bijlage 3 second amended class action complaint.pdf
Tekst van het document
17
been publicly available since 2021. All Defendants are sophisticated entities with reason to keep
18
abreast of scientific research regarding the impacts of airport and airplane pollution, and the
19
MOV-UP Study in particular generated significant publicity that would have been hard for
20
Defendants to miss.
21 See, e.g., Kenneth Y. Chay & Michael Greenstone, Does Air Quality Matter? Evidence from the Housing Market, 113 J. Pol. Econ. 376 (Apr. 2005); Ramesh Chandra Das, Tonmoy Chatterjee & Enrico Ivaldi, Nexus Between Housing Prices and Magnitude of Pollution: Evidence from the Panel of Some High- and Low-Polluting Cities of the World, 14 Sustainability 9283 (2022). 21
22 23 24 25
22
Chay & Greenstone, supra note 21, at 1.
See, e.g., id. One study of the impact of fine particulate matter pollution in residential areas in China recently concretized this concept, determining that every 1% increase in particulate matter causes an approximately 0.5% decrease in house prices. Wenhao Xue et al., Are House Prices Affected by PM2.5 Pollution? Evidence from Beijing, China, 19 Int’l J. Environ. Res. Public Health 8461 (July 2022). 23
26 27 28
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 33 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 38 of 55
1
87.
The following appeared in the Seattle Times in 2019:
88.
Other news outlets, including KOMO News, KIRO 7 News, and FOX13 Seattle,
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
have also run similar stories:
23 24 25 26 27 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 34 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 39 of 55
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 35 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 40 of 55
89.
1 2
Furthermore, there is evidence that all Defendants knew of the Public Health
Report’s findings (and consequently of the MOV-UP Study findings as well) by mid-2021. 90.
3
The Port must have learned of the Public Health Report by Spring 2021 because,
4
on or about April 27, 2021, a consultant—Ramboll Group A/S—presented a review of the Public
5
Health Report commissioned by the Port.24 The Port, of course, could not have commissioned
6
Ramboll’s review had it been unaware of the Public Health Report’s existence. The Port
7
therefore knew no later than Spring of 2021 that its operations permitting Defendant airlines to
8
operate their aircraft was causing excessive pollution within the Contamination Zone, and that
9
this contamination is harmful to human health and property. 91.
10
Despite this knowledge, the Port did not act to prevent future damage within the
11
Contamination Zone. To the contrary, the Port forged ahead with the construction of a new
12
International Arrivals Facility at Sea-Tac Airport, with plans to “more than double” international
13
passenger capacity.25 The Facility opened in March 2022.26 92.
14
Defendant Airlines, for their part, must have learned of the Report on June 23,
15
2021, at the latest. On that date, the Seattle-Tacoma Airport Stakeholder Advisory Round Table
16
held a Zoom meeting from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at which Dr. Kris Johnson, one of the authors
17
of the Public Health Report, provided an overview of the Report’s key findings.27
18
Representatives from both Alaska and Delta—Randy Fiertz and Scott Ingham, respectively—
19
were present at the meeting.28 Defendant Airlines therefore knew no later than the Summer of
20 21
Complaint at ¶ 4.15, Edmiston v. Port of Seattle, No. 22-2-15797-6 SEA (King Cty. Super. Ct. Sept. 29, 2022).
22
Port of Seattle, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport International Arrivals Facility (Apr. 2021), https://www.portseattle.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/POS_2021-3_IAF_1Pager.pdf.
