505 - Edison Mission Restructuring

Case 12-49219
Doc 505
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
Document
Page 1 of 5
Desc Main
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
In re:
EDISON MISSION ENERGY, et al,.
Debtors.
)
)
)
)
)
Chapter 11
Case No. 12-49219 (JPC)
(Jointly Administered)
MOTION TO LIFT AUTOMATIC STAY TO ALLOW CONTINUANCE OF
PROCEEDINGS IN ILLINOIS STATE COURT
Greg Paraday, et al., v. Midwest Generation, LLC, Case No. 2012-CH-1575
(hereinafter “Paraday”) and Eulalio Bastida, et al. v. Midwest Generation, LLC, Case No.
2012-CH-1576 (hereinafter “Bastida”) by and through their attorneys, Peter W. Macuga of
Macuga, Liddle, and Dubin, P.C, hereby move this Honorable Court, pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
§ 362(d) and Bankruptcy Rule 4001, to enter an Order lifting the automatic stay and allow
Paraday and Bastida, to proceed with the two separate pending class litigation cases against
debtor, Midwest Generation, LLC., under the condition that no judgment obtained by either
Paraday and Bastida will be enforced against Midwest Generation LLC. until the conclusion
of Debtor’s Chapter 11 Bankruptcy proceeding. In support, Paraday and Bastida say as
follows:
INTRODUCTION
1.
By this motion, Paraday and Bastida seek an order lifting the automatic stay
imposed on the separate state class action cases Greg Paraday, et al., v. Midwest
Generation, LLC, Case No. 2012-CH-1575 and Eulalio Bastida, et al. v. Midwest
Generation, LLC, Case No. 2012-CH-1576. (See Exhibit 1-2).
1
Case 12-49219
2.
Doc 505
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
Document
Page 2 of 5
As stated below Paraday and
Desc Main
Bastida are entitled to an order pursuant to 11
U.S.C. § 362(d) to lift the automatic stay to allow Paraday and Bastida to proceed
against Midwest Generation, LLC for their class action property damage claims.
Both Paraday and Bastida will not enforce any judgment against Midwest
Generation, LLC until the conclusion of Midwest Generation, LLC’s Chapter 11
Bankruptcy proceeding.
JURISDICTION & VENUE
3.
This Court has jurisdiction and venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1334, 28 U.S.C. § 1408,
and 11 U.S.C. § 362(d).
BACKGROUND
4.
Originally, these cases were filed in U.S. District Court on May 25, 2011 but
were dismissed due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction on October 26, 2011. (See
Exhibit 3-6).
5.
Paraday and Bastida were re-filed in the Cook County Circuit Court (Chancery
Division) against Midwest Generation on January 17, 2012 for claims of negligence,
gross negligence, nuisance, trespass and strict liability. Plaintiffs have expended
substantial sums in conducting pre-litigation discovery and have already secured an
Expert Report discussing Defendants’ responsibility for class Plaintiffs’ substantial
property damage. Defendants have already been denied a Motion to Dismiss and
have re-filed a Second Motion to Dismiss in the Cook County Circuit Court.
I.
ARGUMENT
PARADAY AND BASTIDA ARE ENTITLED TO MODIFICATION OF THE
AUTOMATIC STAY TO ALLOW THE CONTINUATION OF THEIR STATE
COURT CLAIMS
2
Case 12-49219
6.
Doc 505
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
Document
Page 3 of 5
Desc Main
Paraday and Bastida are entitled to an order lifting the automatic stay in this
case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). On request of a party in interest and after
notice and a hearing, the court shall grant relief from an automatic stay for cause.
Id.
7.
As no clear definition of ‘cause’ in the Bankruptcy Code exists, discretionary
relief from automatic stay must be determined on a case by case basis. In re
Benalcazar, 283 B.R. 514, 535-36 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2002).
8.
In determining whether to lift an automatic stay for cause, the 7th Circuit has
examined three requirements: a) whether any great prejudice to either the bankrupt
estate or the debtor will result from continuation of the civil suit; b) whether the
hardship to the [non-bankrupt party] by maintenance of the bankruptcy stay
considerably outweighs the hardship of the debtor, and c) whether the creditor has a
probability of prevailing on the merits. Matter of Fernstrom Storage & Van Co.,
938 F.2d 731, 735 (7th Cir. 1991).
9.
The pending Paraday and Bastida property damage class action cases are not
connected with the bankruptcy proceeding and will not interfere with that
proceeding or jeopardize the debtors’ bankruptcy estate as Plaintiff will defer on the
collection of any judgments that may be rendered in favor of the class Plaintiffs’
until the close of Debtor’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding.
10.
Plaintiffs in Paraday and Bastida have conducted substantial subpoena discovery
with the Illinois Department of Environmental Quality, the Environmental Protection
Agency, other public and private agencies and archives, have conducted a great
number of interviews of putative class members, including clergy and local
3
Case 12-49219
Doc 505
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
Document
Page 4 of 5
Desc Main
association leaders, and have expended substantial sums in the Expert
Reports already generated by Plaintiffs against the two Midwest Generation facilities.
Plaintiffs’ two Expert Reports are each the result of air and odor dispersion and air
and odor modeling which delineate the distance Defendant’s odors and particulate fall
onto Plaintiffs’ properties. Each of Plaintiffs’ Expert Reports is separately supported
by over 7,000 pages of supporting data. Plaintiffs’ Expert Reports have long been
supplied to the Defendants. Over 300 persons have requested immediate inclusion as
named parties in the respective putative class actions. A continuing bankruptcy stay
substantially delays the class litigation of Plaintiffs’ property damage claims due to
Midwest Generation air pollution. Matter of Fernstrom Storage & Van Co., 938 F.2d
731, 737 (7th Cir. 1991).
11.
A lift of the automatic stay from application to Paraday and Bastida will allow
both classes to continue to litigate their claims against the Midwest Generation
debtor. The Paraday and Bastida putative classes will include thousands of Plaintiffs,
by already received individual complaints and the parameters of the Expert Reports,
that possess property damage claims against the Midwest Generation Defendants. The
adjudication of class action claims is a long and complex process and indefinite
delays will further distance Plaintiffs from judgments upon their claims.
12.
For the above stated reasons, Paraday and Bastida, respectfully request that this
Honorable Court lift the already applied automatic stay of proceedings with respect
to the Debtor Midwest Generation only in order to continue both already filed state
court class action cases.
4
Case 12-49219
Doc 505
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
Document
Page 5 of 5
Desc Main
WHEREFORE, Paraday and Bastida respectfully request that this Honorable Court
enter an Order lifting, terminating, or modifying the automatic stay imposed upon the
Midwest Generation debtor by the Edison Mission Energy general bankruptcy petition as that
stay relates to the pending litigation in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division,
Illinois, Case No. 2012-CH-1575 and Case No. 2012-CH-1576, to allow Paraday and
Bastida to proceed under the condition that no judgment be enforced until the conclusion of
debtors Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding.
Respectfully submitted,
By:/s/ Peter W. Macuga, II
PETER W. MACUGA II, ESQ. (P 28114)
MACUGA, LIDDLE, & DUBIN, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
975 East Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207
313-392-0015
[email protected]
5
Case 12-49219 Doc 505-1 Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
Statement Accompanying Relief From Stay Page 1 of 1
Desc
REQUIRED STATEMENT
TO ACCOMPANY MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM STAY
11
Midwest Generation, LLC
12-BK-49218 Chapter _____
All Cases: Debtor(s) ________________________________________
Case No. _______________
12/17/12
Greg Paraday, et al. and Eulalio Bastida, et al.
