`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
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03291-AGT Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 1 of 12
`
`EDGCOMB LAW GROUP, LLP
`TIFFANY R. HEDGPETH (SBN 175134)
`thedgpeth@edgcomb-law.com
`333 N. Glenoaks, Suite 610
`Burbank, CA 91502-1144
`Telephone: (818) 861-7618
`Facsimile: (818) 861-7616
`LADD CAHOON (SBN 193653)
`lcahoon@edgcomb-law.com
`601 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 399-1560
`Counsel for Plaintiff,
`San Mateo Investment Co.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN MATEO INVESTMENT CO., a
`California corporation,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`THE ESTATE OF ROBERT
`MASCIOLA, deceased; MARTIN
`FRANCHISES INC., a Delaware
`corporation; EATON CORPORATION
`PLC, a foreign corporation, MIU
`CHIANG JUE, CLEMEN JUE,
`MABEL WONG, and DOES 1-10,
`Defendants.
`
`Case No.: 22-3291
`COMPLAINT FOR:
`1. COST RECOVERY UNDER
`THE COMPREHENSIVE
`ENVIRONMENTAL
`RESPONSE,
`COMPENSATION, AND
`LIABILITY ACT, 42 U.S.C.
`§ 9607(a);
`2. DECLARATORY RELIEF
`Complaint filed:
`
`SAN MATEO INVESTMENT CO. COMPLAINT
`o. 22-3291
`Civ. N
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03291-AGT Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 2 of 12
`
`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
`
`Plaintiff San Mateo Investment Company (“SMIC”) alleges the
`following against the Estate of Robert Masciola, deceased (“Estate”), Martin
`Franchising, Inc. (“MFI”), Eaton Corporation PLC (“Eaton”), Miu Chiang Jue,
`Clemen Jue, Mabel Wong, and Does 1-10 (collectively, “Defendants”):
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This Court has jurisdiction over SMIC’s federal claims asserted herein
`1.
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201,
`and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
`(“CERCLA”) § 107(a), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a).
`2.
`Venue is proper in the Northern District of California because a
`substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this
`District, and because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this District.
`PARTIES
`Plaintiff SMIC is a corporation existing under the laws of California.
`3.
`Defendant Estate is the estate of Robert Nathan Masciola.
`4.
`(“Masciola”), an individual who resided in California and who died on November
`10, 2003. On information and belief, the Estate resides and Masciola resided within
`this district. The Estate is named herein under California Probate Code section 550
`et seq., in that SMIC is informed and believe that Masciola maintained policies of
`liability insurance applicable to this action and that such policies provide coverage
`for the damages alleged in this Complaint, and that said insurance companies are
`presently responsible for the performance of all duties and obligations owed by the
`Estate. SMIC expressly limits all of the claims set forth herein against the Estate
`to the extent of any insurance policy or policies that cover the herein alleged
`1
`SAN MATEO INVESTMENT CO. COMPLAINT
`Civ. No. 22-3291
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03291-AGT Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 3 of 12
`
`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
`
`claims. Pursuant to California Probate Code section 550 et seq., the insurance
`companies who provide the applicable insurance policies are the real parties in
`interest and the Estate is merely a nominal defendant.
`5.
`Defendant MFI is a Delaware corporation with headquarters in Ohio.
`
`
`Defendant Eaton is a foreign corporation with headquarters in Ireland
`6.
`and locations and operations in the United States.
`Defendant Miu Chiang Jue is an individual residing within this
`7.
`district.
`Defendant Clemen Jue is an individual residing within this district.
`8.
`Defendant Mabel Wong is an individual residing within this district.
`9.
`SMIC does not know the true names or capacities, whether individual,
`10.
`corporate, associate, or otherwise, of Defendants Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and
`therefore sues said Defendants under fictitious names. SMIC will amend this
`Complaint to show their true names and capacities when and if the same has been
`ascertained.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`SMIC is the owner of property located at 111 West 25th Avenue, San
`11.
`Mateo, California (“Property”).
`From approximately 1960 to 1977, Masciola operated One Hour
`12.
`Martinizing (“OHM”), a dry cleaner establishment, at the Property. OHM
`continued to operate at the Property under different ownership until approximately
`1987 or 1988. Dry cleaning operations continued after that time, but not as OHM.
`13.
