* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * COMPLAINT. COME NOW Plaintiffs, THOMAS FINCH and KATHLEEN FINCH, by and through

Similar documents
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH. Case No. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CHAPTER 3. Building Code

Chapter 12 Erosion Control Regulations

ORDINANCE NO CHAPTER 71 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FOR CONSTRUCTION SITES

Case 2:17-cv JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CITY OF SHELBYVILLE ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHELBYVILLE FOR POST DEVELOPMENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

Hamilton City Council BYLAWS HAMILTON STORMWATER BYLAW 2015

ARTICLE VI. SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION PREVENTION*

Guidelines for Submittals for Land Disturbance Permits

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO HALL OF JUSTICE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Public hearing to adopt Ordinance 1375 C.S. amending Title 15, Buildings and Construction, of the Martinez Municipal Code

PATRICIA G. KURPIEL, ET AL. OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS September 14, 2012

BERKELEY COUNTY ENGINEERING AND

City of Warwick, Rhode Island Municipal Code

STATE OF DELAWARE. Sediment & Stormwater Law (with Amendments)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES WITH JURY DEMAND

ARTICLE 20 SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE JOHN LEWIS

BYLAW A BYLAW OF STRATHCONA COUNTY TO REGULATE AND CONTROL SURFACE DRAINAGE AND SITE GRADING WITHIN STRATHCONA COUNTY.

An ordinance amending Section of the Los Angeles Municipal Code by amending the zoning map.

CITY OF KELOWNA BYLAW NO A bylaw to regulate the removal or deposit of soil within the City of Kelowna

ORD-3258 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA:

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF CALAVERAS CIVIL DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Commercial Soil Erosion Permit Application

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MADISON COUNTY, ALABAMA. Plaintiffs, v. Case No.: CV15-

SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT. (Date of Subdivision Map Recordation: )

ORDINANCE NO. 33 PENINSULA TOWNSHIP STORM WATER CONTROL ORDINANCE. Description of Purpose and Nature:

CITY OF ST. GEORGE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BMP MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH OWNER'S NAME FOR PROJECT NAME

This ordinance shall be known as the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance of Pulaski County, Virginia.

Section 48: Land Excavation/Grading

CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS A CONSOLIDATED BY-LAW. Being By-law No , as amended by By-law

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA HELENA DIVISION

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D

State: Zip: State: Zip: Home No.: Cell No.: Home No.: Cell No.: Work No.: Fax No.: Work No.: Fax No.:

TENNESSEE SECTION ASCE 17 th ANNUAL MEETING. Drainage Law and the Responsibility of the Design Engineer

Case 3:18-cv JSC Document 1 Filed 05/02/18 Page 1 of 11

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND WRONGFUL DEATH DAMAGES

BERRIEN COUNTY SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL ORDINANCE ORDINANCE #24. Adopted: September 5, 2013

Case 4:16-cv JEG-CFB Document 1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 1 of 13

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 6, 2000 Session

CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS 2250 Las Vegas Boulevard North, Suite 200, North Las Vegas, Nevada (702) Fax(702) TDD(800)

Case 1:19-cv PAB Document 1 Filed 01/04/19 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

SOIL REMOVAL AND DEPOSITION BYLAW

COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAYS AND PRIVATE STREET ENTRANCES ON COUNTY ROADS

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE June 9, 2009 Session

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/25/ /09/ :37 12:27 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/25/2016

6.1 Planned Unit Development District

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CENTRAL BRANCH -- UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. COME NOW the Plaintiffs, by counsel, and for their Complaint allege as follows:

Courthouse News Service

STORMWATER TREATMENT DEVICE AND LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT STRUCTURE ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT

LICENCE Waterfront BE_RU_. Licence Fee - CDN$2.00. Plant Name: OPGI File No: OPG Assessment # OPGI Lands Legal Description. Box Date of Licence

California Bar Examination

ORDINANCE NO

Filing # E-Filed 01/09/ :13:29 PM

CERTIFICATE. Final. Upon. Instructions: letterhead. Page 1 of 3. CDC Documents. Revised 1/22/2018

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT AT LAW

MEMORANDUM. FIRST READ: Amendments to Chapter 16 related to Streams and Stream Buffers (Rich Edinger)

FILED. Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY

ARTICLE 16 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS

Case5:02-cv JF Document3 Filed11/06/02 Page1 of 14

SAMPLE SERVICING AGREEMENT. THIS AGREEMENT made in duplicate this day of, 20, Between:

Definitions. [NOTE: MOVE DEFINITIONS TO FIRST SECTION.]

