`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`REVERE DOCK, LLC,
`ERICKSON’S INC., and
`NEWCORP, INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`DETROIT BULK STORAGE,
`INC.,
`
`Case No.: 2:22-cv-10619
`Hon.
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendant.
`__________________________________________________________________/
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiffs, Revere Dock, LLC (“Revere”), Erickson’s Inc. (“Erickson’s”), and
`
`Newcorp, Inc. (“Newcorp”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by and through their
`
`attorneys, Butzel Long, a professional corporation, state as follows:
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`1.
`
`This case arises out of the November 26, 2019 collapse (the “Collapse”)
`
`of the riverbank and a dock on the Detroit River located at 5851 West Jefferson
`
`Avenue, Detroit, Michigan (the “Property”). The Collapse was caused by the
`
`wrongful conduct of Defendant, Detroit Bulk Storage, Inc. (“DBS”), which
`
`conducted its business at the Property at the time in question pursuant to a lease
`
`between DBS and Revere, the owner of the Property.
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10619-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 03/23/22 Page 2 of 24
`
`
`
`2.
`
`The Property included a commercial dock. The Collapse occurred
`
`because DBS improperly loaded and stored on the Property thousands of tons of
`
`materials such as sand, gravel and/or crushed stone (collectively, “Aggregate”). The
`
`Collapse resulted in the Aggregate, as well as the asphalt pad and other surface
`
`materials on which the Aggregate was placed (collectively, the “Released
`
`Materials”), sinking into the earth and pushing the earthen material through the
`
`seawall of the dock and into the Detroit River. The Property has been in heavy
`
`industrial use for over a century, and DBS knew or should have known that the
`
`earthen material under the Aggregate pile contained hazardous substances.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs have incurred significant costs as a result of the Collapse.
`
`Accordingly, they bring this lawsuit: (i) as to claims brought under state and federal
`
`environmental statutes, to recover or obtain contribution toward response costs; (ii)
`
`as to the remining claims, to obtain an award of damages; and (iii) as to all claims,
`
`to obtain additional relief, such as interest and attorney’s fees, as appropriate under
`
`the various Counts.
`
`PARTIES
`
`4.
`
`Revere is a Michigan limited liability company with its principal place
`
`of business in North Muskegon, Michigan.
`
`5.
`
`Erickson’s is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of
`
`business in North Muskegon, Michigan.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10619-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 03/23/22 Page 3 of 24
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Newcorp is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of business
`
`in North Muskegon, Michigan.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Revere and Erickson’s are subsidiaries of Newcorp.
`
`DBS is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of business in
`
`Wayne County, Michigan.
`
`9.
`
`On information and belief, DBS is a transporter and provider of dry
`
`bulk material, including aggregate, by truck and navigable water, including along
`
`the Detroit River.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`10. Subject matter jurisdiction is proper with respect to Counts VII and
`
`VIII, brought under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
`
`and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et. seq., pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 9613(b), and with respect to the remaining claims pursuant to
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`
`11. Subject matter jurisdiction is also proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333,
`
`because an integral part of DBS’s use of the Property involved maritime activity,
`
`that is, the unloading of Aggregate and other materials from ships in navigable
`
`waters. For clarity, Plaintiffs invoke jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333 only if and
`
`to the extent jurisdiction does not exist on the grounds set forth in ¶ 10.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10619-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 03/23/22 Page 4 of 24
`
`
`
`12. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)
`
`because the events giving rise to the claims occurred within this District and the
`
`Defendant has its principal place of business in this District. Venue is also proper
`
`pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 9613(b) because the release or damages occurred in this
`
`District, and because this is the District in which the Defendant resides, may be
`
`found, and has its principal office.
`
`13. Personal jurisdiction over the Defendant is proper because the
`
`Defendant has its principal place of business in Michigan and availed itself of the
`
`privilege of doing business within this State.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`The Property
`14. The Property is located at 5851 West Jefferson Avenue, Detroit,
`
`Michigan on the south side of West Jefferson Avenue between South Cavalry Street
`
`and Junction Street. The Property is located on the Detroit River and includes a
`
`commercial dock.
`
`15. Revere is the owner of the Property.
`
`16. DBS was a lessee of the Property.