23
24
25
Port of Seattle, SEA Airport Reveals Dramatic New International Arrivals Facility (Mar. 3, 2022), https://www.portseattle.org/news/sea-airport-reveals-dramatic-new-international-arrivalsfacility#:~:text=March%203%2C%202022,leading%20tourism%20and%20business%20gatewa y. 26
24 25 26 27
StART, Meeting Summary (June 23, 2021), https://www.portseattle.org/sites/default/files/2021-07/StART-MeetingSummary-20210623.pdf. 27
Id. Randy Fiertz is the Director of Airport Affairs at Alaska Airlines. https://www.linkedin.com/in/randy-fiertz-48a6568 (last visited Apr. 18, 2023). Scott Ingham 28
28
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 36 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 41 of 55
1
2021, and likely much earlier, that their operations caused excessive pollution within the
2
Contamination Zone, and that this contamination was harmful to human health and property. 93.
3
Despite this knowledge, Defendant Airlines did not act to prevent future harm
4
within the Contamination Zone. Instead, Alaska has since outlined “aggressive growth plans” for
5
2023, with much of this growth centered in the Pacific Northwest (which includes Sea-Tac
6
Airport).29 And Delta has been “closely engaged with the Port of Seattle on the construction of
7
the [International Arrivals Facility],” where it serves more international destinations from Seattle
8
than any other carrier.30 Delta is now planning for a spike in international traffic to Sea-Tac
9
Airport.31
10
F.
Plaintiffs and Class members will require professional assistance to redress the harm Defendants have caused.
11
1.
Appropriate diagnosis and treatment of airport-related illnesses among Plaintiffs and other Class members will require ongoing medical monitoring by healthcare professionals.
94.
Some of the harm Plaintiffs and Class members suffer as a result of their exposure
12 13 14
to pollution caused by the Defendants can be mitigated by early treatment of resulting illnesses
15
and other health conditions.
16
95.
For example, early treatment of asthma can help prevent irreversible lung
17
damage. Treating COPD, pulmonary fibrosis, heart failure, and cancers early in the course of
18
disease progression can prolong survival, and, in the case of cancer, increase the chances of
19
complete remission. Early intervention in the course of Parkinson’s Disease and chronic kidney
20 21
works as external government relations counsel to Delta Air Lines. https://www.linkedin.com/in/scottingham1 (last visited Apr. 18, 2023).
22
Dominic Gates, Despite Setbacks, Alaska Air Is Profitable, Plans to Hire and grow, SEATTLE TIMES (Jan. 26, 2023), https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/alaskareports-higher-profits-in-fourth-quarter-signaling-recovery.
23 24 25 26 27 28
29
Delta News Hub, At Delta’s Seattle hub, a new experience for international travelers (Mar 4., 2022), https://news.delta.com/deltas-seattle-hub-new-experience-internationaltravelers#:~:text=The%20450%2C000%20square%20foot%20facility,(up%20from%201%2C20 0%20today). 30
Marissa Nall, Delta Air Lines exec plans for spike in international traffic to Seattle, PUGET SOUND BUS. J. (Feb. 13, 2023), https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2023/02/13/delta-airlines-joan-wang-international-flights.html. 31
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 37 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 42 of 55
1
disease can result in a decrease in symptoms and slow the progression of these illness. Finally,
2
access to prenatal care reduces preterm births and low birth weights.
3
96.
But for people to benefit from early treatment for these diseases and health
4
conditions, they must be diagnosed near the onset of their disease, which requires regular
5
screening and medical monitoring by a trained healthcare professional.
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
2.
Decontaminating Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ property will require specialized equipment and skills.
97.
Rehabilitating an area that has been affected by pollutants including particulate
matter, harmful gases, hazardous air pollutants, and toxic heavy metals is possible, but doing so requires specialized equipment and skills and can therefore be expensive. Methods for removing pollutants from the air include biofiltration, and methods for removing soil pollutants from a contaminated environment include chlorination, chemical extraction, electrokinetics, ion exchange, membrane separation, bioleaching, adsorption, and phytoremediation. Plaintiffs and other Class members cannot remedy this harm through ordinary means, such as by wiping down their homes with soap and water.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
V. 98.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and, under Rules 23(a),
23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as a class action on behalf of the following two Classes: Resident Class: All persons who have resided in the Contamination Zone, as depicted in the map below, in the past four years. Homeowner and Renter Class: All persons who have rented or owned real property located in the Contamination Zone as depicted in the map below, in the past four years.
