Case 2:20-cv-02297-SRB Document 1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 1 of 15
`
`Bradley J. Glass (022463)
`Stuart S. Kimball (026681)
`Kenneth N. Ralston (034022)
`GALLAGHER & KENNEDY, P.A.
`2575 East Camelback Road
`Phoenix, Arizona 85016-9225
`Telephone:
`(602) 530-8000
`Facsimile:
`(602) 530-8500
`Email: brad.glass@gknet.com
`stuart.kimball@gknet.com
`ken.ralston@gknet.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
`
`No.
`COMPLAINT
`
`MORELAND PROPERTIES LLC, a
`Colorado Limited Liability Company,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER
`COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation, and
`GOODYEAR FARMS, INC., an Arizona
`Corporation,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff Moreland Properties LLC’s (“Moreland”) alleges the following as its
`Complaint against Defendants Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (“Goodyear”) and
`Goodyear Farms, Inc. (“Goodyear Farms”) (together, “Defendants”).
`PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
`Plaintiff Moreland is a Colorado limited liability company doing business in
`1.
`Maricopa County, Arizona.
`2.
`Defendant Goodyear is an Ohio corporation doing business in Maricopa
`County, Arizona.
`3.
`Defendant Goodyear Farms is an Arizona corporation doing business in
`Maricopa County, Arizona.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A.
`
`Phoenix, Arizona 85016-9225
`2575 East Camelback Road
`
`(602) 530-8000
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-02297-SRB Document 1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 2 of 15
`
`All actions and conduct forming the basis of this litigation have occurred in
`4.
`Maricopa County, Arizona.
`5.
`The property at issue is located within Maricopa County and is currently a
`vacant property at the northwest corner of McDowell Road and 159th Avenue, Maricopa
`County, Arizona (the “Site”).
`6.
`This action arises under Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a),
`as well as A.R.S. § 49-285. Alternatively, this action arises under Section 113(f) of
`CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f).
`7.
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
`(federal question) and 1367(a) (same case or controversy) and 42 U.S.C. § 9613(b)
`(Section 113(b) of CERCLA).
`8.
`Venue lies in the Phoenix Division of the United States District Court for
`the District of Arizona pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and 42 U.S.C. §§ 9607(a) and
`9613(b). The claims asserted in this Complaint arose in Maricopa County, Arizona; the
`releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances have occurred in Maricopa
`County, Arizona; and the response costs were incurred in Maricopa County, Arizona.
`9.
`Pursuant to Section 113(l) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9613(l), Moreland is
`providing copies of this Complaint to the Attorney General of the United States and to the
`Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency contemporaneously with the filing
`of this Complaint.
`
`Factual Background
`Upon information and belief, Goodyear has owned thousands of acres of
`10.
`various properties in Arizona since 1916, including the currently vacant Site.
`11.
`Upon information and belief, Goodyear owned and operated its properties,
`including the Site, through wholly-owned subsidiaries that have been entirely owned and
`controlled by Goodyear.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-02297-SRB Document 1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 3 of 15
`
`Upon information and belief, Goodyear owned and operated its properties,
`12.
`including the Site, through its subsidiary Southwest Cotton Company since the 1910s.
`Southwest Cotton Company’s name was changed to Goodyear Farms in 1943.
`13.
`On behalf of and at the direction of Goodyear, Goodyear Farms leased the
`Site during the 1970s and 1980s for use as an aerial pesticide and herbicide application
`airstrip with various associated operations, including, but not limited to, a hangar for
`fueling and maintenance facilities, a pesticide/herbicide mixing and storage area, and two
`burn areas.
`As a result of these activities, hazardous substances, including arsenic and
`14.
`toxaphene, were released and deposited at the Site during the time of Defendants’
`ownership and operation that resulted in soil contamination.
`15.
`Beginning in the 1980s, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
`(“ADEQ”) conducted an inspection of the Site that triggered investigations to define the
`lateral and vertical extent of pesticide and arsenic soil contamination and to determine
`necessary remedial activities associated with the Site.
`16.