`
`17. The Property was utilized for industrial purposes from at least 1908
`
`until the mid-1980’s. A portion of the Property was developed in the early 1900’s
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10619-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 03/23/22 Page 5 of 24
`
`
`
`for the Michigan Copper and Brass Company, which later became the Revere
`
`Copper and Brass Company.
`
`18. Revere Copper and Brass vacated the Property in 1985, and the
`
`Property reverted to the City of Detroit in November 1986. All of the former
`
`buildings associated with the Property were demolished between 1985 and 1986.
`
`19. Revere purchased the Property in 2015 from the City of Detroit.
`
`20.
`
`In connection with its purchase of the Property, Revere caused a Phase
`
`I Environmental Site Assessment to be conducted in accordance with the ASTM
`
`Practice 1527-13 standard and the Federal All Appropriate Inquiry Rule under 40
`
`CFR 312, and Revere caused to be completed and disclosed a Baseline
`
`Environmental Assessment (BEA) in accordance with Part 201 of the Natural
`
`Resources and Environmental Protection Act, Public Act 451 of 1994, as amended
`
`(NREPA).
`
`21. The BEA identified the Property as a “facility” as defined under Part
`
`201 of NREPA, indicating that the Property was impacted with hazardous substances
`
`in excess of applicable Part 201 criteria including, but not limited to arsenic,
`
`cadmium,
`
`chromium,
`
`copper,
`
`lead, mercury,
`
`selenium,
`
`silver,
`
`zinc,
`
`tetrachloroethylene, benzene, ethylbenzene, xylene, naphthalene and phenanthrene.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10619-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 03/23/22 Page 6 of 24
`
`
`
`22. Pursuant to MCL 324.20116, Revere disclosed to DBS that the Property
`
`was a “facility” and that the general nature and extent of known releases thereon are
`
`described in the BEA.
`
`The Lease
`23. Revere and DBS began discussions regarding DBS’s desire to conduct
`
`its business at the Property in or about March 2019.
`
`24. DBS agreed to lease the Property from Revere in June 2019 to conduct
`
`DBS’s business.
`
`25. As an express or implied obligation of the lease, DBS was obligated to,
`
`inter alia:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`not commit waste;
`
`not create a nuisance; and
`
`comply with all applicable state, federal, county and municipal
`
`laws, ordinances and regulations, including environmental laws
`
`(collectively, “Laws”).
`
`26. DBS first paid Revere for use of the Property on or about August 1,
`
`2019.
`
`27. After taking possession of the Property, DBS began unloading on the
`
`Property Aggregate from ships, moving and storing the Aggregate on the Property
`
`and removing the Aggregate from the Property.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10619-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.7 Filed 03/23/22 Page 7 of 24
`
`
`
`The Collapse
`
`28. On November 26, 2019, approximately 200 feet of shoreline along the
`
`portion of the Property adjacent to the Detroit River collapsed (the “Collapse”).
`
`29. The Collapse occurred because DBS overloaded the areas of the
`
`Property on which the Aggregate was stored, that is, it stored too much Aggregate
`
`too close to the River.
`
`30. According
`
`to a report (the “PME Report”)
`
`issued by PM
`
`Environmental, Inc. (“PME”), “[t]he presence of the aggregate stockpile resulted in
`
`apparent rotational slope failure that displaced soils downward within and outward
`
`from the subject property to an area of the Detroit River immediately east of the
`
`former shoreline boundary.” PME Report at 3. A copy of the PME Report is
`
`attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A.
`
`31. Sampling performed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
`
`PME indicated that as a result of the Collapse, hazardous substances, including but
`
`not limited to arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, silver,
`
`zinc,
`
`tetrachloroethylene, benzene, ethylbenzene, xylene, naphthalene and
`
`phenanthrene, were released at concentrations exceeding Part 201 criteria onto the
`
`river bank and into the Detroit River.
`
`DBS’s Prior Knowledge
`
`32. DBS knew or should have known of the risks posed by the overloading
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10619-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.8 Filed 03/23/22 Page 8 of 24
`
`
`
`of riverfront docks and storing heavy piles of Aggregates too close to the shoreline,
`
`including the risk of collapse and discharge into the Detroit River because, among
`
`other things, it has been in the aggregate storage business for multiple years,
`
`including along the Detroit River in close proximity to the Property.