23 24 25 26 27 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 38 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 43 of 55
Map of the Contamination Zone (5-mile radius from Sea-Tac Airport)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
99.
Plaintiffs assert claims under the laws of Washington State as set forth below.
100.
Excluded from the Classes are: (a) the officers and directors of the Defendants;
(b) any judge or judicial officer assigned to this matter and their immediate family; (c) any legal representative, successor, or assign of any excluded persons or entities; (d) any Class counsel or their immediate family members; and (e) any State or any of its agencies. A.
21
Each of the requirements for maintaining this action as a class action under Rule 23 are satisfied.
22
101.
This action should proceed as a class action because the Classes are so numerous
23
that joinder of all members is impracticable; there are questions of law or fact common to the
24
Classes; the claims of the representative parties are typical of the claims of the Classes; and the
25
Plaintiffs named in this Complaint will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Classes.
26
In addition, the relief sought by Plaintiffs will apply to the Classes as wholes and Plaintiffs will
27
prove the elements of damages claims with common evidence.
28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 39 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 44 of 55
102.
1
Numerosity: The members of the Classes are so numerous that individual joinder
2
of all Class members is impracticable. For purposes of this Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that there
3
are approximately 300,000 people who live in the Contamination Zone. The disposition of the
4
claims asserted through this class action will enhance efficiency and will benefit the parties and
5
the Court. 103.
6
Commonality: The Resident Class should be certified because the negligence and
7
battery claims asserted in this action are common to all members of the Resident Class and
8
individual complaints otherwise may result in inconsistent or varying adjudications. 104.
9
Similarly, the Homeowner and Renter Class should be certified because the
10
claims asserted in this action, including negligence, trespass, nuisance, and inverse
11
condemnation, are common to all members of the Homeowner and Renter Class and individual
12
complaints otherwise may result in inconsistent or varying adjudications. 105.
13 14
Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Classes because all
claims arise from the same operative facts and are based on the same legal theories. 106.
15
Adequacy: The Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
16
Classes. Plaintiffs have retained the most experienced class action law firm in the Pacific
17
Northwest as their counsel; Plaintiff’s counsel therefore has the resources and expertise to
18
maximize the interests of the Classes. Neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel have interests adverse
19
to those of the Classes.
20
B.
21
Each of the additional requirements of Rule 23 are also met. 107.
In addition to satisfying the prerequisites of Rule 23, this case qualifies for class
22
action treatment because questions of law or fact common to the Classes predominate over any
23
questions affecting only individual Class members, and because a class action suit is superior to
24
other available methods for adjudicating the controversy.
25 26
108.
Predominance: Questions of law or fact common to the Classes predominate in
this case. These questions include, but are not limited to:
27 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 40 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 45 of 55
1
(a)
Whether pollutants including particulate matter, harmful gases, hazardous
2
air pollutants, and toxic heavy metals contaminate the air and soil in the
3
Contamination Zone;
4
(b)
these pollutants to contaminate the air and soil in the Contamination Zone;
5 6
(c)
(d)
Whether these pollutants have harmed Class members or their property in the Contamination Zone;
9 10
Whether Resident Class members have come into contact with these pollutants in the Contamination Zone;
7 8
Whether Defendants’ operations as alleged in this Complaint have caused
(e)
Whether any measures Defendants may have implemented to prevent the
11
release of pollutants including particulate matter, harmful gases, hazardous
12
air pollutants, and toxic heavy metals on Contamination Zone
13
communities are effective and sufficient;
14
(f)
Whether Defendants breached a duty of reasonable care in their operations
15
by allowing pollutants including particulate matter, harmful gases,
16
hazardous air pollutants, and toxic heavy metals to contaminate the air and
17
soil in the Contamination Zone;
18
(g)
Whether Defendants have committed battery against the Resident Class by
19
polluting the Contamination Zone, despite knowing with substantial
20
certainty that members of the Resident Class who come into contact with
21
those pollutants would thereby be injured;
22
(h)
properties intentionally or negligently;
23 24
Whether Defendants trespassed on Plaintiffs’ and other Class members’
(i)
Whether Defendants created a nuisance with respect to Plaintiffs’ and
25
other Class members’ properties by unreasonably interfering with their use
26
and enjoyment of their respective properties;
27 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 41 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 46 of 55
(j)
1
Whether Defendant Port of Seattle is liable for harm sustained by
2
Plaintiffs and other Class members although the Port, itself, operates no
3
aircraft; (k)
4
Whether Plaintiffs and other Class members are entitled to equitable relief, including, but not limited to, injunctive relief and medical monitoring; and
5 (l)
6
Whether Plaintiffs and other Class members are entitled to damages and other monetary relief and, if so, in what amount.
