CAM-L-004571-18 12/06/2018 9:30:30 AM Pg 1 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20182117048

GURBIR S. GREWAL
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex
25 Market Street
P.O. Box 093
Trenton, NJ 08625-0093
Attorney for Plaintiffs
By: Robert G. Camilla
Deputy Attorney General
Attorney ID: 156582015
(609) 376-2826
Robert.Lamilla@law.n~oaa.aov
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN COUNTY
LAV~T DIVISION DOCKET NO.

OF
DEPARTMENT
JERSEY
NEW
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; THE
NEW
THE
OF
COMMISSIONER
OF
DEPARTMENT
JERSEY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; and
THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NEW
COMPENSATION
SPILL
JERSEY
FUND,

Civil Action
COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs,
v.
MONK'S AMOCO, INC.;
MONK, Individually,

HOOPER

Defendants,

Plaintiffs,

the

New

Jersey

Department

of

Environmental

Protection (the "Department" or "DEP"), The Commissioner of the
New

Jersey

Department

of
- 1 -

Environmental

Protection

 CAM-L-004571-18 12/06/2018 9:30:30 AM Pg 2 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20182117048

("Commissioner"), and the Administrator of the New Jersey Spill
Compensation

Fund

(the

"Administrator")

(collectively,

the

"Plaintiffs"), having their principal offices at 401 East State
Street in the City of Trenton, County of Mercer, State of New
Jersey, by and through their attorney, file this Complaint against
the above-named defendants, and allege as follows:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1.

The Plaintiffs bring this civil action pursuant to the Spill
Compensation and Control Act ("Spill Act"), N.J.S.A. 58:1023.11 to -23.24, the Water Pollution Control Act ("WPCA"),
N.J.S.A.

58:10A-1

to

and

-35,

the

common

law,

for

reimbursement of the costs Plaintiffs have incurred, and will
incur, as a result of the discharge of hazardous substances
at the Monk's Amoco, Inc. Site, also known as the Monk's
Service Station Site in the City of Camden, Camden County,
New Jersey.
2.

Since 1979, Monk's Amoco, Inc. has owned and operated a retail
gas station and automotive repair shop at the Property on
South Broadway in Camden. The Property has been the location
of a number of discharges. After Monk's Amoco, Inc. failed to
uphold

its

obligation

to

remediate

the

discharges

of

hazardous substances, the Department expended public funds to

- 2 -

 CAM-L-004571-18 12/06/2018 9:30:30 AM Pg 3 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20182117048

begin soil and groundwater remediation. The Department is now
seeking to recover its costs from Monk's Amoco, Inc. and
Hooper Monk (collectively "Defendants").

THE PARTIES
3.

The Department is a principal department within the Executive
Branch of the State government, vested with the authority to
conserve

and

natural

protect

resources,

protect

the

environment, prevent pollution, and protect the public health
and safety.
4.

The

N.J.S.A. 13:1D-9.

Commissioner

is

the

Commissioner

of

the

Department,

N.J.S.A. 58:10A-3, and in that capacity is vested by law with
various powers and authority, including those conferred by
the

Department's

enabling

legislation,

13:1D-1

N.J.S.A.

through -19.
5.

The Administrator is the chief executive officer of the New
Jersey Spill Compensation Fund ("the Spill Fund").

N.J.S.A.

58:10-23.11j. As chief executive officer of the Spill Fund,
the Administrator is authorized to approve and pay any cleanup
and

removal

costs

the

Department

incurs,

N.J.S.A.

58:10-

23.llf.c. and d., and to certify the amount of any claim to
be paid from the Spill Fund, N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11j.d.

- 3 -

 CAM-L-004571-18 12/06/2018 9:30:30 AM Pg 4 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20182117048

6.

Defendant

Monk's

Amoco,

Inc.

("Monk's

Amoco")

is

a

corporation that was organized in 1975 under the laws of the
State of New Jersey with a principal place of business at 710
Broadway, Camden, New Jersey. Monk's Amoco had its corporate
status revoked in 1994 for failure to file annual reports for
two consecutive years.
7.

Defendant Hooper Monk is an individual who was a corporate
officer

and/or

agent

of

defendant

Monk's

Amoco

and

was

responsible for the conduct of Monk's Amoco that led to the
discharges and violations alleged in this Complaint and/or
exercised sufficient authority and control over Monk's Amoco
to prevent or correct the occurrence of the discharges and
violations, but failed to do so.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
8.

