`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Clean Water and Air, LLC, individually
`and on behalf of all others similarly
`situated,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Tofte Wastewater Treatment Association
`d/b/a Bluefin Bay on Lake Superior
`WWTP,
`
` Defendant,
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND FACTS
`
`This is a citizen enforcement action brought to address Bluefin Bay’s past
`
`and ongoing violations of the federal Clean Water Act, 33 USC § 1251 et. seq. (CWA) on
`
`an individual basis, together with causes of action sounding in nuisance and negligence
`
`individually, and on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated.
`
`2.
`
`For years, Defendant Tofte Wastewater Treatment Association d/b/a Bluefin
`
`Bay on Lake Superior WWTP (Bluefin Bay) has polluted the pristine waters of Lake
`
`Superior with Mercury, Fecal Matter, Coliform and Suspended Solids.
`
`3.
`
`According to the Environmental Protection Agency, Bluefin Bay has
`
`violated its Clean Water Act permit on three-hundred and twelve (312) days since
`
`November 30, 2018, has failed to comply with its Clean Water Act permit for 7 out of 12
`
`quarters, and is currently in violation of its Clean Water Act Permit.
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-00386-JRT-LIB Doc. 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 2 of 17
`
`4.
`
`This action seeks relief including, but not necessarily limited to, a declaration
`
`that Bluefin Bay has and continues to violate the terms of its Clean Water Act National
`
`Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit; an order requiring Bluefin Bay
`
`to comply with the Clean Water Act and its NPDES permit; an order assessing the
`
`maximum penalties available under the law against Bluefin Bay for each day it has and
`
`continues to violate the terms of its NPDES permit; an award to Plaintiff of its costs of
`
`litigation including reasonable attorney’s and expert’s fees; damages pursuant to Plaintiff’s
`
`nuisance and negligence claims, punitive damages, and such other relief as the Court deems
`
`appropriate.
`
`PARTIES
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff is an organization formed for the purpose of advocating for clean
`
`waterways and air and the preservation of natural resources by seeking to ensure
`
`enforcement of the country’s environmental laws.
`
`6.
`
`Bluefin Bay is located on the North Shore of Lake Superior, in Tofte,
`
`Minnesota (Tofte). Bluefin Bay discharges wastewater directly into Lake Superior
`
`pursuant to the its (“NPDES”) permit No. MN-0054593.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a) and 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1331.
`
`8.
`
`Venue lies with this Court under 33 U.S.C. § 1365(c)(1) because the
`
`Facility at issue is located in this District.
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-00386-JRT-LIB Doc. 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 3 of 17
`
`DEFENDANT’S POLLUTION AND REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF ITS CLEAN
`WATER ACT PERMIT
`
`Bluefin Bay discharges wastewater directly into Lake Superior pursuant to
`
`9.
`
`the its (“NPDES”) permit No. MN-0054593.
`
`10.
`
`Lake Superior is the largest and northernmost of the Great Lakes of North
`
`America. It is the world’s largest freshwater lake by surface area and holds 10% of the
`
`world’s surface freshwater.
`
`11.
`
`Lake Superior is home to numerous freshwater fish including salmon and
`
`trout, and borders the natural habitat of wolves, bears, moose, loons, and numerous other
`
`wildlife.
`
`12.
`
`Lake Superior’s Minnesota Shoreline, often referred to as the North Shore,
`
`is exceptionally scenic and regularly enjoyed by visitors who camp, hike, fish, kayak, boat,
`
`and visit to simply enjoy the views, peace and natural beauty it offers.
`
`13. Bluefin Bay is located on the North Shore of Lake Superior, within or in
`
`close proximity to the city of Tofte, Minnesota.
`
`14. Bluefin Bay’s NPDES permit strictly limits the amount of allowable
`
`pollutants in the Facility’s wastewater discharges into Lake Superior. But despite its strict
`
`NPDES permit limits, Bluefin Bay has, for years, repeatedly and on an ongoing basis,
`
`discharged wastewater directly into Lake Superior with pollutant levels that violate its
`
`NPDES permit limits for mercury, fecal matter, coliform and suspended solids, which are
`
`in turn violations of the Clean Water Act.
