1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

GARRISON SOUTHFIELD PARK LLC, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CLOSED LOOP REFINING AND RECOVERY, 

INC.; FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES, INC.

D/B/A UNICOR; KUUSAKOSKI INC.; 

KUUSAKOSKI US LLC; KUUSAKOSKI 

GLASS RECYCLING LLC; VINTAGE TECH, 

LLC A.K.A. VINTAGE TECH RECYCLERS, 

INC. and VINTAGE TECH RECYCLING; 

ACCURATE IT SERVICES LTD.; B&K 

TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INC. D/B/A 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY RECYCLING; 

AIM ECYCLING, LLC; AMERICAN 

RETROWORKS, INC.; ARROW RECOVERY 

GROUP, INC.; CIE INTERNATIONAL L.L.C. 

D/B/A C2 MANAGEMENT; COHEN 

ELECTRONICS, INC.; COMPLETE 

RECYCLING SOLUTIONS, LLC; 

COMPRENEW; COMPUPOINT USA LLC; 

COMPUTER RECYCLING OF VIRGINIA, 

INC.; DYNAMIC LIFESTYLE INNOVATIONS 

INC. A/KA DYNAMIC RECYCLING, INC. 

A.K.A. DYNAMIC 1 TO 1 CONTRACT 

LOADS; ECYCLESECURE, LLC; E-LOT 

ELECTRONICS RECYCLING, INC.; 

ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION 

SERVICES AND RECYCLING, INC.; 

EREVIVAL LLC; ROBERT A. ERIE; EWASTE 

RECYCLING SOLUTIONS, LLC; EWORKS 

ELECTRONICS SERVICES, INC.; E-WORLD 

RECYCLERS, LLC A.K.A. E-WORLD 

ONLINE, LLC; GEEP HOLDINGS INC.; GEEP 

USA INC.; GREAT LAKES ELECTRONICS 

CORPORATION; GREEN CHIP, INC.; GREEN 

TECH RECYCLING, LLC; GREEN WAVE 

COMPUTER RECYCLING, LLC; IMS 

ELECTRONICS RECYCLING, INC.; INTERCO 

TRADING, INC.; JD BEAVERS CO. LLC; 

MRC I, LLC D/B/A MRC RECYCLING; ABC 

CORP HOLDINGS LLC D/B/A OHIO DROP 

)

)

)

)

Case No.2:17-cv-00783-GCS-CMV

)

)

)

)

Judge George C. Smith

Mag. Judge Chelsey M. Vascura

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 1 of 186 PAGEID #: 804
2

OFF, LLC; POTOMAC ECYCLE, LLC; F&F 

ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. D/B/A 

QUICKSILVER RECYCLING SERVICES; 

RMG ENTERPRISE, LLC; ROCHESTER 

COMPUTER RECYCLING & RECOVERY, 

LLC A.K.A. EWASTE+; SIAM RECLAIM 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; MOSHE SILAGI; 

STRICKLAND ELECTRONIC RECYCLING, 

LLC; SUNNKING, INC.; TK6, INC.; USB 

RECYCLING.COM, LLC; WASTE 

COMMISSION OF SCOTT COUNTY, IOWA; 

and FORMALLY BARDWILLS, LLC D/B/A 

WE ELECTRONICS.

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Garrison Southfield Park LLC (“Garrison” or “Plaintiff”), by the 

undersigned counsel, as and for its First Amended Complaint (hereinafter referred to as the 

“Complaint”), alleges as follows against Closed Loop Refining and Recovery, Inc. 

(“Closed Loop”), Moshe Silagi, and the “Arranger/Transporter Defendants,” which 

include, respectively and together, Federal Prison Industries, Inc. d/b/a UNICOR 

(“UNICOR”); Kuusakoski Inc., Kuusakoski US LLC, Kuusakoski Glass Recycling LLC 

(“Kuusakoski Recycling”), and Vintage Tech, LLC a.k.a. Vintage Tech Recyclers, Inc. and 

Vintage Tech Recycling (“Vintage Tech”) (with Defendants Kuusakoski Inc., Kuusakoski 

US LLC, Kuusakoski Recycling, and Vintage Tech, respectively and together, the 

“Kuusakoski Defendants”); Accurate IT Services Ltd. (“Accurate IT”); B&K Technology 

Solutions Inc. d/b/a Advanced Technology Recycling (“ATR”); AIM Ecycling, LLC

(“AIM”); American Retroworks, Inc. (“ARI”); Arrow Recovery Group, Inc. (“ARG”); CIE 

International L.L.C. d/b/a C2 Management (“C2”); Cohen Electronics, Inc. (“Cohen”); 

Complete Recycling Solutions, LLC (“CRS”); Comprenew; CompuPoint USA LLC

(“CompuPoint”); Computer Recycling of Virginia, Inc. (“CRV”); Dynamic Lifestyle 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 2 of 186 PAGEID #: 805
3

Innovations Inc. a.k.a. Dynamic Recycling, Inc. a.k.a. Dynamic 1 to 1 Contract Loads

(“Dynamic”); eCycleSecure, LLC (“eCycle”); e-Lot Electronics Recycling, Inc. (“E-Lot”); 

Environmental Coordination Services and Recycling, Inc. (“ECSR”); eRevival LLC

(“eRevival”); Robert A. Erie, individually; eWaste Recycling Solutions, LLC (“eWaste 

Recycling”); eWorks Electronics Services, Inc. (“eWorks”); E-World Recyclers, LLC 

a.k.a. E-World Online, LLC (“E-World Online”); GEEP Holdings Inc. (“GEEP”); GEEP 

USA Inc. (“GEEP USA”); Great Lakes Electronics Corporation (“Great Lakes”); Green 

Chip, Inc. (“Green Chip”); Green Tech Recycling LLC (“Green Tech”); Green Wave 

Computer Recycling, LLC (“Green Wave”); Interco Trading, Inc. (“Interco”); IMS 

Electronics Recycling, Inc. (“IMS”); JD Beavers Co. LLC (“JD Beavers”); MRC I, LLC 

d/b/a MRC Recycling (“MRC”); ABC Corp Holdings LLC d/b/a Ohio Drop Off, LLC

(“Ohio Drop Off”); Potomac eCycle, LLC (“Potomac”); F&F Environmental, Inc. d/b/a 

Quicksilver Recycling Services (“Quicksilver”); RMG Enterprise, LLC (“RMG”); 

Rochester Computer Recycling & Recovery, LLC a.k.a. EWASTE+ (“RCRR”); Siam 

Reclaim Technologies, Inc. (“Siam”); Strickland Electronic Recycling, LLC

(“Strickland”); Sunnking, Inc. (“Sunnking”); TK6, Inc. (“TK6”); USB Recycling.com, 

LLC (“USB”); Waste Commission of Scott County, Iowa (“Waste Commission”); and

Formally Bardwills, LLC d/b/a We Electronics (“We”).

I. NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This action seeks declaratory relief, cost recovery, and common law 

damages resulting from environmental contamination caused by Defendant Closed Loop, 

Defendant Silagi, and the Arranger/Transporter Defendants at two contiguous warehouses

owned by Garrison and located at 1655 and 1675 Watkins Road, Columbus, Ohio 43207 

(together, the “Properties”). Plaintiff’s claims for relief arise under (i) the Declaratory 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 3 of 186 PAGEID #: 806
4

Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202; (ii) the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-

9675; and (iii) principles of common law. 

2. As more fully demonstrated below, Defendant Closed Loop and the 

Arranger/Transporter Defendants collaborated in an elaborate sham recycling scheme that 

extended across the country to profit from the stockpiling and subsequent abandonment of

more than 64,000 tons (128 million pounds) of hazardous electronic waste (“e-waste”) at 

the Properties. Defendant Closed Loop collected millions of dollars in illegal revenue over 

a four-year period, while the Arranger/Transporter Defendants saved millions of dollars in 

waste disposal fees, leaving Garrison with the costs of removing and/or remediating nearly 

10 acres of hazardous e-waste at the Properties, at a cost that will exceed $14.2 million.

3. Defendant Closed Loop launched the scheme by leasing the Properties from 

Garrison, claiming to be a bona fide recycler of cathode ray tubes, which are the glass 

vacuum tubes that constitute the video display component of televisions, computer 

monitors, and other electronic devices. It then charged artificially low prices to undercut 

the national e-waste recycling market and to accept as many CRT-containing electronic 

devices (“CRTs”) as possible, including CRTs from the Arranger/Transporter Defendants, 

to maximize profits. In certain instances, it cherry-picked what limited valuable 

commodities it could (such as wire, plastics, aluminum, and steel) from the inbound CRTs, 

then sold those commodities for additional profit. It cross-contaminated the remaining CRT 

glass by feeding both the leaded funnel glass and the panel glass together into a mechanical 

crusher, creating a worthless stream of commingled leaded and nonleaded glass. This

ostensibly “processed” CRT glass was stockpiled in the Properties indefinitely, without 

any feasible means to recycle it. Contrary to its assertions, Defendant Closed Loop never 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 4 of 186 PAGEID #: 807
5

had the capacity to install and operate a furnace to recycle this glass, nor did it ever have 

sufficient downstream markets willing to accept and recycle it. 

4. The Arranger/Transporter Defendants aided and abetted the scheme by 

transporting and/or arranging for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties, 

despite the fact that they knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was a 

sham recycler. The Arranger/Transporter Defendants had the sophistication and the 

experience in the e-waste industry to ascertain the true nature of Defendant Closed Loop’s

sham recycling operation, yet continued to cause truckload after truckload of CRTs and 

other e-waste to be deposited at the Properties to take advantage of Defendant Closed 

Loop’s artificially low prices. The Arranger/Transporter Defendants fully recognized at the 

time the arrangements were made, and at the time the CRTs and other e-waste were 

accepted for transport, that Defendant Closed Loop lacked any feasible means to recycle 

them. They thus provided material support to the sham recycling scheme and should 

likewise be held accountable for the environmental contamination that resulted.

5. Through four years of misrepresentations, acts, and omissions, Defendant 

Closed Loop misled Garrison and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (“Ohio 

EPA”) with respect to whether Defendant Closed Loop qualified for a limited regulatory 

exclusion from federal and state hazardous waste regulations that applies only to legitimate 

CRT recycling operations (“CRT conditional exclusion”). Defendant Closed Loop pursued

a series of delay tactics designed to mislead Garrison and the Ohio EPA into believing that 

recycling operations at the Properties qualified for the CRT conditional exclusion and that 

there was a feasible means of recycling the CRTs and other e-waste that had been 

accumulating. Throughout all or part of this four-year period, the Arranger/Transporter 

Defendants knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop could not have 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 5 of 186 PAGEID #: 808
6

possibly met all of the elements of the CRT conditional exclusion given the extraordinary 

volume of e-waste at issue and Defendant Closed Loop’s inability to demonstrate that there 

was any feasible means of recycling all of it. The Arranger/Transporter Defendants

accordingly knew or should have known that the CRTs and other e-waste they were 

shipping was classified as hazardous waste that was being sent for disposal or treatment.

Nevertheless, scores of shippers, including the Arranger/Transporter Defendants herein, 

arranged for the transport of these materials to the Properties as if they were being sent for 

recycling, benefitting from the scheme through willful blindness or outright conspiracy, in 

an effort to profit off Defendant Closed Loop’s price point – an offer no legitimate CRT 

recycler could possibly beat.

6. Soon after the Ohio EPA discovered the scheme, Defendant Closed Loop 

abandoned the Properties, leaving behind towers of whole CRTs and “processed” CRT 

glass that had been packed into the warehouses 15-20 feet high. Significant portions of the 

Properties remain inaccessible given the manner in which Defendant Closed Loop blocked 

aisles to make room for more inbound shipments from the Arranger/Transporter 

Defendants. CRT disassembly lines were halted mid-stream as part of Defendant Closed

Loop’s rushed exit. Employee overalls, boots, and gloves contaminated with hazardous 

leaded dust were left in piles on the floor. Office furniture and file cabinets were abandoned 

as well, although Defendant Closed Loop took the time to remove nearly all of the business 

records from the Properties, except for those contained in a single file drawer, which was 

jammed shut.

7. The Court of Common Pleas in Franklin County, Ohio (“Franklin County 

Court”) conducted a bench trial in connection with related state litigation filed by Garrison 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 6 of 186 PAGEID #: 809
7

against Defendant Closed Loop arising out of the lease agreements for the Properties. On 

or about August 7, 2017, the Court found for Garrison, ruling that:

“. . . Closed Loop was not engaged in legitimate CRT recycling operations at the 

Properties, but was instead engaged in the speculative accumulation and subsequent 

abandonment and disposal of the CRT Waste at the Properties without any feasible 

means of recycling it. The testimony established that [Closed Loop] . . . also failed 

to segregate leaded funnel glass from panel glass during its CRT recycling 

operation, resulting in the abandonment of over 113 million pounds of crushed, 

commingled leaded and unleaded glass at the Properties in addition to 

approximately 15 million pounds of other electronic waste. . . . [A] legitimate CRT 

recycling operation at the Properties would not have commingled the CRT glass 

because the cross-contamination of leaded and unleaded glass would have rendered 

any available downstream recycling option unprofitable, i.e., no legitimate market 

existed for this commingled glass as a feedstock for lead smelters or otherwise.”

Despite Garrison’s best efforts, however, it has been unable to recover the judgment from 

Defendant Closed Loop through the Franklin County litigation and discussions leading up 

to it.

8. Garrison now brings this action to require Defendant Closed Loop, 

Defendant Silagi, and the Arranger/Transporter Defendants to clean up and/or pay for the 

cleanup of more than 64,000 tons (128 million pounds) of e-waste that currently remains

at the Properties. 

II. PARTIES

A. Plaintiff Garrison

9. Plaintiff is a limited liability corporation duly organized and existing under 

the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal office and place of business in New 

York, New York. Plaintiff owns the Properties.

B. Defendant Closed Loop

10. Defendant Closed Loop is a corporation organized under the laws of the 

state of Arizona, with a principal place of business in Phoenix, Arizona. Starting in 2012 

and extending into 2016, Defendant Closed Loop was a tenant occupying the Properties.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 7 of 186 PAGEID #: 810
8

C. Defendant Silagi

11. Defendant Silagi is an individual with a principal place of business at 101 

Hodencamp Road, Suite 200, Thousand Oaks, California 91360. Defendant Silagi was the 

sole member and the managing member of MS-South LLC, which owned 1675 Watkins 

Road, Columbus, Ohio 43207 (“1675 Watkins Road”) from prior to April 6, 2012 through 

on or about April 29, 2013, and which leased 1675 Watkins Road to Defendant Closed 

Loop during this time period.

D. Defendant UNICOR

12. Defendant UNICOR is a wholly-owned government corporation pursuant 

to 31 U.S.C. § 9101(3)(E), with a principal place of business in Washington, DC. Pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 9620(a)(1), the federal government waived sovereign immunity for purposes 

of cases arising under 42 U.S.C. § 9607. Starting in 2012 and extending into 2015, 

Defendant UNICOR arranged for the transport of over 4.6 million pounds of CRTs and 

other e-waste to the Properties.

E. The Kuusakoski Defendants

13. Defendant Kuusakoski Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the 

state of Delaware, with a principal place of business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

Defendant Kuusakoski Inc. holds itself out as operating as a parent of Defendants 

Kuusakoski US LLC, Kuusakoski Recycling, and Vintage Tech. Kuusakoski Inc.’s 2015 

financial statements, however, provide that “[t]he operations of Vintage Tech, which was 

acquired at the end of 2014, were integrated with those of Kuusakoski” (emphasis added); 

thus, the Defendant Vintage Tech acquisition appears to have been more of a consolidation 

or merger, and Kuusakoski Inc. appears to have otherwise managed, directed, or conducted 

the operations of Defendant Vintage Tech. Starting in 2012 and extending into 2016, 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 8 of 186 PAGEID #: 811
9

Defendant Kuusakoski Inc. and/or one or more of its related entities, Defendants 

Kuusakoski US LLC, Kuusakoski Recycling, and Vintage Tech, arranged for the transport

of over 46 million pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties, representing more 

than 35% of the total amount of e-waste abandoned by Defendant Closed Loop at the 

Properties. Defendants Kuusakoski Inc., Kuusakoski US LLC, Kuusakoski Recycling,

and/or one of their related entities acquired Defendant Vintage Tech in 2014.

14. Defendant Kuusakoski US LLC is a limited liability company organized 

under the laws of the state of Delaware, with a principal place of business in Plainfield, 

Illinois. Defendant Kuusakoski US LLC holds itself out as operating as a subsidiary of 

Kuusakoski Inc. Starting in 2012 and extending into 2016, Defendant Kuusakoski US LLC 

and/or one or more of its related entities, Defendants Kuusakoski Inc., Kuusakoski 

Recycling, and Vintage Tech, arranged for the transport of over 46 million pounds of CRTs 

and other e-waste to the Properties, representing more than 35% of the total amount of ewaste abandoned by Defendant Closed Loop at the Properties, in part, through an entity 

known as “VTKK LLC.” VTKK LLC had previously operated as a joint venture between 

Defendant Kuusakoski US LLC and Defendant Vintage Tech and/or one or more related 

entities before it merged into Defendant Kuusakoski US LLC in 2015. Defendants 

Kuusakoski US LLC, Kuusakoski Inc., Kuusakoski Recycling, and/or one of their related 

entities acquired Defendant Vintage Tech in 2014. 

15. Defendant Kuusakoski Recycling is a limited liability company organized 

under the laws of the state of Illinois, with a principal place of business in Plainfield, 

Illinois. Defendant Kuusakoski Recycling holds itself out as operating as a subsidiary of 

Defendant Kuusakoski Inc. Starting in 2012 and extending into 2016, Defendant 

Kuusakoski Recycling and/or one or more of its related entities, Defendants Kuusakoski 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 9 of 186 PAGEID #: 812
10

Inc., Kuusakoski US LLC, and Vintage Tech, arranged for the transport of over 46 million 

pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties, representing more than 35% of the 

total amount of e-waste abandoned by Defendant Closed Loop at the Properties. 

Defendants Kuusakoski Recycling, Kuusakoski Inc., Kuusakoski US LLC, and/or one of 

their related entities acquired Defendant Vintage Tech in 2014. 

16. Defendant Vintage Tech is a limited liability company organized under the 

laws of the state of Illinois, with a principal place of business in Plainfield, Illinois. Vintage 

Tech holds itself out as operating as a subsidiary of Kuusukoski Inc. Records generated by 

the Kuusakoski Defendants refer to Vintage Tech, LLC, Vintage Tech Recyclers, Inc. and 

Vintage Tech Recycling interchangeably, including shipping documentation and 

Kuusakoski Inc.’s 2014 financial statements. Starting in 2012 and extending into 2016, 

Defendant Vintage Tech arranged for the transport of over 35.9 million pounds of CRTs 

and other e-waste to the Properties. Defendant Vintage Tech was acquired by Defendants

Kuusakoski Inc., Kuusakoski US LLC, Kuusakoski Recycling, and/or one of their related 

entities in 2014. 

F. Other Arranger/Transporter Defendants

17. Defendant Accurate IT is a limited liability company organized under the 

laws of the state of Ohio, with a principal place of business in Columbus, Ohio. Starting in 

or around December 2012 and extending into or around September 2014, Defendant 

Accurate IT arranged for the transport of at least 135,110 pounds of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties.

18. Defendant ATR is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of 

Illinois, with a principal place of business in Pontiac, Illinois. Starting in or around June 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 10 of 186 PAGEID #: 813
11

2015 and extending into or around February 2016, Defendant ATR arranged for the 

transport of at least 91,750 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties.

19. Defendant AIM is a limited liability company organized under the laws of 

the state of Ohio, with a principal place of business in Toledo, Ohio. Starting in or around

June 2013 and extending into or around November 2014, Defendant AIM arranged for the 

transport of at least 114,303 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties.

20. Defendant ARI is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of 

Delaware, with a principal place of business in Middlebury, Vermont. Starting in or around 

May 2012 and extending into or around January 2014, Defendant ARI arranged for the 

transport of at least 2,528,422 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties.

21. Defendant ARG is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of 

California, with a principal place of business at Fremont, California. Starting in or around 

April 2012 and extending into or around November 2012, Defendant ARG arranged for 

the transport of at least 324,626 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties.

22. Defendant C2 is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the 

state of Virginia, with a principal place of business in Berryville, Virginia. Starting in or 

around May 2014 and extending into or around February 2016, Defendant C2 arranged for 

the transport of at least 1,178,106 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties.

23. Defendant Cohen is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of 

Ohio, with a principal place of business in Middletown, Ohio. Starting in or around August 

2013 and extending into or around June 2015, Defendant Cohen arranged for the transport 

of at least 909,106 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties. 

24. Defendant CRS is a limited liability company organized under the laws of 

the state of Delaware, with a principal place of business in Fall River, Massachusetts. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 11 of 186 PAGEID #: 814
12

Starting in or around April 2015 and extending into or around December 2015, Defendant 

CRS arranged for the transport of at least 525,738 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to 

the Properties.

25. Defendant Comprenew is a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws 

of the state of Michigan, with a principal place of business in Grand Rapids, Michigan. 

Starting in or around July 2015 and extending into or around February 2016, Defendant 

Comprenew arranged for the transport of at least 332,826 pounds of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties.

26. Defendant CompuPoint is a limited liability company organized under the 

laws of the state of Georgia, with a principal place of business in Norcross, Georgia. 

Starting in or around August 2012 and extending into or around January 2016, Defendant 

CompuPoint arranged for the transport of at least 2,926,499 pounds of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties.

27. Defendant CRV is corporation organized under the laws of the state of 

Virginia, with a principal place of business in Tappahannock, Virginia. Starting in or 

around July 2015 and extending into or around February 2016, Defendant CRV arranged 

for the transport of at least 153,253 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties.

28. Defendant Dynamic is a limited liability company organized under the laws 

of the state of Wisconsin, with a principal place of business in Onalaska, Wisconsin. 

Starting in or around January 2013 and extending into or around March 2016, Defendant 

Dynamic arranged for the transport of at least 5,273,233 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste 

to the Properties. According to the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions, 

Dynamic Recycling, Inc. changed its name to Dynamic Lifestyle Innovations Inc. in or 

around July 2018. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 12 of 186 PAGEID #: 815
13

29. Defendant eCycle is a limited liability company organized under the laws 

of the state of North Carolina, with a principal place of business in Charlotte, North 

Carolina. Starting in or around June 2012 and extending into or around September 2015, 

Defendant eCycle arranged for the transport of at least 7,054,560 pounds of CRTs and 

other e-waste to the Properties.

30. Defendant eLot is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of 

New York, with a principal place of business in Glenmont, New York. In or around April 

2015, Defendant eLot arranged for the transport of at least 204,828 pounds of CRTs and 

other e-waste to the Properties.

31. Defendant ECSR is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of 

Pennsylvania, with a principal place of business in Cochranton, Pennsylvania. Starting in 

or around June 2012 and extending into or around July 2014, Defendant ECSR arranged 

for the transport of at least 320,834 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties.

32. Defendant eRevival is a limited liability company organized under the laws 

of the state of New Jersey, with a principal place of business in Garfield, New Jersey. 

Starting in or around July 2014 and extending into or around October 2015, Defendant 

eRevival arranged for the transport of at least 593,767 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste 

to the Properties.

33. Defendant Robert A. Erie, upon information and belief, is an individual with 

a principal place of residence in a residential reentry center in San Diego, California, which 

is managed by Correctional Alternatives Incorporated. Defendant Erie served at all times 

relevant to the allegations herein as the Chief Executive Officer of Defendant E-World, 

which arranged for the transport of at least 11,583,163 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 13 of 186 PAGEID #: 816
14

to the Properties, starting in or around June 2012 and extending into or around November 

2014.

34. Defendant eWaste Recycling is a limited liability company organized under 

the laws of the state of Maine, with a principal place of business in Auburn, Maine. Starting 

in or around August 2012 and extending into or around March 2013, Defendant eWaste 

Recycling arranged for the transport of at least 1,670,776 pounds of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties.

35. Defendant eWorks is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of 

New York, with a principal place of business in Freeport, New York. Starting in or around

January 2016 and extending into or around February 2016, Defendant eWorks arranged for 

the transport of at least 370,205 pounds of CRTs or other e-waste to the Properties.

36. Defendant E-World is or was a limited liability company organized under 

the laws of the state of California, with a principal place of business in Vista, California. 