`
`33. DBS knew or should have known of the presence of hazardous
`
`substances at the Property because, among other things, it knew of the BEA and of
`
`the historical use of the Property.
`
`34. DBS knew or should have known of the City of Detroit permitting
`
`requirements for storing large amounts of Aggregate outdoors and along the river
`
`front, as it has been in the business for multiple years, has stored bulk material in the
`
`city of Detroit previously and, on information and belief, has previously obtained
`
`such permits.
`
`35. The November 2019 Collapse was not the first of its kind for DBS. On
`
`January 28, 2011, a dock owned by U.S. Steel and leased to DBS collapsed under
`
`the weight of more than 100,000 tons of road salt, offloaded at the site by DBS for
`
`Morton Salt Co. U.S. Steel claimed in its lawsuit against DBS that the salt piles
`
`were double the height permitted under DBS’s lease with U.S. Steel.
`
`EGLE’s Involvement
`36. On December 6, 2019, following the Collapse, the Michigan
`
`Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (“EGLE”) conducted a site
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10619-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.9 Filed 03/23/22 Page 9 of 24
`
`
`
`inspection at the Property and in the adjacent waters, including a drone flyover.
`
`During the inspection, EGLE staff confirmed that soils, asphalt, concrete, steel, and
`
`aggregate had been displaced onto the bottomlands and into the Detroit River.
`
`37. After the inspection, EGLE identified several violations of Part 31,
`
`Water Resources Protection, of the Natural Resources and Environmental
`
`Protection Act (“NREPA”), MCL § 324.3101, et seq.; Part 201, Environmental
`
`Remediation, of the NREPA, MCL § 324.20101, et seq.; Part 301, Inland Lakes
`
`and Streams, of the NREPA, MCL § 324.30101, et seq.; and the associated
`
`administrative rules, including:
`
`a.
`
`Discharging of a substance that is or may become injurious to entities
`
`described in Section 3109(1) of Part 31, MCL § 324.3109(1) into the
`
`waters of the state;
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Unlawful occupation and filling of floodplain and stream channel;
`
`Violation of the due care requirements of Part 201 that apply because
`
`of the release of hazardous substances at the Facility and the need to
`
`mitigate off-property risks resulting from erosion of surface soils and
`
`the property; and
`
`d.
`
`Filling of Detroit River bottomlands without the benefit of a permit
`
`under Part 301.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10619-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.10 Filed 03/23/22 Page 10 of 24
`
`
`38. On or about December 11, 2019, EGLE issued a Violation Notice and
`
`Order to Restore, stating that:
`
`The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and
`Energy (EGLE) Water Resources Division (WRD) conducted an
`inspection on December 6, 2019 at the above referenced parcel of
`property. The purpose of the inspection was to evaluate the property
`for compliance with Part 31, Water Resources Protection, and Part
`301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resources and
`Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended (NREPA).
`[]
`At the time of the inspection, the WRD staff observed that a bank
`failure occurred along approximately 200 feet of the property
`shoreline resulting in the discharge of sediment, fill material,
`aggregate and debris to the Detroit River. Please be advised that the
`unauthorized discharge of such material to waters of the State is a
`violation of Part 31 of NREPA.
`
`Further, Section 324.30102 of Part 301 prohibits the fill of
`bottomland without first obtaining a permit from EGLE. A review
`of the WRD files indicates that no permits have been issued for this
`activity at the property. Therefore, it appears that this event has
`resulted in a violation of Part 301.
`
`The violations identified in this Violation Notice are continuing and
`are violations of Part 31 and Part 301 of the NREPA. This letter is
`being sent to you because you have been identified as the property
`owner responsible for the property and therefore must take
`immediate action to achieve and maintain compliance with Part 31
`and Part 301 of NREPA.
`
`In consideration of the requirements of Part 301, the WRD has
`determined that a permit would not have been approved for this
`activity. Therefore, within 15 days of the date of this letter, or a
`mutually agreed upon schedule, you must submit a restoration plan
`to bring the property into compliance with the requirements of Part
`301.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10619-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.11 Filed 03/23/22 Page 11 of 24
`
`
`39. On December 11, 2019, EGLE issued Compliance Communications to
`
`both Revere and DBS as the owner and operator of the Property, respectively, stating
`
`that EGLE staff “confirmed that contaminated soils, asphalt and aggregate were
`
`observed to have entered the Detroit River” and “hazardous substances are present
`
`in soils at the Property at levels that may pose a potential unacceptable exposure via
`
`contact with those soils…[,]” and EGLE notified Revere as the owner and DBS as
`
`the operator of the Property that, pursuant to Part 201, Rule 1013(1)(b), Revere and
`
`DBS were “required to undertake response activities as necessary to mitigate off
`
`property risks resulting from erosion of surface soils at the property”.
