IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PAWNEE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA JAMES ADAMS, on behalf of himself and other Oklahoma citizens similarly situated, Plaintiff, Case No. if No 7? v. EAGLE ROAI) LLC, CUMMINGS Hi ln Diana?! OIL COMPANY, and JOHN DOES I through 25, Defendants. i PAWN is I Y, OKLAHOMA mm PETITION 62 If COMES NOW Plaintiff James Adams on behalf of himself and the Class of similarly situated Oklahoma citizens (de?ned below), and for their class action petition against Defendants state: NATURE OF ACTION 1. By disposing of fracking wastewater deep into the earth, Defendants introduced contaminants into the natural environment that caused an adverse change to it in the form of unnatural seismic activity. In other words, due to Defendants? pollution ofthe environment they caused the man-made earthquakes at issue in this case. 2. This is an action to recover Plaintiffs and the Class members' damages proximately caused by Defendants? pollution of the environment within and around Pawnee, Oklahoma through the disposal of fracking wastewater with injection wells, which are the pollutants. Page 1 of 17 3. Plaintiff and the Class seek damages, joint and severally from the Defendants, in the form ofthe following: a. Physical damages to real and personal property; b. market value losses to their real property; c. emotional distress; and, d. punitive damages. 4. Plaintiff James Adams is a citizen of Oklahoma. He is also a citizen and resident of Pawnee, Pawnee County, Oklahoma. 5. Defendant Eagle Road Oil [4er ("liagle Road?) is a citizen of Oklahoma. lt owns conducts oil and gas operations in this County, and more speci?cally, owns and operates the wastewater disposal well at issue in this case. principal place of business is at 321 South Boston, Suite 300, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103. 6. Defendant Cummings Oil Company (?Cummings") is a citizen of Oklahoma. [1 conducts oil and gas operations in this County, and more specifically, owns and operates the wastewater disposal wells at issue in this action. Cummings has its principal place of business at 5400 N. Grand Blvd, Suite IOO, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73112. 7. John Does 25 are other Oklahoma oil and gas companies that have engaged in injection well operations in and around Pawnee, which have also contributed to the earthquakes and resulting damages to Plaintiff and the Class members. 8. liagle Road, Cummings, and John Does 1-25 are collectively referred to in this petition as "Defendants." Page 2 of l7 JURISIDICTION AND VENUE 9. Jurisdiction in this Court is proper. 10. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Defendants as they are citizens of Oklahoma, do substantial business in the State ol? Oklahoma and Pawnee County, and further, operate the wastewater disposal wells at issue within this judicial district. 1. Venue is proper in this Court as a substantial part of the events giving rise to this claim occurred here, and Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Pawnee County. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 12. In recent years, thousands ol?earthquakes have occurred in Oklahoma. 13. In fact, Oklahoma is the most seismically active state in the continental United States. 14. Scientists have tied these earthquakes to the disposal ol?wastewater from tracking operations, which the oil and gas industry uses to release trapped oil and gas. 15. Over the years, the Oil and gas industry has issued public statements to hide the seismic problems it is creating, and in fact continued a mantra that their operations did not cause earthquakes. 16. In truth, Oklahoma?s earthquakes over the past live or so years have been caused by the oil and gas industry?s disposal of tracking related waste. Some have termed these earthquakes as "induced," ?man?made,? ?human?made,? or "l?rackquakcs." l7. The waste ?uids generated from tracking are mostly disposed of by injecting the wastewater ?uids back into the earth under extreme pressure in what are usually called Page 3 of 17 wastewater disposal wells or injection wells. This process of pollution causes earthquakes, and indeed. have caused the earthquakes shaking Oklahoma since at least 201 l. 18. In fact. the number of earthquakes in Oklahoma has increased more than 300 fold, from a maximum 01?167 before 2009 to 5.838 in 2015. 