Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.1 Page 1 of 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 BARON & BUDD, P.C. Scott Summy (pending Pro Hac Vice) (Texas Bar No. 19507500) John P. Fiske (SBN 249256) Celeste Evangelisti (SBN 225232) 603 Coast Hwy, Suite G Solana Beach, California 92075 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 Fiske@BaronBudd.com GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS John H. Gomez (SBN 171485) Deborah Dixon (SBN 248965) 655 West Broadway, Suite 1700 San Diego, California 92101 Telephone: (619) 237-3490 DDixon@GomezTrialAttorneys.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs 14 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ADAM COX, individually, by and through ) Case No.: '17CV0597 BAS NLS his durable power of attorney, RONALD ) COX, on behalf of himself and others ) CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR: similarly situated, ) ) 1. Negligence Plaintiff, ) 2. Gross Negligence v. ) 3. Private Nuisance ) 4. Public Nuisance AMETEK, INC., a Delaware corporation; ) 5. Trespass THOMAS DEENEY, individually; ) SENIOR OPERATIONS LLC, a limited ) liability company; and DOES 1 through ) 100, inclusive, ) ) DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL Defendants. ) ) 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.2 Page 2 of 58 1 2 Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleges the following based on information and belief: INTRODUCTION 3 4 1. On October 6, 2016, the California Department of Toxic Substances 5 Control (“DTSC”) issued a Proposition 65 Notification to the San Diego County Public 6 Health Officer, stating: 7 a. “DTSC has obtained information in the course of its official duties 8 pertaining to the property address specified above, indicating that several 9 chemicals have been detected in soil gas and groundwater at 790 10 Greenfield Drive in the City of El Cajon. DTSC has conducted soil gas, 11 groundwater and indoor air sampling at properties adjacent to this 12 aerospace manufacturing facility and will be using this information to 13 develop a plan to further assess surrounding properties and mitigate 14 chemical contamination, as necessary. Several of the chemicals detected 15 are considered human carcinogens and may pose unacceptable short and 16 long term risks to human health and the environment.” 17 b. “In September 2016, 29 soil gas samples were collected by an 18 environmental consultant working for the responsible party. 19 samples were collected along the adjacent Magnolia Elementary School 20 fence line. Trichloroethylene (TCE) is a chemical which has been found in 21 the groundwater and soil gas at the property address and surrounding 22 community. 23 groundwater can migrate through the soil and through cracks in the floor 24 and accumulate in the air inside buildings. The levels of TCE found in soil 25 gas were up to 560 ug/L, which could potentially exceed indoor air levels 26 that pose an unacceptable risk to human health.” 27 28 Vapors off-gassing from underlying These contaminated c. The Proposition 65 Notification lists Ametek, Inc. as the Responsible Party under “RP Name.” -1CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.3 Page 3 of 58 1 d. The Proposition 65 Notification is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2 e. Plaintiff’s mobile home is located on property adjacent to Magnolia Elementary School. 3 2. 4 In March 2017, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board 5 (RWQCB) sent letters to eight residents at the Greenfield and Starlight mobile home 6 parks (MHPs). 7 hydrogeologically down-gradient from Magnolia Elementary School and/or the Senior 8 Aerospace facility located at 790 Greenfield Drive. The letters were sent in response to 9 sampling of air conducted by Ametek, Inc.’s consultant, ERM, within and beneath these 10 eight mobile homes. The letters indicate the concentrations of trichloroethylene (TCE) 11 in these air samples, and document additional actions to be taken at each mobile home. 12 ERM collected the air samples for Ametek, a party responsible for soil, soil vapor, and 13 groundwater contamination associated with releases at the facility at 790 Greenfield 14 Drive. These MHPs are located immediately adjacent to, and 15 a. TCE was detected in air samples from inside the mobile homes and in 16 the crawl spaces beneath the homes at concentrations up to 13 and 24 17 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3), respectively. 18 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) screening level for 19 TCE is 0.48 ug/m3. The air samples taken at the homes exceeded this 20 level in six of the indoor air samples and seven of the crawl space air 21 samples. In fact, some concentrations at these homes exceed the 22 regulatory Accelerated Response Action Level (2 ug/m3) and/or the 23 Urgent Response Action Level (8 ug/m3), established as health and 24 safety thresholds in California. California’s Urgent Response Action 25 Level requires “immediate mitigation measures within a few days.” 26 Unfortunately, we know now the plume has been there for over 40 27 years. 28 The California b. The eight letters from the RWQCB are attached hereto as Exhibit B. -2CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.4 Page 4 of 58 1 c. Plaintiff’s mobile home is located above the same TCE plume, causing 2 the same or substantially similar TCE crawl space and indoor air 3 exposure and human health risk as recorded in the February 2017 4 samples. PARTIES 5 3. 6 Plaintiff Adam Cox (“Plaintiff”) is the owner of mobile home trailer Unit 7 111, situated on real property in the Villa Cajon Mobile Home Estate (“Villa Cajon”), a 8 mobile home park located in El Cajon California. Plaintiff leases the real property upon 9 which Unit 111 is located. Unit 111 was, until recently, Plaintiff’s primary residence. 4. 10 Plaintiff Adam Cox is a citizen of the State of California and a resident of 11 the County of San Diego. Ronald Cox brings each and every allegation as attorney in 12 fact, pursuant to a durable power of attorney, for his incompetent brother, Plaintiff 13 Adam Cox. 14 5. Plaintiff owns Unit 111, and lived there until December 2016. 15 6. Plaintiff started living in Unit 111 in approximately 1986. Prior to that, he 16 lived in Unit 110 with his mother Arla JoDoell Cox, starting in 1976. 7. 17 Arla Cox owned Unit 110 starting in approximately 1976. In 18 approximately 1986, Arla Cox sold unit 110 and purchased and moved into Unit 111 19 with Adam. 20 21 22 8. Arla Cox, a non-smoker, died from a kidney tumor at the age of 63 in 9. Adam Cox, a non-smoker, was diagnosed in December 2016 with a brain 2002. 23 tumor at the base of his skull. Adam lived in Unit 111 from 1986 until December 2016, 24 when he moved to a healthcare facility as the result of failing health due to his brain 25 tumor. 26 10. Units 110 and 111 are on top of the TCE plume. 27 11. Villa Cajon is one of three adjacent mobile home park properties, including 28 Starlight Mobile Home Park (“Starlight”) and Greenfield Mobile Home Park -3CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.5 Page 5 of 58 1 (“Greenfield”), which have been contaminated by a toxic groundwater plume emanating 2 from 790 Greenfield Drive. The mobile home parks are not parties to this action. 12. 3 Defendant Ametek, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place 4 of business in Pennsylvania. Defendant Senior Operations, LLC is a Delaware limited 5 liability company with its principal place of business in Illinois. Defendant Thomas 6 Deeney is a natural person who resides in Pennsylvania. 13. 7 Defendant AMETEK, INC. is a corporation organized and existing under 8 the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business at 1100 Cassatt Road, 9 Berwyn, Pennsylvania 19312 (“AMETEK”). 14. 10 Defendant SENIOR OPERATIONS LLC is a limited liability company 11 organized and existing under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business 12 at 300 East Devon Avenue, Bartlett, Illinois 60103. SENIOR OPERATIONS LLC 13 wholly owns a division named SENIOR AEROSPACE KETEMA, which is located at 14 790 Greenfield Drive, El Cajon, California 92021 (“SENIOR/KETEMA”). 15. 15 Defendant THOMAS DEENEY is a natural person who resides in 16 Pennsylvania and who is a corporate officer and employee of Defendant AMETEK, 17 INC. 18 negligence, negligence or otherwise, for the occurrences herein alleged, and 19 Plaintiff’s resulting harm. At times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant THOMAS 20 DEENEY acted as the agent, servant, and/or employee of AMETEK, and was acting 21 within the course and scope of said agency and employment. 22 Defendant THOMAS DEENEY is responsible by act or omission, gross 16. for Unless otherwise indicated, the use of any Defendant’s name in this 23 Complaint, including “Defendants,” includes all agents, employees, officers, members, 24 directors, heirs, successors, assigns, principals, trustees, sureties, subrogees, 25 representatives and insurers of the named Defendants. 26 17. The true names and capacities of the defendants named herein as Does 1 27 through 100, inclusive, whether individual, corporate, governmental, associate or 28 otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues such Defendants by fictitious -4CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.6 Page 6 of 58 1 names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities 2 when ascertained. Each of the Doe Defendants is responsible in some manner, either by 3 act or omission, strict liability, fraud, negligence or otherwise, for the occurrences 4 herein alleged, and Plaintiff’s harm was legally caused by conduct of the Doe 5 Defendants. Does 1 through 100, inclusive, are responsible to Plaintiff on the facts and 6 theories herein alleged. 7 fictitiously named, was the agent, servant, and/or employee of each of the remaining 8 Defendants, and was acting within the course and scope of said agency and 9 employment. Each of the Defendants is in some manner responsible for the events and 10 happenings to which reference is made herein, and each Defendant caused injury and 11 damage to Plaintiff as herein alleged. The acts of Defendants and each of them were 12 and are the acts of the other Defendants. Defendants, and each of them, ratified, 13 authorized, and/or approved of the acts of the other Defendants. At all relevant times, each Defendant, including those JURISDICTION AND VENUE 14 18. 15 Diversity Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. §1332 because all Plaintiffs 16 are residents of and/or own subject trailer units in California, but all Defendants are 17 residents of or have principal places of business in states outside of California. 19. 18 Venue is proper in this Court in that the subject acts and transactions 19 giving rise to this action occurred in the Southern District of California for the 20 following reasons: 21 a. Defendants do or did conduct business in the Southern District of 22 California and have intentionally availed themselves of the laws and 23 markets within Southern District of California by owning and 24 operating, or having owned and operated, the subject aerospace plant 25 which is the source of the subject contamination, at 790 Greenfield 26 Drive in El Cajon, California; 27 /// 28 /// -5CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.7 Page 7 of 58 1 b. The injury and harm to Plaintiffs, as San Diego County residents, 2 occurred and is still occurring within the Southern District of California 3 in the City of El Cajon. c. The entire toxic groundwater plume, which is the subject of this 4 lawsuit, is within the Southern District of California. 5 d. Two “Related” actions are currently filed in the Southern District of 6 California, and this case should be Related to those actions. 7 e. All property and Plaintiffs, and all putative class members, are located 8 with the Southern District of California. 9 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 10 11 Companies’ History 20. 