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-00386-JRT-LIB Doc. 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 4 of 17
`
`CWA PRE-SUIT NOTICE
`
`15. On October 28, 2021, in accordance with 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(A),
`
`Plaintiff provided notice of intent to file suit under the Federal Clean Water Act (60-Day
`
`Notice Letter) to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
`
`Regional Administrator of EPA Region 5, the Commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution
`
`Control Agency, and to Defendant.
`
`16.
`
`The Notice Letter provided Defendant with sufficient information to
`
`determine the CWA requirements Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated, the activity alleged
`
`to constitute the violations, sufficient information to determine the date, location and
`
`person responsible for the violations, and the contact information for Plaintiff and
`
`Plaintiff’s counsel. Among other things, the Notice letter identified 312 specific days
`
`between November 30, 2018, and August 31, 2021, when Defendant had discharged
`
`wastewater into Lake Superior with pollutant levels that violate its NPDES permit limits
`
`and exceedance details including the subject outfall, parameter, limit type, percent
`
`exceedance, exceedance counts by pollutant, the number of exceedances, the days with
`
`exceedances, and the dates of the exceedances, all as set forth on Exhibit A hereto.
`
`17. Defendant’s unlawful discharges included ongoing and repeated violations
`
`of, among other things, mercury by as much as 94% of the permitted discharge, fecal matter
`
`by as much as 43% of the permitted discharge, coliform by as much as 43% of the permitted
`
`discharge and suspended solids by as much as 111% of the permitted discharge.
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-00386-JRT-LIB Doc. 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 5 of 17
`
`18.
`
`The Notice Letter also advised Defendant that EPA records designate the
`
`Facility’s current CWA compliance status as “Non compliant” and show that the Facility
`
`has been designated as Non-complaint with its CWA permit for five of the last 12 quarters.
`
`19. As of the date of this filing, the Defendant continues to be designated as Non-
`
`compliant with its CWA permit by the EPA.
`
`20.
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1319 (g)(6)(B) provides that governmental action cannot bar a
`
`CWA citizen suit unless it either was commenced before the 60-day notice letter or the
`
`citizen suit is not filed more than 120 days after the 60-day notice letter.
`
`21. Minnesota is a “delegated state” such that the EPA has delegated
`
`enforcement authority under the CWA to the MPCA.
`
`22.
`
` No enforcement action was commenced before the 60-day notice letter as to
`
`the violations identified in the 60-day notice letter.
`
`23.
`
`Following receipt of the October 28, 2021, 60-day Notice Letter, Defendant
`
`entered into a “compliance agreement” with the State of Minnesota Pollution Control
`
`Agency (MPCA). The “compliance agreement” was executed by Defendant on December
`
`28, 2021, and was effective as of the date the MPCA executed it on January 4, 2022.
`
`24. More than 60 days have passed since the 60-day Notice Letter was sent.
`
`25.
`
`Less than 120 days have passed since the 60-day Notice Letter was sent and
`
`the date this action was filed and therefore commenced.
`
`26.
`
` 33 U.S.C. § 1319 (g)(6)(B) therefore bars any effort by Defendant to contend
`
`that this action is barred by a diligent prosecution. See e.g., Black Warrior Riverkeeper,
`
`Inc. v. Cherokee Mining, LLC., 548 F.3d 986 (11th Cir. 2008).
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-00386-JRT-LIB Doc. 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 6 of 17
`
`27. Upon information and belief, Defendant requested the state action and
`
`“compliance agreement.”
`
`28. Defendant participated in the negotiation and drafting of the “compliance
`
`agreement.”
`
`29.
`
`The “compliance agreement” was reached without the benefit of any public
`
`comment or scrutiny.
`
`30.
`
`The “compliance agreement” was reached without the benefit of any
`
`comment or scrutiny by Plaintiff or any of Plaintiff’s membership.
`
`31.
`
`The “compliance agreement” did not provide for continuing jurisdiction to
`
`enforce its terms.
`
`32.
