"THOMAS B. WAHLDER ‘ATTORNEY & COUNSELOR AT LAW June 2, 2022 Mr. Randall Briggs, Clerk 35" Judicial District Court Post Office Box 263 Colfax, LA 71417-0263 2 7 7 1 4 RE: Ricky Bush, Individually and on Behalf of Similar 2c versus Clean Harbors Colfax, LLC BE 5 & Dear Mr. Briggs: Enclosed please find an original and one copy of a Petition for Damages - Class Action which I would appreciate you filing on behalf of my client, Ricky Bush, individually and on behalf of a lass of similarly situated persons, in regard to the above-referenced matter. Please date- stamp the attached copy and return same to my office. In accordance with the laws of this State, you are hereby requested to give us written notice, by mail, ten days in advance of the dated fixed for the trial of this cause, whether on exceptions, rules or the merits thereof. You are also requested to send us immediate notice of any order or judgment. Please file this letter in your records in support of this request. In addition, please find my check in the amount of $400.00 made payable to the Clerk of Court in payment of the filing fee. ‘Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. With warmest personal regards, Tam TBWibts enclosures Phone (818) 442-9417 www.THOMASBWAHLDER.com P.O. Box 7918 » Alexandria, Louisiana 71806 1740 Jackson Street + Alexandria, Louisiana 71301 Fax (318) 442-1999,LOUISIANA CIVIL CASE REPORTING ‘il Case Cover Sheet - LA. R.S. 13:4688 and Part G, §13 Louisiana Supreme Court General Administrative Rules Ci This civil case cover sheet shall be completed by counsel for the petitioner, counsel's authorized representative, or by the self-represented litigant (if not represented by counsel) and submitted with the original petition filed with the court. The information should be the best available at the time of filing. This information does not constitute a discovery request, response or supplementation, and is not admissible at trial Suit Caption: Ricky Bush, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons vy. Clean Harbors Colfax, LLC Court: 35" Judicial District Docket Number: 2 ia 7 1 4 Parish of Filing: Grant Filing Date: Name of Lead Petitioner’s Attorney: Jeremy J. Landry Name of Self-Represented Litigant: Number of named petitioners:_1__ Number of named defendant: ‘Type of Lawsuit: Please check the categories which most appropriately apply to this suit (no more than 3 categories should be checked): _ Auto: Personal Injury __ Auto: Property Damage Auto: Wrongful Death — Auto: Uninsured Motorist Asbestos: Property Damage ~ Asbestos: Personal Injury/Death Product Liability — Premise Liability — Intentional Bodily Injury ~ Intentional Property Damage “intentional Wrongful Death — Unfair Business Practice Business Tort Fraud Defamation ~ Professional Negligence _XEnvironmental Tort ~ Medical Malpractice __ Intellectual Property X Toxic Tort Legal Malpractice __ Other Tort (describe below) ~ Other Professional Malpractice — Redhibition — Maritime X Class action (nature of case) — Wrongful Death __ General Negligence Please briefly describe the nature of the litigation in one sentence of additional detail: Plaintiff sustained damages through experiencing loud booms, shock waves, vibrations, noxious odors, smoke and particulate emanating from a hazardous waste treatment facility owned, operated and controlled by Clean Harbors Colfax, LLC, in Grant Parish, Louisiana, which destroys explosive and reactive waste through open pit burning and/or open detonation. Following the completion of this form by counsel, counsel’s representative, or by the self- represented litigant, this document will be submitted to the Office of the Judicial Administrator, Supreme Court of Louisiana, by the Clerk of Court. Name, address and contact information of person compiéfing form: Name: Thomas B. Wahlder Signa aren A ‘Address: Post Office Box 7918, Alexandria, LA 71306 Phone number: (318) 442-9417 E-mail address: twahider@aol.com.THIRTY-FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF GRANT STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. DIVISION: SECTION: 27 7 1 4 RICKY BUSH, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, y\ Plaintiff VERSUS CLEAN HARBORS COLFAX, LLC, Defendant SL \ FILED: DEPUTY CLERK PETITION FOR DAMAGES — CLASS ACTION NOW COMES Plaintiff’Putative Class Representative Ricky Bush, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, secking class certification and complains and alleges on information and belief the following against Defendant Clean Harbors Colfax, LLC: INTRODUCTION Defendant Clean Harbors Colfax, LLC operates a site which receives and disposes of hazardous waste materials which