12 In 1953 or 1954, the AMETEK PROPERTY was founded by California 13 Aircraft Products on the current El Cajon, California site, at 790 Greenfield Drive, El 14 Cajon, California 92021. In 1964, California Aircraft Products changed its name to 15 Straza Industries, which was purchased by Defendant AMETEK in 1968.1 21. 16 17 AMETEK used the AMETEK PROPERTY to manufacture aircraft engine parts from 1968 to 1988.2 22. 18 In late 1987/early 1988, AMETEK learned it created a groundwater plume 19 contaminated with chlorinated solvents, including TCE at 39,000 ug/L, because it 20 dumped and stored toxic waste in a redwood sump, which leached and leaked 21 chlorinated solvents, among other chemicals, into the groundwater and subsurface soil. 22 By late 1987/early 1988, AMETEK knew the contaminated groundwater plume had 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region, Technical Analysis, Administrative Liability Complaint No R9-2008-0033, Issued to Ametek, Inc., Former Ametek/Ketema Aerospace Manufacturing Facility, 790 Greenfield Drive, El Cajon, California, San Diego County, For Violation of Cleanup and Abatement Order No, R9-2002-201, dated September 2008. 2 Id. -6CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.8 Page 8 of 58 1 migrated from its property and into the downgradient groundwater beyond its western 2 property boundary. 23. 3 In late 1988, AMETEK “spun off” a company called Ketema. The “spin 4 off” included the property and business at 790 Greenfield Drive, from which the toxic 5 plume was emanating. 24. 6 7 contaminated the groundwater with TCE concentrations as high as 39,000 ug/L. 25. 8 9 By 1997, Senior Operations, LLC (a.k.a. Senior Flexonics) had purchased the property and business at 790 Greenfield Drive. 26. 10 11 Prior to and at the time AMETEK spun off Ketema, AMETEK knew it had Ketema changed its name to Schutte & Koerting, which filed for bankruptcy in 2007. 27. 12 Currently, the AMETEK PROPERTY is owned by Defendant Senior 13 Operations, LLC, apparently doing business as SENIOR AEROSPACE KETEMA, 14 which has its principal place of business at 790 Greenfield Drive, El Cajon, California 15 92021 (“KETEMA”).3 16 28. KETEMA is AMETEK spelled backwards. 17 29. Despite knowledge of groundwater contamination at extremely high levels, 18 AMETEK made a cold, calculated business decision to simply walk away without any 19 effort to clean up or remediate the groundwater contamination. 20 AMETEK Dumped Chlorinated Solvents into a Hole in the Ground 30. 21 22 By 1963, Straza/AMETEK had dug a hole in the ground, which was 12 feet in diameter and 10 feet deep. This hole was used as a waste “SUMP.”4 23 24 3 25 4 26 27 28 SENIOR AEROSPACE KETEMA website, www.saketema.com/history. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region, Technical Analysis, Administrative Liability Complaint No R9-2008-0033, Issued to Ametek, Inc., Former Ametek/Ketema Aerospace Manufacturing Facility, 790 Greenfield Drive, El Cajon, California, San Diego County, For Violation of Cleanup and Abatement Order No, R9-2002-201, dated September 2008. -7CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.9 Page 9 of 58 31. 1 Straza/AMETEK lined the walls of the SUMP with redwood planks and 2 poured concrete at its base. AMETEK used this SUMP for toxic waste storage and 3 dumping until 1985.5 32. 4 5 Between 1963 and 1985, for 22 years, Straza/AMETEK dumped up to 7,000 gallons of waste per month into this SUMP. This dumped waste included6: 6 a. Spent acid and alkaline solutions 7 b. Industrial chlorinated solvents 8 c. 1, 1, 1- Trichloroethane (1, 1, 1- TCA) 9 d. Trichloroethylene (TCE) 10 e. Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) 11 f. Oils 12 g. Paint thinner 13 h. Process Sludge 14 33. In 1963, Straza/AMETEK submitted a Report of Waste Discharge 15 (ROWD) to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board in order to receive 16 authority and permission to use the SUMP as an impervious storage vessel. AMETEK 17 represented to the Regional Water Quality Control Board that their waste treatment 18 facility would “prevent filtering into native soil” in a February 7, 1963 letter.7 34. 19 AMETEK did not reveal the nature or design of the SUMP, excluding the 20 details that the SUMP was lined with redwood planks. It was not until removal of the 21 SUMP, decades later, that the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health 22 discovered and photographed the redwood planks.8 35. 23 24 25 26 27 28 Highly acidic liquid waste, spent chlorinated solvents, and appreciable amounts of various metallic wastes breached the sump and discharged into soil 5 Id. Id. 7 Id. 8 Id. 6 -8CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.10 Page 10 of 58 1 surrounding the sump and into the groundwater, as AMETEK dumped the chlorinated 2 solvent waste into the SUMP until 1985.9 36. 3 Between 1963 and at least 1985, the strong, acidic liquid waste 4 deteriorated the SUMP allowing the chlorinated solvent waste to seep and percolate into 5 the surrounding soil, fractures in the granite rock, and into the groundwater.10 37. 6 7 the SUMP exceeded 810,000 parts per billion (ppb).11 38. 8 9 In 1987, total chlorinated solvent concentrations in the groundwater near In 2007, total chlorinated solvent concentrations in the groundwater near the SUMP exceeded 48,000 parts per billion (ppb).12 39. 10 The 1987 and 2007 concentration levels exceed state water quality 11 objectives by unthinkable magnitudes. A chart from the Regional Water Board’s 2008 12 Administrative 13 AMETEK:13 Liability Complaint illustrates the excessive pollution caused by 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 Id. Id. 11 Id. 12 Id. 13 Id. 10 -9CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.11 Page 11 of 58 1 One of the Largest TCE Plumes in the State of California 40. 2 3 AMETEK’S waste discharge caused one of the largest TCE/chlorinated solvent plumes in the State of California.14 41. 4 The chlorinated solvent plumes are massive, possibly extending 1.3 miles 5 westward and down-gradient. 6 dimensions15: The plumes include the following chemicals and 7 a. TCE: 7,000 feet by 1,600 feet, migrated beneath 257 acres of land 8 b. DCE: 3,200 feet by 1,200 feet, migrated beneath 88 acres of land 9 c. Dioxane: 5,600 by 1,000 feet, extends across 128 acres of land 10 d. TCA: 1,200 feet by 400 feet, extends beneath 11 acres 42. 11 12 Additionally, plumes of PCE, 1,1-DCA, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene exist in the groundwater.16 43. 13 According to AMETEK’S consultants, ERM, the plume has contaminated 14 the groundwater and soil beneath Magnolia Elementary School, GREENFIELD, 15 STARLIGHT, VILLA CAJON, and other neighboring properties. 16 AMETEK’S Water Quality Violations 44. 17 The California Regional Water Quality Control Board filed the 2008 18 Administrative Liability Complaint against Defendant AMETEK, INC. for failing to 19 comply with the previous 2002 Cleanup and Abatement Order No. R9-2002-201.17 20 AMETEK, INC. committed the following violations18: 21 a. Failure to Report as Required by Directive No. 1: “Ametek failed to 22 install and collect ground-water samples in accordance with Directive 23 24 25 26 27 28 14 Id. Id. 16 Id. 17 Id. 18 Id. 15 - 10 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.12 Page 12 of 58 1 1.e and failed to submit a complete Delineation Report by April 30, 2 2003….. the total number of days of violation is 1,974 days.” 3 b. Failure to Submit a Complete Feasibility Study Report as Required by 4 Directive No. 3: “Ametek failed to submit a complete Feasibility Study 5 Report by January 16, 2004….. the total number of days of violation is 6 1,713 days.” 45. 7 8 The California Regional Water Quality Control Board then imposed a fine of $2,269,000 for the above mentioned violations19: a. “$1,671,500 in liability for Failure to Report as Required by Directive 9 No. 1….” 10 b. “$597,500 in liability for Failure to Submit a Complete Feasibility Study 11 Report as Required by Directive No. 3….” 12 13 Ametek and Tom Deeney Knowingly, Willfully, and Intentionally Failed to 14 Cleanup and Abate the Contamination 46. 15 AMETEK and DEENEY knowingly, willfully, and intentionally failed to 16 establish monitoring wells, which were intended to identify the boundaries of and 17 delineate the massive plume. In the 2008 Administrative Liability Complaint, the 18 California Water Board documented AMETEK’S willful, knowing, and intentional 19 failures20: 20 a. “After 20 years of investigation efforts, Ametek and S&K have not 21 installed a sufficient monitoring well network to delineate the vertical 22 and horizontal extent of the waste plume and have not taken any efforts 23 to cleanup and abate the effects of their discharge.” 24 /// 25 26 19 27 20 28 Id. Technical Analysis for Administrative Liability Complaint No. R9-2008-0033, September 2008. - 11 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.13 Page 13 of 58 b. “Ametek and S&K are responsible for delineating and remediating the 1 discharge of wastes.” 2 3 c. “Ametek and S&K were repeatedly advised that their submittals 4 regarding plume delineation were incomplete or deficient, yet they failed 5 to conduct additional work to address the deficiencies.” 6 d. “Ametek and S&K’s failure to completely delineate the plume has 7 allowed significant concentrations of contaminants to remain in place as 8 a continued source of pollution.” 9 e. “Ametek and S&K failed to act appropriately, not only in their efforts to 10 complete the delineation of the plume, but in their responsibilities to 11 implement appropriate cleanup and abatement measures in a reasonable 12 amount of time.” 13 f. “Such failures have caused a condition of pollution and contamination in 14 the ground water beneath the El Cajon Valley with continuing impacts to 15 the existing beneficial uses of the Santee/El Monte Basin.” 16 47. AMETEK was named a “Responsible Party” in Cleanup and Abatement 17 Order 98-11 in 1998 by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board 18 (“CRWQCB”). AMETEK was required, among other things, to fully delineate the 19 plume, submit a Feasibility Study, submit a Remedial Action Plan, and otherwise fully 20 comply with CAO 98-11. 21 48. AMETEK and DEENEY choose to not comply with CAO 98-11. 22 49. The CRWQCB sent many, many letters and Notices of Violation (“NOVs”) 23 to AMETEK and DEENEY regarding the lack of compliance with CAO 98-11. 24 AMETEK and DEENEY simply ignored the CRWQCB letters and NOVs, allowing the 25 plume to continue to contaminate properties, including causing vapor intrusion into the 26 mobile homes such as the one owned by Plaintiff Adam Cox. 27 28 50. The CRWQCB again named AMETEK in Cleanup and Abatement Order R9-2002-201. Again, AMETEK and DEENEY choose to not comply. Again, the - 12 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.14 Page 14 of 58 1 CRWQCB sent many, many letters and NOVs. And, again, AMETEK and DEENEY 2 simply ignored the CRWQCB, further allowing the plume to continue to contaminate 3 properties, including Plaintiff Adam Cox’s home. 4 Magnolia Elementary School- An Adjacent Property 51. 5 On June 1, 2015, the Board of Governors of the Cajon Valley Union 6 School District voted unanimously to close Magnolia Elementary School, another 7 property located adjacent to the three mobile home parks, for the 2015-2016 school year 8 because the indoor air was contaminated with toxic chemicals. These chemicals, which 9 Defendants improperly dumped on their adjacent property over many years, 10 contaminate the groundwater and soil under the school and the adjacent mobile home 11 parks, including the groundwater and soil located on the real property where Plaintiff’s 12 trailer is situated. 13 52. To mitigate the intrusion of TCE vapors into indoor air at Magnolia 14 Elementary School, Cajon Valley Union School District installed sub-slab 15 depressurization systems, designed to remove toxic vapors from underneath classroom 16 buildings. 17 53. 