`Goodyear conducted environmental investigations and related remedial
`activities at the Site.
`17.
`In April 2002, Goodyear prepared a site assessment report and corrective
`action plan (“CAP”) to address the elevated levels of soils contaminated with toxaphene
`and arsenic and to clean-up Goodyear’s properties, including the Site, to the non-
`residential/commercial land use soil remediation levels (“SRLs”) established by
`A.R.S. § 49-152 and Ariz. Admin. Code R18-7-205.
`18.
`In February and March 2003, Goodyear excavated 4,100 tons of
`contaminated soils, stockpiled these soils on-site, profiled them for hazardous waste
`characterization, and transported them to a landfill for disposal
`19.
`Upon information and belief, after this work was completed, Goodyear
`pursued a Declaration of Environmental Use Restriction (“DEUR”) from ADEQ for its
`properties, including the Site, by submitting a formal request to ADEQ.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-02297-SRB Document 1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 4 of 15
`
`A DEUR is an institutional control recorded by the property owner, which
`20.
`restricts future land use to non-residential activities because on-site soil contamination is
`above the applicable residential use SRLs and at or below the non-residential use SRLs.
`See A.R.S. § 49-152 and Ariz. Admin. Code R18-7-205.
`21.
`A DEUR ensures that current and future property owners are aware of the
`level of soil contamination at a property so that the owners can take appropriate actions to
`prevent or mitigate additional contamination and limit future use of the property to
`specific use activities.
`22.
`A DEUR is perpetual unless formally released by ADEQ pursuant to
`A.R.S. § 49-152(D).
`23.
`A DEUR is a covenant that runs with and burdens the land and binds
`successive owners pursuant to A.R.S. § 49-152(F).
`24.
`ADEQ approved a DEUR for Goodyear’s properties, including the Site, in
`September 23, 2004 (“Goodyear Farms DEUR”).
`25.
`Thereafter, Goodyear Farms, on behalf of or at the direction of Goodyear,
`recorded the Goodyear Farms DEUR, which declared representing that the maximum
`residual soil concentrations on certain Goodyear properties, including the Site, were 13
`milligram per kilogram (mg/kg) of toxaphene and 10 mg/kg of arsenic.
`26.
`ADEQ has not released the Goodyear Farms DEUR and it is still in effect at
`the Site.
`The Goodyear Farms DEUR publicly declared and represented that the
`27.
`residual soil concentrations at the Site were at or below the applicable non-residential use
`SRLs that would allow the Site to be developed for non-residential uses in the future by
`Goodyear Farms or any subsequent owner.
`28.
`The Goodyear Farms DEUR identified the hazardous substance arsenic even
`though Goodyear’s reported residual concentrations after its remediation allegedly were
`below the arsenic residential and non-residential use SRL of 10 mg/kg.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-02297-SRB Document 1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 5 of 15
`
`Since the Goodyear Farms DEUR was recorded, the Site has remained
`29.
`vacant and has not been developed.
`30. Moreland purchased the Site in 2010 and relied on Defendants’ public
`declarations and representations in the Goodyear Farms DEUR that the Site had been fully
`investigated, characterized, and remediated to allow future non-residential development
`and use of the Site.
`31. Moreland hired Synergy Environmental LLC (“Synergy”) in 2017 to
`conduct limited site characterization work, which found the following ranges of residual
`soil concentrations: <0.40 to 20.5 mg/kg of toxaphene and 5.05 to 135 mg/kg of arsenic.
`32. When Synergy completed its work, it determined that the residual soil
`concentrations at the Site may exceed the applicable non-residential use SRLs in direct
`contradiction to the representations included in the Goodyear Farms DEUR, and,
`therefore, may prohibit any development of the Site as a matter of Arizona law pursuant to
`A.R.S. § 49-152.
`33. Moreland then voluntarily reached out to ADEQ, which had approved the
`Goodyear Farms DEUR, to find out additional information regarding the Site and
`investigate how Moreland’s investigatory sampling results contradicted the represented
`residual soil concentrations in the Goodyear Farms DEUR.
`34.
