PITTSBURGH – A Monroeville landfill has removed to federal court a class action lawsuit which asserted that it is releasing “substantial and noxious” odors that have invaded the properties of the named plaintiffs and numerous other area homeowners.
Frank Franci and Randy Bumbaugh (on behalf of themselves and all others similarly-situated) of Monroeville first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on April 12 versus Chambers Development Company, Inc., of North Huntingdon Township.
“The defendant, its predecessors, and/or its agents constructed or directed the construction of the landfill. The defendant own and operate the landfill, which is on a large plot surrounded by residential properties. The plaintiffs and the putative class reside within one mile of the landfill property boundary. On recurrent and intermittent occasions, plaintiffs’ property including plaintiffs’ neighborhoods, residences and yards have been and continue to be physically invaded by noxious odors, pollutants and air contaminants,” the suit stated.
“The noxious odors, pollutants, and air contaminants which entered plaintiffs’ property originated from the Monroeville Landfill Management Facility located at 600 Thomas Avenue, City of Monroeville, County of Allegheny, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs’ and putative class’ properties have been, and continue to be, physically invaded by fugitive noxious odors emitted from the landfill. The landfill accepts, processes, and stores substantial quantities of waste materials including, but not limited to: Biosolids, municipal solid waste, construction and demolition debris, auto shredder fluff and sandblast media. The materials deposited into the landfill decompose and generate byproducts, including leachate and landfill gas, which generally consists of hydrogen sulfide, methane, carbon dioxide and other various compounds. These byproducts can be particularly odorous and offensive when not managed properly, giving off a characteristic ‘rotten egg’ smell.”
The suit continued that the defendant is “required to control noxious odor emissions by, among other things, operating the landfill in a manner that adequately captures, controls, and mitigates odor emissions to prevent them from escaping into the ambient air surrounding the landfill, and by implementing other reasonably available odor mitigation, elimination, and control systems at the landfill” – and further, that the defendant has failed to use such odor mitigation and reduction tactics.
“The defendant’s failures to prevent off-site emissions include, but are not limited to: a) Failing to install, maintain and operate an adequate landfill gas collection system; b) Insufficient monitoring of the landfill; c) Using inadequate cover and cover practices; d) Inadequate collection, management and disposal of leachate; e) Failing to purchase, possess and maintain appropriate equipment; f) Improper and/or excessive processing of construction and demolition waste; g) Engaging in excavation without adequate erosion or sedimentation controls; and h) The failure to use other odor mitigation and control techniques that are available,” the suit said.
“The landfill and its noxious emissions have been the subject of frequent complaints by citizens in the nearby residential area. Noxious odor emissions from the landfill have interfered with activities in the surrounding areas, and they have precluded the reasonable use and enjoyment of private and public spaces in those areas. Dozens of households within the proposed class area have contacted plaintiffs’ counsel in relation to noxious odors originating from the landfill. Plaintiff Franci reported that he often experiences a lack of sleep from being continuously woken up by the odors emanating from defendant’s landfill. Plaintiff Bumbaugh reported that the ‘odor is so bad it makes the inside of your house smell.”
The suit added “the landfill has emitted, and continues to emit, preventable noxious odors beyond the bounds of its property; the noxious odors are offensive to the plaintiffs and putative class members and would be offensive to reasonable people of ordinary health and sensibilities; the noxious odors have caused property damage and substantially interfered with the abilities of the plaintiffs and the putative class to reasonably use and enjoy their homes and properties; and the invasion of the plaintiffs’ and putative class’ properties by the noxious odors has reduced the value of those properties.”
UPDATE
The defendant removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on May 31, citing original jurisdiction under the federal Class Action Fairness Act, and traditional jurisdiction based upon the amount of damages in controversy and diversity of citizenship between the parties.
“In a class-action suit, only the citizenship of the named parties matters for purposes of diversity under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a). Complete diversity necessitates ‘all plaintiffs must be of diverse citizenship from all defendants.’ As previously established, plaintiffs are citizens of Pennsylvania, and Chambers is a citizen of Delaware and Texas. Therefore, complete diversity under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a) is satisfied,” the removal notice stated, in part.
“In addition, plaintiffs seek punitive damages as well as attorney’s fees. Both must be considered as part of the amount in controversy. A mere compensatory award of $10,000 would suffice to meet the $75,000 amount in controversy here. This is because as noted above, in Pennsylvania, an award of punitive damages that totaled five times the amount of compensatory damages ‘did not violate due process.’ That would equal $50,000. Also, as noted above, attorneys’ fees ‘could be as much as 30 percent of the judgment.’ With a compensatory award of $10,000, punitive damages of $50,000 and attorney’s fees of $18,000, the $75,000 amount in controversy is met here. Therefore, using three different methods of calculating the amount in controversy, this requirement under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a) is satisfied.”
For counts of private nuisance, public nuisance and negligence, the plaintiffs are seeking judgment in their favor and against the defendant, compensatory and punitive damages, including pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, including pre- and post-judgment interest, an order holding that the entrance of the aforementioned noxious odors upon the plaintiffs’ and class’ properties constituted a nuisance, an order holding that the defendant was negligent in causing noxious odors to repeatedly invade and interfere with the plaintiffs’ and class’ private residential properties, an award to the plaintiffs and the class members for injunctive relief not inconsistent with the defendant’s state and federal regulatory obligations; and such further relief, both general and specific, that this Honorable Court deems just and proper.
The plaintiffs are represented by James E. DePasquale in Pittsburgh and Steven D. Liddle of Liddle Sheets Coulson of Detroit, Mich.
The defendant is represented by Branden P. Moore and Eugene E. Matthews of McGuire Woods, also in Pittsburgh and Richmond, Va.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:24-cv-00800
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-24-004220
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com