All Cases: Moving Creditor ____________________________________________
Date Case Filed ____________
✔Lift Stay
Nature of Relief Sought: a
a Annul Stay
a Other (describe) ___________________________
Chapter 13: Date of Confirmation Hearing ______________________ or Date Plan Confirmed ________________
Chapter 7: a No-Asset Report Filed on ______________________________
a No-Asset Report not Filed, Date of Creditors Meeting ___________________________________
1.
Collateral
a.
a Home
b.
a Car Year, Make, and Model ___________________________________________
c.
a Other (describe)______________________________________________________
2.
Balance Owed as of Petition Date $ _________________________
Total of all other Liens against Collateral $_____________________
3.
In chapter 13 cases, if a post-petition default is asserted in the motion, attach a payment history listing the
amounts and dates of all payments received from the debtor(s) post-petition.
4.
Estimated Value of Collateral (must be supplied in all cases) $ ___________________________
5.
Default
a.
a Pre-Petition Default
Number of months _____
b.
a Post-Petition Default
i.
a On direct payments to the moving creditor
Number of months _____
Amount $ _____________________
ii.
6.
Amount $ _____________________
a On payments to the Standing Chapter 13 Trustee
Number of months _____
Amount $ _____________________
Other Allegations
a.
a Lack of Adequate Protection § 362(d)(1)
i.
a No insurance
ii.
a Taxes unpaid
Amount $ _____________________
iii.
a Rapidly depreciating asset
iv.
a Other (describe) _______________________________________________________
b.
a No Equity and not Necessary for an Effective Reorganization § 362(d)(2)
c.
✔ Other “Cause” § 362(d)(1)
a
i.
a Bad Faith (describe)____________________________________________________
ii.
a Multiple Filings
✔ Other (describe) _______________________________________________________
To Proceed with Illinois State Court Class Action Claims
iii.
a
d.
Debtor’s Statement of Intention regarding the Collateral
✔ No Statement of Intention Filed
i. a Reaffirm ii a Redeem iii. a Surrender iv. a
2/13/13
Date: _____________________________
(Rev. 12 /21/09)
S/Peter W. Macuga
_______________________________________________
Counsel for Movant
Case 12-49219
Doc 505-2
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
1 Page 1 of 14
Desc Exhibit
Case 12-49219
Doc 505-2
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
1 Page 2 of 14
Desc Exhibit
Case 12-49219
Doc 505-2
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
1 Page 3 of 14
Desc Exhibit
Case 12-49219
Doc 505-2
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
1 Page 4 of 14
Desc Exhibit
Case 12-49219
Doc 505-2
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
1 Page 5 of 14
Desc Exhibit
Case 12-49219
Doc 505-2
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
1 Page 6 of 14
Desc Exhibit
Case 12-49219
Doc 505-2
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
1 Page 7 of 14
Desc Exhibit
Case 12-49219
Doc 505-2
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
1 Page 8 of 14
Desc Exhibit
Case 12-49219
Doc 505-2
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
1 Page 9 of 14
Desc Exhibit
Case 12-49219
Doc 505-2
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
1 Page 10 of 14
Desc Exhibit
Case 12-49219
Doc 505-2
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
1 Page 11 of 14
Desc Exhibit
Case 12-49219
Doc 505-2
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
1 Page 12 of 14
Desc Exhibit
Case 12-49219
Doc 505-2
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
1 Page 13 of 14
Desc Exhibit
Case 12-49219
Doc 505-2
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
1 Page 14 of 14
Desc Exhibit
Case 12-49219
Doc 505-3
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
2 Page 1 of 14
Desc Exhibit
Case 12-49219
Doc 505-3
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
2 Page 2 of 14
Desc Exhibit
Case 12-49219
Doc 505-3
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
2 Page 3 of 14
Desc Exhibit
Case 12-49219
Doc 505-3
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
2 Page 4 of 14
Desc Exhibit
Case 12-49219
Doc 505-3
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
2 Page 5 of 14
Desc Exhibit
Case 12-49219
Doc 505-3
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
2 Page 6 of 14
Desc Exhibit
Case 12-49219
Doc 505-3
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
2 Page 7 of 14
Desc Exhibit
Case 12-49219
Doc 505-3
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
2 Page 8 of 14
Desc Exhibit
Case 12-49219
Doc 505-3
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
2 Page 9 of 14
Desc Exhibit
Case 12-49219
Doc 505-3
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
2 Page 10 of 14
Desc Exhibit
Case 12-49219
Doc 505-3
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
2 Page 11 of 14
Desc Exhibit
Case 12-49219
Doc 505-3
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
2 Page 12 of 14
Desc Exhibit
Case 12-49219
Doc 505-3
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
2 Page 13 of 14
Desc Exhibit
Case 12-49219
Doc 505-3
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
2 Page 14 of 14
Desc Exhibit
Case Case:
12-49219
1:11-cv-03524
Doc 505-4Document
Filed 02/15/13
#: 1 Filed:
Entered
05/25/11
02/15/13
Page 109:54:05
of 14 PageID
Desc
#:1Exhibit
3 Page 1 of 14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
GREGORY HODUL, LINDA HODUL,
PATRICIA BROWDER, ANDY CHAN,
AMY CHAN, and GERALD MEAD-LUCERO,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff Putative
Class Representatives,
v.
MIDWEST GENERATION, LLC,
FISK FACILITY,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.
Hon.
JAUREGUI & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
ARTURO JAUREGUI (6296296)
ANSELMO DURAN (6189928)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
120 West Madison St., Suite 400
Chicago, IL 60602
(312) 781-9103
MACUGA, LIDDLE, & DUBIN, P.C.
PETER W. MACUGA II (P28114)
STEVEN D. LIDDLE (P45110)
KEVIN J. MCGINESS (P73281)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
975 East Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207-3101
(313) 392-0015
_____________________________________________________________________/
PLAINTIFFS’ CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
NOW COME the Plaintiff Putative Class Representatives Gregory Hodul, Linda
Hodul, Patricia Browder, Andy Chan, Amy Chan, and Gerald Mead-Lucero, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, by and through their attorneys, Jauregui &
Associates P.C., Arturo Jauregui, and Macuga, Liddle, Dubin, P.C., Peter W. Macuga, II,
Case Case:
12-49219
1:11-cv-03524
Doc 505-4Document
Filed 02/15/13
#: 1 Filed:
Entered
05/25/11
02/15/13
Page 209:54:05
of 14 PageID
Desc
#:2Exhibit
3 Page 2 of 14
(hereinafter "Plaintiffs") and state in support of their Class Action Complaint against
Defendant, MIDWEST GENERATION, LLC,
(hereinafter “Midwest Generation” or
"Defendant"), as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.
This action is necessary to protect the property rights of Plaintiffs, and all
others similarly situated, which have been unreasonably interfered with resulting from the
physical invasion of Plaintiffs' person and property by fallout particulate and contaminants,
thereby causing material injury to Plaintiffs' person and property through negligence, gross
negligence, nuisance, trespass and strict liability.
