS 10. Plaintiffs repeat, reassert and reallege all previous allegations set forth herein. 11. Plaintiffs own property in the neighborhoods of Cleves and Hooven during all relevant time periods near the former Refinery. Plaintiffs properties have been exposed to harmful levels of highly toxic contaminants and abnormally dangerous substances, including but not limited to leaded, unleaded and diesel gasoline and its constituents, fuel oil, benzene, toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene, products of incomplete combustion, volatile organic compounds (VOC s and poly-cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH s through air, soil, surface water, and groundwater pathways emanating from the former Refinery. Plaintiffs owning property are as follows: 12. Plaintiffs Daniel and Alita Brockman residing at 2300 Lawrenceburg Road, North Bend, Ohio own property located at 208 Ohio Avenue, Hooven, Ohio and Lot further described as Lot 77, Parcel No.: Plaintiff Dean Callon residing at 411 Hooven Road, Hooven, Ohio owns property located at 411 Hooven Road, Hooven, Ohio and Lot further described as Lot 150, Parcel No.: Plaintiffs Noel and Velma Cates residing at 208 Jefferson Avenue, Hooven, Ohio own property located at 208 Jefferson Avenue, Hooven, Ohio at Lot further described as Lots 81-82, Parcel No Plaintiff Odis Davis residing at 6449 Cappel Road, Aurora, Indiana owns property located at 113 Ohio Avenue, Hooven, Ohio and Lots further decribed as Lots 67-68, Parcel Nos.: , Plaintiff Linda Eckenroth, individually and on behalf of the Estate of Jacob Bihr, resides at 5378 Rapid Run Road, Cincinnati, Ohio The Estate of Jacob Bihr owns property located at 211 Chidlaw Avenue, Hooven, Ohio and Lots further described as Lots 39-40, Parcel No.:

6 17. Plaintiff Albert Huffman residing at 101 Monroe Avenue, Hooven, Ohio owns property located at 101 Monroe Avenue, Hooven, Ohio and Lot further desribed as Lot 164, Parcel No.: Plaintiffs George and Melissa Hunt residing at 110 Ohio Avenue, Hooven, Ohio own property located at 110 Ohio Avenue, Hooven, Ohio and Lot further described as Lot 4, Parcel No.: Plaintiff Douglas King residing at 113 Hooven Road, Hooven, Ohio owns property located at 113 Hooven Road, Hooven, Ohio and Lot further described as Lot 56, Parcel No.: Plaintiff Jennifer Klem residing at Stateline Road, Lawrenceburg, Indiana owns property located at 406 Ohio Avenue, Hooven, Ohio and Lot further described as Lot 134, Parcel No.: Plaintiff Scott Mattlin residing at 106 Hooven Road, Hooven, Ohio owns property located at 106 Hooven Road, Hooven, Ohio and Lot further described as Lot 57, Parcel No.: Plaintiff Russell McKernan residing at 3962 West 8 th Street, Cincinnati, Ohio owns property located at 202 Hooven Road, Hooven, Ohio and Lot further described as Lot 88, Parcel No.: Plaintiff Teresa Morgan residing at 120 Ohio Avenue, Hooven, Ohio owns property located at 120 Ohio Avenue, Hooven, Ohio and Lot further described as Lot 73, Parcel No.: Plaintiff Melissa Nixon residing at 2619 Lake Haven, San Antonio, Texas owns property located at 203 Ohio Avenue, Hooven, Ohio and Lot further described as Lots 85 87, Parcel Nos.: , , Plaintiff Virginia Pappin residing at 306 Chidlaw Avenue, Hooven, Ohio owns property located at 306 Chidlaw Avenue, Hooven, Ohio and Lot further described as Lot 4, Parcel No.: Plaintiff Larry Stafford residing at 301 Chidlaw Avenue, Hooven, Ohio owns property located at 301 Chidlaw Avenue, Hooven, Ohio and Lot further described as Lot 4, Parcel No.: Plaintiff Larry Stafford residing at 301 Chidlaw Avenue, Hooven, Ohio owns property located at 409 Hooven Road, Hooven, Ohio and Lot further described as Lot 151, Parcel No.: Plaintiff Larry Stafford residing at 301 Chidlaw Avenue, Hooven, Ohio owns property located at 5111 State Route 128, Cleves, Ohio and Lot further described as Cilley Rd AC R1-T1-S10 SW on S Sec Line, Parcel No.:

7 29. Plaintiff Larry Stafford residing at 301 Chidlaw Avenue, Hooven, Ohio owns property located at 5140 State Route 128, Cleves, Ohio and Lot further described as Miami River Rd 56 X 188 R1-T1-S10, Parcel No.: Plaintiff Larry Stafford residing at 301 Chidlaw Avenue, Hooven, Ohio owns property located at 5108 State Route 128, Cleves, Ohio and Lot further described as 56 X 200, R1-T1-S10, 56 X 200 IRR FT E of SXC SEC FT N of S L, Parcel Nos.: , Plaintiff Delmar Taylor residing at 309 Ohio Avenue, Hooven, Ohio owns property located at 309 Ohio Avenue, Hooven, Ohio and Lot described as Lot 121, Parcel No.: As a direct and proximate result of the specified acts of the Defendants, the above Plaintiffs have diminution of property value and other actual and compensatory damages in excess of Five Million Dollars ($5,000, per Plaintiff. IV. FACTS 33. The Plaintiffs repeat, reassert and reallege all previous allegations set forth herein. 