Erosion & Sedimentation Control Resource Type: Sedimentation Control Ordinance Document Last Updated in Database: February 24, 2016

11/17/2017. Outline. Common Enemy Rule: Sometimes You Have to Help Your Neighbor. SCASM November 16, Historical Background Common Law

TITLE 17 REFUSE AND TRASH DISPOSAL 1 REFUSE

EROSION AND SEDIMENT ORDINANCE OF MIDDLESEX COUNTY (Effective: July 20, 1994)

C HAPTER 9: ENFORCEMENT AND VIOLATIONS. Enforcement Responsibilities

Case 2:08-cv MLCF-JCW Document 40 Filed 02/12/2009 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

COMMISSION AGENDA: ~-5.13 # 146.

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF SHELBURNE NUMBER

ORDINANCE NO

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF LANSING INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN ORDINANCE NO. 50.2

Chapter 105 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS* ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL

City of Safford Drainage Ordinance; Adopted September 24 th, 2001

THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF SAANICH BYLAW NO. 5576

`diti [IN SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NO.: HHD-CV S J.D. OF HARTFORD JMS NEWBERRY, LLC V. AT HARTFORD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION

Surface Water Drainage Dispute Raises Numerous Issues

Case 3:17-cv SRU Document 1 Filed 08/21/17 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT. ADRIAN LOVELL, Civil Action No.

Case 2:02-cv WHA-SRW Document 27 Filed 04/08/2003 Page 1 of 6. NORTH:F,l~. DIVISION =r--zq SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CITY OF MEDFORD RIPARIAN CORRIDOR ORDINANCE. Adopted: June 1, 2000 by Ordinance #

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CHAPTER 159 CONSTRUCTION SITE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL

EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ORDINANCE

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

BYLAW NUMBER

SUBCHAPTER 4B - EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL

ARTICLE II. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DIVISION 1. GENERALLY. Sec Definitions.

ARLINGTON COUNTY CODE. Chapter 57 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL*

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SEVERN BY-LAW As Amended by By-law Nos , , , &

Invitation to Bid Commerce Blvd/A1A Intersection Improvements & Signalization NC APPENDIX E ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY

City of Johnston, Iowa

Case 1:18-cv RP Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

Case 3:14-cv BR Document 1 Filed 10/09/14 Page 1 of 7

For the purpose of this law, the following words and phrases shall have the meaning ascribed to them in this article.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL ORDINANCE

Transcription:

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 10/23/2013 4:43 PM 02-CV-2013-902873.00 CIRCUIT COURT OF MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA JOJO SCHWARZAUER, CLERK IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA THOMAS FINCH AND KATHLEEN FINCH, v. Plaintiffs, MOBILE AREA WATER AND SEWER BOARD, MOBILE WATER AND SEWER BOARD, and A, B, and C, who are those persons, firms, corporations, and/or other entities whose errors omissions, negligence, or other acts caused Plaintiffs damages; and D, E, and F, who are those persons, firms, corporations, or other entities responsible for the engineering, design, maintenance, and/or construction of the Holding Pond Project, including its storm water retention and drainage system, whose names are unknown at the present but will be added by amendment, Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. CV-2013- COMPLAINT COME NOW Plaintiffs, THOMAS FINCH and KATHLEEN FINCH, by and through undersigned counsel, and file this Complaint against Defendant, Mobile Area Water and Sewer Board (MAWSS), and for their Complaint state as follows: 1. Plaintiffs, THOMAS FINCH and KATLEEN FINCH, husband and wife, are adult resident citizens of Mobile County, Alabama. Plaintiffs own a home and real property located at 1724 Northview Drive, Mobile, Alabama 36618. Such property is adjacent to the MAWSS Project referenced herein and is directly down-gradient from the Project.