2.
Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others who have
similarly suffered from fallout particulate and air contaminants. The reason for not joining
all potential class members as Plaintiffs is that, upon information and belief, there are
thousands of potential plaintiffs, thereby making it impractical to bring them before the
Court. All Plaintiffs reside in the neighborhoods which are within one (1) mile of Defendant
and which contain over 13,786 homes and approximately 43,347 residents.
3.
There are many persons who have been similarly affected and the question
to be determined is one of common and general interest to many persons constituting the
class to which Plaintiffs belong, and the group is so numerous as to make it impracticable
to bring them all before the Court, for which reason Plaintiffs initiate this litigation for all
persons similarly situated pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
4.
Issues and questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class
predominate over questions affecting individual members and the claims of Plaintiffs,
2
Case Case:
12-49219
1:11-cv-03524
Doc 505-4Document
Filed 02/15/13
#: 1 Filed:
Entered
05/25/11
02/15/13
Page 309:54:05
of 14 PageID
Desc
#:3Exhibit
3 Page 3 of 14
Gregory Hodul, Linda Hodul, Patricia Browder, Andy Chan, Amy Chan, and Gerald MeadLucero, and all others similarly named and those similarly situated, are typical of the claims
of the Class.
5.
The maintenance of this litigation as a Class Action will be superior to other
methods of adjudication in promoting the convenient administration of justice.
6.
Plaintiffs, Gregory Hodul, Linda Hodul, Patricia Browder, Andy Chan, Amy
Chan, and Gerald Mead-Lucero, and all others similarly named and those similarly
situated, and the law firms of Jauregui & Associates, P.C. and Macuga, Liddle, & Dubin,
P.C., will fairly and adequately assert and protect the interests of the Class.
7.
Defendant is a State of Delaware Limited Liability Company with its primary
business address at One Financial Place, 440 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3500, Chicago,
Illinois, 60605.
8.
Defendant operates a coal fired electrical generation facility located at 1111
West Cermak Road, in the County of Cook, State of Illinois.
9.
The Defendant’s operation, maintenance, and control of the coal fired
electrical generation facility has caused to the Plaintiff Class Representatives and all others
similarly situated within the one (1) mile diameter described similar property damages, the
inhalation of similar odors, the deposit of similar particulate coal dust and thereby caused
similar damages to the personal and real property of the Class Representatives and all
others similarly situated within the one (1) mile radius of the Defendant’s facility.
10. The operation of Defendant’s coal fired electrical generation facility at 1111
West Cermak Road, Chicago, Illinois has been the subject of numerous and constant
3
Case Case:
12-49219
1:11-cv-03524
Doc 505-4Document
Filed 02/15/13
#: 1 Filed:
Entered
05/25/11
02/15/13
Page 409:54:05
of 14 PageID
Desc
#:4Exhibit
3 Page 4 of 14
complaints of the residents of the surrounding neighborhood, by organizations in the
surrounding neighborhood area, by protests of interested persons within the surrounding
area, and by government action, all of which has failed to compel Defendant to cease the
improper operation of its facility and to continue Defendant’s invasion of Plaintiffs’
properties by air contaminants, odors, chemicals, and particulates which thereby cause
damage to Plaintiffs’ properties.
JURISDICTION
11.
Jurisdiction is proper in this matter pursuant to 28 USC §1332 as all Plaintiffs
named and unnamed are residents of the State of Illinois and Defendant is a corporate
entity of the State of Delaware. Diversity Jurisdiction is satisfied in this controversy as
claims exceed $75,000.
Plaintiff Putative Class Representatives
12.
At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs, Gregory and Linda Hodul, have resided
at 1125 W. 25th Street, City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of Illinois.
13.
At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff, Patricia Browder, has resided at 3016 S.
Lloyd Street, City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of Illinois.
14.
At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs, Andy and Amy Chan, have resided at
2128 South China Place, City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of Illinois.
15.
At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff, Gerald Mead-Lucero, has resided at
st
2113 W. 21 Place, City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of Illinois.
4
Case Case:
12-49219
1:11-cv-03524
Doc 505-4Document
Filed 02/15/13
#: 1 Filed:
Entered
05/25/11
02/15/13
Page 509:54:05
of 14 PageID
Desc
#:5Exhibit
3 Page 5 of 14
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
16.
On occasions too numerous to list, Plaintiffs' person and property including
Plaintiffs' neighborhood, residences, and yards, were physically invaded by fallout
particulate and air contaminants.
17.
The fallout particulate and air contaminants which invaded Plaintiffs' person
and property originated from Defendant, Midwest Generation, LLC, is located in the City of
Chicago, at 1111 West Cermak Road, in the County of Cook, State of Illinois (hereinafter
the "facility"). At its facility, that operates a coal fired electrical generation plant.
18.
The Defendant, as part of its normal business operations, generates, utilizes,
and discharges into the open atmosphere, including but not limited to, the following
chemicals: arsenic compounds, barium compounds, chromium compounds, copper
compounds, dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen fluoride, lead
compounds, manganese compounds, mercury compounds, nickel compounds, polycyclic
aromatic compounds, sulfuric acid, vanadium compounds, and zinc compounds.
19.
The Defendant knew or should have known that some of the chemicals they
generate, utilize and discharge in its normal business operations, including but not limited
to, arsenic compounds, chromium compounds, dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, and
mercury compounds are extra hazardous and are known human carcinogens.
20.
The Defendant, as part of its normal business operations, has admitted that it
has discharged into the atmosphere chemicals including, but not limited to, arsenic
compounds, barium compounds, chromium compounds, copper compounds, dioxin and
dioxin-like compounds, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen fluoride, lead compounds, manganese
5
Case Case:
12-49219
1:11-cv-03524
Doc 505-4Document
Filed 02/15/13
#: 1 Filed:
Entered
05/25/11
02/15/13
Page 609:54:05
of 14 PageID
Desc
#:6Exhibit
3 Page 6 of 14
compounds, mercury compounds, nickel compounds, polycyclic aromatic compounds,
sulfuric acid, vanadium compounds and zinc compounds.
21.
The Defendant is within one (1) mile of Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ properties and
Defendant chemical and particulate discharges have invaded and caused substantial
damage to, substantial loss of use of, and substantial interference with Plaintiffs, and
Plaintiffs’ properties.
22.
The chemicals utilized by Defendant and discharged by Defendant are
harmful and noxious and have caused substantial damage to, substantial loss of use of,
and substantial interference with, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs properties.
23.
The fallout types emitted by the Defendant’s facility have been described by
residents of the surrounding neighborhood as a very heavy black particulate or black
powder, or white powder/ash/dust that requires constant cleaning and that makes Plaintiffs
prisoners in their homes and has precluded them from full use and enjoyment of their
properties.
24.
It is Plaintiffs' information and belief that Defendant knew of the improper
construction, and operation of the facility, which allows discharge of chemicals, odors, air
pollutants, and particulates, or allowed the improper construction, and operation of the
facility, of the coal fired power plant, which allows discharge of chemicals, odors, air
pollutants, and particulates, and exercises exclusive control and/or ownership over the
facility.
25.
