`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-1647
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
` v.
`
`BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS TIRE
`OPERATIONS, LLC,
`
`LEAR SIEGLER DIVERSIFIED
`HOLDINGS CORP., and
`
`FERODO AMERICA, LLC,
`
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff, the United States of America, by the authority of the Attorney General of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`United States of America, on behalf of the Administrator of the United States Environmental
`
`Protection Agency (“EPA”), and by and through its undersigned attorneys, alleges that:
`
`
`
`1.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`This is a civil action brought against Defendants Bridgestone Americas Tire
`
`Operations LLC, Lear Siegler Diversified Holdings Corp., and Ferodo America, LLC,
`
`(collectively, the “Defendants”) pursuant to Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental
`
`Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C.
`
`§ 9607. The United States seeks to recover unreimbursed costs incurred for response activities
`
`undertaken in response to the release and threatened release of a hazardous substance, asbestos,
`
`at and from the New Castle Asbestos Site (the “Site”), located at 1112 South 25th Street in New
`
`Castle, Indiana. The United States also seeks a declaratory judgment that the Defendants are
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01647-RLY-MJD Document 1 Filed 08/19/22 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 2
`
`liable for future response costs that the United States may incur in connection with response
`
`actions that may be performed at the Site.
`
`2.
`
`The United States also seeks interest from the Defendants, pursuant to Section
`
`107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a).
`
`
`
`3.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action and the Defendants pursuant to
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345 because this is a civil action commenced by the United States that
`
`arises under the laws of the United States. This Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over
`
`this action pursuant to Sections 107 and 113(b) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9607 and 9613(b),
`
`because it concerns controversies arising under CERCLA.
`
`4.
`
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to Section 113(b) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
`
`§ 9613(b), and 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b) and (c) because the claims arose and the threatened
`
`and actual releases of a hazardous substance occurred in this district.
`
`
`
`5.
`
`BACKGROUND ON THE SITE AND THE STATUTE
`The Site is located in a mixed residential, commercial, and light industrial area. It
`
`includes approximately 9.34 acres of land that was once occupied by a car parts manufacturing
`
`facility owned and operated successively by legal predecessors of the Defendants.
`
`6.
`
`Asbestos was used in the manufacture of automotive products at the facility until
`
`approximately 1988.
`
`7.
`
`Brake shoe manufacturing at the facility resulted in the generation of waste brake
`
`shoe dust, which contained asbestos. This dust spread throughout the main manufacturing
`
`building and to grounds outside the building.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01647-RLY-MJD Document 1 Filed 08/19/22 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 3
`
`8.
`
`As confirmed by a promotional video produced in the 1950’s by World Bestos
`
`Company, a division of the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company that operated at the Site,
`
`asbestos comprised about half of a typical brake lining compound made by the company. See
`
`https://youtu.be/eugWRMfycss.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`Building materials used in structures at the Site also contained asbestos.
`
`In April 2012, there was a large fire inside a vacant building on the property.
`
`As a result of the fire, the building was demolished, and demolition debris was left in piles on the
`
`property.
`
`
`
`A.
`
`11.
`
`Response Activities by the United States
`
`On May 7-8, 2013, EPA performed a site assessment to determine if asbestos was
`
`present at the Site. EPA collected samples from 22 large piles of debris for laboratory analysis.
`
`EPA’s sampling results indicate the presence of asbestos within 12 of the 22 debris piles at the
`
`Site.
`
`12.
`
`An EPA On-Scene Coordinator observed fragments of brake parts in one of the
`
`debris piles during the site assessment.
`
`13.
`
`A diagram of the Site, with the location of debris piles, outlined in orange and
`
`identified by their number, is included below.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01647-RLY-MJD Document 1 Filed 08/19/22 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 4
`
`
`
`14.
`
`Between November 2016 and May 2017, an EPA contractor completed additional
`
`assessment work at the Site, which included sampling and analysis of multiple whole and
`
`crumbled brake pads scattered across a gravel path and an overgrown area on about two acres of
`
`the southeastern side of the Site.
`
`a.
`
`In addition to observing brake pad debris on the surface of the ground,
`
`EPA uncovered additional, buried brake pad debris after performing a 6-inch soil scrape
`
`of the area.
`
`b.
`
`The EPA contractor’s analysis found that the brake pad samples contained
`
`from 10%-50% chrysotile asbestos.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01647-RLY-MJD Document 1 Filed 08/19/22 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 5
`
`c.