18 In 2008, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) entered into a Consent Order with AMETEK, documenting the following21: 19 a. “In June 2007, samples taken from ground water monitoring wells 20 showed concentration of TCE of up to 50,000 micrograms per liter 21 beneath the former Ketema facility, and up to 3,600 micrograms per liter 22 beneath the Site.”22 23 /// 24 /// 25 26 27 28 21 Consent Order, Department of Toxic Substances Control, California Environmental Protection Agency, Docket No. HAS-CO 07/08-198, 2008. 22 “Site” means Magnolia Elementary School. - 13 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.15 Page 15 of 58 1 b. “The corresponding modeled indoor air exposure at this level 2 corresponds to a lifetime cancer risk in excess of one-in-ten-thousand 3 (10-4) at the Site. The TCE groundwater plume is impacting the Site.” 4 c. “Soil gas and indoor air quality sampling conducted between July 2004 5 and August 2005 at the Site showed TCE concentrations in the 6 subsurface at up to 130 parts per billion by volume and inside the 7 classrooms at levels up to 1.6 micrograms per cubic meter, as reported in 8 “Results of Soil Vapor and Air Testing” dated May 27, 2005, and the 9 “Results of Indoor Air Sampling” dated August 26, 2005.” d. “Exposure at this level corresponds to a lifetime cancer risk in excess of 10 one-in-a-million (10-6).” 11 54. 12 13 In 2008, the DTSC identified the “Health Effects” of the chlorinated solvents and chemicals AMETEK had dumped into its SUMP23: 14 a. “Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) detected at the former Ketema 15 facility and the Site include: 1) benzene, 2) chlorinated solvents, such as 16 TCE, PCE, and 1,1 DCE.” 17 b. “Exposure to such chemicals may occur by inhalation of vapors coming 18 from soil and groundwater, as well as ingestion of, and dermal contact 19 with, VOCs in soil or water.” c. “Potential health effects include cancer, liver and kidney damage, 20 respiratory impairment and central nervous system effects.” 21 55. 22 23 In 2008, the DTSC identified the “Routes of Exposure” of those chlorinated solvents and chemicals24: 24 a. “Certain activities conducted at the former Ketema facility have 25 contaminated soil and groundwater. Because the contaminants found on 26 27 28 23 24 Id. Id. - 14 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.16 Page 16 of 58 1 the former Ketema facility and under the Site include VOCs, an 2 assessment of all exposure routes will be conducted.” b. “The potential routes of exposure include inhalation, ingestion, and 3 dermal contact.” 4 5 56. 6 Risks”25: In 2008, the DTSC also identified the “Public Health and/or Environmental 7 a. “Contaminants have been found in the soil and groundwater at the 8 former Ketema facility and the Site. Risks from these contaminants may 9 be caused by exposure to soil vapor, soils and/or groundwater, through ingestion, inhalation of dusts, and/or vapors, and dermal contact.” 10 b. “The groundwater is relatively shallow at the Site and indoor from 11 groundwater via soil vapor was confirmed at the Site.” 12 57. 13 Since 2012, the DTSC has recommended quarterly monitoring of indoor 14 air quality in classrooms and quarterly monitoring of soil gas at Magnolia Elementary 15 School, located adjacent to Greenfield, Starlight and Villa Cajon, the real property upon 16 which Plaintiff’s mobile home is situated.26 58. 17 In November 2014, the DTSC evaluated indoor air quality test results:27 a. “Detection of TCE within one room (Room 8) exceeded the accelerated 18 response action level for residential exposure scenarios (2 ug/m3)….” 19 20 b. “PCE was detected in indoor air within several rooms, with one detection in 21 Room 19 (3.1 ug/m3) exceeding DTSC’s modified air screening level for 22 industrial exposure scenarios (2.08 ug/m3) and two detections (Rooms 11 23 24 25 25 26 26 27 28 Id. Letter to Mr. James Beard, Cajon Valley School District, from Shahir Haddad, P.E., Supervising Engineer, Department of Toxic Substances Control, November 17, 2014. 27 Id, attached Memorandum, SOIL VAPOR SURVEY AND INDOOR AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT, From Patrick Kerzic, PhD, DABT, Staff Toxicologist, November 3, 2014. - 15 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.17 Page 17 of 58 1 and 19) exceeding DTSC’s modified air screening level for residential 2 exposure.” 3 c. “Analysis of several indoor air contaminants (PCE, TCE, 1,1-DCE, 1,1,1- 4 TCA, and 1,1-DCA) which likely appear in indoor air due to vapor 5 intrusion and are found in nearby soil vapor wells, using a Schools Risk 6 Screening Model (Schoolscreen, developed by the Office of Environmental 7 Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)) indicates that both cancer risks and 8 health hazards to on site staff and students may approach or exceed DTSC’s 9 points of departure for cancer risk (1 in one million excess risk) and hazards (hazard index of 1.0).” 10 59. 11 In November 2014, the DTSC made conclusions and recommendations: 28 12 a. “Recent sampling of indoor and ambient air is consistent with vapor 13 intrusion from contaminants in the subsurface into classrooms at Magnolia 14 Elementary School.” b. “Precautionary actions should be taken to increase ventilation in all 15 classrooms.” 16 c. “In order to confirm detections of contaminants within indoor air, an 17 additional round of air sampling should be performed as soon as possible.” 18 19 d. “HERO (Human and Ecological Risk Office) supports the recommendation 20 of a human health risk assessment for staff and students at Magnolia 21 Elementary School.” 22 Magnolia- The December 2014 Vapor Intrusion Air Quality Test Results 60. 23 24 the results showed a spike in indoor air vapor intrusion. 61. 25 26 27 28 After November 2014, in December 2014, indoor air quality was tested, and On May 7, 2015, the DTSC held a Community Update Meeting for Magnolia Elementary School, at which several teachers and parents of Magnolia 28 Id. - 16 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.18 Page 18 of 58 1 students attended. 2 intrusion test results. 62. 3 4 The DTSC interpreted results from the December 2014 vapor As part of the meeting, the DTSC gave a presentation, including the following slides and information29: 63. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 64. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Presentation at Community Update Meeting for Magnolia Elementary School, Schools Evaluation and Brownfields Outreach, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, May 7, 2015. - 17 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.19 Page 19 of 58 1 65. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 66. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 18 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.20 Page 20 of 58 67. 1 The cancer risk for the December 2014 and the March 2015 levels are 2 above the “ACCEPTABLE” range and entering the red zone. The cancer risk for the 3 December 2014 levels are in the red. 68. 4 5 The cancer risk appears to reach levels 42 times the threshold level which guides the DTSC to take action. 69. 6 The groundwater and air contamination includes chemicals such as TCE 7 (Trichloroethylene), PCE (Tetrachloroethylene), and other chlorinated solvents. These 8 chemicals are known to cause cancer and other serious health effects in humans. 70. 9 Defendants’ active dumping and continued contamination is wanton, 10 reckless, and rife with cold corporate cost calculations, warranting punitive and 11 exemplary damages. 71. 12 In continuing to improperly dump chemicals and failing to clean up, 13 Defendants made calculated business decisions and actively avoided compliance with 14 regulatory orders to identify the size and scope of the contamination. 72. 15 Based on current data from Defendant AMETEK’s own consultants, it 16 appears an active source of “free product” continues to contaminate the groundwater 17 and soil underneath the mobile home parks, including the real property upon which 18 Plaintiff’s trailer is situated, and will do so for decades if not centuries if nothing is 19 done to address the situation. 20 Vapor Intrusion at the Mobile Home Parks 73. 21 Despite the plume’s existence for over 40 years, and despite the existence 22 of a Cleanup and Abatement Order since 1998, the first indoor air and crawl space vapor 23 sampling did not take place until February 2017, after two related lawsuits were filed. 74. 24 The CRWQCB required AMETEK, as the Responsible Party, to sample the 25 air and crawl space of mobile homes at Greenfield and Starlight MHPs. The positive 26 results from that air sampling became known to Plaintiff in March 2017. This was the 27 first time the mobile homes were tested for vapor intrusion. 28 /// - 19 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.21 Page 21 of 58 75. 1 The results of the mobile home sampling revealed TCE vapor intrusion into 2 the indoor air and crawl space at levels up to 13 ug/m3 and 24 ug/m3, respectively. 3 These results, in addition to other results, exceed the California residential screening 4 level of .48 ug/m3, and/or the Accelerated Response Action Level of 2 ug/m3, and/or the 5 Urgent Response Action Level of 6 ug/m3. 76. 6 Thus, TCE vapor intrusion is documented in the indoor air and crawl space 7 of mobile homes at the mobile home parks. Plaintiff’s Unit 111 (and his previous Unit 8 110), are situated on the groundwater contaminated plume causing this indoor air 9 intrusion. 10 Defendants’ Conscious Choice to Ignore the Continuous Contamination 77. 11 Based on information and belief, and according to review of current and 12 historical technical and legal documents, it appears 790 Greenfield Drive is still 13 contaminated with toxic chemicals that provide a continual source of groundwater and 14 soil contamination. 78. 15 As groundwater passes from east to west, from 790 Greenfield Drive, 16 underneath the school and adjacent MHPs, the passing groundwater is contaminated by 17 TCE and other chlorinated solvents. The contaminated groundwater continues to pollute 18 the soil and groundwater beneath Greenfield, Starlight, and Villa Cajon, including the 19 real property upon which Plaintiff’s trailer is situated. 79. 20 New groundwater contamination occurs on a daily basis, and contaminated 21 groundwater newly enters into and beneath the real property upon which Plaintiff’s 22 mobile home trailer is located on a daily, continuing basis. 80. 23 SENIOR OPERATIONS knows and has known, since purchasing 790 24 Greenfield Drive 20 years ago, that groundwater is continuously contaminated by toxic 25 chemicals underneath and on 790 Greenfield Drive, thereby continuously trespassing 26 and causing a known and continuous nuisance. 27 /// 28 /// - 20 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.22 Page 22 of 58 81. 1 SENIOR’s alleged status under any Prospective Purchaser Agreement with 2 the CRWQCB has no effect or impact as to third party tort victims such as Plaintiff or 3 the putative class. 82. 4 5 SENIOR does not have a Prospective Purchaser Agreement with the Department of Toxic Substances Control. 83. 6 THOMAS DEENEY, acting within the course and scope of his employment 7 with AMETEK, responsible for decision making and capable of binding AMETEK, 8 between at least 1998 and 2008, did personally and consciously ignore official State of 9 California Cleanup and Abatement Orders, official State of California Notices of 10 Violation, and many letters from the State of California regarding failure to delineate the 11 toxic groundwater plume as a step towards remediation, thereby consciously allowing 12 the plume to continue to grow, thereby causing additional harm. 84. 13 Despite receiving such Cleanup and Abatement Orders, Notices of 14 Violation and letters regarding AMETEK’s failure to delineate the plume, DEENEY 15 consciously ignored such correspondence, with knowledge of legal violations and 16 knowledge of a toxic plume, thereby causing additional harm. 85. 