The site that is the subject of this Complaint is located at
710 Broadway, Camden, New Jersey, also known as Block 289,
Lot 121 on the Tax Map of the City of Camden (the "Property")
and all other areas where any hazardous substances discharged
there have come to be located (co.11ectively, the "Site"),
which the Department has also designated as Site Remediation
Program Interest Numbers #002313 and #001030.

1 The Property was previously known as Block 389, Lot 12.

- 4 -

 CAM-L-004571-18 12/06/2018 9:30:30 AM Pg 5 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20182117048

9.

The Property totals approximately half an acre in size.

10.

The

area

surrounding

the

Property

consists

of

a

mix

of

commercial establishments and some residential housing. The
Property is bounded to the south by Pine Street, west by South
Broadway and to the east by St. John Avenue.

The Property is

bounded to the north by mixed-use commercial and residential
buildings.
11.

By deed dated February 27, 1979, Monk's Amoco purchased the
Property from Providence Bank as Successor Trustee under Deed
of

Trust

of

Helen

A.

Beresin

for

the

purchase

price

of

$31,100.
12.

Defendant Monk's Amoco remains the title owner of the
Property.

OPERATION OF THE STATION AND CONTAMINATION
13.

The Property has been in use as a service station and/or auto
repair facility since at least 1969. Currently, the Property
is the location of D-Champ Auto Repairs.

14.

The Property is the former location of four 8,000 gallon
gasoline underground storage tanks ("USTs"), two smaller USTs
for kerosene and heating oil, two 6,000 gallon gasoline USTs,
and four 2,000 gallon gasoline USTs that were abandoned in
place at the Property in 1976.
- 5 -

 CAM-L-004571-18 12/06/2018 9:30:30 AM Pg 6 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20182117048

15.

On April 2, 1984, the owner of a tavern located adjacent to
the Property notified the Department of gasoline odors in the
tavern's basement. The Department investigated and observed
gasoline on the floor of the basement and obtained samples of
the gasoline for analysis. The Camden County Fire Marshall's
Office installed an exhaust fan to remove flammable vapors
and absorbed the gasoline using absorbent pads.

16.

Beginning on April 5, 1984, the Department investigated the
Property and observed gasoline in the soil at a depth of eight
feet in the northwest corner of the Property.

17.

On April 6, 1984, the Department issued Hooper Monk, principal
of Monk's Amoco, a Notice of Violation and instructed Hooper
Monk to begin remediation at the Property.

18.

From April 10, 1984 through April 14, 1984, the Department
installed a recovery well at the northwest portion of the
Property and installed seven monitoring wells at and near the
Property.

19.

On April 13, 1984, the Department observed a sheen indicative
of gasoline product in monitoring well #l.

20.

As a result of the installation of the monitoring wells, the
Department

determined

that

the

ground

water

flowed

northwesterly at the Site.
21.

On April 16, 1984, DEP issued a Spill Act Directive to Hooper
- 6 -

 CAM-L-004571-18 12/06/2018 9:30:30 AM Pg 7 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20182117048

Monk, principal of Monk's Amoco, requiring Hooper Monk to
determine the extent of contamination, remove and dispose of
contaminated

soil,

propose

and

a

ground-water

remedial

investigation and remedial action plan.
22.

On June 1, 1984, DEP responded to a complaint at the adjacent
tavern and observed gasoline seeping through the southern
wall of the tavern basement.

23.

From June 2 to June 7, 1984, DEP installed a ground-water
recovery system at the Property. DEP operated the groundwater

recovery

recovering

and

system

approximately

until

disposing

of

approximately

January
300

1985,

gallons

of

gasoline from the ground water.
24.

On May 8,

1985, DEP received an Underground Storage Tank

Registration

Questionnaire

from

Monk's Amoco describing a

total of 10 USTs at the Property.
25.

From July 8 to July 10, 1986, DEP also installed additional
monitoring wells, which further confirmed the existence of
gasoline contamination at and near the Property.

26.

In February 1987, DEP collected ground-water samples from 12
monitoring wells at and near the Property, the results of
which showed contamination of gasoline constituents above the
Department's Ground Water Quality Standards for ethylbenzene
at 3,400 micrograms per liter ("ug/1" or parts per billion,

- 7 -

 CAM-L-004571-18 12/06/2018 9:30:30 AM Pg 8 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20182117048

"ppb"), benzene at 5,500 ppb, toluene at 70,000 ppb, and
xylenes at 21,000 ppb.
27.