`
`The EPA contractor’s analysis also found that the asbestos in many of the
`
`brake pad samples had become friable with age because the material had started to
`
`degrade with exposure to the elements.
`
`15.
`
`Asbestos is classified as a “hazardous substance” under CERCLA. See 42 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 9601(14), 9602(a); 40 C.F.R. § 302.4.
`
`16.
`
`EPA determined that the presence of uncontrolled asbestos-containing material at
`
`the Site necessitated a time critical removal action.
`
`17.
`
`During the removal action, which occurred between May and July 2017, EPA
`
`excavated and disposed of debris piles, whole and crumbled brake pads, contaminated soils, and
`
`pits containing asbestos-containing material. In total, EPA removed approximately 6,928 tons of
`
`asbestos-contaminated material and transported it off-Site for disposal.
`
`18.
`
` The City of New Castle took title to the Site in 2015 and currently controls the
`
`property. EPA is considering whether any further federal action is necessary.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`19.
`
`Response Costs
`
`CERCLA Section 107(a)(4)(A), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4)(A), authorizes the United
`
`States to recover costs that it incurs in response to the release and threatened release of hazardous
`
`substances, to the extent such costs are not inconsistent with the National Contingency Plan
`
`(“NCP”).
`
`20.
`
`CERCLA Section 107(a), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), imposes liability for response
`
`costs on certain classes of potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”), including parties that owned
`
`or operated a facility at the time of disposal of a hazardous substance.
`
`21.
`
`CERCLA Section 113(g)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 9613(g)(2), provides, in pertinent part:
`
`“In any such action [for recovery of costs] . . . , the court shall enter a declaratory judgment on
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01647-RLY-MJD Document 1 Filed 08/19/22 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 6
`
`liability for response costs or damages that will be binding on any subsequent action or actions to
`
`recover further response costs or damages.”
`
`22.
`
`EPA incurred costs in connection with response actions at the Site, including the
`
`actions described above.
`
`23.
`
`As of September 2020, EPA has incurred at least $1,981,664.43 in unreimbursed
`
`response costs associated with the Site.
`
`24.
`
`The above-referenced response costs incurred by the United States qualify as
`
`costs of “response” and “costs of removal or remedial action incurred by the United States
`
`Government” under CERCLA Sections 101(25) and 107(a)(4)(A), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(25) and
`
`9607(a)(4)(A).
`
`25.
`
`The United States incurred the above-referenced response costs in a manner not
`
`inconsistent with the NCP.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`The United States may continue to incur response costs associated with the Site.
`
`The amounts recoverable in an action under CERCLA Section 107(a)(4)(A),
`
`42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4)(A), include statutory prejudgment interest on the response costs. Such
`
`interest accrues from the later of: (i) the date that payment of a specified amount is demanded in
`
`writing or (ii) the date of the expenditure concerned.
`
`28.
`
`The United States made a written demand for payment of a specified amount of
`
`unreimbursed response costs in a May 13, 2020 correspondence addressed to representatives of
`
`each of the Defendants.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS AND ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO THE
`DEFENDANTS
`The Site is a “facility,” within the meaning of CERCLA §§ 101(9) and 107(a),
`
`29.
`
`
`
`42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(9) and 9607(a).
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01647-RLY-MJD Document 1 Filed 08/19/22 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 7
`
`30.
`
`There have been “releases” and “threatened releases” of asbestos at the Site which
`
`have caused the incurrence of response costs by EPA, within the meaning of CERCLA
`
`§§ 101(22) and 107(a), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(22) and 9607(a).
`
`
`
`A.
`
`31.
`
`Corporate History of Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations LLC
`
`Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations LLC (“Bridgestone Americas”) is a
`
`“person” within the meaning of CERCLA §§ 101(21), 42 U.S.C. § 9601(21).
`
`32.
`
`Bridgestone Americas is a legal successor to a predecessor in interest that was an
`
`“owner” and/or “operator” of the Site at the time of disposal of asbestos at the Site, within the
`
`meaning of CERCLA §§ 101(20)(A) and 107(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(2)(A), 9607(a)(2), as
`
`described further below.
`
`33.
`
`Bridgestone Americas is a corporate successor to an Ohio predecessor corporation
`
`known as The Firestone Tire & Rubber Company (“Firestone Tire & Rubber”).
`
`
`
`a.