include toxic substances such as arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, and perchlorate. The materials include explosive tritonal substances (a mixture of TNT and aluminum used in ordinance such as air-dropped bombs), hand grenades, small arms ammunition, detonators for ammunition, detonating fuses, detonators, solid propellants, rocket motors, warheads, shaped charges, detonating cords, black powder, and fireworks. Disposal is affected by concussion like explosions and long bums creating thick black smoke emanating from ground level bum pits. These activities have created persistent unreasonable invasive conditions for those whose property surround the site including, but not limited to, sudden excessive noise, toxic smoke and terrible odors. These activities have interfered with the peaceful enjoyment and use of these properties and threatened the health and wellbeing of the owners and occupants. 1. This is a class action brought pursuant to La, C.C.P. art, 591, et seq., wherein Plaintiff seeks damages in relation to Defendant’s ownership and operation of a hazardous waste treatment facility located at 3763 Highway 471, Colfax, Louisiana 71417 (the “Clean Harbors 1Facility” or “Facility”) 2. Through Defendant’s construction, operation and/or maintenance of the Facility, it wrongfully emits substantial and unreasonable loud booms, shock waves, vibrations, noxious odors, smoke and particulate that physically invade the Plaintiff's and putative Class’s properties. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff/Putative Class Representative Ricky Bush resides at a home located at 272 Bush Rd., Colfax, Grant Parish, Louisiana 71417. 4. Made Defendant in this action is Clean Harbors Colfax, LLC (“Defendant” or “Clean Harbors”), a corporation domiciled in Delaware and licensed to do and doing business in the State of Louisiana, which may be served through its registered agent for service of process. CT Corporation System, 3867 Plaza Tower Dr., Baton Rouge, La. 70816. 5. Defendant is liable in solido to Plaintiff and the putative Class for all elements of damages allowed by Louisiana law, whether past, present or future damages, in an amount that is just and reasonable in the premises. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6 This Court has jurisdiction because Defendant carries on a continuous and systematic part of its business within the State of Louisiana 7. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to La. C.CP. art. 74 because the conduct giving rise to the past, present and continuing nuisance has occurred, is occurring and will occur in Grant Parish, the conduct giving rise to the damages has occurred, is occurring and will occur in Grant Parish, and the damages have been sustained and are being sustained in Grant Parish. 8. Pursuant to La. C.C.P. art, 893, the damages sought by Plaintiff exceed the amount required to establish jurisdiction of this Court and they are in an amount sufficient for trial by jury. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 9. Defendant, its predecessors, and/or its agents constructed or directed construction of the Facility. 10. Clean Harbors owns, operates and controls the Facility. The total acreage of the Facility is approximately 730 acres, with 43 acres designated for hazardous waste treatment and storage. 11. The Plaintiff and putative Class reside within a 4 mile radius of the Facilityproperty boundary (the “Class Area”) 12, The Facility destroys explosive and reactive waste for governmental agencies, the DOD, defense contractors, research institutions and anyone with energetic and reactive waste, 13, These hazardous waste materials are shipped to the Facility from all over the country and include, without limitation, explosive tritonal substances (a mixture of TNT and aluminum used in ordinance such as air-dropped bombs), hand grenades, small arms ammunition, detonators for ammunition, detonating fuses, detonators, solid propellants, rocket motors, warheads, shaped charges, detonating cords, black powder, and fireworks. These materials are considered hazardous by their ignitable or reactive nature. Additionally, these materials often include toxic substances, such as arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, and perchlorate. 14, After the waste materials are received, they are destroyed through open pit burning and/or open detonation (“OB/OD”) at the Facility. More specifically, the materials are bummed on a set of 20 metal-lined trays located on a concrete slab that measures 700” x 130°, which is located toward the center of the 730-acre Facility. ‘The materials are ignited with diesel fuel and burned outside completely open to the environment, No attempt is made to contain or capture the emissions, fumes or smoke from the burning. No attempt is made to limit the noise or physical blast wave caused by the explosion of ordinance and munitions. 