17 Despite such knowledge, all Defendants have consciously ignored the 18 continuous release and contamination of groundwater and vapor intrusion. Such willful 19 disregard warrants punitive and exemplary damages. 20 Toxic Health Effects 86. 21 22 The Agency for Toxic Disease Registry and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency provide information for some of these toxins30: 23 c. TCE: Affected Organ Systems: Developmental (effects during periods 24 when organs are developing), Neurological (Nervous System); Cancer 25 Classification: 26 Carcinogen; EPA: Carcinogenic to humans; IARC: Carcinogenic to 27 28 30 NTP: Reasonably Anticipated to be a Human www.atsdr.cdc.gov - 21 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.23 Page 23 of 58 1 humans (evidence for cancer is based on kidney cancer, limited evidence 2 for non-Hodgkin lymphoma and liver cancer, as well as, various tumors 3 in animals); Chemical Classification: Volatile organic compounds; 4 Summary: Trichloroethylene (TCE) is a nonflammable, colorless liquid 5 with a somewhat sweet odor and a sweet, burning taste. It is used mainly 6 as a solvent to remove grease from metal parts, but it is also an 7 ingredient in adhesives, paint removers, typewriter correction fluids, and 8 spot removers. Trichloroethylene is not thought to occur naturally in the 9 environment. However, it has been found in underground water sources 10 and many surface waters as a result of the manufacture, use, and 11 disposal of the chemical. 12 d. PCE: Affected Organ Systems: Developmental (effects during periods 13 when organs are developing), Neurological (Nervous System), 14 Respiratory (From the Nose to the Lungs); Cancer Classification: NTP: 15 Reasonably Anticipated to be a Human Carcinogen; Chemical 16 Classification: Volatile 17 Summary: Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) is a manufactured chemical that is 18 widely used for dry cleaning of fabrics and for metal-degreasing. It is 19 also used to make other chemicals and is used in some consumer 20 products. organic compounds; e. TCA: Affected Organ Systems: Cardiovascular (Heart and Blood 21 22 Vessels), 23 Classification: Volatile 24 Trichloroethane is a synthetic chemical that does not occur naturally in 25 the 26 methyltrichloromethane, trichloromethylmethane, and trichloromethane. 27 /// 28 /// Neurological environment. It (Nervous organic also is System); compounds; known - 22 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT as Chemical Summary: 1,1,1methylchloroform, Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.24 Page 24 of 58 1 f. DCE31: Affected Organ Systems: Short-term: EPA has found 1,1-DCE 2 to potentially cause the following health effects when people are 3 exposed to it at levels above the MCL for relatively short periods of 4 time: liver damage. Long-term: 1,1-DCE has the potential to cause the 5 following effects from a lifetime exposure at levels above the MCL: 6 liver and kidney damage, as well as toxicity to the developing fetus; 7 cancer; Summary: 1,1-DCE will evaporate from soil and will leach into 8 the groundwater where its fate is unknown, but degradation is expected 9 to be slow. Its tendency to accumulate in aquatic life is unknown but expected to be minor. 10 11 g. Dioxane: Affected Organ Systems: Hepatic (Liver), Ocular (Eyes), Renal 12 (Urinary System or Kidneys); Cancer Classification: NTP: Reasonably 13 Anticipated to be a Human Carcinogen; Summary: 1,4-Dioxane is a 14 clear liquid that easily dissolves in water. It is used primarily as a 15 solvent in the manufacture of chemicals and as a laboratory reagent; 1,4- 16 dioxane also has various other uses that take advantage of its solvent 17 properties. 18 h. Vinyl Chloride: Affected Organ Systems: Cardiovascular (Heart and 19 Blood Vessels), Developmental (effects during periods when organs are 20 developing), Hepatic (Liver), Immunological (Immune System); Cancer 21 Classification: NTP: Known to be a Human Carcinogen; Chemical 22 Classification: Volatile organic compounds; Summary: Vinyl chloride is 23 a colorless gas. It burns easily and it is not stable at high temperatures. It 24 has a mild, sweet odor. It is a manufactured substance that does not 25 occur naturally. It can be formed when other substances such as 26 Trichloroethane 27 28 31 (TCA), trichloroethylene www.epa.gov - 23 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (TCE), and Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.25 Page 25 of 58 1 tetrachloroethylene (PCE) are broken down. Vinyl chloride is used to 2 make polyvinyl chloride (PVC). PVC is used to make a variety of plastic 3 products, including pipes, wire and cable coatings, and packaging 4 materials. Vinyl chloride is also known as chloroethene, chloroethylene, 5 and ethylene monochloride. 6 7 Greenfield, Starlight, and Villa Cajon Mobile Home Parks 87. Greenfield is a mobile home park located due west of the AMETEK 8 PROPERTY. As such, Greenfield is directly west and down-gradient of the AMETEK 9 SUMP. 10 88. 11 PROPERTY. 12 SUMP. 13 89. Starlight is a mobile home park located due west-northwest of the AMETEK As such, Starlight is northwest and down-gradient of the AMETEK Villa Cajon is a mobile home park located due west-northwest of the 14 AMETEK PROPERTY. As such Villa Cajon is west-northwest and down-gradient of 15 the AMETEK SUMP. 16 90. According to AMETEK’s own environmental consultants, Environmental 17 Resources Management (“ERM”), the chlorinated solvent plume, including TCE and 18 other chemicals, flows directly underneath Greenfield, Starlight, and Villa Cajon. 19 91. Groundwater Monitoring Wells (MW) have been placed around the mobile 20 home parks: upgradient, downgradient, north, and south of the mobile homes. TCE 21 concentrations sampled from these groundwater MWs assist in identifying the TCE 22 plume underneath the mobile home parks. Below are examples of TCE concentrations 23 surrounding the mobile home parks: 24 a. MW-40 in 2016, upgradient of MHPs and adjacent to Starlight: 81,000 ug/L. 25 b. MW-16 in 2011, upgradient of and adjacent to MHPs: 5,600 ug/L. 26 c. MW-18 in 2012, downgradient of MHPs: 1,200 ug/L. 27 d. MW-46B in 2015, upgradient of and adjacent to MHPs: 9,500 ug/L. 28 e. MW-46C in 2013, upgradient of and adjacent to MHPs: 11,000 ug/L. - 24 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.26 Page 26 of 58 1 2 92. AMETEK’s consultants document groundwater contamination of TCE and other chemicals underneath Greenfield, Starlight, and Villa Cajon. 3 93. TCE and other chlorinated solvent chemicals at and underneath 790 4 Greenfield Drive continue to cause groundwater contamination on a daily basis—the 5 contaminated groundwater flows down-gradient and westward into and beneath 6 Greenfield, Starlight, and Villa Cajon. 7 94. A continuous groundwater contamination is occurring every day due to a 8 currently constant source of chemicals underneath 790 Greenfield Drive. The current 9 constant source of chemicals underneath 790 Greenfield Drive continuously 10 contaminates the groundwater as it passes westward underneath 790 Greenfield Drive 11 property and into and beneath the real property upon which Plaintiff’s residence is 12 located, causing vapor intrusion into Plaintiff’s mobile home crawl space and indoor air. 13 95. Defendants know and have known that 790 Greenfield Drive, including the 14 subsurface soil, alluvium, decomposed granite, and/or granitic bedrock, are 15 contaminated with TCE and other toxic chemicals. Defendants know and have known 16 that TCE and other toxic chemicals on and beneath 790 Greenfield Drive have been and 17 continue to contaminate the groundwater as it passes through the property’s subsurface 18 soils on underneath the subject mobile home park properties, and despite this 19 knowledge, Defendants have consciously ignored the risk of further contamination and 20 the risk to human health and have chosen not to clean up or remediate the TCE and other 21 toxic chemicals. 22 Additional/Special Increased Risk to Children and Pregnant Women 23 96. Young children 10 years and younger, and pregnant women and their 24 unborn babies, are especially susceptible and vulnerable to toxic exposure and associated 25 risk thresholds are higher for children and pregnant women. 26 a. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic 27 Substances and Disease Registry, published ATSDR Case Studies in 28 Environmental Medicine, Principles of Pediatric Environmental Health- 25 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.27 Page 27 of 58 1 The Child as Susceptible Host: A Developmental Approach to Pediatric 2 Environmental Medicine, Course: WB2089, which explains: 3 1. “Childhood is a time of rapid growth and development. It is 4 accompanied by changes in organ system functioning, 5 metabolic capabilities, physical size, and behavior that can 6 dramatically modify the effects, the illness, or both caused by 7 toxicant exposure. Pediatricians and other clinicians caring for 8 children need to understand these special susceptibilities.” 9 2. “Children may ingest or inhale dirt or dust contaminated 10 with… environmental toxicants during play or other normal 11 activities. Questions could include exposures to indoor air and 12 outdoor air pollutants and contaminated drinking water and 13 soil.” 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 3. “Soil intake ranged from a minimal estimate of 108 milligrams (mg)/day to a maximum of 1,834 mg/day of soil….” 4. “Children usually have increased exposures per kilogram of body weight, compared to adults.” 5. “Children’s dynamic growth and development puts them at increased risk from environmental toxicants.” 6. “Special consideration must be given to toxic exposures during fetal life, infancy, childhood, and adolescence.” 22 7. “Because children grow and develop, they have a higher 23 metabolic rate and thus have a greater need for oxygen….. 24 Children breathe more air… per kilogram of body weight than 25 do adults. These result in greater exposures per kilogram of 26 body weight to any contaminants in the air….” 27 8. “Children have an increased surface area-to-body mass ratio 28 (in infants and young children) resulting in an increased risk of - 26 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.28 Page 28 of 58 dermal exposure and absorption.” 1 2 9. “Children’s long life expectancy increases their risk of adverse 3 outcomes (e.g., cancer, renal or liver failure, senility) from 4 exposures to those toxicants whose effects are expressed after 5 a long latency period.” 6 10.“The rapid development of organ systems during embryonic, 7 fetal, infant, and early childhood periods make children 8 vulnerable when exposed to environmental toxicants.” 9 11.“Parental exposures before a child is conceived can result in 10 adverse reproductive effects, including Infertility, Spontaneous 11 abortion, and Genetic damage to the fetus, possibly resulting in 12 birth defects.” 12.“Exposures to hazardous substances during pregnancy can 13 potentially affect the development of fetal organ systems.” 14 13.“Exposures can cause profound systemic damage out of 15 proportion with the dose response seen in adults.” 16 17 14.“A fact of fetal life is that the fetus cannot escape 18 transplacental transport of toxicants to which the mother is 19 exposed.” 20 21 CACI 3903 B- Medical Monitoring- Toxic Exposure (Economic Damages) 97. As a result of the above mentioned toxic exposure, the need for future 22 medical monitoring is reasonably certain, and Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the 23 entire putative class, seek reasonable monitoring. 24 98. The significance and extent of the class’ exposure to the chemicals is 25 extensive because residents were exposed for many hours per day and night, and for 26 many years while living in the mobile homes exposed to toxic vapor intrusion. 27 28 - 27 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.29 Page 29 of 58 1 99. As described above, and documented by the ASTDR and the EPA, the 2 subject chemicals are very toxic and can cause cancer, and/or liver, kidney, respiratory, 3 neurological, developmental, and other diseases and illnesses. 