7 109.
8
Superiority: A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and
9
efficient adjudication of this controversy. First, the expense and burden of litigation would
10
substantially impair the ability of many Class members to pursue individual cases to protect their
11
rights. Absent class treatment, Plaintiffs and other Class members will continue to suffer harm as
12
a result of Defendants’ unlawful and wrongful conduct. Second, Plaintiffs are unaware of any
13
litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by other members of the Classes.
14
Third, this Court is the proper forum for concentrating the litigation given that the harm affecting
15
all Plaintiffs and Class members occurred within this Court’s jurisdiction. Finally, Plaintiffs do
16
not expect that managing this class action will cause difficulties for the Court, particularly given
17
this Court’s experience managing other class actions.
18 19
VI. A.
CLAIMS
Resident Class Claims32
20
COUNT ONE
21
NEGLIGENCE (Alleged by Plaintiffs against all Defendants on behalf of the Resident Class)
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
110.
Plaintiffs and the Class incorporate by reference all the foregoing allegations.
111.
Defendants have breached their duty to exercise ordinary care, and that breach
proximately caused Plaintiffs’ and other Class members’ increased risk of developing lifethreatening illnesses. Plaintiffs specifically exclude flights operated under the control of the Department of Defense from all of these claims. 32
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 42 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 47 of 55
1
112.
A reasonably careful company exercising ordinary care would not shower
2
pollutants on neighboring communities in quantities that pose serious health risks. Similarly, a
3
reasonably careful municipal corporation exercising ordinary care would not support or
4
encourage activities that result in pollutants being showered on its citizens in quantities that pose
5
serious health risks.
6
113.
Defendants knew that their operations cause and are continuing to cause
7
pollutants including particulate matter, harmful gases, hazardous air pollutants, and toxic heavy
8
metals to rain down on and contaminate the neighborhoods surrounding Sea-Tac Airport.
9
114.
Defendants also knew that these pollutants are hazardous to human health.
10
115.
Despite this knowledge, Defendants continued to cause pollutants to rain down on
11 12
communities near Sea-Tac Airport in the Contamination Zone. 116.
Defendants’ decision to engage in activities that they knew or should have known
13
would harm people living in the Contamination Zone constitutes a breach of Defendants’
14
ordinary duty of care and said breach continues daily
15
117.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiffs and the Class
16
have suffered injury and will continue to do so. Plaintiffs and Class members breathe air and
17
come in contact with soil and other surfaces and objects contaminated with pollutants as a direct
18
consequence of Defendants’ actions. No superseding cause breaks this chain of causation. Were
19
it not for Defendants’ negligent actions, Plaintiffs and other Class members would not have been
20
exposed to this pollution, and they would not thereby be at an increased risk of developing life-
21
threatening illnesses such as cancer and heart disease.
22
COUNT TWO
23
BATTERY (Alleged by Plaintiffs against Defendant Airlines on behalf of the Resident Class)
24 25 26 27 28
118.
