Daniel M. Gilleon (SBN 195200)
Samuel A. Clemens (SBN 285919)
2 Gilleon Law Firm
1320 Columbia Street, Suite 200
3 San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: 619.702.8623
4 Fax: 619.702.6337
1

5

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Linda Rossitter, Deborah Rossitter, Kevin Richardson

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
(Central Division)
10
11

LINDAROSSITTER; DEBORAH
ROSSITTER; KEVINRICHARDSON

CASK NO.

COMPLAINTFOR:

12

Plaintiff,

13

1. Negligence;
2. Private Nuisance;
3. Public Nuisance;
4, Trespass;
5. Violation of Business 4e Professions Code

vs,

14

GREENFIELD MHP ASSOCIATES,
LP, a California limited partnership;
16 AMETEK, INC., a Delaware
:orporation; SENIOR OPERATIONS,
17 I,LC, a Delaware limited liability
15

18

Section 17200; and
6. Breach

of Contract/Warranty

company; and
DOES I to 20,

Defendants.

19

20

Plaintiffs Linda Rossitter, Deborah Rossitter and Kevin Richardson allege:

21

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

22
23

1.

PlaintiffLinda Rossitter is an adult resident of San Diego County, California.

24

2.

PlaintiffDeborah Rossitter is

an adult resident

of San Diego County, California.

25

3.

PlaintiffKevin Richardson is

an adult resident

of San Diego County, California.

26

4.

Defendant Greenfield MHP Associates, LP ("Greenfielda) is

27 partnership organized and existing under the laws
28

at

a

California limited

of California headquartered, nerve-centered,

and

all relevant times its primary place of business in San Diego County, California. At all relevant
Complaint for Damages
1

 times, Greenfield was the owner, operator and manager

of Greenfield Mobile Home

Park (othe

Park" ) located in El Cajon, California.
5.

Defendant Ametek, Inc. (aAmeteka) is a Delaware corporation doing business in San

Diego County, California.
6.

Defendant Senior Operations, LLC(aSeniora) is a Delaware limited liabilitycompany

doing business in San Diego County, California. Senior owns Ametek.
7.

Plaintiffs do not know the names of Does

8.

Each

1

through 20.

of the defendants was the agent or employee of the other defendants

doing the acts alleged in this complaint was acting within the course
10

Plaintiffs are owners, occupants, and tenants of a mobile horne located in the Park

on real property that is leased to
10.

13

plaintiffs by Greenfield.

Since before plaintiffs resided in the Park, and continuing until now, there has existed

14

in the Park an underground toxic plume consisting

15

adjacent property.

16 warn
17

of harmful

chemicals dumped by Ametek on

At all material times, Greenfield krtew about the plume but did not inform or

plaintiffs.
11.

Ametek, which is owned by Senior, owns and operates an aircraft engine part

18

manufacturing plant located in El Cajon, CA. One

19

Ametek is toxic waste. Instead

of the byproducts of the manufacturing

done by

of properly storing or disposing of the toxic waste, Ametek

20 decades dumping the toxic waste into the ground. As a direct result
21

agency and

employment.
9.

12

of scope of such

and in

waste into the ground a toxic plume

of waste

spent

of the decades of dumping toxic

and chemical formed and which now has spread under

22 many square miles in the El Cajon, CA area and has contaminated the soil and groundwater.
23

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligence Against All Defendants)

25

12.

Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs

26

13.

Ametek and Senior acted negligently by dumping chemicals and toxic waste into the

1

to 11.

27 ground in the first place, and then by not cleaning them up. Greenfield was negligent by failing to
28 warn plaintiffs, by failing to disclose to Plaintiffs that the toxic plume existed, and by not cleaning
Complaint for Damages
2

 ttp the pollutants in the Park.
14.

As a direct and legal result of Defendants'ctions and omissions, Plaintiffs suffered

of property

economic damages for loss

value and paying rent in excess

emotional distress for living on a toxic plume,

as

of its fair value,

and for

well as past and future medical expenses related

to exposure to the toxic waste.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Private Nuisance Against All Defendants)

10

15.

Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs

16.

Plaintiffs had

a

1

to 14.

right to occupy, enjoy and use their property in the Park without

interference.
17.