Starting in or around June 2012 and extending into or around November 2014, Defendant 

E-World arranged for the transport of at least 11,583,163 pounds of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties.

37. Defendant GEEP is a corporation organized under the laws of Canada, with 

a principal place of business in Barre, Ontario. Starting in or around September 2012 and 

extending into or around June 2013, Defendant GEEP arranged for the transport of at least 

2,676,207 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties.

38. Defendant GEEP USA is a corporation organized under the laws of the state 

of North Carolina, with a principal place of business in Durham, North Carolina. Starting 

in or around September 2012 and extending into or around May 2015, Defendant GEEP 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 14 of 186 PAGEID #: 817
15

USA arranged for the transport of at least 1,214,443 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to 

the Properties.

39. Defendant Great Lakes is a corporation organized under the laws of the state 

of Michigan, with a principal place of business in Warren, Michigan. Starting in or around 

September 2015 and extending into or around February 2016, Defendant Great Lakes 

arranged for the transport of at least 311,454 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties.

40. Defendant Green Chip is a corporation organized under the laws of the state 

of New York, with a principal place of business in Brooklyn, New York. Starting in or 

around August 2013 and extending into or around April 2014, Defendant Green Chip 

arranged for the transport of at least 156,416 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties. 

41. Defendant Green Tech is a limited liability company organized under the 

laws of the state of Minnesota, with a principal place of business in Mankato, Minnesota. 

Starting in or around June 2015 and extending into or around September 2015, Defendant 

Green Tech arranged for the transport of at least 152,257 pounds of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties.

42. Defendant Green Wave is a limited liability company organized under the 

laws of the state of Indiana, with a principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana. 

Starting in or around May 2015 and extending into or around December 2015, Defendant 

Green Wave arranged for the transport of at least 656,154 pounds of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties.

43. Defendant IMS is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of 

California, with a principal place of business in Poway, California. Starting in or around 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 15 of 186 PAGEID #: 818
16

February 2014 and extending into or around February 2016, Defendant IMS arranged for 

the transport of at least 5,598,819 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties.

Defendant IMS arranged for the transport of at least 3,481,959 of these 5,598,819 pounds 

to the Properties from another property owned by Plaintiff at 1635 Watkins Road, 

Columbus, Ohio 43207 (“1635 Watkins Road”).

44. Defendant Interco is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of 

Missouri, with a principal place of business in Madison, Illinois. Starting in or around 

October 2015 and extending into or around January 2016, Defendant Interco arranged for 

the transport of at least 52,604 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties.

45. Defendant JD Beavers is a limited liability company organized under the 

laws of the state of Michigan, with a principal place of business in Brighton, Michigan. 

Starting in or around November 2013 and extending into or around February 2015, 

Defendant JD Beavers arranged for the transport of at least 75,591 pounds of CRTs and 

other e-waste to the Properties.

46. Defendant MRC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of 

the state of Missouri, with a principal place of business in Imperial, Missouri. Starting in 

or around October 2015 and extending into or around February 2016, Defendant MRC 

arranged for the transport of at least 288,348 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties.

47. Defendant Ohio Drop Off is a limited liability company organized under the 

laws of the state of Ohio, with a principal place of business in Columbus, Ohio. Starting in 

or around July 2015 and extending into or around March 2016, Defendant Drop Off

arranged for the transport of at least 175,847 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 16 of 186 PAGEID #: 819
17

48. Defendant Potomac is a limited liability company organized under the laws 

of the state of Virginia, with a principal place of business in Sterling, Virginia. Starting in 

or around June 2015 and extending into or around October 2015, Defendant Potomac 

arranged for the transport of at least 76,791 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties.

49. Defendant Quicksilver is a corporation organized under the laws of the state 

of Florida, with a principal place of business in Tampa, Florida. Starting in or around 

January 2013 and extending into or around May 2015, Defendant Quicksilver arranged for 

the transport of at least 237,703 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties.

50. Defendant RMG is a limited liability company organized under the laws of 

the state of New Hampshire, with a principal place of business in Derry, New Hampshire. 

Starting in or around November 2012 and extending into or around February 2014, 

Defendant RMG arranged for the transport of at least 1,486,580 pounds of CRTs and other 

e-waste to the Properties.

51. Defendant RCRR is a limited liability company organized under the laws 

of the state of New York, with a principal place of business in Victor, New York. Starting 

in or around June 2012 and extending into or around March 2016, Defendant RCRR 

arranged for the transport of at least 16,417,553 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties.

52. Defendant Siam is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of 

Ohio, with a principal place of business in Columbus, Ohio. In or around February 2013, 

Defendant Siam arranged for the transport of at least 85,896 pounds of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 17 of 186 PAGEID #: 820
18

53. Defendant Strickland is a limited liability company organized under the 

laws of the state of South Carolina, with a principal place of business in North, South 

Carolina. Starting in or around October 2014 and extending into or around February 2016, 

Defendant Strickland arranged for the transport of at least 230,665 pounds of CRTs and 

other e-waste to the Properties.

54. Defendant Sunnking is a corporation organized under the laws of the state 

of New York, with a principal place of business in Brockport, New York. Starting in or 

around October 2014 and extending into or around December 2014, Defendant Sunnking 

arranged for the transport of at least 636,367 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties.

55. Defendant TK6 is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of 

Florida, with a principal place of business in Tampa, Florida. Starting in or around April 

2015 and extending into or around February 2016, Defendant TK6 arranged for the 

transport of at least 384,336 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties.

56. Defendant USB is a limited liability company organized under the laws of 

the state of North Carolina with a principal place of business in Monroe, North Carolina. 

Starting in or around June 2015 and extending into or around February 2016, Defendant 

USB arranged for the transport of at least 178,054 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to 

the Properties.

57. Defendant Waste Commission is an inter-governmental agency with a 

principal place of business in Davenport, Iowa. Starting in or around September 2014 and 

extending into or around February 2016, Defendant Waste Commission arranged for the 

transport of at least 1,469,881 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 18 of 186 PAGEID #: 821
19

58. Defendant We is a limited liability company organized under the laws of 

the state of Ohio, with a principal place of business in Bellaire, Ohio. Starting in or around 

May 2015 and extending into or around August 2015, Defendant We arranged for the 

transport of at least 126,420 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

59. This Court has original jurisdiction over this civil action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 9613(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2201.

60. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Garrison’s state law claims 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, because the state law claims are so related to Garrison’s 

federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy.

61. Venue is proper under 42 U.S.C. § 9613(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), 

because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this lawsuit occurred 

within this District, including the damages and the release and/or threatened release of 

hazardous substances, and because the Properties that are the subject of this action are 

located in this District.

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. The Properties: Ownership and Operational History

1. 1675 Watkins Road

62. On or about April 6, 2012, Garrison’s predecessor-in-interest, MS-South 

LLC, as landlord, entered into a Lease Agreement with Defendant Closed Loop, as Tenant, 

to lease the warehouse premises located at 1675 Watkins Road. 

a. The Lease Agreement leased the premises to Defendant Closed Loop and 

listed “[w]arehousing, distribution, electronic recycling and demanufacturing of cathode ray tubes” as the “Permitted Use.” 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 19 of 186 PAGEID #: 822
20

b. Upon information and belief, MS-South LLC tendered possession of the 

premises to Defendant Closed Loop in broom-clean condition. 

c. The Lease Agreement required Defendant Closed Loop:

(i) to comply with federal and state hazardous waste laws; 

(ii) to make monthly base rent payments starting at $59,131.57 per 

month and increasing to $64,924.05 per month;

(iii) to make accelerated rent payments through March 31, 2020, if in 

default and so demanded by the landlord; 

(iv) to make late fee payments for any payment received more than ten

(10) days after the due date thereof;

(v) to pay for utilities and services; and 

(vi) to surrender 1675 Watkins Road “broom clean in as good condition 

as when received by Tenant.” 

d. The Lease Agreement also provided Defendant Closed Loop with an option 

to lease approximately 100,000 square feet at the contiguous premises 

located at 1655 Watkins Road, Columbus, Ohio 43207. 

63. Defendant Silagi was the sole member and the managing member of MSSouth LLC, which owned all right, title and interest in 1675 Watkins Road from prior to 

April 6, 2012, through on or about April 29, 2013. 

64. On or about April 29, 2013, Garrison acquired 1675 Watkins Road from 

MS-South LLC in exchange for good and valuable consideration and thereafter assumed 

all right, title and interest in that property, which included an assignment of all rights and 

obligations as landlord under the Lease Agreement.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 20 of 186 PAGEID #: 823
21

65. On or about April 15, 2014, following a rent payment default by Defendant 

Closed Loop, Garrison entered into a First Amendment of Lease with Defendant Closed 

Loop for 1675 Watkins Road. 

a. The purpose of the First Amendment of Lease was to allow Defendant 

Closed Loop to restructure its payment schedule following Defendant 

Closed Loop’s failure to pay rent in exchange for the execution and 

delivery of guaranties by Brent Benham, the President and Chief Financial 

Officer of Defendant Closed Loop, David Cauchi, the Chief Executive 

Officer of Defendant Closed Loop, and Brian LaPoint, the Chief 

Technology Officer of Defendant Closed Loop.

b. The guaranties provided that Messrs. Benham, Cauchi, and LaPoint 

“absolutely, irrevocably and unconditionally” guaranteed to Garrison all of 

Defendant Closed Loop’s obligations under the Lease Agreement. 

66. Garrison terminated the Lease Agreement on or about February 26, 2016, 

after Defendant Closed Loop once again failed to pay rent, declaring that all installments 

of rent for the remainder of the term of the Lease Agreement were immediately payable 

and due, pursuant to Section 19(b)(i) of the Lease Agreement.

67. On or about March 4, 2016, Garrison filed a Complaint for Eviction 

(Forcible Entry and Detainer), Injunction, and Damages Under Lease Agreement and for 

Damages Under Guaranties of Lease against Defendant Closed Loop in the Franklin 

County Court. Garrison sought, among other relief, a preliminary injunction and a 

permanent injunction ordering Defendant Closed Loop to perform an environmental 

cleanup at 1675 Watkins Road.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 21 of 186 PAGEID #: 824
22

68. On or about March 7, 2017, the Franklin County Court granted Garrison’s 

Motion for Default Judgment as to Defendant Closed Loop’s liability for breach of contract 

and resulting damages, leaving the question of damages to be determined later.

69. On or about May 8, 2017, the Franklin County Court held a hearing during 

which Garrison presented testimony and evidence establishing the damages incurred as a 

result of Defendant Closed Loop’s breach of the Lease Agreement.

70. On or about August 2, 2017, the Franklin County Court held a second 

hearing during which Garrison presented testimony and evidence establishing the damages 

incurred as a result of the breach of the Lease Agreement by Messrs. Benham, Cauchi, and 

LaPoint.

71. On or about August 7, 2017, the Franklin County Court issued a Final 

Judgment Entry, in which the Court, among other things:

a. found that “Closed Loop was not engaged in legitimate CRT recycling 

operations at the Properties”;

b. found that Defendant Closed Loop “was instead engaged in the speculative 

accumulation and subsequent abandonment and disposal of the CRT Waste 

at the Properties without any feasible means of recycling it”; 

c. found that Defendant Closed Loop “failed to segregate leaded funnel glass 

from panel glass during its CRT recycling operation,” which “rendered any 

available downstream recycling option unprofitable, i.e. no legitimate 

market existed for this commingled glass as a feedstock for lead smelters or 

otherwise”; and

d. ordered, adjudged, and decreed that “[j]udgment is entered in favor of 

Garrison and against Closed Loop, Brent Benham, David Cauchi, and Brian 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 22 of 186 PAGEID #: 825
23

LaPoint, jointly and severally, in the amount of $14,181,533.74 for costs to 

clean-up the CRT Waste” at the Properties. (Emphasis in original.)

2. 1655 Watkins Road

72. On or about April 29, 2013, Garrison acquired 1655 Watkins Road from 

MS-South LLC in exchange for good and valuable consideration and thereafter assumed 

all right, title and interest in that property.

73. On or about March 24, 2014, Garrison, as Licensor, entered into a 

Temporary Occupancy Agreement with Defendant Closed Loop, as Licensee, retroactive 

to December 1, 2013, for the occupancy and use of additional square footage in the 

contiguous premises located at 1655 Watkins Road, Columbus, Ohio 43207 (“1655 

Watkins Road”). 

a. The Temporary Occupancy Agreement provided Defendant Closed Loop

with a license to occupy a portion of the property “solely for warehousing 

and storage purposes,” which could include the storage of “commercially 

reasonable” quantities of hazardous materials. 

b. The purpose of the Temporary Occupancy Agreement was to provide a 

staging area for Defendant Closed Loop to store inbound CRTs at 1655 

Watkins Road for the downstream processing operations at 1675 Watkins 

Road. 

c. Garrison tendered possession of the premises to Defendant Closed Loop in 

good condition and repair and free of trash and debris. 

d. The Temporary Occupancy Agreement required Defendant Closed Loop:

(i) to comply with federal and state hazardous waste laws; 

(ii) to pay Garrison a monthly use and occupancy fee of $10,518.67; 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 23 of 186 PAGEID #: 826
24

(iii) to pay its pro rata share of utility costs; and 

(iv) to surrender the premises “in good condition and repair, ordinary 

wear and tear accepted, and free of trash and debris.”

74. Starting in or around January 2015, Defendant Closed Loop failed to pay 

use and occupancy fees and utility costs in accordance with the Temporary Occupancy 

Agreement.

75. Garrison terminated the Temporary Occupancy Agreement as of 

June 12, 2015, for failure to pay use and occupancy fees. 

76. On or about August 3, 2015, Garrison filed a Complaint for Eviction 

(Forcible Entry and Detainer, Injunction, and Damages) against Defendant Closed Loop in 

the Common Pleas Court of Franklin County, Ohio, Civil Division (“Franklin County 

Court”). Garrison sought, among other relief, a preliminary injunction and a permanent 

injunction ordering Defendant Closed Loop to remove all of its personal property from 

1655 Watkins Road.

77. On or about August 24, 2015, Defendant Closed Loop and Garrison entered 

into an Agreed Order requiring Defendant Closed Loop to “remove all personal property, 

debris, and trash . . . at its cost” from 1655 Watkins Road by October 31, 2015.

78. Defendant Closed Loop failed to comply with the August 24, 2015 Agreed 

Order.

79. On or about May 24, 2016, the Franklin County Court granted Garrison’s 

Motion for Default Judgment as to Defendant Closed Loop’s liability for breach of contract 

and resulting damages, leaving the question of damages to be determined later.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 24 of 186 PAGEID #: 827
25

80. On or about May 8, 2017, the Franklin County Court held a hearing during 

which Garrison presented testimony and evidence establishing the damages incurred as a 

result of Defendant Closed Loop’s breach of the Temporary Occupancy Agreement.

81. On or about August 7, 2017, the Franklin County Court issued a Final 

Judgment Entry, in which the Court, among other things:

a. found that “[Defendant] Closed Loop was not engaged in legitimate CRT 

recycling operations at the Properties”;

b. found that Defendant Closed Loop “was instead engaged in the speculative 

accumulation and subsequent abandonment and disposal of the CRT Waste 

at the Properties without any feasible means of recycling it”; 

c. found that Defendant Closed Loop “failed to segregate leaded funnel glass 

from panel glass during its CRT recycling operation,” which “rendered any 

available downstream recycling option unprofitable, i.e. no legitimate 

market existed for this commingled glass as a feedstock for lead smelters or 

otherwise”; and

d. ordered, adjudged, and decreed that “[j]udgment is entered in favor of 

Garrison and against Closed Loop, Brent Benham, David Cauchi, and Brian 

LaPoint, jointly and severally, in the amount of $14,181,533.74 for costs to 

clean-up the CRT Waste” at the Properties. (Emphasis in original).

3. Defendant Closed Loop’s Abandonment of Hazardous 

Substances at the Properties

82. Defendant Closed Loop vacated the Properties in or around late March 

2016. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 25 of 186 PAGEID #: 828
26

83. Defendant Closed Loop abandoned more than 64,000 tons (128 million 

pounds) of CRTs and other e-waste upon vacating the Properties. 

84. CRTs contain lead, a toxic substance that can cause delayed neurological 

development in children and other adverse health effects in adults. 

85. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) established a 

cradle-to-grave program that regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, 

and disposal of hazardous wastes and provides for a conditional exclusion for legitimate 

CRT recycling operations – but only if certain criteria are met. See 40 C.F.R. §§

261.4(a)(22) & 261.39 and Ohio Admin. Code 3745-51-04(A)(22) & 3745-51-39.

86. Defendant Closed Loop failed to manage the used CRTs and crushed CRT 

glass in compliance with the CRT conditional exclusion because it speculatively 

accumulated these materials at the Properties in violation of that exclusion. See 

40 C.F.R. §§ 261.39 & 261.1(c)(8) and Ohio Admin. Code 3745-51-39 & 3745-51-

01(C)(8).

a. For the reasons more fully described below, Defendant Closed Loop could 

not show that “during the calendar year commencing January first, the 

amount of material that is recycled, or transferred to a different site for 

recycling, equals at least seventy-five per cent by weight or volume of the 

amount of that material accumulated at the beginning of the calendar year,” 

which is the first of the two components of the speculative accumulation 

prohibition in 40 C.F.R. §§ 261.39 & 261.1(c)(8) and Ohio Admin. Code 

3745-51-39 & 3745-51-01(C)(8).

b. For the reasons more fully described below, Defendant Closed Loop could 

not show that the materials had a “feasible means of being recycled,” which 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 26 of 186 PAGEID #: 829
27

is the second of the two components of the speculative accumulation 

prohibition in 40 C.F.R. §§ 261.39 & 261.1(c)(8) and Ohio Admin. Code 

3745-51-39 & 3745-51-01(C)(8).

87. Used CRTs and crushed CRT glass containing lead at concentrations equal 

to or greater than 5.0 mg/L using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure 

(“TCLP”), if not managed under the CRT conditional exclusion, are regulated as hazardous 

waste under RCRA and Ohio Rev. Code Chapter 3734. 

88. Total lead content from samples collected from the Properties far exceeded 

the 5.0 mg/L regulatory limits using TCLP. 

89. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) has observed that 

“according to recent studies performed at the University of Florida, most color CRTs leach 

lead in the TCLP test at concentrations above the TC regulatory level of 5 milligrams per 

liter.” Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous Waste 

Program; Cathode Ray Tubes; Final Rule, 71 Fed. Reg. 42,928, 42,930 (July 28, 2006).

90. CERCLA defines “hazardous substances” to include any substance 

regulated as a hazardous waste under RCRA. See 42 U.S.C. § 9601(14)(C).

91. CERCLA also defines “hazardous substances” to include any substance 

separately listed under 42 U.S.C. § 9602, and its underlying regulation, 40 C.F.R. § 302.4; 

lead is separately listed as a hazardous substance in 40 C.F.R. § 302.4, and therefore 

constitutes a hazardous substance pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 9601(14)(B), whether or not it 

is also classified as a hazardous waste under RCRA.

92. Thus, the CRTs and processed CRT glass, lead-impacted e-waste, and lead

at the Properties are both RCRA hazardous wastes and CERCLA hazardous substances. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 27 of 186 PAGEID #: 830
28

93. Garrison currently estimates the costs of environmental cleanup for the 

Properties at more than $14.2 million, although cleanup costs may vary based on, among 

other things, the quantity of material, the availability of previously-identified 

disposal/recycling outlets, fuel costs, the extent of Ohio EPA’s oversight over removal 

and/or remedial actions at the Properties, and other contingencies. 

B. The Sham Recycling Scheme

1. Defendant Closed Loop 

94. From 2012 and continuing to the present, Defendant Closed Loop 

orchestrated an extensive scheme to mislead Garrison and Ohio EPA with respect to 

whether Defendant Closed Loop qualified for the CRT conditional exclusion and to

defraud Garrison and Ohio EPA through the sham recycling operation at the Properties, 

thereby generating millions of dollars in illegal revenue and imposing upon Garrison 

potential liability for millions of dollars in environmental cleanup costs. 

95. Defendant Closed Loop selected Ohio as the state to launch its scheme

given that Ohio lacks e-waste legislation requiring original equipment manufacturers to 

certify that CRTs are recycled in accordance with federal and state law and that Ohio does 

not have a CRT landfill disposal ban. 

96. Surrounding and nearby states Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, West Virginia, 

Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and Virginia among others, each had e-waste 

legislation and CRT landfill disposal bans, which incentivized the e-waste industry to 

arrange for e-waste to be transported to Ohio in a nationwide “race to the bottom.”

97. Defendant Closed Loop also selected Ohio in purview of a tax credit 

provided in 2012 by the Ohio Tax Credit Authority to bring jobs to Columbus. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 28 of 186 PAGEID #: 831
29

98. Defendant Closed Loop secured the Lease Agreement and Temporary 

Occupancy Agreement from Garrison based on false representations that Defendant Closed 

Loop would actually pay the rent; would be providing legitimate e-waste recycling 

services; and would otherwise be operating in compliance with federal and state hazardous 

waste laws. 

99. Defendant Closed Loop entered the Ohio e-waste recycling market in 2012, 

with an offer to accept inbound CRTs at prices as low as $0.0700 per pound, which 

undercut the then-prevailing U.S. market rates of $0.11-0.12 per pound. 

100. No other U.S. e-waste recycler could compete with Defendant Closed 

Loop’s rate, as no e-waste recycler with a similar business model and low profit margin 

could have met all of the elements of, and thus, qualified for, the CRT conditional exclusion

from RCRA hazardous waste regulation.

101. Over the next four years, Defendant Closed Loop implemented a series of 

delay tactics designed to mislead Garrison and the Ohio EPA into believing that recycling 

operations at the Properties were lawful and that there was a feasible means of recycling 

the CRTs and other e-waste that had been accumulating at the Properties. 

102. These delay tactics enabled Defendant Closed Loop to continue to collect 

revenue for inbound CRTs and other e-waste, without ever having to incur the costs of 

actually recycling them. 

103. During this four year period, Defendant Closed Loop speculatively 

accumulated tens of millions of pounds of CRTs and other e-waste, generating well over 

$20 million in revenue for recycling services that were never performed. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 29 of 186 PAGEID #: 832
30

a. Defendant Closed Loop received more than $11 million in revenue from 

inbound shipments of used CRTs and other e-waste from 2012 through 

2016, based on records produced by Defendant Closed Loop. 

b. Defendant Closed Loop likely received an equivalent revenue stream from 

outbound shipments of commodities extracted from these CRTs, including 

yokes, copper wire, aluminum, steel, plastic, and circuit boards, based on 

the revenue streams of similarly situated entities in the e-waste industry. 

c. Defendant Closed Loop had minimal overhead expenses given its failure to 

pay rent, lower labor costs associated with the use of prison labor, lower 

labor costs associated with its failure to segregate leaded funnel glass from 

panel glass, and its failure to meet applicable Ohio EPA and Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) regulatory requirements.

104. Defendant Closed Loop was able to continue to accept inbound shipments 

of used CRTs and other e-waste (and the accompanying revenue streams) for four years, 

based on a series of misrepresentations, acts and omissions designed to mislead Garrison 

and Ohio EPA with respect to Defendant Closed Loop’s compliance with: (a) the 75% 

recycling component of the CRT conditional exclusion; (b) the “feasible means of being 

recycled” component of the CRT conditional exclusion; and (c) RCRA’s prohibition

against sham recycling. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 260.43, 261.1(c)(8), 261.2(g), 261.4(a)(22), 

261.39 and Ohio Admin. Code 3745-51-01(C)(8), 3745-51-04(A)(22), & 3745-51-39.

105. In or around late March 2016, when its scheme was discovered, Defendant 

Closed Loop abandoned the Properties, leaving Garrison, as the landlord, to incur more 

than $14.2 million in environmental cleanup costs.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 30 of 186 PAGEID #: 833
31

a. CRT Conditional Exclusion: 75% Recycling Component

106. The qualifying criteria for the CRT conditional exclusion include, inter alia, 

a prohibition against “speculative accumulation,” which is comprised of two components. 

40 C.F.R. §§ 261.39 & 261.1(c)(8) and Ohio Admin. Code 3745-51-39 & 3745-51-

01(C)(8).

107. The first component of the CRT conditional exclusion requires a 

demonstration that: “during the calendar year commencing January first, the amount of 

material that is recycled, or transferred to a different site for recycling, equals at least 

seventy-five per cent by weight or volume of the amount of that material accumulated at 

the beginning of the calendar year.”