`After discussions with ADEQ, Moreland elected to voluntarily characterize
`and remediate the soil contamination at the Site.
`35.
`On March 15, 2019, Moreland entered into a voluntary administrative
`agreement with ADEQ that required Moreland to prepare and implement a remedial
`action plan that would accurately characterize and remediate the soil contamination at the
`Site to meet the applicable non-residential use SRLs that are protective of public health
`and the environment.
`36. Moreland complied with the applicable public notices for the voluntary
`administrative agreement and informed neighbors of the pending remedial action work in
`accordance with state law. Moreland responded to public comments and obtained ADEQ
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-02297-SRB Document 1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 6 of 15
`
`approval of the voluntary administrative agreement, proposed remedial action work plan
`(“Remedial Action Work Plan”), and the completed work.
`37. Moreland submitted its Remedial Action Work Plan to ADEQ on July 10,
`2019, which ADEQ approved on September 30, 2019.
`38. Moreland’s Remedial Action Work Plan included additional sampling to
`fully and adequately characterize the scope of contamination at the Site and identify
`necessary remediation work so the Site could meet the applicable non-residential SRLs
`identified in the Goodyear Farms DEUR.
`39.
`After it completed characterization of the Site consistent with the Remedial
`Action Work Plan, Moreland learned for the first time that nearly all of the Site was above
`applicable non-residential SRLs, which was contrary to the public declarations and
`representations in the Goodyear Farms DEUR, and would require remediation.
`40. Moreland then decided to investigate and review all prior characterization
`and remedial action work associated with the Site to understand how the Goodyear Farms
`DEUR could be inaccurate and inconsistent with the actual soils at the Site.
`41.
`During this additional investigation, Moreland learned of numerous
`concerns with the methodology, analysis, and prior remedial work that was the basis and
`justification for the Goodyear Farms DEUR. Specifically, Moreland learned that
`Goodyear did not collect sufficient data to adequately characterize the residual arsenic soil
`contamination at the Site. Additionally, Goodyear did not comply with the sampling
`procedures specified in the ADEQ-approved CAP despite the observed data suggesting
`arsenic exceeded the SRLs in direct contradiction to the declarations and representations
`that Defendants made to ADEQ and the general public and included in the Goodyear
`Farms DEUR.
`42.
`After completing the site characterization, Moreland completed all of the
`remedial work required by the Remedial Action Work Plan, with the approval of ADEQ,
`on October 2, 2020.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-02297-SRB Document 1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 7 of 15
`
`43. Moreland has incurred remedial action response costs of approximately
`$638,000 to date to remediate the Site to the applicable non-residential use SRLs that
`were represented by Defendants to have been achieved in the Goodyear Farms DEUR.
`44. Moreland’s investigation and review of available Goodyear and ADEQ
`documents in 2019 revealed that Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that
`the representations in the Goodyear Farms DEUR were false, misleading, and did not
`accurately and truly describe the existing levels of residual arsenic and toxaphene
`contamination in the soils at the Site.
`45.
`Defendants’ statements in their reports to ADEQ and in the Goodyear Farms
`DEUR also negligently misrepresented the levels of residual arsenic soil contamination at
`the Site.
`Consistent with the purpose of a recorded DEUR, A.R.S. 49-152 and Ariz.
`46.
`Admin. Code R18-7-208, Defendants knew or reasonably should have known future
`purchasers, developers, tenants, and users of the Site would rely on the representations
`Defendants made in their reports to ADEQ and in the Goodyear Farms DEUR to assess
`the actual residual soil contamination at the Site and the ability to use the Site for future
`non-residential development uses.
`47.
`Defendants knew or reasonably should have known the misrepresentations
`in their reports to ADEQ and in the Goodyear Farm DEUR created a substantial risk for
`future owners of the Site, including the inability to develop or use the Site for any purpose
`under Arizona law, A.R.S. § 49-152, and that parties entering contracts for the purchase
`and use of the Site would value the Site based on the representations reported in the
`Goodyear Farms DEUR.