The Defendant knew when Defendant purchased the facility that the plant
had been constructed in the year 1903 and had never been the subject of installation of air
6
Case Case:
12-49219
1:11-cv-03524
Doc 505-4Document
Filed 02/15/13
#: 1 Filed:
Entered
05/25/11
02/15/13
Page 709:54:05
of 14 PageID
Desc
#:7Exhibit
3 Page 7 of 14
pollution control equipment to restrict, cease, or otherwise capture pollutants, chemicals,
odors, and particulate emitted fallout by the facility into the ambient atmosphere within one
(1) mile of the facility.
26.
Defendant continues to operate at 1111 West Cermak Road, in the County of
Cook, State of Illinois, the coal fired electrical generation plant without proper or best
available technology, or any air pollution control equipment, and thereby knowingly allows
Plaintiffs properties within one (1) mile of the facility to be invaded by chemicals, air
pollutants, odors, and particulates emitted by the facility thereby causing damage to the
Plaintiffs properties.
27.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence in constructing
and/or engineering and/or designing and/or operation and/or maintenance of the facility,
Plaintiffs' person and/or property have been invaded by particulates and contaminants.
28.
The invasion of Plaintiffs' person and property by particulates, odors, and air
contaminants has caused Plaintiffs to suffer property damages.
29.
The invasion of Plaintiffs' property by particulates, odors, and air
contaminants has or will cause diminution in the market value of Plaintiffs’ property and
has interfered with Plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their property.
30.
The invasion of Plaintiffs' property by particulates, odors, and air
contaminants has caused Plaintiffs to suffer injuries including, but not limited to, exposure
to horrific particulates and air contaminants. Defendant is vicariously liable for all damages
suffered by Plaintiffs, caused by Defendant’s employees, representatives, and agents,
who, during the course and scope of their employment, allowed or failed to correct the
7
Case Case:
12-49219
1:11-cv-03524
Doc 505-4Document
Filed 02/15/13
#: 1 Filed:
Entered
05/25/11
02/15/13
Page 809:54:05
of 14 PageID
Desc
#:8Exhibit
3 Page 8 of 14
problem which caused particulates, odors, and air contaminants to physically invade
Plaintiffs’ person and property.
31.
All emissions from Defendant’s coal fired facility, whether gaseous, chemical,
or particulate, will immediately combine with atmospheric dust to form industrial particulate
which immediately will fall onto Plaintiffs’ properties thereby causing damage to Plaintiffs’
properties.
NUISANCE
32.
In the operation of their facility, Defendant utilizes chemicals and chemical
compounds to operate a coal fired electrical generation plant.
33.
In the operation of their facility, Defendant discharges fallout, odors, and
chemicals and chemical substances which are invasive, some of which are extra
hazardous.
34.
Defendant by and through current technological processes and current
engineering standards could and should preclude the discharge of any particulates and
extra hazardous substances onto Plaintiffs’ properties.
35.
A condition or activity which unreasonably interferes with the use of property
is a nuisance.
36.
Plaintiffs did not consent for particulates and air contaminants to physically
invade their person and property.
37.
By causing particulates and air contaminants accumulated and controlled by
Defendant to physically invade Plaintiffs' person and property, Defendant substantially and
unreasonably interfered with Plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their property.
8
Case Case:
12-49219
1:11-cv-03524
Doc 505-4Document
Filed 02/15/13
#: 1 Filed:
Entered
05/25/11
02/15/13
Page 909:54:05
of 14 PageID
Desc
#:9Exhibit
3 Page 9 of 14
38.
Defendant’s substantial and unreasonable interference with Plaintiffs' use
and enjoyment of their property constitutes a nuisance for which the Defendant is liable to
Plaintiffs for all damages arising from such nuisance, including compensatory and
exemplary, relief.
NEGLIGENCE AND/OR GROSS NEGLIGENCE
39.
In constructing, maintaining, operating, controlling, engineering and/or
designing the facility, Defendant have a duty to exercise ordinary care and diligence so that
particulates and air contaminants do not invade Plaintiffs' person or property.
40.
Defendant knowingly breached its duty to exercise ordinary care and
diligence when they improperly constructed, maintained, operated, engineered and/or
designed the facility and knew, or should have known, that such actions would cause
Plaintiffs' person and property to be invaded by particulates and air contaminants.
41.
As a direct and proximate result of the failure of Defendant to exercise
ordinary care, Plaintiffs' person and property are physically invaded by particulates and air
contaminants.
42.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence in operating
and/or constructing and/or engineering and/or maintaining its facility, Plaintiffs' person and
property are exposed to and invaded by particulates and air contaminants.
43.
As a direct and proximate result of the invasion of Plaintiffs' person and
property by particulates and air contaminants, Plaintiffs have suffered injuries.
44.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s release of particulates and air
contaminants, the Plaintiffs' have suffered mental anguish, suffering, anxiety,
9
CaseCase:
12-49219
1:11-cv-03524
Doc 505-4
Document
Filed 02/15/13
#: 1 Filed:Entered
05/25/1102/15/13
Page 1009:54:05
of 14 PageID
Desc
#:10
Exhibit
3 Page 10 of 14
embarrassment, humiliation, distress, agony and other related nervous conditions and
emotional sequelae.
45.
The conduct of Defendant in knowingly allowing conditions to exist, which
caused particulates and air contaminants to physically invade Plaintiffs' person and
property, constitutes gross negligence as it demonstrates a substantial lack of concern for
whether an injury resulted to Plaintiffs.
46.
Defendant is vicariously liable for the negligence and/or gross negligence of
their employees, representatives, and agents, who, during the course and scope of their
employment, allowed or failed to correct the problem which caused particulates and air
contaminants to physically invade Plaintiffs' person and property.
47.
Defendant’s gross negligence entitles Plaintiffs to an award of punitive
damages.
TRESPASS
48.
Defendant intentionally, recklessly, willfully, wantonly, maliciously and
negligently failed to construct, maintain and/or operate the facility which caused the
invasion of Plaintiffs' person and property by particulates, air contaminants, and other
airborne pollutants on dates too numerous too mention.
49.
As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing conduct of Defendant,
particulates, air contaminants, and airborne pollutants accumulated upon, entered upon,
settled upon and physically invaded Plaintiffs' person and property.
50.
It was reasonably foreseeable that Defendant’s failure to properly construct,
10
CaseCase:
12-49219
1:11-cv-03524
Doc 505-4
Document
Filed 02/15/13
#: 1 Filed:Entered
05/25/1102/15/13
Page 1109:54:05
of 14 PageID
Desc
#:11
Exhibit
3 Page 11 of 14
maintain and/or operate the facility could result in an invasion of Plaintiffs' possessory
interests.
51.
As a further direct and proximate result of the foregoing conduct of
Defendant, Plaintiffs suffered substantial damages to their persons and property as alleged
herein.
52.
The particulates, air contaminants, and airborne pollutants which entered,
settled and physically invaded Plaintiffs' land and property interfered with Plaintiffs'
interests in the exclusive possession of Plaintiffs' land and property and constituted a
continuous trespass upon Plaintiffs' property.
53.
Plaintiffs did not consent for particulates, air contaminants, and other airborne
pollutants to physically invade their land and property.
54.
The Defendant’s actions, which resulted in the trespass upon Plaintiffs' land
and property were, and continue to be, intentional, willful, and malicious and made with a
conscious disregard for the rights and safety of Plaintiffs, entitling Plaintiffs to
compensatory, exemplary, injunctive and punitive relief.