4 100. Due to the indoor air intrusion of these toxic chemicals, there is a 5 significantly increased risk to the class members of developing the above mentioned 6 diseases as a result of the exposure when compared to their chances of developing those 7 diseases had they not been exposed and when compared to the chances that members of 8 the public at large will develop the diseases. 9 10 101. The seriousness of the diseases can be as grave as cancer and organ disease, and can be extremely painful and/or deadly. 11 102. The class will receive a significant medical benefit from early detection and 12 diagnosis because early detection of cancer and organ disease can help doctors treat 13 class members and hopefully prevent grave or very serious outcomes, such as late stage 14 cancers, organ failure, and potentially death. 15 First Cause of Action 16 Negligence 17 (Against All Defendants) 18 19 20 21 103. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein the preceding paragraphs 1 through 102. 104. Plaintiff was and continues to be harmed by Defendants’ negligent conduct as described above. 22 105. Plaintiff was and continues to be harmed by Defendants’ negligent conduct 23 because he has been exposed to toxic vapors and his mobile home is subject to vapor 24 intrusion, causing economic losses. 25 26 27 28 106. Defendants’ negligent conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm. 107. Defendants’ above-described conduct was willful, knowing, and reckless, warranting punitive and exemplary damages. - 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.30 Page 30 of 58 1 Second Cause of Action 2 Gross Negligence 3 (Against All Defendants) 4 5 108. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein the preceding paragraphs 1 through 107. 6 109. Plaintiff was harmed by Defendants’ negligent conduct as described above. 7 110. Plaintiff was and continues to be harmed by Defendants’ negligent conduct 8 because he has been exposed to toxic vapors and his mobile home continues to be 9 subjected to vapor exposure, causing economic damages. 10 11 12 13 14 15 111. Defendants’ negligent conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm. 112. Defendants’ negligent conduct lacked any care whatsoever and was an extreme departure from what reasonably careful companies would do. 113. Defendants’ conduct was willful, knowing, and reckless, warranting punitive and exemplary damages. 16 Third Cause of Action 17 Public Nuisance 18 (Against All Defendants) 19 20 21 22 114. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein the preceding paragraphs 1 through 113. 115. Plaintiff suffered harm because Defendants created a nuisance, which is a continuing nuisance. 23 116. Defendants, by acting and failing to act, created and/or failed to prevent the 24 toxic chemical contamination, a condition that was and is harmful to health, and 25 indecent and offensive to the senses, and an obstruction to the free use of property, so as 26 to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life. 27 28 117. The toxic chemical contamination and exposure has affected a substantial number of people at the same time. - 29 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.31 Page 31 of 58 118. An ordinary person would be reasonably annoyed or disturbed by the toxic 1 2 chemical contamination and exposure. 119. The seriousness of the harm outweighs the social utility of Defendants’ 3 4 conduct. 5 120. The Plaintiff did not consent to Defendants’ conduct. 6 121. Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer harm different from the type of 7 harm suffered by the general public because he was exposed to toxic vapors and his 8 mobile home is exposed to toxic vapors. 122. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm. 9 123. Defendants’ conduct was willful, knowing, and reckless, warranting 10 11 punitive and exemplary damages. 12 Fourth Cause of Action 13 Private Nuisance 14 (Against All Defendants) 124. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference as though fully set forth 15 16 herein the preceding paragraphs 1 through 123. 125. Defendants interfered with Plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of his mobile 17 18 home property. 19 126. Plaintiffs owns Unit 111 and leases land at Villa Cajon. 20 127. Defendants, by acting and/or failing to act, created and/or failed to prevent 21 toxic chemical contamination, a condition a condition that is harmful to health, indecent 22 and/or offensive to the senses, and is an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to 23 interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life and/or property. 128. This toxic chemical contamination is a condition that interfered with 24 25 Plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of his property. 26 129. The above-described nuisance is a continuing nuisance. 27 130. Plaintiff did not consent to Defendants’ conduct. 28 /// - 30 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.32 Page 32 of 58 1 2 3 131. An ordinary person would be reasonably annoyed or disturbed by Defendants’ conduct. 132. Plaintiff is and continues to be harmed because he has been exposed to 4 toxic vapors and his mobile home is exposed to toxic vapors, causing economic loss. 5 133. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm. 6 134. The seriousness of the harm outweighs the public benefit of Defendants’ 7 8 9 conduct. 135. Defendants’ conduct was willful, knowing, and reckless, warranting punitive and exemplary damages. 10 Fifth Cause of Action 11 Trespass 12 (Against All Defendants) 13 14 136. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein the preceding paragraphs 1 through 135. 15 137. Defendants trespassed on Plaintiffs’ property. 16 138. Plaintiff owns a mobile home trailer at Villa Cajon, situated above the toxic 17 plume and exposed to toxic vapors. 18 139. Defendants intentionally, recklessly, and negligently entered Plaintiff’s 19 property by intentionally, recklessly, and negligently causing and/or allowing toxic 20 vapors to enter the crawl space and indoor air of Plaintiff’s mobile home. 21 140. Plaintiff did not give permission for the entry. 22 141. The trespass is a continuing trespass. 23 142. Plaintiff was and continues to be harmed because his mobile home is and 24 has been exposed to toxic vapors causing economic loss, and Plaintiff has been exposed 25 to toxic vapors. 26 143. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm. 27 144. Defendants’ conduct was willful, knowing, and reckless, warranting 28 punitive and exemplary damages. - 31 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.33 Page 33 of 58 DELAYED DISCOVERY AND EQUITABLE TOLLING 1 2 145. At all times relevant herein, Defendants concealed relevant facts that 3 would have allowed Plaintiff to discover the true nature and degree of the waste 4 dumping, groundwater contamination, soil contamination, and vapor intrusion. As a 5 result of these concealments and misrepresentations, equitable tolling of the statute of 6 limitations applies as to the claims asserted by Plaintiff. Any applicable statute of 7 limitations that might otherwise bar certain of the claims at issue should be tolled 8 because Defendants actively misled Plaintiff with respect to the true nature, quality, and 9 hazards of use of the waste dumping, groundwater contamination, and vapor intrusion 10 as described herein and above. 11 146. Plaintiff exercised due diligence to discover Defendants’ wrongdoing. 12 However, such wrongdoing and/or the full extent and degree of such wrongdoing was 13 not reasonably discoverable prior to the date of the filing of this action and/or prior to 14 two years prior to the filing of this action since Defendants concealed their wrongdoing 15 through misrepresentation, concealment, and failure to disclose. Plaintiff exercised due 16 diligence by promptly filing this Complaint after discovering the facts giving rise to 17 these claims. 18 147. Plaintiff did not discover toxic vapor intrusion until very recently, in 19 March 2017, and certainly within the past two years, only after the California Regional 20 Water Quality Control Board released results of indoor air and crawl space vapor 21 testing, which occurred in February 2017. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 22 23 148. Plaintiff and the members of the Class have all suffered injury in fact as a 24 result of the exposure to harmful toxins to their person and their property, which was 25 the result of Defendants’ unlawful, intentional, and grossly negligent conduct. 149. The “Class Period” includes from 1963 to the date of the filing of this 26 27 action. 28 /// - 32 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.34 Page 34 of 58 1 150. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit on behalf of himself and all others who resided 2 in or owned a mobile home at Greenfield, Starlight, and/or Villa Cajon, who are 3 similarly situated under Rule 23. Subject to additional information obtained through 4 further investigation and/or discovery, the proposed “Class” consists of the following: 5 “All persons who have resided or do now reside, and/or all persons who 6 have owned or do now own a mobile home, situated above the contaminated 7 groundwater plume, at Greenfield, Villa Cajon, and/or Starlight mobile home 8 parks.” 9 Excluded from the putative class are Defendants and their officers, directors, and 10 employees. Plaintiff reserves the right to modify or amend the Class definition before 11 the Court determines whether certification is appropriate. 12 13 14 151. Ascertainability. The members of the Class are readily ascertainable by resort to mobile home park records, as well as through public notice. 152. Numerosity. The members of the Class are so numerous that their 15 individual joinder is impracticable. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis 16 alleges, that the proposed Class contains thousands of members. 17 153. Existence and predominance of Common Questions of Law and Fact. 18 Common questions of law and fact that exist as to all members of the Class predominate 19 over any questions affecting only individual class members. All members of the Class 20 have been subject to the same conduct and exposure. The common legal and factual 21 questions include, but are not limited to, the following: 22 a. Whether Defendants dumped toxic waste into a SUMP; 23 b. Whether toxic waste escaped the SUMP and percolated into the groundwater beneath the subject properties; 24 25 c. Whether the subject toxic waste caused vapor intrusion into mobile homes; 26 d. Whether residents were exposed to toxic vapors while residing at the subject mobile homes; 27 28 e. Whether the contamination is continuing; - 33 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.35 Page 35 of 58 1 f. Whether Defendants’ conduct was negligent and/or grossly negligent; 2 g. Whether Defendants’ conduct was intentional; 3 h. Whether Defendants should be liable for medical monitoring costs; 4 i. Whether Defendants should be liable for compensatory damages. 5 154. Typicality. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of 6 the Class in that Plaintiff is a member of the Class that Plaintiff seeks to represent. 7 Plaintiff, like members of the proposed Class, was exposed to toxic vapor intrusion as a 8 resident and owns his mobile home. Defendants have no defenses unique to Plaintiff. 9 155. Adequacy of Representation. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect 10 the interests of the members of the Class. Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in 11 environmental, mass, and class actions. 12 interests to those in the Class and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the 13 Class. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are aware of no interests adverse or antagonistic to those of 14 the Plaintiff and proposed Class. 