`
`40. Revere retained PME to assist in addressing EGLE’s requirements.
`
`41. On January 24, 2020, PME submitted an interim response plan to EGLE
`
`on behalf of Revere, outlining the actions being taken to evaluate geotechnical
`
`conditions, control erosion and turbidity, and characterize materials in preparation
`
`of submitting a restoration plan.
`
`42. On March 30, 2020, PME submitted a Restoration Plan to EGLE on
`
`behalf of Revere.
`
`43. On April 15, 2020, EGLE issued an Enforcement Notice to Revere,
`
`offering to resolve the alleged violations through an Administrative Consent Order
`
`(“ACO”).
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10619-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.12 Filed 03/23/22 Page 12 of 24
`
`
`44. On August 17, 2020, Revere entered into an ACO with EGLE. A copy
`
`of the ACO is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit B.
`
`45.
`
`In the ACO, EGLE alleged that as a result of DBS’s storage of
`
`Aggregate, Revere was in violation of MCL § 324.3101, et seq., MCL § 324.20101,
`
`et seq., and MCL § 324.30101, et seq.
`
`46. The ACO required Revere to take multiple actions to remediate the
`
`issues caused by the Collapse. See ACO §§ 3.1-3.10.
`
`47. The ACO required Revere to pay several penalties, including $15,000
`
`“as partial compensation for the cost of investigations and enforcement activities,”
`
`(ACO § 9.1), $45,000 “for the violations specified in Section II of [the ACO]” (ACO
`
`§ 9.2), and $5,000 as a “stipulated penalty” (ACO § 9.3).
`
`Response Activities
`48. As a result of the Collapse, the construction of a new seawall along the
`
`entire eastern boundary of the Property was required to contain and stabilize the
`
`shoreline and prevent further releases into the river.
`
`49. Response activities also included the following activities:
`
`a.
`
`Preparation and submittal of permits for construction and failure
`
`material/sediments;
`
`Re-sampling and delineation of activities;
`
`Installation of construction-phase erosion and turbidity controls;
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10619-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.13 Filed 03/23/22 Page 13 of 24
`
`
`d.
`
`Removal of debris immediately east of the existing dock to
`
`facilitate sea wall construction;
`
`e.
`
`Installation (driven) of new seal wall pipe piles and sheet pile
`
`panels immediately east of the current dock and installation of
`
`battered piles further west;
`
`f.
`
`Removal of the current dock structure in combination with
`
`installation of associated tiebacks and dead-men, backfilling, and
`
`concrete cap installation;
`
`g.
`
`Removal and proper disposal of riverbank failure material and
`
`sediment to a depth of 27-feet below river surface;
`
`h.
`
`Reporting and
`
`regulatory submittals,
`
`including as-built
`
`documentation for sea wall construction and riverbank failure
`
`material and sediment removal/disposal activities;
`
`Preparation of a post-construction Documentation of Due Care
`
`Compliance report; and
`
`Restoration of the Great Lakes Water Authority’s outfall located
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`on the Property.
`
`50. Plaintiffs have incurred significant costs in connection with the
`
`response activities, which costs were reasonably incurred under the circumstances
`
`and are necessary costs of response consistent with the National Contingency Plan.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10619-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.14 Filed 03/23/22 Page 14 of 24
`
`
`City of Detroit Settlement
`51. The City of Detroit sued Revere and DBS in the Circuit Court of Wayne
`
`County because of the Collapse (the “City of Detroit Case”). The City of Detroit
`
`Case was City of Detroit v. 5851 W. Jefferson Detroit, MI 48209, et. al, No. 20-
`
`001163-CH (Wayne Cty. Cir. Ct.).
`
`52. On May 7, 2020 the court in that case accepted a settlement between
`
`the City and Revere (the “Settlement”).
`
`53. The Settlement required Revere to take multiple actions, including:
`
`a.