STRICT LIABILITY
55.
Defendant intentionally, recklessly, willfully, wantonly, maliciously and
negligently failed to construct, maintain and/or operate the facility which caused the
invasion of Plaintiffs' person and property by particulates, air contaminants, and other
airborne pollutants on dates too numerous to mention.
56.
Defendant’s failure to adequately construct, maintain and/or operate the
facility has contaminated Plaintiffs’ property, chattels and persons by substances widely
11
CaseCase:
12-49219
1:11-cv-03524
Doc 505-4
Document
Filed 02/15/13
#: 1 Filed:Entered
05/25/1102/15/13
Page 1209:54:05
of 14 PageID
Desc
#:12
Exhibit
3 Page 12 of 14
accepted and regulated as hazardous substances that create a high degree of risk of some
harm.
57.
The hazardous substances under Defendant’s ownership and/or control have
contaminated Plaintiffs’ property, chattels and persons creating a harm that is great.
58.
There is no safe way to release the hazardous chemicals owned and/or
controlled by Defendant that simply results in dumping or allowing the chemicals or
contaminants to settle onto Plaintiffs’ property.
59.
The release of hazardous chemicals of the type owned and/or controlled by
Defendant onto Plaintiffs’ property is not a matter of common usage and/or occurrence.
60.
The release of hazardous chemicals of the type owned and/or controlled by
Defendant in the manner in which Defendant releases them is inappropriate in any
location, but especially inappropriate in close proximity to a residential neighborhood.
61.
Defendant’s method of releasing hazardous chemicals into Plaintiffs’
residential neighborhood is not, and was not, essential to the continuing function of
Defendant’s activities. As such, the value of this type of release to the community is
nonexistent.
62.
Defendant’s release of hazardous chemicals into the Plaintiffs’ residential
neighborhood renders Defendant strictly liable to Plaintiffs for all damages arising from
such conduct, including compensatory and exemplary relief.
WHEREFORE, named Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and putative class
members respectfully demand:
1.
A class be certified;
2.
Judgment against the Defendant and in favor of the named Plaintiffs and
12
CaseCase:
12-49219
1:11-cv-03524
Doc 505-4
Document
Filed 02/15/13
#: 1 Filed:Entered
05/25/1102/15/13
Page 1309:54:05
of 14 PageID
Desc
#:13
Exhibit
3 Page 13 of 14
putative class members for:
(a) Compensatory damages subject to proof;
(b) Punitive damages in accordance with Illinois law and as otherwise
supported by the evidence of the misconduct of the Defendant, and being
that amount necessary to “punish and discourage” Defendant “and others
from similar conduct in the future”;
(c) Reasonable attorneys’ fees in accordance with Illinois law and any
applicable federal rules;
(d) Interest until the date of judgment;
(e) Post-judgment interest at the rate of 12% per annum until paid;
(f) The “costs” of maintaining the action in accordance with the Illinois
Supreme Court Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
(g) For any and all further relief, including equitable relief, to which named
Plaintiffs and putative class members may be entitled;
(h) Opportunity with leave of Court to amend this Complaint to conform to the
evidence; and
(i) Trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Dated: May 25, 2011
Respectfully submitted,
JAUREGUI & ASSOCIATIES, P.C.
/s/____Arturo Jauregui___
Arturo Jauregui
Attorney for Plaintiff
120 West Madison St., Suite 400
Chicago, IL 60602
(312) 781-9103
13
CaseCase:
12-49219
1:11-cv-03524
Doc 505-4
Document
Filed 02/15/13
#: 1 Filed:Entered
05/25/1102/15/13
Page 1409:54:05
of 14 PageID
Desc
#:14
Exhibit
3 Page 14 of 14
Of Counsel admitted pending Pro Hac Vice
MACUGA, LIDDLE, & DUBIN, P.C.
Peter W. Macuga, II
Attorney for Plaintiff
975 E. Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207-3101
(313) 392-0015
14
Case Case:
12-49219
1:11-cv-03520
Doc 505-5Document
Filed 02/15/13
#: 1 Filed:
Entered
05/25/11
02/15/13
Page 109:54:05
of 14 PageID
Desc
#:1Exhibit
4 Page 1 of 14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
)
GEMMA ROJAS, FRANCISCO ROJAS, )
ESTELA LIMON, ELIGIO LIMON,
)
JOSEFINA CAMARGO, and
)
CUVIER CAMARGO, a Putative Class )
)
Individually and on Behalf of All Others )
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff Putative
)
Class Representatives,
)
)
)
)
)
v.
)
)
MIDWEST GENERATION, LLC,
)
CRAWFORD FACILITY,
)
Defendant.
)
Case No.
Hon.
JAUREGUI & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
ARTURO JAUREGUI (6296296)
ANSELMO DURAN (6189928)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
120 West Madison St., Suite 400
Chicago, IL 60602
(312) 781-9103
MACUGA, LIDDLE, & DUBIN, P.C.
PETER W. MACUGA II (P28114)
STEVEN D. LIDDLE (P45110)
KEVIN J. MCGINESS (P73281)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
975 East Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207-3101
(313) 392-0015
_____________________________________________________________________/
PLAINTIFFS’ CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
NOW COME the Plaintiff Putative Class Representatives, Gemma Rojas, Francisco
Rojas, Estella Limon, Eligio Limon, Josefina Camargo, and Cuvier Camargo, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, by and through their attorneys, Jauregui &
Case Case:
12-49219
1:11-cv-03520
Doc 505-5Document
Filed 02/15/13
#: 1 Filed:
Entered
05/25/11
02/15/13
Page 209:54:05
of 14 PageID
Desc
#:2Exhibit
4 Page 2 of 14
Associates P.C., Arturo Jauregui, and Macuga, Liddle, Dubin, P.C., Peter W. Macuga, II,
(hereinafter "Plaintiffs") and state in support of their Class Action Complaint against
Defendant, MIDWEST GENERATION, LLC,
(hereinafter “Midwest Generation” or
"Defendant"), as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.
This action is necessary to protect the property rights of Plaintiffs, and all
others similarly situated, which have been unreasonably interfered with resulting from the
physical invasion of Plaintiffs' person and property by fallout particulate and contaminants,
thereby causing material injury to Plaintiffs' person and property through negligence, gross
negligence, nuisance, trespass and strict liability.
2.
Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others who have
similarly suffered from fallout particulate and air contaminants. The reason for not joining
all potential class members as Plaintiffs is that, upon information and belief, there are
thousands of potential plaintiffs, thereby making it impractical to bring them before the
Court. All Plaintiffs reside in the residential neighborhoods which are within one (1) mile of
Defendant and which contain over 8,002 homes and approximately 33,510 residents.
3.
There are many persons who have been similarly affected and the question
to be determined is one of common and general interest to many persons constituting the
class to which Plaintiffs belong, and the group is so numerous as to make it impracticable
to bring them all before the Court, for which reason Plaintiffs initiate this litigation for all
persons similarly situated pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
4.
Issues and questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class
2
Case Case:
12-49219
1:11-cv-03520
Doc 505-5Document
Filed 02/15/13
#: 1 Filed:
Entered
05/25/11
02/15/13
Page 309:54:05
of 14 PageID
Desc
#:3Exhibit
4 Page 3 of 14
predominate over questions affecting individual members and the claims of Plaintiffs,
Gemma Rojas, Francisco Rojas, Estela Limon, Eligio Limon, Josefina Camargo, and
Cuvier Camargo, and all others similarly named and those similarly situated, are typical of
the claims of the Class.