15 Plaintiff has no adverse or antagonistic 156. Superiority. A class action is superior to all other available means for the 16 fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Individualized litigation would 17 create the danger of inconsistent or contradictory judgments arising from the same set 18 of facts. Individualized litigation would also increase the delay and expense to all 19 parties and the court system and the issues raised by this action. The damages or other 20 financial detriment suffered by individual Class members may be relatively small 21 compared to the burden and expense that would be entailed by individual litigation of 22 the claims against the Defendants. The injury suffered by each individual member of 23 the proposed class is relatively small in comparison to the burden and expense of 24 individual prosecution of the complex and extensive litigation necessitated by 25 Defendants’ conduct. It would be virtually impossible for members of the proposed 26 Class to individually redress effectively the wrongs to them. Even if the members of 27 the proposed Class could afford such litigation, the court system could not. 28 Individualized litigation increases the delay and expense to all parties, and to the court - 34 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.36 Page 36 of 58 1 system, presented by the complex legal and factual issues of the case. By contrast, the 2 class action device presents far fewer management difficulties, and provides the 3 benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a 4 single court. Therefore, a class action is maintainable under Civil Code section 382. 5 157. Unless a class is certified, Defendants will escape liability for decades-long 6 exposure of toxic chemicals to innocent residents and property owners. Unless class- 7 wide damages and/or a medical monitoring program is ordered as compensation and as 8 a deterrent, Plaintiff and class members cannot be rightly compensated for the harms 9 caused by the vapor intrusion. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 10 11 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered against Defendants, and 12 each of them, and that Plaintiffs be awarded relief and damages under all causes of 13 action, from Defendants, and each of them, as follows: 14 a. Certify the Class as requested herein; 15 b. Under all Causes of Action as allowable by law, compensatory damages; 16 c. Under all Causes of Action as allowable by law, costs to abate and/or 17 18 19 20 21 mitigate the continuing nuisance; d. Under all Causes of Action as allowable by law, medical monitoring damages. e. Under all Causes of Action as allowable by law, damages based on diminution of value of property; 22 f. Punitive damages; 23 g. Distribution of any monies recovered on behalf of members of the Class 24 via fluid recovery or cy pres recovery where necessary and as 25 applicable, to prevent Defendants from retaining the benefits of their 26 wrongful conduct; 27 h. Statutory post-judgment interest allowable by law; 28 i. Costs of this suit allowable by law; - 35 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.37 Page 37 of 58 1 2 3 4 j. Reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to, inter alia, California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, as allowed by law; and, k. Awarding any and all other relief that this Court deems necessary or appropriate. 5 6 DATED: March 24, 2017 Respectfully Submitted, 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 By: s/ John P. Fiske John P. Fiske BARON & BUDD, P.C. Scott Summy (pending Pro Hac Vice) (Texas Bar No. 19507500) John P. Fiske (SBN 249256) Celeste Evangelisti (SBN 225232) 603 Coast Hwy, Suite G Solana Beach, California 92075 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 Fiske@BaronBudd.com GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS John H. Gomez (SBN 171485) Deborah Dixon (SBN 248965) 655 West Broadway, Suite 1700 San Diego, California 92101 Telephone: (619) 237-3490 DDixon@GomezTrialAttorneys.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs 24 25 26 27 28 - 36 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.38 Page 38 of 58 1 Trial by Jury 2 3 4 Pursuant to the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, Plaintiff is entitled to, and demands, a trial by jury. 5 6 DATED: March 24, 2017 Respectfully Submitted, 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 By: s/ John P. Fiske John P. Fiske BARON & BUDD, P.C. Scott Summy (pending Pro Hac Vice) (Texas Bar No. 19507500) John P. Fiske (SBN 249256) Celeste Evangelisti (SBN 225232) 603 Coast Hwy, Suite G Solana Beach, California 92075 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 Fiske@BaronBudd.com GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS John H. Gomez (SBN 171485) Deborah Dixon (SBN 248965) 655 West Broadway, Suite 1700 San Diego, California 92101 Telephone: (619) 237-3490 DDixon@GomezTrialAttorneys.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs 24 25 26 27 28 - 37 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case Documentl Filed 03/24/17 PagelD.39 Page 39 of 58 EXHIBIT A Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.40 Page 40 of 58 \. l _;~ Department of Toxic Substances Control Barbara A Lee, Director 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, California 90630 Matthew Rodriquez Secretary for Environmental Protection Edmund G. Brown Jr. Governor Proposition 65 Notification Pursuant to California Health & Safety Code § 25180. 7 Designated Government Employee Disclosure Requirement TO: r ROM: DATE: Wilma Wooten, MD, MPH Public Health Officer/ Director, Public Health Services County of San Diego - Health and Human Services Agency (wilma.wooten@sdcounty.ca.gov) Mr. Shahir Haddad, Supervising Engineer, Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program-Cypress Office October 6, 2016 PROPERTY NAME: KETEMA AEROSPACE & ELECTRONICS FACILITY RP NAME: AMETEK, Inc. ADDRESS: KETEMA AEROSPACE & ELECTRONICS FACILITY, 790 GREENFIELD DRIVE EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92021 This notification by a designated government employee of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control ("DTSC") is made pursuant to the state's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 ("Proposition 65"). More specifically, this notification is being made pursuant to California Health and Safety Code section 25180.7, which is part of Proposition 65. DTSC has obtained information in the course of its official duties pertaining to the property address specified above, indicating that several chemicals have been detected in soil gas and groundwater at 790 Greenfield Drive in the City of El Cajon . DTSC has conducted soil gas, groundwater and indoor air sampling at properties adjacent to this aerospace manufacturing facility and will be using this information to develop a plan to further assess surrounding properties and mitigate chemical contamination, as necessary. Several of the chemicals detected are considered human carcinogens and may pose unacceptable short and long term risks to human health and the environment. ® f inted or Recycled Paper Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.41 Page 41 of 58 Dr. Wilma Wooten October 6, 2016 Page 2 In September 2016, 29 soil gas samples were collected by an environmental consultant working for the responsible party. These samples were collected along the adjacent Magnolia Elementary School property fence line. Trichloroethylene (TCE) is a chemical which has been found in the groundwater and soil gas at the property address and surrounding community. Vapors off-gassing from underlying contaminated groundwater can migrate through the soil and through cracks in the floor and accumulate in the air inside buildings. The levels of TCE found in soil gas were up to 560 µg/L, which could potentially exceed indoor air levels that pose an unacceptable risk to human health. Measures to reduce the risk of breathing in TCE may include increased ventilation, sealing openings in the floor, treating the indoor air, or recommending temporary relocation. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (714) 484-5368 or Shahir.Haddad@dtsc.ca.gov. I hereby certify that I am a designated employee and that I have reported the above information concerning a discharge or threatened discharge of hazardous waste to the appropriate officials pursuant to Section 25180. 7 of the Health and Safety Code. Title 5"U IP&RIJ IS l,,.;G Date cc l IO . ~µc.\ ,J e{ . J& Sayone Thihalolipavan, MD, MPH (via email) Deputy Public Health Officer, Public Health Services County of San Diego - Health and Human Services Agency (sayone.thihalolipavan@sdcounty.ca.gov) Elise Rothschild, REHS (via email) Director of Environmental Health, Land Use and Environment Group County of San Diego - Department of Environmental Health (Elise.Rothsch ild@sdcountv.ca .gov) Keith Kezer (via email) Program Coordinator, Land Use Program County of San Diego - Department of Environmental Health (Keith.Kezer@sdcounty.ca.gov) 2..£..JR Case Documentl Filed 03/24/17 PagelD.42 Page 42 of 58 EXHIBIT Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.43 Page 43 of 58 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region March 2, 2017 Mr. Jose Bernal 400 Greenfield Drive, Space 19 El Cajon, CA 92021 Subject: Indoor Air and Crawl Space Sampling Results for 400 Greenfield Drive, Space 19, El Cajon, California Dear Mr. Bernal: The San Diego Regional Water Quality Board (Water Board) is writing you to inform you of the 24-hour air sampling results taken at your property located at 400 Greenfield Drive, Space 19, El Cajon, CA. Test Results Air samples from the crawl space and indoor air taken from your property on February 9, 2017, show levels of trichlorethylene (TCE) above the California Department of Toxic Substances Control's screening level of 0.48 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3). The level of TCE detected in your indoor air was 0.43 ug/m3 . The level of TCE detected in the crawlspace (under your home) was 7.0 ug/m3 . What does this mean? These are preliminary results. The chemical levels detected do not pose an immediate health risk. However, additional sampling of your home is needed to confirm the results and help determine the next step(s). Next Steps A representative from ERM, the contractor conducting the air sampling, will contact you shortly to discuss collecting additional air samples at a date and time convenient for you. At least one day prior to the sampling, an ERM representative will meet with you to conduct a suNey of chemicals and activities in your home that may affect the air sampling results. During the meeting, all products that may affect the air sample results will be collected and stored outdoors in a container with a tight-fitting lid, until sampling activities are complete. A list of common household sources that may affect sampling results is attached - Common Household Sources of Volatile Organic Compounds. ERM will be available to discuss the air sampling results in person on Thursday March 2 and Friday, March 3, 2017. Please let us know when you are available. For questions regarding the air sampling results please contact: • Gina Rogers, ERM at (949) 623-4690 or gina.roqers@erm.com • Dr. Mary McDaniel at (310) 392-6462 or mmcdaniel@intrinsik.com Again, we appreciate your cooperation in this process. HENRY ABARBANEL, PH.0., CHAIR .. I DAVID GIBSON, EXECUTIVE OFFICER 2375 Northside Drive, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92108-2700 "' RECYCLED PAPER I www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.44 Page 44 of 58 -2 - Mr. Bernal March 2, 2017 ~ RYJt:Yt ~ Sincerely, c::-- __..J~ /' - / ~ SEAN MCCLAIN, PG Engineering Geologist Central Cleanup Unit Tech Staff Info & Use GeoTracker Global ID SL209234198 Refer to: Indoor Air and Crawl Space Sampling Results for 400 Greenfield Drive, Space 19, El Cajon, California Letter Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.45 Page 45 of 58 Water Boards California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region March 2, 2017 Mrs. Gloria