Filed: 3/10/2017 5:11:01 PM

Lynne Finley
District Clerk
Collin County, Texas
By Erica Armenta Deputy
401-01204-2017 Envelope ID: 15801981
CAUSE NO. ___________________

HOOSHANG KORDY, HAROLD IN THE DISTRICT COURT

KIEKE, AILUN QIAN, AND
STEPHAN SCHMIDT,
Plaintiffs,
_____ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
v.

CITY OF PLANO, TEXAS,
Defendant. COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS

_____________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION

______________________________________________________________________________

COMES NOW Hooshang Kordy, Harold Kieke, Ailun Qian and Stephan Schmidt (herein

Crescent Creek Residents or Plaintiffs) by and through their undersigned counsel, and hereby

file this Original Petition against the City of Plano, Texas (City of Plano or Defendant), and

would respectfully show the Court as follows:

I.
INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiffs complain, inter alia, of polluting events caused by the conduct and

activities of the City of Plano. Defendants releases, emissions, and discharges caused and

continue to cause Plaintiffs and their property to be exposed to hazardous gases, chemicals, and

industrial/hazardous wastes, which caused damages including but not limited to the following:

unreasonable fear, apprehension, offense, discomfort, annoyance, sickness, injury to physical

health, impairment of physical health, exacerbation of physical health and/or preexisting health

conditions, harm from assault on Plaintiffs senses, nausea, loss of peace of mind, emotional

harm/distress, inconvenience, deprivation of enjoyment of property; loss of use and enjoyment of

Plaintiffs property; constructive eviction of Plaintiffs from Plaintiffs property; loss of Plaintiffs

-1-
quality of life; and other damages. Plaintiffs hereby bring suit against the City of Plano and for

causes of action would show unto this honorable Court the following:

II.
DISCOVERY PLAN

2. This case shall be conducted under a Level 3 scheduling order as outlined in the

Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

III.
PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Hooshang Kordy is an individual and resident of Collin County, Texas.

4. Plaintiff Harold Kieke is an individual and resident of Collin County, Texas.

5. Plaintiff Ailun Qian is an individual and resident of Collin County, Texas.

6. Plaintiff Stephan Schmidt is an individual and resident of Collin County, Texas.

7. Defendant City of Plano, Texas is a municipality in the State of Texas and may be

served by serving its City Secretary, Ms. Lisa Henderson, at 1520 K Ave., Suite 300, Plano, Texas

75074.

IV.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. Venue is proper in Collin County, Texas pursuant to the Texas Civil Practice &

Remedies Code because the properties at issue are each located in Collin County, Texas and

because the conduct giving rise to this suit arose, all or in significant part, in Collin County, Texas.

See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE 15.002(a)(1) and 15.011. Plaintiffs seek damages in excess

of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court.

V.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND

9. The City of Plano together with the North Texas Municipal Water District provides

-2-
wastewater treatment services within its jurisdiction. Specifically, the City of Plano together with

the North Texas Municipal Water District owns and operates a wastewater treatment facility and

is the owner and/or operator of the associated sanitary sewer pipe and conveyance system

underlying portions or all of the City of Plano, Texas, all such parts of which constitute a publicly-

owned treatment work or POTW as defined in 40 C.F.R. 122.2 (collectively the Sanitary

Sewer System).

10. The City of Plano together with the North Texas Municipal Water District is

authorized to operate the wastewater treatment facility pursuant to a federal National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System Permit (CWA Permit) issued under Section 402 of the CWA, 33

U.S.C. 1342. In connection with such authorization, the City of Plano together with the North

Texas Municipal Water District is required, among other things, to administer a pretreatment

program designed to ensure compliance with the CWA Permit conditions.

11. The CWA Permit imposes certain conditions, including without limitation:

Permit Conditions 2.b. The permittee has a duty to comply with all conditions
of the permit. Failure to comply with any permit condition constitutes a violation
of the permit and the Texas Water Code or the Texas Health and Safety Code, and
is grounds for enforcement action, for permit amendment, revocation, or
suspension, or for denial of a permit renewal application or an application for a
permit for another facility.

Permit Conditions 2.d. The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize
or prevent any discharge or sludge use or disposal or other permit violation that has
a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment.

Permit Condition 2.g. There shall be no unauthorized discharge of waste or any

other waste. For the purpose of this permit, an unauthorized discharge is
considered to be any discharge of wastewater into or adjacent to water in the state
at any location not permitted as an outfall or otherwise defined in the Other
Requirements section of this permit.

