`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1258 filed 09/08/20 PageID.39444 Page 1 of 7
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`In re Flint Water Cases
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Carthan v. Snyder
`Case No: 5:16-cv-10444
`(consolidated)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Honorable Judith E. Levy
`United States District Judge
`
`Magistrate Mona K. Majzoub
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT HOWARD D. CROFT’S
`ANSWER, RELIANCE ON JURY DEMAND, AND AFFIRMATIVE
`DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIFTH CONSOLIDATED AMENDED
`CLASS COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF,
`MONEY DAMAGES, AND JURY DEMAND [DKT. 1175-3]
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`NOW COMES Defendant Howard D. Croft (“Mr. Croft”), by and through
`
`his attorney Alexander S. Rusek of White Law PLLC, and states that this Answer
`
`does not constitute a waiver of Mr. Croft’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment1 rights
`
`under the United States Constitution nor his rights under Article 1, Section 17 of the
`
`Michigan Constitution in any way. Mr. Croft does not waive any rights in regards to
`
`this matter and he does not waive his rights in any other matters that are related in
`
`any way to these proceedings, including, but not limited to, Case No.: 16-TC2850-
`
`
`
`1 Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 8; 84 S.Ct. 1389; 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964).
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1258 filed 09/08/20 PageID.39445 Page 2 of 7
`
`FY previously pending in the 67th District Court for the County of Genesee.
`
`
`
`This Answer is filed pursuant to the Court’s August 28, 2020 Order Regarding
`
`Matters Discussed at the August 26, 2020 Status Conference [Dkt. 1247]. Mr. Croft
`
`incorporates by reference all of his responses, except as set forth below, to the
`
`Plaintiffs’ Fourth Consolidated Amended Class Complaint for Injunctive and
`
`Declaratory Relief, Money Damages, and Jury Demand [Dkt. 620-3] contained in
`
`his Answer, Reliance on Jury Demand, and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs’
`
`Fourth Consolidated Amended Class Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory
`
`Relief, Money Damages, and Jury Demand [Dkt. 1182]. Mr. Croft also incorporates
`
`by reference all previously asserted affirmative defenses and his reliance upon
`
`Plaintiffs’ jury demand.
`
`In recognition of the conditions and limitations set forth above, Mr. Croft
`
`states in Answer to Plaintiffs’ Fifth Consolidated Amended Class Complaint for
`
`Injunctive and Declaratory Relief, Money Damages, and Jury Demand [Dkt. 1175-
`
`3] (“Complaint”) as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`26. Plaintiff Darnella Gaines, on behalf of her minor child, K.C., is a 28
`
`year old mother who resides in Flint, Michigan. Ms. Gaines’ minor son, K.C., was
`
`born on July 26, 2011. From April 25, 2014 until approximately sometime in July
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1258 filed 09/08/20 PageID.39446 Page 3 of 7
`
`2015, Ms. Gaines and K.C. regularly used unfiltered water for drinking, cooking,
`
`bathing/showering, and clothes washing. After July 2015, Plaintiff continued to
`
`bathe, shower and wash clothes and dishes in unfiltered water. In addition to being
`
`exposed to high levels of lead during the timeframe that he consumed water, K.C.
`
`experienced hair loss and persistent skin rashes. As a direct and proximate result of
`
`Defendants’ conduct, K.C. has experienced serious physical injury due to his
`
`exposure to the toxic water, including, but not limited to, heightened levels of lead in
`
`his blood.
`
`ANSWER: Mr. Croft lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or
`
`deny the truth of the matters asserted in this paragraph. Mr. Croft denies that
`
`Plaintiff sustained the alleged injuries and damages described in this
`
`paragraph as a result of his conduct.
`
`27. Plaintiffs Elnora Carthan, Rhonda Kelso, individually and on behalf of
`
`her minor child, K.E.K., Darnell and Barbara Davis, Michael Snyder, Marilyn
`
`Bryson, David Munoz, Tiantha Williams, individually and on behalf of her minor
`
`child, T.W., and Darnella Gaines, on behalf of her minor child, K.C., are referred to
`
`collectively herein as, “Individual Plaintiffs.”
`
`ANSWER: Mr. Croft admits that Plaintiffs have stylized their pleadings as
`
`set forth in this paragraph.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1258 filed 09/08/20 PageID.39447 Page 4 of 7
`
`29. Plaintiff 635 South Saginaw LLC (“South Saginaw LLC”) is the
`
`owner of the restaurant “Cork on Saginaw,” which is located at 635 Saginaw Street
`
`in Flint Michigan. As the Flint Water crisis unfolded, Cork on Saginaw suffered a
`
`significant reduction in income due to the reluctance of restaurant patrons to
`
`purchase food and beverages at a restaurant located within the City of Flint
`
`that used Flint water. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct
`
`described herein, South Saginaw LLC has suffered lost business income
`
`ANSWER: Mr. Croft lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or
`
`deny the truth of the matters asserted in this paragraph. Mr. Croft denies that
`
`Plaintiff sustained the alleged injuries and damages described in this
`
`paragraph as a result of his conduct.
`
`31. Plaintiffs Frances Gilcreast, South Saginaw LLC, and Angelo’s
`
`Coney Island are referred to collectively herein as, “Business Plaintiffs.” The
`
`Business Plaintiffs and
`
`Individual Plaintiffs are referred to collectively as,
`
`“Plaintiffs.”
`
`ANSWER: Mr. Croft admits that Plaintiffs have stylized their pleadings as
`
`set forth in this paragraph.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1258 filed 09/08/20 PageID.39448 Page 5 of 7
`
`RESPONSE TO PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Mr. Croft requests that this Court enter judgment in his favor on all claims
`
`and award him an order for an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation
`
`expenses and denying an order for any other relief and deny Plaintiffs each and every
`
`element of relief requested in their Prayer for Relief, including but not limited to:
`
`a. Denying class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on all grounds and
`
`bases on which Plaintiffs’ seek it;
`
`b. Denying any declaratory relief;
`
`c. Denying any injunctive relief;
`
`d. Denying appointment of a monitor;
`
`e. Denying an award of compensatory damages;
`
`f. Denying an order for an award of punitive damages;
`
`g. Denying an order for an award of exemplary damages;
`
`h. Denying an order for equitable relief;
`
`i. Denying an order for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
`
`j. Denying an order for an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and
`
`litigation expenses; and
`
`k. Denying an order for any other relief.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1258 filed 09/08/20 PageID.39449 Page 6 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Howard Croft
`
`/s/ Alexander S. Rusek__________
`ALEXANDER S. RUSEK (P77581)
`White Law PLLC
`2549 Jolly Road, Suite 340
`Okemos, MI 48864
`Ph.: (517) 316-1195
`Fax: (517) 316-1197
`E: alexrusek@whitelawpllc.com
`W: www.whitelawpllc.com
`
`
`Dated: September 8, 2020
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1258 filed 09/08/20 PageID.39450 Page 7 of 7
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on September 8, 2020, I electronically filed the above
`
`document with the Clerk of the Court using the Court’s ECF system, which will
`
`send notification of such filing to all counsel of record.
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Howard Croft
`
`/s/ Alexander S. Rusek__________
`ALEXANDER S. RUSEK (P77581)
`White Law PLLC
`2549 Jolly Road, Suite 340
`Okemos, MI 48864
`Ph.: (517) 316-1195
`Fax: (517) 316-1197
`E: alexrusek@whitelawpllc.com
`W: www.whitelawpllc.com
`
`
`Dated: September 8, 2020
`
`7
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