Carrillo 400 Greenfield Drive, Space 22 El Cajon, CA 92021 Subject: Indoor Air and Crawl Space Sampling Results for 400Greenfield Drive, Space 22, El Cajon, California Dear Mrs. Carrillo: The San Diego Regional Water Quality Board (Water Board) is writing you to inform you of the 24-hour air sampling results taken at your property located at 400 Greenfield Drive, Space 22, El Cajon, CA. Test Results Air samples from the crawl space and indoor air taken from your property on February 9, 2017, show levels of trichlorethylene (TCE) above the California Department of Toxic Substances Control's screening level of 0.48 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3). The level of TCE detected in your indoor air was 3.7. ug/m3. The level of TCE detected in the crawlspace (under your home) was 3.8 ug/m3 . What does this mean? These are preliminary results. The chemical levels detected do not pose an immediate health risk. However, additional sampling of your home is needed to confirm the results and help determine the next step(s). Next Steps A representative from ERM, the contractor conducting the air sampling, will contact you shortly to discuss collecting additional air samples at a date and time convenient for you. At least one day prior to the sampling, an ERM representative will meet with you to conduct a survey of chemicals and activities in your home that may affect the air sampling results. During the meeting, all products that may affect the air sample results will be collected and stored outdoors in a container with a tight-fitting lid, until sampling activities are complete. A list of common household sources that may affect sampling results is attached Common Household Sources of Volatile Organic Compounds. ERM will be available to discuss the air sampling results in person on Thursday March 2 and Friday, March 3, 2017. Please let us know when you are available. For questions regarding the air sampling results please contact: • Gina Rogers, ERM at (949) 623-4690 or gina.rogers@erm.com • Dr. Mary McDaniel at (310) 392-6462 or mmcdaniel@intrinsik.com Again, we appreciate your cooperation in this process. HENRY ABARBANEL, PH.D., CHAIR I DAVID GIBSON, EXECUTIVE OFFICER I www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego 2375 Northside Drive, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92108-2700 ft t,4' RECYCLED PAPER Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.46 Page 46 of 58 Mrs. Carrillo -2- March 2, 2017 Sincerely, __s;:, yYJC/7/!. SEAN MCCLAIN, PG Engineering Geologist Central Cleanup Unit Tech Staff Info & Use GeoTracker Global ID SL209234198 Refer to: Indoor Air and Crawl Space Sampling Results for 400 Greenfield Drive, Space 22, El Cajon, California Letter Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.47 Page 47 of 58 ~ . ~ Em.1u1110 G. a~owt,, JM. 6(,;·.,t.t,,.;q MATTttC:W ROOPIIOUC1 !i(C'l(1AA f'!J'I f.tlVIRi)i,4t,I hi.Al f'h1JH-C11(')N California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region March 2, 2017 Mrs. Ana Hayes 351 E. Bradley St., Space122 El Cajon, CA 92021 Subject: Indoor Air and Crawl Space Sampling Results for 351 E. Bradley St., Space 122, El Cajon, California Dear Mrs. Hayes: The San Diego Regional Water Quality Board (San Diego Water Board) is writing you to inform you of the 24-hour air sampling results taken at your property located at 351 E. Bradley Street, Space 122, El Cajon, CA. Test Results Air samples from the crawl space and indoor air taken from your property on February 9, 2017, show levels of trichlorethylene (TCE) above the California Department of Toxic Substances Control's screening level of 0.48 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3). The level of TCE detected in your indoor air was 1.8. ug/m3 . The level of TCE detected in the crawlspace (under your home) was 2.7 ug/m3 . What does this mean? These are preliminary results. The chemical levels detected do not pose an immediate health risk. However, additional sampling of your home is needed to confirm the results and help determine the next step(s). Next Steps A representative from ERM, the contractor conducting the air sampling, will contact you shortly to discuss collecting additional air samples at a date and time convenient for you. At least one day prior to the sampling, an ERM representative will meet with you to conduct a survey of chemicals and activities in your home that may affect the air sampling results. During the meeting, all products that may affect the air sample results will be collected and stored outdoors in a container with a tight-fitting lid, until sampling activities are complete. A list of common household sources that may affect sampling results is attached Common Household Sources of Volatile Organic Compounds. ERM will be available to discuss the air sampling results in person on Thursday March 2 and Friday, March 3, 2017. Please let us know when you are available. For questions regarding the air sampling results please contact: • Gina Rogers, ERM at (949) 623-4690 or gina.rogers@erm.com • Dr. Mary McDaniel at (310) 392-6462 or mmcdaniel@intrinsik.com HENRY ABARBANEL, PH.0., CHAIR I DAVID GIBSON, EXECUTIVE OFFICER ... 2375 Northside Drive, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92108-2700 I www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego "' RECYCLED P.tv>ER Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.48 Page 48 of 58 -2- Mrs. Hayes March 2, 2017 Again, we appreciate your cooperation in this process. Sincerely, ., 4 ~ f'1/7cY~~ SEAN MCCLAIN, PG Engineering Geologist Central Cleanup Unit Tech Staff Info & Use GeoTracker Global ID SL209234198 Refer to: Indoor Air and Crawl Space Sampling Results for 351 E. Bradley St., Space 122, El Cajon, California Letter Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.49 Page 49 of 58 Water Boards California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region March 2, 2017 Mr. Alex Masters 400 Greenfield Dr., Space 21 El Cajon, CA 92021 Subject: Indoor Air and Crawl Space Sampling Results for 400 Greenfield Drive, Space 21, El Cajon, California Dear Mr. Masters: The Regional Water Quality Board, San Diego Region (San Diego Water Board) is informing you of the 24-hour air sampling results taken at your property located at 400 Greenfield Drive, Space 21 , El Cajon, California. Test Results Air samples from the crawl space and indoor air taken from your property on February 9, 2017, show levels of trichlorethylene (TCE) above the California Department of Toxic Substances Control's screening level of 0.48 microgram per cubic meter (ug/m3). The level of TCE detected in your indoor air was 13 ug/m 3. The level of TCE detected in the crawlspace (under your home) was 24 ug/m 3 • What does this mean? These are preliminary results. The chemical levels detected do not pose an immediate health risk. However, additional sampling of your home is needed to confirm the results and help determine the next step(s). In order to reduce the levels of TCE in your home, AMETEK will provide an air purifying unit. Next Steps A representative from ERM, the contractor conducting the air sampling, will contact you shortly to discuss collecting additional air samples at a date and time convenient for you. At least one day prior to the sampling, an ERM representative will meet with you to conduct a survey of chemicals and activities in your home that may affect the air sampling results. During the meeting, all products that may affect the air sample results will be collected and stored outdoors in a container with a tight-fitting lid, until sampling activities are complete. A list of common household sources that may affect sampling results is attached- Common Household Sources of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). ERM will be available to discuss the air sampling results in person on Thursday March 2 and Friday, March 3, 2017. Please let us know when you are available. H ENRY AsARBANEL, P H D •• CHAIR I DAVID GIBSON, EXECUTIVE OFFICER 2375 Northslde Drive, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92108-2700 I www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.50 Page 50 of 58 Mr. Masters -2- March 2, 2017 For questions regarding the air sampling results please contact: • Gina Rogers, ERM at (949) 623-4690 or gina.rogers@erm.com • Dr. Mary McDaniel at (31 O) 392-6462 or mmcdaniel@intrinsik.com Again , we appreciate your cooperation in this process. Sincerely, ~/'?~ SEAN MCCLAIN, PG Engineering Geologist Central Cleanup Unit Tech Staff Info & Use GeoTracker Global ID I SL209234198 Refer to: Indoor Air and Crawl Space Sampling Results for 400 Greenfield Drive, Space 21 , El Cajon, CA Letter Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.51 Page 51 of 58 'f§)'·, J. ~ [l\tJl}NO G' i' . ,•; '"'~1;-. � l............_� � 81-1t1WN JR .. MATntr.w RooR1CivE.?. S£:OlE1AIW J'Oll f./JVlRONMf.l,ffAl f>l'-101"1':CTl(;N California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region March 2, 2017 Mrs. Jeanette Hurley 351 E. Bradley St., Space135 El Cajon, CA 92021 Subject: Indoor Air and Crawl Space Sampling Results for 351 E. Bradley St., Space 135, El Cajon, California Dear Mrs. Hurley: The San Diego Regional Water Quality Board (Water Board) is writing you to inform you of the 24-hour air sampling results taken at your property located at 351 E. Bradley Street, Space 135, El Cajon, CA. Test Results Air samples from the crawl space and indoor air taken from your property on February 9, 2017, show levels of trichlorethylene (TCE) above the California Department of Toxic Substances Control's screening level of 0.48 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3). The level of TCE detected in your indoor air was 2.6 ug/m3 . The level of TCE detected in the crawlspace (under your home) was 2.2 ug/m3 . What does this mean? These are preliminary results. The chemical levels detected do not pose an immediate health risk. However, additional sampling of your home is needed to confirm the results and help determine the next step(s). Next Steps A representative from ERM, the contractor conducting the air sampling, will contact you shortly to discuss collecting additional air samples at a date and time convenient for you. At least one day prior to the sampling, an ERM representative will meet with you to conduct a survey of chemicals and activities in your home that may affect the air sampling results. During the meeting, all products that may affect the air sample results will be collected and stored outdoors in a container with a tight-fitting lid, until sampling activities are complete. A list of common household sources that may affect sampling results is attached Common Household Sources of Volatile Organic Compounds. ERM will be available to discuss the air sampling results in person on Thursday March 2 and Friday, March 3, 2017. Please let us know when you are available. For questions regarding the air sampling results please contact: • Gina Rogers, ERM at (949) 623-4690 or gina.rogers@erm.com • Dr. Mary McDaniel at (310) 392-6462 or mmcdaniel@intrinsik.com Again, we appreciate your cooperation in this process. HENRY ABARBANEL, PH.D., CHAIR I DAVID GIBSON, EXECUTIVE OFFICER ... 