You are on page 1of 8

TWENTY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF WASHINGTON STATE OF LOUISIANA NO.

DIVISION TERRAL EVANS, DANA EVANS, CHARLES BLANCHARD AND SHANNON WILLIAMS VERSUS TIN, INC. d/b/a TEMPLE INLAND FILED _____________________________ ____________________________________ DEPUTY CLERK

CLASS ACTION PETITION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF and CLASS DAMAGES COMMON TO ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED CLAIMANTS Plaintiffs: Terral Evans, Dana Evans, Charles Blanchard and Shannon Williams, make the following allegations for class action relief for injunctive relief and damages common to all similarly situated claimants against the Defendant, TIN, Inc. d/b/a Temple Inland for the following clear and present danger caused by the actions of the defendant. I. Plaintiffs, all of the full age of majority, appear herein individually and as members of the proposed class and represent those persons similarly situated, who are property owners along the Pearl River; and who were upon information and belief affected by the black liquor spill into the Pearl River by the Defendant, affecting the enjoyment of the property of the plaintiffs and others owning property along the waterways and lakes in Louisiana and its borders with Mississippi; and who have sustained physical, mental and/or emotional injuries, fright, inconvenience, personal and medical expenses, and interruption of or intrusion into their personal and/or professional lives as a direct consequence of spill(s) occurring at the Bogalusa facility on or about August 9, 2011, and thereafter as the same are also common to similarly situated claimants. II. Defendant, TIN, Inc. d/b/a/ Temple Inland, is a foreign corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Texas, and qualified to do and doing business in the State of Louisiana, Parish of Washington, which, at all times material hereto, owned land along tributaries flowing into the Pearl River, and which operated, maintained, managed and had custody and control of the facility located

in the Parish of Washington, Louisiana, locally known and sometimes referred to as the Bogalusa Paper Mill; and at which facility on or about August 9, 2011, and thereafter experienced a spill(s) of a substance hazardous and caused damages as alleged to the plaintiffs and a substantial number of residents located within all areas of the Pearl River, thereby violating the limitations on use of property set out in La. C.C. Arts. 667 and 2315. III. Venue is proper within the Parish of Washington, Louisiana under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Articles 42 and 74. IV. The above Defendant is indebted unto your petitioners and the class jointly and in solido for a sum of money found to be reasonable in the premises, together with legal interest from the date of judicial demand, for all costs of these proceedings, and for all other general and equitable relief as may be afforded by this Honorable Court, for the following reasons: V. This is a class action instituted pursuant to the provisions of Article 591, et seq., of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioners on their own behalf and as members of the class of all persons and/or other entities affected by the Defendants actions and who or which have sustained damages arising or resulting from the spill(s) of the hazardous substance, all of which occurred on or about August 9, 2011 and thereafter, and on information and belief continues unabated through the flows of the Pearl River. VI. Petitioners are entitled to have this cause maintained as a class action pursuant to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 591, et seq., for the following reasons: a) The persons or entities constituting the class are so numerous that the individual joinder of all parties is impractical; b) There are common questions and issues of law and fact involved in this matter which predominate over questions affecting individual class members; c) There exists a common character among the rights sought to be enforced on behalf of the class among the named class representatives of the class, are all members of the class and are so

situated so as to provide adequate representation for the unnamed class members; d) The named plaintiffs or representatives of the class are all members of the class of property owners and individuals and are so situated so as to provide adequate representation for the unnamed class members; e) The claims of the representative parties are typical of the claims of the class members they seek to represent; f) The class may be defined objectively in terms of ascertainable criteria, such that the Court may determine the constituency of the class for purposes of the conclusiveness of any judgment that may be rendered in this case; g) The great majority of the unnamed class members have no substantial interest in individually controlling the prosecution of their separate actions; h) The prosecution of separate actions by individual members will create a serious risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications which may prejudicially effect the claims of other class members in subsequent litigation; i) The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class will create a serious risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the parties opposing the class; j) The prosecution of separate actions by the individual class members poses the risk that separate adjudications respecting individual claimants would not be entirely dispositive of the interests of class members not parties to the litigation or would otherwise substantially impair or impede the ability to the class members to protect their interests; k) Any defenses or theories of resistance to liability propounded by the defendants would be applicable to all claims presented by the members of the class; l) The class action is a superior procedural vehicle for this litigation because the primary objectives of the class action are economies of time, effort and expense, will be achieved principally because: 1) Question of law or fact common to the class members predominate over questions affecting only individual members; 2) Any defenses would be generally applicable to all members of the class;