`
`Firestone Tire & Rubber was formed in 1900 and incorporated in the State
`
`of Ohio in 1910.
`
`b.
`
`In 1989, Firestone Tire & Rubber changed its name to
`
`Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.
`
`c.
`
`In 2001, Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. was merged into a Delaware limited
`
`liability company known as Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC.
`
`d.
`
`In 2008, Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC changed its
`
`name to Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations LLC.
`
`34.
`
`Bridgestone Americas is a corporate successor to an Indiana predecessor
`
`corporation known as Firestone Industrial Products Company, Inc. (“Firestone Industrial
`
`Products”).
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01647-RLY-MJD Document 1 Filed 08/19/22 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 8
`
`a.
`
`Firestone Industrial Products was organized in 1937 under the laws of the
`
`State of Indiana.
`
`b.
`
`Firestone Industrial Products was a wholly owned direct or indirect
`
`subsidiary of Firestone Tire & Rubber.
`
`c.
`
`Firestone Industrial Products operated as a division of Firestone Tire &
`
`Rubber.
`
`d.
`
`Firestone Industrial Products was liquidated in 1947 and all of its assets
`
`and property were transferred to Firestone Tire & Rubber.
`
`e.
`
`Upon or before the liquidation of Firestone Industrial Products, Firestone
`
`Tire & Rubber assumed all liabilities associated with the prior business of Firestone
`
`Industrial Products. (The connection between Firestone Tire & Rubber and Bridgestone
`
`Americas is described in the prior paragraph.)
`
`35.
`
`Bridgestone Americas is a corporate successor to a predecessor corporation
`
`known as World Bestos Corporation (“World Bestos”).
`
`a.
`
`In 1938, World Bestos was acquired by Firestone Tire & Rubber, and
`
`World Bestos became a wholly owned direct or indirect subsidiary of Firestone Tire &
`
`Rubber.
`
`b.
`
`After being acquired by Firestone Tire & Rubber, World Bestos operated
`
`as a division of Firestone Tire & Rubber.
`
`c.
`
`By the 1960s, World Bestos was liquidated and all assets and property of
`
`World Bestos were transferred to Firestone Tire & Rubber.
`
`d.
`
`Upon or before the liquidation of World Bestos, Firestone Tire & Rubber
`
`assumed all liabilities associated with the prior business of World Bestos. (The
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01647-RLY-MJD Document 1 Filed 08/19/22 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 9
`
`connection between Firestone Tire & Rubber and Bridgestone Americas is described in
`
`Paragraph 33.)
`
`36. When World Bestos was acquired by Firestone Tire & Rubber in 1938, World
`
`Bestos made asbestos-containing brake lining at a single plant located in Patterson, New Jersey.
`
`37.
`
`Firestone Industrial Products purchased the Site property in New Castle, Indiana,
`
`in 1942.
`
`38.
`
`In 1942, the World Bestos asbestos-containing brake lining production operations
`
`in Patterson, New Jersey, were moved to the Site property in New Castle, Indiana.
`
`39.
`
`All asbestos-containing brake lining production operations of Firestone Tire &
`
`Rubber’s World Bestos division were conducted at the Site property until Firestone Tire &
`
`Rubber sold the Site property and all other assets of its World Bestos division to Royal
`
`Industries, Inc. in February 1975.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`40.
`
`Corporate History of Lear Siegler Diversified Holdings Corp.
`
`Lear Siegler Diversified Holdings Corp. (“Lear Siegler”) is a “person” within the
`
`meaning of CERCLA §§ 101(21), 42 U.S.C. § 9601(21).
`
`41.
`
`Lear Siegler is a legal successor to a predecessor in interest that was an “owner”
`
`and/or “operator” of the Site at the time of disposal of asbestos at the Site, within the meaning of
`
`CERCLA §§ 101(20)(A) and 107(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(2)(A), 9607(a)(2).
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`Lear Siegler, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware on December 21, 1950.
`
`In February 1975, Royal Industries, Inc. purchased the New Castle Site property
`
`and all other assets of the World Bestos division from Firestone Tire & Rubber. The World
`
`Bestos business was subsequently operated as a division of Royal Industries, Inc.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01647-RLY-MJD Document 1 Filed 08/19/22 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 10
`
`44.
`
`In 1977, Lear Siegler, Inc. acquired all of the outstanding stock of Royal
`
`Industries, Inc., and Royal Industries, Inc. became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lear Siegler,
`
`Inc.
`
`45.