Members of the Resident Class incorporate by reference all the foregoing
allegations. 119.
Defendant Airlines knew with substantial certainty that their operations would
cause harmful pollutants (including particulate matter, harmful gases, and toxic heavy metals) to SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 43 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 48 of 55
1
come into contact with the members of the Resident Class. And members of the Resident Class
2
have in fact suffered from contact with harmful pollutants as a direct result of Defendant
3
Airlines’ actions, despite not permitting or otherwise agreeing to this contact, and this pollution
4
is ongoing.
5
120.
The pollutants Defendant Airlines’ operations emit are harmful because a person
6
who comes into contact with these pollutants is at a significantly elevated risk of developing
7
cancer and may suffer damage to a range of organ systems, including their cardiovascular,
8
respiratory, reproductive, and central nervous systems. 121.
9
Defendant Airlines knew with substantial certainty that their actions were causing
10
these pollutants to come into contact with the members of the Resident Class because, among
11
other things, they were aware of the MOV-UP Study and the Public Health Report, which both
12
tie airport operations to increased pollution in the Contamination Zone surrounding Sea-Tac
13
Airport. Because the Resident Class members all live in the Contamination Zone, the Class
14
members are among the people whom Defendant Airlines were substantially certain were
15
affected.
16
B.
Homeowner and Renter Class Claims33
17
COUNT THREE
18
NEGLIGENCE (Alleged by Plaintiffs against all Defendants on behalf of the Homeowner and Renter Class)
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
122.
Plaintiffs and the Class incorporate by reference all the foregoing allegations.
123.
Defendants have breached and continue to breach their duty to exercise ordinary
care, and that breach proximately caused Plaintiffs’ and other Class members’ property injuries. 124.
A reasonably careful company exercising ordinary care would not shower
pollutants on neighboring communities in quantities that cause property damage. Similarly, a reasonably careful municipal corporation exercising ordinary care would not engage in activities that result in pollutants being showered on its citizens in quantities that cause property damage. Plaintiffs specifically exclude Delta flights operated under the control of the Department of Defense from all of these claims. 33
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 44 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 49 of 55
1
125.
Defendants knew that their operations caused pollutants including particulate
2
matter, harmful gases, hazardous air pollutants, and toxic heavy metals to rain down on and
3
contaminate property in the neighborhoods surrounding Sea-Tac Airport.
4 5 6
126.
Despite this knowledge, Defendants continued acting in ways that caused
pollutants to rain down on communities near Sea-Tac Airport in the Contamination Zone. 127.
Defendants’ decision to engage in activities that they knew would harm property
7
belonging to people living in the Contamination Zone constituted a breach of Defendants’
8
ordinary duty of care.
9
128.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach, Plaintiffs and the Class
10
have suffered injury and continue to suffer injury. Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ homes and
11
other property are contaminated with pollutants as a direct consequence of Defendants’ actions.
12
No superseding cause breaks this chain of causation. Were it not for Defendants’ negligent
13
actions, Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ homes and property would not have been subject to this
14
contamination.
15
COUNT FOUR
16
CONTINUING INTENTIONAL TRESPASS (Alleged by Plaintiffs against all Defendants on behalf of the Homeowner and Renter Class)
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
129.
Plaintiffs and the Class incorporate by reference all the foregoing allegations.
130.
Defendants have caused, and continue to cause, pollutants to enter onto real
property owned or rented by Plaintiffs and Class members. This trespass was intentional because Defendants knew that the entry of pollutants onto Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ property was certain, or substantially certain, to result from their operations. Despite this substantial certainty, Defendants still went ahead with their operations. 131.
Such intrusions re-occur many times each day as aircraft arriving at or departing
from Sea-Tac Airport (including aircraft owned and operated by Defendants Alaska and Delta) fly over or near Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ property and cause pollutants to be deposited on that property.
28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 45 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 50 of 55
132.