`On information and belief, OHM was a franchise of Martin
`Equipment Sales, Martin Sales and other similar Martin trade names (collectively,
`2
`SAN MATEO INVESTMENT CO. COMPLAINT
`Civ. No. 22-3291
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03291-AGT Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 4 of 12
`
`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
`
`"Martin"). Martin operated dry cleaning franchises while a division of the
`American Laundry Machinery Industries division of McGraw Edison Company
`from approximately 1960 to 1978. In 1985, McGraw Edison Company merged
`into Cooper Industries, Inc. (“Cooper”), making Cooper Martin's successor in
`
`
`interest. Cooper was acquired by Eaton Corporation in 2012 to form a new
`company, Defendant Eaton.
`14. On information and belief, effective May 1, 1978, McGraw Edison
`Company sold certain dry cleaning assets, including the Martin franchise
`agreements for OHM, to MFI.
`15. On information and belief, as a result of the corporate transactions,
`Eaton is the successor to the Martin liabilities created by OHM franchises until
`May 1, 1978, and MFI is the successor to liabilities created by OHM franchises on
`and after May 1, 1978.
`16. On information and belief, the Franchise Agreements for OHM
`dictated that the OHM operators use only specific dry cleaning equipment that was
`approved by Martin and MFI. Moreover, Martin and MFI provided instruction to
`Masciola and other OHM operators at the Property regarding the dry cleaning
`process and use and handling of perchloroethylene (“PCE”), a hazardous substance
`and the primary ingredient used in the dry cleaning equipment.
`17. On information and belief, Martin and MFI owned the dry cleaning
`equipment for at least portions of the time OHM operated at the Property.
`18.
`From approximately 1977 to approximately 1999, Miu Chiang Jue,
`Clemen Jue, and Mabel Wong and her now-deceased husband, Antonio Wong
`(collectively, “Wongs/Jues”), operated OHM, and later J&C One Hour Cleaners, at
`3
`SAN MATEO INVESTMENT CO. COMPLAINT
`Civ. No. 22-3291
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03291-AGT Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 5 of 12
`
`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
`
`the Property.
`In 2016, the San Mateo County Health Department, Environmental
`19.
`Health Services, Groundwater Protection Program (“Health Department”)
`contacted the then dry cleaner operator of the Property, Mr. Quoc Hong of J&C
`
`
`One Hour Cleaners, to inform him that PCE had been detected in environmental
`media near the Property. Subsequently, the Health Department issued letters to
`other past operators of dry cleaners at the Property, including the Wongs/Jues, as
`well as Property owner SMIC, requesting their participation in environmental
`investigation and cleanup activities in relation to the Property.
`20. At the request of the Health Department, environmental investigations
`were performed at the Property on behalf of SMIC, without any contribution from
`Defendants, confirming that PCE and its degradation products, including TCE, are
`present in soil and groundwater beneath the Property.
`21. On information and belief, the presence of PCE is a result of, inter
`alia, sudden and accidental leaks and spills from dry cleaning equipment that at
`times was owned and operated by Masciola, Martin and MFI, and the Wongs/Jues,
`as well as other sudden and accidental releases of PCE that occurred during
`Masciola’s and the Wongs/Jues’ operation of the Property.
`22.
`SMIC has incurred costs performing investigations to define the
`lateral and vertical extent of contamination in all impacted media (soil, soil vapor,
`groundwater, and indoor air) and to develop plans for remediation. Additionally,
`further investigations, remediation, and mitigation may include (1) a pilot study
`workplan, (2) a pilot study for remediation, (3) additional subsurface
`characterization (including installation/sampling of additional sub-slab soil vapor
`4
`SAN MATEO INVESTMENT CO. COMPLAINT
`Civ. No. 22-3291
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03291-AGT Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 6 of 12
`
`points and deep soil vapor probes, and installation/development/sampling of
`groundwater monitoring wells), (4) monitoring/reporting of network of soil vapor
`points/probes, indoor/outdoor air, and groundwater monitoring wells, (5)
`preparation of a remedial system operations and monitoring plan, (6) installation of
`
`
`a vacuum-based extraction remediation system, (7) remedial system operation,
`monitoring and reporting, (8) remedial efforts on downgradient groundwater
`plume, including work plan and summary report, (9) preparation of a human health
`risk assessment, and (10) addition monitoring and mitigation.
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(CERCLA Joint And Several Cost Recovery
`Under 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a))
`
`SMIC incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein,
`23.
`Paragraphs 1-22 of this Complaint.
`Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), imposes liability
`24.