`
`46.
`
` In 1979, Royal Industries, Inc. was merged into Lear Siegler, Inc.
`
`In August 1979, Lear Siegler, Inc. sold the assets of the World Bestos division to
`
`Nuturn Corporation and Manchester Realty Company, Inc.
`
`47.
`
`Lear Siegler Diversified Holdings Corp. was incorporated in Delaware on January
`
`23, 1987.
`
`48.
`
`In February 1987, Lear Siegler, Inc. was merged out of existence. The liabilities
`
`relating to the former World Bestos division were transferred to Lear Siegler Diversified
`
`Holdings Corp.
`
`49.
`
`On July 26, 2018, Lear Siegler Diversified Holdings Corp. filed a Certificate of
`
`Dissolution in Delaware.
`
`
`
`C.
`
`50.
`
`Corporate History of Ferodo America, LLC
`
`Ferodo America, LLC (“Ferodo”) is a “person” within the meaning of CERCLA
`
`§§ 101(21), 42 U.S.C. § 9601(21).
`
`51.
`
`Ferodo is a legal successor to a predecessor in interest that was an “owner” and/or
`
`“operator” of the Site at the time of disposal of asbestos at the Site, within the meaning of
`
`CERCLA §§ 101(20)(A) and 107(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(2)(A), 9607(a)(2)
`
`Ferodo’s Early History
`
`52.
`
`Ferodo is a corporate successor to a Delaware predecessor corporation named
`
`Nuturn Corporation (“Nuturn”) and a Delaware predecessor named Manchester Realty
`
`Company, Inc. (“Manchester Realty”).
`
`a.
`
`Nuturn was incorporated in Delaware in 1977.
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01647-RLY-MJD Document 1 Filed 08/19/22 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 11
`
`b.
`
`In August 1979, a corporate successor to Royal Industries, Inc. sold the
`
`assets of its World Bestos division – including the Site property – to Nuturn and
`
`Manchester Realty. In that transaction, Manchester Realty acquired the Site property and
`
`Nuturn acquired the other assets of the World Bestos asbestos-containing brake lining
`
`production business. In 1984, Manchester Realty merged with Nuturn.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`In 1991, Nuturn changed its name to Ferodo America, Inc.
`
`In 1998, Federal-Mogul Corporation (“Federal-Mogul”) acquired control
`
`of Ferodo America, Inc., and Ferodo America, Inc. became an indirect subsidiary of
`
`Federal-Mogul.
`
`e.
`
`In 2003, Ferodo America, Inc. sold the Site property to the Henry County
`
`Redevelopment Commission.
`
`f.
`
`In 2017, Ferodo America, Inc. was converted to a Delaware limited
`
`liability company named Ferodo America, LLC.
`
`53.
`
`Ferodo’s corporate predecessor – Nuturn – manufactured asbestos-containing
`
`brake linings at the Site from 1979 until at least 1988.
`
`The Federal-Mogul Bankruptcy
`
`54.
`
`Federal-Mogul and certain of its subsidiaries, including Ferodo America, Inc.,
`
`(“the Debtors”), filed a petition for bankruptcy on October 1, 2001.
`
`55.
`
`As part of the bankruptcy process, on December 1, 2004, the Debtors entered into
`
`an Environmental Settlement Agreement that allows the United States to bring CERCLA claims
`
`against the Debtors for their acts and omissions predating the petition for bankruptcy.
`
`56.
`
`The Environmental Settlement Agreement provides that the Debtors are required
`
`to pay response costs at Sites like this one if a claim for response costs is liquidated by a
`
`settlement or judgment to a determined amount.
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01647-RLY-MJD Document 1 Filed 08/19/22 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: 12
`
`57.
`
`In the event of such a liquidation of claims, the responsible Debtor must pay the
`
`response costs as if they had been an unsecured claim in the bankruptcy: at 35 cents on the
`
`dollar.
`
`D.
`
`58.
`
`Disposal of Asbestos by Bridgestone Americas, Lear Siegler, and Ferodo
`
`The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (“NIOSH”) performed
`
`air sampling for asbestos at the facility in 1969 and 1971, when it was owned and operated by
`
`Firestone Tire & Rubber.
`
`59.
`
`The 1971 sampling found that average asbestos exposures in the dry mixing, wet
`
`mixing, block preforming, sheet preforming, mercury clutch preforming, finish grinding,
`
`sanding, multiple drill operator, transmission band inspection, and dry mix inspection areas
`
`exceeded the NIOSH standard.