108. From 2012 through 2016, Defendant Closed Loop repeatedly 

misrepresented that it qualified for the CRT conditional exclusion through statements to 

Ohio EPA that the weight of the crushed CRT glass that was recycled at the Properties, or 

was transferred to a different site for recycling, equaled at least 75% of the weight of the 

crushed CRT glass that had accumulated at the beginning of each calendar year.

109. Defendant Closed Loop’s business model was to process inbound CRTs 

through disassembly and glass breaking within the calendar year during which they were 

received, but then to store indefinitely the vast majority of the crushed CRT glass in the 

center of the warehouse at 1675 Watkins Road, where it would be obstructed from the view 

of Ohio EPA inspectors and in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 261.39 and Ohio Admin. Code 

3745-51-39 (regarding speculative accumulation). 

110. Defendant Closed Loop’s business model also included accepting preprocessed CRT glass at a higher price-per-pound to help fund the enterprise, despite the 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 31 of 186 PAGEID #: 834
32

fact that it had no capacity to recycle this stream any further, within the calendar year or 

otherwise.

111. Garrison currently estimates that there are nearly 30,000 Gaylords (i.e., 

pallet-sized, cardboard containers) of crushed CRT glass that were speculatively 

accumulated and abandoned at the Properties.

112. Garrison currently estimates that there are more than 14,500 Gaylords or

wooden pallets of used, intact CRTs that were speculatively accumulated and abandoned 

at the Properties.

1. BAN Warns the Arranger/Transporter 

Defendants that Closed Loop Lacked a Clear 

Pathway to Compliance.

113. The Basel Action Network (“BAN”) is an environmental non-profit group 

that describes itself as an investigative watchdog for sham electronic waste recyclers. 

114. On or about January 22, 2013, Closed Loop Glass Solutions, LLC

(“CLGS”), an affiliate or subsidiary of Defendant Closed Loop controlled by the same 

individuals that controlled Defendant Closed Loop, applied for an air quality permit-toinstall a glass furnace to recycle crushed CRT glass in connection with its operations at the 

Properties.

115. On or about September 26, 2013, BAN provided public comments in 

response to Defendant Closed Loop’s permit application in which it expressed concerns 

with the risk of speculative accumulation and sham recycling that would arise from 

Defendant Closed Loop’s conduct:

“This is an important matter because an influx of cash comes into a business of this 

kind upon receipt of CRT glass and the actual subsequent processing of the CRTs 

is a very large subsequent expense. The economic temptation to avoid latter [sic] 

costs, in the face of large influxes of cash is real and thus holding to Speculative 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 32 of 186 PAGEID #: 835
33

Accumulation rules is vital unless there is a clear pathway for meeting the 

processing goals, and avoiding accumulation is seen as a reality in the near-term. 

Already numerous CRT storage-for-later processing sites around the nation have 

been found abandoned with massive amounts of glass still on site due to this factor 

(see Luminous Recycling, Denver, Dow Management, Yuma).”

116. BAN’s public statements regarding the Defendant Closed Loop situation 

were widely disseminated and, upon information and belief, were known to participants in 

the industry, including the Arranger/Transporter Defendants. 

117. The Arranger/Transporter Defendants had the requisite sophistication and 

experience in the e-waste industry such that they were aware or should have been aware of 

BAN’s public warning regarding the “economic temptation” for Defendant Closed Loop

to circumvent the speculative accumulation requirements in exchange for “large influxes 

of cash.”

118. For the next three years, the Arranger/Transporter Defendants nevertheless

knowingly transported and/or arranged for the transport of tens of millions of pounds of 

CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for disposal or treatment. 

2. Closed Loop Seeks to Protect Its Scheme When 

Ohio EPA Begins to Express Concerns Regarding 

Speculative Activity.

119. In or around 2014, Ohio EPA began expressing concerns with Defendant 

Closed Loop’s ability to meet speculative accumulation requirements, which coincided 

with evasive actions by Defendant Closed Loop to prevent its sham recycling scheme from 

being discovered.

120. On or about June 19, 2014, in assessing how to respond to a media inquiry 

regarding Defendant Closed Loop, Ohio EPA expressed concern in an internal e-mail 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 33 of 186 PAGEID #: 836
34

regarding operations at the Properties that “we don’t really have a break down of how much 

material went where.”

a. Ohio EPA’s June 19, 2014 e-mail indicated that Defendant Closed Loop

provided insufficient information for Ohio EPA to determine compliance 

with speculative accumulation requirements.

b. Upon information and belief, Defendant Closed Loop was withholding 

information regarding speculative accumulation from Ohio EPA to conceal 

its sham recycling scheme.

121. On or about June 25, 2014, in discussing a request by Defendant Closed 

Loop for a variance from speculative accumulation requirements, Ohio EPA warned 

Defendant Closed Loop in a phone call of its potential to abandon large amounts of 

hazardous waste at the Properties in violation of the speculative accumulation provision.

122. On or about June 26, 2014, Ohio EPA observed in an internal e-mail that 

Defendant Closed Loop was “storing millions of pounds of CRTs and processed glass”; 

that it wants to “continue to store the lead glass as a feedstock . . .”; and that it “will likely 

trigger our speculative accumulation rules and the hazardous CRT glass will be a regulated 

hazardous waste at that point.” 

123. On or about October 21, 2014, a concerned citizen advised Ohio EPA in an 

e-mail that Defendant Closed Loop transported 200 truckloads of crushed CRT glass from 

the Properties to a new property leased by Defendant Closed Loop or a Closed Loop 

affiliate located at 2200 Fairwood Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43207 (“2200 Fairwood 

Avenue”), in an effort to mislead Ohio EPA into believing that the glass was being recycled 

so that it would find Defendant Closed Loop to be in compliance with speculative 

accumulation requirements. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 34 of 186 PAGEID #: 837
35

124. On or about October 21, 2014, and in reaction to the concerned citizen’s 

report, Ohio EPA commented in an internal e-mail: “This will not get them out of 

speculative accumulation. We should be looking into this.” 

125. On or about January 5, 2015, an internal Ohio EPA e-mail characterized 

these shipments as follows: “Seems a little convenient that the new facility is located where 

they were already rumored to be ‘hiding’ shipments of glass....”

126. On or about October 27, 2014, Defendant Closed Loop applied for a 

variance from the speculative accumulation requirements based on the “limitations of the 

primary and secondary lead smelters[ʼ] ability to absorb the volume generated within the 

USA,” which led to the “current stock pile of clean panel cullet and funnel cullet in North 

America.”

127. The only reason Defendant Closed Loop would have applied for the 

variance was because it could not comply with the speculative accumulation requirements.

128. Defendant Closed Loop never received the variance.

129. Defendant Closed Loop nevertheless continued to accept inbound CRTs 

and other e-waste at the Properties for the next 15-17 months, despite these market 

conditions and despite knowing that Defendant Closed Loop would be out of compliance 

with speculative accumulation requirements without a variance.

130. On or about November 21, 2014, Ohio EPA observed in an internal e-mail 

that Defendant Closed Loop had not “completely recycled the glass onsite nor have they 

sent any glass to another site for further recycling.” Put differently, the crushed CRT glass 

stored at the Properties since operations began in 2012 had already triggered the 75% 

recycling component of the speculative accumulation rules given Defendant Closed Loop’s 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 35 of 186 PAGEID #: 838
36

failure to recycle, or to transfer offsite for recycling, 75% of the previously crushed CRT 

glass in inventory as of January 1, 2013, by December 31, 2013. 

131. From on or about December 22, 2014 through on or about 

December 26, 2014, Defendant Closed Loop arranged for the transport of an additional 59 

truckloads of crushed CRT glass from the Properties to 2200 Fairwood Avenue in yet 

another deceptive effort to shield itself from liability for failing to meet speculative 

accumulation requirements, as evidenced by 59 bills of lading reflecting shipments from 

1675 Watkins Road to 2200 Fairwood Avenue. 

132. On or about March 5, 2015, Ohio EPA conducted an inspection of 1675 

Watkins Road, during which Ohio EPA discovered for the first time that Defendant Closed 

Loop had also been accumulating CRTs in 1655 Watkins Road since October or November 

of 2013. According to the Ohio EPA inspector:

“At that time Mr. O’hara informed me that Closed Loop had been leasing and 

storing CRTs (unknown to Ohio EPA) at 1655 Watkins Rd since Oct.-Nov. of 2013. 

Upon arrival I met with the plant manager (Patrick O’hara) who proceeded to walk 

me over to the 1655 Watkins Rd. storage facility. The facility is half full of CRTs 

and old televisions, Patrick said that it is currently being downsized due to costs 

and three bays of CRTs were recently moved to Fairwood Avenue. I asked how this 

was being tracked and Patrick informed me that it wasn’t.”

133. Ohio EPA’s inspection revealed that Defendant Closed Loop had not only 

hidden a staging area for its e-waste storage from Ohio EPA in violation of federal and 

state hazardous waste law, but also that Defendant Closed Loop had not been reporting 

internal movements of CRTs in a further effort to mislead Ohio EPA.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 36 of 186 PAGEID #: 839
37

3. Closed Loop Acknowledges Concerns with 

Speculative Accumulation, Yet Continues to 

Accept Inbound CRTs for Profit.

134. On or about November 6, 2014, E-Scrap News reported that Mr. Benham

admitted that “Closed Loop has been amassing leaded glass instead of sending it 

downstream for recycling elsewhere because the company is trying to collect sufficient 

feedstock for its furnace.” See E-Scrap News, CRT player Closed Loop receives notice of 

violation (Nov. 6, 2014).

135. On or about December 9, 2014, Defendant Closed Loop acknowledged to 

Ohio EPA in a letter that it “did not give greater attention to speculative accumulation prior 

to October 2014,” effectively admitting that it failed to comply with the speculative 

accumulation requirement in the CRT conditional exclusion — the very exclusion upon 

which Defendant Closed Loop’s entire e-waste recycling business model was predicated.

136. On or about October 14, 2015, Garrison e-mailed Mr. Benham to follow up 

on Ohio EPA’s concerns with speculative accumulation at the Properties: “As I understand 

it, you are still being paid to take CRTs into 1675 on a daily/weekly basis and with that 

new inventory comes components that are accumulating for disposal that are a liability.”

137. On or about October 20, 2015, Mr. Benham responded to Garrison’s e-mail 

by explaining that any “product liability” would not be a cause for concern because 

Defendant Closed Loop has “room under the insurance . . . to allow for more material on 

the site.” 

138. Mr. Benham attached a “Site Closure Plan” to his October 20, 2015 e-mail, 

purportedly to “give [Garrison] an understanding of cleanup” to be covered by the 

insurance. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 37 of 186 PAGEID #: 840
38

a. The Site Closure Plan indicated that the maximum inventory of material 

expected at the Properties would be 45,000 tons. 

b. That estimate was false, however, because it is currently estimated that 

Defendant Closed Loop ultimately accumulated and abandoned more than 

64,000 tons (128 million pounds) of CRTs and other e-waste.

139. On or about October 23, 2015, Defendant Closed Loop admitted to Ohio 

EPA in a phone call that it was “unsure of what they can or cannot do with the material 

next year to meet the [speculative accumulation] standard.” 

140. As Mr. Benham admitted in his Answer, Paragraph (“para.”) 129, 

Defendant Closed Loop advised the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

(“ADEQ”) in January 2016, that “it had no viable means of potentially recycling its 

Arizona materials.”

141. Defendant Closed Loop nevertheless continued to accept inbound CRTs 

and other e-waste at the Properties until in or around March 2016, in a self-serving effort 

to continue profiting from its scheme.

142. On or about March 17, 2016, Defendant Closed Loop admitted to Garrison 

in an e-mail that it has “liability [for] the CRTs and leaded glass that has accumulated on 

the property over the last 4 years through the operations of CLRR’s facility.” 

b. CRT Conditional Exclusion: “Feasible Means of Being 

Recycled” Component

143. As noted above, the qualifying criteria for the CRT conditional exclusion 

include, inter alia, a prohibition against “speculative accumulation,” which includes two 

components. 40 C.F.R. § 261.39 and Ohio Admin. Code 3745-51-39. The first component 

is discussed above in Paragraphs 107 through 142. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 38 of 186 PAGEID #: 841
39

144. The second component of the CRT conditional exclusion requires a 

demonstration that “the material is potentially recyclable and has a feasible means of being 

recycled.” 

145. From 2012 through 2016, Defendant Closed Loop repeatedly 

misrepresented to Ohio EPA that it qualified for the CRT conditional exclusion through 

statements to Ohio EPA that it would fund, install, and operate a glass furnace to extract 

lead from the crushed CRT glass accumulating at the Properties. 

146. Defendant Closed Loop’s business model was to pursue air quality permitsto-install from Ohio EPA in an effort to mislead Ohio EPA into finding that a “feasible 

means of being recycled” existed, so that it could continue to accept inbound CRTs and 

other e-waste while never having any intention of actually constructing a furnace. 

1. 1635 Watkins Road

147. Defendant Closed Loop first applied for and received an air quality permitto-install a glass furnace at 1635 Watkins Road, which was issued on October 17, 2013 

(and was administratively-modified on November 15, 2013). 

148. Defendant Closed Loop never owned any lease interests or other property 

rights with respect to 1635 Watkins Road. Garrison owns 1635 Watkins Road.

149. The U.S. EPA has taken the position that demonstration of a feasible means 

of recycling “ordinarily will require identification of actual recyclers and recycling 

technology, location of the recycler, and relative costs associated with recycling.”

(Emphasis added.)

150. Thus, as Defendant Closed Loop lacked the right to occupy 1635 Watkins 

Road, it could not use the 1635 Watkins Road permit-to-install to demonstrate that it had 

a feasible means of recycling the CRTs accumulating in the Properties.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 39 of 186 PAGEID #: 842
40

151. On or about December 9, 2014, Defendant Closed Loop represented to Ohio 

EPA in a letter that CLGS “has obtained 100,000 square foot facility at 1635 Watkins Road 

in Columbus, Ohio” and that construction of the glass furnace at 1635 Watkins Road would 

begin in the summer of 2015, with an estimated operational date of November 2015. 

152. Defendant Closed Loop’s representation was false and misleading because 

it never had the right to occupy 1635 Watkins Road.

153. On or about December 16, 2014, Ohio EPA conducted an inspection of 

1635 Watkins Road to “monitor the progress of the build-out for operations of CLGS,” 

where Defendant Closed Loop would “eventually install a furnace.” 

a. The scope of the inspection included a schedule that had been submitted “as 

part of the demonstration that CLGS feasibly recycle the processed CRT 

glass currently being accumulated” at the Properties. 

b. Ohio EPA found that “no work had commenced on the vacant half of the 

warehouse where CLGS is supposed to conduct operations.”

c. Ohio EPA found that discussions with the existing tenant “indicated they 

had no information that CLGS had obtained a lease agreement.” 

d. In a follow up call, Robert Cruz, the Defendant Closed Loop plant manager, 

again falsely advised Ohio EPA that a “lease had been obtained.”

154. On or about January 5, 2015, Defendant Closed Loop finally admitted in a 

letter to Ohio EPA that it was “unable to exercise the lease option” at 1635 Watkins Road. 

155. The terms of the 1635 Watkins Road permit-to-install provided that the 

permit would automatically terminate within 18 months of the effective date if the 

“operator has not undertaken a continuing program of installation or has not entered into a 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 40 of 186 PAGEID #: 843
41

binding contractual obligation to undertake and complete within a reasonable time a 

continuing program of installation.” 

156. Defendant Closed Loop did not undertake a continuing program of 

installation, nor did it enter into a binding contractual obligation to build the furnace, 

indicating further that it had no intention of actually constructing a furnace at 1635 Watkins 

Road. 

157. On or about March 6, 2015, Defendant Closed Loop nevertheless applied 

for an extension of the 1635 Watkins Road permit-to-install, three months after admitting 

that it lacked a lease option, because “we are now negotiating with our landlord at 1635 

Watkins Road as it is time to renew our lease soon.” 

a. The referenced lease, however, is the Lease Agreement for 1675 Watkins 

Road.

b. There was never an agreement with Garrison to lease 1635 Watkins Road. 

158. On or about April 28, 2015, Defendant Closed Loop entered into a Consent 

Order with ADEQ to address speculative accumulation at Defendant Closed Loop’s 

Arizona facility that was predicated on shipments of crushed CRT glass from that facility 

to a glass furnace at 1635 Watkins Road. 

a. Defendant Closed Loop executed this agreement four months after advising 

Ohio EPA that it did not have a lease option at 1635 Watkins Road. 

b. Messrs. Benham, Cauchi, and LaPoint each signed the Consent Order, 

thereby making false statements to a state environmental agency as part of 

an e-waste recycling scheme that extended across the county.

159. For all of the reasons set forth above, Defendant Closed Loop secured the 

1635 Watkins Road permit-to-install solely as part of a continuing effort to mislead 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 41 of 186 PAGEID #: 844
42

Garrison and Ohio EPA into finding that there was a feasible means of recycling, when in 

fact no feasible means of recycling had been put into place.

2. 1659 E. Front Street

160. Defendant Closed Loop applied for and received a second “initial 

installation” air quality permit-to-install for 1659 E. Front Street, Logan, Ohio 43138

(“1659 E. Front Street”), which issued December 23, 2015. 

161. Upon information and belief, Defendant Closed Loop never owned any 

lease interests or other property rights with respect to 1659 E. Front Street.

162. Thus, as Defendant Closed Loop lacked the right to occupy 1659 E. Front 

Street, it could not use the 1659 E. Front Street permit-to-install to demonstrate that it had 

a feasible means of recycling the CRTs accumulating in the Properties.

163. On or about December 18, 2015, representatives from Defendant Closed 

Loop advised an entity that arranged for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste that 

Defendant Closed Loop wanted to move to 1659 E. Front Street, that the furnace would be 

located at that site, but that no move date was established.

164. The “planned” furnace at 1659 E. Front Street would not have had sufficient 

recycling capacity to avoid speculative accumulation prohibitions.

165. The permit had an 18,000 ton-per-year (“tpy”) limit, similar to its 

predecessor permit-to-install at 1635 Watkins Road. 

166. Even under the best case scenario – which would be premised on obtaining 

funding to construct the furnace, one year of construction, no additional inbound CRTs, 

and a Clean Air Act permit-to-operate – there would be over four more years of speculative 

accumulation, as it would take approximately 3.5 years to process the 64,000 tons (128 

million pounds) of e-waste that are currently stored at the Properties.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 42 of 186 PAGEID #: 845
43

167. BAN had long before warned of the prospects of a small furnace in public 

comments provided in response to a draft of Defendant Closed Loop’s first “initial 

installation” air quality permit-to-install:

“We are very concerned that a small furnace with slow throughput is being 

envisaged, which may provide appearances to observers that an effort is being made 

to avoid speculative accumulation and perhaps raise false hopes such that that [sic] 

variances to the speculative accumulation rules will be granted, when in fact there 

is no possibility of catching up to the volumes via the proposed process.”

168. As predicted in BAN’s public comments, the limits in both permits-toinstall provide the best evidence that Defendant Closed Loop could not possibly have 

intended to conduct a legitimate e-waste recycling operation because it could not possibly 

have caught up to the volumes of CRTs that were being accumulated without running afoul 

of speculative accumulation restrictions.

169. For all of the reasons set forth above, Defendant Closed Loop secured the 

second permit-to-install solely as part of a continuing effort to mislead Garrison and Ohio 

EPA into finding that there was a feasible means of recycling. 

3. 2200 Fairwood Avenue

170. When Defendant Closed Loop began having difficulties in demonstrating 

the viability of a glass furnace, it proposed a new step in the CRT processing as part of a 

scheme to mislead Ohio EPA into finding that an alternative “feasible means of recycling” 

existed, thereby artificially extending the speculative accumulation period for the crushed

CRT glass at the Properties.

171. On or about November 19, 2014, Defendant Closed Loop met with Ohio 

EPA to advise that it would no longer be purchasing 1659 E. Front Street to install a furnace 

and had instead intended to introduce a new “funnel glass cleaning (reclamation) process” 

that would ostensibly remove a coating to meet the product specifications of a glass furnace 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 43 of 186 PAGEID #: 846
44

in India – purportedly to demonstrate that it still had a “feasible means of recycling” the 

vast amounts of CRTs that had been accumulating. 

172. On or about December 9, 2014, Defendant Closed Loop sent Ohio EPA a 

letter indicating that the new process would be installed by December 15, 2014, at 1635 

Watkins Road, where Defendant Closed Loop had “acquired space.” 

173. Defendant Closed Loop, however, refused to provide Ohio EPA with 

information regarding the new process in the December 9, 2014 letter, asserting that it was 

“highly proprietary,” despite the availability of long-standing information protections that 

would have prevented Ohio EPA from disclosing the information publicly. 

174. Defendant Closed Loop’s December 9, 2014 letter advised Ohio EPA that 

the new process was based, in part, on Defendant Closed Loop’s Arizona operations, which 

it considered a “useful model in evaluating . . . the constraints for speculative 

accumulation.” 

175. ADEQ, however, had previously found that Defendant Closed Loop’s

Arizona facility was itself in violation of its speculative accumulation requirements for at 

least a full year prior to December 9, 2014, i.e., at the very same time Defendant Closed 

Loop was making the above misrepresentations to Ohio EPA.

176. Defendant Closed Loop would eventually abandon over 25,000 tons (50 

million pounds) of CRTs at its Arizona facilities, in addition to the more than 64,000 tons 

(128 million pounds) of CRTs and other e-waste at the Properties.

177. On or about January 5, 2015, Defendant Closed Loop finally admitted in a 

letter to Ohio EPA that it was “unable to exercise the lease option” at 1635 Watkins Road 

and had instead “obtained new space at 2200 Fairwood Avenue” for the new “glass 

cleaning facility.”

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 44 of 186 PAGEID #: 847
45

178. On or about March 19, 2015, Ohio EPA advised Defendant Closed Loop in 

a letter that the Ohio EPA Division of Air Pollution Control “has recently become aware 

of a CRT glass acid washing operation located at 2200 Fairwood Avenue that is run by 

Closed Loop” and that the process “may require a permit-to-install and operate.”

179. On or about March 4, 2016, according to an Ohio EPA Field Activity 

Report, Defendant Closed Loop Plant Manager Robert Cruz and Defendant Closed Loop

Manager Matt Strangle advised Ohio EPA that the “tumbler (which aids in the washing) at 

Fairwood broke in the summer of 2015 and had not been repaired yet....” 

180. Defendant Closed Loop had waited 6-8 months to disclose to Ohio EPA that 

its purportedly “alternative” feasible means of recycling had not been operational, while 

generating millions of dollars in additional revenue from inbound CRTs and other e-waste

during the same time period.

181. For all of the reasons set forth above, Defendant Closed Loop purported to 

operate a new “funnel glass cleaning (reclamation) process” solely as part of a continuing 

effort to mislead Garrison and Ohio EPA into finding that there was a feasible means of 

recycling when, in fact, no such feasible means of recycling existed.

4. Funding

182. In or around October and November 2015, Ohio EPA advised Defendant 

Closed Loop in multiple communications that, to demonstrate a “feasible means of 

recycling,” Defendant Closed Loop would need to provide:

a. “documentation showing that they have a contract for the furnace, financing 

arrangements (e.g., letters from investors), a schedule for construction, etc.”

(Oct. 23, 2015 phone call between Ohio EPA and Defendant Closed Loop); 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 45 of 186 PAGEID #: 848
46

b. “bona fide letters of intent from investors to provide capital funds for the 

construction of the furnace” (Nov. 20, 2015 letter from Ohio EPA to 

Defendant Closed Loop); and

c. “[o]ther information may include written construction schedules, 

construction contracts and construction permits.” (Nov. 20, 2015 letter from 

Ohio EPA to Defendant Closed Loop).

183. Defendant Closed Loop never made this demonstration and, accordingly, 

never had a feasible means of recycling, or the ability to fund such recycling. 

184. Defendant Closed Loop knew or should have known that it could never have 

secured sufficient funding to install and operate a furnace that could recycle the high 

volumes of crushed CRT glass accumulating at the Properties. 