By letter dated February 7, 1992, the DEP directed Hooper
Monk, principal of Monk's Amoco, to conduct a follow-up survey
of the monitoring wells to assess the current condition of
the groundwater at the Site.

28.

On May 19, 1992 and June 23, 1993, the Department accessed
the monitoring wells at and near the Property and, using a
photoionization

detector,

levels

elevated

detected

of

volatile organic compounds in the ground water.
29.

In 1993, the owner of the adjacent tavern detected gasoline
when installing a sump in the basement. The odors ceased after
broken concrete in the basement was resealed.

30.

On November 24, 1993, DEP issued a Joint Directive and Notice
to Insurers

to

Monk's

Amoco,

Hooper

Monk,

and

Amoco

Oil

Company requiring them to pay DEP $93,150 so that DEP could
conduct a remedial investigation at the Site.
31.

The

Department

investigated

the

Site

again

in

1995

and

collected samples from the existing monitoring wells, the
results

of

constituents

which
above

showed
the

contamination

Department's

Ground

of
Water

gasoline
Quality

Standards for lead at 157 ppb, benzene at 800 ppb, toluene at
17,000 ppb, ethylbenzene at 3,000 ppb, xylene at 12,700 ppb,
- 8 -

 CAM-L-004571-18 12/06/2018 9:30:30 AM Pg 9 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20182117048

and MTBE at 2,000 ppb.
32.

In May 1997, the Department checked the monitoring wells for
free-product and vapors. Using a photoionization detector,
DEP

detected

concentrations

elevated

of

volatile

organic

compounds in the ground water.
33.

On August 25, 1998, Brinkerhoff Environmental notified the
DEP of soil contamination at the Property that was discovered
during the removal of a single 3,000 gallon UST.

34.

The Department investigated the Site again in April 1999 and
collected samples from the existing monitoring wells, the
results

of

constituents

which
above

contamination

showed
the

Department's

Ground

of
Water

gasoline
Quality

Standards.
35.

In May 1999, the Department removed four 2,000 gallon gasoline
USTs that had been abandoned in place at the eastern portion
of the Property in 1976.

36.

On

October

Protection

3,

2002,

Agency,

United

the

Region

II,

States

issued

Environmental

Hooper

Monk

as

owner/operator a notice of violation for failure to operate
and maintain corrosion protection for three USTs, failure to
provide adequate line tightness for UST piping, and failure
to maintain records.

- 9 -

 CAM-L-004571-18 12/06/2018 9:30:30 AM Pg 10 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20182117048

37.

On August 1, 2003, the Department was notified that three
8,000 gallon USTs had failed leak detection tests.

38.

On October 14, 2003, the Department issued a Field Notice of
Violation to Monk's Amoco and Hooper Monk,

which noted a

number of violations and imposed a gasoline delivery ban to
the Property.
39.

In August 2011, the Department contracted for the removal of
three

gallon

8,000

USTs from

the

western

portion

of

the

Property.
40.

The Department, between 1984 and the present, installed and
sampled 18 monitoring wells, installed and operated a groundwater recovery system, and removed USTs from the Property,
among other activities.

41.

During the time that Defendant Monk's Amoco Inc. owned the
Property,

"hazardous

substances,"

as

defined

in

N.J.S.A.

58:10-23.11b., were "discharged" there within the meaning of
N.J.S.A.

58:10-23.11b.,

which

substances

included

ethylbenzene, benzene, toluene, and xylenes.
42.

Remediation remains to be completed at the Site. This may
include, but is not limited to, ground-water sampling and
delineation,

performance

of

a

vapor

intrusion

study,

completion of a remedial investigation, and completion of a
remedial action, as necessary.
- 10 -

 CAM-L-004571-18 12/06/2018 9:30:30 AM Pg 11 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20182117048

43.

Hooper Monk, as an officer of Monk's Amoco, was responsible
for

the

conduct

that

directly

led

to

the

discharges

of

hazardous substances at the Property and violations of, among
other statutes and regulations, the Spill Act and WPCA, and
exercised sufficient authority over Monk's Amoco to prevent
or correct the occurrence of discharges and violations, but
failed

to

do

so.

As

such,

Hooper

Monk

is

a

responsible

corporate official of Monk's Amoco, Inc. and is responsible
for the discharges and violations alleged in this Complaint.
44.