3)

It is desirable to litigate this matter in a single forum where practically all witnesses, class members and properties are are located, and where the identity of the main issues of liability and all claim lends to a prompt, efficient and relatively inexpensive trial;

4)

The parties plaintiff in this matter are so numerous that requiring separate suits would prove an onerous burden to the court;

5)

The majority of the class members have neither the resources nor the interest in maintaining or controlling the litigation brought on their behalf in separate suits;

6)

There may be some difficulty in identifying all member of the class, even though the class is adequately identified, thus the unnamed class members may be afforded no protection or relief if it were not for the procedural vehicle of a class action;

7)

Through the vehicle of the class action, the case may be more easily managed than some other procedural vehicles considering eh court may issue orders appropriate for the efficient management of the case, including the implementation of case management plans and provide for class-wide notice to the absent class members of the proceedings; and,

8)

The class action vehicle would best insure procedural fairness to class members in that its utilization would avoid prejudicial or inconsistent precedence of claims adjudicated were the claims to be individually litigated. VII.

The named plaintiffs, their property and others similarly situated are severely affected by their injuries and damages which are not substantially different from the injuries and damages of other members of their representative class, and will fully and adequately protect the interests of the other members of their class, who are too numerous to be named individually or to appear in these proceedings. VIII. The defendant, TIN, Inc. d/b/a Temple Inland, is liable to the plaintiffs named above and to all member sof the class they represent herein, for such damages as are reasonable in the premises, all of whom claim that their individual damages amount to less than $75,000, together with legal interest thereon from the date of judicial demand until paid, and for all costs of these proceedings, for

the following reasons: IX. That on or about August 9, 2011, upon information and belief, Defendant, TIN, Inc. d/b/a Temple Inland, released a black liquor substance into the Pearl River of such a quantity and concentration to have caused damage to those individuals within the area affected. X. As a result of the inability of employees, managers and other responsible persons of Defendant, TIN, Inc. d/b/a Temple Inland to prevent the spill(s), and the lack of information provided them or their neighbors regarding the status of the incident they were experiencing, plaintiffs named herein and represented, but unnamed, became physically ill when exposed to the waters of the Pearl River which contained the black liquor substance, were inconvenienced and/or frightened due to the contamination of the Pearl River. XI. As a result of the events of the incident occurring on or about August 9, 2011, all residents and persons present within the affected area have been subjected to mental stress, emotional damages, annoyance and inconvenience during the described event. XII. The injuries, offenses and damages described above were caused through no fault of the plaintiffs herein, but solely through the negligence, recklessness, carelessness and fault of Defendant, TIN, Inc. d/b/a Temple Inland, in the following particulars: a) Lack of appreciation or indifference to the material injury and damage caused to persons and property of the class and the individual petitioners; b) c) d) Lack of prudence or skill in preventing injury to the legally protected interests of petitioners; Failure to property store or dispose of hazardous materials; Failure to protect petitioners interests in the operations of the facility from the release of substances injurious to petitioners; e) Creation of a public health hazard, subjecting petitioners to present potential invasion of their rights to be secure in their persons and properties; f) Failing to warn petitioners of the potential damages of the facilities operations;

g) h)

Failing to prevent the public dangers presented by defendants actions; Failure to erect safe and sufficient barriers or other such devices on the refinery premises to reduce the potential for dangerous and harmful emissions and their resultant damages to the neighboring community;

i)