19. As the number of earthquakes has increased, so has their severity. For example, the number of magnitude 3.5 earthquakes has increased ?fty fold from 4 in 2009 to 220 in 2015. See below: Number of Earthquake Events by Magnitude 61000 51000 41000 3 31000 a 2,000 1,000 ?Halli-tn;1mulumial Magnitude. Page 4 of 17 20. These waste?induced earthquakes have toppled historic towers. caused parts of houses to fall and injure people, cracked basements. and shattered nerves. as people fear there could be worse to come. 21. On March 28. 2016. and revised on June 17. 2016. the United States Geological Survey published a study quantifying these risks. It found that the earthquake risks in Oklahoma have risen rapidly as a result of deep disposal of production wastes. Oklahoma earthquake risks are now the highest in the nation. Maps included in the report show a broad swathe of the State of Oklahoma has a 5 1012? likelihood ot? a highly damaging earthquake in the next year. Petersen. Mueller. Moschetti. lloover. S.M.. Llenos. lillsworth. Michael. Rubinstein. MeGarr, All. and Rukstales. K.S.. 2016. 20m One-year seismic hazard forecast for the Central and liastern United States from induced and natural earthquakes: US. Geological Survey Open-File Report 52 Ill} 03 5. 22. On September 3. 2016. these seientists? prediction that a more damaging earthquake to Oklahoma was coming proved to be true. 23. On that day. a magnitude-5.8 earthquake shattered Pawnee, Oklahoma. The earthquake?s epicenter was about 15 km northwest ol'the town 01? Pawnee. 24. This was the largest earthquake that had ever hit Oklahoma. Page 5 ol? l7 25. A magnitude?5.8 earthquake is a big one. Oklahoma Geological Survey?s Director Jeremy Boak said. "Any time you have a big earthquake like that. you worry about the aftershocks.? Boak said. "1 low big they?ll be. how many there will be." 26. All segments of Oklahoma?s government. from the Governor to the Director of DOS. agree that Pawnee?s 5.8m earthquake was induced by Defendants" wastewater disposal operations and from the injection wells they operate nearby. 27. The 5.8m earthquake near Pawnee on September 3 2016, was not a naturally occurring earthquake. or an act of God. ?ad. the Defendants? pollution of the environment caused it, and the other earthquakes that followed. 28. In the area around Pawnee, there were at least 41 shocks involving magnitude? 2.5+ earthquakes before the end ofSeptember, 20 6. 29. These quakes ranged in magnitude from 2.5111 to 3.6. and have all been identified by USGS and shown in the following table: ?age 6 of l7 TIME MAG PLACE 13an NW of Pawnee, Oklahoma to Um 12km NW 01' Pawnee, Oklahoma La.) 2016?09-18T2l :30:52.3007, 5km of Pawnee, Oklahoma 2016-09-16723202234007, 13km NW of Pawnee, Oklahoma 10km NW of Pawnee, Oklahoma 14km NW of Pawnee, Oklahoma 2016-09-1210957289007; 'ox 8km NN 01' Pawnee, Oklahoma 8km NNW 01' Pawnee, Oklahoma 2016?09?1 1104257163007, 12km NW 01? Pawnee, Oklahoma 201 6?09-10Tl 13km NW of Pawnee, Oklahoma 10km NW of Pawnee, Oklahoma :54: 16. 1 007, 11km NW 01? Pawnee, Oklahoma 11km NW of Pawnee, Oklahoma 2016-09-07T03: 1 13km of Pawnee, Oklahoma 1.6007, 10km NNW of Pawnee, Oklahoma Endgam'oxin'c 1 1km NW 61? Pawnee, Oklahoma 2016-09-04T 1 156114.900]; 11km NW of Pawnee, Oklahoma 9 12km NW of Pawnee, Oklahoma 2016-09-04108248265002 5 13km NW of Pawnee, Oklahoma .5 9km NNW 01? Pawnee. Oklahoma 1 1 1km NW of Pawnee, Oklahoma 9km NNW 01' Pawnee, Oklahoma 7km of Pawnee, Oklahoma 7 2016?09-03? 8km NN of Pawnee, Oklahoma 11km 1" Pawnee, Oklahoma 2016-09-03Tl 9km NNW 01? Pawnee, Oklahoma 9km NN of Pawnee, Oklahoma 9km NNW 01? Pawnee, Oklahoma 13km of Pawnee, Oklahoma 201 16.9002 9km NW 01? Pawnee, Oklahoma 9km NW of Pawnee, Oklahoma 9km NW of Pawnee, Oklahoma 13km of Pawnee, Oklahoma 13km of Pawnee, Oklahoma 12km 01" Pawnee, Oklahoma 1 1 km of Pawnee, Oklahoma 1 1km NW ol'Pawnee, Oklahoma 2016-09-03? 2:32:023007, 9km NNW of Pawnee, Oklahoma 2016-1191-0311 2:21 225.2007, 10km NNW of Pawnee, Oklahoma 9km NNW 01' Pawnee, Oklahoma 3 9km NNW of Pawnee, Oklahoma Page 7 of 17 30. Defendants? pollution of" the environment around Pawnee. through their disposal of tracking wastewater with injection wells. caused the 5.8m earthquake on September 3rd and all ol?the other seismicity shown in the table above. Moreover, the quakes around Pawnee continued into October and November. 