Operational Requirements 1. The permittee shall at all times ensure that the
facility and all of its systems of collection, treatment, and disposal are properly
operated and maintained. (emphasis added)

-3-
 Sludge Provisions. The permittee is authorized to dispose of sludge only at a
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) authorized land application
site or co-disposal landfill.

12. All of the CWA Permit conditions, including those referenced above, constitute

effluent standards or limitations as defined by Section 505(f)(6) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C.

1365(f)(6).1

13. Available public records document that the City of Plano has a long history of

complaints and incidents concerning sewage problems, sewage overflows, illicit discharges of

sewage, and illicit discharges into the Sanitary Sewer System.

14. For instance, on February 7, 2012, a sanitary sewer overflow occurred in the Hidden

Meadows of Los Rios neighborhood at a manhole in Bob Woodruff Park on 18th Street in Plano,

Texas causing untreated sewage to enter the nearby Rowlett Creek.2 In addition to the release of

untreated sewage, bits of toilet paper, baby wipes and feminine hygiene products could also be

seen strewn around the manholes enclosure and along a nearby chain link fence. According to

nearby residents, the manhole overflows two to three times each year and many worry what the

wastewater is doing to the environment. City officials admitted that the City is having a hard time

finding a solution to the problem. It is unclear whether the City of Plano timely notified the Texas

Commission on Environmental Quality within 24 hours of the incident as required under the CWA

permit.

15. On June 13, 2016, another sanitary sewer overflowed near a lift station located at

7103 McKamy Trail in Plano, Texas.3 The sanitary sewer overflow included 144,000 gallons of

1
For purposes of citizen suit authority, effluent standard or limitation under [the CWA] includes a permit or
condition thereof issued under section [502 of the CWA] 33 U.S.C. 1365(f)(6).
2
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/plano/2012/02/07/sewage-overflow-at-plano-park-causes-a-stink-after-
rainstorms
3
http://starlocalmedia.com/planocourier/sanitary-sewer-overflow-near-indian-creek-in-plano/article_5817c1a4-

-4-
untreated water from a manhole located approximately 600 feet from Indian Creek north of

Windhaven Parkway, Plano, Texas. The overflow made its way into Indian Creek approximately

five miles north of its confluence with the Elm Fork of the Trinity River. Field monitoring indicates

a negative impact to water quality for approximately 400 yards downstream. It was determined

that the release was caused in part due to aging infrastructure and increase system capacity in the

Sanitary Sewer System.

16. The Crescent Creek Residents have also been subjected to similar sanitary sewer

overflow events. Recently, a sanitary sewer overflowed in this area which caused raw sewage to

be discharged onto the Crescent Creek Residents properties. In addition, the overflow resulted

in raw sewage overflowing not only from the manhole, but also from a toilet in one of the Crescent

Creek Residents homes. The City of Plano did not assist the resident in cleaning up the raw

sewage that overflowed into his house. It is unclear whether the City of Plano timely reported

this incident to the TCEQ as required under the CWA Permit.

17. In addition, it is well documented that the Crescent Creek Residents have also been

exposed to air toxins, including hydrogen sulfide and methane, from the Sanitary Sewer System

in the past. City officials have acknowledged that air toxins were coming from its Sanitary Sewer

System and hired an engineering firm to try to determine a solution. It was later determined that

the air toxins were coming from an old underground sewer line that runs along nearby Russell

Creek. City officials admitted that the odor was unacceptable and tried to find a solution rather

than the Band-Aid approach that they had utilized in the past.

18. Unfortunately, the problem has not resolved. Recently, the Crescent Creek

Residents again complained about the rotten egg smell from the Sanitary Sewer System.4 Based

2f4f-11e6-995c-cfc1ccadb99d.html
4
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2017/01/30/i-team-plano-testing-air-for-hazardous-gas-as-neighbors-complain-about-

-5-
upon information and belief, the odor and related toxic air emissions are occasional, intermittent,

recurrent, sporadic or contingent upon some irregular force.

19. City officials have since admitted that the smell is hydrogen sulfide might be due

to a poorly designed sewer system in the area. The City again acknowledged that the situation

was unacceptable. It now appears the City of Plano previously tested the air quality around the

Sanitary Sewer System which indicated that the hydrogen sulfide levels were three to four times

above what the federal OSHA standards permit. These test results were not disclosed to the

Crescent Creek Residents. Many of the Crescent Creek Residents believe that similar air toxins

are migrating into their homes which has caused many of their recent health problems (i.e. severe

nausea, headaches, dizziness, and rashes). According to a University of Texas at Arlington

chemistry professor, the hydrogen sulfide levels discovered by the City of Plano could potentially

be deadly if a person was subjected to it.