The Department has incurred past cleanup and removal costs
for the Site.

FIRST COUNT
Spill Act
45.

The Plaintiffs repeat each allegation of Paragraph Nos. 1
through 44 above as though fully set forth in its entirety
herein.

46.

Except as otherwise

provided in N.J.S.A.

58:10-23.11g12,

which is not applicable here, any person who discharges a
hazardous substance, or is in any way responsible for any
hazardous substance, shall be liable, jointly and severally,
without regard to fault, for all cleanup and removal costs no
matter by whom incurred. N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11g.c.(1).
- 11 -

 CAM-L-004571-18 12/06/2018 9:30:30 AM Pg 12 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20182117048

47.

The costs that Plaintiffs have incurred, and will incur, for
remediation of

the

Property are

the

"cleanup

and

removal

costs" within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11b., and are
recoverable pursuant to N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11u.b.(2), (4), and
(5).
48.

Defendants Monk's Amoco and Hooper Monk are "persons" within
the meaning of N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11b.

49.

Monk's Amoco, as the owner of the USTs from which hazardous
substances were discharged, is a discharger, and, as an owner
of

Property

the

at

the

hazardous

time

substances

were

discharged there, is a person "in any way responsible," and
is therefore liable, jointly and severally, without regard to
fault,

for

all cleanup

and

removal costs Plaintiffs

have

incurred, and will incur, as a result of the discharge of
substances

hazardous

at

N.J.S.A.

Property.

the

58:10-

23.11g.c.(1) .
50.

Hooper Monk, as an officer of Monk's Amoco who was responsible
for

the

conduct

that

directly

led

to

the

discharges

of

hazardous substances at the Property and .violations of the
Spill

Act,

authority

and/or
over

as

Monk's

a

person

Amoco

to

who

exercised

prevent

or

sufficient

correct

the

discharges and violations of the Spill Act, but failed to do
so, is a "discharger" or a person "in any way responsible,"
- 12 -

 CAM-L-004571-18 12/06/2018 9:30:30 AM Pg 13 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20182117048

and

is

therefore

jointly

liable,

and

without

severally,

regard to fault, for all cleanup and removal costs Plaintiffs
have incurred, and will incur, as a result of the discharge
of

hazardous

at

substances

the

N.J.S.A.

Property.

58:10-

23.11g.C.(1).
51.

By failing to comply with the Department's Directives and
Notices to Insurers, Defendants are strictly liable, without
regard to fault, in an amount up to three times the cleanup
and removal costs that Plaintiffs have incurred, and will
incur in the future, to remediate the discharge of hazardous
substances at the Site. N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11f.a.(1).

52.

Pursuant

to

58:10-23.11u.a.(1)(a)

N.J.S.A.

N.J.S.A.

and

58:10-23.11u.b., the Department may bring an action in the
Superior

Court

for

injunctive

relief,

N.J.S.A.

58:10-

23.11u.b.(1); for its unreimbursed investigation, cleanup and
removal costs, including the reasonable costs of preparing
and

successfully

23.11u.b.(2);
Department

and

incurs

the

litigating
for

any

under

other

the

N.J.S.A.

action,

unreimbursed

Spill

costs

N.J.S.A.

Act,

58:10the

58:10-

23.11u.b.(5).
53.

Pursuant

to

N.J.S.A.

58:10-23.11q.,

the

Administrator

is

authorized to bring an action in the Superior Court for any
unreimbursed costs paid from the Spill Fund.
- 13 -

 CAM-L-004571-18 12/06/2018 9:30:30 AM Pg 14 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20182117048

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request judgment in their favor:
a)

jointly

Defendants,

Ordering

severally,

and

without

regard to fault, to reimburse Plaintiffs for all cleanup
and removal costs Plaintiffs have incurred as a result
of

the

of

discharge

hazardous

the

substances

at

Plaintiffs,

without

Property, with applicable interest;
b)

Ordering

Defendants

to

reimburse

regard to fault, in an amount equal to three times all
cleanup and removal costs Plaintiffs have incurred as a
result of the discharge of hazardous substances at the
Property, with applicable interest;
c)

Entering

declaratory

judgment

against

Defendants,

jointly and severally, without regard to fault, for all
cleanup and removal costs Plaintiffs will incur as a
result of the discharge of hazardous substances at and
from the Property;
d)