1
Defendants have known that their operations caused pollutants to rain down on
2
the neighborhoods surrounding Sea-Tac Airport, including the Contamination Zone. It was
3
therefore reasonably foreseeable that their operations would disturb Plaintiffs’ and Class
4
members’ possessory interests. 133.
5
Defendants’ trespass is without right or license and violates the exclusive property
6
rights of Plaintiffs and Class members. The pollutants that Defendants cause to spread through
7
the air and to contaminate Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ properties constitute an unreasonable
8
interference with possessory use of their respective properties. 134.
9
Defendants’ intentional trespass has resulted in actual and substantial damages to
10
the real property owned or rented by Plaintiffs and Class members because this property is now
11
contaminated with pollutants in concentrations that are hazardous to human health. Abating this
12
damage will require decontaminating Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ property through expensive
13
cleanup efforts.
14
COUNT FIVE
15
PUBLIC NUISANCE (Alleged by Plaintiffs against all Defendants on behalf of the Homeowner and Renter Class)
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
135.
Plaintiffs and the Class incorporate by reference all the foregoing allegations.
136.
Defendants’ unlawful dispersal of pollutants and the continuing dispersal of
pollutants onto Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ property constitutes a public nuisance as defined by Washington law.34 137.
Defendants have acted unlawfully by causing dangerous and harmful pollutants to
be deposited on neighborhoods surrounding Sea-Tac Airport. As described above, Defendants’ actions are unlawful because they are negligent and constitute trespass. 138.
Defendants’ unlawful acts have annoyed, injured, and endangered the comfort,
repose, health, and safety of Plaintiffs and Class members and are continuing. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs and Class members now live in conditions where the surfaces of their property are contaminated, and the very air they breathe is full of pollutants that pose 34
Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §§ 7.48.010, 7.48.120 et seq.
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 46 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 51 of 55
1
significant health risks. Defendants’ unlawful actions have therefore rendered Plaintiffs and
2
Class members insecure in life and in the use of their property.
3
139.
Although Defendants’ actions are a nuisance to anyone whose property is thereby
4
polluted, these actions have been especially injurious to Plaintiffs and Class members who reside
5
within the Contamination Zone. Defendants’ actions have caused Plaintiffs’ and Class members’
6
properties to become extensively contaminated, resulting in significant health risks that are
7
different in kind from the harm suffered by the public generally.
8
140.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs and the Class
9
have suffered injury and continue to be injured on a daily basis. Plaintiffs’ and Class members’
10
homes and other property are all now contaminated with pollutants as a direct consequence of
11
Defendants’ actions. No superseding cause breaks this chain of causation. Were it not for
12
Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ homes and property would not have been
13
subject to this contamination.
14
141.
The balance of interests here plainly compels the remedies sought. Plaintiffs and
15
other members of the Class have the right to live in safe homes. They have the right to breathe
16
clean air and live on properties that are not heavily contaminated with pollutants rained down on
17
them by large corporations. Defendants’ interests in avoiding the costs of cleanup or purchasing
18
additional land to act as a buffer zone between the community and the Airport does not outweigh
19
the Plaintiffs’ and other Class members’ interests in living safe, healthy lives.
20
COUNT SIX
21
INVERSE CONDEMNATION (Alleged by Plaintiffs against the Port on behalf of the Homeowner and Renter Class)
22 23 24 25 26 27
142.
Plaintiffs and the Class incorporate by reference all the foregoing allegations.
143.
This Count is brought against Defendant Port of Seattle in the alternative to
Plaintiffs’ Counts Two, Three, and Four against the Port. 144.
Article I, Section 16 (Amendment 9) of the Washington Constitution requires the
State to pay just compensation when taking or damaging property.
28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 47 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 52 of 55
1
145.
To support operations at Sea-Tac, a public airport, the Port has permitted airlines,
2
including Defendant Airlines, to operate in a manner that causes pollutants to be dumped on
3
Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ private property.
4 5 6
146.