20. The discharge of the toxic air emissions from the Sanitary Sewer System as well as

the sanitary sewer overflow are violations of the CWA Permit conditions referenced above.

Sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), which constitute violations of the CWA, are under heightened

scrutiny nationwide due to the serious threat posed to human health and the environment. The

U.S. Environmental Protections Agency has identified SSOs as one of its highest priorities, and

has issued a National Enforcement Initiative concerning SSOs that notes:

Raw sewage overflows and inadequately controlled stormwater discharges from

municipal sewer systems introduce a variety of harmful pollutants, including
disease causing organisms, metals and nutrients that threaten our communities
water quality and can contribute to disease outbreaks, beach and shellfish bed
closings, flooding, stream scouring, fishing advisories and basement backups of
sewage.

EPA is taking enforcement action at municipal sewer systems with Clean Water
Act violations to reduce pollution and volume of stormwater runoff and to reduce

awful-smell/

-6-
 unlawful discharges of raw sewage that degrade water quality in communities.5

21. The U.S Environmental Protection Agency has stated in its SSO Fact Sheet, that

neighborhoods that experience SSOs or perceived impairments to water quality drop in value.

22. The City of Plano together with the North Texas Municipal Water District has an

aging Sanitary Sewer System with hundreds of miles of wastewater lines that, upon information

and belief, is plagued by infiltration and blockages, and is sorely in need of a system-wide upgrade.

At this time the Sanitary Sewer System is likely to require significant capital repairs, upgrades,

and expansions.6

23. The City of Plano has failed to comply with its CWA Permit (i.e. applicable effluent

limitations and standards) by allowing its Sanitary Sewer System to fall into, and remain in, serious

disrepair, and allowing introduction of surface waters and pollutants into the Sanitary Sewer

System, emissions of noxious odor and toxic air emissions, and discharge of raw untreated sewage

into and on surface areas, and receiving waters in violations of the CWA Permit discharge

standards. On information and belief, the City of Plano has taken only temporary stop-gap

measures to address violations as they occur rather than implementing the necessary system-wide

improvements.

24. The City of Plano Sanitary Sewer System has blockages city-wide, has sanitary

sewer overflows, and clearly has the potential to cause pollutants to enter surface waters of the

state and/or cause effluent limit violations at the wastewater treatment plant. Additionally, the

City of Plano appears to have weighed the cost of correcting its violations against the level of

attention it has received from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Texas

5
http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/national-enforcement-initiative-keeping-raw-sewage-and-contaminated-
stormwater-out-our
6
The City of Plano would be well served to review the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys Financing Capital
Improvements for SSO Abatement publication.

-7-
Commission on Environmental Quality.

25. To date, the Crescent Creek Residents are unaware that any formal enforcement

action has been taken by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or the Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality to cause the City of Plano to take actions to cease its violations of the CWA

and the CWA Permit. In particular, no federal or state action has been instituted to compel the

City of Plano to take actions to prevent SSOs onto or near the Crescent Creek Residents property

or into or adjacent to Russell Creek which is near the Crescent Creek Residents property or to

prevent the release of air toxins from the Sanitary Sewer System.

26. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has undertaken enforcement actions

against municipalities with CWA violations of a similar nature and magnitude. For, example, in

January 2015, pursuant to a settlement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and

the City of Fort Smith, Arkansas, the City of Fort Smith resolved allegations that it failed to prevent

sanitary sewer overflows through proper operation and maintenance of its system. In settlement

the City of Fort Smith was required to spend more than $255 million plus the cost of routine

operation and maintenance on upgrades to its sewer collection and treatment system. Similarly,

in the last year, the City of Lima, Ohio resolved the governments allegations of discharges of raw

sewage with civil penalties and injunctive relief that is estimated to exceed $147 million.

VI.
CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT 1: NEGLIGENCE

27. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully

set forth herein.