`
`60.
`
`In February 1974, OSHA issued a citation to Firestone Tire & Rubber for failure
`
`to maintain employees’ exposures to asbestos dust below the NIOSH standard.
`
`61.
`
`In January 1984, NIOSH received a request for a Health Hazard Evaluation from
`
`Nuturn to evaluate workers’ exposures to asbestos during the manufacture of brake shoe linings.
`
`NIOSH conducted an evaluation in June 1984 and documented asbestos in numerous air
`
`samples, concluding that a health hazard existed.
`
`62.
`
`Federal-Mogul commissioned a Phase I environmental investigation in August
`
`1999 in preparation for a potential sale of the Site property.
`
`63.
`
`The report on that 1999 Phase I environmental investigation noted that:
`
`Asbestos was an ingredient of the brake shoes and other friction products
`manufactured at the facility until the late 1980s. For example, Nuturn reported to
`the EPA that they consumed 1,926 tons of Chyrsotile asbestos in 1980 and 2,394
`tons in 1981. The asbestos content of brake shoe dust during this period was
`estimated at approximately 50 percent.
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01647-RLY-MJD Document 1 Filed 08/19/22 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: 13
`
`64.
`
`The 1999 Phase I investigation report found that “Brake shoe manufacturing at
`
`the facility resulted in the generation of waste brake shoe dust” and that that brake shoe dust had
`
`components of asbestos prior to 1988.
`
`65.
`
`The report also noted that the brake shoe dust “was observed throughout the main
`
`manufacturing building . . . and in areas on the ground outside the buildings.”
`
`66.
`
`The report further found “Scrap brake shoes and other debris . . .” in the “coal
`
`pile” area in the north east corner of the facility. The report continued that “[t]opography in the
`
`area and disturbed earth in a 1961 aerial photograph suggest that fill has been placed in this
`
`area.”
`
`2000.
`
`67.
`
`Federal Mogul also commissioned an asbestos abatement action at the Site in
`
`68. Work logs from Federal Mogul’s asbestos abatement report, dated October 2000,
`
`describe “visible dust clouds” from power-washed asbestos-containing pipes “blowing outside”
`
`from the facility as a result of asbestos abatement activities.
`
`Disposal of Asbestos by Bridgestone Americas
`
`69.
`
`On information and belief, the former production building at the Site (and its
`
`ventilation systems) discharged asbestos dust from Firestone Tire & Rubber’s brake lining
`
`manufacturing operations within the production building and to outside areas at the Site.
`
`70.
`
`On information and belief, Firestone Tire & Rubber also disposed of unsalable
`
`asbestos-containing brake linings in pits, piles, and other areas at the Site.
`
`71.
`
`One or more corporate predecessors of Bridgestone Americas therefore
`
`“disposed” of asbestos-containing materials at the Site while owning or operating the brake
`
`lining manufacturing facility at the Site, within the meaning of CERCLA §§ 101(29) and
`
`107(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(2), 9607(a)(2).
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01647-RLY-MJD Document 1 Filed 08/19/22 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: 14
`
`Disposal of Asbestos by Lear Siegler
`
`72.
`
`On information and belief, the former production building at the Site (and its
`
`ventilation systems) discharged asbestos dust from Royal Industries’ and Lear Siegler, Inc.’s
`
`brake lining manufacturing operations within the production building and to outside areas at the
`
`Site.
`
`73.
`
`On information and belief, Royal Industries and Lear Siegler, Inc. also disposed
`
`of unsalable asbestos-containing brake linings in pits, piles, and other areas at the Site.
`
`74.
`
`One or more corporate predecessors of Lear Siegler Diversified Holdings Corp.
`
`therefore “disposed” of asbestos-containing materials at the Site while owning or operating the
`
`brake lining manufacturing facility at the Site, within the meaning of CERCLA §§ 101(29) and
`
`107(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(2), 9607(a)(2).
`
`Disposal of Asbestos by Ferodo
`
`75.
`
`On information and belief, the former production building at the Site (and its
`
`ventilation systems) discharged asbestos dust from Nuturn’s operations within the production
`
`building and to outside areas at the Site.
`
`76.
`
`On information and belief, Nuturn also disposed of unsalable asbestos-containing
`
`brake linings in pits, piles, and other areas at the Site.
`
`77.