185. Defendant Closed Loop admitted on at least three occasions that it lacked 

the financial wherewithal to secure commitments to this level of funding, including as 

follows:

a. On or about August 5, 2015, Mr. Benham admitted to Garrison in an e-mail 

requesting another lease restructuring that “CLRR has been under 

capitalized for the past five years of business.”

b. On or about October 26, 2015, Defendant Closed Loop admitted to Ohio 

EPA in a letter attempting to explain why it had a “feasible means of 

recycling,” that financing had never been “committed to the project,” thus 

admitting that there had never been a feasible means of recycling. 

c. On or about March 17, 2016, Mr. Benham admitted to Garrison in an e-mail 

regarding liability for the accumulated e-waste that:

“Our efforts to secure venture financing have been unsuccessful at this time. 

Speaking with potential strategic industry players has evoked even more 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 46 of 186 PAGEID #: 849
47

negative responses – citing the huge amount of CRTs and leaded glass 

amassed on the property – there is no logic to take on this liability plus the 

cost to remove it will outweigh any potential revenues to be had from metal 

sales.”

186. The Closed Loop Defendants nevertheless repeatedly represented to Ohio 

EPA and to Garrison that they had either secured funding or were on the cusp of securing 

funding, as part of a delay tactic to stave off environmental enforcement such that it could 

continue to accept inbound CRTs and other e-waste, including as follows:

a. On or about March 6, 2015, Mr. LaPoint misrepresented to Ohio EPA in a 

letter that “we have funding identified” for the furnace.

b. On or about September 27, 2015, Mr. Benham advised Garrison in an email that Defendant Closed Loop had “executed a term sheet with a private 

fund”; that it was “deep in due diligence with closing anticipated in late 

November or early December 2015”; and that the fund will “provide a $9.5 

million term loan credit facility providing additional equipment into the 

Company’s current operations in Arizona and Ohio, the buildout of the glass 

furnace operation in Ohio, and much needed working capital.” 

c. On or about October 22, 2015, Mr. Benham advised ADEQ that Defendant 

Closed Loop was “very close to obtaining financing for building a furnace 

in Ohio.”

187. Upon information and belief, the costs of constructing an 18,000 tpy glass 

furnace would likely have run approximately $10-20 million, and the costs of operating it

would likely have run approximately $1 million a year. 

188. No reasonable investor would have provided the necessary level of funding 

for Defendant Closed Loop to build a furnace under the prevailing market conditions and 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 47 of 186 PAGEID #: 850
48

given the credit worthiness of Defendant Closed Loop and its three principals, all of whom

have since declared bankruptcy.

189. Ohio EPA and BAN both expressed concerns with the ability of Defendant

Closed Loop to secure or allocate the requisite funding, which suggested that it was widely 

understood that Defendant Closed Loop lacked the financial wherewithal or willingness to 

conduct a legitimate recycling operation, including as follows:

a. On or about June 25, 2014, Ohio EPA expressed its concern to Mr. Benham

in a phone call “with the potential for them to abandon large amounts of 

hazardous waste glass if they are unsuccessful in securing investments to 

build the furnace.”

b. On or about October 30, 2014, BAN advised U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA in a 

letter that:

“[Closed Loop] continues to bring in large sums of cash for receiving glass 

from a variety of sources, and yet the money is not in Escrow to be applied 

to the recycling of the glass. This funding is surely a source of funding that 

could easily be spent on building a furnace. But this has not happened. One 

must wonder why.”

c. On or about November 5, 2014, Ohio EPA observed following a meeting 

with Defendant Closed Loop that:

“To date, we have not seen any contracts, agreements or letters of intent for 

investors in the furnace. As such we asked Closed Loop to provide this 

information before we can recommend taking an action on a variance 

request. In addition, we are asking Closed Loop to provide an estimate of 

the cost to properly dispose of all accumulated hazardous processed CRT 

glass and unprocessed CRTs, as well as evidence of financial assurance for 

a third party cleanup. Financial assurance seemed to be an issue for the 

company.” 

190. Upon information and belief, and as explained more fully below, the 

Arranger/Transporter Defendants had the requisite sophistication and experience in the ewaste industry such that they, too, were aware or should have been aware that Defendant 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 48 of 186 PAGEID #: 851
49

Closed Loop lacked the financial wherewithal or willingness to conduct a legitimate 

recycling operation. 

191. On or about May 6, 2016, Defendant Closed Loop advised Ohio EPA in a 

letter that Defendant Closed Loop had ceased its operations in Columbus, Ohio “due to 

changing market conditions and financial considerations.” 

192. For all of the reasons set forth above, and at all times relevant, Defendant 

Closed Loop lacked the financial wherewithal and willingness to commit funding to build 

a furnace that could be used to demonstrate a feasible means of recycling. 

c. Sham Recycling / Disposal

193. CRTs and other e-waste that are sham recycled or disposed of are regulated 

hazardous wastes under RCRA and Ohio Rev. Code Chapter 3734. See 40 C.F.R. § 

261.4(a)(22)(i) (subjecting used, intact CRTs to regulation if they are “disposed”); Ohio 

Admin. Code 3745-51-04(A)(22)(a) (same); 40 C.F.R. § 261.39(a) & (c) (exempting used, 

broken CRTs from regulation only if they are “destined for recycling”); Ohio Admin. Code 

3745-51-39(A) and (C) (same); 40 C.F.R. § 261.2 (subjecting “discarded” materials to 

regulation, including materials that are disposed, abandoned, accumulated, or reclaimed); 

and Ohio Admin. Code 3745-51-02 (same).

194. RCRA requires that the recycling of hazardous secondary materials for 

purposes of complying with the CRT conditional exclusion be “legitimate,” or else the 

materials be deemed hazardous wastes, and that “[s]ham recycling is recycling that is not 

legitimate recycling.” See 40 C.F.R. §§ 260.43 & 261.2(g).

195. The leaded funnel glass and panel glass removed from CRTs and otherwise 

generated in CRT processing constitute “hazardous secondary materials,” within the 

meaning of 40 C.F.R § 260.43.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 49 of 186 PAGEID #: 852
50

196. Defendant Closed Loop disposed of the CRT glass fed into the mechanical 

crusher by placing it in the Properties indefinitely with the intent to abandon it, which 

Defendant Closed Loop ultimately did in or around late March 2016. 

197. U.S. EPA has looked to a variety of factors in determining whether a 

material is a legitimate product as opposed to a waste and whether the recycling process is 

legitimate as opposed to sham recycling or disposal.

198. These factors include whether a legitimate market exists for the material, 

whether the material provides revenues, and whether the material is managed to prevent 

release (i.e., managed as a valuable commodity). See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. § 260.43 (setting forth 

required criteria to demonstrate legitimate recycling), id. § 261.2(e)(1) (describing 

materials that are not solid wastes when recycled), id. § 261.2(g) (prohibiting sham 

recycling), EPA Faxback 13691 (May 19, 1994), EPA Faxback 11750 (June 2, 1993), and

EPA Faxback 11936 (Jan. 31, 1995). See also Ohio Admin. Code 3745-51-06 (setting forth 

requirements for recyclable materials)

199. Defendant Closed Loop violated the prohibition against sham recycling by 

failing to demonstrate that:

a. the crushing of commingled leaded funnel glass and panel glass provided a 

useful contribution to the recycling process;

b. the crushed commingled leaded funnel glass and panel glass was a valuable 

product or intermediate;

c. a legitimate market existed for the crushed CRT glass that was being 

generated;

d. the CRTs and crushed CRT glass that were accumulating on the Properties 

were being managed as valuable commodities; and 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 50 of 186 PAGEID #: 853
51

e. the CRTs and crushed CRT glass that were accumulating on the Properties 

were being managed so as to prevent a release.

200. No legitimate market existed for the crushed CRT glass that Defendant 

Closed Loop was generating given the manner in which it was generated:

a. It is standard industry practice to segregate leaded funnel glass from panel 

glass during CRT processing to meet the product specifications of 

downstream lead smelters. 

b. It is not economically viable for lead smelters to accept commingled glass 

from e-waste recyclers, given the need to run over twice as much feedstock 

(glass) to extract the same amount of lead. 

c. Nor did commingled glass meet the product specifications for other 

downstream recyclers, including Camacho Recycling, as evidenced by a 

May 7, 2015 letter from Comacho Recycling to Mr. Cauchi.

d. Defendant Closed Loop failed to segregate leaded funnel glass from panel 

glass, as evidenced by the nearly 30,000 Gaylords of used, broken, and 

commingled CRT glass that were abandoned at the Properties. 

e. On or about November 19, 2014, Defendant Closed Loop misrepresented 

to Ohio EPA in a meeting that it had been processing CRTs to separate the 

nonhazardous front (panel) glass from the hazardous funnel glass, as 

reflected in an internal Ohio EPA communication. 

f. On or about May 22, 2015, Defendant Closed Loop again misrepresented 

to Ohio EPA in response to an information request that “[w]hen CRTs are 

processed they are separated into Panel Cullet, Funnel Glass, Metals, 

Plastics and glass fines.”

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 51 of 186 PAGEID #: 854
52

g. On or about October 20, 2015, Mr. Benham provided Garrison with a Site 

Closure Plan,” which provided yet another misrepresentation: “The CRTs 

are processed to separate the leaded glass from the unleaded glass, with the 

leaded glass further processed in a lead recovery line and the unleaded glass 

further processed to separate different sized particles in a glass-to-glass 

recovery line.”

201. No legitimate market existed for the pre-processed CRT glass that 

Defendant Closed Loop received from the Arranger/Transporter Defendants given that the 

CRT glass alone has a “negative net value,” as described in Mr. Benham’s Answer, para.

2. As Mr. Benham explained, “CRT glass is an expense,” whereas “the circuit board, cone, 

and copper cables of the CRT can have some positive scrap value . . . . depend[ing] on 

metal prices.”

202. Nor did Defendant Closed Loop manage the crushed CRT glass at the 

Properties in an environmentally responsible manner with a concern for product integrity, 

as confirmed by the following:

a. It is standard industry practice to use new octagon Gaylord boxes to provide 

appropriate containment for processed CRT glass, which averages 2 tons

per Gaylord.

b. Defendant Closed Loop repurposed many of the same four-sided Gaylord 

boxes that had previously been used to transport used, intact CRTs to the 

Properties. 

c. These boxes had, in turn, been repurposed from their initial use to package 

non-hazardous consumer products, which do not require the same standard 

of durability. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 52 of 186 PAGEID #: 855
53

d. As a result, much of the crushed CRT glass has spilled to the floor.

e. On or about October 17, 2013, Ohio EPA issued a Notice of Violation 

(“NOV”) to Defendant Closed Loop, alleging that Defendant Closed Loop

failed to qualify for CRT conditional exclusion and finding, inter alia:

“At the time of the inspection, Closed Loop was storing approximately 300 

pallets of broken CRTs outside in cardboard gaylords. (See pics 1-3). The 

containers had deteriorated to the point that they could no longer hold the 

CRTs, and CRT glass and parts were strewn throughout the storage area. In 

addition, the facility was storing approximately 450 pallets of televisions 

outside; due to storage conditions, some of these CRTS had broken as well. 

. . . 

During the inspection the gaylords being stored outside and the gaylords 

inside storing the processed television [sic] were not properly labeled.

Closed Loop violated the condition of the exclusion for CRTs thus creating 

an illegal storage and disposal facility.”

f. Defendant Closed Loop was required to install a silt screen to cover storm 

drains within the outdoor CRT storage area as a result of Ohio EPA’s 

inspection, as referenced in the October 17, 2013 NOV.

g. On or about June 10, 2014, Ohio EPA and Closed Loop entered into an 

“Expedited Settlement Agreement and Director’s Order” to resolve the 

October 17, 2013 NOV, in which Ohio EPA found that “the containers . . . 

had deteriorated such that the CRTs had been released to the parking lot and 

the ground.”

203. U.S. EPA has observed that “storing broken CRTs outdoors prior to 

processing is inconsistent with the premise that these materials are commodity-like.” 71 

Fed. Reg. 42,928, 42,933 (July 28, 2006).

204. For all of the reasons set forth above, the manner in which Defendant Closed 

Loop processed CRT glass and otherwise managed inbound CRTs evidenced the fact that 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 53 of 186 PAGEID #: 856
54

it had no intention of actually recycling these materials as though they were valuable 

commodities with a legitimate downstream market to receive them. Thus, Defendant 

Closed Loop violated the sham recycling prohibition in 40 C.F.R. § 260.43.

d. State of Ohio Environmental Enforcement

205. The Ohio EPA issued an NOV to Defendant Closed Loop on 

April 11, 2016, alleging that Defendant Closed Loop failed to qualify for the CRT 

conditional exclusion at the Properties. 

206. The April 11, 2016 NOV was at least the fourth NOV Defendant Closed 

Loop had received for violations of Ohio hazardous waste and air quality laws during its 

operations at the Properties. The prior NOVs are as follows:

a. On or about October 17, 2013, Ohio EPA issued an NOV that similarly 

alleged that Defendant Closed Loop failed to qualify for the CRT 

conditional exclusion at 1675 Watkins Road. 

b. On or about January 30, 2015, Ohio EPA issued an NOV that alleged that 

Defendant Closed Loop failed to post the appropriate emergency 

notification information at 1675 Watkins Road and for failing to provide 

Ohio EPA with land disposal restriction notifications. 

c. On or about April 2, 2015, Ohio EPA issued an NOV that alleged that 

Defendant Closed Loop operated air contaminant sources without a permit 

at 1675 Watkins Road; the NOV specifically alleged that “[p]ollutants that 

are outside the breaker room are free to vent outside the building or through 

open loading doors or the buildings ventilation.”

d. These NOVs are in addition to a series of OSHA citations relating to 

respiratory protection, lead, cadmium, and air contaminants issued on 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 54 of 186 PAGEID #: 857
55

August 14, 2015 (15 “serious” citations); November 9, 2015 (1 “serious” 

citation); and December 24, 2015 (1 “other” citation).

207. The April 11, 2016 NOV alleged, inter alia, that Defendant Closed Loop: 

(a) failed to demonstrate that it was not speculatively accumulating CRTs or processed 

CRTs; (b) was not operating a “legitimate recycling facility”; (c) “did not have a feasible 

means of recycling”; and (d) “illegally transported a hazardous waste under Ohio’s 

hazardous waste laws to an unpermitted facility.”

208. Ohio EPA further indicated in the April 11, 2016 NOV that it was referring 

the matter to Ohio EPA’s Division of Materials and Waste Management’s hazardous waste 

enforcement coordinator for enforcement consideration. 

209. Garrison was copied on the April 11, 2016 NOV issued by Ohio EPA to 

Defendant Closed Loop. 

210. On or about August 31, 2016, Ohio EPA confirmed in a telephone call that 

Ohio EPA views Garrison liable as owner of a hazardous waste facility and that Ohio EPA 

intends to pursue Garrison for clean-up costs. 

211. On or about September 9, 2016, Ohio EPA sent a letter requesting the 

Attorney General of Ohio (“Ohio AG”) to initiate “all necessary legal and/or equitable civil 

actions as may be deemed necessary and seek appropriate penalties against [Defendant 

Closed Loop] and other appropriate persons for the violations of ORC Chapter 3734 and 

the rules adopted thereunder.” (Emphasis added.)

212. On or about May 17, 2017, the Ohio AG sent a letter inviting Plaintiff to 

negotiate the resolution of potential claims arising out of alleged violations of Ohio 

hazardous waste laws and rules at the Properties. No enforcement action has been filed,

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 55 of 186 PAGEID #: 858
56

however, and Garrison has not settled any actual alleged liability with Ohio that it may 

have regarding the Properties. 

213. Garrison has been cooperating with the Ohio AG and Ohio EPA 

investigation. Garrison has undertaken efforts at its sole expense to investigate the nature 

and quantity of the abandoned CRTs and other e-waste at the Properties; to protect public 

health and safety; and to address releases and threatened releases. All costs incurred to 

date, for which CERCLA cost recovery is sought herein, are consistent with the U.S. EPA 

National Contingency Plan (“NCP”) at 40 C.F.R. Part 300, in keeping with 

42 U.S.C. § 9607. These efforts have included, but are not limited to:

a. arranging for the retention of an environmental consultant, which performed 

a removal preliminary assessment, removal site inspections, and records 

reviews in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 300.410, inter alia, (i) to 

characterize the nature and extent of the abandoned CRTs and other e-waste

at the Properties, (ii) to identify sources and the nature of releases and 

threatened releases, (iii) to evaluate the magnitude of the threat, and (iv) to 

evaluate the factors necessary to determine whether a removal is necessary; 

b. identifying potential options and locations for the recycling or, if necessary, 

disposal of the abandoned CRTs and other e-waste in furtherance of

40 C.F.R. § 300.415(b)(4)(i) and in accordance with other applicable 

federal and state laws; 

c. obtaining cost estimates from potential hazardous and electronic waste 

vendors for the recycling and/or disposal of the abandoned CRTs and other 

e-waste and for the removal and/or remedial action at the Properties in 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 56 of 186 PAGEID #: 859
57

furtherance of 40 C.F.R. § 300.415(b)(4)(i) and in accordance with other 

applicable federal and state laws; 

d. securing the Properties to prevent unauthorized entry in accordance with 

40 C.F.R. § 300.415(b)(1)-(3) and (e)(1);

e. repairing and replacing bay doors that were damaged by collapsing Gaylord 

towers in an effort to mitigate the exigent threat of releases through open 

air conduits beyond the warehouse perimeter in accordance with 

40 C.F.R. § 300.415(b)(1)-(3) and (e)(1); 

f. directing an environmental consultant to prepare a health and safety plan in 

accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 300.150 to inform personnel participating in 

on-site activities at the Properties, including contractors performing 

removal and/or remediation, of the known or reasonably anticipated 

potential hazards and safety concerns; 

g. preparing documentation in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 300.160(a)(1),

inter alia, (i) to identify responsible parties, (ii) to describe the source and 

circumstances of the releases, and (iii) to provide for an accounting of 

response costs; and

h. arranging for the retention of an environmental consultant to prepare an 

Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 300.415 to 

analyze removal alternatives for the Properties.

2. Defendant Silagi

214. Defendant Silagi exercised exclusive control over MS-South LLC as the 

property owner of 1675 Watkins Road from prior to April 6, 2012, through on or about 

April 29, 2013.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 57 of 186 PAGEID #: 860
58

215. According to the State of California Secretary of State filings, Defendant 

Silagi exercised extensive and exclusive control over MS-South LLC, serving as its 

managing member, its sole member, and its registered agent for service of process.

216. Defendant Silagi’s current principal place of business for Silagi 

Development and Management Inc. is the same address listed on the Lease Agreement 

entered into by and between MS-South LLC and Defendant Closed Loop on or about 

April 6, 2012 for 1675 Watkins Road.

217. Upon information and belief, Defendant Silagi managed, directed, and 

conducted the operations of MS-South LLC as they related to tenant disposal of hazardous 

waste and/or tenant compliance with environmental regulations.

218. Upon information and belief, Defendant Silagi and MS-South LLC are 

legally indistinct for purposes of CERCLA, and Defendant Silagi should accordingly be 

held accountable for the obligations of MS-South LLC under CERCLA.

219. Defendant Silagi signed the Lease Agreement with Defendant Closed Loop 

for 1675 Watkins Road in the presence of a notary public on or about April 9, 2012; the 

Lease Agreement expressly permitted the “electronic recycling . . . of cathode ray tubes,” 

which contain lead.

220. Defendant Silagi thereafter misrepresented to Garrison in a Purchase and 

Sale Agreement (“PSA”) dated April 29, 2013, that “[t]o Seller’s knowledge, except as set 

forth on Schedule 3.1.10 . . . during Seller’s term of ownership, the Property [which 

included 1675 Watkins Road] has not been used for industrial purposes or for the storage, 

treatment or disposal of Hazardous Substances (as hereinafter defined), other than products 

customarily used or stored incidental to the operation and/or maintenance of the Property, 

all of which are stored and used in accordance with all applicable Environmental Laws.”

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 58 of 186 PAGEID #: 861
59

a. The PSA, Schedule 3.1.10, listed no scheduled exceptions.

b. The PSA defined “Hazardous Substances” to include “lead.”

c. The PSA defined “to Seller’s Knowledge” as “the actual current knowledge 

of Guarantor, after due inquiry of (i) the individuals in Seller's organization 

who have knowledge of the matters contained herein and (ii) Kevin 

McLewee, the general manager of the Property, and an employee of Cassidy

Turley.”

d. The PSA defined “Guarantor” as Defendant Silagi.

221. Defendant Silagi provided a guaranty in the PSA which “unconditionally 

guaranties to [Garrison] the full and faithful payment and performance by [Defendant MSSouth LLC] of all of its obligations to [Garrison],” which obligations are “absolute, 

primary, unconditional and irrevocable.”

222. MS-South LLC was dissolved on or about October 3, 2017, i.e., less than 

one month after Garrison filed the original Complaint in this matter.

223. Upon information and belief, Defendant Silagi dissolved MS-South LLC in 

an effort to avoid liability in connection with the CRTs and other e-waste that were 

stockpiled and speculatively accumulated at 1675 Watkins Road during MS-South LLC’s 

period of ownership from April 6, 2012 through April 29, 2013.

3. The Arranger/Transporter Defendants

224. From 2012 and continuing to the present, the Arranger/Transporter 

Defendants participated in and profited from Defendant Closed Loop’s extensive scheme 

to mislead Garrison and Ohio EPA with respect to whether Defendant Closed Loop 

qualified for the CRT conditional exclusion and otherwise to defraud Garrison and Ohio 

EPA through the sham recycling operation at the Properties, thereby saving millions of 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 59 of 186 PAGEID #: 862
60

dollars in waste disposal costs and imposing upon Garrison potential liability for millions 

of dollars in environmental cleanup costs. 

225. The Arranger/Transporter Defendants selected Defendant Closed Loop as 

the cheapest possible option on the market to receive and ostensibly “recycle” CRTs and 

other e-waste.

226. The Arranger/Transporter Defendants either knew or should have known

that Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion and lacked 

the capacity to qualify for this exclusion at the time the arrangements were made to 

transport the CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties and at the time the CRTs and other 

e-waste were accepted for transport to the Properties.

227. The Arranger/Transporter Defendants benefited from the delay tactics that 

Defendant Closed Loop implemented to hold Ohio EPA and Garrison at bay.

228. With the requisite experience and sophistication in the tightknit e-waste 

industry, the Arranger/Transporter Defendants knew or should have known that Defendant 

Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, because the 

Arranger/Transporter Defendants knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop

was speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was 

disposing of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling.

229. There is widespread and long-standing recognition in the e-waste recycling 

industry regarding concerns with e-waste abandonment, including concerns that were 

known or should have by known by the Arranger/Transporter Defendants, including as 

follows:

a. The U.S. EPA web page on CRTs warns: “Because of rising costs, negative 

economic incentives and shifts in CRT glass markets, some CRT processors 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 60 of 186 PAGEID #: 863
61

and recyclers are choosing to store the glass indefinitely rather than send it 

for recycling or disposal, which increases the risk of mismanagement and/or 

abandonment of CRTs.” See https://www.epa.gov/hw/cathode-ray-tubescrts-0. 

b. A U.S. EPA official observed at an e-waste conference called “E-Scrap 

2016” that: “Basically, we’ve been seeing a pattern consistently across the 

nation of stockpiles, illegal disposal, mismanagement of CRTs.... In some 

cases, it’s just warehouses full.” See E-Scrap News, U.S. EPA Offers 

Information on CRT Regulations (Oct. 6, 2016). 

c. Ohio EPA has issued guidance that provides: “In addition to being familiar 

with the way electronics will be recycled, it is important to research the 

recycling facility to determine if it has any compliance problems. . . . If 

electronic equipment is not recycled properly, and it is a hazardous waste, 

both your company and the recycling facility will be liable for clean-up 

costs associated with improper disposal of hazardous components.” See 

http://epa.ohio.gov/portals/32/pdf/Electronic_Equipment_Guidance.pdf. 

d. BAN routinely warns against the dangers to public and health and the 

environment of e-waste abandonment. See http://www.ban.org/news/.