28. As stated above, the City of Plano has allowed its Sanitary Sewer System to fall

into, and remain in, serious disrepair, and allowing introduction of surface waters and pollutants

-8-
into the Sanitary Sewer System, emissions of noxious odor and toxic air emissions, and discharge

of raw untreated sewage into and on surface areas, and receiving waters in violations of the CWA

Permit discharge standards. It now appears the City of Plano previously tested the air quality

around the Sanitary Sewer System which indicated that the hydrogen sulfide levels were three to

four times above what the federal OSHA standards permit. These test results were not disclosed

to the Crescent Creek Residents. Many of the Crescent Creek Residents believe that similar air

toxins are migrating into their homes which has caused many of their recent health problems (i.e.

severe nausea, headaches, dizziness, and rashes). Based upon information and belief, the odor

and related toxic air emissions are occasional, intermittent, recurrent, sporadic or contingent upon

some irregular force. According to a University of Texas at Arlington chemistry professor, the

hydrogen sulfide levels discovered by the City of Plano could potentially be deadly if a person was

subjected to it.

29. On information and belief, the City of Plano has taken only temporary stop-gap

measures to address violations as they occur rather than implementing the necessary system-wide

improvements.

30. As a result, the City of Planos actions or inactions pose a threat to human health

and the environment. In connection with its activities, the City of Planos acts and/or omissions

of negligence, upon information and belief, include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Failing to act reasonably and prudently to protect the Crescent Creek Residents and
their properties from exposure to raw sewage from SSOs as well as exposure to air
toxins;

b. Failing to ensure that the Sanitary Sewer System functioned properly;

c. Failing to comply with all local and state regulations and statutes governing the
operation and maintenance of the Sanitary Sewer System; and

d. Failing to timely, completely, appropriately, and correctly control, correct, prevent,

-9-
 and otherwise address the further release of sewage and air toxins from the Sanitary
Sewer System.

31. Plaintiffs plead the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The existence and apparent

release, discharge and/or disposal of raw sewage and air toxins from the Sanitary Sewer System

which is in the control of the City of Plano, and the subsequent damage to Plaintiffs and their

properties, is proof of the breach of duty of care of the City of Plano and proof of its negligence.

32. Plaintiffs have sustained and will continue to sustain damages in excess of the

minimum jurisdictional limits of the Court as a direct and proximate result of these negligent acts

and/or omissions.

COUNT 2: GROSS NEGLIGENCE

33. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully

set forth herein.

34. In addition or in the alternative, Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs for gross

negligence.

35. Defendant owed the aforementioned legal duties to Plaintiffs when conducting its

activities, actions, and/or inactions.

36. Defendant breached the duty to Plaintiffs through its activities, actions, and/or

inactions.

37. Defendant consciously and/or deliberately engaged in recklessness, oppression,

fraud, willfulness, wantonness and/or malice through its activities, actions, and/or inactions when

they caused releases, emissions, and discharges of hazardous gases, chemicals, and

industrial/hazardous wastes created by Defendants activities, actions, and/or inactions, and

Defendant should be held liable in punitive and exemplary damages to Plaintiffs.

38. Defendants conduct directly and/or proximately caused injury to Plaintiffs, which

-10-
resulted in the damages detailed below.

39. Plaintiffs seek unliquidated damages within the jurisdictional limits of this court.

COUNT 3: NEGLIGENCE PER SE

40. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully

set forth herein.

41. In addition or in the alternative, Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs for Negligence Per

Se.

42. By the acts or omissions discussed herein, Defendants negligence violated statutes

designed to protect a class of persons to which Plaintiffs belong against the type of injury suffered

by Plaintiffs and which statutes are of the type that impose tort liability.

43. Specifically, Defendants negligence, with or without legal permitting and without

legal excuse, violated the following statutes - to wit:

a. Violation of Sections 301(a) and 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1311(a) and 1342,
as well as rules implementing the Act, by prohibited sewage overflows, illicit
discharges of sewage, emission of air toxins and illicit discharges into the Sanitary
Sewer System.

b. Violation of TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, TITLE 30 - ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality - Chapter 101. 101.4
NUISANCE: ... No person shall discharge from any source whatsoever one or
more air contaminants or combinations thereof, in such concentration and of such
duration as are or may tend to be injurious to or to adversely affect human health
or welfare, animal life, vegetation, or property, or as to interfere with the normal
use and enjoyment of animal life, vegetation, or property. See also TEX. HEALTH
& SAFETY CODE Ch. 382 - 382.003(12), 382.0518, 382.085(a), (b); see also TEX.
WATER CODE 7.051-53.

c. Violation of TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. 22.01 - ASSAULT: A person commits an

offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to
another, including the persons spouse and intentionally or knowingly causes
physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe
that the other will regard the contact as offensive.

d. Violation of TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE 75.002(h): An owner, lessee, or

-11-
 occupant of real property in this state is liable for trespass as a result of migration
or transport of any air contaminant, as defined in section 382.003(2) of the TEXAS
HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE [Air contaminant means particulate matter,
radioactive material, dust, fumes, gas, mist, smoke, vapor, or odor, including any
combination of those items, produced by processes other than natural], other than
odor, only upon a showing of actual and substantial damages by a plaintiff in a civil
suit.