34. The highly toxic contaminants and abnormally dangerous substances of concern in this matter are defined here as those which are believed to have caused damage to Plaintiffs properties. Reviews of documents related to the former Refinery clearly reveal that such contaminants and substances were utilized, discharged, disposed, emitted and otherwise released into the local environment by Defendants and the former Refinery from a variety of onsite process operations. Based upon this revelation, the contaminants and substances utilized, discharged, disposed and otherwise released by the Defendants, the former Refinery and its predecessors are considered by the Plaintiffs as relevant to their real and personal property damages in this matter and include, but are not limited to: leaded, unleaded and diesel gasoline and its constituents, fuel oil, benzene, toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene, products of incomplete combustion, metals such as lead and chromium, volatile organic compounds (VOC s and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH s. The physical forms in which Plaintiffs believe their properties were exposed to these contaminants and substances include, but are not limited to: offsite migrations of gasoline and other waste-related liquids; and offsite migrations of vapors, gases and aerosols as air emissions at elevated temperatures. The physical forms of these chemicals of concern exerted influences on the air, soil, surface water and groundwater pathways by which damage to Plaintiffs properties has occurred. A. Surface Water and Groundwater 35. As a part of the process at the former Refinery, Chevron and its predecessors produced various grades of gasoline and related products using crude oil. 36. The former Refinery was in almost continuous operation from During this entire time span, the Defendants permitted the release of millions of gallons of waste liquids onto onsite and offsite soils, and into surface waters, impoundments and ditches. These releases 7

8 occurred as a direct result of refining operations involving spills, leaks, accidents, fires and waste disposal practices. 37. Prior, to a merger and /or purchase of Gulf Oil Company, Chevron as the future successor in interest, became aware of a large-scale amount of these highly toxic contaminants and abnormally dangerous substances at the former Refinery seeping into the Great Miami River, the principal groundwater aquifer in the area. Although the exact time period of the release seeping into the river is unknown, around 1985 Chevron acknowledged that it was located in and nearby the groundwater underneath the former Refinery. 38. The release of highly toxic contaminants and abnormally dangerous substances into the groundwater was of such a massive size that it migrated through the local groundwater system and Great Miami River to off-site locations, including the Plaintiffs properties. The highly toxic contaminants and abnormally dangerous substances related to this release remain in the groundwater and water table, and associated toxic vapors continue to migrate upwards from them through the soils toward the surface. 39. In addition to the groundwater pathway, the former Refinery also released waste liquids onto surface pathways at an amount and duration enough to displace ditch waters, which transported such liquids to offsite locations, including the Plaintiffs properties. Transport of such liquids has caused sediments and soils in ditches and Great Miami River banks to become contaminated at elevated concentrations. Furthermore, flood events have caused the ditches and the Great Miami River banks to overflow on a number of occasions. 40. Once the release of these toxic contaminants and substances entered into the surface water and groundwater water systems, Defendants collectively or individually have been purchasing property in and around its former Refinery site. This includes but is not limited to adjoining and adjacent property in Cleves and Hooven Ohio, and across the river from its primary refinery site in Cleves, Ohio. 41. Pathways for damages to Plaintiffs properties involving surface water and groundwater, exposures to ditch waters contaminated by seepages of contaminated ground water from on-site locations, and exposures to surface soils contaminated by vapors from contaminated groundwater underlying their properties. B. Air Emissions 42. In addition, during this same time span, uncontrolled releases of highly toxic contaminants and abnormally dangerous substances including, but not limited to, volatile organic compounds (VOC s, poly-cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH s, and benzene into the local atmosphere have occurred as a direct result of the former Refinery operations. Such releases were caused by, but not limited to, spills, leaks, cooling tower discharges, accidents, fires, and waste disposal practices, including the waste water treatment system. Historically, uncontrolled and untreated storm water containing gasoline, petroleum mineral spirits, poly-aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH s and other volatile organic compounds (VOC s was allowed to discharge to the onsite streams, and continue to do so to date. 8