230. Several recent e-waste abandonments and related environmental 

enforcement actions have been widely reported in the media, and any participant in the ewaste recycling market would have been well aware of the trend, including the 

Arranger/Transporter Defendants, briefly summarized as follows: 

a. A small sampling of recent enforcement actions includes several matters 

with ties to Defendant Closed Loop: Eco International, LLC / Amandi 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 61 of 186 PAGEID #: 864
62

Services / Envirocycle (U.S. EPA Region 2 Consent Agreement and Final 

Order dated Sept. 30, 2015 arising out of speculative accumulation 

violations and associated e-waste abandonment of approximately 13,000 

tons of CRTs and other e-waste; Mr. Cauchi was a principal in a predecessor 

entity); E-World Recyclers, LLC (U.S. District Court for the Southern 

District of California indictment arising out of fraudulent e-waste recycling 

services, dated Dec. 18, 2014; Defendant Erie was the Chief Executive 

Officer of both E-World Recyclers, LLC and Defendant E-World, which

arranged for the transport of at least 11.6 million pounds of CRTs and other 

e-waste to Defendant Closed Loop); and 2TRG / E-Waste Systems (Ohio 

EPA NOV dated July 24, 2014 involving e-waste abandonment in 

Cincinnati, Ohio, much of which was later shipped to the Properties).

b. At least one of the 25 states with e-waste recycling laws denied recycling 

credit to original equipment manufacturers for CRTs sent to the Closed 

Loop Defendants. 

(i) In or about December 2014, the Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources (“Wisconsin DNR”) issued a statewide warning to ewaste recyclers that Defendant Closed Loop lacked the capacity to 

process CRTs and that any CRTs sent to Defendant Closed Loop

would accordingly not be counted toward manufacturer credit under 

the E-Cycle Wisconsin Program. 

(ii) The warning provided: “Until the furnace is up and running and 

processing CRT glass, the weight of any glass sent to Closed Loop

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 62 of 186 PAGEID #: 865
63

and stored at any of its facilities may not be counted for 

manufacturer credit under E-Cycle Wisconsin.”

231. The fact that Defendant Closed Loop was stockpiling CRTs at the Properties 

in violation of speculative accumulation requirements was widely known in the e-waste 

industry for several years prior to 2016 and was known or should have been known by the 

Arranger/Transporter Defendants. For example:

a. Resource Recycling, Inc., an e-waste trade publication, not only tracks ewaste abandonment, but has reported specifically on Defendant Closed 

Loop since at least 2014.

b. A sampling of relevant Resource Recycling, Inc. articles includes: E-Scrap 

News, CRT Player Closed Loop Receives Notice of Violation (Nov. 6, 

2014); E-Scrap News, Under Regulatory Pressure, Closed Loop Explores 

Options (Nov. 21, 2014); E-Scrap News, Stored CRT Glass in Arizona is 

Set to Move (June 18, 2015); E-Scrap News, Auditor Voices Concerns about 

CRT Processor (Feb. 25, 2016); E-Scrap News, CRT Outlet Closed Loop 

Nears Collapse (Apr. 15, 2016); E-Scrap News, Closed Loop Leaves Ohio 

Facility (May 5, 2016); E-Scrap News, From Promises to Piles(June 2016); 

E-Scrap News, U.S. EPA Offers Information on CRT Regulations (Oct. 6, 

2016) (citing a U.S. EPA official’s discussion of Defendant Closed Loop as 

one of the recent high-profile CRT issues in the U.S.).

232. The fact that Defendant Closed Loop was otherwise not operating in 

compliance with federal and state hazardous waste laws was widely known in the e-waste 

industry for several years and was known or should have been known by the 

Arranger/Transporter Defendants because, among other reasons: 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 63 of 186 PAGEID #: 866
64

a. The Consent Order with ADEQ entered into on April 28, 2015 made 

national news. See E-Scrap News, Stored CRT glass in Arizona is set to 

move (June 18, 2015).

b. Anyone conducting the most basic environmental due diligence on 

downstream recipients of CRTs would have or should have consulted the 

U.S. EPA’s ECHO (Enforcement and Compliance History Online) 

database, which provides a detailed history on noncompliance with 

hazardous waste and air quality laws at the Properties.

233. The fact that Defendant Closed Loop did not have a glass furnace was 

widely known in the e-waste industry for several years and was known or should have been 

known by the Arranger/Transporter Defendants. 

234. There were only a small number of glass furnaces that could extract lead 

from processed CRT glass in North America, and the existence of an additional option 

would have attracted widespread industry attention.

a. Defendant Closed Loop advised its customer base in an August 2011 

newsletter that “the primary furnaces that recycle CRT glass are shutting 

down left and right” and that “[t]oday there are only two furnaces that accept 

CRT glass from North America; both of those facilities are expected to 

cease operations by 2013.”

b. As Mr. Benham noted in his Answer, para. 60, “[t]he only market in the 

United States for the funnel glass in 2012 was a secondary smelter in 

Missouri, which at that time was at maximum volume.” 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 64 of 186 PAGEID #: 867
65

c. As Mr. Benham noted in his Answer, para. 59, “[d]ue to regulation, 

permitting, and construction complexities, development of new American 

furnaces faced substantial lead time for development.”

235. The fact that there were few, if any, other glass furnaces operating 

worldwide was also known or should have been known by the Arranger/Transporter 

Defendants. 

a. As Mr. Benham noted in his Answer, para. 2, “[i]n late summer, 2012, nine 

of the twelve CRT furnaces operating worldwide shut down, leaving only 

one in India (Videocon); one in Malaysia (open for Japan only); and one in 

China (no imports going forward).”

b. As Mr. Benham noted in his Answer, para. 60, “Videocon was too 

expensive for shipping from the Closed Loop Ohio operation” and 

“Mexican regulatory border restrictions prevented Closed Loop from using 

[the secondary lead smelters and other potential users (copper smelters) in] 

these markets.”

236. The fact that Defendant Closed Loop lacked other downstream markets to 

manage crushed CRT glass was widely known in the e-waste industry for several years 

because it directly impacted the revenue streams of nearly every entity involved in the CRT 

recycling chain, including the Arranger/Transporter Defendants. 

237. As early as 2008, four years prior to launching operations in Ohio, 

downstream markets for “glass block, decorative tile, glass rock, and other products . . . . 

dependent on construction industry” were “in decline,” as Mr. Benham noted in this 

Answer, para. 60.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 65 of 186 PAGEID #: 868
66

238. Moreover, as Mr. Benham also noted in his Answer, para. 60, “[g]iven the 

limited third-party potential end users, the Closed Loop furnace technology became the 

only real business answer to the worldwide market given the regulatory and volume 

limitations on taking leaded glass.” Put differently, the viability of the global CRT 

recycling market was entirely contingent on a furnace that did not, and never would, exist, 

given that there were no other downstream options.

239. At all times relevant, the Arranger/Transporter Defendants knew or should 

have known, and had an objectively reasonable basis to believe, that the crushed CRT glass 

at the Properties would not be recycled in accordance with the CRT conditional exclusion, 

including its speculative accumulation requirement. 

240. The CRTs and other e-waste that the Arranger/Transporter Defendants 

transported and/or arranged to be transported to the Properties were not “destined for 

recycling” in keeping with 40 C.F.R. § 261.39(a) and Ohio Admin. Code 3745-51-39(a); 

did not otherwise qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion; and therefore constituted 

hazardous wastes at the time the arrangements were made to transport them to the 

Properties.

241. The CRTs and other e-waste transported to the Properties were “wastes” 

and “discarded materials” as defined in 40 C.F.R. § 261.2 and Ohio Admin. Code 3745-

51-02 at the time of collection and transport that did not and do not qualify for any 

exclusion from hazardous waste regulations.

242. Thus, for all of the reasons noted above, the Arranger/Transporter 

Defendants transported and/or arranged for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties, despite the fact that they knew or should have known that Defendant Closed 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 66 of 186 PAGEID #: 869
67

Loop did not qualify for, and lacked the capacity to qualify for, the CRT conditional 

exclusion.

a. Defendant UNICOR

243. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant 

UNICOR arranged for the transport of more than 4.6 million pounds of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties starting in or around May 2012 and extending into or around 

December 2015.

244. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant 

UNICOR arranged for the transport of these CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties from 

at least four different locations: (a) Marianna Federal Prison Industries, UNICOR 

Recycling, Marianna, Florida; (b) Fort Dix Federal Prison Industries, UNICOR Recycling, 

Fort Dix, New Jersey; (c) Lewisburg Federal Prison Industries, UNICOR Recycling, 

Lewisburg, Pennsylvania; and (d) Tucson Federal Prison Industries, UNICOR Recycling, 

Tucson, Arizona.

245. Records produced by Closed Loop indicate that, among other e-waste 

streams, Defendant UNICOR arranged for the disposal of, and paid Defendant Closed 

Loop to accept, e-waste characterized as “Scrap-Glass,” which has a negative net value. 

246. Defendant UNICOR and Defendant Closed Loop entered into a series of 

contracts to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for as low 

as $0.0750 per pound.

247. Defendant UNICOR knew or should have known that the artificially low 

prices being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing 

market with a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be 

sufficient to cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant UNICOR 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 67 of 186 PAGEID #: 870
68

knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham recycling 

scheme, but chose to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its 

misconduct.

248. In or about June 2016, E-Scrap News reported that Defendant UNICOR 

paid Defendant Closed Loop nearly $2.5 million in e-waste recycling services from August 

2011 through January 2015. See E-Scrap News, From promises to piles (June 2016).

249. Defendant UNICOR has a long history of noncompliance with federal and 

state hazardous waste laws, including with the CRT conditional exclusion. 

250. In or about October 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice Office of the 

Inspector General (“DOJ OIG”) released a 433-page report entitled “A Review of Federal 

Prison Industries’ Electronic-Waste Recycling Program.” 

a. The report concluded that “management of the e-waste recycling program 

resulted in numerous violations of health, safety, and environmental laws, 

regulations, and BOP [Bureau of Prisons] policies.”

b. With respect to CRTs, the report noted:

“According to staff, inmates, and UNICOR customers, open gaylord boxes 

and dumpster containers containing broken CRTs were routinely left 

outdoors at the UNICOR warehouse at FCI Elkton, some for months at a 

time, allowing for the release of dust and glass debris to the air, soil, and 

storm drains through wind or rainwater runoff. Staff at USP Atwater also 

stated that boxes of broken monitor glass were stored outdoors uncovered. 

After conferring with the EPA, we concluded that the activities described 

above constitute unlawful disposals and storage of hazardous waste.”

251. Particularly in light of the extensive scrutiny from DOJ OIG, Defendant 

UNICOR had the sophistication and experience in the e-waste industry necessary to 

ascertain the true nature of Defendant Closed Loop’s sham recycling operations. 

252. Defendant UNICOR, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to 

determine whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 68 of 186 PAGEID #: 871
69

law, including whether Defendant Closed Loop qualified for the CRT conditional 

exclusion. 

253. On or about November 19, 2014, a competitor of Defendant Closed Loop

e-mailed Defendant UNICOR, advising them that Defendant Closed Loop “does not 

recycle the funnel glass” and was not running a legitimate end-use e-waste recycling 

operation.

254. Nevertheless, Defendant UNICOR continued to ship vast quantities of 

CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties to take advantage of Defendant Closed Loop’s

artificially low prices. 

255. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant UNICOR made at least 126 different deliveries to the Properties. 

256. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

257. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

258. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 69 of 186 PAGEID #: 872
70

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

259. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant UNICOR knew or should have known 

that Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, because 

Defendant UNICOR knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was 

speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was disposing 

of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

260. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant UNICOR selected Defendant Closed Loop as its 

downstream e-waste “recycler,” arranging for the transport of more than 4.6 million pounds 

of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties over a 3-4 year period, from 2012 through 

2015.

b. The Kuusakoski Defendants

261. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the Kuusakoski 

Defendants, including, but possibly not limited to, Defendants Kuusakoski Recycling, 

Kuusakoski US LLC (via VTKK, LLC), and Vintage Tech, arranged for the transport of 

more than 46 million pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties, representing 

more than 35% of the total amount of e-waste abandoned at the Properties, starting in or 

around August 2012 and extending into or around February 2016. 

262. The Kuusakoski Defendants, including, but possibly not limited to, 

Defendants Kuusakoski Recycling, Kuusakoski US LLC (via VTKK, LLC), and Vintage 

Tech, and Defendant Closed Loop entered into a series of contracts to arrange for the 

transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for as low as $0.0750 per pound.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 70 of 186 PAGEID #: 873
71

263. The Kuusakoski Defendants, including, but possibly not limited to, 

Defendants Kuusakoski Recycling, Kuusakoski US LLC (via VTKK, LLC), and Vintage 

Tech, knew or should have known that the artificially low prices being charged by 

Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing market with a price point that 

no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be sufficient to cover the costs of 

a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, the Kuusakoski Defendants, including, but possibly 

not limited to, Defendants Kuusakoski Recycling, Kuusakoski US LLC (via VTKK, LLC), 

and Vintage Tech, knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running 

a sham recycling scheme, but chose to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit 

from its misconduct.

264. The Kuusakoski Defendants, including, but possibly not limited to, 

Defendants Kuusakoski Recycling, Kuusakoski US LLC (via VTKK, LLC), and Vintage 

Tech, were the highest volume shippers to Defendant Closed Loop from 2012 through 

2016, despite issuing several guarantees on their website that they do not contribute to 

stockpiling CRTs:

a. “We guarantee that CRT electronics and material sent to us is not stockpiled 

or shipped internationally.”

See http://www.kuusakoski.us/our-services/e-scrap-processing/. 

b. “We absolutely, positively do not stockpile CRT devices or CRT glass. You 

never have to worry that your hazardous, lead-containing CRT glass is 

sitting in a warehouse or empty lot for years.” 

See http://www.kuusakoski.us/what-we-recycle/crts-crt-recycling/.

c. “[W]e ensure our customers that their materials are properly handled, 

processed, and recycled.”

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 71 of 186 PAGEID #: 874
72

See http://www.kuusakoski.us/what-we-recycle/.

d. “We work only with certified, audited downstream vendors that process and 

handle materials in safe, legal, and planet-friendly ways.”

See http://www.kuusakoski.us/our-services/e-scrap-processing/.

265. The Kuusakoski Defendants continued to arrange for the transport of CRTs 

and other e-waste to the Properties even after Defendant Closed Loop’s R2 certification

was suspended, which occurred on or about February 19, 2016.

266. The Kuusakoski Defendants had the sophistication and experience in the ewaste industry necessary to ascertain the true nature of Defendant Closed Loop’s sham 

recycling operations. 

267. The Kuusakoski Defendants assert that they have “deep industry expertise,”

that they have “streamlined [their] processes to be among the best in the world,” and that 

they “cover 48 states in the U.S., with processing facilities on the East Coast and centrally 

in the mid-West.” See http://www.kuusakoski.us/our-services/e-scrap-processing/.

268. Nevertheless, the Kuusakoski Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care 

to determine whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable 

law, including whether Defendant Closed Loop qualified for the CRT conditional 

exclusion. 

269. On or around January 5, 2013, Defendant Closed Loop provided the 

Kuusakoski Defendants, including, but possibly not limited to, Defendant Vintage Tech,

with a proposal entitled “Strategic Partnership for Vintage Tech Recyclers & Closed Loop 

Refining & Recovery, Inc.,” in which the Kuusakoski Defendants, including, but possibly 

not limited to, Defendant Vintage Tech, would “provide funding to [Defendant Closed 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 72 of 186 PAGEID #: 875
73

Loop] for the first CRT commercial (Pb) lead recovery and glass furnace in the North 

America.” 

270. The proposal, which was never accepted, evidences the fact that the 

Kuusakoski Defendants including, but possibly not limited to, Defendant Vintage Tech,

knew that Defendant Closed Loop not only lacked the funding to build its own furnace, but 

that there were no other furnaces in all of North America to handle the vast amounts of 

CRTs that the Kuusakoski Defendants, including, but possibly not limited to, Defendants 

Kuusakoski Recycling, Kuusakoski US LLC (via VTKK, LLC), and Vintage Tech, had 

already transported to the Properties and would continue to transport to the Properties for 

an additional three years.

271. In or around August 2013, the Kuusakoski Defendants, including, but 

possibly not limited to, Defendant Kuusakoski Recycling, issued a white paper entitled 

“An Analysis of the Demand for CRT Glass Processing in the U.S.” As pertinent, the white 

paper:

a. concludes that there is insufficient capacity to manage the quantity of CRTs 

reaching end-of-life and that “[t]here [were] only four end-use markets 

processing CRT glass in North America” and that “[o]f these, only one is 

located in the U.S.” (citing Doe Run (Missouri), Teck Resources (British 

Columbia, Canada), Xstrata Zinc (New Brunswick, Canada), and Cali 

Resources/TDM (Baja California, Mexico));

b. provides an extensive accounting of recent e-waste abandonments, citing to 

Resource Recycling, Inc., among other publications, and noting: “Various

reports within the past year have indicated some processors are stockpiling 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 73 of 186 PAGEID #: 876
74

CRTs due to a lack of market capacity or affordable access to market 

capacity”;

c. cites to a CRT stockpiling study, which concluded: “Recyclers ‘setting 

aside’ the cost of managing CRT glass while enjoying revenue from 

commodities is the single largest contributor to stockpiling CRT glass”;

d. explains that market conditions are “further compounded because recyclers 

are reportedly eager to secure contracts from the OEMs [original equipment 

manufacturers], and they may therefore bid contracts with aggressively low 

pricing”; and

e. tracks Defendant Closed Loop, citing to a “personal communication,” for 

the premise that Defendant Closed Loop was offering the lowest price point 

in the U.S. for inbound CRTs.

272. In or around October 2014, the Kuusakoski Defendants, including, but 

possibly not limited to, Defendant Kuusakoski Recycling, issued a second white paper 

entitled “CRT Glass Processing Update: Industry and Regulatory Developments.” The 

white paper:

a. concludes that the overall conclusions of the first white paper “remain 

unchanged,” i.e., CRT glass continues to be stockpiled; that existing enduse markets fall far short of current demand; and that proposed future 

capacity is “at best, only available at some unknown point in the future 

(when the strongest demand exists today) or, at worst, speculative in 

nature”; 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 74 of 186 PAGEID #: 877
75

b. reiterates many of the concerns regarding e-waste abandonment, noting that 

the “continued reporting of abandoned CRT stockpiles is empirical 

evidence that there is a lack of viable processing capacity”;

c. tracks the lack of progress with Defendant Closed Loop’s proposed glass 

furnaces in Arizona and Ohio;

d. notes: “Given the extended periods of time that proposed facilities are 

taking to be developed, it is apparent that proposed facilities cannot be relied 

upon to provide real capacity until they are operating and demonstrate the 

ability to meet their design capacity”; and

e. quotes Mr. Cauchi, who admitted that Defendant Closed Loop had no 

feasible means of recycling and could not meet the speculative 

accumulation requirements: “The fact of the matter is the amount of glass 

that’s being generated cannot be consumed by the glass furnaces today, 

even if [all prospective operations] go on-line . . . . There’s a five-year 

backlog on the ground.”

273. In or around September 2016, the Kuusakoski Defendants, including, but 

possibly not limited to, Defendant Kuusakoski Recycling, issued a third white paper 

entitled “CRT Glass Processing Capacity and Latest Enhancement to the Kuusakoski / 

PDC CRT Glass Solution (Third Update).” 

a. The white paper devoted a significant amount of attention to the demise of 

Defendant Closed Loop, which prior white papers had been tracking. 

b. The Kuusakoski Defendants including, but possibly not limited to, 

Defendant Kuusakoski Recycling, quoted Mr. Benham’s efforts to blame 

everyone: “[T]he customers and the OEMs that allowed shipment to our site 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 75 of 186 PAGEID #: 878
76

[were well aware] of what we were doing. . . . No one was hiding the 

pickle.” 

c. Mr. Benham’s comments that the customers and OEMs were aware of 

Defendant Closed Loop’s business practices confirms that they, too, were 

beneficiaries and willing participants in Defendant Closed Loop’s scheme 

to defraud Garrison. 

d. Further, citing Defendant Closed Loop’s furnaces that were never built, the 

Kuusakoski Defendants, including, but possibly not limited to, Defendant 

Kuusakoski Recycling, admitted that a reasonable duty of care in the 

industry would involve some modicum of due diligence by OEMs, 

customers, and others upstream in the chain:

“[C]aution and prudence must be exercised with end-use markets that are 

accumulating inventories of CRT glass in advance of a facility actually 

commencing processing operations . . . . (as in the case of Closed Loop) . . 

. . [A]dditional due diligence of end-use processors may be required by 

upstream processors and OEMs beyond the reported capacity of the end-use 

processor. The fact that an end-use market may be allowed by one of the 

certification organizations (Sustainable Electronics Recycling 

International, formerly R2 Solutions, and e-Stewards) has never been a 

guarantee that material is being properly handled. GES was R2 certified, 

and although an audit of the facility identified serious nonconformities, the 

burying of CRTs was discovered by a news channel. A demonstrated, longterm track record in handling CRT glass would be an important due 

diligence criterion.”

274. Thus, by their own admission, the highest volume shippers to Defendant 

Closed Loop knew or should have known that it did not qualify for the CRT conditional 

exclusion and yet transported and/or arranged for the transport of more than 46 million 

pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to them anyway.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 76 of 186 PAGEID #: 879
77

275. The white papers authored by the Kuusakoski Defendants, including, but 

possibly not limited to, Defendant Kuusakoski Recycling, also established that they had 

their own capacity to process CRTs as an end-use market:

a. The 2013 white paper promotes a new CRT recycling facility under 

development by the Kuusakoski Defendants, including, but possibly not 

limited to, Defendant Kuusakoski Recycling, in Peoria, Illinois that would 

ostensibly “treat” crushed CRT glass and use the treated material as 

“alternative daily cover” for municipal landfills through a process called 

“KleanKover.”

b. The 2014 white paper indicates that the Kuusakoski Defendants, including, 

but possibly not limited to, Defendant Kuusakoski Recycling, have 

“processed millions of pounds of CRT material” through the “KleanKover 

Recycling Solution,” which has “been successfully operating since 

November 2013.”

c. The 2014 white paper also promotes yet another new method of handling 

CRT glass under development by the Kuusakoski Defendants, including, 

but possibly not limited to, Defendant Kuusakoski Recycling, in which 

“treated CRT glass will be stored in a dedicated [landfill] cell that will 

permit future mining of the material if future end-use markets for leaded 

glass are developed.”

d. The 2016 white paper indicates that the new method of retrievable landfill 

storage cells has been operational since July 2015 and that the Kuusakoski 

Defendants, including, but possibly not limited to, Defendant Kuusakoski 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 77 of 186 PAGEID #: 880
78

Recycling, had been providing a “guaranteed, defined market for 50,000 

tons per year of CRT glass.”

276. Nevertheless, the Kuusakoski Defendants, including, but possibly not 

limited to, Defendants Kuusakoski Recycling, Kuusakoski US LLC (via VTKK, LLC), and

Vintage Tech, continued to ship vast quantities of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties 

to take advantage of Defendant Closed Loop’s artificially low prices. 

277. In or around September 23-24, 2014, Anssi Takala, on behalf of at least one 

of the Kuusakoski Defendants, and Mr. Benham participated in the “Sustainable Materials 

Management (SMM) Electronics Recycling Forum” (“SSM Forum”) in Arlington, 

Virginia, which was hosted by U.S. EPA as part of an effort “to address the challenges of 

Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) stockpiling.”

278. The SSM Forum began with the following “CRT Problem Statement”:

“CRTs and CRT glass were once easily recycled into new CRTs; however, 

the demand for new CRTs has collapsed in favor of new flat panel 

technologies. Because of rising costs, negative economic incentives, and 

shifts in CRT glass markets, some CRT processors and recyclers are 

choosing to store the glass indefinitely rather than send it for recycling (or 

disposal), which increases the risk of mismanagement and/or abandonment 

of the CRTs.”

279. U.S. EPA summarized the “Factors Leading to the Problem” in a 

subsequent publication about the SSM Forum; these factors included, among other things:

a. “Financial incentive for entities to get paid to receive CRTs and then not 

pay to recycle (or dispose).”

b. “ʻCherry-picking’ high-value parts lowers value down the chain.”

c. “Shipments out of state can’t be regulated by original jurisdiction.”

d. “Barriers to [market] entry are low.”

e. “Recyclers aren’t charging enough to cover costs for recycling.”

f. “Thin operating margins, insufficient funds held.”

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 78 of 186 PAGEID #: 881
79

280. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

the Kuusakoski Defendants, including, but possibly not limited to, Defendants Kuusakoski 

Recycling, Kuusakoski US LLC (via VTKK, LLC), and Vintage Tech, nevertheless made 

at least 1247 different deliveries to the Properties.

281. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

282. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

283. These drivers would have witnessed firsthand how Defendant Closed Loop

was disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations. 