15, The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”) describes the Facility as “a flexible open burning detonation operation that thermally treats energetic ‘materials[.]” 16, The Facility has been performing these “thermal treatment” services for over 30 years. 17. The Facility receives over a million pounds of waste annually, but only a portion of that waste is considered waste energetic material (or “net explosive weight”). ‘The Facility is permitted by DEQ to burn over 560,000 Ibs. of net explosive weight each year. For each of the last three years, the Facility has open burned/ open detonated over one million pounds of waste, with over two hundred thousand pounds of that waste constituting waste energetic material 18. Clean Harbor’s OB/OD operations generates loud booms, shock waves, vibrations, noxious odors, smoke and particulate that emanate beyond the Facility’s borders. 19. The Plaintiff's and putative Class’s properties have been, and continue to be,invaded by these loud booms, shock waves, vibrations, noxious odors, smoke and particulate emanating from the Facility. 20. On information and belief, the DEQ has received numerous complaints from community members about the OB/OD operations at the Facility. These complaints were investigated by the DEQ through on-site and/or telephonic investigations with Facility personnel. From March 2017 through April 2022, the DEQ conducted no less than fifty (50) investigations into these complaints, Many of these investigations involved multiple community members complaining about Facility activities spanning multiple days. The community members complained about “explosions rattling windows,” “thick brown smoke [going] offsite,” “smoke and explosions,” “plumes and explosions”, “plumes and detonations”, “strange odors”, “Joud detonations and black plumes moving off-site”, “smoke and detonations”, and “plumes, smoke and loud booms”, all of which related to the Facility’s OB/OD operations. 21. A report by the Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN), a community based not-for-profit organization that has been working since 1986 to resolve the unique environmental struggles present in Louisiana, was submitted to the DEQ on April 28, 2022. That report summarizes some of these complaints to DEQ and concluded that “[jJust under SO ‘community members from the Rock, the areas surrounding the Clean Harbors Colfax facility and the community of Colfax, have submitted more than 1,500 complaints since September 25, 2017 to the [DEQ] ... concerning unacceptable operations by Clean Harbors Colfax[.]” ‘The report also determined that community members filed complaints with the DEQ on 120 days of 2021:in 2021, Community member complaints were filed with DEQ on the following dates: January 2021 4,5, 8, 12, 13, 18, 26, 29 February 2021 2,3, 8, 8, 19, 20, 22, 25 March 2021 3,4, 5, 12, 19, 24, 26, 29 April 2021 1, 2,5, 8, 12, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 May 2021 6,7, 11, 13, 14, 24, 25, 27 June 2021 2,14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 29, 30 July 2021 2,7, 13, 15, 20, 21, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30 August 2021 4,5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31 September 2021 1,2, 3, 7,9, 10, 15, 21, 23, 25, 29 October 2021 1,4, 5,6, 8, 10, 11, 18, 19, 25, 29 November 2021 1,2, 3,5, 8, 11, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 29, 30, December 2021 2,3, 8, 13, 23, 15, 16, 21, 22, 30 22, The report also documents complaints made by community members to the DEQ in January 2022 and February 2022 concemning the Facility's OB/OD operations, with ‘community members complaining about: - “Black plume moving offsite at the Clean Harbors Colfax facility, low to the ground with little air movement” - “Low lying dark plume from the direction of Clean Harbors Colfax, followed by strange odor, light wind” - “Very loud explosions at Clean Harbors Colfax facility” - “Very loud noise/explosion at Clean Harbors Colfax facility” - “Multiple Explosions from Clean Harbors Colfax facility” “... sound of fireworks” - “Two bombs from Clean Harbors Colfax” - “Explosion at the Clean Harbors Colfax facility” - “Ground shaking frem ‘explosion’ at Clean Harbors Colfax facility, Feels the explosions ...” - “Black plume moving North Northwest. Looks like particulates are dropping from the plume, could be ash” 23. A properly designed, operated, and/or