`
`COUNT I
`
`Cost Recovery pursuant to the Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response,
`Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and the Arizona Water Quality
`Assurance Revolving Fund (“WQARF”)
`48. Moreland incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 47
`herein by reference.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-02297-SRB Document 1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 8 of 15
`
`As the former owner and operator of the Site, Defendants are potentially
`49.
`responsible parties under Section 107(a)(2) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(2), for the
`Site, which constitutes a “facility” under Section 101(9) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
`§ 9601(9), and under WQARF, A.R.S. § 49-281(6).
`50.
`Arsenic and toxaphene are listed hazardous substances under Section
`101(14) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601(14), and A.R.S. § 49-281(11).
`51.
`There was a release or threatened release, as defined in Section 101(22) of
`CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601(22), and A.R.S. § 49-281(8), of one or more hazardous
`substances, including arsenic and toxaphene, at the Site.
`52.
`Defendants formerly owned and/or operated the Site when these hazardous
`substances were released and deposited at the Site and contaminated the Site’s soils above
`applicable SRLs.
`53.
`As set forth above, the documented presence of hazardous substances in the
`soil at the Site that was above applicable non-residential use SRLs demonstrates that a
`“release” occurred at the Site and that hazardous substances were deposited at the Site
`when Defendants owned and operated the Site.
`54.
`To comply with the National Contingency Plan, Moreland engaged in
`community involvement activities, responded to public comments, and cooperated with
`ADEQ to obtain ADEQ’s approval of the settlement and remedial action plan.
`55. Moreland has voluntarily incurred necessary remedial action response costs
`that were consistent with the National Contingency Plan as defined in Section 101(25) of
`CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601(25), and A.R.S. § 49-285 in order to address and remediate
`the releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances at the Site, and, therefore, is
`entitled to bring this action against Defendants who formerly owned and/or operated the
`Site when the hazardous substances were deposited at the Site.
`56.
`As a result of its voluntary efforts, Moreland has incurred necessary
`remedial action response costs relating to the investigation, development, and
`implementation of the required remedial action response actions approved by ADEQ.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-02297-SRB Document 1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 9 of 15
`
`These costs include, but are not limited to, the costs of: (1) investigating, monitoring,
`assessing, and evaluating the hazardous substances; the releases and threatened releases of
`those hazardous substances, including the timing when the releases were deposited at the
`Site; and the identification of the facilities and parties responsible for those releases and
`threatened releases; (2) investigations and studies to evaluate the scope of the
`contamination and remedial action response options; (3) the ADEQ administrative
`process, including community involvement activities, and approval of the Moreland’s
`Remedial Action Work Plan to address the releases and threatened releases of hazardous
`substances; and (4) the evaluation, design, and implementation of the removal of
`contaminated soil consistent with the ADEQ-approved Remedial Action Work Plan.
`57.
`Defendants are liable for the necessary remedial action response costs
`Moreland has incurred to address the releases and threatened releases of hazardous
`substances pursuant to Section 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607.
`58.
`In the alternative and if the Court finds that these costs are not recoverable
`under Section 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607, Defendants are liable to Moreland,
`pursuant to CERCLA § 113(f)(1), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9613(f)(1), for contribution, in accordance
`with an allocation to be determined at trial, of necessary costs of response and damages
`incurred by Moreland to date with respect to contamination at the Site, as well as for
`additional response costs incurred by Moreland through the date of entry of judgment in
`this action.
`Defendants are liable to Moreland for interest on such costs of response
`59.
`incurred and to be incurred by Moreland in connection with contamination at the Site, at
`the rate specified for interest on investments of the Hazardous Substance Superfund
`pursuant to CERCLA § 107(a), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a).
`60.
`In the alternative, pursuant to A.R.S. § 49-283(A) and (B) and A.R.S. § 49-
`285(A), Defendants are liable to Moreland under WQARF as the owners or operators of
`the Site when the hazardous substances were placed or came to be located in or on the
`facility, when the hazardous substances were located in or on the facility but before the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-02297-SRB Document 1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 10 of 15
`
`release, and during the time of the releases or threatened releases of the hazardous
`substances.