`
`The “compliance agreement” did not provide for the payment of any penalty
`
`amount at all even though the CWA makes penalties for polluters who violate the terms of
`
`their permits mandatory. In fact, the “compliance agreement” expressly waived its right to
`
`seek any penalties or exercise “any administrative, legal or equitable remedies available to
`
`the MPCA to address the alleged violations [addressed by the compliance agreement], as
`
`long as the Regulated Party [Defendant] performs according to and has complied with the
`
`terms and conditions contained in [the compliance agreement].”
`
`33.
`
`The “compliance agreement” does not reflect any attempt by the MPCA to
`
`recoup or even calculate the economic benefit Defendant obtained by virtue of its non-
`
`compliance and, upon information and belief, the MPCA did not do so.
`
`34.
`
`The “compliance agreement” does not address all of the violations identified
`
`in the 60-day notice letter.
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-00386-JRT-LIB Doc. 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 7 of 17
`
`35. Nothing in the “compliance agreement” indicates that the MPCA is satisfied
`
`that the alleged violations have been fully addressed and are not ongoing.
`
`36.
`
`The “compliance agreement” indicates that the MPCA merely conducted a
`
`“file review” and did not inspect the Defendant’s facility; instead reciting that “the
`
`Regulated Party [Defendant] investigated the cause and took action to prevent future
`
`reoccurrence.”
`
`37.
`
`The “compliance agreement” does not describe the investigation Defendant
`
`allegedly undertook, the findings regarding the cause of Defendant’s past pollution, nor
`
`any of the action allegedly taken to prevent future reoccurrence.
`
`38.
`
`The “compliance agreement” provides that Defendant agreed to “submit a
`
`standard operating procedure (SOP) to be implemented on discovery of any future effluent
`
`limit violation. At a minimum, the SOP shall identify 1) actions and methods used to
`
`investigate the cause of the violation; 2) actions to be taken to prevent future reoccurrence;
`
`and 3) actions to be taken to reduce adverse impact resulting from the violation.”
`
`39.
`
`The “compliance agreement” also required Defendant to “submit a
`
`certification statement acknowledging that a report, per NPDES/SDS permit No.
`
`MN0054593, requirement entitled Effluent Violations for any future effluent limit
`
`violation” and to “follow the steps as required by NPDES/SDS permit No. MN0054593”
`
`if Defendant “discovers that non-compliance with a condition of the permit has occurred
`
`which could endanger human health, public drinking water supplies, or the environment.”
`
`Defendant was obligated to do these things anyway.
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-00386-JRT-LIB Doc. 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 8 of 17
`
`40.
`
`In exchange, the MPCA expressly waived its right to seek any penalties, for
`
`past or future violations, or exercise “any administrative, legal or equitable remedies
`
`available to the MPCA to address the alleged violations [addressed by the compliance
`
`agreement], as long as the Regulated Party [Defendant] performs according to and has
`
`complied with the terms and conditions contained in [the compliance agreement].”
`
`41.
`
`The MPCA cited Bluefin Bay waste water treatment plant for excellence in
`
`2018.
`
`42.
`
` As of the date of this filing, according to the Environmental Protection
`
`Agency, over five years preceding October 22, 2021, Bluefin Bay has violated its Clean
`
`Water Act permit on three-hundred and twelve (312) days, has failed to comply with its
`
`Clean Water Act permit for 7 out of 12 quarters, and is currently in violation of its Clean
`
`Water Act Permit.
`
`STANDING
`
`Plaintiff’s membership includes at least one individual who resides in the
`
`43.
`
`State of Minnesota and has, for many years, visited and enjoyed the quietude and natural
`
`beauty of the North Shore, including visits to Tofte Town Park. Blue Fin Bay’s repeated
`
`unlawful discharges of Mercury, Fecal matter, Coliform and Suspended Solids into Lake
`
`Superior lessen the aesthetic and recreational values of the North Shore in and near Tofte
`
`and diminish this person’s enjoyment of the North Shore in and near Tofte, Minnesota.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-00386-JRT-LIB Doc. 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 9 of 17
`
`COUNT I
`THE CLEAN WATER ACT
`ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF INDIVIDUALLY
`
`
`
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiff restates and realleges all of the foregoing as if set forth here in full.
`
`45. Congress enacted the Clean Water Act to “restore and maintain the chemical,
`
`physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” To achieve those goals, the CWA
`
`expressly prohibits the “discharge of any pollutant” where such discharges do not comply
`
`with the terms of any applicable NPDES permit.