`
`Submitting a building permit application for use of the subject
`
`property for outdoor storage;
`
`b.
`
`Submitting a certificate of operation for bulk material storage
`
`application;
`
`c.
`
`Submitting a building permit application for the existing asphalt
`
`pad;
`
`Obtaining a geotechnical report;
`
`Submitting a copy of the bank restoration plan;
`
`Submitting a building permit application for bank restoration;
`
`Completing bank restoration; and
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h. Making payment to the City of Detroit in the amount of $63,000.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10619-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.15 Filed 03/23/22 Page 15 of 24
`
`
`54. On or about September 7, 2020, the City and DBS entered into a
`
`stipulated order of dismissal for the City of Detroit Case.
`
`55. DBS was required to pay $11,570 to the City, and the City retained
`
`DBS’s $3,430 bond.
`
`CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`
`COUNT I — Breach of Lease (Revere only)
`
`56. Revere incorporates paragraphs 1-55 by reference.
`
`57. DBS breached its agreement with Revere by, among other things,
`
`committing waste, creating a nuisance and not complying with applicable Laws.
`
`58. Revere has been injured by the breach by, inter alia, incurring
`
`substantial costs to remediate and repair the damage caused by DBS and by being
`
`deprived of the beneficial use of the Property.
`
`WHEREFORE, Revere asks that this Court:
`
`A. Award Revere all damages it has suffered on account of the breach,
`
`together with interest; and
`
`B. Award Revere such other and further relief as this Court finds just.
`
`COUNT II — Nuisance (Revere only)
`
`59. Revere incorporates paragraphs 1-55 by reference.
`
`60. By causing the Collapse, DBS interfered with Revere’s use and
`
`enjoyment of the Property and created a nuisance.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10619-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.16 Filed 03/23/22 Page 16 of 24
`
`
`61. The Collapse caused significant harm to Revere.
`
`62. DBS knew or must have known that by overloading the dock, the
`
`Collapse was substantially certain.
`
`63.
`
`In the alternative, DBS caused the Collapse negligently or recklessly.
`
`64. The Collapse was a public nuisance because, inter alia, it created a risk
`
`of harm to the general public because of the release of contaminants into the Detroit
`
`River, in violation of federal and state environmental laws, including, but not limited
`
`to, MCL § 324.3109(1), and therefore is prima facie evidence of a public nuisance
`
`under MCL § 324.3109(6).
`
`65. Although a public nuisance, Revere suffered a type of harm different
`
`and greater than the general public.
`
`66. The Collapse was also a private nuisance.
`
`67. The Collapse was a nuisance per se, because the discharge of
`
`contaminants into the Detroit River is a nuisance at all times and under all
`
`circumstances and because DBS operated its business without obtaining the permits
`
`required under municipal law.
`
`68.
`
`In the alternative, the Collapse was a nuisance in fact, because the
`
`natural tendency of DBS’s actions was to create danger and inflict injury on the
`
`Property.
`
`69. Revere was damaged by DBS’s wrongful conduct.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10619-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.17 Filed 03/23/22 Page 17 of 24
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Revere asks that this Court:
`
`A. Award Revere all damages it has suffered on account of the nuisance,
`
`together with interest; and
`
`B. Award Revere such other and further relief as this Court finds just.
`
`COUNT III — Waste (Common Law) (Revere only)
`
`70. Revere incorporates paragraphs 1-55 by reference.
`
`71. DBS’s conduct was unreasonable and resulted in physical damage to
`
`the Property and a substantial diminution in its value.
`
`72. DBS committed waste to the Property.
`
`73. Revere was damaged by DBS’s waste.
`
`WHEREFORE, Revere asks that this Court:
`
`A. Award Revere all damages it has suffered on account of the waste,
`
`together with interest; and
`
`B. Award Revere such other and further relief as this Court finds just.
`
`COUNT IV — Statutory Waste (MCL § 600.2919) (Revere only)
`74.
` Revere incorporates paragraphs 1-55 by reference.
`
`75.
`
` DBS is a tenant for years within the meaning of MCL § 600.2919(2).
`
`76. DBS’s conduct was unreasonable and resulted in physical damage to
`
`the Property and a substantial diminution in its value.