`
`COUNT II
`Unjust Enrichment and Restitution
`61. Moreland incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 60
`herein by reference.
`62.
`Defendants have and continue to have a duty under CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
`§§ 9601, et seq., and WQARF, A.R.S. § 49-281, et seq., and under Federal and Arizona
`common law to respond to the releases or threat of releases of hazardous substances from
`the facilities owned or operated or formerly owned or operated by Defendants.
`63.
`Defendants additionally had a duty under the recorded Goodyear Farms
`DEUR and under A.R.S. § 49-152 and Ariz. Admin. Code R18-7-208, to ensure the Site
`met the applicable non-residential use SRLs as required by the DEUR to allow for non-
`residential uses.
`64. Moreland has performed the duty of Defendants by supplying services
`immediately necessary to protect public health and safety. Such services include, in
`addition to responding to the release or threatened release of hazardous substances from
`the Site formerly owned and/or operated by Defendants, the employment of attorneys and
`consultants for the purposes of negotiation and arranging with ADEQ for the necessary
`investigation, evaluation, development, design, and implementation of effective remedial
`action responses.
`65. Moreland’s performance of the services described in this Complaint has
`conferred benefits on and unjustly enriched Defendants by remediating the Site to meet
`the applicable non-residential use SRLs required by the Goodyear Farms DEUR.
`66. Moreland’s performance of services described in this Complaint was not
`expected or required based on Defendants’ representations, and has caused and is causing
`the unjust impoverishment of Moreland due to its expenditure of resources to supply those
`services, which was and is the duty of Defendants.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-02297-SRB Document 1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 11 of 15
`
`Defendants are liable to Moreland for the value of the benefits conferred on
`67.
`it by Moreland pursuant to Federal and Arizona state law.
`COUNT III
`Negligent Misrepresentation
`68. Moreland incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 67
`herein by reference.
`69.
`Defendants owed a duty of reasonable care to Moreland, a foreseeable and
`specific third party, to accurately report the contamination at the Site when they provided
`information and reports to ADEQ and obtained and recorded the Goodyear Farms DEUR,
`which is a covenant that runs with the Site and binds successive owners.
`70.
`Defendants negligently and/or knowingly misrepresented the concentrations
`of the residual soil contamination of arsenic at the Site in their reports and when the
`Goodyear Farms DEUR was recorded.
`71.
`Defendants’ characterization of the residual soil contamination of arsenic at
`the Site was false.
`72.
`Defendants intended that subsequent purchasers and users of the Site would
`rely on the representations recorded in the Goodyear Farms DEUR when evaluating the
`Site for purchase or sale.
`73. Moreland relied on Defendants’ characterization of the residual soil
`contamination of arsenic at the Site as declared in the Goodyear Farms DEUR.
`74. Moreland’s reliance was justified given the purpose of the Goodyear Farms
`DEUR under Arizona law.
`75.
`As a result of Defendants’ misrepresentation, Moreland sustained and
`continues to sustain damages, including attorneys’ fees and costs, in an amount to be
`proven at trial.
`76.
`Because this action arises out of the Goodyear Farms DEUR, a covenant
`and contract that runs with the Site, Moreland is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees
`pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 and any other applicable agreement, statute, or rule.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-02297-SRB Document 1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 12 of 15
`
`77. Moreland is entitled to an award of its costs under A.R.S. § 12-341 and any
`other applicable agreement, statute, or rule.
`COUNT IV
`Fraudulent Misrepresentation
`78. Moreland incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 77
`herein by reference.
`79.
`Defendants knowingly misrepresented the residual soil contamination of
`arsenic at the Site when reporting contamination levels to ADEQ to establish the
`Goodyear Farms DEUR.
`80.
`Defendants’ characterization of the residual soil contamination of arsenic at
`the Site was false.
`81.
`Defendants knew the characterization of the residual soil contamination of
`arsenic at the Site was false.
`82.
`Defendants intended Moreland and other future purchasers or users of the
`Site to rely on the level of residual soil contamination reported in the Goodyear Farms
`DEUR.