`
`46. Once regulated by an NPDES permit, discharges must strictly comply with
`
`all of the terms and conditions of the permit.
`
`47. Violation of the terms or conditions of and NPDES permit is a violation of
`
`the Clean Water Act.
`
`48.
`
`In addition to specific effluent limitations, the Facility’s NPDES permit also
`
`requires that the permit holder “shall at all times properly operate” the Facility and in
`
`accordance with an asset management program which includes adequate funding, operator
`
`staffing and training, rehabilitation and replacement of assets when necessary.
`
`49.
`
`Every day a facility is operated in violation of its NPDES permit is a separate
`
`and distinct violation of the permit and the CWA.
`
`50.
`
`The CWA authorizes citizens to bring suit against any person who is “alleged
`
`to be in violation” of an effluent standard or limitation under the CWA.
`
`51.
`
`The CWA provides for appropriate injunctive relief preventing further
`
`violations of the Clean Water Act, mandatory civil penalties, declaratory relief, and also
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-00386-JRT-LIB Doc. 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 10 of 17
`
`allows a prevailing plaintiff to recover costs, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees
`
`associated with a citizen enforcement action.
`
`52. Attached as Exhibit A hereto is a list of the NPDES effluent limit
`
`exceedances Plaintiff seeks to redress under the CWA in this case.
`
`53.
`
`Exhibit A is derived from the Facility’s self-reported Discharge Monitoring
`
`Reports, as provided to the EPA.
`
`54.
`
`Each of the effluent limit exceedances identified on Exhibit A are violations
`
`of the Facilities NPDES permit and, in turn, are therefore violations of the CWA.
`
`55. Defendant’s violations of its NPDES permit are continuing, ongoing, and
`
`recurring. According to the EPA, the Facility’s current CWA compliance status is
`
`“noncompliance.”
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`A.
`
`Definition of the Class
`
`
`
`
`56.
`
`Plaintiff brings the following Counts II and III of this action individually and
`
`on behalf of all persons as the Court may determine to be appropriate for class certification,
`
`pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Plaintiffs seek to represent a Class of
`
`persons preliminarily defined as: All individuals who have visited Tofte Town Park from
`
`November 30, 2018, to August 31, 2021. Tofte Town Park is immediately adjacent to
`
`Bluefin Bay and shares access to the same stretch of Lake Superior shoreline. Excluded
`
`from the Class are Defendant and its affiliates, predecessors, successors, officers, directors,
`
`agents, servants, or employee, and the immediate family members of such persons. Plaintiff
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-00386-JRT-LIB Doc. 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 11 of 17
`
`reserve the right to modify the class definition and/or propose one or more subclasses if
`
`discovery reveals such modifications are appropriate.
`
`B.
`
`Numerosity
`
`
`
`57. Upon information and belief, Tofte Town Park has existed since 1922. Since
`
`that time, it has been continually open to the public, and has been rented and hosted
`
`weddings and family gatherings for years and years. It is also an ideal place to simply enjoy
`
`listening to Lake Superior’s waves and enjoy the scenery and therefore regularly attracts
`
`visitors, especially during the summer months. There are an average of 9,700,000 visitors
`
`to
`
`Minnesota
`
`State
`
`parks
`
`each
`
`year.
`
`See
`
`e.g.,
`
`https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/faq/mnfacts/state_parks.html. It defies common sense to
`
`suggest more than 40 people have not visited Tofte Town Park the members of the Class
`
`are therefore so numerous that joinder of all parties is impracticable. Indeed one or more
`
`of Plaintiff’s members have personally observed more than 40 people at Tofte Town Park.
`
`C.
`
`Commonality
`
`
`
`58. Numerous common questions of law and fact predominate over any
`
`individual questions affecting Class members, including, but not limited to the following:
`
`
`a. whether Defendant’s conduct constitutes a public nuisance
`b.
`whether Defendant’s conduct constitutes a private nuisance
`c. whether and how Defendant intentionally, recklessly, willfully, wantonly,
`
`maliciously, grossly and/or negligently failed to construct, maintain and/or
`
`operate its waste water treatment facility;
`d.