The Port’s actions have caused substantial damage to Plaintiffs’ and Class
members’ property, which is now contaminated with airport-related pollutants. 147.
Despite damaging Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ private property, the Port has
7
not paid Plaintiffs and Class members just compensation. Nor has the Port instituted proceedings
8
to formally acquire rights to the property through eminent domain. The Port’s failure to pay just
9
compensation or formally acquire rights to the property is a violation of the Washington
10
Constitution. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Classes, respectfully request judgment as follows: A.
An Order certifying the Classes and requiring Defendants to pay the costs of
notice to the Classes; B.
An Order designating Plaintiffs as representatives of the Classes and designating
Plaintiffs’ counsel as Class counsel; C.
An Order declaring that Defendants have (i) been negligent in their Sea-Tac
19
Airport operations; (ii) committed trespass by causing pollutants to enter onto the properties of
20
Plaintiffs and other Class members; and (iii) created a nuisance by causing pollutants to
21
contaminate neighborhoods near Sea-Tac Airport;
22
D.
An Order for injunctive relief or for damages reflecting (i) the cost to remediate
23
Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ properties of the contamination caused by Defendant’s conduct;
24
and (ii) monetary damages sufficient to compensate Plaintiffs and Class members for the loss of
25
the use and enjoyment of their properties caused by Defendants’ conduct;
26 27
E.
An Order for injunctive relief creating a Court-supervised, Defendant-funded
medical monitoring program which will:
28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 48 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 53 of 55
(i)
1
Establish a trust fund, in an amount to be determined, to pay for appropriate
2
medical monitoring as frequently as necessary to facilitate the diagnosis of
3
Class members with illnesses associated with exposure to airport-related
4
pollution (including exposure to carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur
5
oxide, formaldehyde, acrolein, 1,3-butadiene, naphthalene, benzene,
6
acetaldehyde, ethylbenzene, aluminum, barium, cadmium, copper, lead,
7
magnesium, silver, and zinc, as well as to fine, ultrafine, and ultra-ultrafine
8
particulate matter); (ii)
9
medical monitoring for the purposes of diagnosis; and
10 (iii)
11
Provide information to treating physicians to aid them in determining when a Class member is subjected to an increased risk of harm; and
12 13
Notify all Class members, in writing, that they may require frequent
F.
An Order for any further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. JURY DEMAND
14 15 16
Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on any and all matters so triable. DATED : August 11, 2023.
17
Respectfully submitted, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
18
By: /s/ Steve W. Berman Steve W. Berman, WSBA #12536 Sean R. Matt, WSBA #21972 Shayne Stevenson, WSBA # 30843 Shelby R. Smith, WSBA #31377 Martin D. McLean, WSBA #33269 Jacob P. Berman (pro hac vice forthcoming) 1301 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 steve@hbsslaw.com sean@hbsslaw.com shaynes@hbsslaw.com shelby@hbsslaw.com martym@hbsslaw.com jakeb@hbsslaw.com
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 49 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 54 of 55
Abigail D. Pershing (pro hac vice) HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 Facsimile: (213) 330-7152 abigailp@hbsslaw.com
1 2 3 4 5
Nathan Emmons (pro hac vice forthcoming) HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (708) 628-4949 Facsimile: (708) 628-4950 nathane@hbsslaw.com
6 7 8 9
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Cindy Codoni, Michelle Geer, Amy France, Tamara Chakos, and the Putative Classes
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 50 011150-11/2321774 V5
Case 2:23-cv-00795-JNW Document 43 Filed 08/11/23 Page 55 of 55
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1 2
I hereby certify that on August 11, 2023, I electronically filed the forgoing Second
3
Amended Class Action Complaint with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which
4
will send notifications of such filing to those attorneys of record registered on the CM/ECF
5
system. All other parties (if any) shall be served in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil
6
Procedure.
7
s/ Steve W. Berman Steve W. Berman
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 51 011150-11/2321774 V5