284. Upon information and belief, the Kuusakoski Defendants’ business model 

appears to be based on generating revenue from sham recycling operations, then profiting 

again off the cleanup. See http://www.kuusakoski.us/our-services/crt-glass-clean-ups/.

285. Upon information and belief, the Kuusaksoski Defendants arranged for the 

disposal or treatment of CRTs and other e-waste at the Properties, generating millions of 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 79 of 186 PAGEID #: 882
80

dollars in profit, knowing that they would have an additional opportunity to profit off the 

cleanup of the Properties after Defendant Closed Loop abandoned them.

286. On or about April 28, 2016, the Kuusakoski Defendants, including, but 

possibly not limited to, Defendant Kuusakoski Recycling, without acknowledging they 

were the top CRT shipper to the Properties, submitted a bid to Garrison to clean up the ewaste that Defendant Closed Loop had abandoned, which included the millions of pounds 

of e-waste that the Kuusakoski Defendants themselves had transported or arranged to be 

transported previously. 

287. Their bids ranged from $16.5 million to $20.9 million, in what would likely 

have been one of the most lucrative contracts for e-waste remediation in U.S. history. 

288. On or about June 7, 2017, a representative of Defendant Kuusakoski 

Recycling sent a letter providing a revised (and unsolicited) second bid, explaining that it 

should not be disqualified from the bidding process because it “did not ship any e-waste to 

the Site.”

289. Records produced by Closed Loop indicate that Kuusakoski Recycling 

transported at least 75,760 pounds of “Rear Projection Lenses with Fluid” to the Properties. 

290. Projection lenses are one of the most difficult types of CRTs to process, and 

the fluid they contain is ethylene glycol, a CERCLA hazardous substance listed in the 

40 C.F.R. § 302.4 table.

291. The letter from the representative for Defendant Kuusakoski Recycling sent 

on or about June 7, 2017, blamed Defendant Vintage Tech, which was described as a “sister 

entity” of Defendant Kuusakoski Recycling, for contributing to the abandonment at the 

Properties.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 80 of 186 PAGEID #: 883
81

292. On or about July 10, 2017, a “Sam” from Defendant Vintage Tech left a 

voice mail for a representative of Garrison requesting an opportunity to submit a bid of its 

own to remediate the Properties.

293. The Kuusakoski Defendants including, but possibly not limited to, 

Defendant Kuusakoski Recycling and Defendant Vintage Tech, thus sought to bootstrap 

the revenues they had generated from Defendant Closed Loop’s artificially low prices by 

offering to clean up the very same mess they had knowingly created.

294. Thus, at all times relevant, the Kuusakoski Defendants knew or should have 

known that Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, 

because the Kuusakoski Defendants knew or should have known that Defendant Closed 

Loop was speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was 

disposing of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

295. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, the Kuusakoski Defendants, including, but possibly not limited to, 

Defendants Kuusakoski Recycling, Kuusakoski US LLC (via VTKK, LLC), and Vintage 

Tech, selected Defendant Closed Loop as their downstream e-waste “recycler,” arranging 

for the transport of more than 46 million pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties over a four-year period, from 2012 through 2016.

c. Other Arranger/Transporter Defendants

1. Defendant Accurate IT

296. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant 

Accurate IT arranged for the transport of at least 135,110 pounds of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties starting in or around December 2012 and extending into or around 

September 2014. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 81 of 186 PAGEID #: 884
82

297. Defendant Accurate IT entered into a series of contracts with Defendant 

Closed Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for 

as low as $0.0725 per pound.

298. Defendant Accurate IT knew or should have known that the artificially low 

prices being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing 

market with a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be 

sufficient to cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant Accurate 

IT knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham recycling 

scheme, but chose to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its 

misconduct.

299. Defendant Accurate IT, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to 

determine whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable 

law and whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of 

pounds of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

300. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that, among other ewaste streams, Defendant Accurate IT arranged for the disposal or treatment of, and paid 

Defendant Closed Loop to accept, e-waste characterized as “mixed broken glass,” which 

has a negative net value.

301. Defendant Accurate IT asserts that “[a]ll downstream vendors are 

scrutinized to ensure applicable permits, licenses, and certifications associated with 

recycling.” See http://aitrecycle.com/component/content/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 82 of 186 PAGEID #: 885
83

302. Nevertheless, Defendant Accurate IT continued to ship vast quantities of 

CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties to take advantage of Defendant Closed Loop’s 

artificially low prices. 

303. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant Accurate IT made at least 22 different deliveries to the Properties. 

304. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

305. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

306. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

307. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant Accurate IT knew or should have 

known that Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, 

because Defendant Accurate IT knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop 

was speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was 

disposing of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 83 of 186 PAGEID #: 886
84

308. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant Accurate IT selected Defendant Closed Loop as its 

downstream e-waste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties over nearly a three-year period.

2. Defendant ATR

309. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant ATR 

arranged for the transport of at least 91,750 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties starting in or around June 2015 and extending into or around February 2016. 

310. Defendant ATR entered into a series of contracts with Defendant Closed 

Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for as low as 

$0.0900 per pound.

311. Defendant ATR knew or should have known that the artificially low prices 

being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing market with 

a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be sufficient to 

cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant ATR knew or should 

have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham recycling scheme, but chose 

to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its misconduct.

312. Defendant ATR, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to determine 

whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable law and 

whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of pounds 

of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

313. Defendant ATR asserts that it is an “industry leader for E-waste 

management in the US.” See https://wmsbf.org/members/advanced-technology-recycling/.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 84 of 186 PAGEID #: 887
85

314. Nevertheless, Defendant ATR continued to ship vast quantities of CRTs and 

other e-waste to the Properties to take advantage of Defendant Closed Loop’s artificially 

low prices. 

315. On or about August 20, 2017, Defendant ATR issued an article indicating 

that it had “discontinued using Closed Loop for CRT glass processing many years ago due 

to inconsistencies in their downstream audits and questionable storage practice” (emphasis 

added), notwithstanding the fact that Defendant ATR was using Defendant Closed Loop 

for CRT glass processing as recently as February 2016.

316. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant ATR made at least four different deliveries to the Properties. 

317. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

318. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

319. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violation .

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 85 of 186 PAGEID #: 888
86

320. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant ATR knew or should have known that 

Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, because 

Defendant ATR knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was 

speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was disposing 

of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

321. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant ATR selected Defendant Closed Loop as its downstream 

e-waste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties over approximately an eight-month period.

3. Defendant AIM

322. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant AIM 

arranged for the transport of at least 114,303 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties starting in or around June 2013 and extending into or around November 2014. 

323. Defendant AIM entered into a series of contracts with Defendant Closed 

Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for as low as 

$0.1000 per pound.

324. Defendant AIM knew or should have known that the artificially low prices 

being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing market with 

a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be sufficient to 

cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant AIM knew or should 

have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham recycling scheme, but chose 

to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its misconduct.

325. Defendant AIM, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to determine 

whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable law and 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 86 of 186 PAGEID #: 889
87

whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of pounds 

of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

326. Defendant AIM asserts that it is a “leader in E-Waste Recycling 

Collection.” See http://www.aimecycling.com/services/e-waste/.

327. Nevertheless, Defendant AIM continued to ship vast quantities of CRTs and 

other e-waste to the Properties to take advantage of Defendant Closed Loop’s artificially 

low prices. 

328. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant AIM made at least nine different deliveries to the Properties. 

329. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

330. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

331. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 87 of 186 PAGEID #: 890
88

332. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant AIM knew or should have known that 

Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, because 

Defendant AIM knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was 

speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was disposing 

of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

333. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant AIM selected Defendant Closed Loop as its downstream ewaste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties over approximately a 1-2 year period.

4. Defendant ARI

334. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant ARI 

arranged for the transport of at least 2,528,422 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties starting in or around May 2012 and extending into or around January 2014. 

335. Defendant ARI entered into a series of contracts with Defendant Closed 

Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for as low as 

$0.0750 per pound.

336. Defendant ARI knew or should have known that the artificially low prices 

being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing market with 

a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be sufficient to 

cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant ARI knew or should 

have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham recycling scheme, but chose 

to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its misconduct.

337. Defendant ARI, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to determine 

whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable law and 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 88 of 186 PAGEID #: 891
89

whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of pounds 

of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating.

338. Defendant ARI asserts that it is “one of the region’s leading ‘e-waste’ 

recycling operations.” See http://www.retroworks.net/.

339. Defendant ARI has readily acknowledged that “[w]ith a couple of easy 

questions, you can get a good idea what your recycling company is up to” and that 

“[b]ecause there are relatively few glass furnaces or lead smelters recycling post-consumer 

CRT glass, it shouldn't be a ‘trade secret’ where your CRT glass goes.” See

http://www.retroworks.net/Good-Point/CRTGlassTest_final.PDF.

340. Defendant ARI has also readily acknowledged that “EPA could hold you, 

the generator, liable for cleanup of CRTs dumped or abandoned by a 3rd party recycler” 

and that “[y]ou have a right to check the CRT glass destination.” See

http://www.retroworks.net/Good-Point/CRTGlassTest_final.PDF.

341. As is evidenced by the more than 64,000 tons of CRTs and other e-waste 

abandoned in the Properties, Defendant ARI apparently never bothered to check the “CRT 

glass destination” for the 2,528,422 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste it had transported

or arranged to be transported to the Properties.

342. Nevertheless, Defendant ARI continued to ship vast quantities of CRTs and 

other e-waste to the Properties to take advantage of Defendant Closed Loop’s artificially 

low prices. 

343. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant ARI made at least 62 different deliveries to the Properties. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 89 of 186 PAGEID #: 892
90

344. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

345. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

346. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

347. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant ARI knew or should have known that 

Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, because 

Defendant ARI knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was speculatively 

accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was disposing of them, and 

was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

348. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant ARI selected Defendant Closed Loop as its downstream ewaste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties over approximately a 1-2 year period.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 90 of 186 PAGEID #: 893
91

5. Defendant ARG

349. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant ARG 

arranged for the transport of at least 324,626 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties starting in or around April 2012 and extending into or around November 2012. 

350. Defendant ARG entered into a series of contracts with Defendant Closed 

Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for as low as 

$0.0875 per pound.

351. Defendant ARG knew or should have known that the artificially low prices 

being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing market with 

a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be sufficient to 

cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant ARG knew or should 

have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham recycling scheme, but chose 

to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its misconduct.

352. Defendant ARG, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to determine 

whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable law and 

whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of pounds 

of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

353. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that, among other ewaste streams, Defendant ARG arranged for the disposal or treatment of, and paid 

Defendant Closed Loop to accept, e-waste characterized as “load of glass,” funnel glass,” 

broken glass,” and “coated funnel glass,” each of which has a negative net value.

354. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant ARG made at least 13 different deliveries to the Properties. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 91 of 186 PAGEID #: 894
92

355. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

356. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

357. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

358. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant ARG knew or should have known 

that Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, because 

Defendant ARG knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was 

speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was disposing 

of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

359. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant ARG selected Defendant Closed Loop as its downstream 

e-waste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties over approximately an eight-month period.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 92 of 186 PAGEID #: 895
93

6. Defendant C2

360. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant C2 

arranged for the transport of at least 1,178,106 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties starting in or around May 2014 and extending into or around February 2016. 

361. Defendant C2 entered into a series of contracts with Defendant Closed Loop 

to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for as low as 

$0.0800 per pound.

362. Defendant C2 knew or should have known that the artificially low prices 

being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing market with 

a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be sufficient to 

cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant C2 knew or should

have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham recycling scheme, but chose 

to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its misconduct.

363. Defendant C2, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to determine 

whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable law and 

whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of pounds 

of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

364. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that, among other ewaste streams, Defendant C2 arranged for the disposal or treatment of, and paid Defendant 

Closed Loop to accept, e-waste characterized as “mirror glass” and “flat panel glass only,” 

each of which has a negative net value.

365. Defendant C2 continued to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties even after Defendant Closed Loop’s R2 certification was 

suspended, which occurred on or about February 19, 2016.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 93 of 186 PAGEID #: 896
94

366. Defendant C2 asserts that it is an “industry leader” and an “expert[] in ewaste recycling.” See http://www.tryc2.com/.

367. Nevertheless, Defendant C2 continued to ship vast quantities of CRTs and 

other e-waste to the Properties to take advantage of Defendant Closed Loop’s artificially 

low prices. 

368. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant C2 made at least 56 different deliveries to the Properties. 

369. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

370. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

371. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

372. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant C2 knew or should have known that 

Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, because 

Defendant C2 knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was speculatively 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 94 of 186 PAGEID #: 897
95

accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was disposing of them, and 

was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

373. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant C2 selected Defendant Closed Loop as its downstream ewaste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties over nearly a two-year period.

7. Defendant Cohen

374. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant 

Cohen arranged for the transport of at least 909,106 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to 

the Properties starting in or around August 2013 and extending into or around June 2015. 

375. Defendant Cohen entered into a series of contracts with Defendant Closed 

Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for as low as 

$0.0850 per pound.

376. Defendant Cohen knew or should have known that the artificially low prices 

being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing market with 

a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be sufficient to 

cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant Cohen knew or should 

have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham recycling scheme, but chose 

to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its misconduct.

377. Defendant Cohen, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to determine 

whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable law and 

whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of pounds 

of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 95 of 186 PAGEID #: 898
96

378. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that, among other ewaste streams, Defendant Cohen arranged for the disposal or treatment of, and paid 

Defendant Closed Loop to accept, e-waste characterized as “broken mixed glass,” “coated 

funnel glass,” “clean panel glass,” “skids-glass,” “pallets-glass,” “mixed glass,” and 

“broken glass,” each of which has a negative net value.

379. Defendant Cohen asserts that it its “strict downstream auditing process 

ensures all materials are handled properly” and “guarantees your electronics are recycled 

in a safe, effective manner.” See http://cohenusa.com/electronics-recycling.

380. Nevertheless, Defendant Cohen continued to ship vast quantities of CRTs 

and other e-waste to the Properties to take advantage of Defendant Closed Loop’s 

artificially low prices. 

381. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant Cohen made at least 26 different deliveries to the Properties. 

382. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

383. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

384. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 96 of 186 PAGEID #: 899
97

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

385. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant Cohen knew or should have known 

that Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, because 

Defendant Cohen knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was 

speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was disposing 

of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

386. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant Cohen selected Defendant Closed Loop as its downstream 

e-waste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties over approximately a two-year period.

8. Defendant CRS

387. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant CRS 

arranged for the transport of at least 525,738 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties starting in or around April 2015 and extending into or around December 2015. 

388. Defendant CRS entered into a series of contracts with Defendant Closed 

Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for as low as 

$0.0800 per pound.

389. Defendant CRS knew or should have known that the artificially low prices 

being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing market with 

a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be sufficient to 

cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant CRS knew or should 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 97 of 186 PAGEID #: 900
98

have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham recycling scheme, but chose 

to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its misconduct.

390. Defendant CRS, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to determine 

whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable law and 

whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of pounds 

of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

391. Defendant CRS asserts that it has “over 50 years of combined industry 

experience, ensuring the ability to properly service and create the recycling solution 

required for anyone.” See http://www.crsrecycle.com/about.html.

392. Nevertheless, Defendant CRS continued to ship vast quantities of CRTs and 

other e-waste to the Properties to take advantage of Defendant Closed Loop’s artificially 

low prices. 

393. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant CRS made at least 15 different deliveries to the Properties. 

394. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

395. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

396. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 98 of 186 PAGEID #: 901
99

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

397. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant CRS knew or should have known that 

Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, because 

Defendant CRS knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was speculatively 

accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was disposing of them, and 

was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

398. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant CRS selected Defendant Closed Loop as its downstream ewaste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties over approximately a nine-month period.

9. Defendant Comprenew

399. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant 

Comprenew arranged for the transport of at least 332,826 pounds of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties starting in or around July 2015 and extending into or around 

February 2016. 

400. Defendant Comprenew entered into a series of contracts with Defendant 

Closed Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for 

as low as $0.0800 per pound.

401. Defendant Comprenew knew or should have known that the artificially low 

prices being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing 

market with a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 99 of 186 PAGEID #: 902
100

sufficient to cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant 

Comprenew knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham 

recycling scheme, but chose to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its 

misconduct.

402. Defendant Comprenew, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to 

determine whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable 

law and whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of 

pounds of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

403. Defendant Comprenew continued to arrange for the transport of CRTs and 

other e-waste to the Properties even after Defendant Closed Loop’s R2 certification was 

suspended, which occurred on or about February 19, 2016.

404. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant Comprenew made at least 12 different deliveries to the Properties. 

405. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

406. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

407. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 100 of 186 PAGEID #: 903
101

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

408. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant Comprenew knew or should have 

known that Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, 

because Defendant Comprenew knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop 

was speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was 

disposing of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

409. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant Comprenew selected Defendant Closed Loop as its 

downstream e-waste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties over approximately an eight-month period.

10. Defendant CompuPoint

410. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant 

CompuPoint arranged for the transport of at least 2,926,499 pounds of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties starting in or around August 2012 and extending into or around 

January 2016. 

411. Defendant CompuPoint entered into a series of contracts with Defendant 

Closed Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for 

as low as $0.0775 per pound.

412. Defendant CompuPoint knew or should have known that the artificially low 

prices being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing 

market with a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be 

sufficient to cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 101 of 186 PAGEID #: 904
102

CompuPoint knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham 

recycling scheme, but chose to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its 

misconduct.

413. Defendant CompuPoint, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to 

determine whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable 

law and whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of 

pounds of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

414. Defendant CompuPoint asserts that it conducts “due diligence of 

downstream vendors” and that it “eliminate[s] the risks associated with electronics 

recycling by managing the entire asset disposition process from collection to final 

destination.” See http://www.compupointusa.com/why-choose-a-r2-certified-facility/ and 

http://www.compupointusa.com/about-us.

415. Nevertheless, Defendant CompuPoint continued to ship vast quantities of 

CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties to take advantage of Defendant Closed Loop’s 

artificially low prices. 

416. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant CompuPoint made at least 76 different deliveries to the Properties. 

417. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

418. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 102 of 186 PAGEID #: 905
103

419. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

420. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant CompuPoint knew or should have 

known that Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, 

because Defendant CompuPoint knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop 

was speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was 

disposing of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

421. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant CompuPoint selected Defendant Closed Loop as its 

downstream e-waste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties over approximately a 3-4 year period.

11. Defendant CRV

422. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant CRV 

arranged for the transport of at least 153,253 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties starting in or around July 2015 and extending into or around February 2016. 

423. Defendant CRV entered into a series of contracts with Defendant Closed 

Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for as low as 

$0.0900 per pound.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 103 of 186 PAGEID #: 906
104

424. Defendant CRV knew or should have known that the artificially low prices 

being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing market with 

a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be sufficient to 

cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant CRV knew or should 

have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham recycling scheme, but chose 

to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its misconduct.

425. Defendant CRV, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to determine 

whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable law and 

whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of pounds 

of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

426. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant CRV made at least six different deliveries to the Properties. 

427. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

428. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

429. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 104 of 186 PAGEID #: 907
105

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

430. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant CRV knew or should have known that 

Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, because 

Defendant CRV knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was 

speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was disposing 

of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

431. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant CRV selected Defendant Closed Loop as its downstream 

e-waste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties over approximately an eight-month period.

12. Defendant Dynamic

432. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant 

Dynamic arranged for the transport of at least 5,273,233 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste 

to the Properties starting in or around January 2013 and extending into or around March 

2016. 

433. Defendant Dynamic entered into a series of contracts with Defendant 

Closed Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for 

as low as $0.0750 per pound.

434. Defendant Dynamic knew or should have known that the artificially low 

prices being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing 

market with a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be 

sufficient to cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant Dynamic

knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham recycling 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 105 of 186 PAGEID #: 908
106

scheme, but chose to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its 

misconduct.

435. Defendant Dynamic, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to 

determine whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable 

law and whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of 

pounds of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

436. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that, among other ewaste streams, Defendant Dynamic arranged for the disposal or treatment of, and paid 

Defendant Closed Loop to accept, e-waste characterized as “coated funnel glass,” which 

has a negative net value.

437. Defendant Dynamic continued to arrange for the transport of CRTs and 

other e-waste to the Properties even after Defendant Closed Loop’s R2 certification was 

suspended, which occurred on or about February 19, 2016.

438. Defendant Dynamic was well aware of industry-wide concerns with the 

speculative accumulation of e-waste, having itself acquired the assets of Wisconsin-based 

Materials Processing Corporation (“MPC”) in or around August 2015, in the wake of 

MPC’s shutdown in response to state fines for stockpiling CRTs.

439. Defendant Dynamic asserts that it is “an industry leader” and provides a 

guarantee that “your recycled electronics – and the environment – are safe with us.” See

https://thinkdynamic.com/solutions/e-recycling/.

440. On at least three separate occasions, Defendant Dynamic and Defendant 

Closed Loop exchanged information that should have led Defendant Dynamic to conclude 

that Defendant Closed Loop was violating the CRT conditional exclusion.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 106 of 186 PAGEID #: 909
107

a. On or about December 3, 2014, Defendant Dynamic e-mailed 

Defendant Closed Loop regarding concerns raised by the Wisconsin 

DNR that Defendant Closed Loop had been unable to provide 

documentation showing that the “pounds of glass Dynamic sen[t] to 

Closed Loop . . . were sent to legitimate end markets, until the point 

where Closed Loop is operating its furnace.”

b. On or about December 9, 2014, Defendant Dynamic e-mailed 

Defendant Closed Loop a second time requesting “documentation 

showing that Closed Loop sent all of our CRT weight from July 

2014 through the present to viable end markets.”

c. On or about June 15, 2015, Defendant Dynamic e-mailed the 

Defendant Closed Loop for a third time expressing “serious 

concerns with your furnace not up and running yet” and requesting 

a “60-day guarantee of pound for pound, zero accumulation.”

441. Nevertheless, Defendant Dynamic continued to ship vast quantities of CRTs 

and other e-waste to the Properties for an additional seven months to take advantage of 

Defendant Closed Loop’s artificially low prices. 

442. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant Dynamic made at least 143 different deliveries to the Properties. 

443. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

444. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 107 of 186 PAGEID #: 910
108

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

445. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

446. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant Dynamic knew or should have known 

that Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, because 

Defendant Dynamic knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was 

speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was disposing 

of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

447. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant Dynamic selected Defendant Closed Loop as its 

downstream e-waste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties over approximately a three-year period.

13. Defendant eCycle

448. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant 

eCycle arranged for the transport of at least 7,054,560 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste 

to the Properties starting in or around June 2012 and extending into or around September 

2015. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 108 of 186 PAGEID #: 911
109

449. Defendant eCycle entered into a series of contracts with Defendant Closed 

Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for as low as 

$0.0800 per pound.

450. Defendant eCycle knew or should have known that the artificially low 

prices being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing 

market with a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be 

sufficient to cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant eCycle

knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham recycling 

scheme, but chose to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its 

misconduct.

451. Defendant eCycle, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to determine 

whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable law and 

whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of pounds 

of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

452. The transactions for many of the CRTs and e-waste that Defendant eCycle 

arranged to be transported to the Properties were brokered in collusion with Defendant EWorld, whose CEO served time in federal prison for e-waste fraud.

453. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that, among other ewaste streams, Defendant eCycle arranged for the disposal or treatment of, and paid 

Defendant Closed Loop to accept, e-waste characterized as “broken mixed glass,” “cullet,” 

and “broken glass,” each of which has a negative net value.

454. Defendant eCycle asserts on its website that it is an “industry leading 

electronics recycling company,” and that “you are assured that your equipment, including 

servers, PCs, monitors, televisions, telecom systems, cell phones/smart phones and medical 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 109 of 186 PAGEID #: 912
110

equipment will be managed responsibly.” See

http://www.ecyclesecure.com/ElectronicsRecycling.html.

455. Nevertheless, Defendant eCycle continued to ship vast quantities of CRTs 

and other e-waste to the Properties to take advantage of Defendant Closed Loop’s 

artificially low prices. 