maintained hazardous waste treatment facility will adequately prevent adverse operational effects, such as loud booms, shock waves, vibrations, noxious odors, smoke and particulate, from escaping the boundaries of the Facility.24. tall relevant times, Clean Harbors knew or should have known of the off-site impacts of its OB/OD operations, including the loud booms, shock waves, vibrations, noxious odors, smoke and particulate, 25. Inor about 2017, Clean Harbors hired a research firm to “conduct an independent investigation of alternatives to OBOD for disposal of energetic wastes at the [Facility].” ‘The firm prepared a final report for Clean Harbors, which was submitted to the DEQ on April 18, 2017. 26. The final report, titled “Alternatives for the Disposal of Energetic Waste at the Clean Harbor’s Colfax LLC Open Bun Open Detonation Facility, Colfax, Louisiana,” identified numerous alternatives to open buming/ open detonation for the destruction of explosive and reactive waste at the Facility, including through use of various types of detonation chambers, furnaces and kilns. Notably, the research firm sent requests for information to various vendors of alternative technology to provide proposals specific to the needs of the Clean Harbors Facility The report concluded that there are viable alternatives to OBOD at the Facility, including the use of armored rotary kilns/incinerators with pollution abatement systems that “appear to be a robust proven technology with the capability to more than handle the Colfax waste stream.” The report further concluded that “[rJotary kiln technology is the industry standard for [energetic material] destruction facilities.” The report also suggests that the identified alternatives would eliminate or substantially reduce the offsite impact of the loud booms, shock waves, vibrations, noxious odors, smoke and particulate emanating from the Facility’s OB/OD operations. 27. Despite these advices and alternate methods to lessen its bombastic effect on its neighbors, based on information and belief, Clean Harbors has persisted to “thermally treat” its hazardous waste through open burning/ open detonation and has not implemented any alternative technology to destroy the waste that would prevent the adverse operational effects of loud booms, shock waves, vibrations, noxious odors, smoke and particulate from escaping the boundaries of the Facility and impacting its neighbors. 28, Defendant is required to abate these adverse effects by, among other things, operating the Facility in a manner that adequately prevents the adverse effects from escaping the boundaries of the Facility. 29. Defendant has failed to use adequate mitigation strategies, processes, technologies, and/or equipment to control the adverse effects from the Facility and prevent thoseeffects from physically invading the homes and properties of the Plaintiff and putative Class. 30, Defendant's failures to prevent these adverse effects include, but are not limited to: 8) Utilizing inadequate systems for destroying hazardous materials; b) Failing to use alternatives to its OB/OD operations; ©) Failing to train and educate employees on safe procedures for handling hazardous materials; 4) Failing to develop and/or implement adequate plans to prevent the adverse operational effects of OB/OD of hazardous materials; ©) Failing to utilize other prevention, elimination, and mitigation measures and technologies available to Defendant; and 1) Other failures revealed during discovery. 31. Loud booms, shock waves, vibrations, noxious odors, smoke and particulate from the Facility have interfered with activities in the surrounding areas (Class Area) and they have precluded the reasonable use and enjoyment of private and public spaces in those areas. 32. The Facility and its adverse operational effects have been the subject of frequent and numerous complaints by residents in the nearby residential area (Class Area). 33. The Facility’s loud booms, shock waves, vibrations, noxious odors, smoke and particulate preclude Plaintiff/Putative Class Representative Ricky Bush from the ordinary and regular use and enjoyment of his home and property. 