`83. Moreland did not know the levels of residual soil contamination of arsenic
`at the Site as reported in the Goodyear Farms DEUR were false.
`84. Moreland relied on the levels of residual soil contamination of arsenic at the
`Site as reported in the Goodyear Farms DEUR when it purchased the Site.
`85. Moreland had a right to rely on Defendants’ representation in the Goodyear
`Farms DEUR.
`86.
`As a result of Defendants’ misrepresentation, Moreland sustained damages,
`and continues to sustain damages, including attorneys’ fees and costs in an amount to be
`proven at trial.
`87.
`Because this action arises out of the Goodyear Farms DEUR, a covenant
`and contract that runs with the Site, Moreland is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees
`pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 and any other applicable agreement, statute, or rule.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-02297-SRB Document 1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 13 of 15
`
`88. Moreland is entitled to an award of its costs under A.R.S. § 12-341 and any
`other applicable agreement, statute, or rule.
`89.
`Because of Defendants’ knowing misrepresentation, Moreland is entitled to
`punitive damages.
`
`COUNT V
`Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
`90. Moreland incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through
`89 above.
`The Goodyear Farms DEUR is a covenant that runs with the Site, binding
`91.
`Moreland and all future owners of the Site, and is a contract originally entered into
`between Defendants and ADEQ.
`92.
`The contractual relationship between Defendants, ADEQ, and all future
`owners of the Site included an implied promise by Defendants not to impair or deny
`Moreland’s and all future owners of the Site’s right to receive the benefits of the
`Goodyear Farms DEUR.
`93.
`In the Goodyear Farms DEUR, Defendants affirmatively represented
`residual arsenic contamination at the Site was at or below the non-residential SRLs.
`94.
`The purpose of the Goodyear Farms DEUR was to provide notice to future
`owners and users of the property of the levels of contamination existing at the Site and to
`restrict certain uses of the Site.
`95.
`Defendants have failed to fairly or in good faith represent the levels of
`contamination of arsenic at the Site, and therefore, Moreland did not receive its expected
`benefit from the Goodyear Farms DEUR.
`96.
`Defendants’ actions and inaction constitute a breach of the implied covenant
`of good faith and fair dealing that caused Moreland to incur damages in an amount to be
`proven at trial, attorneys’ fees, and costs.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-02297-SRB Document 1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 14 of 15
`
`Because this action arises out of the Goodyear Farms DEUR, a covenant
`97.
`and contract that runs with the Site, Moreland is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees
`pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 and any other applicable agreement, statute, or rule.
`98. Moreland is entitled to an award of its costs under A.R.S. § 12-341 and any
`other applicable agreement, statute, or rule.
`WHEREFORE, Moreland requests that this Court enter judgment against
`Defendants as follows:
`a.
`For actual, incidental, and compensatory damages, including, but not
`limited to Moreland’s remedial action response costs, in an amount to be proven at trial;
`b.
`Awarding Moreland its response costs incurred in responding to the
`releases and/or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the Site, with interest
`from the date of expenditure, pursuant to CERCLA Section 107 and/or Section 113, 42
`U.S.C. 9607 and/or 9613, and pursuant to WQARF, A.R.S. § 49-285;
`c.
`For the amounts expended by Moreland that have unjustly enriched
`
`Defendants;
`
`For costs incurred herein, pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341, 12-1840, and
`d.
`any other applicable agreement, statute, or rule;
`e.
`For attorneys’ fees incurred herein, pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01,
`and any other applicable agreement, statute, or rule;
`f.
`For punitive damages against Defendants to punish Defendants and
`deter Defendants and others similarly situated from engaging in like conduct in the future;
`and
`
`g.
`
`For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-02297-SRB Document 1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 15 of 15
`
`RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 25th day of November, 2020.
`
`GALLAGHER & KENNEDY, P.A.
`
`By: /s/ Bradley J. Glass
`Bradley J. Glass
`Stuart S. Kimball
`Kenneth N. Ralston
`2575 East Camelback Road
`Phoenix, Arizona 85016-9225
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`15
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`