2:16-cv-12551-LJM-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/16 Pg 1 of 13

Pg ID 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK,
a Michigan municipal corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.
Hon.

HAMILTON AVENUE PROPERTY

HOLDINGS, LLC, individually and
severally; HELM, INC., individually and
severally; RECYCLING DEPOT, LLC, individually
and severally; and JEFFREY SESKIN,
individually.
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
FORD LAW FIRM
William R. Ford (P35870)
Attorney for Plaintiff
547 E. Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207
(248) 790-6812
fordattyford@aol.com
_____________________________________/
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
NOW COMES Plaintiff, the City of Highland Park, by and through its counsel, William
R. Ford, and for its complaint against Hamilton Property Holdings, LLC, Helm, Inc., Recycling
Depot, LLC, and Jeffrey Seskin, states the following:

2:16-cv-12551-LJM-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/16 Pg 2 of 13

Pg ID 2

Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue

1. The Plaintiff, the City of Highland Park, is a municipal corporation that acts as the
government for the City of Highland Park, Michigan.
2. Defendant, Recycling Depot LLC (hereafter Depot), is a Michigan limited liability
Company with its registered address at 40251 Schoolcraft Rd., Plymouth, Michigan.
3. Defendant, Hamilton Avenue Property Holdings LLC (hereafter Holdings), is a
limited liability company with its registered address at 14310 Hamilton, Highland Park, Michigan
48203, and whose principal office address is 40251 Schoolcraft Rd., Plymouth, Michigan.
4. Defendant Jeffrey Seskin (hereafter Seskin) is a registered agent and manager of
Recycling Depot LLC.
5. Defendant Helm, Inc. (hereafter Helm) is a corporation whose registered office is
located on 47911 Halyard Drive, Plymouth MI, 48170.
6. The civil action arises under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States under
Article III, section 2 of the United States Constitution; therefore, this court has jurisdiction over
this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331.
7. Venue properly lies in the Eastern District of Michigan pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 1391(b)
and (c) because the Defendants are all residents of the State of Michigan, and because a substantial
part of the events giving rise to the claim arose in the Eastern District of Michigan.
General Allegations
8. The real properties that are the subject of the Complaint are located directly adjacent to
one another in the city of Highland Park, and are commonly known as 14310 Hamilton Avenue
(hereafter subject property).
9. The subject property is located in Wayne County, Michigan.

2:16-cv-12551-LJM-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/16 Pg 3 of 13

Pg ID 3

10. All subject property parcels are owned by Defendant Holdings.

11. The subject property address is known as 14310 Hamilton Avenue for parcel 43-00908-0015-000; 14441 Third for parcel 43-009-09-0014-000; 0 W Side Third/Hamilton for parcel
43-006-01-0122-000; and 0 along R.R. Tracks for parcel 43-006-01-0121-000.
12. Helm is a corporation whose registered office was located on the subject property until
2012.
13. On or about August 29, 2012, the Defendants Seskin and Holdings purchased the
subject property for $325,000.00 in an arms length sale/leaseback transaction. The seller, Helm,
retained 35.4% of the subject propertys 565,000 square footage.
14. After the subject propertys sale, Helm changed the address of its offices to 47911
Halyard Drive, Plymouth Michigan 48170.
15. When Defendant Holdings purchased the subject property, the subject propertys
depreciation and disrepair reflected a pattern of disrepair.
16. Specifically, a January 2013 fire inspection revealed that the building failed to pass
basic fire inspection.
17. The report indicated that the sprinkler system and water flow remained untested, that
emergency lighting did not function, and exit signs were missing in some areas.
18. Also, the report indicated that the Defendants stored plastics on the property and
operated a recycling business, despite being unlicensed to do so.
19. Between the date of the January 2013 inspection and Defendant Seskins license
renewal application, numerous fire-related incidents occurred on the property, including six false
alarm system activations, one trash or rubbish fire, and one false alarm or false call.

2:16-cv-12551-LJM-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/16 Pg 4 of 13

Pg ID 4

20. When Defendant Seskin applied for a business license renewal on April 29, 2015, for
a recycling facility, he failed to describe the nature, character, and quality of the goods or services
to be sold or offered for sale.
21. Defendant Seskin also indicated on the application that he would not be storing any
dangerous chemicals or materials on site.
22. At 2:37 a.m. on February 3, 2016, a fire broke out on the subject property.
23. The fire was first encountered in and around the break room.
24. A rapid spread of flames and multiple explosions forced the fire crews outside of the
building.
25. Heavy smoke and numerous explosions required the evacuation of adjacent residents
and required several businesses to close.
26. It took four days for the City of Highland Park Fire Department to extinguish the fire.
27. On February 17, 2016, the USA EPA Region 5 stated that data gathered from the
property indicated that benzene levels were in the acceptable risk range for long-term residential
exposure.
28. The EPAs report could not indicate what the active levels of benzene were at the time
of the fire.
29. Benzenes flashpoint, the temperature at which it gives off sufficient vapor to ignite in
air, is 11.07 degrees Fahrenheit.
30. A concentration exceeding 3,250 ppm is considered a potential fire explosion hazard.
Locations where benzene may be present in quantities sufficient to produce explosive or ignitable
mixtures are considered Class I Group D for the purposes of conforming to the requirements of 29
CFR 1910.309.