34, For many years the Plaintiff’Putative Class Representative has experienced loud booms, shock waves, vibrations, noxious odors, smoke and particulate emanating from the Facility’s OB/OD operations, Within the last year through to the date of the filing of this lawsuit, he has experienced these effects multiple times per week and on Saturdays. He hears loud booms in the morning and the afternoon. These loud booms wake him up 2 to 3 times per week. The loud booms also shake his house at least 2 to 3 times a week, and sometimes knocks items off the wall, He does not know when the loud booms are going to go off. When they do, they startle him. At least 2 to 3 times a week he experiences a strong, noxious smell that smells like gun powder. When the smell comes, he goes inside. He cannot stand the smell, He is concerned about how the smell might affect his health. He does not run the air condition because it will pick up the smell and bring it in his home. Sometimes the smell makes its way inside his home. At times he has seen dark clouds of smoke over his property and he can hear particulate hitting his property35. As a result of the Facility’s OB/OD operations, the Plaintiff has been unable to peaceably use and enjoy his home and property and these restrictions on his use are continuing. For example, the loud booms, shock waves, vibrations, noxious odors, smoke and particulate generally disturb the peaceable use and enjoyment of his home and property. 36, Further, these adverse effects hinder his ability to be outside and engage in outdoor activities. For instance, when the Facility is actively burning, he sneezes and coughs and his throat itches like something is in his throat. He is forced to go inside his home when this occurs. He likes to spend time outside and work in his yard, But when the smell comes, he is forced inside, 37. The adverse effects also restrict the peaceable use and enjoyment of living in his home. For instance, the Plaintiff is forced to keep his doors and windows closed due to the OB/OD operations when he would otherwise have them open for fresh air. There are times when he wants to invite friends and family to his home but does not because he is embarrassed about what is happening around his home. He has lost sleep due to the loud booms. He does not run the air condition when the smell comes. He feels trapped in his home during the OB/OD operations. He is anxious over his inability to use his home like he wants to. He is anxious about the potential impact on the health of himself and the family who lives with him. 38, The Facility has emitted, and continues to emit, preventable adverse effects, such loud booms, shock waves, vibrations, noxious odors, smoke and particulate, that are noticeable beyond the bounds of its property. 39. The adverse operational effects from the Facility’s OB/OD operations are offensive to the Plaintiff and putative Class Members and would be offensive to reasonable people of ordinary health and sensibilities. 40. The adverse operational effects have caused property damage and substantially interfered with the abilities of the Plaintiff and putative Class to use and enjoy their homes and properties. 41. The invasion of the Plaintiff's and putative Class’s properties by the loud booms, shock waves, vibrations, noxious odors, smoke and particulate from the Facility’s OB/OD operations has reduced the value of those properties. 42. The Plaintiff and the putative Class are a limited subset of the broader community, namely owners, occupants and renters of residential properties who live within theClass Area and fit within the Class definition, 43. Members of the public including, but not limited to, businesses, employees, commuters, tourists, visitors, minors, customers, clients, students, and patients have been harmed by the adverse operational effects emanating from the Facility into public spaces. However, unlike the Plaintiff and putative Class, members of the public who are outside of the Class definition have not suffered damages in the form of diminished property values and/or the loss of ‘use and enjoyment of their private property. 44. Defendant knew about the substantial adverse offsite effects from its OB/OD operations through, among other things, numerous complaints and LDEQ investigations. 45. Defendant intentionally, knowingly, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failed to properly construct, maintain, and/or operate the Facility. Defendant caused an invasion of the Plaintiff's and putative Class’s properties by loud booms, shock waves, vibrations, noxious odors, smoke and particulate on frequent, intermittent, and reoceurring occasions too numerous to list individually. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS. A. Definition of the Class 46. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons preliminarily defined as: All owners, occupants and renters of residential property residing within a four (4) mile radius of the Facility property boundary. (the “Class” or “Class Members”). The definitional Class boundary is subject to modification as discovery discloses the location of all persons properly included in the Class. Plaintiff reserves the right to propose one or more sub-classes if discovery reveals that such sub-classes are appropriate. 