Entering

declaratory

judgment

against

Defendants,

without regard to fault, in an amount equal to three
times

all

cleanup

and

removal

costs

Plaintiffs

have

incurred and will incur as a result of the discharge of
hazardous substances at the Property;
e)

Entering declaratory judgment against the Defendants,
compelling Defendants to perform any further cleanup of
- 14 -

 CAM-L-004571-18 12/06/2018 9:30:30 AM Pg 15 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20182117048

the Site in conformance with the Site Remediation Reform
Act, N.J.S.A. 58:1OC-1 to -29, and all other applicable
laws and regulations;
f)

Awarding Plaintiffs their costs and fees incurred in
this action; and

g)

Awarding Plaintiffs any other relief this Court deems
appropriate.

h)

Plaintiffs are not seeking, and this Complaint should
not be characterized as asserting a claim for, natural
resource damages. Plaintiffs reserve the right to bring
a

claim

in

the

future

for

natural

resource

damages

arising out of the discharge of hazardous substances at
the Property.

WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
54.

Plaintiffs

repeat

each

allegation

of

Paragraphs

Nos.

1

through 53 above as though fully set forth in their entirety
herein.
55.

Defendants Monk's Amoco and Hooper Monk are "persons" within
the meaning of N.J.S.A. 58:10A-3 and have violated the wPCA.

56.

It is unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant into
the ground waters of the State, except to the extent the
- 15 -

 CAM-L-004571-18 12/06/2018 9:30:30 AM Pg 16 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20182117048

conforms

discharge

system

elimination

discharge

New

Jersey

permit

issued

valid

a

with

pollutant
by

the

Commissioner pursuant to the WPCA, or pursuant to a valid
national pollutant discharge elimination system permit issued
pursuant

to

federal

the

Water

Act,

Control

Pollution

33

U.S.C.A 1251 to 1387. N.J.S.A. 58:10A-6(a).
57.

The

unauthorized

discharge

of

the

into

pollutants

ground

waters of the State is a violation of the wPCA for which any
person

who is

the

discharger is strictly liable,

without

regard to fault. N.J.S.A. 58:1 OA-6(a) .
58.

Monk's Amoco discharged pollutants at the
discharges

were

neither

permitted

Property, which

pursuant

N.J.S.A.

to

58:10A-6(a), nor exempt pursuant to N.J.S.A. 58:10A-6(d) or
N.J.S.A. 58:10A-6(p),

and Monk's Amoco is liable,

without

regard to fault, for all costs and damages incurred by the
Commissioner for the discharges of pollutants into the ground
waters of the State at and near the Property.
59.

Hooper Monk was responsible for the conduct of Monk's Amoco
that directly led to the discharges to the ground waters of
the

State

at

and

near

the

Property,

and

he

exercised

sufficient authority over Monk's Amoco to prevent or correct
the

occurrence

of

those

discharges

~~:~

and

to

correct Monk's

 CAM-L-004571-18 12/06/2018 9:30:30 AM Pg 17 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20182117048

Amoco's subsequent failure to perform the remediation, but
failed to do so.
60.

The

Commissioner

has

incurred,

and

will

incur,

costs and

damages as a result of the discharges of pollutants into the
ground waters of the State at and near the Property.
61.

Under

N.J.S.A.

58:10A-lOc,

the

Commissioner

may

bring

an

action in the Superior Court for injunctive relief, N.J.S.A.
58:l0A-lOc(1); for the reasonable costs of any investigation,
inspection, or monitoring survey which led to establishment
of a violation of the WPCA, including the costs of preparing
and

litigating

reasonable

the

costs

N.J.S.A.

case,

incurred

by

the

58:10A-lOc(2);
State

in

any

removing,

correcting, or terminating the adverse effects upon water
quality

resulting

from

any

unauthorized

discharge

of

pollutants for which action under this subsection may have
been brought, N.J.S.A. 58:10A-lOc(3); and the actual amount
of any economic benefits accruing to the violator from any
violation, including savings realized from avoided capital or
noncapital costs resulting from the violation, the return
earned or that may be earned on the amount of avoided costs,
any benefits accruing as a result of a competitive market
advantage enjoyed by reason of the violation, or any other
benefit resulting from the violation, N.J.S.A. 58:10A-lOc(5).
- 17 -

 CAM-L-004571-18 12/06/2018 9:30:30 AM Pg 18 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20182117048

WHEREFORE, the Commissioner requests judgment in her favor:
a)