2:16-cv-12551-LJM-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/16 Pg 5 of 13

Pg ID 5

31. Benzene fires cannot be fought using solid streams of water or the stream will scatter
and spread fire.
32. Since at least 2012, the subject property operated as a facility as defined by the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the
Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA).
33. Benzene is a chemical employed for the production and recycling of plastics, an activity
the Defendants engaged in.
34. Defendants failed to notify the Highland Park fire official that it handled or stored any
amount of benzene on the subject property.
35. The Defendants failed to notify the Plaintiff of the nature, quality, and character of the
goods or services sold.
36. On or about May 9, 2016, Plaintiff provided timely notice that it would seek
$243,410.40 from Defendant Helm for equipment and fire service personnel for the 86 hours of
fire suppression.
37.

Such notice has been reported to the U.S. Attorney Generals Office, pursuant to

42 USC 9613(1); the Michigan Attorney Generals Office, the Director of the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality, Hamilton Avenue Property Holdings, LLC, and Recycling
Depot, LLC, pursuant to MCL 324.20135.
Count I
Cost Recovery under CERCLA 107, 42 U.S.C. 9607
38. Plaintiff restates and incorporates paragraphs 1-37 as though fully set forth herein.

2:16-cv-12551-LJM-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/16 Pg 6 of 13

Pg ID 6

39. There have been releases, threatened releases, and disposals of hazardous
substances at or from the subject property, as those terms are defined in 101(29) and 101(22)
of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601(29) and (22).
40. Benzene is a hazardous substance within the meaning of 101(14) of CERCLA, 42
U.S.C. 9601(14).
41. At the time hazardous substances were released or disposed of at the subject property,
Defendants were Owners and/or Operators within the meaning of 101(20)(A) and persons
within the meaning of 101(21) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601(20) and (21), 42 U.S.C.
9607(a).
42. The Properties are Facilities within the meaning of 101(9) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
9601(9).
43. Plaintiff has performed various activities to assess and respond to the environmental
harm and risks of the subject property. These actions, in response to releases and/or threatened
releases of hazardous substances at or from the subject property, constitute response actions as
defined by 101(25) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601(25).
44. The Plaintiff incurred substantial costs associated with its response activities.
45. The Plaintiff is entitled to recovery for the necessary costs of response incurred
pursuant to 107(a)(4)(B) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(4)(B).
46. The Defendants are liable to Plaintiff under CERCLA as a Potentially Responsible
Party (PRP).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Honorable Court grant the following relief:

2:16-cv-12551-LJM-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/16 Pg 7 of 13

Pg ID 7

A. Enter judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, in favor of Plaintiff, for all
costs incurred in response to the release or threatened release of hazardous substances at the
Properties, plus interests and costs; and
B. Grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Count II
Cost Recovery under NREPA MCL 324.20135 (Part 201 liability)
47. Plaintiff restates and incorporates paragraphs 1-46 as though fully set therein.
48. The Properties, as defined by MCL 324.20101(1)(s), are Facilities.
49. Defendant, Holdings, is an Owner and/or Operator as defined by MCL
324.20101(1)(gg) and (hh).
50. Defendant Helm is a past Owner and/or Operator of the Properties who are responsible
for an activity causing a release or threatened release.
51. Plaintiff voluntarily took Remedial Action as defined by MCL 324.20101(1)(oo) to
assess and respond to the environmental harm and risks of the Properties. MCL 324.20114a(1).
52. Plaintiff has incurred substantial costs performing said Remedial Action.
53. Defendants are liable for recovery costs to Plaintiff as the prior Owners/Operators of
the Properties.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Honorable Court grant the following relief:
A. Enter judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, in favor of Plaintiff, for all
costs incurred in response to the release or threatened release of hazardous substances at the
Properties, plus interest, costs and attorneys' fees;
B. Grant Plaintiff its attorneys' fees so wrongfully incurred in having to bring this action
as permitted by MCL 324.20135(5); and

2:16-cv-12551-LJM-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/16 Pg 8 of 13

Pg ID 8

C. Grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Count III
Negligence Per Se: Breach of Due Care Provisions Under MCL 324.20107a
54. Plaintiff restates and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 53 as though fully set forth
herein.
55. Defendants are Owners and/or Operators as defined by MCL 324.20101(1)(gg) and
(hh).
56. Defendants had knowledge that the Properties were Facilities.
57. Defendants failed to undertake due care obligations as required by MCL 324.20107a.
58. As a result of Defendants failure to comply with MCL 324.20107a, Plaintiff has
incurred substantial costs for response activities.
59. As a result of Defendants actions and inactions, Plaintiff has been harmed.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Honorable Court grant the following relief:
A. Enter judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, in favor of Plaintiff, for all
costs incurred in response to the release or threatened release of hazardous substances at the
Properties, plus interest, costs and attorneys' fees; and
B. Grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Count IV
Negligence Per Se: Breach of Notice Requirements Under MCL 324.20116
60. Plaintiff restates and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 59 as though fully set forth
herein.
61. Defendants are Owners and/or Operators as defined by MCL 324.20101(1)(gg) and
(hh).