2375 Northside Drive, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92108-2700 J www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego \J RECYCLED PA.PEA Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.52 Page 52 of 58 -2 - Mrs. Hurley March 2, 2017 Sincerely, ~177~ SEAN MCCLAIN, PG Engineering Geologist Central Cleanup Unit 1 - - - Tech - - -Staff Info & Use GeoTracker Global ID SL209234198 Refer to: Indoor Air and Crawl Space Sampling Results for 351 E. Bradley St., Space 135, El Cajon, California Letter Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.53 Page 53 of 58 r.,.. ,..., G a ..... . . N J• ''"'"' California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region March 8, 2017 Mr, James Ellis 351 E Bradley, Space No. 165 El Cajon, CA 92021 Subject: Indoor Air and Crawl Space Sampling Results for 351 E Bradley, Space 165, El Cajon, California Mr. Ellis: This letter is to inform you of the 24-hour air sampling results(or TCE, one of the chemicals associated with groundwater impacts from the former KETEMA facility. Test Results Results of air samples taken from you r property on February 9, 2017, show low levels of trichlorethylene (TCE) above the California Department of Toxic Substances Control's screening level of 0.48 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3}. The concentration of TCE detected in your indoor air was 0.73 ug/m 3 , which slightly exceeds the screening level and is similar to the concentration of TCE measured in ambient air (outdoor air). The level of TCE detected in the crawlspace (under your home) was 0.42 ug/m 3 , which does not exceed the screening level of 0.48 ug/m3. What does t his mean? TCE is present at a low level and does not pose an immediate health risk. However, we will continue to monitor the situation and may wish to resample your home in the coming months. Next Steps A representative from ERM, the contractor conducting the air sampling, will contact you to schedule a time to discuss these air sampling results with you in person. For questions regarding the air sampling results please contact: • Gina Rogers, ERM at (949) 623-4690 or gina.rogers@erm.com • Dr. Mary McDaniel at {310) 392-6462 or mmcdaniel@intrinsik.com We appreciate your cooperation in this process. Sincerely, - ~/YI~ SEAN MCCLAIN, PG Engineering Geologist Central Cleanup Unit H ENRY A BARBANE1.. PH o CHA•R .. I O Av10 G :esoN EXECUTIVE OFF1ceR I www.waterboards.ca.gov/ sandlego 2375 Northslde Drive, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92108·2700 \ I RE'VC1 rt>l'•P£A Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.54 Page 54 of 58 Tech Staff Info & Use GeoTracker Global ID SL209234198 Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.55 Page 55 of 58 Water Boards California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region March 8, 2017 Mr. Steve Duhamel 351 E Bradley, Space No. 166 El Cajon, CA 92021 Subject: Indoor Air and Crawl Space Sampling Results for 351 E Bradley, Space 166, El Cajon, California Mr. Duhamel: This letter is to inform you of the 24-hour air sampling results for TCE, one of the chemicals associated with groundwater impacts from the former KETEMA facility. Test Results Results of air samples from the crawl space (under your home) and indoor air taken from your property on February 9, 2017, show low levels of trichlorethylene (TCE) slightly above the California Department of Toxic Substances Control's screening level of 0.48 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m 3) . The concentration of TCE detected in your indoor air was 0.51 ug/m 3 . The concentration of TCE detected in the crawlspace (under your home) was 0.63 ug/m3. What does this mean? TCE is present at a low level and does not pose an immediate health risk. However, we will continue to monitor the situation and may wish to resample your home in the coming months. Next Steps A representative from ERM, the contractor conducting the air sampling, will contact you to schedule a tim e to discuss these air sampling results with you in person. For questions regarding the air sampling results please contact: • Gina Rogers, ERM at (949) 623-4690 or qina.roqers@erm .com • Dr. Mary McDaniel at (310) 392-6462 or mmcdaniel@intrinsik.com We appreciate your cooperation in this process. Sincerely, ~ .:::---· ~&--- SEAN MCCLAIN, PG Engineering Geologist Central Cleanup Unit H ENRY AsARBANEL. PH D CHAIR .. I D AVID G IBSON. EXECUTIVE OFFICER I www.waterboards.ca.gov/ sandlego 2375 Northalde Drive, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92108-2700 \ ,I Hrevtt£o P••£n Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.56 Page 56 of 58 Tech Staff Info & Use GeoTracker Global ID SL209234198 Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.57 Page 57 of 58 CTI~ ( ~ .{-:. . ElH.UJNO G 8MOWH JM, GC'tf,t_"'I';.~ California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region March 2, 2017 Mrs. Alejandra Samaniego 351 E. Bradley St., Space 167 El Cajon, CA 92021 Subject: Indoor Air and Crawl Space Sampling Results for 351 E. Bradley St., Space 167, El Cajon, California Dear Mrs. Samaniego: The San Diego Regional Water Quality Board (Water Board) is writing you to inform you of the 24-hour air sampling results taken at your property located at 351 E. Bradley Street, Space 167, El Cajon, CA. Test Results Air samples from the crawl space and indoor air taken from your property on February 9, 2017, show levels of trichlorethylene (TCE) above the California Department of Toxic Substances Control's screening level of 0.48 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3). The level of TCE detected in your indoor air was 2.5 ug/m3 . The level of TCE detected in the crawlspace (under your home) was 0.72 ug/m3 . What does this mean? These are preliminary results. The chemical levels detected do not pose an immediate health risk. However, additional sampling of your home is needed to confirm the results and help determine the next step(s). Next Steps A representative from ERM, the contractor conducting the air sampling, will contact you shortly to discuss collecting additional air samples at a date and time convenient for you. At least one day prior to the sampling, an ERM representative will meet with you to conduct a survey of chemicals and activities in your home that may affect the air sampling results. During the meeting, all products that may affect the air sample results will be collected and stored outdoors in a container with a tight-fitting lid, until sampling activities are complete. A list of common household sources that may affect sampling results is attached Common Household Sources of Volatile Organic Compounds. ERM will be available to discuss the air sampling results in person on Thursday March 2 and Friday, March 3, 2017. Please let us know when you are available. For questions regarding the air sampling results please contact: • Gina Rogers, ERM at (949) 623-4690 or gina.rogers@erm.com • Dr. Mary McDaniel at (310) 392-6462 or mmcdaniel@intrinsik.com Again, we appreciate your cooperation in this process. HENRY ABARBANEL, PH.0., CHAIR I DAVID GIBSON, EXECUTIVE OFFICER I www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego 2375 Northside Drive, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92108-2700 0 RECYCLED PI\PEA Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.58 Page 58 of 58 Mrs. Samaniego -2- March 2, 2017 Sincerely, rVJ(!~~ ~· SEAN MCCLAIN, PG Engineering Geologist Central Cleanup Unit ....._ 4.,/ Tech __ _ Staff Info & Use GeoTracker Global ID SL209234198 ,_____ Refer to: Indoor Air and Crawl Space Sampling Results for 351 E. Bradley St., Space 167, El Cajon, California Letter Case 3:17-cv-00597-BAS-NLS Document 1-1 Filed 03/24/17 PageID.59 PageBAS 1 of NLS 2 '17CV0597 -6 5HY FDQG UHY &,9,/ &29(5 6+((7 7KH -6 FLYLO FRYHU VKHHW DQG WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ FRQWDLQHG KHUHLQ QHLWKHU UHSODFH QRU VXSSOHPHQW WKH ILOLQJ DQG VHUYLFH RI SOHDGLQJV RU RWKHU SDSHUV DV UHTXLUHG E\ ODZ H[FHSW DV SURYLGHG E\ ORFDO UXOHV RI FRXUW 7KLV IRUP DSSURYHG E\ WKH -XGLFLDO &RQIHUHQFH RI WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV LQ 6HSWHPEHU LV UHTXLUHG IRU WKH XVH RI WKH &OHUN RI &RXUW IRU WKH SXUSRVH RI LQLWLDWLQJ WKH FLYLO GRFNHW VKHHW (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) , D 3/$,17,))6 '()(1'$176 ADAM COX, individually, by and through his durable power of attorney, RONALD COX, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, E &RXQW\ RI 5HVLGHQFH RI )LUVW /LVWHG 3ODLQWLII AMETEK, INC., a Delaware corporation; THOMAS DEENEY, individually; SENIOR OPERATIONS LLC, a limited liability company; &RXQW\ RI 5HVLGHQFH RI )LUVW /LVWHG 'HIHQGDQW San Diego, CA (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) New Castle County, DE (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) 127( ,1 /$1' &21'(01$7,21 &$6(6 86( 7+( /2&$7,21 2) 7+( 75$&7 2) /$1' ,192/9(' $WWRUQH\V (If Known) F $WWRUQH\V (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Baron & Budd, P.C. Scott Summy, John Fiske, Celeste Evangelisti 603 Coast Hwy, Suite G Solana Beach, California 92075 (214) 521-3605 ,, %$6,6 2) -85,6',&7,21 (Place an “X” in One Box Only) u 8 6 *RYHUQPHQW 3ODLQWLII u )HGHUDO 4XHVWLRQ (U.S. Government Not a Party) u 8 6 *RYHUQPHQW 'HIHQGDQW u 'LYHUVLW\ (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) ,,, &,7,=(16+,3 2) 35,1&,3$/ 3$57,(6 (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only) 37) '() &LWL]HQ RI 7KLV 6WDWH u u and One Box for Defendant) 37) '() ,QFRUSRUDWHG or 3ULQFLSDO 3ODFH u u RI %XVLQHVV ,Q 7KLV 6WDWH &LWL]HQ RI $QRWKHU 6WDWH u u ,QFRUSRUDWHG and 3ULQFLSDO 3ODFH RI %XVLQHVV ,Q $QRWKHU 6WDWH u u &LWL]HQ RU 6XEMHFW RI D )RUHLJQ &RXQWU\ u u )RUHLJQ 1DWLRQ u u ,9 1$785( 2) 68,7 (Place an “X” in One Box Only) &2175$&7 72576 u u u u ,QVXUDQFH 0DULQH 0LOOHU $FW 1HJRWLDEOH ,QVWUXPHQW 5HFRYHU\ RI 2YHUSD\PHQW (QIRUFHPHQW RI -XGJPHQW 0HGLFDUH $FW 5HFRYHU\ RI 'HIDXOWHG 6WXGHQW /RDQV ([FOXGHV 9HWHUDQV 5HFRYHU\ RI 2YHUSD\PHQW RI 9HWHUDQ¶V %HQHILWV 6WRFNKROGHUV¶ 6XLWV 2WKHU &RQWUDFW &RQWUDFW 3URGXFW /LDELOLW\ )UDQFKLVH u u u u u u 5($/ 3523(57< /DQG &RQGHPQDWLRQ )RUHFORVXUH 5HQW /HDVH (MHFWPHQW 7RUWV WR /DQG 7RUW 3URGXFW /LDELOLW\ $OO 2WKHU 5HDO 3URSHUW\ u u u u u u u u 3(5621$/ ,1-85< u $LUSODQH u $LUSODQH 3URGXFW /LDELOLW\ u $VVDXOW /LEHO 6ODQGHU u )HGHUDO (PSOR\HUV¶ /LDELOLW\ u 0DULQH u 0DULQH 3URGXFW /LDELOLW\ u 0RWRU 9HKLFOH u 0RWRU 9HKLFOH 3URGXFW /LDELOLW\ u 2WKHU 3HUVRQDO ,QMXU\ u 3HUVRQDO ,QMXU\ 0HGLFDO 0DOSUDFWLFH &,9,/ 5,*+76 u 2WKHU &LYLO 5LJKWV u 9RWLQJ u (PSOR\PHQW u +RXVLQJ $FFRPPRGDWLRQV u $PHU Z 'LVDELOLWLHV (PSOR\PHQW u $PHU Z 'LVDELOLWLHV 2WKHU u (GXFDWLRQ )25)(,785( 3(1$/7< 3(5621$/ ,1-85< u 3HUVRQDO ,QMXU\ 3URGXFW /LDELOLW\ u +HDOWK &DUH 3KDUPDFHXWLFDO 3HUVRQDO ,QMXU\ 3URGXFW /LDELOLW\ u $VEHVWRV 3HUVRQDO ,QMXU\ 3URGXFW /LDELOLW\ 3(5621$/ 3523(57< u 2WKHU )UDXG u 7UXWK LQ /HQGLQJ u 2WKHU 3HUVRQDO 3URSHUW\ 'DPDJH u 3URSHUW\ 'DPDJH 3URGXFW /LDELOLW\ 35,621(5 3(7,7,216 +DEHDV &RUSXV u $OLHQ 'HWDLQHH u 0RWLRQV WR 9DFDWH 6HQWHQFH u *HQHUDO u 'HDWK 3HQDOW\ 2WKHU u 0DQGDPXV 2WKHU u &LYLO 5LJKWV u 3ULVRQ &RQGLWLRQ u &LYLO 'HWDLQHH &RQGLWLRQV RI &RQILQHPHQW u 'UXJ 5HODWHG 6HL]XUH RI 3URSHUW\ 86& u 2WKHU %$1.5837&< u $SSHDO 86& u :LWKGUDZDO 86& 3523(57< 5,*+76 u &RS\ULJKWV u 3DWHQW u 7UDGHPDUN u u u u u u /$%25 )DLU /DERU 6WDQGDUGV $FW /DERU 0DQDJHPHQW 5HODWLRQV 5DLOZD\ /DERU $FW )DPLO\ DQG 0HGLFDO /HDYH $FW 2WKHU /DERU /LWLJDWLRQ (PSOR\HH 5HWLUHPHQW ,QFRPH 6HFXULW\ $FW u u u u u 62&,$/ 6(&85,7< +,$ II %ODFN /XQJ ',:& ',:: J 66,' 7LWOH ;9, 56, J )('(5$/ 7$; 68,76 u 7D[HV 8 6 3ODLQWLII RU 'HIHQGDQW u ,56²7KLUG 3DUW\ 86& 27+(5 67$787(6 u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u )DOVH &ODLPV $FW 6WDWH 5HDSSRUWLRQPHQW $QWLWUXVW %DQNV DQG %DQNLQJ &RPPHUFH 'HSRUWDWLRQ 5DFNHWHHU ,QIOXHQFHG DQG &RUUXSW 2UJDQL]DWLRQV &RQVXPHU &UHGLW &DEOH 6DW 79 6HFXULWLHV &RPPRGLWLHV ([FKDQJH 2WKHU 6WDWXWRU\ $FWLRQV $JULFXOWXUDO $FWV (QYLURQPHQWDO 0DWWHUV )UHHGRP RI ,QIRUPDWLRQ $FW $UELWUDWLRQ $GPLQLVWUDWLYH 3URFHGXUH $FW 5HYLHZ RU $SSHDO RI $JHQF\ 'HFLVLRQ &RQVWLWXWLRQDOLW\ RI 6WDWH 6WDWXWHV ,00,*5$7,21 u 1DWXUDOL]DWLRQ $SSOLFDWLRQ u 2WKHU ,PPLJUDWLRQ $FWLRQV 9 25,*,1 (Place an “X” in One Box Only) u 2ULJLQDO 3URFHHGLQJ u 5HPRYHG IURP 6WDWH &RXUW u 5HPDQGHG IURP $SSHOODWH &RXUW u 5HLQVWDWHG RU 5HRSHQHG u 7UDQVIHUUHG IURP $QRWKHU 'LVWULFW u 0XOWLGLVWULFW /LWLJDWLRQ (specify) 9, &$86( 2) $&7,21 &LWH WKH 8 6 &LYLO 6WDWXWH XQGHU ZKLFK \RX DUH ILOLQJ (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity) 28 U.S. Code § 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs %ULHI GHVFULSWLRQ RI FDXVH Negligence; Public Nuisance; Trespass; Ultrahazardous Activity '(0$1' u &+(&. ,) 7+,6 ,6 $ &/$66 $&7,21 9,, 5(48(67(' ,1 81'(5 58/( ) 5 &Y 3 &203/$,17 9,,, 5(/$7(' &$6( 6 (See instructions): ,) $1< -8'*( Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel '$7( 03/24/2017 &+(&. <(6 RQO\ LI GHPDQGHG LQ FRPSODLQW u