5.
The maintenance of this litigation as a Class Action will be superior to other
methods of adjudication in promoting the convenient administration of justice.
6.
Plaintiffs, Gemma Rojas, Francisco Rojas, Estela Limon, Eligio Limon,
Josefina Camargo, and Cuvier Camargo, and all others similarly named and those similarly
situated, and the law firms of Jauregui & Associates, P.C. and Macuga, Liddle, & Dubin,
P.C., will fairly and adequately assert and protect the interests of the Class.
7.
Defendant is a State of Delaware Limited Liability Company with its primary
business address at One Financial Place, 440 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3500, Chicago,
Illinois, 60605.
8.
Defendant operates a coal fired electrical generation facility located at 3501
S. Pulaski Road, in the County of Cook, State of Illinois.
9.
The Defendant’s operation, maintenance, and control of the coal fired
electrical generation facility has caused to the Plaintiff Class Representatives and all others
similarly situated within the one (1) mile diameter described similar property damages, the
inhalation of similar odors, the deposit of similar particulate coal dust and thereby caused
similar damages to the personal and real property of the Class Representatives and all
others similarly situated within the one (1) mile radius of the Defendant’s facility.
10.
The operation of Defendant’s coal fired electrical generation facility at 3501
3
Case Case:
12-49219
1:11-cv-03520
Doc 505-5Document
Filed 02/15/13
#: 1 Filed:
Entered
05/25/11
02/15/13
Page 409:54:05
of 14 PageID
Desc
#:4Exhibit
4 Page 4 of 14
S. Pulaski Road, Chicago, Illinois has been the subject of numerous and constant
complaints of the residents of the surrounding neighborhood, by organizations in the
surrounding neighborhood area, by protests of interested persons within the surrounding
area, and by government action, all of which has failed to compel Defendant to cease the
improper operation of its facility and to continue Defendant’s invasion of Plaintiffs’
properties by air contaminants, odors, chemicals, and particulates which thereby cause
damage to Plaintiffs’ properties.
JURISDICTION
11.
Jurisdiction is proper in this matter pursuant to 28 USC §1332 as all Plaintiffs
named and unnamed are residents of the State of Illinois and Defendant is a corporate
entity of the State of Delaware. Diversity Jurisdiction is satisfied in this controversy as
claims exceed $75,000.
Plaintiff Putative Class Representatives
12.
At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs, Gemma and Francisco Rojas, have
st
resided at 4124 W. 31 Street, City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of Illinois.
13.
At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff, Patricia Browder, has resided at 3016 S.
Lloyd Street, City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of Illinois.
14.
At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs, Estela and Eligio Limon, have resided
at 3012 S. Komensky, City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of Illinois.
15.
At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs, Josefina and Cuvier Camargo, have
resided at 3142 S. Kedvale, City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of Illinois.
4
Case Case:
12-49219
1:11-cv-03520
Doc 505-5Document
Filed 02/15/13
#: 1 Filed:
Entered
05/25/11
02/15/13
Page 509:54:05
of 14 PageID
Desc
#:5Exhibit
4 Page 5 of 14
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
16.
On occasions too numerous to list, Plaintiffs' person and property including
Plaintiffs' neighborhood, residences, and yards, were physically invaded by fallout
particulate odors and air contaminants.
17.
The fallout particulate odors and air contaminants which invaded Plaintiffs'
person and property originated from Defendant, Midwest Generation, LLC, is located in the
City of Chicago, at 3501 S. Pulaski Road, in the County of Cook, State of Illinois
(hereinafter the "facility"). Defendant operates a coal fired electrical generation plant.
18.
The Defendant, as part of its normal business operations, generates, utilizes,
and discharges into the open atmosphere, including but not limited to, the following
chemicals: arsenic compounds, barium compounds, chromium compounds, copper
compounds, dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen fluoride, lead
compounds, manganese compounds, mercury compounds, nickel compounds, polycyclic
aromatic compounds, sulfuric acid, vanadium compounds, and zinc compounds.
19.
The Defendant knew or should have known that some of the chemicals they
generate, utilize and discharge in its normal business operations, including but not limited
to, arsenic compounds, chromium compounds, dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, and
mercury compounds are extra hazardous pollutants and are known human carcinogens.
20.
The Defendant, as part of its normal business operations, has admitted that it
has discharged into the atmosphere chemicals including, but not limited to, arsenic
compounds, barium compounds, chromium compounds, copper compounds, dioxin and
dioxin-like compounds, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen fluoride, lead compounds, manganese
5
Case Case:
12-49219
1:11-cv-03520
Doc 505-5Document
Filed 02/15/13
#: 1 Filed:
Entered
05/25/11
02/15/13
Page 609:54:05
of 14 PageID
Desc
#:6Exhibit
4 Page 6 of 14
compounds, mercury compounds, nickel compounds, polycyclic aromatic compounds,
sulfuric acid, vanadium compounds and zinc compounds.
21.
The Defendant is within one (1) mile of Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ properties and
Defendant chemical and particulate discharges have invaded and caused substantial
damage to, substantial loss of use of, and substantial interference with Plaintiffs, and
Plaintiffs’ properties.
22.
The chemicals utilized by Defendant and discharged by Defendant are
harmful and noxious and have caused substantial damage to, substantial loss of use of,
and substantial interference with, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs properties.
23.
The fallout types emitted by the Defendant’s facility have been described by
residents of the surrounding neighborhood as a very heavy black particulate or black
powder, or white powder/ash/dust that requires constant cleaning and that makes Plaintiffs
prisoners in their homes and has precluded them from full use and enjoyment of their
properties.
24.
It is Plaintiffs' information and belief that Defendant knew of the improper
construction, and operation of the facility, which allows discharge of chemicals, odors, air
pollutants, and particulates, or allowed the improper construction, and operation of the
facility, of the coal fired power plant, which allows discharge of chemicals, odors, air
pollutants, and particulates, and exercises exclusive control and/or ownership over the
facility.
25.
The Defendant knew when Defendant purchased the facility that the plant
had been constructed in the year 1925 and had never been the subject of installation of air
6
Case Case:
12-49219
1:11-cv-03520
Doc 505-5Document
Filed 02/15/13
#: 1 Filed:
Entered
05/25/11
02/15/13
Page 709:54:05
of 14 PageID
Desc
#:7Exhibit
4 Page 7 of 14
pollution control equipment to restrict, cease, or otherwise capture pollutants, chemicals,
odors, and particulate emitted fallout by the plant into the ambient atmosphere within one
(1) mile of the facility.
26.
Defendant continues to operate at 3501 S. Pulaski Road, in the County of
Cook, State of Illinois, the coal fired electrical generation plant without proper or best
available technology, or any air pollution control equipment, and thereby knowingly allows
Plaintiffs properties within one (1) mile of the facility to be invaded by chemicals, air
pollutants, odors, and particulates emitted by the facility thereby causing damage to
Plaintiffs properties.
27.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence in constructing
and/or engineering and/or designing and/or operation and/or maintenance of the facility,
Plaintiffs' person and/or property have been invaded by particulates and contaminants.