9 43. The mass of uncontrolled releases of highly toxic contaminants and abnormally dangerous substances were so released and their durations were such as to generate substantially elevated atmospheric concentrations of chemical vapors, particulates and aerosols within and near the former Refinery. Local patterns of wind speeds, durations and directions, as well as atmospheric temperature, turbulence and precipitation conditions have interacted to transport these vapors, particulates and aerosols through the air pathway to offsite locations, thereby causing their invasive migration onto the property of each Plaintiff in this case for substantially long periods of time. Harmful toxic vapors emanating from underlying contaminated groundwater is another source of air contamination from the former Refinery that has damaged the Plaintiffs property. 44. The former Refinery has a history of noncompliance with government regulations to control such air emission releases, while the control of toxic groundwater vapors did not even begin to occur until the 1990s. However, even those improvements were insufficient to prevent the release of chemical vapors into the surrounding environment. Moreover, the public remained wholly uninformed as to the dangers present. 45. Defendants have conducted testing of the soils, sediments, and surface waters in and around the neighborhood surrounding the former Refinery. Tests have detected VOCs, metals, PAH s and benzene in several of these areas. V. WANTON DISREGARD FOR THE PUBLIC 46. The Plaintiffs repeat, reassert and reallege all previous allegations set forth herein. 47. As early as the 1960's, the Defendants were aware of the hazardous nature of gasoline and petroleum products they have manufactured and the toxic chemical constituents contained therein. They were aware of that the manufacturing, storage, transfer, and waste treatment operations related to these products produced air, soil, surface water and groundwater contamination. Not until the mid-1980s did the Defendant take some precautions to control the contaminated groundwater migrating away from its former Refinery site. 48. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendants knew or should have known that their operations at the Refinery utilized materials which have been identified as hazardous and present a danger to the public. Defendants were also aware of the likelihood that their uncontrolled releases, leaks and spills from their operations would affect the surrounding air, soils, surface water and groundwater. 49. Defendants were aware that their uncontrolled releases, leaks and spills associated with the operations of the former Refinery, and the highly toxic contaminants and abnormally dangerous substances released there from, migrated offsite into the surrounding air, soils, surface water and groundwater of nearby residents. Despite the Defendants knowledge that most of the neighborhoods surrounding the Refinery consisted of families that had lived in the community for decades, no information was ever disseminated to the public about the uncontrolled releases, leaks and spills. 50. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendants, by and through their agents, servants, workmen and/or employees operated the former Refinery in such a manner so as to cause the release of 9

10 highly toxic contaminants and abnormally dangerous substances into the surrounding areas, causing Plaintiffs to suffer property damages as are hereinafter more fully set forth at length. VI. COUNT I NEGLIGENCE 51. The Plaintiffs repeat, reassert and reallege all previous allegations set forth herein. 52. The Defendants have a duty to Plaintiffs since the commencement of their operations and continuing as of the date of the filing of this lawsuit. Plaintiffs properties are targets of the Defendants toxic contaminants and abnormally dangerous substances released into the groundwater, surface water, soil, and to the air migrating toward, and invading the properties and houses of the Plaintiffs for which the Defendants have been privy to for years. The Defendants, their officers, agents, and employees, knew or should have known to exercise reasonable care to prevent the release of toxic contaminants and abnormally dangerous substances into the air, surface and groundwater from their operations which would have damaged the properties of the Plaintiffs who live near the Defendants former Refinery, as well as other members of the public nearby. 