2. Defendant MAWSS is the owner of the Project and associated property located in Mobile County, Alabama. 3. Defendants A, B, and C are the persons, firms, corporations, and/or other entities whose errors, omissions, negligence, or other acts caused Plaintiffs damages complained of herein and whose names are currently unknown but will be added when ascertained. 4. Defendants D, E, and F are the persons, firms, corporations, or other entities responsible for the engineering, design, maintenance, construction, placement, and supervision of the construction of the Project, located adjacent to and west of Plaintiffs home, including its storm water retention and drainage system, and whose names are currently unknown but will be added when ascertained. Facts 5. Defendants designed and constructed the Project on property owned by MAWSS located north of Moffett Road, and adjacent to the Plaintiffs home. In conjunction with such construction, Defendants removed the trees and vegetation on the subject property and changed the contour of the said property thereby causing rain waters to flow therefrom and onto the Plaintiffs property in greater quantity and velocity than rain waters had normally flowed from said property. Defendant MAWSS s land disturbance and construction has caused and allowed huge amounts of rain waters and sediment to be channeled from the said Project and onto Plaintiffs property. 6. No flooding or erosion problems existed on Plaintiffs property prior to the commencement of the Project. Indeed, the property upon which the Project is located was historically of similar elevation to the Plaintiffs property. Defendant brought in thousands of tons of red clay in order to construct the Project, resulting in slopes along the eastern boundary 2

thereof which are extremely steep and cause significant stormwater flow and sedimentation loss therefrom. 7. On many occasions within the past six (6) months, Plaintiffs property has been flooded with stormwater and sediment from the Project, due to its altered drainage and lack of retention system for its slope flows and the failure to employ Best Management Practices (BMPs), thereby proximately causing damage to Plaintiffs home, sheds, drives, gardens, yard, garage, etc., causing same to be rendered temporarily and permanently less valuable, and causing Plaintiffs to suffer emotional distress and mental anguish, personal injury, financial loss, cost of repair/remediation, loss of use and enjoyment, and other damages in connection therewith. 8. Plaintiffs have notified Defendants of the damages being suffered by Plaintiffs as a result Defendants wrongdoing to no avail. See Exhibit A. Prior to such formal correspondence, Plaintiffs complained directly to Defendant concerning the water and sediment problems they were experiencing. Representatives of the Defendant and its contractors inspected the first event reported and told the Plaintiffs your problems have just begun. Subsequently, an engineer told the Plaintiffs I told them they needed to do something to address this situation. Unfortunately (for the Plaintiffs), Defendant did little to nothing to address the damages Plaintiffs were sustaining in each rain event. COUNT ONE 9. Plaintiffs adopt and reassert each and every allegation as set forth in the preceding 10. Defendant negligently designed, engineered, altered, modified, and constructed the Holding Pond Project and its associated land contours, drains, drainage ways, retention facilities, and/or culverts (or lack thereof) and diverted storm waters and sediment, and 3

channeled same onto Plaintiffs property and thereby invaded the Plaintiffs property causing substantial and foreseeable damages to Plaintiffs properties and to Plaintiffs. 11. As a proximate result of such negligence, Plaintiffs have been damaged. COUNT TWO 12. Plaintiffs adopt and reassert each and every allegation as set forth in the preceding 13. Defendants are guilty of creating a nuisance and an aggravated nuisance which has proximity caused Plaintiffs to be damaged as aforesaid. COUNT THREE 14. Plaintiffs adopt and reassert each and every allegation as set forth in the preceding 15. Defendants are guilty of committing trespass upon Plaintiffs property before and after notice to quit which has proximately caused Plaintiffs to be damaged as aforesaid. COUNT FOUR 16. Plaintiffs adopt and reassert each and every allegation as set forth in the preceding 4

17 Plaintiffs are entitled to entry of a mandatory injunction requiring alteration to the Project, including its drainage and retention system, so as to assure that Plaintiffs property will no longer be subjected to flooding caused by the alteration of the natural contours and drainage ways on and across the property, and to assure that erosion from said Project is adequately prevented and contained thereon. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand entry of a permanent mandatory injunction against Defendants, and entry of judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages, interest, Plaintiffs costs and attorney s fees, and such other relief to which the Plaintiffs may be entitled. OF COUNSEL: Law Offices of J. Patrick Courtney III P. O. Box 2205 (1 North Royal Street) Mobile, AL 36652-2205 251/694-1001 251/433-3752 (fax) jpc3law@aol.com /s/ J. Patrick Courtney III J. PATRICK COURTNEY III (COU004) Attorney for Plaintiffs, THOMAS FINCH and KATHLEEN FINCH PLEASE SERVE BY CERTIFIED MAIL: MOBILE AREA WATER AND SEWER BOARD 207 North Catherine Street Mobile, AL 36604 5