Failure to adequately prepare for the possibility of an upset or excessive spill of hazardous substances at the facility, foreseeable in the operation and maintenance of the facility and its appurtenances; and,

j)

Any and all other acts of negligence, also to be shown to have been the proximate cause of the incident, which may be proven upon the trial of the merits herein, which obligates a person who causes damages to another to repair it. XIII. At all material times hereto, Defendant, located in Washington Parish, Louisiana, and

constituted both a hazardous activity and a ruin or defect as contemplated by the Louisiana Civil Code, and defendant in exercising care, custody and control of the hazardous activity and ruinous or defective premises, are liable to plaintiffs herein by operation of law irrespective of fault or negligence. XIV. Further, the spill(s) occurring on or about August 9, 2011, at the Bogalusa facility, Washington Parish, State of Louisiana, amounted to a breach of defendants duty to plaintiffs under Louisiana Civil Code Article 667 through 669 not to damage its neighbors through the defendants works and/or other uses of its property. XV. In addition to the negligence state above, and in the alternative thereto, the injuries, offenses and damages set out herein were caused by acts or omissions by the Defendant set out above, which acts or omissions may be beyond proof by plaintiffs herein, but which were within the knowledge and control of the Defendant, there being no other possible conclusion than that the spill(s) resulted from the negligence of the defendant and plaintiffs plead the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor.

XVI.

The current information available to the plaintiffs show that the operations of the defendant were known by it to be hazardous and/or ultra-hazardous; and/or defendant knew of the prospect of this discharge of these chemicals and the potential for injury to the land and persons of the plaintiffs and the class because of the regulatory filings with the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. These show on information and belief the defendant representations of alleged compliance by the defendant with the LDEQ permitting and on-going compliance actions relative to the subject discharges, including, but not limited to the filings of the defendant on or about February 7, 2011, demonstrating that the defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known that the works of the defendant on its land would cause damage to other landowners on the Pearl River; and that the damage could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care. XVII. Plaintiffs further show that upon proper showing at a trial on the merits there may result irreparable injury, loss or damage to life of the individuals, complete loss of enjoyment of the property adjoining the Pearl River, Lake Pontchartrain and other tributaries in Louisiana affected by the spill which cannot be compensated by the defendant because of its limited insurance and limited assets, entitling the plaintiffs on proper showing under La. CCP Arts. 3601, et seq, to a permanent injunction against further actions of the defendant creating the prospect of such further releases, injury, loss or damages. [On information and belief, the defendant realizes this prospect of continued irreparable injury, loss or damage to life of the individuals, complete loss of enjoyment of the property of the Plaintiffs and the class and the defendant has therefore ceased operations, but intends to re-start the same without further notice to the class.] XVIII. In the alternative, the Plaintiffs seek damages that will reasonably compensate them and the members of the class, including clean up of the land and waters, as necessary to restore the rights of the class to enjoy their lives and property free of the effects of the spill and the threat of continued loss or damage, all of which are prohibited by law. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray: 1) That judgment be rendered herein declaring and certifying this cause as a class action and all other orders necessary pursuant thereto;

2)

That there be judgment rendered herein in favor of the plaintiffs individually, and all members of the class who they seek to represent and against the defendants herein with a fiar and reasonable sum which would adequately compensate the plaintiffs and each member of the class they seek to represent for the damages each of them has sustained;

3) 4) 5)

For injunctive relief, as allowed by law; In the alternative damages, as allowed by law; For all costs of these proceedings, together with legal interest from the date of judicial demand; and,

6)

For all other orders necessary in the premises. Respectfully submitted,

THORNHILL LAW FIRM, A PLC _________________________________ TOM W. THORNHILL #12776 1308 Ninth Street Slidell, Louisiana 70458 (985) 641-5010 (985) 641-5011 fax tom@thornhilllawfirm.com

PLEASE HOLD SERVICE