Permanently enjoining Defendants by requiring them to
remove, correct, or terminate the adverse effects upon
water quality resulting from the unauthorized discharges
of pollutants into the ground waters of the State;

b)

Entering an order assessing Defendants, without regard
to fault, the reasonable costs for any investigation,
inspection,

or

monitoring

survey,

led

which

to

establishment of their violation of the WPCA, including
the costs of preparing and litigating this case;
c)

Entering

declaratory

judgment

against

Defendants,

without regard to fault, assessing all reasonable costs
that will be incurred for any investigation, inspection,
or

monitoring

survey,

which

led,

or

will

lead,

to

establishment of their violation, including the costs of
preparing and litigating this case;
d)

Entering an order assessing Defendants, without regard
to fault, all reasonable costs incurred for removing,
correcting or terminating the adverse effects upon water
quality resulting from their unauthorized discharge of
pollutants into the ground waters of the State;

e)

Entering

declaratory

judgment

against

Defendants,

without regard to fault, assessing all reasonable costs

 CAM-L-004571-18 12/06/2018 9:30:30 AM Pg 19 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20182117048

that

will

be

terminating

for

incurred

the

upon

effects

adverse

correcting,

removing,

water

or

quality

resulting from any unauthorized discharge of pollutants
into the ground waters of the State;
f)

Entering an order assessing Defendants, without regard
to fault, for the actual amount of any economic benefits
they have accrued, including any savings realized from
avoided capital or noncapital costs,

the return they

have earned on the amount of avoided costs, any benefits
they have enjoyed as a result of a competitive market
advantage, or any other benefit they have received as a
result of having violated the WPCA;
g)

Entering

declaratory

judgment

Defendants,

against

without regard to fault, assessing the actual amount of
any

economic

including

any

benefits
savings

that
to

be

will

accrue

realized

them,

to

from

avoided

capital or noncapital costs, the return to be earned on
the

amount of

avoided

costs,

any benefits

that

will

accrue as a result of a competitive market advantage
they have enjoyed, or any other benefit that will accrue
as a result of having violated the WPCA;
h)

Awarding the Commissioner her costs and fees in this
action; and

~'~

 CAM-L-004571-18 12/06/2018 9:30:30 AM Pg 20 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20182117048

i)

Awarding

the

Commissioner

such

as

relief

other

this

court deems appropriate.
j)

The

Plaintiffs

are

not

seeking,

and

this

Complaint

should not be characterized as asserting a claim for,
natural

resource

damages.

The

Plaintiffs

reserve

the

right to bring a claim in the future for natural resource
damages arising out of the hazardous substances existing
at the Property.

UNJUST ENRICHMENT
62.

Plaintiffs

repeat

each

allegation

of

Paragraphs

Nos.

1

through 61 above as though fully set forth in their entirety
herein.
63.

To establish unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must show both
that defendant received a benefit and that retention of that
benefit without payment would be unjust.

64. Plaintiffs have used and will continue to use public funds to
remediate the contamination at the Site.
65.

Plaintiffs' expenditure of public funds for the remediation
of

the

Site,

which otherwise

would

have

been Defendants'

obligation to fully fund or perform, has unjustly enriched
the Defendants.

- 20 -

 CAM-L-004571-18 12/06/2018 9:30:30 AM Pg 21 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20182117048

66.

Defendants have failed to complete the remediation of the
Site,

causing

Plaintiffs

the

to

expend

public

funds.

Therefore, Defendants are required by law and by equity to
reimburse Plaintiffs accordingly.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request judgment in their favor:

a)

Declaring

that

the

Defendants

have

been

unjustly

enriched by the Plaintiffs' expenditure of public funds
to remediate the Site;
b)

Ordering
costs

the

Defendants

Plaintiffs

have

to

reimburse

incurred,

and

Plaintiffs
will

incur,

for
to

remediate the Site, with applicable interest;
c)

Entering judgment against the Defendants for all other
compensatory and consequential damages; and

d)

Awarding the Plaintiffs such other relief as this
Court deems appropriate.

- 21 -

 CAM-L-004571-18 12/06/2018 9:30:30 AM Pg 22 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20182117048

e)

Plaintiffs are not seeking, and this Complaint should
not be characterized as asserting a claim for, natural
resource damages. Plaintiffs reserve the right to bring
a

claim

in

the

for

future

natural

resource

damages

arising out of the discharge of hazardous substances at
the Property.