44. Defendants violations of these statutes are without a legal excuse.

45. Defendants actions directly and proximately caused injury to Plaintiffs, which

resulted in the damages detailed below.

46. Plaintiffs seek unliquidated damages within the jurisdictional limits of this court.

COUNT 4: TRESPASS

47. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully

set forth herein.

48. As stated above, the City of Plano has allowed its Sanitary Sewer System to fall

into, and remain in, serious disrepair, and allowing introduction of surface waters and pollutants

into the Sanitary Sewer System, emissions of noxious odor and toxic air emissions, and discharge

of raw untreated sewage into and on surface areas, and receiving waters in violations of the CWA

Permit discharge standards.

49. It now appears the City of Plano previously tested the air quality around the

Sanitary Sewer System which indicated that the hydrogen sulfide levels were three to four times

above what the federal OSHA standards permit. These test results were not disclosed to the

Crescent Creek Residents. Many of the Crescent Creek Residents believe that similar air toxins

are migrating into their homes which has caused many of their recent health problems (i.e. severe

nausea, headaches, dizziness, and rashes). Based upon information and belief, the odor and

related toxic air emissions are occasional, intermittent, recurrent, sporadic or contingent upon some

-12-
irregular force. According to a University of Texas at Arlington chemistry professor, the

hydrogen sulfide levels discovered by the City of Plano could potentially be deadly if a person was

subjected to it.

50. On information and belief, the City of Plano has taken only temporary stop-gap

measures to address violations as they occur rather than implementing the necessary system-wide

improvements.

51. The foregoing actions or inactions by the City of Plano constitute a trespass onto

Plaintiffs and their property. The City of Planos conduct in causing and being the source of the

raw sewage and the migration of toxic air emissions is unlawful and without permission.

52. Plaintiffs have sustained and will continue to sustain damages in excess of the

minimum jurisdictional limits of the Court as a direct and proximate result of these acts and/or

omissions.

COUNT 6: NUISANCE

53. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully

set forth herein.

54. The City of Plano created a nuisance by improperly, negligently, recklessly, and/or

intentionally allowing the introduction of surface waters and pollutants into the Sanitary Sewer

System, emissions of noxious odor and toxic air emissions, and discharge of raw untreated sewage

into and on surface areas, and receiving waters in violations of the CWA Permit discharge

standards.

55. The City of Plano has created a nuisance by failing to operate its Sanitary Sewer

System in a manner that would have prevented the above events. Such actions or inactions have

substantially and unreasonably interfered with Plaintiffs and their use and enjoyment of the

-13-
Plaintiffs Property. Based upon information and belief, the odor and related toxic air emissions

which caused the substantial and unreasonable interference are occasional, intermittent, recurrent,

sporadic or contingent upon some irregular force.

56. Due to the nuisance created by the City of Plano, Plaintiffs have been damaged in

excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court.

VII.
DAMAGES

57. The City of Planos, actions, and/or inactions, as detailed above, directly and/or

proximately caused personal injury and property damage to Plaintiffs, which include the following:

a. Physical pain in the past, present, and future which include but are not limited to:
unreasonable fear, apprehension, offense, discomfort, annoyance, sickness, injury
to physical health, impairment of physical health, exacerbation of physical health
and/or preexisting health conditions, harm from assault on Plaintiffs senses,
nausea, loss of peace of mind, emotional harm/distress, inconvenience, and
deprivation of enjoyment of property.

b. Emotional harm and mental anguish in the past, present, and future which include
but are not limited to: unreasonable fear, apprehension, offense, discomfort,
annoyance, sickness, injury to physical health, impairment of physical health,
exacerbation of physical health and/or preexisting health conditions, harm from
assault on Plaintiffs senses, nausea, loss of peace of mind, emotional harm/distress,
inconvenience, and deprivation of enjoyment of property.

c. Physical impairment in the past, present, and future which include but are not
limited to: unreasonable fear, apprehension, offense, discomfort, annoyance,
sickness, injury to physical health, impairment of physical health, exacerbation of
physical health and/or preexisting health conditions, harm from assault on
Plaintiffs senses, nausea, loss of peace of mind, emotional harm/distress,
inconvenience, and deprivation of enjoyment of property.