28.
The invasion of Plaintiffs' person and property by particulates, odors, and air
contaminants has caused Plaintiffs to suffer property damages.
29.
The invasion of Plaintiffs' property by particulates, odors, and air
contaminants has or will cause diminution in the market value of Plaintiffs' property and has
interfered with Plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their property.
30.
The invasion of Plaintiffs' person and property by particulates, odors, and air
contaminants has caused Plaintiffs' to suffer injuries including, but not limited to, exposure
to horrific particulates and air contaminants. Defendant is vicariously liable for all damages
suffered by Plaintiffs, caused by Defendant’s employees, representatives and agents, who,
during the course and scope of their employment, allowed or failed to correct the problem
7
Case Case:
12-49219
1:11-cv-03520
Doc 505-5Document
Filed 02/15/13
#: 1 Filed:
Entered
05/25/11
02/15/13
Page 809:54:05
of 14 PageID
Desc
#:8Exhibit
4 Page 8 of 14
which caused particulates, odors, and air contaminants to physically invade Plaintiffs'
person and property.
31.
All emissions from Defendant’s coal fired facility, whether gaseous, chemical,
or particulate, will immediately combine with atmospheric dust to form industrial particulate
which immediately will fall onto Plaintiffs’ properties thereby causing damage to Plaintiffs’
properties.
NUISANCE
32.
In the operation of their facility, Defendant utilizes chemicals and chemical
compounds to operate a coal fired electrical generation plant.
33.
In the operation of their facility, Defendant discharges fallout, odors, and
chemicals and chemical substances which are invasive, some of which are extra
hazardous.
34.
Defendant by and through current technological processes and current
engineering standards could and should preclude the discharge of any particulates, odors,
and extra hazardous substances onto Plaintiffs’ properties.
35.
A condition or activity which unreasonably interferes with the use of property
is a nuisance.
36.
Plaintiffs did not consent for particulates, odors, and air contaminants to
physically invade their person and property.
37.
By causing particulates and air contaminants accumulated and controlled by
Defendant to physically invade Plaintiffs' person and property, Defendant substantially and
unreasonably interfered with Plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their property.
8
Case Case:
12-49219
1:11-cv-03520
Doc 505-5Document
Filed 02/15/13
#: 1 Filed:
Entered
05/25/11
02/15/13
Page 909:54:05
of 14 PageID
Desc
#:9Exhibit
4 Page 9 of 14
38.
Defendant’s substantial and unreasonable interference with Plaintiffs' use
and enjoyment of their property constitutes a nuisance for which the Defendant is liable to
Plaintiffs for all damages arising from such nuisance, including compensatory and
exemplary, relief.
NEGLIGENCE AND/OR GROSS NEGLIGENCE
39.
In constructing, maintaining, operating, controlling, engineering and/or
designing the facility, Defendant have a duty to exercise ordinary care and diligence so that
particulates and air contaminants do not invade Plaintiffs' person or property.
40.
Defendant knowingly breached its duty to exercise ordinary care and
diligence when they improperly constructed, maintained, operated, engineered and/or
designed the facility and knew, or should have known, that such actions would cause
Plaintiffs' person and property to be invaded by particulates and air contaminants.
41.
As a direct and proximate result of the failure of Defendant to exercise
ordinary care, Plaintiffs' person and property are physically invaded by particulates and air
contaminants.
42.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence in operating
and/or constructing and/or engineering and/or maintaining its facility, Plaintiffs' person and
property are exposed to and invaded by particulates and air contaminants.
43.
As a direct and proximate result of the invasion of Plaintiffs' person and
property by particulates and air contaminants, Plaintiffs have suffered injuries.
44.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s release of particulates and air
contaminants, the Plaintiffs' have suffered mental anguish, suffering, anxiety,
9
CaseCase:
12-49219
1:11-cv-03520
Doc 505-5
Document
Filed 02/15/13
#: 1 Filed:Entered
05/25/1102/15/13
Page 1009:54:05
of 14 PageID
Desc
#:10
Exhibit
4 Page 10 of 14
embarrassment, humiliation, distress, agony and other related nervous conditions and
emotional sequelae.
45.
The conduct of Defendant in knowingly allowing conditions to exist, which
caused particulates and air contaminants to physically invade Plaintiffs' person and
property, constitutes gross negligence as it demonstrates a substantial lack of concern for
whether an injury resulted to Plaintiffs.
46.
Defendant is vicariously liable for the negligence and/or gross negligence of
their employees, representatives, and agents, who, during the course and scope of their
employment, allowed or failed to correct the problem which caused particulates and air
contaminants to physically invade Plaintiffs' person and property.
47.
Defendant’s gross negligence entitles Plaintiffs to an award of punitive
damages.
TRESPASS
48.
Defendant intentionally, recklessly, willfully, wantonly, maliciously and
negligently failed to construct, maintain and/or operate the facility which caused the
invasion of Plaintiffs' person and property by particulates, air contaminants, and other
airborne pollutants on dates too numerous too mention.
49.
As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing conduct of Defendant,
particulates, air contaminants, and airborne pollutants accumulated upon, entered upon,
settled upon and physically invaded Plaintiffs' person and property.
50.
It was reasonably foreseeable that Defendant’s failure to properly construct,
10
CaseCase:
12-49219
1:11-cv-03520
Doc 505-5
Document
Filed 02/15/13
#: 1 Filed:Entered
05/25/1102/15/13
Page 1109:54:05
of 14 PageID
Desc
#:11
Exhibit
4 Page 11 of 14
maintain and/or operate the facility could result in an invasion of Plaintiffs' possessory
interests.
51.
As a further direct and proximate result of the foregoing conduct of
Defendant, Plaintiffs suffered substantial damages to their persons and property as alleged
herein.
52.
The particulates, air contaminants, and airborne pollutants which entered,
settled and physically invaded Plaintiffs' land and property interfered with Plaintiffs'
interests in the exclusive possession of Plaintiffs' land and property and constituted a
continuous trespass upon Plaintiffs' property.
53.
Plaintiffs did not consent for particulates, air contaminants, and other airborne
pollutants to physically invade their land and property.
54.
The Defendant’s actions, which resulted in the trespass upon Plaintiffs' land
and property were, and continue to be, intentional, willful, and malicious and made with a
conscious disregard for the rights and safety of Plaintiffs, entitling Plaintiffs to
compensatory, exemplary, injunctive and punitive relief.
STRICT LIABILITY
55.
Defendant intentionally, recklessly, willfully, wantonly, maliciously and
negligently failed to construct, maintain and/or operate the facility which caused the
invasion of Plaintiffs' person and property by particulates, air contaminants, and other
airborne pollutants on dates too numerous to mention.
56.
Defendant’s failure to adequately construct, maintain and/or operate the
facility has contaminated Plaintiffs’ property, chattels and persons by substances widely
11
CaseCase:
12-49219
1:11-cv-03520
Doc 505-5
Document
Filed 02/15/13
#: 1 Filed:Entered
05/25/1102/15/13
Page 1209:54:05
of 14 PageID
Desc
#:12
Exhibit
4 Page 12 of 14
accepted and regulated as hazardous substances that create a high degree of risk of some
harm.
57.
The hazardous substances under Defendant’s ownership and/or control have
contaminated Plaintiffs’ property, chattels and persons creating a harm that is great.