`on, among others, “the owner and operator of a vessel or a facility,” “any person
`who at the time of disposal of any hazardous substance owned or operated any
`facility at which such hazardous substances were disposed of,” “any person who by
`contract, agreement, or otherwise arranged for disposal or treatment, or arranged
`with a transporter for transport for disposal or treatment, of hazardous substances
`owned or possessed by such person, by any other party or entity, at any facility or
`incineration vessel owned or operated by another party or entity and containing
`such hazardous substances . . . from which there is a release, or a threatened release
`
`5
`SAN MATEO INVESTMENT CO. COMPLAINT
`Civ. No. 22-3291
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03291-AGT Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 7 of 12
`
`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
`
`which causes the incurrence of response costs of a hazardous substance . . . .,” and
`“any person who accepts or accepted any hazardous substances for transport to
`disposal or treatment facilities… from which there is a release, or a threatened
`release which causes the incurrence of response costs, of a hazardous
`
`
`substance….” Such persons are liable for, inter alia, “any other necessary costs of
`response incurred by any other person consistent with the national contingency
`plan.”
`SMIC is a “person” within the meaning of CERCLA §§ 101(21) and
`25.
`107(a), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(21) and 9607(a).
`26. Masciola was a “person” within the meaning of CERCLA §§ 101(21)
`and 107(a), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(21) and 9607(a).
`27. Miu Chiang Jue is a “person” within the meaning of CERCLA §§
`101(21) and 107(a), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(21) and 9607(a).
`28. Clemen Jue is a “person” within the meaning of CERCLA §§ 101(21)
`and 107(a), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(21) and 9607(a).
`29. Mabel Wong is a “person” within the meaning of CERCLA §§
`101(21) and 107(a), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(21) and 9607(a).
`Eaton is a “person” within the meaning of CERCLA §§ 101(21) and
`30.
`107(a), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(21) and 9607(a).
`31. MFI is a “person” within the meaning of CERCLA §§ 101(21) and
`107(a), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(21) and 9607(a).
`32. Does 1-10 are “persons” within the meaning of CERCLA §§ 101(21)
`and 107(a), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(21) and 9607(a).
`The Property is a “facility” for purposes of CERCLA §§ 101(9) and
`33.
`6
`SAN MATEO INVESTMENT CO. COMPLAINT
`Civ. No. 22-3291
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03291-AGT Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 8 of 12
`
`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
`
`107(a), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(9), 9607(a).
`34.
`The dry cleaning equipment that released PCE was a “facility” for
`purposes of CERCLA §§ 101(9) and 107(a), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(9), 9607(a).
`35. Masciola was an operator of the dry cleaning equipment and the
`
`
`Property at the time of PCE disposal into soil and groundwater within the meaning
`of CERCLA §§ 101(20)(A) and 107(a), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(20)(A) and 9607(a).
`36. Masciola was an owner of the dry cleaning equipment at the time of
`PCE disposal into soil and groundwater within the meaning of CERCLA §§
`101(20)(A) and 107(a), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(20)(A) and 9607(a).
`37. Miu Chiang Jue was an operator of the dry cleaning equipment and
`the Property at the time of PCE disposal into soil and groundwater within the
`meaning of CERCLA §§ 101(20)(A) and 107(a), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(20)(A) and
`9607(a).
`38. Miu Chiang Jue was an owner of the dry cleaning equipment at the
`time of PCE disposal into soil and groundwater within the meaning of CERCLA
`§§ 101(20)(A) and 107(a), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(20)(A) and 9607(a).
`39. Clemen Jue was an operator of the dry cleaning equipment and the
`Property at the time of PCE disposal into soil and groundwater within the meaning
`of CERCLA §§ 101(20)(A) and 107(a), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(20)(A) and 9607(a).
`40. Clemen Jue was an owner of the dry cleaning equipment at the time of
`PCE disposal into soil and groundwater within the meaning of CERCLA §§
`101(20)(A) and 107(a), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(20)(A) and 9607(a).
`41. Mabel Wong was an operator of the dry cleaning equipment and the
`Property at the time of PCE disposal into soil and groundwater within the meaning
`7
`SAN MATEO INVESTMENT CO. COMPLAINT
`Civ. No. 22-3291
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03291-AGT Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 9 of 12
`
`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
`
`of CERCLA §§ 101(20)(A) and 107(a), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(20)(A) and 9607(a).
`42. Mabel Wong was an owner of the dry cleaning equipment at the time
`of PCE disposal into soil and groundwater within the meaning of CERCLA §§
`101(20)(A) and 107(a), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(20)(A) and 9607(a).
`
`
`Eaton’s predecessor, Martin, was an operator of the dry cleaning
`43.
`equipment and the Property at the time of PCE disposal into soil and groundwater
`within the meaning of CERCLA §§ 101(20)(A) and 107(a), 42 U.S.C. §§
`9601(20)(A) and 9607(a).
`44.