2:16-cv-12551-LJM-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/16 Pg 9 of 13

Pg ID 9

62. Defendants had knowledge that the Properties were Facilities.

63. Defendants were required to provide written notice that the Properties were Facilities
and disclose the general nature and extent of the release as required by MCL 324.20116(1).
64. Defendants failed to provide said written notice.
65. As a result of Defendants actions and inactions, Plaintiff has incurred substantial costs
associated with its response activities.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Honorable Court grant the following relief:
A. Enter judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, in favor of Plaintiff, for all
costs incurred in response to the release or threatened release of hazardous substances at the
Properties, plus interest, costs, and attorneys' fees; and
B. Grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Count V
Breach of Licensing Agreement: Helm
66. Plaintiff restates and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 65 as though fully set forth
herein.
67. Plaintiff granted Helm a business license.
68. The license is a valid and binding contract.
69. Plaintiff fulfilled and fully performed all of its contracted-for obligations.
70. Defendants wrongfully and willfully breached their license.
71. Plaintiff has demanded the Defendants comply with the license application, but
Defendants have refused to do so.
72. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions and inactions, Plaintiff has
incurred substantial costs associated with its response activities.

2:16-cv-12551-LJM-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/16 Pg 10 of 13

Pg ID 10

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Honorable Court grant the following relief:
A. Enter judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, in favor of Plaintiff, all costs
incurred in response to the release or threatened release of hazardous substances at the Properties,
plus interest, costs and attorneys' fees so wrongfully incurred herein; and
B. Grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Count VI
Breach of Licensing Agreement: Holdings
73. Plaintiff restates and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 72 as though fully set forth
herein.
74. Plaintiff granted the Defendant Holdings a business license.
75. The license is a valid and binding contract.
76. Plaintiff fulfilled and fully performed all of its contracted for obligations.
77. Defendants wrongfully and willfully breached their license.
78. Plaintiff has demanded the Defendants comply with the license application, but
Defendants have refused to do so.
79. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions and inactions, Plaintiff has
incurred substantial costs associated with its response activities.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Honorable Court grant the following relief:
A. Enter judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, in favor of Plaintiff, all costs
incurred in response to the release or threatened release of hazardous substances at the Properties,
plus interest, costs and attorneys' fees so wrongfully incurred herein; and
B. Grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

10

2:16-cv-12551-LJM-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/16 Pg 11 of 13

Pg ID 11

Count VI
Nuisance
80. Plaintiff restates and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 79 as though fully set forth
herein.
81. Defendants are liable for the nuisance conditions that exist on the Properties.
82. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that the contamination of the soil and
groundwater on the Properties would likely be involved in the creation or maintenance of a
nuisance condition.
83. Defendants created or permitted the existence of an unnatural condition to exist on the
Properties.
84. The unnatural condition interfered with public health or safety of the surrounding
properties.
85. The unnatural condition was caused by a repeated and continuing condition on the
Properties.
86. As a result of Defendants actions and inactions, Plaintiff has incurred substantial costs
associated with its response activities.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Honorable Court grant the following relief:
A. Enter judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, in favor of Plaintiff, for all
costs incurred in response to the release or threatened release of hazardous substances at the
Properties plus interest, costs and attorneys' fees so wrongfully incurred herein, and

11

2:16-cv-12551-LJM-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/16 Pg 12 of 13

B. Grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
FORD LAW FIRM

By:

/s/William R. Ford________________
William R. Ford (P35870
Attorney for Plaintiff
547 E. Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207
(248) 790-6812
fordattyford@aol.com

July 6, 2016

12

Pg ID 12

2:16-cv-12551-LJM-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 07/07/16 Pg 13 of 13

Pg ID 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK,
a Michigan municipal corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.
Hon.

HAMILTON AVENUE PROPERTY

HOLDINGS, LLC, individually and
severally; HELM, INC., individually and
severally; RECYCLING DEPOT, LLC, individually
and severally; and JEFFREY SESKIN,
individually.
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
FORD LAW FIRM
William R. Ford (P35870)
Attorney for Plaintiff
547 E. Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207
(248) 790-6812
fordattyford@aol.com
_____________________________________/
JURY DEMAND
NOW COMES Plaintiff, the City of Highland Park, by and through its counsel, William
R. Ford, and hereby demands a jury trial in this cause of action.
Respectfully submitted,
FORD LAW FIRM

By:

/s/William R. Ford________________
William R. Ford (P35870
Attorney for Plaintiff
547 E. Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207
(248) 790-6812
fordattyford@aol.com

July 6, 2016
13