`the proper injunctive relief; and
`e.
`the measure of nominal, punitive and other damages available to Plaintiff
`and the Class.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-00386-JRT-LIB Doc. 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 12 of 17
`
`D.
`
`Typicality
`
`
`
`59.
`
`Plaintiff has the same interests in this matter as all the other members of the
`
`Class, and Plaintiff’s claims are typical of all members of the Class. If brought and
`
`prosecuted individually, the claims of each Class member would require proof of many of
`
`the same material and substantive facts, rely upon the same legal theories and seek the
`
`same type of relief. The claims of Plaintiff and the other Class members have a common
`
`origin and share a common basis. The claims originate from the same failure of the
`
`Defendant to property construct, maintain and/or operate the Bluefin Bay wastewater
`
`treatment facility.
`
`E.
`
`Adequacy of Representation
`
`
`
`60.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are sufficiently aligned with the interests of the absent
`
`members of the Class to ensure that the Class claims will be prosecuted with diligence and
`
`care by Plaintiff as a representative of the Class. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately
`
`represent the interests of the Class and does not have interest adverse to the Class. Plaintiff
`
`has retained the services of counsel, who are experienced in complex litigation including
`
`class action litigation. Plaintiffs’ counsel will adequately prosecute this action and will
`
`otherwise protect and fairly and adequately represent Plaintiffs and all absent Class
`
`members.
`
`F.
`
`Class Treatment Is the Superior Method of Adjudication
`
`
`
`61. A class action is superior to other methods of the fair and efficient
`
`adjudication of the controversies raised in this Complaint because:
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-00386-JRT-LIB Doc. 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 13 of 17
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Individual claims by the Class members would be impracticable as the costs
`of pursuit would exceed what any one Class member has at stake;
`Upon information and belief, no individual litigation has been commenced
`over the controversies alleged in this Complaint and individual Class
`members are unlikely to have an interest in separately prosecuting and
`controlling individual actions;
`The concentration of litigation of these claims in one forum will achieve
`efficiency and promote judicial economy; and
`The proposed class action is manageable.
`
`COUNT II
`PUBLIC NUISANCE
`ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF INDIVIDUALLY AND ALL OTHERS
`SIMILARLY SITUATED
`
`62.
`
`Plaintiff and the Class restate and reallege all of the foregoing as if set forth
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`here in full.
`
`63. Defendant’s unlawful discharges of Mercury, Fecal Matter, Coliform and
`
`Suspended Solids into Lake Superior “unreasonably annoys, injures or endangers the
`
`safety, health, morals, comfort, or repose of any considerable number of members of the
`
`public; or interferes with, obstructs, or renders dangerous for passage, any … waters used
`
`by the public” and therefore constitutes a public nuisance under Minn. Stat. § 609.74.
`
`64.
`
`Plaintiff and other individuals who have visited Tofte Town Park suffered
`
`damage or injury that is special to them and different from damage or injury sustained by
`
`the general public as a result of Defendant’s unlawful pollution of Lake Superior. The very
`
`purpose of parks is “.. to protect and perpetuate extensive areas of the state possessing those
`
`resources which illustrate and exemplify Minnesota’s natural phenomena and to provide
`
`for the use, enjoyment and understanding of such resources without impairment …” Minn.
`
`Stat. § 86A.05, Subd. 2. Parks like Tofte Town Park on the North Shore of Lake Superior
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-00386-JRT-LIB Doc. 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 14 of 17
`
`contain some of Minnesota’s most valued natural resources. Tofte Town Park is
`
`immediately adjacent to Bluefin Bay and shares access to the same stretch of Lake Superior
`
`shoreline. It is an ideal place to simply enjoy listening to Lake Superior’s waves and enjoy
`
`the natural environment. Tofte Town Park is a special place, patronized for a special
`
`purpose, and its users are distinctly impacted by pollution occurring in the immediate
`
`vicinity of the park in a way that is clearly different from the general public.
`
`COUNT III
`PRIVATE NUISANCE
`ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF INDIVIDUALLY AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
`SITUATED
`
`Plaintiff and the Class restate and reallege all of the foregoing as if set forth
`
`65.