`Eaton’s predecessor, Martin, was an owner of the dry cleaning
`equipment at the time of PCE disposal into soil and groundwater within the
`meaning of CERCLA §§ 101(20)(A) and 107(a), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(20)(A) and
`9607(a).
`45. MFI was an operator of the dry cleaning equipment and the Property
`at the time of PCE disposal into soil and groundwater within the meaning of
`CERCLA §§ 101(20)(A) and 107(a), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(20)(A) and 9607(a).
`46. MFI was an owner of the dry cleaning equipment at the time of PCE
`disposal into soil and groundwater within the meaning of CERCLA §§ 101(20)(A)
`and 107(a), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(20)(A) and 9607(a).
`47. Does 1-10 are persons liable under CERCLA § 107(a), 42 U.S.C. §
`9607(a).
`48. As a result of the release and threatened release of hazardous
`substances at or from the dry cleaning equipment and the Property, SMIC has
`incurred costs of response as the term is defined by § 101(25) of CERCLA, 42
`U.S.C. § 9601(25), and used in CERCLA § 107(a), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a).
`8
`SAN MATEO INVESTMENT CO. COMPLAINT
`Civ. No. 22-3291
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03291-AGT Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 10 of 12
`
`The costs of response incurred by SMIC in connection with the
`49.
`releases from the dry cleaning equipment and Property have been necessary and
`incurred in a manner consistent with the National Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. Part
`300.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to CERCLA §107(a), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), the Estate of
`50.
`Masciola, Miu Chiang Jue, Clemen Jue, Mabel Wong, Eaton, MFI, and Does 1-10
`are each strictly, jointly and severally liable for the past and future costs of
`response incurred and to be incurred by SMIC in response to the release or
`threatened release of hazardous substances at and from the dry cleaning equipment
`and Property.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELEIF
`(Declaratory Relief Under Federal Law)
`
`SMIC incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein,
`51.
`Paragraphs 1-50 of this Complaint.
`52. An actual, substantial, and justiciable controversy exists between
`SMIC and Defendants. SMIC contends that Defendants are responsible for
`addressing the contamination at and emanating from the former dry cleaning
`equipment and Property and, on information and belief, Defendants dispute this.
`53.
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, SMIC desires and is entitled
`to a declaration of the parties’ respective rights and duties, including a declaration
`that Defendants are responsible for investigating, remediating, and mitigating the
`contamination at and emanating from the dry cleaning equipment and Property. No
`
`9
`SAN MATEO INVESTMENT CO. COMPLAINT
`Civ. No. 22-3291
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03291-AGT Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 11 of 12
`
`adequate or speedy remedy exists for SMIC in the absence of such a judicial
`declaration. Accordingly, SMIC requests a declaration from the Court setting forth
`Defendants’ liability for all costs and/or damages resulting from releases at and
`from the dry cleaning equipment and Property.
`
`
`54. A declaratory judgment is proper because it will obviate the need for
`multiple suits and provide a complete determination of the rights and obligations of
`the parties.
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Declaratory Relief Under CERCLA)
`
`SMIC incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein,
`55.
`Paragraphs 1-54 of this Complaint.
`There is a present and actual controversy between SMIC and
`56.
`Defendants concerning their respective rights and obligations with respect to costs
`of response incurred in connection with the contamination at and emanating from
`the dry cleaning equipment and Property.
`57.
`Pursuant to § 113(g)(2) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9613(g)(2), and 28
`U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, SMIC requests a declaration holding Defendants liable
`for all costs and/or damages resulting from releases from the dry cleaning
`equipment and Property.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`WHEREFORE, SMIC prays for judgment and relief as follows:
`On the First Claim for Relief, for cost recovery under CERCLA §
`1.
`107(a), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), according to proof;
`On the Second and Third Claims for Relief, for a declaration and an
`2.
`10
`SAN MATEO INVESTMENT CO. COMPLAINT
`Civ. No. 22-3291
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03291-AGT Document 1 Filed 06/06/22 Page 12 of 12
`
`order retaining jurisdiction to effectuate a declaration that Defendants are liable for
`costs incurred to respond to the release and threatened release of hazardous
`
`substances at or from the dry cleaning equipment and Property;
`For attorneys fees and costs to the extent permitted by law.
`3.
`For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
`4.
`
`DATED: June 6, 2022
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`EDGCOMB LAW GROUP, LLP
`By: /s/Tiffany R. Hedgpeth
`Tiffany R. Hedgpeth
`thedgpeth@edgcomb-law.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`San Mateo Investment Co.
`
`11
`SAN MATEO INVESTMENT CO. COMPLAINT
`Civ. No. 22-3291
`
`
`
`