53. At all times since the Defendants facilities commenced operation and continuing to the date of the filing of this lawsuit, the Defendants failed to use due care to avoid impacting the Plaintiffs properties. Furthermore, the release of their highly toxic contaminants and abnormally dangerous substances into the groundwater, surface water, soil, and air from the Defendants facilities could have been and can be eliminated or substantially reduced by the exercise of reasonable care and the timely installation of effective waste treatment facilities, air pollution control devices, and other state of the art waste control methods. 54. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts or omissions of the Defendants, and their employees, agents and representatives, the Plaintiffs have suffered permanent mental and emotional distress; loss of enjoyment of life; diminution of property value, and other actual and compensatory damages in excess of Five Million Dollars ($5,000, per Plaintiff. VII. COUNT II - GROSS NEGLIGENCE 55. Plaintiffs repeat, reassert and reallege each and every allegation contained herein above. 56. Failure of the Defendants, their officers, agents, and employees to prevent their respective contaminated groundwater plumes containing highly toxic contaminants and abnormally dangerous substances from migrating offsite, as shown by their continual disposal of waste into the ground, air and surface water, was willful and wanton and exhibits a reckless disregard for the lives and the health of the Plaintiffs herein and the surrounding neighborhoods. 57. As a direct and proximate result of the gross negligence and willful and wanton acts and omissions of the Defendants, and their employees, agents and representatives, the Plaintiffs have suffered permanent mental and emotional distress; loss of enjoyment of life; diminution of property value, and other actual and compensatory damages in excess of Five Million Dollars ($5,000, per Plaintiff. 10

11 58. Furthermore, the Defendants gross negligence, willful and wanton acts, reckless disregard for the safety of the public and the Plaintiffs herein, entitles Plaintiffs to punitive damages in excess of Ten Million Dollars ($10,000, per Plaintiff from each Defendant, as to deter them from such conduct in the future and to deter others from engaging in such irresponsible activity. VIII. COUNT III - NEGLIGENCE PER SE 59. Plaintiffs repeat, reassert and reallege each and every allegation set forth herein above. 60. As an alternative ground for relief, Plaintiffs assert a cause of negligence per se. 61. Defendants failure to cease emission of toxic substances into the air and failure to cease the disposal of contaminants into the groundwater, soil, and surface water and Defendants failure to properly report the federal, state and local violations, their failure to prevent the offsite migration of groundwater contamination, soil contamination, surface water contamination, and air emissions is a violation of state and federal law include, but are not limited to the following: 33 USC 1321 Oil and hazardous substance liability, and ORC 6111 Water Pollution Control; 42 USC 6924 Hazardous Waste Management, 42 USC 6925 Interim status requirements, and ORC 3734 Solid & Hazardous Wastes; 42 USC 7661 Air Permit Programs, and ORC 3704 Air Pollution Control; 42 USC 6991 Regulation of Underground Storage Tanks; ORC Prohibition against throwing refuse, oil or filth into lakes, streams or drains, Prohibited acts, ORC , Duty to Restore Disturbed Land surface. Furthermore, their failure to make any assessment whatsoever as to the contamination in the yards and properties of neighboring properties, including, but not limited to, the Plaintiffs herein, constitutes negligence per se. 62. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence per se of the Defendants, and their employees, agents and representatives, the Plaintiffs have suffered permanent mental and emotional distress; loss of enjoyment of life; diminution of property value, and other actual and compensatory damages in excess of Five Million Dollars ($5,000, per Plaintiff. IX. COUNT IV CONSPIRACY AND FRAUD 63. Plaintiffs repeat, reassert and reallege each and every allegation contained herein above. 64. Defendant Chevron U.S.A. Inc and its affiliates knowingly, intentionally and maliciously conspired with the then Gulf Oil Company prior its purchase for the express purpose of hiding the disclosure of their release of highly toxic contaminants and abnormally dangerous substances into the groundwater that had previously occurred. As a further and alternative ground for relief, Plaintiffs assert a cause of action for conspiracy and fraud. 65. In order to further conceal said public disclosure Defendant Chevron USA, Inc. purchased Gulf Oil Company and assumed the operations of the refinery to avoid liability of said conspiracy. 66. As further evidence of the ongoing fraudulent conduct Defendants Chevron USA Inc., it affiliates and Gulf Oil Company, as an ongoing and successive member, began to purchase land 11