47. This action is appropriate for determination through the Louisiana Class Action procedure (La. C.C.P, art, 591, et seq.) for the reasons that follow. B. Numerosity 48, The proposed Class is so numerous that joinder is impractical. The disposition of the claims asserted herein through this class action will be more efficient and will benefit the parties and the Court, The Putative Class contains over 50 properties C. Commonality 49. ‘Numerous common questions of law and fact predominate over any individual questions affecting Class Members, including, but not limited to, the following: 9a) Whether and how the Defendant wrongfully, intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, and/or negligently failed to maintain and/or operate the Facility, thereby causing loud booms, shock waves, vibrations, noxious odors, smoke and particulate to invade their properties; b) Whether Defendant owed any duties to the Class Members; ©) Which duties Defendant owed to the Class Members; 4) Which steps Defendant has and has not taken in order to control the release of loud booms, shock waves, vibrations, noxious odors, smoke and particulate through the maintenance and/or operation of the Facility; ©) Whether and to what extent the Facility’s loud booms, shock waves, vibrations, noxious odors, smoke and particulate were dispersed over the Class Area; £) Whether it was reasonably foreseeable that Defendant’s failure to properly maintain and/or operate the Facility would result in an invasion of the Class ‘Members’ property interests; 2) Whether the degree of harm suffered by the Class Members constitutes a substantial annoyance, interference, or deprivation with their use and enjoyment of their properties; and h) The proper measure of damages incurred by the Class Members. Typicality 50. The claims of the named Plaintiff is typical of the claims 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, utilize the same complex evidence (e.g. ‘expert testimony), rely upon the same legal theories, and seek the same type of relief. 51. The claims of the named Plaintiff and the other Class Members have a common ‘cause and their damages are of the same type. The claims originate from the same failures of the Defendant to properly construct, maintain and/or operate the Facility. 52, All Class Members have suffered injury in fact as a result of the invasion of their properties by loud booms, shock waves, vibrations, noxious odors, smoke and particulate emanating from Defendant's Facility. These adverse operational effects interfere with their ability to use and enjoy their homes and have diminished their property values. E. Adequacy of Representation 53. Plaintiff's claims are sufficiently aligned with the interests of the absent Class Members to ensure that the Class’s claims will be prosecuted with diligence and care by the Plaintiff as representatives of the Class. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Class and he does not have interests adverse to the Class. Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class actions and environmental litigation. 10Class Treatment is the Superior Method of Adjudicat fn 54. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation since individual litigation of the claims of all Class Members is impracticable, Even if every Class Member could afford individual litigation, the court system could not. It would be unduly burdensome to this Court in which individual litigation of hundreds of cases would proceed. Individual litigation presents a potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments, and the prospect of a race for the courthouse and an inequitable allocation of recovery among those with equally meritorious claims. Individual litigation increases the expenses and delay to all parties and the court system in resolving the legal and factual issues common to all claims related to the Defendant’s conduct alleged herein. By contrast, a class action presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefit of a single adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court. 