58.
There is no safe way to release the hazardous chemicals owned and/or
controlled by Defendant that simply results in dumping or allowing the chemicals or
contaminants to settle onto Plaintiffs’ property.
59.
The release of hazardous chemicals of the type owned and/or controlled by
Defendant onto Plaintiffs’ property is not a matter of common usage and/or occurrence.
60.
The release of hazardous chemicals of the type owned and/or controlled by
Defendant in the manner in which Defendant releases them is inappropriate in any
location, but especially inappropriate in close proximity to a residential neighborhood.
61.
Defendant’s method of releasing hazardous chemicals into Plaintiffs’
residential neighborhood is not, and was not, essential to the continuing function of
Defendant’s activities. As such, the value of this type of release to the community is
nonexistent.
62.
Defendant’s release of hazardous chemicals into the Plaintiffs’ residential
neighborhood renders Defendant strictly liable to Plaintiffs for all damages arising from
such conduct, including compensatory and exemplary relief.
WHEREFORE, named Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and putative class
members respectfully demand:
1.
A class be certified;
2.
Judgment against the Defendant and in favor of the named Plaintiffs and
12
CaseCase:
12-49219
1:11-cv-03520
Doc 505-5
Document
Filed 02/15/13
#: 1 Filed:Entered
05/25/1102/15/13
Page 1309:54:05
of 14 PageID
Desc
#:13
Exhibit
4 Page 13 of 14
putative class members for:
(a) Compensatory damages subject to proof;
(b) Punitive damages in accordance with Illinois law and as otherwise
supported by the evidence of the misconduct of the Defendant, and being
that amount necessary to “punish and discourage” Defendant “and others
from similar conduct in the future”;
(c) Reasonable attorneys’ fees in accordance with Illinois law
(d) Interest until the date of judgment;
(e) Post-judgment interest at the rate of 12% per annum until paid;
(f) The “costs” of maintaining the action in accordance with the Illinois
Supreme Court Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
(g) For any and all further relief, including equitable relief, to which named
Plaintiffs and putative class members may be entitled;
(h) Opportunity with leave of Court to amend this Complaint to conform to the
evidence; and
(i) Trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Dated: May 25, 2011
Respectfully submitted,
JAUREGUI & ASSOCIATIES, P.C.
/s/____Arturo Jauregui___
Arturo Jauregui
Attorney for Plaintiffs
120 West Madison St., Suite 400
Chicago, IL 60602
(312) 781-9103
13
CaseCase:
12-49219
1:11-cv-03520
Doc 505-5
Document
Filed 02/15/13
#: 1 Filed:Entered
05/25/1102/15/13
Page 1409:54:05
of 14 PageID
Desc
#:14
Exhibit
4 Page 14 of 14
Of Counsel admitted pending Pro Hac Vice
MACUGA, LIDDLE, & DUBIN, P.C.
Peter W. Macuga, II
Attorney for Plaintiffs
975 E. Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207-3101
(313) 392-0015
14
Case
Case:
12-49219
1:11-cv-03524
Doc 505-6
Document
Filed 02/15/13
#: 29 Filed:
Entered
10/26/11
02/15/13
Page 109:54:05
of 1 PageID
Desc
#:109
Exhibit
AO 450(Rev. 5/85)Judgment in a Civil Case
5 Page 1 of 1
United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois
Eastern Division
Gregory Hodul
JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
v.
Case Number: 11 C 3524
Midwest Generation LLC
G
Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been
tried and the jury rendered its verdict.
O
Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues
have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Midwest Generation’s motion
to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction granted.. Case is dismissed without
prejudice.
Michael W. Dobbins, Clerk of Court
Date: 10/26/2011
________________________________
/s/ Theresa B. Kinney, Deputy Clerk
Case
Case:
12-49219
1:11-cv-03520
Doc 505-7
Document
Filed 02/15/13
#: 31 Filed:
Entered
10/26/11
02/15/13
Page 109:54:05
of 1 PageID
Desc
#:164
Exhibit
AO 450(Rev. 5/85)Judgment in a Civil Case
6 Page 1 of 1
United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois
Eastern Division
Gemma Rosas
JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
v.
Case Number: 11 C 3520
Midwest Generation LLC
G
Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been
tried and the jury rendered its verdict.
O
Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues
have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Midwest Generation’s motion
to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction granted.. Case is dismissed without
prejudice.
Michael W. Dobbins, Clerk of Court
Date: 10/26/2011
________________________________
/s/ Theresa B. Kinney, Deputy Clerk
Case 12-49219
Doc 505-8 Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
Proposed Order Page 1 of 1
Desc
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
In re:
EDISON MISSION ENERGY, et al,.
Debtors.
)
)
)
)
)
Chapter 11
Case No. 12-49219 (JPC)
(Jointly Administered)
PROPOSED ORDER – RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC STAY TO ALLOW
CONTINUANCE OF PROCEEDINGS IN ILLINOIS STATE COURT
This matter, coming before the Court on Motion of Greg Paraday, et al. and Eulalio
Bastida, et al., by and through their attorneys, Peter Macuga of Macuga, Liddle & Dubin,
P.C., for entry of an Order lifting the automatic stay to allow Greg Paraday, et al. and Eulalio
Bastida, et al. to proceed with their separate prior litigations in the Circuit Court of Cook
County against the debtor, Midwest Generation, for the injuries to their property sustained
through Midwest’s operation of the Fisk and Crawford electrical generation facilities;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
The Motion is granted. The stay is lifted so that Greg Paraday, et al. and Eulalio
Bastida, et al. may proceed against the debtor, Midwest Generation, LLC., in the Circuit
Court of Cook County in the State of Illinois under the condition that no judgment obtained
by Plaintiffs will be enforced against Debtor until the conclusion of Debtor’s Chapter 11
Bankruptcy proceeding.
Order Prepared By:
Peter W. Macuga (P 28114)
Macuga, Liddle, and Dubin, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
975 East Jefferson Street
Detroit, MI 48207
(313) 392-0015
Entered:__________________________
Judge
Date:_____________________________
Case 12-49219
Doc 505-9
Filed 02/15/13 Entered 02/15/13 09:54:05
of Hearing Page 1 of 1
Desc Notice
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
In re:
EDISON MISSION ENERGY, et al,.
Debtors.
)
)
)
)
)
Chapter 11
Case No. 12-49219 (JPC)
(Jointly Administered)
NOTICE OF MOTION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 2, 2013 at 9:30 A.M. or as soon thereafter as I
may be heard, I shall appear before the Honorable Jacqueline P. Cox or any judge sitting in
her stead in Courtroom 680 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, 219 South Dearborn St., Chicago, Illinois and shall present the attached
Motion to Life Automatic Stay to Allow Continuance of Proceedings in Illinois State Court.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Peter M. Macuga, hereby certify that on February 15, 2013, I electronically filed the
foregoing Notice of Motion, Certificate of Service, Motion, Required Statement and
Proposed Order with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. Notification and a
copy of such filing is sent through the CM/ECF system to counsel of record.
MACUGA, LIDDLE, & DUBIN, P.C.
/s/ Peter W. Macuga, II
PETER W. MACUGA II, ESQ. (P 28114)
MACUGA, LIDDLE, & DUBIN, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
975 East Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207
313-392-0015
[email protected]