d. Medical expenses in the past, present, and future which include but are not limited
to: unreasonable fear, apprehension, offense, discomfort, annoyance, sickness,
injury to physical health, impairment of physical health, exacerbation of physical
health and/or preexisting health conditions, harm from assault on Plaintiffs senses,
nausea, loss of peace of mind, emotional harm/distress, inconvenience, and
deprivation of enjoyment of property.

e. Loss of earning capacity in the past, present, and future which include but are not

-14-
 limited to: unreasonable fear, apprehension, offense, discomfort, annoyance,
sickness, injury to physical health, impairment of physical health, exacerbation of
physical health and/or preexisting health conditions, harm from assault on
Plaintiffs senses, nausea, loss of peace of mind, emotional harm/distress,
inconvenience, and deprivation of enjoyment of property.

f. Loss of consortium in the past, present, and future which include but are not limited
to: unreasonable fear, apprehension, offense, discomfort, annoyance, sickness,
injury to physical health, impairment of physical health, exacerbation of physical
health and/or preexisting health conditions, harm from assault on Plaintiffs senses,
nausea, loss of peace of mind, emotional harm/distress, inconvenience, and
deprivation of enjoyment of property.

g. Unreasonable fear, apprehension, offense, discomfort, annoyance, sickness, injury

to physical health, impairment of physical health, exacerbation of physical health
and/or preexisting health conditions, harm from assault on Plaintiffs senses,
nausea, loss of peace of mind, emotional harm/distress, inconvenience, and
deprivation of enjoyment of property in the past, present, and future.

h. Property damage to real and personal property.

i. Loss of use and enjoyment damages.

j. Unliquidated damages within the jurisdictional limits of this court.

k. Attorneys fees under TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE 102.002(b), and
other statutory authority providing same.

l. Exemplary damages under TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES Code 41.001,
41.003(a), et seq.

m. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. TEXAS FINANCE CODE 304.001, et seq.,

and any other applicable law.

n. Lifetime Medical Monitoring Damages: Plaintiffs were wrongfully and

significantly exposed to Defendants releases, emissions, and discharges of
hazardous gases, chemicals, and industrial/hazardous wastes through Defendants
activities, actions, and/or inactions in and around Plaintiffs Property. As a result,
Plaintiffs were significantly exposed to Defendants hazardous gases, chemicals,
and industrial/hazardous wastes (chemicals), which significant exposure to
Defendants chemicals caused Plaintiffs to suffer verifiable and medically
cognizable symptoms and diseases. Additionally, Plaintiffs exposure significantly
increased Plaintiffs risk of developing additional medically cognizable and serious
diseases. Plaintiffs potential medically cognizable and serious diseases could be
detected by existing medical examinations. The medical examinations that exist are
different from those typically recommended in the absence of the exposures

-15-
 suffered by Plaintiffs. Early detection of both current symptoms and potential
symptoms will help to ameliorate the severity of the disease(s) caused by
Defendants chemicals from Defendants activities, actions, and/or inactions.
Plaintiffs increased risk makes early and periodic diagnostic medical examinations
reasonably necessary according to contemporary scientific principles.

o. Abatement, Injunctive, and/or Equitable relief/damages.

p. Nominal damages for each trespass by each Defendant, in addition to Plaintiffs

actual damages and other damages enumerated above.

VIII.
JURY DEMAND

58. Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all factual issues raised in this action.

IX.
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

59. Pursuant to Rule 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant is requested

to disclose, within fifty (50) day of service of this request, the information or material described

in Rule 194.2.

X.
STATEMENT OF AMOUNT OF RECOVERY SOUGHT

60. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 47, Plaintiffs plead that they seek

monetary relief over $1,000,000.

XI.
PRAYER

61. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs ask that the Court issue

citation for Defendant to appear and answer, and that Plaintiffs be awarded a judgment against

Defendant for the following: Actual damages; Prejudgment and Post-judgment interest; Court

costs; Exemplary damages; and all other relief to which Plaintiffs are entitled at law and in equity.

-16-
Respectfully submitted,

GOLDMAN LAW, PC

/s/ Michael R. Goldman

Michael R. Goldman
State Bar No. 24025383
Goldman Law, PC
One Energy Square
4925 Greenville Avenue, Suite 200
Dallas, Texas 75206
Phone: (972) 850-8490
Facsimile: (972) 692-7265
michael@goldmanlawpc.com

COUNSEL FOR HOOSHANG KORDY,

HAROLD KIEKE, AILUN QIAN, AND
STEPHAN SCHMIDT

-17-