55. The various claims asserted in this action are also certifiable under the provisions of La, C.CP. art. $91 et seq. because: a, The prosecution of separate actions by individual Class Members would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual Class Members, thus establishing incompatible standards of conduct for Defendai . The prosecution of separate actions by individual Class Members would also create the risk of adjudications with respect to them that would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of the other Class Members who are not parties to such adjudications and would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests; and c. The questions of law or fact common to the Class Members of the Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class Members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. CAUSE OF ACTION T NUISANCE UNDER LA. C.C. ARTS. 667-669 56. Plaintiff restates all allegations of this Petition as if fully restated herein, 57. Defendant owed, and continues to owe, a duty to the Plaintiff and Class to prevent and abate the unreasonable interference with, and the invasion of, their private property interests. 58. The loud booms, shock waves, vibrations, noxious odors, smoke and particulate which entered the Plaintiff's and Class’s properties originated from the Facility, which was improperly and unreasonably constructed, maintained and/or operated by Defendant. 59. These adverse effects invading the Plaintiff’s and Class’s properties are indecent and offensive to people with ordinary health and sensibilities, and they obstruct the free use of atheir properties so as to substantially and unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life and property. This includes but is not limited to: ) Forcing the Plaintiff and Class Members to remain inside their homes and forego the use of their yards, porches, and other spaces, and to generally refrain from outdoor activities; b) Causing the Plaintiff and Class Members to keep their doors and windows closed when they would otherwise have them open; ©) Depriving the Plaintiff and Class Members of the value of their homes and properties; and 4) Causing the Plaintiff and Class Members embarrassment, inconvenience, and discomfort including, but not limited to, creating a reluctance to invite guests to their homes and preventing the Plaintiff and Class Members from utilizing the outdoor areas of their respective properties. 60. The Plaintiff's and Class’s properties are situated in such proximity to Defendant's Facility as to constitute “neighboring” properties, in that they are near enough to be impacted by the tangible effects of the loud booms, shock waves, vibrations, noxious odors, smoke and particulate emanating from the Facility. 61, — By constructing and/or then failing to reasonably repair, maintain and/or operate the Facility, thereby causing unreasonable adverse effects to invade the Plaintiff's and Class’s properties, Defendant intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, and/or negligently created a nuisance that substantially and unreasonably interferes with the Plaintiff's and Class’s properties. 62, Asa foresceable, direct, and proximate result of the forgoing misconduct of the Defendant, the Plaintiff and Class suffered damages to their properties as alleged herein, 63. The Plaintiff and Class Members did not consent to the invasion of their properties by Defendant’s loud booms, shock waves, vibrations, noxious odors, smoke and particulate emanating from the Facility, which is ongoing and constitutes a nuisance. 64, The damages suffered by the Plaintiff and Class are uniquely injurious to those parties because they suffer harm relating to the use and enjoyment of their lands and properties, and decreased property values, which are not harms suffered by the general public. 65. The general public is also impacted by the Facility’s OB/OD operations. Many members of the general public are impacted when they work, study, commute, shop or engage in recreation in the Class Area, but they suffer no harm to the use and enjoyment of their land or property, or decreased property values. 66. Any social utility that is provided by the Facility is patently outweighed by the hharm suffered by the Plaintiff and Class, who have on frequent occasions been deprived of the 12full use and enjoyment of their properties and have endured substantial loss in the use and value of their properties. 67. Defendant is also strictly liable to Plaintiff and the Class under La, C.C. art. 667 because its actions constitute ultrahazardous activity that have caused and continue to cause damage to the Plaintiff and the Class. 