`
`77. DBS committed waste to the Property by causing the Collapse.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10619-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.18 Filed 03/23/22 Page 18 of 24
`
`
`78. Revere has been damaged by DBS’s waste.
`
`79. Pursuant to MCL § 600.2919, DBS is liable for double damages.
`
`WHEREFORE, Revere asks that this Court:
`
`A. Award Revere two times the damages it has suffered on account of the
`
`nuisance, together with interest; and
`
`B. Award Revere such other and further relief as this Court finds just.
`
`COUNT V — Negligence (Revere only)
`80. Revere incorporates paragraphs 1-55 by reference.
`
`81. DBS owed Revere a duty of care to load, unload and store the
`
`Aggregate so as to not commit waste, cause a nuisance or fail to comply with
`
`applicable Laws.
`
`82. DBS breached its duty of care.
`
`83. Revere has been damaged by DBS’s breach.
`
`WHEREFORE, Revere asks that this Court:
`
`A. Award Revere all damages it has suffered on account of the negligence,
`
`together with interest; and
`
`B. Award Revere such other and further relief as this Court finds just.
`
`COUNT VI — Cost Recovery under Part 201 of NREPA (MCL § 324.20126a)
`(All Plaintiffs)
`84. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1-55 by reference.
`
`85. Plaintiffs bring this Count for cost recovery under Part 201 of NREPA.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10619-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.19 Filed 03/23/22 Page 19 of 24
`
`
`86. Counts VI and VII are pled in the alternative.
`
`87.
`
`In this Count, all terms in quotation marks have the meaning set forth
`
`in MCL § 324.20101, unless otherwise indicated.
`
`88. DBS is an “operator” of the Property and was an “operator” at the time
`
`of the “release” of “hazardous substances” at and from the Property.
`
`89. The Property is a “facility.”
`
`90. DBS’s activities causing the Collapse resulted in a “release” of
`
`“hazardous substances” in excess of applicable Part 201 cleanup criteria along the
`
`riverbank and into the Detroit River.
`
`91. As a result of the Collapse, Plaintiffs have undertaken “response
`
`activit(ies)” and have incurred “response activity costs” reasonably necessary under
`
`the circumstances.
`
`92. DBS caused “discharge” of “hazardous substances” at and from the
`
`“facility” and is a liable party under MCL § 324.20126.
`
`93. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from DBS the “response activity costs”
`
`incurred as a result of DBS’s “release” of “hazardous substances” pursuant to MCL
`
`§ 324.20126a.
`
`94. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and DBS as to
`
`Plaintiffs’ entitlement to recovery of “response activity costs” from DBS.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs ask that this Court:
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10619-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.20 Filed 03/23/22 Page 20 of 24
`
`
`A. Award Plaintiffs all “response activity costs” incurred by them,
`
`together with interest; and
`
`B. Award Plaintiffs such other and further relief as this Court finds just.
`
`COUNT VII — Contribution under Part 201 of NREPA (MCL § 324.20129)
`(All Plaintiffs)
`95. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1-55 by reference.
`
`96. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 85-92 by reference.
`
`97.
`
`If Plaintiffs bear any responsibility for an activity causing the Collapse,
`
`resulting in a “release” of “hazardous substances” at the Property, they acted
`
`independently of DBS and there is a reasonable basis for allocating responsibility.
`
`98. DBS is obligated to contribute toward the “response activity costs”
`
`incurred by Plaintiffs.
`
`99. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and DBS as to the
`
`allocation of responsibility for the “response activity costs.”
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs ask that this Court:
`
`A. Award Plaintiffs DBS’s allocable share of all “response activity costs”
`
`incurred by Plaintiffs, together with interest; and
`
`B. Award Plaintiffs such other and further relief as this Court finds just.
`
`COUNT VIII — Cost Recovery under Part 201 of NREPA
`(MCL § 324.20107a) (All Plaintiffs)
`100. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1-55 by reference.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10619-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.21 Filed 03/23/22 Page 21 of 24
`
`
`101. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 85-92 by reference.
`
`102. If DBS is not otherwise liable for the “environmental contamination,”
`
`the Collapse caused an “exacerbation” of the existing contamination.
`
`103. DBS failed to undertake measures to prevent the “exacerbation.”
`
`104. DBS failed to exercise due care by undertaking response activity
`
`necessary to mitigate unacceptable exposure to hazardous substances.