456. On or about April 25, 2014, E-Scrap News reported that Defendant eCycle 

provided bills of lading to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources that confirmed the shipments of approximately 317 tons (634,000 pounds) to 

the Properties from Defendant eCycle’s warehouse at 1236 Industrial Avenue in Gastonia, 

North Carolina as of April 25, 2014, and that Defendant eCycle was continuing to send 

large amounts of processed CRT glass to downstream recipients to avoid running afoul of 

its own federal speculative accumulation requirements. 

457. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant eCycle made at least 181 different deliveries to the Properties. 

458. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

459. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

460. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 110 of 186 PAGEID #: 913
111

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

461. On or about July 7, 2017, Defendant eCycle contacted a representative of 

Garrison to submit a bid to Garrison to clean up the e-waste that Defendant Closed Loop 

had abandoned, which included the millions of pounds e-waste that Defendant eCycle itself 

had transported or arranged to be transported previously. 

462. Defendant eCycle thus sought to bootstrap the revenues it had generated 

from Defendant Closed Loop’s artificially low prices by offering to clean up the very same 

mess it had knowingly created.

463. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant eCycle knew or should have known

that Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, because 

Defendant eCycle knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was 

speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was disposing 

of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

464. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant eCycle selected Defendant Closed Loop as its downstream 

e-waste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties over approximately a three-year period.

14. Defendant eLot

465. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant eLot 

arranged for the transport of at least 204,828 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties in or around April 2015. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 111 of 186 PAGEID #: 914
112

466. Defendant eLot entered into a series of contracts with Defendant Closed 

Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for as low as 

$0.0800 per pound.

467. Defendant eLot knew or should have known that the artificially low prices 

being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing market with 

a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be sufficient to 

cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant eLot knew or should 

have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham recycling scheme, but chose 

to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its misconduct.

468. Defendant eLot, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to determine 

whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable law and 

whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of pounds 

of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

469. Defendant eLot has a history of noncompliance with e-waste laws. On or 

about May 31, 2018, Defendant eLot agreed to pay $15,700 in civil penalties to the New 

York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYDEC”) for improperly 

containerized CRTs, storage of hazardous e-waste without a permit, improper waste 

storage, and other concerns identified in an April 2016 NYDEC inspection.

470. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant eLot made at least 10 different deliveries to the Properties. 

471. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 112 of 186 PAGEID #: 915
113

472. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

473. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

474. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant eLot knew or should have known that 

Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, because 

Defendant eLot knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was speculatively 

accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was disposing of them, and 

was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

475. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant eLot selected Defendant Closed Loop as its downstream ewaste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties over approximately a one-month period.

15. Defendant ECSR

476. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant 

ECSR arranged for the transport of at least 320,834 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to 

the Properties starting in or around June 2012 and extending into or around July 2014. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 113 of 186 PAGEID #: 916
114

477. Defendant ECSR entered into a series of contracts with Defendant Closed 

Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for as low as 

$0.0800 per pound.

478. Defendant ECSR knew or should have known that the artificially low prices 

being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing market with 

a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be sufficient to 

cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant ECSR knew or should 

have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham recycling scheme, but chose 

to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its misconduct.

479. Defendant ECSR, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to determine 

whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable law and 

whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of pounds 

of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

480. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that, among other ewaste streams, Defendant ECSR arranged for the disposal or treatment of, and paid 

Defendant Closed Loop to accept, e-waste characterized as “glass,” which has a negative 

net value.

481. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant ECSR made at least 12 different deliveries to the Properties. 

482. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

483. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 114 of 186 PAGEID #: 917
115

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

484. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations .

485. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant ECSR knew or should have known 

that Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, because 

Defendant ECSR knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was 

speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was disposing 

of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

486. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant ECSR selected Defendant Closed Loop as its downstream 

e-waste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties over approximately a three-year period.

16. Defendant eRevival

487. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant 

eRevival arranged for the transport of at least 593,767 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste 

to the Properties starting in or around July 2014 and extending into or around October 

2015. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 115 of 186 PAGEID #: 918
116

488. Defendant eRevival entered into a series of contracts with Defendant Closed 

Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for as low as 

$0.0750 per pound.

489. Defendant eRevival knew or should have known that the artificially low 

prices being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing 

market with a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be 

sufficient to cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant eRevival

knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham recycling 

scheme, but chose to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its 

misconduct.

490. Defendant eRevival, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to 

determine whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable 

law and whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of 

pounds of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

491. Defendant eRevival asserts that it is “one of the leading electronics and 

computer recycling companies in the east coast.” See http://www.erevival.net/.

492. Nevertheless, Defendant eRevival continued to ship vast quantities of CRTs 

and other e-waste to the Properties to take advantage of Defendant Closed Loop’s 

artificially low prices. 

493. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant eRevival made at least 15 different deliveries to the Properties. 

494. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 116 of 186 PAGEID #: 919
117

495. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

496. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

497. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant eRevival knew or should have known 

that Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, because 

Defendant eRevival knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was 

speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was disposing 

of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

498. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant eRevival selected Defendant Closed Loop as its 

downstream e-waste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties over approximately a 1-2 year period.

17. Defendant eWaste Recycling

499. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant 

eWaste Recycling arranged for the transport of at least 1,670,776 pounds of CRTs and 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 117 of 186 PAGEID #: 920
118

other e-waste to the Properties starting in or around August 2012 and extending into or 

around March 2013. 

500. Defendant eWaste Recycling entered into a series of contracts with 

Defendant Closed Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties for as low as $0.0825 per pound.

501. Defendant eWaste Recycling knew or should have known that the 

artificially low prices being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the 

prevailing market with a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have 

believed to be sufficient to cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, 

Defendant eWaste Recycling knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was 

running a sham recycling scheme, but chose to do business with it anyway in an attempt to 

benefit from its misconduct.

502. Defendant eWaste Recycling, however, failed to exercise reasonable care 

to determine whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable 

law and whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of 

pounds of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

503. The transactions for many of the CRTs and e-waste that Defendant eWaste 

Recycling arranged to be transported to the Properties were brokered in collusion with 

Defendant E-World, whose CEO served time in federal prison for e-waste fraud.

504. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that, among other ewaste streams, Defendant eWaste Recycling arranged for the disposal or treatment of, and 

paid Defendant Closed Loop to accept, e-waste characterized as “leaded cullet,” broken 

glass,” and “coated funnel glass,” each of which has a negative net value.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 118 of 186 PAGEID #: 921
119

505. Defendant eWaste Recycling asserts that it has “55 years combined 

experience in the electronics recycling industry” and “utilizes only responsible recycling 

practices.” See http://www.ewastemaine.com/about.html.

506. Nevertheless, Defendant eWaste Recycling continued to ship vast quantities 

of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties to take advantage of Defendant Closed Loop’s 

artificially low prices. 

507. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant eWaste Recycling made at least 45 different deliveries to the Properties. 

508. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

509. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

510. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

511. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant eWaste Recycling knew or should 

have known that Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 119 of 186 PAGEID #: 922
120

because Defendant eWaste Recycling knew or should have known that Defendant Closed 

Loop was speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was 

disposing of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

512. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant eWaste Recycling selected Defendant Closed Loop as its 

downstream e-waste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties over approximately an eight-month period.

18. Defendant eWorks

513. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant 

eWorks arranged for the transport of at least 370,205 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to 

the Properties starting in or around January 2016 and extending into or around February 

2016. 

514. Defendant eWorks entered into a series of contracts with Defendant Closed 

Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for as low as 

$0.1050 per pound.

515. Defendant eWorks knew or should have known that the artificially low 

prices being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing 

market with a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be 

sufficient to cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant eWorks

knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham recycling 

scheme, but chose to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its 

misconduct.

516. Defendant eWorks, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to determine 

whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable law and 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 120 of 186 PAGEID #: 923
121

whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of pounds 

of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

517. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that, among other ewaste streams, Defendant eWorks arranged for the disposal or treatment of, and paid 

Defendant Closed Loop to accept, e-waste characterized as “broken mixed glass,” which 

has a negative net value.

518. Defendant eWorks asserts that “[a]ll equipment is processed in accordance 

with today’s strict electronic waste standards.” See http://www.eworksesi.org/.

519. Nevertheless, Defendant eWorks continued to ship vast quantities of CRTs 

and other e-waste to the Properties to take advantage of Defendant Closed Loop’s 

artificially low prices. 

520. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant eWorks made at least 18 different deliveries to the Properties. 

521. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

522. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

523. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 121 of 186 PAGEID #: 924
122

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

524. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant eWorks knew or should have known 

that Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, because 

Defendant eWorks knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was 

speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was disposing 

of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

525. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant eWorks selected Defendant Closed Loop as its downstream 

e-waste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties over approximately a two-month period.

19. Defendant E-World and Defendant Erie

526. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendants EWorld and Erie arranged for the transport of at least 11,583,163 pounds of CRTs and other 

e-waste to the Properties starting in or around June 2012 and extending into or around 

November 2014. 

527. Defendant E-World entered into a series of contracts with Defendant Closed 

Loop, as well with certain Arranger/Transporter Defendants, to arrange for the transport of 

CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for as low as $0.0775 per pound.

528. Defendants E-World and Erie knew or should have known that the 

artificially low prices being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the 

prevailing market with a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have 

believed to be sufficient to cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 122 of 186 PAGEID #: 925
123

Defendants E-World and Erie knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop 

was running a sham recycling scheme, but chose to do business with it anyway in an 

attempt to benefit from its misconduct.

529. Defendants E-World and Erie, however, failed to exercise reasonable care 

to determine whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable 

law and whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of 

pounds of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

530. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that, among other ewaste streams, Defendants E-World and Erie arranged for the disposal or treatment of, and 

paid Defendant Closed Loop to accept, e-waste characterized as “leaded cullet,” “broken 

glass,” mixed co-mingled,” “leaded glass,” “coated funnel glass,” and “broken mixed 

glass,” each of which has a negative net value.

531. Defendant E-World’s LinkedIn profile indicates that “E-World specializes 

in effectively managing the environmental and social responsibilities of end of life 

electronic equipment.”

532. Defendant Erie’s LinkedIn profile indicates that he is “one of the most well 

known and active leaders in the U.S. electronic waste and recycling industry” and that his 

“vision and subsequent implementation have created partnerships across the globe all 

geared toward the greening of the electronics industry by reducing the carbon footprint, 

creating local jobs, and minimizing the costs for environmentally sound recycling.” 

533. On or about February 26, 2014, Defendant E-World e-mailed the Closed 

Loop Defendants stating “[w]e look forward to the furnace hopefully next year,” which 

reflected Defendant E-World’s understanding that Defendant Closed Loop had no feasible 

means of recycling at that time.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 123 of 186 PAGEID #: 926
124

534. Nevertheless, Defendant E-World continued to ship vast quantities of CRTs 

and other e-waste to the Properties to take advantage of Defendant Closed Loop’s 

artificially low prices. 

535. Defendants E-World and Erie have a history of illegal activity arising out 

of the provision of e-waste recycling services. 

536. Defendant E-World entered into a Consent Order with the California 

Department of Toxic Substances Control on or about March 5, 2014, to resolve allegations 

that included failure to “contain CRTs and CRT devices in a proper containers [sic] that 

were structurally sound and adequate to prevent breakage” in exchange for a civil penalty.

537. Defendant Erie was indicted by a federal grand jury in the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of California on or about September 24, 2015, for 

conspiracy and trafficking in counterfeit goods in connection with an agreement to perform 

electronic recycling services. He pled guilty and served time in federal prison.

538. Lyle J. De Stigter, Defendant E-World’s Chief Operating Officer, was also 

indicted by a federal grand jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District 

of California on or about September 24, 2015, for conspiracy and trafficking in counterfeit 

goods in connection with an agreement to perform electronic recycling services. He, too, 

pled guilty.

539. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers 

working on behalf of Defendant E-World, or in otherwise connection with its brokerage 

services, made at least 391 different deliveries to the Properties. 

540. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 124 of 186 PAGEID #: 927
125

541. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

542. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations 

543. On or about June 9, 2017, Defendant Erie contacted Garrison to submit a 

bid to clean up the e-waste that Defendant Closed Loop had abandoned, which included 

the millions of pounds e-waste that his company, Defendant E-World, itself had transported 

or arranged to be transported previously. 

544. Defendants E-World and Erie thus sought to bootstrap the revenues they 

had generated from Defendant Closed Loop’s artificially low prices by offering to clean 

up the very same mess they had knowingly created.

545. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendants E-World and Erie knew or should 

have known that Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, 

because Defendants E-World and Erie knew or should have known that Defendant Closed 

Loop was speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was 

disposing of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 125 of 186 PAGEID #: 928
126

546. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendants E-World and Erie selected Defendant Closed Loop as their 

downstream e-waste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties over approximately a 2-3 year period.

20. Defendant GEEP and Defendant GEEP USA

547. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendants 

GEEP and GEEP USA arranged for the transport of at least 3,890,650 pounds of CRTs and 

other e-waste to the Properties starting in or around September 2012 and extending into or 

around May 2015. 

548. Defendants GEEP and GEEP USA entered into a series of contracts with 

Defendant Closed Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties for as low as $0.0875 per pound.

549. Defendants GEEP and GEEP USA knew or should have known that the 

artificially low prices being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the 

prevailing market with a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have 

believed to be sufficient to cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, 

Defendants GEEP and GEEP USA knew or should have known that Defendant Closed 

Loop was running a sham recycling scheme, but chose to do business with it anyway in an 

attempt to benefit from its misconduct.

550. Defendants GEEP and GEEP USA, however, failed to exercise reasonable 

care to determine whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with 

applicable law and whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the 

millions of pounds of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 126 of 186 PAGEID #: 929
127

551. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that, among other ewaste streams, Defendants GEEP and GEEP USA arranged for the disposal or treatment 

of, and paid Defendant Closed Loop to accept, e-waste characterized as “glass from 

monitors,” “computer scrap (glass),” and “leaded glass,” each of which has a negative net 

value.

552. Defendants GEEP and GEEP USA asserts that they are a “leading provider 

of cost effective, environmentally responsible electronics waste recycling.” See

http://www.geepglobal.com/services/end-of-life-recycling/.

553. On or about December 10, 2014, Defendant GEEP USA advised Defendant 

Closed Loop that “until further notice Closed Loop is not an approved facility for any 

material,” which the author of the communication believed was “due to the issues and 

violations that were issued at your AZ facility recently.”

554. Nevertheless, Defendants GEEP and GEEP USA continued to ship vast 

quantities of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties to take advantage of Defendant 

Closed Loop’s artificially low prices, for approximately another three months. 

555. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendants GEEP and GEEP USA made at least 98 different deliveries to the Properties. 

556. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

557. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 127 of 186 PAGEID #: 930
128

558. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

559. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendants GEEP and GEEP USA knew or 

should have known that Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional 

exclusion, because Defendants GEEP and GEEP USA knew or should have known that 

Defendant Closed Loop was speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of 

recycling them, was disposing of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate 

recycling. 

560. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendants GEEP and GEEP USA selected Defendant Closed Loop 

as its downstream e-waste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and 

other e-waste to the Properties over approximately a 2-3 year period.

21. Defendant Great Lakes

561. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant Great 

Lakes arranged for the transport of at least 311,454 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to 

the Properties starting in or around September 2015 and extending into or around February 

2016. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 128 of 186 PAGEID #: 931
129

562. Defendant Great Lakes entered into a series of contracts with Defendant 

Closed Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for 

as low as $0.0900 per pound.

563. Defendant Great Lakes knew or should have known that the artificially low 

prices being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing 

market with a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be 

sufficient to cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant Great 

Lakes knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham 

recycling scheme, but chose to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its 

misconduct.

564. Defendant Great Lakes, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to 

determine whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable 

law and whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of 

pounds of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

565. Defendant Great Lakes continued to arrange for the transport of CRTs and 

other e-waste to the Properties even after Defendant Closed Loop’s R2 certification was 

suspended, which occurred on or about February 19, 2016.

566. Defendant Great Lakes asserts that it “has years of experience performing 

environmentally friendly recycling of electronic products . . . [, and] electronic recycling 

is our specialty.” See https://www.ewaste1.com.

567. Nevertheless, Defendant Great Lakes continued to ship vast quantities of 

CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties to take advantage of Defendant Closed Loop’s 

artificially low prices. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 129 of 186 PAGEID #: 932
130

568. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant Great Lakes made at least 13 different deliveries to the Properties. 

569. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

570. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

571. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

572. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant Great Lakes knew or should have 

known that Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, 

because Defendant Great Lakes knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop 

was speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was 

disposing of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

573. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant Great Lakes selected Defendant Closed Loop as its 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 130 of 186 PAGEID #: 933
131

downstream e-waste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties over approximately a six-month period.

22. Defendant Green Chip

574. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant 

Green Chip arranged for the transport of at least 156,416 pounds of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties starting in or around August 2013 and extending into or around 

April 2014. 

575. Defendant Green Chip entered into a series of contracts with Defendant 

Closed Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for 

as low as $0.1000 per pound.

576. Defendant Green Chip knew or should have known that the artificially low 

prices being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing 

market with a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be 

sufficient to cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant Green 

Chip knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham 

recycling scheme, but chose to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its 

misconduct.

577. Defendant Green Chip, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to 

determine whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable 

law and whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of 

pounds of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

578. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant Green Chip made at least four different deliveries to the Properties. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 131 of 186 PAGEID #: 934
132

579. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

580. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

581. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

582. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant Green Chip knew or should have 

known that Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, 

because Defendant Green Chip knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop 

was speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was 

disposing of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

583. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant Green Chip selected Defendant Closed Loop as its 

downstream e-waste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties over approximately a nine-month period.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 132 of 186 PAGEID #: 935
133

23. Defendant Green Tech

584. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant 

Green Tech arranged for the transport of at least 152,257 pounds of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties starting in or around June 2015 and extending into or around 

September 2015. 

585. Defendant Green Tech entered into a series of contracts with Defendant 

Closed Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for 

as low as $0.0775 per pound.

586. Defendant Green Tech knew or should have known that the artificially low 

prices being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing 

market with a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be 

sufficient to cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant Green 

Tech knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham 

recycling scheme, but chose to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its 

misconduct.

587. Defendant Green Tech, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to 

determine whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable 

law and whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of 

pounds of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

588. Defendant Green Tech “guarantees that all materials we process are repurposed, either as a whole unit or as bare materials” and that “[a]ll equipment is processed 

in–house, eliminating third party handlers.” See

http://greentechrecyclers.com/services/recycling.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 133 of 186 PAGEID #: 936
134

589. Nevertheless, Defendant Green Tech continued to ship vast quantities of 

CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties to take advantage of Defendant Closed Loop’s 

artificially low prices. 

590. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant Green Tech made at least four different deliveries to the Properties. 

591. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

592. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

593. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

594. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant Green Tech knew or should have 

known that Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, 

because Defendant Green Tech knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop 

was speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was 

disposing of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 134 of 186 PAGEID #: 937
135

595. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant Green Tech selected Defendant Closed Loop as its 

downstream e-waste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties over approximately a four-month period.

24. Defendant Green Wave

596. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant 

Green Wave arranged for the transport of at least 656,154 pounds of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties starting in or around May 2015 and extending into or around 

December 2015. 

597. Defendant Green Wave entered into a series of contracts with Defendant 

Closed Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for 

as low as $0.0775 per pound.

598. Defendant Green Wave knew or should have known that the artificially low 

prices being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing 

market with a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be 

sufficient to cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant Green 

Wave knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham 

recycling scheme, but chose to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its 

misconduct.

599. Defendant Green Wave, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to 

determine whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable 

law and whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of 

pounds of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 135 of 186 PAGEID #: 938
136

600. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant Green Wave made at least 17 different deliveries to the Properties. 

601. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

602. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

603. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

604. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant Green Wave knew or should have 

known that Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, 

because Defendant Green Wave knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop 

was speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was 

disposing of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

605. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant Green Wave selected Defendant Closed Loop as its 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 136 of 186 PAGEID #: 939
137

downstream e-waste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties over approximately an eight-month period.

25. Defendant IMS

606. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant IMS 

arranged for the transport of at least 5,598,819 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties starting in or around February 2014 and extending into or around February 2016. 

607. Defendant IMS entered into a series of contracts with Defendant Closed 

Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for as low as 

$0.0700 per pound.

608. Defendant IMS knew or should have known that the artificially low prices 

being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing market with 

a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be sufficient to 

cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant IMS knew or should 

have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham recycling scheme, but chose 

to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its misconduct.

609. Defendant IMS also knew or should have known that Defendant Closed 

Loop was running a sham recycling scheme because Patrick O’Hara served as the 

Sales/Plant Manager for Defendant Closed Loop before serving as the Business 

Development Manager at Defendant IMS.

610. Defendant IMS, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to determine 

whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable law and 

whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of pounds 

of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 137 of 186 PAGEID #: 940
138

611. Defendant IMS continued to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties even after Defendant Closed Loop’s R2 certification was 

suspended, which occurred on or about February 19, 2016.

612. Defendant IMS asserts that it provides its customers with “secure 

processing of electronic waste throughout the recycling chain.” See

http://www.imselectronics.com/about-us/our-policy/.

613. On or about November 12, 2014, in purview of the Wisconsin DNR 

decision to ban shipments to Defendant Closed Loop from receiving manufacturer credit, 

Defendant IMS advised Mssrs. Benham and Cauchi of Defendant Closed Loop that “[w]e 

now have a problem in Ohio.”

614. Nevertheless, Defendant IMS continued to ship vast quantities of CRTs and 

other e-waste to the Properties to take advantage of Defendant Closed Loop’s artificially 

low prices, for another three years. 

615. On or about November 29, 2012, Garrison’s predecessor-in-interest, MSSouth LLC, as the landlord, entered into a lease agreement with Defendant IMS, as the 

tenant for the warehouse premises located at 1635 Watkins Road (“IMS Lease 

Agreement”). 

616. On or about April 29, 2013, Garrison acquired 1635 Watkins Road from 

MS-South LLC in exchange for good and valuable consideration and thereafter assumed 

all right, title and interest in that property, which included an assignment of all rights and 

obligations as landlord under the IMS Lease Agreement.

617. The IMS Lease Agreement provides:

“Tenant shall pay any fines, charges, fees, expenses, costs of clean-up, or response 

costs arising from any Environmental Law and shall indemnify and hold Landlord 

harmless therefrom, but in each case only to the extent the need for such clean-up 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 138 of 186 PAGEID #: 941
139

was caused by Tenant’s activities on the Premises, or the activities of Tenant’s 

agents, employees, contractors or invitees.”

618. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant IMS 

arranged for the transport of at least 3,481,959 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste from 

1635 Watkins Road to the Properties, in violation of environmental laws.

619. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant IMS made at least 152 different deliveries to the Properties. 

620. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

621. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

622. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

623. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant IMS knew or should have known that 

Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, because 

Defendant IMS knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was speculatively 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 139 of 186 PAGEID #: 942
140

accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was disposing of them, and 

was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

624. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant IMS selected Defendant Closed Loop as its downstream ewaste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties over approximately a three-year period.

26. Defendant Interco

625. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant 

Interco arranged for the transport of at least 52,604 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to 

the Properties starting in or around October 2015 and extending into or around January 

2016. 

626. Defendant Interco entered into a series of contracts with Defendant Closed 

Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for as low as 

$0.0900 per pound.

627. Defendant Interco knew or should have known that the artificially low 

prices being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing 

market with a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be 

sufficient to cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant Interco

knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham recycling 

scheme, but chose to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its 

misconduct.

628. Defendant Interco, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to determine 

whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable law and 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 140 of 186 PAGEID #: 943
141

whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of pounds 

of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

629. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant Interco made at least two different deliveries to the Properties. 

630. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

631. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

632. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

633. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant Interco knew or should have known 

that Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, because 

Defendant Interco knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was 

speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was disposing 

of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 141 of 186 PAGEID #: 944
142

634. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant Interco selected Defendant Closed Loop as its downstream 

e-waste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties over approximately a four-month period.

27. Defendant JD Beavers

635. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant JD 

Beavers arranged for the transport of at least 75,591 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to 

the Properties starting in November 2013 and extending into February 2015. 

636. Defendant JD Beavers entered into a series of contracts with Defendant 

Closed Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for 

as low as $0.0800 per pound.