`
`here in full.
`
`66.
`
` Private nuisance is defined by Minnesota Stat. § 561.01 as follows:
`
`Anything which is injurious to health, or indecent or offensive to the senses,
`or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the
`comfortable enjoyment of life or property, is a nuisance. An action may be
`brought by any person whose property is injuriously affected or whose
`personal enjoyment is lessened by the nuisance, and by judgment the
`nuisance may be enjoined or abated, as well as damages recovered.
`
`
`67. Defendant’s unlawful discharges of Mercury, Fecal Matter, Coliform and
`
`Suspended Solids into Lake Superior constitutes a private nuisance as defined by Minn.
`
`Stat. § 561.01 for which Defendant is liable to Plaintiff and the Class for all damages arising
`
`therefrom, including compensatory, exemplary, injunctive and punitive relief since
`
`Defendant’s actions were, and continue to be, intentional, willful, malicious and made with
`
`a conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs, entitling Plaintiffs to nominal,
`
`compensatory and punitive damages.
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-00386-JRT-LIB Doc. 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 15 of 17
`
`COUNT IV
`NEGLIGENCE
`ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF INDIVIDUALLY AND ALL OTHERS
`SIMILARLY SITUATED
`
`Plaintiff and the Class restate and reallege all of the foregoing as if set forth
`
`68.
`
`here in full.
`
`
`69. Defendant negligently and improperly constructed, maintained and/or
`
`operated the Bluefin Bay waste water treatment facility.
`
`70. Defendant’s repeated violations of the CWA constitutes negligence per se.
`
`71. A properly constructed, operated, and maintained wastewater treatment plant
`
`will not polluted the pristine waters of Lake Superior with Mercury, Fecal Matter, Coliform
`
`and Suspended Solids, violating its Clean Water Act permit on three-hundred and twelve
`
`(312) days since November 30, 2018, and failing to comply with its Clean Water Act permit
`
`for 7 out of 12 quarters.
`
`
`
`72.
`
`The conduct of Defendant constitutes gross negligence and reflects a
`
`substantial lack of concern for and deliberate indifference to whether an injury resulted to
`
`Plaintiff and the Class.
`
`
`
`73. Defendant’s gross negligence was malicious and made with a wanton or
`
`reckless disregard for the safety of Plaintiff and the Class, which entitles Plaintiff and the
`
`Class to an award of nominal, compensatory, exemplary, and punitive relief.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-00386-JRT-LIB Doc. 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 16 of 17
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`a. Declare Defendant to have violated and to be in violation of the Clean Water Act
`and the Facility’s NPDES permit by committing each of the violations described
`above, including similar violations that occur after the filing of this Complaint;
`
`b. Determine the number of days of violation committed by Defendant;
`
`c. Order Defendant to comply with the Clean Water Act and Defendant’s NPDES
`permit, and to refrain from further violations of the effluent standards and
`limitations in the permit;
`
`d. Order Defendant to implement measures to remedy, mitigate, or offset the harm
`to the environment caused by the violations alleged above;
`
`e. Assess an appropriate civil penalty against Defendant for each day of violation
`of the Clean Water Act and the NPDES permit, as provided by 33 U.S.C. §
`1319(d);
`
`f. Award Plaintiffs their costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney and
`expert witness fees); as provided by 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d);
`
`g. Certify the proposed class;
`
`h. Designate Plaintiff as representative of the proposed class and designate
`Plaintiff’s counsel as Class Counsel;
`
`i. Enjoin Defendant from any further unlawful discharges of Mercury, Fecal
`Matter, Coliform and Suspended Solids or other pollution into Lake Superior;
`
`j. Award Plaintiff and Class members nominal, compensatory, and punitive
`damages; and
`
`k. Award such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-00386-JRT-LIB Doc. 1 Filed 02/09/22 Page 17 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
`
`By:/s/Patrick Michenfelder__________
`Patrick W. Michenfelder (#024207X)
`Chad A. Throndset (#0261191)
`Cornerstone Building
`One Central Avenue West, Suite 101
`St. Michael, MN 55376
`Tel: (763) 515-6110
`Fax: (763) 226-2515
`Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com
`Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`Dated: February 9, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`