GURBIR S. GREWAL
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
Attorney for Plaintiffs

By.
Ro ert G. Camilla
Deputy Attorney General
Dated: December 6, 2018

- 22 -

 CAM-L-004571-18 12/06/2018 9:30:30 AM Pg 23 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20182117048

DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL
Pursuant to R. 4:25-4, the Court is advised that Robert G.

Camilla, Deputy Attorney General, is hereby designated as trial
counsel for the Plaintiffs in this action.

GURBIR S. GREwAL
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY

Attorney for Plaintiffs

By:
Robert G. Camilla
Deputy Attorney General
Dated: December 6, 2018

- 23 -

 CAM-L-004571-18 12/06/2018 9:30:30 AM Pg 24 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20182117048

CERTIFICATION REGARDING OTHER PROCEEDINGS AND PARTIES
Undersigned counsel hereby certifies, that the matters in
controversy in this action are and have been the subject of the
following actions:
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. Atlantic
Richfield Company, 08 Civ. 00312 (SDNY~

(VSB)

This is an action

seeking compensation for the destruction of natural resources by
the hazardous substance, MTBE. To the Plaintiff's knowledge, none
of the Defendants are defendants in this action.
In re: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("MTBE") Product Liabilit
Litigation,
compensation

MDL
for

1358
the

(SDNY)

This

(VSB)

destruction

of

is

natural

an

action

resources

seeking
by

the

hazardous substance, MTBE. To the Plaintiff's knowledge, none of
the Defendants are defendants in this action.
New Jersev Department of Environmental Protection v. Amerada
Hess,

Civil Action No. 15-6468 (DNJ) (FLW)

This is an action

seeking compensation for the destruction of natural resources by
the hazardous substance, MTBE. To the Plaintiff's knowledge, none
of the Defendants are defendants in this action.
The undersigned counsel further certifies that the matters in
controversy in this action are not the subject of any other pending
or contemplated action in any court or arbitration proceeding known
to the Plaintiffs at this time, nor is any non-party known to the
- 24 -

 CAM-L-004571-18 12/06/2018 9:30:30 AM Pg 25 of 25 Trans ID: LCV20182117048

Plaintiffs

at

this

time

who

should

be

joined

in

this

action

pursuant to R. 4:28, or who is subject to joinder pursuant to R.
4:29-1. If, however, any such non-party later becomes known to the
Plaintiffs, an amended certification shall be filed and served on
all other parties and with this Court in accordance with R. 4:51(b)(2) .

GURBIR S. GREV~TAL
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
Attorney for Plaintiffs

By.
ert G. Camilla
Deputy Attorney General
Dated: December 6, 2018

- 25 -

 CAM-L-004571-18 12/06/2018 9:30:30 AM Pg 1 of 1 Trans ID: LCV20182117048

Civil Case Information Statement
Case Details: CAMDEN   Civil Part Docket# L-004571-18
Case Caption: DEPT OF ENV. PROTECT ION VS MONK'S

Case Type: ENVIRONMENTAL/ENVIRONMENTAL COVERAGE

AMOCO, INC.

LITIGATION

Case Initiation Date: 12/06/2018

Document Type: Complaint

Attorney Name: ROBERT GREGORY LAMILLA

Jury Demand: NONE

Firm Name: ATTORNEY GENERAL LAW

Hurricane Sandy related? NO

Address: 25 MARKET STREET PO BOX 93

Is this a professional malpractice case? NO

TRENTON NJ 08625

Related cases pending: NO

Phone:

If yes, list docket numbers:

Name of Party: PLAINTIFF : Dept of Env. Protection

Do you anticipate adding any parties (arising out of same

Name of Defendant’s Primary Insurance Company

transaction or occurrence)? NO

(if known): Unknown

THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS FORM CANNOT BE INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE
CASE CHARACTERISTICS FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING IF CASE IS APPROPRIATE FOR MEDIATION

Do parties have a current, past, or recurrent relationship? NO
If yes, is that relationship:
Does the statute governing this case provide for payment of fees by the losing party? NO
Use this space to alert the court to any special case characteristics that may warrant individual
management or accelerated disposition:

Do you or your client need any disability accommodations? NO
If yes, please identify the requested accommodation:

Will an interpreter be needed? NO
If yes, for what language:

I certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from documents now submitted to the
court, and will be redacted from all documents submitted in the future in accordance with Rule 1:38-7(b)
12/06/2018
Dated

/s/ ROBERT GREGORY LAMILLA
Signed