12 on both sides of the Great Miami River and adjacent to the known plume and its pathways. In an attempt to delay the discovery of the actual extent of the spill and transmission of harmful toxins. 67. This conduct represent affirmative acts in support of the conspiracy and overall fraudulent conduct of the Defendants to prevent disclosure and liability for the property damages. 68. At all times relevant, the Defendants, including Chevron USA, Inc., as successor to Gulf Oil Company herein knowingly, intentionally, and maliciously conspired for the purpose of perpetrating a fraud on the government regulatory agencies, such as the towns of Cleves and Hooven, Whitewater Township Trustees, Hamilton County officials and agencies as well as the Cleves and Hooven and surrounding communities, including the Plaintiffs herein. 69. The Defendants herein knowingly, intentionally and maliciously conspired to mislead and defraud the governmental agencies and the above communities as to the extent of the contamination at their respective facilities and emanating offsite from same in order to avoid any costs associated with clean-up and/or remediation of such contamination despite Defendants knowledge of risk to human health, in such a way as to cause substantial damage to Plaintiffs properties herein. The Defendants herein conspired to knowingly and intentionally fail to investigate fully all known sources of off-site contamination and failed to make any efforts to remediate the same, in such a way that substantial damage to Plaintiffs properties were certain or substantially certain. 70. The Defendants herein knowingly, intentionally and maliciously conspired to mislead and defraud the Plaintiffs as to the extent of the contamination emanating offsite from their facility in order to avoid any costs associated with clean-up and/or remediation of such contamination of Plaintiffs property. The Defendants knowingly, intentionally and maliciously conspired to mislead and defraud the Plaintiffs; making any efforts to remediate same by Plaintiffs meaningless and thus creating circumstances where substantial damage to Plaintiffs properties were certain or substantially certain. 71. Despite Defendants knowledge of risk to property, Defendants herein knowingly, intentionally and maliciously conspired to not perform any investigation of Plaintiffs conditions that may have demonstrated substantial physical damage to Plaintiffs properties. The Defendants herein knowingly, intentionally and maliciously conspired not to investigate fully all known sources of and location of the off-site contamination and failed to make any efforts to remediate same, in such a way that substantial damage to Plaintiffs properties were certain or substantially certain. 72. As a direct and proximate result of the knowing, intentional and malicious acts of conspiracy of the Defendants and their employees, agents, and representatives, the Plaintiffs have suffered permanent mental and emotional distress; loss of enjoyment of life; diminution of property value, and other actual and compensatory damages in excess of Five Million Dollars ($5,000, per Plaintiff. 73. Defendants herein knowingly intentionally and maliciously conspired to hide the assets and liabilities of the Gulf Oil Company and Chevron USA, Inc., by merging and/or purchasing the assets of Gulf Oil Company into Chevron USA, Inc., just prior to public disclosure 12

13 acknowledging the release of the highly toxic contaminants and abnormally dangerous substances into the groundwater in Hooven and Cleves. 74. Furthermore, the Defendants knowing and intentional acts of conspiracy and their violation of Ohio and Federal Statutes and local ordinances entitle Plaintiffs to punitive damages in excess of Ten Million Dollars ($10,000, per Plaintiff from each defendant, as to deter the Defendants from such conduct in the future and to deter others from engaging in such irresponsible activity. X. COUNT V - STRICT LIABILITY 75. Plaintiffs repeat, reassert and reallege each and every allegation contained herein above. 76. As a further and alternative ground for relief, Plaintiffs assert a cause of action for strict liability pursuant to 520(a of the Restatement (Second of Torts, Abnormally Dangerous Activities 77. The manufacturing processes and materials employed by Defendants are ultra hazardous in that they produce and release highly toxic contaminants and abnormally dangerous substances into the air, soil, surface water, and groundwater. The processes used by the Defendants are defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous to, but not limited to, the Plaintiffs due to their proximity to the former Refinery. The Defendants knew, or in light of the reasonable, available knowledge or the exercise of reasonable care, should have known the unreasonable dangers caused by their operations. Such contaminants and substances escaping into the air, surface water, soil, and groundwater harmed Plaintiffs properties even if those in charge of Defendants operation attempted to exercise the utmost care to prevent such emissions. 