`
`105. Plaintiffs have incurred “response activity costs” as a result of DBS’s
`
`failure to comply with its obligations under Section 20107a of NREPA.
`
`106. DBS is liable for Plaintiffs’ “response activity costs” attributable to any
`
`exacerbation.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs ask that this Court:
`
`A. Award Plaintiffs DBS’s allocable share of all “response activity costs”
`
`incurred by Plaintiffs, together with interest; and
`
`B. Award Plaintiffs such other and further relief as this Court finds just.
`
`COUNT IX —Cost Recovery under CERCLA
`(42 U.S.C. § 9607) (All Plaintiffs)
`107. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1-55 by reference.
`
`108. Plaintiffs bring this Count pursuant to CERCLA.
`
`109. In this Count, all terms in quotation marks have the meaning set forth
`
`in 42 U.S.C. § 9601, unless otherwise indicated.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10619-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.22 Filed 03/23/22 Page 22 of 24
`
`
`110. DBS was at the time of the “disposal” of “hazardous substances” at the
`
`Property and thereafter, an “operator” of the Property.
`
`111. The Property is a “facility.” DBS knew or had reason to know that it
`
`was a “facility.”
`
`112. DBS’s activities causing the Collapse resulted in the “disposal” of
`
`“hazardous substances” into the “environment.”
`
`113. DBS is responsible for the activity causing the “disposal” of “hazardous
`
`substances” at and from the Property and is a liable person under section 107(a) of
`
`CERCLA.
`
`114. As a result of the Collapse and resulting disposal of hazardous
`
`substances at the Property, Plaintiffs have undertaken “response activity(ies)” and
`
`have incurred necessary costs of “response”.
`
`115. The “response” costs incurred by Plaintiffs were consistent with
`
`the National Contingency Plan.
`
`116. The “release” and/or “disposal” of “hazardous substances” were caused
`
`by DBS’s willful misconduct or willful negligence within the privity or knowledge
`
`of DBS.
`
`117. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 9607, DBS is liable for Plaintiffs’ full and total
`
`cost of “response” and “damages.”
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs ask that this Court:
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10619-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.23 Filed 03/23/22 Page 23 of 24
`
`
`A. Award Plaintiffs all response activity costs, removal actions and
`
`remediation costs incurred by them, together with interest; and
`
`B. Award Plaintiffs such other and further relief as this Court finds just.
`
`COUNT X — Contribution under CERCLA
`(42 U.S.C. § 9613) (All Plaintiffs)
`118. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1-55 by reference.
`
`119. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 109-116 by reference.
`
`120. DBS is a liable person under 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a).
`
`121. Revere has resolved its liability to the State of Michigan in an
`
`administratively approved settlement.
`
`122. DBS is liable for contribution toward “response costs” incurred
`
`pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f)(3)(B).
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs ask that this Court:
`
`A. Award Plaintiffs DBS’s allocable share of all “response costs” incurred
`
`by Plaintiffs, together with interest; and
`
`B. Award Plaintiffs such other and further relief as this Court finds just.
`
`COUNT XI —Contribution (MCL § 600.2925a) (All Plaintiffs)
`
`123. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1-55 by reference.
`
`124. If Revere bears any responsibility for the Collapse, DBS is jointly and
`
`severally liable.
`
`125. Plaintiffs have paid more than their pro rata share of costs.
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-10619-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.24 Filed 03/23/22 Page 24 of 24
`
`
`126. Plaintiffs are entitled to contribution from DBS.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs ask that this Court:
`
`A. Award Plaintiffs DBS’s allocable share of all costs incurred by
`
`Plaintiffs, together with interest; and
`
`B. Award Plaintiffs such other and further relief as this Court finds just.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiffs respectfully request a trial by jury for all claims so triable.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`BUTZEL LONG, P.C.
`
`/s/: Sheldon H. Klein
`Sheldon H. Klein (P41062)
`David J. DeVine (P70012)
`201 W. Big Beaver
`Suite 1200
`Troy, MI 48084
`Tel: (248) 258-1616
`Fax: (248) 258-1439
`klein@butzel.com
`devine@butzel.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 23, 2022
`
`IBLOOMFIELD\000146115\0007\3248251-3/23/22
`
`
`
`24
`
`