2016. In fact. there have been eleven more earthquakes. and another substantial earthquake of 4.5m shook the areas around Pawnee on November 2. 2016. 32. The following table shows the earthquakes near Pawnee in October and November. 2016. including the 4.5m earthquake: TIM MAG PLACE 3.4 l5km ol?Cleveland, Oklahoma 2.9 2km Eofl?awnee.Oklahoma 2016-] 3.7 13km liSli 12km 2.8 12km liSli 2016-] 4.5 14km liSli ol?l?awnee?klahoma 3.3 9km NW ofl?awnec.Oklahoma 2.6 12km NW 3016-Ill-19132204516307. 2.7 11km NW 3.7 11km NW ol?l?awnee?klahoma 2016-10-011102582313002 2.9 8km NNW ol?l?awnce. Oklahoma Page 80117 33. All of these earthquakes were also caused by Defendants? pollution of the environment around Pawnee. through their disposal of fraeking wastewater with injection wells. CLASS ALLEGATIONS 34. Plaintiff realleges each of the preceding paragraphs, and by this reference incorporates each such paragraph as though set forth here in full. 35. Plaintiff brings this action, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, as a class action pursuant to 12 0.8. 2023. 36. The Class that Plaintiffseeks to represent (the is defined as follows: a) Citizens ofOklahoma; b) owning a home or business in Pawnee County, Creek County or Noble County (hereafter, the ?Class Area"); c) during the dates of seismic activity within the Class Area between September 3, 2016 to present (the "Class Period"); (1) excluded from the Class are all Class member properties on exclusive federal and/or tribal land; and, excluded from the Class are Defendants and their officers and directors, and the judge presiding over this action and his/her immediate family members. 37. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the definition of the Class if discovery and further investigation reveals that the Class should be expanded or otherwise modified. 38. This action is brought and properly may be maintained as a class action pursuant to 12 (1S. 2023, and satisfies the requirements ofits provisions. Page 9 of 17 Numerosity 39. Recent media outlets have reported hundreds of homes and businesses were damaged just by the 5.8m earthquake striking the area on September 3, 2016. 40. These human-made earthquakes are continuing in the Class Area; and thus. more properties are likely to suffer damages. 41. The Class Area includes several counties in Oklahoma where thousands of Oklahoma?s citizens reside in their homes and operate businesses. 42. As such. the Class is sufficiently numerous and has members scattered over several counties so as to make joinder of all members of the Class in a single action impracticable, and therefore, the resolution oftheir claims through the procedure ofa class action will be to the benefit ot?the parties and the Court. 43. Plaintiff?s claims raise issues of fact or law which are common to the members of the putative Class. These common questions include, but are not limited to: Whether Defendants? disposal well operations within the Class Area caused earthquakes in the Class Area; whether these induced earthquakes caused damage to the personal and real property of Plaintiff and the members of the Class; whether Defendants owed a duty to the Plaintiff and the members of the putative Class; whether Defendants? conduct amounted to a nuisance; whether Defendants" conduct is an ultra-hazardous activity; (1) whether Defendants? operations were negligently performed; whether Defendants caused a trespass; Page 10 of 7 whether Plaintiffs and the members of the putative Class have suffered damages proximately caused by Defendants wastewater disposal operations; and whether ajudgment including punitive damages is appropriate. Typicality 44. Plaintiff?s claims are typical of the claims ofthe other members of the Class they seek to represent because at bottom, all of the claims center upon whether Defendants? wastewater injection operations have caused the seismicity within the Class Area during the Class Period. Adequacy 45. Plaintiff is interested in the outcome of this litigation and understands the importance of adequately representing the Class. 46. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class sought to be certified. 47. Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class because he has no interests that are adverse to the interests of the members of the Class. Plaintiff is committed to the vigorous prosecution of this action and, to that end. Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in handling class?action and complex tort litigation, which are also qualified to adequately represent the Class. Predominance 48. Questions of law or fact common to the members of the Class predominate over questions affecting only individual members. Page 1 of l7 Superiority A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication ofthe controversy. The predicate issues relate to Defendants? wastewater injection operations, actions and activities, and whether these activities pose a nuisance, are an ultra? hazardous activity. were negligently performed, or caused trespasses. The focus of this action will be on the common and uniform conduct of Defendants in conducting their wastewater injection operations during the Class Period and within the Class Area. 50. Absent class action relief, the putative Class Members would be forced to prosecute hundreds of similar claims in different district court venues. Such an event would cause tremendous amounts of waste ofjudicial resources, but the prosecution ofthese claims as a class action will promote judicial economy. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class would create a risk of: a. inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the Class, which would establish standards of conduct for the Defendants; and b. z?tdjudications with respect to individual members of the Class, which would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests. Ln Ix.) Plaintiff is not aware of any difficulty which will be encountered in the management of this litigation which should preclude its maintenance as a class action. ?agc 12 of 17 CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I ABSOLUTE LIABILITY 53. Plaintiff and the Class hereby re-allege and incorporate the foregoing Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein, word-for-word. 54. Defendants" actions described above are ultrahazardous activities that necessarily involve a risk of serious harm to a person that cannot be eliminated by the exercise of the utmost care and is not a matter ofcommon usage. 55. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants? ultrahazardous activities, Plaintiff and the Class members have suffered damages. to which Defendants are strictly liable. 56. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants? ultrahazardous activities. Plaintiff and Class members have suffered damages to their homes in the form of physical damages and market losses, and also damages to their personal property. 57. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants? ultrahazardous activities. Plaintiff and Class members have suffered and continue to suffer emotional harm. COUNT II NEGLIGENCE 58. Plaintiff and the Class hereby re?allege and incorporate the foregoing Paragraphs. as if fully set forth herein, word?for-word. Page 13 of l7 The Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff and the Class to use ordinary care and not to operate or maintain their injection wells in such a way as to cause or contribute to seismic activity. Defendants, experienced in these operations, were well aware of the connection between injection wells and seismic activity. and acted in disregard of these facts. As a direct and proximate result of these facts, omissions, and fault of the Defendants, the Plaintiff and the Class have suffered injuries reasonably foreseeable to the Defendants in the form of property damages to their homes (in the form of physical damages and market losses), damages to their personal property, and emotional harm that is continuing. COUNT Ill PRIVATE NUISIANCE 61. Plaintiff and the Class re-alle !e and incor orate the fore Ioin I Para yra hs, as if 5 fully set forth herein, word-lbr~word. o2. Defendants? conduct constitutes a private nuisance. 63. Plaintiff and the Class have property rights and are privileged regarding the use and enjoyment of their home, land and businesses. Defendants? actions and operations as described above have unlawfully and unreasonably interfered with those rights and privileges. 64. Plaintiff and the Class have suffered harm and damages because of Defendants? creation ofa nuisance, including: a. Damages to their personal and real property; b. interference with their use and enjoyment of property; c. annoyance, discomfort and inconvenience on their property caused by Defendants? nuisance; Page 14 of 7