Ametek and Senior created

a

condition, and Greenfield failed to act to remedy such

12

condition, that was hatmful to Plaintiffs'ealth and the health ofthe general public, was incident and

13

offensive to the senses, obstructed plaintiffs'ree use

14

use

15

Absent abatement, Defendants'rongful conduct

of public property,

18.

16

of their property

and obstructed the public's

and unlawfully interfered with their use and comfortable enjoyment

of it.

will worsen plaintiffs'ituation in this regard.

An ordinary person of reasonable sensibilities would be annoyed and disturbed by

17

Defendants'onduct and the condition they created which affects a substantial amount of people

18

over a substantial area in El Cajon, CA. Plaintiffs did not consent to Defendants conduct.

19

19.

Defendants acted with malice, oppression, and fraud, in conscious disregard for the

20 rights and safety
21

conduct

of Plaintiffs and of the public. Defendants all authorized

of their employees, which was

22 directors, and managing agents.
23

and ratified the malicious

done by, authorized, or ratified by their corporate officers,

Defendants further had advanced knowledge

such employees and continued to employ them in conscious disregard

of the unfitness of

of the rights

and safety

of

24 Plaintiffs and the general public.
25

20.

As a direct and legal result

26 :conomic damages for loss

of Defendants'ctions

of property value

and omissions, Plaintiffs suffered

and paying rent in excess

of its fair value,

and for

27 :motional distress for living on a toxic plume, as well as past and future medical expenses related
28 to exposure to the toxic waste.

The seriousness

of the harm suffered by Plaintiffs greatly

Complaint for Damages
3

and

 substantially outweighs the public benefit,

ifany,

of Defendants'onduct and the

harm, including but not limited to the contamination
the social

seriousness

of the

of the soil and groundwater greatly outweighs

utility, ifany, of Defendants conduct. Plaintiffs'arms are different and greater than the

harms suffered by the general public because they live in the Park and their homes are directly

affected by the toxic plume.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Public Nuisance Against All Defendants)

10

21.

Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs

22.

Plaintiffs had

a

1

to 20.

right to occupy, enjoy and use their property in the Park without

interference.
23.

12

Ametek and Senior created a condition, and Greenfield failed to act to remedy such

13

:ondition, that was harmful to Plaintiffs'ealth and the health of the general public, was incident and

14

offensive to the senses, obstructed plaintiffs'ree use of their property and obstructed the public's

15

use

16

Absent abatement, Defendants'rongful conduct

of public property,

24.

17

and unlawfully interfered with their use and comfortable enjoyment

will worsen plaintiffs'ituation in this regard.

An ordinary person of reasonable sensibilities would be annoyed and disturbed by

18

Defendants'onduct and the condition they created which affects

19

over

a

of it.

a substantial amount

substantial area in El Cajon, CA. The substantial failure

of people

of Greenfield to provide

and

20 maintain physical improvements in the common facilities in good working order and condition at
21

22
23

the Park is a public nuisance as a matter
25.

of law. Plaintiffs did not consent to Defendants

conduct.

Defendants acted with malice, oppression, and fraud, in conscious disregard for the

rights and safety

ofPlaintiffs and of the public.

Defendants all authorized and ratified the malicious

:onduct of their employees, which was done by, authorized, or ratified by their corporate officers,
25

directors, and managing agents.

Defendants further had advanced knowledge

26 such employees and continued to employ them in conscious disregard

of the

of the rights

unfitness of

and safety

of

27 Plaintiffs and the general public.
28

26.

As a direct and legal result of Defendants'ctions and omissions, Plaintiffs suffered
Complaint for Damages

 of property value

economic damages for loss

and paying rent in excess

of its fair value,

and for

emotional distress for living on a toxic plume, as well as past and future medical expenses related
to exposure to the

toxic waste. The seriousness of the harm suffered by Plaintiffs greatly and

substantially outweighs the public benefit,

ifany, of Defendants'onduct

of the

ofthe soil and groundwater greatly outweighs

harm, including but not limited to the contamination
the social

and the seriousness

utility, ifany, of Defendants conduct. Plaintiffs'arms are different and greater than the

harms suffered by the general public because they live in the Park and their homes are directly

affected by the toxic plume.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Trespass Against Ametek, Senior, and Does

I to 20)

10

12
13

14

27.

Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs

28.

Plaintiffs had

to 26.

right to occupy, enjoy and use their property in the Park without

interference.
Defendants intentionally, recklessly, and negligently caused the toxic plume

29.

15

and chemical to enter

16

their property.

17

a

1

30.

ofwaste

Plaintiffs'roperty. Plaintiff did not consent to allow the toxic plume onto

As a direct and legal result

of Defendants'ctions

of property value

and omissions, Plaintiffs suffered

of its fair value,

18

economic damages for loss

19

emotional distress for living on a toxic plume, as well as past and future medical expenses related

and paying rent in excess

and for

20 io exposure to the toxic waste. Defendants acted with malice, oppression, and fraud, in conscious
21

disregard for the rights and safety

22 ratified the malicious conduct

of Plaintiffs

and

of the public. Defendants all authorized

oftheir employees, which was

and

done by, authorized, or ratified by their

corporate officers, directors, and managing agents. Defendants further had advanced knowledge
24 the unfitness
25

of such

employees and continued to employ them in conscious disregard

md safety of Plaintiffs and the general public.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of California UCL Against AllDefendants)

26
27
28

31.

Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs

1

to 30.

Complaint for Damages
5

of

of the rights

 



32. By doing the things alleged above, including acts which amount to trespass, public
nuisance, private nuisance, and negligence, Defendants have engaged in and continue to engage in
unfair competition in violation of California's Unfair Competition Laws and such conduct
constitutes unfair competition as de?ned by Business and Professions Code 17200.

33. Ametek and Senior have created a condition, and Green?eld failed to act to remedy
such condition, that was harmful to Plaintiffs' health and the health of thegeneral public, was
incident and offensive to the senses, obstructed plaintiffs' free use of their property and obstructed
the public?s use of public property, and unlawfully interfered with their use and comfortable

enjoyment of it. Absent abatement, Defendants' wrongful conduct will worsen plaintiffs? situation

 

'n this regard. An ordinary person of reasonable sensibilities would be annoyed and disturbed by
efendants' conduct and the condition they created which affects a substantial amount of people
ver a substantial area in El Cajon, CA.
34. As a direct and legal result of Defendants' actions and omissions, Plaintiffs suffered
conomic damages for loss of property value and paying rent in excess of its fair value, and for
motional distress for living on a toxic plume, as well as past and future medical expenses related

to exposure to the toxic waste.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Warranty Against Green?eld and Does 1 to 20)
35. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 to 34.
36. Green?eld and Plaintiffs entered into a lease agreement which gave Plaintiffs a right

to occupy, enjoy and use their property in the Park without interference. The lease agreement

 

tontained an implied warrant of habitability which requires that Green?eld maintain safe and
i abitable premises. Green?eld breached the lease agreement by by failing to warn plaintiffs, by
failing to disclose to Plaintiffs that the toxic plume existed, and by not cleaning up the pollutants in
the Park

37. As a direct and legal result of Defendants' actions and omissions, Plaintiffs suffered

 

conomic damages for loss of property value and paying rent in excess of its fair value, and for

motional distress for living on a toxic plume, as well as past and future medical expenses related

 

Complaint for Damages
6

 

 

1

to exposure to the

toxic waste.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

2

THEREFORE, Plaintiffs Linda Rossitter, Deborah Rossitter, and Kevin Richardson requests

3

judgment against Defendants Greenfield MHP Associates LP, a California Limited Partnership,

4

a

5

Ametek, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Senior Operations LLC,

6 company, and Does

a

Delaware limited liability

I to 20 for:

a.

General and special damages according to proof;

b.

Injunctive Relief ordering Defendants to stop trespassing on the Plaintiffs'

property and to clean and remedy the toxic plume;

Injunctive Relief ordering Defendants to refrain from violating the Unfair

10
11

Competition Laws;

Attorneys fees and costs of court;

12
13

e.

Punitive damages;

14

Restitution, disgorgement, or other equitable relief; and

15

Other further relief.

16
17

Gil

Dated: January 23, 2017

18

Daniel M. Gilleon, Attorneys
for Plaintiffs Linda Rossitter, Deborah
Rossitter, Kevin Richardson

19

20
21

22
23

24
25

26
27
28
Complaint for Damages
7