78. The Defendants knew, or in light of the reasonable, available knowledge that the long term value of its refinery activities to the community is outweighed by its long term dangerous attributes. 79. The Defendants, therefore, are strictly liable pursuant to 520(a of the Restatement (Second of Torts to the Plaintiffs for their property damages inflicted upon them by the Defendants use of dangerous instrumentality at their facility, operated in furtherance of the Defendants ultra hazardous activities. 80. As a direct and proximate result of the specified conduct of the Defendants and their employees, agents, and representatives, the Plaintiffs have suffered permanent mental and emotional distress; loss of enjoyment of life; diminution of property value, and other actual and compensatory damages in excess of Five Million Dollars ($5,000, per Plaintiff. XI. COUNT VI TRESPASS AND CONTINUING TRESPASS 81. Plaintiffs repeat, reassert and reallege each and every allegation contained herein above. 82. As a further and alternative ground for relief, the Plaintiffs assert a cause of action for trespass and/or continuing trespass to Plaintiffs real and personal property. 13

14 83. The Plaintiffs are owners of their real and personal property. The Plaintiffs have never consented to such invasion of their properties by Defendants waste materials which have now migrated and continue to migrate off the premises onto Plaintiffs property. Such invasion constitutes a trespass and/or continuing trespass. 84. Now and at all times since the former Refinery began operations, the Defendants, through their officers, agents and employees, knew or should have known with the exercise of reasonable care that the groundwater contamination and air emissions from their operations would continually enter the land of others and have such effects thereon. Despite Defendants knowledge that their air emissions and groundwater contamination have continually entered upon the Plaintiffs property and the effects thereof on Plaintiffs property, Defendants have failed and refused and still fail and refuse to prevent such continuing trespass. Because monetary damages alone cannot adequately compensate the Plaintiffs for further damage to their properties that will occur if the Defendants continue to allow the groundwater contamination to migrate offsite and to continue the operations which allow the movement of contaminated groundwater migrating through and onto the Plaintiffs properties, Plaintiffs seek not only actual and/or punitive damages, but, alternatively, full remediation of their property and a permanent injunction from Defendants. 85. As a direct and proximate result of the specified conduct of the Defendants and their employees, agents, and representatives, the Plaintiffs have suffered permanent mental and emotional distress; loss of enjoyment of life; diminution of property value, and other actual and compensatory damages excess of Five Million Dollars ($5,000, per Plaintiff. XII. COUNT VII - PRIVATE NUISANCE AND CONVERSION 86. Plaintiffs repeat, reassert and reallege all previous allegations set forth herein. 87. Defendants, by and through their servants, agents, workmen and/or employees, released and allowed to be released highly toxic contaminants and abnormally dangerous substances into the air, soil, surface water and groundwater and water supplies in the area surrounding the former Refinery. 88. The release of the aforementioned highly toxic contaminants and abnormally dangerous substances into the air, soil, surface water and groundwater by Defendants is non-trespassory invasion of Plaintiffs interests in the private use and enjoyment of Plaintiffs lands. 89. As a result of the release of highly toxic contaminants and abnormally dangerous substances and the resultant invasion of Plaintiffs properties, Plaintiffs have been unreasonably annoyed and appreciably interfered with Plaintiffs private enjoyment and use of their properties contaminated by Defendants release of toxic chemical into the groundwater beneath Plaintiffs property. Such contamination renders the groundwater and soil useless for private use. Defendant has failed in its effort to remove said contaminates from the soil and groundwater. Defendant has converted Plaintiff s groundwater and soil for its own use without just compensation to Plaintiffs 90. As a direct and proximate result of the specified conduct of the Defendants and their employees, agents, and representatives, the Plaintiffs have suffered permanent mental and 14