68. Defendant’s substantial and unreasonable interference with the Plaintiff's and Class’s use and enjoyment of their properties constitutes a nuisance, Defendant is liable for all damages arising from such nuisance, including compensatory, injunctive, exemplary, and/or punitive relief. CAUSE OF ACTION II NEGLIGENCE 69. Plaintiff restates all allegations of this Petition as if fully restated herein, 70. Defendant owed, and continues to owe, a duty to the Plaintiff and Class to operate and maintain the Facility in a reasonable manner and to prevent the loud booms, shock waves, vibrations, noxious odors, smoke and particulate caused by its OB/OD operations from escaping the boundaries of the F: ity. 71. Defendant breached its duties by negligently and improperly constructing, maintaining and/or operating the Facility, which was the direct and proximate cause of the invasion of the loud booms, shock waves, vibrations, noxious odors, smoke and particulate upon the Plaintiff's and Class’s homes, lands, and properties on occasions too numerous to list individually. 72. Such invasions were the foreseeable result of the foregoing conduct of Defendant, and the Plaintiff and Class suffered damages to their properties as alleged herein. Such damages include, but are not limited to, the loss of use and enjoyment of their properties and the diminution of property values. 73. By failing to properly construct, maintain and/or operate the Facility, Defendant failed to exercise the duty of ordinary care and diligence. 74, Defendant knowingly, recklessly, and with a conscious disregard for the rights of the Plaintiff and Class allowed conditions to exist and perpetuate that caused the loud booms, shock waves, vibrations, noxious odors, smoke and particulate from the Facility’s OB/OD operations to invade the Plaintifi’s and Class’s properties. 1375, — Defendant’s negligence was committed with a conscious indifference to the harm ‘caused to the Plaintiff’s and Class’s properties, which entitles the Plaintiff and Class to an award for compensatory, injunctive, exemplary, and/or punitive relief. CAUSE OF ACTION II TRESPASS 76. Plaintiff restates all allegations of this Petition as if fully restated herein, 77. Defendant negligently and intentionally allowed loud booms, shock waves, vibrations, noxious odors, smoke and particulate onto the Plaintifi’s and putative Class’s properties without their consent. 78. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendant’s continuing trespass and engaging in the above-mentioned activities, the Plaintiff and putative Class have suffered damages, including, but are not limited to, the loss of use and enjoyment of their properties and the diminution of property values, and are entitled to compensation in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the proposed Class, prays for judgment as follows: A. Certification of the proposed Class pursuant to LA C.C.P. art. 591, et seq.; B. Designation of the Plaintiff as representative of the proposed Class and designation of his counsel as Class Counsel; C. Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and Class Members as against Defendant; D. An award to the Plaintiff and Class Members for damages as are reasonable in the premises, including, but not limited to, actual damages, compensatory damages, economic damages, punitive damages, nuisance damages, diminution in value, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law; E. An award of attomeys’ fees and costs, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law; F. An award of expert costs; G. An Order holding that the entrance of the aforementioned loud booms, shock waves, vibrations, noxious odors, smoke and particulate upon the Plaintiff's and Class’s properties constituted a nuisance; H. An Order holding that the Defendant was negligent in causing loud booms, shock waves, vibrations, noxious odors, smoke and particulate to repeatedly invade and interfere with the Plaintiff's and Class’s private residential properties; 1. An Order holding that the entrance of the aforementioned loud booms, shock waves, vibrations, noxious odors, smoke and particulate upon the Plaintiff's and Class’s properties constituted a trespass; 14J. An award to the Plaintiff and Class Members for injunctive relicf; K. A trial by jury; and L, Such other and further relief available and any relief the Court deems just and appropriate. Respectfully Submitted, MARTZELL, BICKFORD, & CENTOLA. Alderemy J. Landry SCOTT R. BICKFORD (#1165) srb@mbfirm.com LAWRENCE J. CENTOLA, III (#27402) lje@mbfirm.com NEIL F. NAZARETH (#28969) nfn@mbfirm.com JEREMY J. LANDRY (#30588) jj\@mbfirm.com JASON Z. LANDRY (#33932) jzl@mbfirm.com 338 Lafayette Street ‘New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Telephone: — (504) 581-9065 Fax: (504) 581-7635 twahlder@Gol,con STEPHEN J. HECKER (#36492) 1740 Jackson Street P.O. Box 7918 Alexandria, LA 71306 (G18) 442-9417 PLEASE SERVE: Clean Harbors Colfax, LLC Through its Louisiana Agent for Service of Process CT Corporation System 3867 Plaza Tower Dr. Baton Rouge, La 70816 15