`
`One or more corporate predecessors of Ferodo Americas therefore “disposed” of
`
`asbestos-containing materials at the Site while owning or operating the brake lining
`
`manufacturing facility at the Site, within the meaning of CERCLA §§ 101(29) and 107(a)(2),
`
`42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(2), 9607(a)(2).
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Cost Recovery under CERCLA Section 107, 42 U.S.C. § 9607)
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01647-RLY-MJD Document 1 Filed 08/19/22 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 15
`
`78.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 77 above are realleged and incorporated herein by
`
`reference.
`
`79.
`
`Defendants, as successors to their predecessors in interest, are jointly and
`
`severally liable to the United States for all unreimbursed response costs incurred by the United
`
`States in connection with the Site pursuant to CERCLA Section 107(a), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a).
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Declaratory Judgment for Recovery of Further Response Costs by the United States)
`
`80.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 77 above are realleged and incorporated herein by
`
`reference.
`
`81.
`
`Each of the Defendants is liable to the United States for any unreimbursed further
`
`response costs that the United States incurs in connection with releases of hazardous substances
`
`at the Site, not inconsistent with the NCP, pursuant to CERCLA §§ 107(a) and 113(g)(2), 42
`
`U.S.C. §§ 9607(a) and 9613(g)(2), and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, the United States of America, respectfully requests that this
`
`
`
`Court:
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Enter judgment in favor of the United States and against the above-named
`
`Defendants, jointly and severally, for all response costs incurred by the United States, as well as
`
`prejudgment interest, for response actions in connection with the Site;
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Enter a declaratory judgment in favor of the United States and against the above-
`
`named Defendants for any unreimbursed further response costs that the United States incurs in
`
`connection with the Site, not inconsistent with the NCP;
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Award the United States the costs of this action; and
`15
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01647-RLY-MJD Document 1 Filed 08/19/22 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: 16
`
`4. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Todd Kim
`Assistant Attorney General
`Environment and Natural Resources Division
`United States Department of Justice
`
`
`____________________________
`Pedro Segura, Trial Attorney
`United States Department of Justice
`Environmental Enforcement Section
`Environment & Natural Resources Division
`P.O. Box 7611
`Ben Franklin Station
`Washington, D.C. 20044
`(202) 532-3153
`Pedro.Segura@usdoj.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Zachary A. Meyers
` United States Attorney
` Southern District of Indiana
`
` J. Taylor Kirklin
`Assistant United States Attorney
`United States Attorney's Office
`10 W Market St, Suite 2100
`Indianapolis, IN 46204
`taylor.kirklin@usdoj.gov
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Adam Mittermaier
`Assistant Regional Counsel
`U.S. EPA - Region 5
`77 West Jackson Blvd.
`Chicago, Illinois 60604
`mittermaier.adam@epa.gov
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01647-RLY-MJD Document 1 Filed 08/19/22 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: 17
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`In accordance with Paragraph 36 of the Consent Decree signed by Lear Siegler Diversified
`Holdings Corp., I certify that on this date I caused copies of the foregoing Complaint to be
`served on the following individuals by electronic mail:
`
`For Lear Siegler Diversified Holdings Corp.:
`James F. Matthews
`Former President, Lear Siegler Diversified Holdings Corp.
`1402 Bellezza Lane
`Naples, FL, 34110
`LSDHC1997@gmail.com
`
`In accordance with Paragraph 39 of the Consent Decree with Bridgestone Americas Tire
`Operations, LLC and Ferodo America, LLC, I certify that on this date I caused copies of the
`foregoing Complaint to be served on the following individuals by mail and electronic mail:
`
`
`For Ferodo America, LLC:
`Mary Ellen Hogan
`Associate General Counsel, Environmental Health Safety & Security
`Tenneco
`7450 N. McCormick Blvd.
`Skokie, IL, 60076
`MHogan@driv.com
`
`For Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC:
`David Dumas
`Associate General Counsel, Legal Recoveries and Environmental Litigation
`Bridgestone Americas, Inc.
`200 4th Avenue South
`Nashville, TN, 37201
`DavidDumas@bfusa.com
`
`Dated: August 19, 2022
`
`___________________________
`Pedro Segura, Trial Attorney
`United States Department of Justice
`Environmental Enforcement Section
`Environment & Natural Resources Division
`P.O. Box 7611
`Ben Franklin Station
`Washington, D.C. 20044
`(202) 532-3153
`Pedro.Segura@usdoj.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`