15 emotional distress; loss of enjoyment of life; diminution of property value, and other actual and compensatory damages including medical monitoring excess of Five Million Dollars ($5,000, per Plaintiff. XIII. COUNT VIII - FAILURE TO WARN 91. Plaintiffs repeat, reassert and reallege each and every allegation contained herein above. 92. The Defendants failed to warn the Plaintiffs concerning all dangers related to their respective operations and their relationship to air emissions, and surface and groundwater contamination. Specifically, the Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs, and other persons similarly situated, and the public at large, with warnings of all dangers inherent in the highly toxic contaminants and abnormally dangerous substances resulting from their respective industries, which where within the knowledge of or obvious to the Defendants; however, not obvious or known to an ordinary person. The dangers include the fact that the Defendants operations include releases in that they cause or contributed to the development of property damages. 93. Additionally, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with knowledge as to what would be reasonably safe and sufficient protection, if, in truth, there was any, to protect the Plaintiffs property from harm as a result of exposure to the Defendants highly toxic contaminants and abnormally dangerous substances. 94. Defendants have negligently and recklessly failed and refused to warn and advise the Plaintiffs, others similarly situation and/or the public at large of the dangers caused by Plaintiffs past and present property exposure to Defendants highly toxic contaminants and abnormally dangerous substances which Defendants knew or should have known invaded the Plaintiffs homes and properties. 95. Despite such knowledge, Defendants refused to warn and advise of the dangers caused by their emissions and contamination to the health and welfare to persons coming in contact with such. Moreover, Defendants, having knowledge that their highly toxic contaminants and abnormally dangerous substances had contaminated the environment where the Plaintiffs were required to work and live even at the present time, the Defendants have failed to warn the Plaintiffs. 96. Defendants failure to warn took place before, during, and after the Plaintiffs properties were exposed to the Defendants release of highly toxic contaminants and abnormally dangerous substances into the air, soil, surface water and groundwater. Defendants breach of duty to warn the Plaintiffs of the dangers posed by their exposure to the Defendants contaminants and substances is a substantial contributing cause to the Plaintiffs property injuries. Further, Defendants continue to provide false information as to the releases and adherent damages. 97. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of the Defendants failure to warn, the Plaintiffs have suffered permanent mental and emotional distress; loss of enjoyment of life; diminution of property value, and other actual and compensatory damages including medical monitoring excess of Five Million Dollars ($5,000, per Plaintiff. 15

16 98. Plaintiffs request trial by jury. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs demand judgment against all Defendants, both jointly and severally in an amount for sums prayed for. In addition, Plaintiffs seek pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs and attorneys fees. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Linda Lagunzad LINDA LAGUNZAD ( DAVID P. PAVLIK ( SANDRA BECHER SOMMERS ( BRENT COON & ASSOCIATES 1220 West Sixth Street, Suite 303 Cleveland, Ohio Telephone: ( Facsimile: ( and Hunter W. Lundy, Esq. (Admitted Pro Hac Vice Rudie Soileau. Esq. (Admitted Pro Hac Vice Matthew Lundy, Esq. (Admitted Pro Hac Vice Lundy, Lundy, Soileau & South, L.L.P. LA Bar No / MS Bar No P.O. Box 3010 Lake Charles, LA Telephone: ( Facsimile: ( hlundy@lundylawllp.com rsoileau@lundylawllp.com mlundy@lundylawllp.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs 16

17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that true copies of the Plaintiffs Master Consolidated Complaint was electronically served on the 8 th day of September 2009 with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following: Jason Levin, Esq. Lawrence Riff, Esq. Jennifer Bonneville, Esq. Steptoe & Johnson L.L.P 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA Jennifer Quinn-Barabanov, Esq. Steptoe & Johnson L.L.P Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C Bryan E. Pacheco, Esq. David J. Brittingham, Esq. George H. Vincent, Esq. Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP 1990 Chemed Center 255 East Fifth Street Cincinnati, Ohio Respectfully submitted, /s/ Linda Lagunzad LINDA LAGUNZAD ( DAVID P. PAVLIK ( SANDRA BECHER SOMMERS ( BRENT COON & ASSOCIATES 1220 West Sixth Street, Suite 303 Cleveland, Ohio Telephone: ( Facsimile: ( Dave.Pavlik@bcoonlaw.com Sandra.Sommers@bcoonlaw.com Linda.Lagunzad@bcoonlaw.com 17