637. Defendant JD Beavers knew or should have known that the artificially low 

prices being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing 

market with a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be 

sufficient to cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant JD 

Beavers knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham 

recycling scheme, but chose to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its 

misconduct.

638. Defendant JD Beavers, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to 

determine whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable 

law and whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of 

pounds of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 142 of 186 PAGEID #: 945
143

639. Defendant JD Beavers asserts that “[a]s a leader in the scrap metal 

processing industry, we guarantee a prompt, professional, ethical and environmentally safe 

approach to handling your material.” See https://www.beaversco.com/1/148/index.asp.

640. Nevertheless, Defendant JD Beavers continued to ship vast quantities of 

CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties to take advantage of Defendant Closed Loop’s 

artificially low prices. 

641. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant JD Beavers made at least two different deliveries to the Properties. 

642. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

643. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

644. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

645. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant JD Beavers knew or should have 

known that Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 143 of 186 PAGEID #: 946
144

because Defendant JD Beavers knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop 

was speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was 

disposing of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

646. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant JD Beavers selected Defendant Closed Loop as its 

downstream e-waste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties over approximately a fifteen-month period.

28. Defendant MRC

647. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant MRC 

arranged for the transport of at least 288,348 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties starting in or around October 2015 and extending into or around February 2016. 

648. Defendant MRC entered into a series of contracts with Defendant Closed 

Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for as low as 

$0.0850 per pound.

649. Defendant MRC knew or should have known that the artificially low prices 

being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing market with 

a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be sufficient to 

cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant MRC knew or should 

have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham recycling scheme, but chose 

to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its misconduct.

650. Defendant MRC, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to determine 

whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable law and 

whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of pounds 

of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 144 of 186 PAGEID #: 947
145

651. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant MRC made at least eight different deliveries to the Properties. 

652. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

653. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

654. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

655. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant MRC knew or should have known 

that Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, because 

Defendant MRC knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was 

speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was disposing 

of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

656. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant MRC selected Defendant Closed Loop as its downstream 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 145 of 186 PAGEID #: 948
146

e-waste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the

Properties over approximately a five-month period.

29. Defendant Ohio Drop Off

657. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant Ohio 

Drop Off arranged for the transport of at least 175,847 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste 

to the Properties starting in or around July 2015 and extending into or around March 2016. 

658. Defendant Ohio Drop Off entered into a series of contracts with Defendant 

Closed Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for 

as low as $0.0900 per pound.

659. Defendant Ohio Drop Off knew or should have known that the artificially 

low prices being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing 

market with a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be 

sufficient to cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant Ohio 

Drop Off knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham 

recycling scheme, but chose to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its 

misconduct.

660. Defendant Ohio Drop Off, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to 

determine whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable 

law and whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of 

pounds of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

661. Defendant Ohio Drop Off continued to arrange for the transport of CRTs 

and other e-waste to the Properties even after Defendant Closed Loop’s R2 certification 

was suspended, which occurred on or about February 19, 2016.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 146 of 186 PAGEID #: 949
147

662. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant Ohio Drop Off made at least 18 different deliveries to the Properties. 

663. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

664. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

665. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

666. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant Ohio Drop Off knew or should have 

known that Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, 

because Defendant Ohio Drop Off knew or should have known that Defendant Closed 

Loop was speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was 

disposing of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

667. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant Ohio Drop Off selected Defendant Closed Loop as its 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 147 of 186 PAGEID #: 950
148

downstream e-waste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties over approximately a nine-month period.

30. Defendant Potomac

668. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant 

Potomac arranged for the transport of at least 76,791 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to 

the Properties starting in or around June 2015 and extending into or around October 2015. 

669. Defendant Potomac entered into a series of contracts with Defendant Closed 

Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for as low as 

$0.0875 per pound.

670. Defendant Potomac knew or should have known that the artificially low 

prices being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing 

market with a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be 

sufficient to cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant Potomac

knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham recycling 

scheme, but chose to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its 

misconduct.

671. Defendant Potomac, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to 

determine whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable 

law and whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of 

pounds of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

672. Defendant Potomac asserts that it conducts “downstream due diligence on 

all vendors handling focus materials to ensure materials are handled properly throughout 

the chain of custody” and purportedly warns its potential customers of the increasing 

prevalence of e-waste abandonments. See http://potomacecycle.com/about/.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 148 of 186 PAGEID #: 951
149

673. Nevertheless, Defendant Potomac continued to ship vast quantities of CRTs 

and other e-waste to the Properties to take advantage of Defendant Closed Loop’s 

artificially low prices. 

674. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant Potomac made at least two different deliveries to the Properties. 

675. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

676. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

677. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

678. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant Potomac knew or should have known 

that Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, because 

Defendant Potomac knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was 

speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was disposing 

of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 149 of 186 PAGEID #: 952
150

679. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant Potomac selected Defendant Closed Loop as its 

downstream e-waste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties over approximately a five-month period.

31. Defendant Quicksilver

680. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant 

Quicksilver arranged for the transport of at least 237,703 pounds of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties starting in or around January 2013 and extending into or around 

May 2015. 

681. Defendant Quicksilver entered into a series of contracts with Defendant 

Closed Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for 

as low as $0.0825 per pound.

682. Defendant Quicksilver knew or should have known that the artificially low 

prices being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing 

market with a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be 

sufficient to cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant 

Quicksilver knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham 

recycling scheme, but chose to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its 

misconduct.

683. Defendant Quicksilver, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to 

determine whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable 

law and whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of 

pounds of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 150 of 186 PAGEID #: 953
151

684. The transactions for many of the CRTs and e-waste that Defendant 

Quicksilver arranged to be transported to the Properties were brokered in collusion with 

Defendant E-World, whose CEO served time in federal prison for e-waste fraud.

685. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that, among other ewaste streams, Defendant Quicksilver arranged for the disposal or treatment of, and paid 

Defendant Closed Loop to accept, e-waste characterized as “broken mixed glass,” “mixed 

broken CRT glass recycling,” “mixed co-mingled,” and “broken glass,” each of which has 

a negative net value.

686. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant Quicksilver made at least eight different deliveries to the Properties. 

687. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

688. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

689. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 151 of 186 PAGEID #: 954
152

690. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant Quicksilver knew or should have 

known that Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, 

because Defendant Quicksilver knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop 

was speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was 

disposing of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

691. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant Quicksilver selected Defendant Closed Loop as its 

downstream e-waste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties over approximately a 2-3 year period.

32. Defendant RMG

692. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant RMG 

arranged for the transport of 1,486,580 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties 

starting in or around November 2012 and extending into or around February 2014.

693. Defendant RMG entered into a series of contracts with Defendant Closed 

Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for as low as 

$0.0850 per pound.

694. Defendant RMG knew or should have known that the artificially low prices 

being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing market with 

a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be sufficient to 

cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant RMG knew or should 

have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham recycling scheme, but chose 

to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its misconduct.

695. Defendant RMG failed to exercise reasonable care to determine whether 

Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable law and whether 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 152 of 186 PAGEID #: 955
153

Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of pounds of CRTs 

and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

696. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that, among other ewaste streams, Defendant RMG arranged for the disposal or treatment of, and paid 

Defendant Closed Loop to accept, e-waste characterized as “glass to be recycled,” “broken 

glass,” “lead glass,” and/or “coated funnel glass,” each of which has a negative net value.

697. Defendant RMG asserts that it “has been recycling electronics in New 

England for more than 15 years.” See https://www.rmgenterprise.com/recycling-services.

698. Nevertheless, Defendant RMG continued to ship vast quantities of CRTs 

and other e-waste to the Properties to take advantage of Defendant Closed Loop’s 

artificially low prices. 

699. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant RMG made at least 37 different deliveries to the Properties. 

700. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

701. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

702. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 153 of 186 PAGEID #: 956
154

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

703. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant RMG knew or should have known 

that Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, because 

Defendant RMG knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was 

speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was disposing 

of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

704. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant RMG selected Defendant Closed Loop as its downstream 

e-waste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties over approximately a 1-2 year period.

33. Defendant RCRR

705. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant 

RCRR arranged for the transport of at least 16,417,553 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste 

to the Properties starting in June 2012 and extending into March 2016. 

706. Defendant RCRR is second only to the Kuusakoski Defendants in terms of 

the volume of CRTs and other e-waste arranged to be transported to the Properties. 

707. Defendant RCRR entered into a series of contracts with Defendant Closed 

Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for as low as 

$0.0775 per pound.

708. Defendant RCRR knew or should have known that the artificially low prices 

being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing market with 

a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be sufficient to 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 154 of 186 PAGEID #: 957
155

cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant RCRR knew or should 

have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham recycling scheme, but chose 

to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its misconduct.

709. Defendant RCRR, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to determine 

whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable law and 

whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of pounds 

of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

710. The transactions for many of the CRTs and e-waste that Defendant RCRR 

arranged to be transported to the Properties were brokered in collusion with Defendant EWorld, whose CEO served time in federal prison for e-waste fraud.

711. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that, among other ewaste streams, Defendant RCRR arranged for the disposal or treatment of, and paid 

Defendant Closed Loop to accept, e-waste characterized as “broken mixed glass,” which 

has a negative net value.

712. Defendant RCRR continued to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other 

e-waste to the Properties even after Defendant Closed Loop’s R2 certification was 

suspended, which occurred on or about February 19, 2016.

713. Defendant RCRR asserts that it is “the region’s foremost leader in 

EWASTE recycling” and that “[w]e operate our facilities to the highest industry and 

government standards, and we handle everything from start to finish.” See

http://www.ewaste.com/about-us/why-us/.

714. Nevertheless, Defendant RCRR continued to ship vast quantities of CRTs 

and other e-waste to the Properties to take advantage of Defendant Closed Loop’s 

artificially low prices. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 155 of 186 PAGEID #: 958
156

715. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant RCRR made at least 715 different deliveries to the Properties. 

716. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

717. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

718. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

719. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant RCRR knew or should have known 

that Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, because 

Defendant RCRR knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was 

speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was disposing 

of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

720. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant RCRR selected Defendant Closed Loop as its downstream 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 156 of 186 PAGEID #: 959
157

e-waste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties over approximately a 3-4 year period.

34. Defendant Siam

721. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant Siam 

arranged for the transport of at least 85,896 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties in or around February 2013. 

722. Defendant Siam entered into a series of contracts with Defendant Closed 

Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for as low as 

$0.0775 per pound.

723. Defendant Siam knew or should have known that the artificially low prices 

being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing market with 

a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be sufficient to 

cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant Siam knew or should 

have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham recycling scheme, but chose 

to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its misconduct.

724. Defendant Siam, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to determine 

whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable law and 

whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of pounds 

of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

725. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant Siam made at least three different deliveries to the Properties. 

726. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 157 of 186 PAGEID #: 960
158

727. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

728. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

729. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant Siam knew or should have known that 

Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, because 

Defendant Siam knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was 

speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was disposing 

of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant Siam selected Defendant Closed Loop as its downstream 

e-waste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties over approximately a one-month period.

35. Defendant Strickland

730. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant 

Strickland arranged for the transport of at least 230,665 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 158 of 186 PAGEID #: 961
159

to the Properties starting in or around October 2014 and extending into or around February 

2016. 

731. Defendant Strickland entered into a series of contracts with Defendant 

Closed Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for 

as low as $0.08 per pound.

732. Defendant Strickland knew or should have known that the artificially low 

prices being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing 

market with a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be 

sufficient to cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant Strickland

knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham recycling 

scheme, but chose to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its 

misconduct.

733. Defendant Strickland, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to 

determine whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable 

law and whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of 

pounds of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

734. Nevertheless, Defendant Strickland continued to ship vast quantities of 

CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties to take advantage of Defendant Closed Loop’s 

artificially low prices. 

735. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant Strickland made at least six different deliveries to the Properties. 

736. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 159 of 186 PAGEID #: 962
160

737. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

738. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

739. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant Strickland knew or should have 

known that Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, 

because Defendant Strickland knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop 

was speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was 

disposing of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

740. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant Strickland selected Defendant Closed Loop as its 

downstream e-waste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties over approximately a 1-2 year period.

36. Defendant Sunnking

741. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant 

Sunnking arranged for the transport of at least 636,367 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 160 of 186 PAGEID #: 963
161

to the Properties starting in or around October 2014 and extending into or around December 

2014. 

742. Defendant Sunnking entered into a series of contracts with Defendant 

Closed Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for 

as low as $0.0775 per pound.

743. Defendant Sunnking knew or should have known that the artificially low 

prices being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing 

market with a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be 

sufficient to cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant Sunnking

knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham recycling 

scheme, but chose to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its 

misconduct.

744. Defendant Sunnking, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to 

determine whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable 

law and whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of 

pounds of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

745. Defendant Sunnking asserts that it exercises “due diligence in ensuring that 

downstream recyclers and processors manage recycled materials appropriately, throughout 

the downstream recycling chain.” See https://www.sunnking.com/about/about-us/r2-

certification/.

746. Nevertheless, Defendant Sunnking continued to ship vast quantities of 

CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties to take advantage of Defendant Closed Loop’s 

artificially low prices. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 161 of 186 PAGEID #: 964
162

747. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant Sunnking made at least 24 different deliveries to the Properties. 

748. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

749. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

750. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

751. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant Sunnking knew or should have known 

that Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, because 

Defendant Sunnking knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was 

speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was disposing 

of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

752. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant Sunnking selected Defendant Closed Loop as its 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 162 of 186 PAGEID #: 965
163

downstream e-waste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties over approximately a three-month period.

37. Defendant TK6

753. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant TK6 

arranged for the transport of at least 384,336 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties starting in or around April 2015 and extending into or around February 2016. 

754. Defendant TK6 entered into a series of contracts with Defendant Closed 

Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for as low as 

$0.075 per pound.

755. Defendant TK6 knew or should have known that the artificially low prices 

being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing market with 

a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be sufficient to 

cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant TK6 knew or should 

have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham recycling scheme, but chose 

to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its misconduct.

756. Defendant TK6, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to determine 

whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable law and 

whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of pounds 

of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

757. Defendant TK6 continued to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties even after Defendant Closed Loop’s R2 certification was 

suspended, which occurred on or about February 19, 2016.

758. Defendant TK6 assures its customers that it “will ship the E-Waste to one 

of our downstream vendors where the E-Waste will be thoroughly de-manufactured down 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 163 of 186 PAGEID #: 966
164

to its base commodities and ultimately used as feedstock to manufacture new products.”

See http://www.tk6worldwide.com/services/asset-recovery-and-recycling/.

759. Nevertheless, Defendant TK6 continued to ship vast quantities of CRTs and 

other e-waste to the Properties to take advantage of Defendant Closed Loop’s artificially 

low prices. 

760. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant TK6 made at least 36 different deliveries to the Properties. 

761. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

762. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

763. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

764. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant TK6 knew or should have known that 

Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, because 

Defendant TK6 knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was speculatively 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 164 of 186 PAGEID #: 967
165

accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was disposing of them, and 

was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

765. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant TK6 selected Defendant Closed Loop as its downstream ewaste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties over nearly a one-year period.

38. Defendant USB

766. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant USB 

arranged for the transport of at least 178,054 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties starting in or around June 2015 and extending into or around February 2016. 

767. Defendant USB entered into a series of contracts with Defendant Closed 

Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for as low as 

$0.09 per pound.

768. Defendant USB knew or should have known that the artificially low prices 

being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing market with 

a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be sufficient to 

cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant USB knew or should 

have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham recycling scheme, but chose 

to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its misconduct.

769. Defendant USB, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to determine 

whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable law and 

whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of pounds 

of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 165 of 186 PAGEID #: 968
166

770. Defendant USB continued to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties even after Defendant Closed Loop’s R2 certification was 

suspended, which occurred on or about February 19, 2016.

771. Nevertheless, Defendant USB continued to ship vast quantities of CRTs and 

other e-waste to the Properties to take advantage of Defendant Closed Loop’s artificially 

low prices. 

772. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant USB made at least seven different deliveries to the Properties. 

773. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

774. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

775. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

776. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant USB knew or should have known that 

Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, because 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 166 of 186 PAGEID #: 969
167

Defendant USB knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was 

speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was disposing 

of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling.

777. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant USB selected Defendant Closed Loop as its downstream ewaste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties over approximately a nine-month period.

39. Defendant Waste Commission

778. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant 

Waste Commission arranged for the transport of at least 1,469,881 pounds of CRTs and 

other e-waste to the Properties starting in or around September 2014 and extending into or 

around February 2016. 

779. Defendant Waste Commission entered into a series of contracts with 

Defendant Closed Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties for as low as $0.0775 per pound.

780. Defendant Waste Commission knew or should have known that the 

artificially low prices being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the 

prevailing market with a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have 

believed to be sufficient to cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, 

Defendant Waste Commission knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop 

was running a sham recycling scheme, but chose to do business with it anyway in an 

attempt to benefit from its misconduct.

781. Defendant Waste Commission, however, failed to exercise reasonable care 

to determine whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 167 of 186 PAGEID #: 970
168

law and whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of 

pounds of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

782. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that, among other ewaste streams, Defendant Waste Commission arranged for the disposal or treatment of, 

and paid Defendant Closed Loop to accept, e-waste characterized as “broken mixed glass” 

and “mixed broken CRT glass,” which have a negative net value.

783. Defendant Waste Commission asserts that it performs “downstream due 

diligence of potentially hazardous materials to final disposition.” See

http://www.wastecom.com/content/business-industry/electronic-waste.aspx?PF=True.

784. Nevertheless, Defendant Waste Commission continued to ship vast 

quantities of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties to take advantage of Defendant 

Closed Loop’s artificially low prices. 

785. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant Waste Commission made at least 37 different deliveries to the Properties. 

786. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

787. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

788. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 168 of 186 PAGEID #: 971
169

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

789. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant Waste Commission knew or should 

have known that Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, 

because Defendant Waste Commission knew or should have known that Defendant Closed 

Loop was speculatively accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was 

disposing of them, and was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

790. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant Waste Commission selected Defendant Closed Loop as its 

downstream e-waste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other ewaste to the Properties over approximately a 1-2 year period.

40. Defendant We

791. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that Defendant We 

arranged for the transport of at least 126,420 pounds of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties starting in or around May 2015 and extending into or around August 2015. 

792. Defendant We entered into a series of contracts with Defendant Closed 

Loop to arrange for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the Properties for as low as 

$0.0950 per pound.

793. Defendant We knew or should have known that the artificially low prices 

being charged by Defendant Closed Loop substantially undercut the prevailing market with 

a price point that no reasonable industry participant could have believed to be sufficient to 

cover the costs of a legitimate recycling operation. Thus, Defendant We knew or should 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 169 of 186 PAGEID #: 972
170

have known that Defendant Closed Loop was running a sham recycling scheme, but chose 

to do business with it anyway in an attempt to benefit from its misconduct.

794. Defendant We, however, failed to exercise reasonable care to determine 

whether Defendant Closed Loop was operating in compliance with applicable law and 

whether Defendant Closed Loop had a feasible means of recycling the millions of pounds 

of CRTs and other e-waste it was accumulating. 

795. Nevertheless, Defendant We continued to ship vast quantities of CRTs and 

other e-waste to the Properties to take advantage of Defendant Closed Loop’s artificially 

low prices. 

796. Records produced by Defendant Closed Loop indicate that the drivers for 

Defendant We made at least seven different deliveries to the Properties. 

797. Upon information and belief, these drivers observed firsthand that 

Defendant Closed Loop’s e-waste recycling operation was not a legitimate enterprise and 

amounted to sham recycling. 

798. These drivers would have witnessed the fact that Defendant Closed Loop 

was stockpiling CRTs and other e-waste in such immense quantities that they could not 

possibly be recycled in the course of a single calendar year or otherwise as part of a 

legitimate and economically viable recycling operation.

799. These drivers would have witnessed how Defendant Closed Loop was 

disposing of the CRTs, including the hundreds of pallets of deteriorating Gaylords and 

broken CRTs stored outside that led to the October 17, 2013 NOV; the deteriorating 

Gaylords stacked 15-20 feet high inside the Properties without sufficient aisle space in 

which to manage them, which led to the April 11, 2016 NOV; and the hazardous leaded 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 170 of 186 PAGEID #: 973
171

dust dispersed throughout the Properties given the lack of appropriate dust containment 

that contributed to the OSHA violations.

800. Thus, at all times relevant, Defendant We knew or should have known that 

Defendant Closed Loop did not qualify for the CRT conditional exclusion, because 

Defendant We knew or should have known that Defendant Closed Loop was speculatively 

accumulating CRTs, had no feasible means of recycling them, was disposing of them, and 

was otherwise not engaged in legitimate recycling. 

801. Nevertheless, enticed by the artificially low prices offered by a sham 

recycling operation, Defendant We selected Defendant Closed Loop as its downstream ewaste “recycler,” routinely arranging for the transport of CRTs and other e-waste to the 

Properties over approximately a four-month period.

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

A. First Cause of Action (Declaratory Judgment)

802. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 801

of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

803. This claim arises under the provisions of the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 

U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, which authorizes this Court to render declaratory judgment as to the 

allocation of liability for response costs and damages.

804. An actual, substantial, and justiciable controversy exists between Garrison 

and all Defendants regarding their respective rights and obligations for the response costs 

and/or damages that have been and will be incurred in connection with the release and/or 

threatened release of hazardous substances at the Properties.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 171 of 186 PAGEID #: 974
172

805. Declaratory relief is necessary because, without a ruling on the parties’ 

allocation of liability for response costs and damages, Garrison would be forced to bring 

subsequent lawsuits to obtain contribution for future response costs.

806. This claim also arises under 42 U.S.C. § 9613(g)(2), which provides:

“[T]he court shall enter a declaratory judgment on liability for response 

costs or damages that will be binding on any subsequent action or actions 

to recover further response costs or damages. A subsequent action or 

actions under section 9607 of this title for further response costs at the vessel

or facility may be maintained at any time during the response action, but 

must be commenced no later than 3 years after the date of completion of all 

response action. Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, an action 

may be commenced under section 9607 of this title for recovery of costs at 

any time after such costs have been incurred.”

807. Garrison seeks a declaratory judgment against Defendants under 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 2201-2202 and 42 U.S.C. § 9613(g), holding all Defendants strictly liable for all of 

response costs incurred and to be incurred at the Properties, which will bind the parties in 

any subsequent action to recover further response costs or damages.

B. Second Cause of Action (CERCLA Cost Recovery)

808. Garrison repeats and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 807 

of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

809. Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), imposes strict and joint 

and several retroactive liability on:

a. “the owner and operator of a vessel or a facility”;

b. “any person who at the time of disposal of any hazardous substance owned 

or operated any facility at which such hazardous substances were disposed 

of”; 

c. “any person who by contract, agreement, or otherwise arranged for disposal 

or treatment, or arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal or 

treatment, of hazardous substances owned or possessed by such person, by 

any other party or entity, at any facility or incineration vessel owned or 

operated by another party or entity and containing such hazardous 

substances, and”; 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 172 of 186 PAGEID #: 975
173

d. “any person who accepts or accepted any hazardous substances for transport 

to disposal or treatment facilities, incineration vessels or sites selected by 

such person, from which there is a release, or a threatened release which

causes the incurrence of response costs, of a hazardous substance . . . .”

810. The U.S. EPA has taken the position that if the “indoor CRT glass pile 

becomes abandoned (for example, the recycler goes out of business), or if the CRT glass 

is released, or poses a threat of release, from the building, businesses or facility 

owners/operators may become liable for the removal and proper management of the glass 

under [CERCLA].” See https://www.epa.gov/hw/frequent-questions-about-regulationused-cathode-ray-tubes-crts-and-crt-glass.

811. The Ohio EPA has taken the position that: “In addition to being familiar 

with the manner in which electronics will be recycled, it is important to research the 

recycling facility to determine if it has any compliance problems. . . . If electronic 

equipment is not recycled properly, and it is a hazardous waste, both your company and 

the recycling facility will be liable for clean-up costs associated with improper disposal of 

hazardous components.” See

http://epa.ohio.gov/portals/32/pdf/Electronic_Equipment_Guidance.pdf.

812. Each Defendant is a “person” as defined by 42 U.S.C. § 9601(21).

813. The Properties constitute a “facility” within the meaning of 

42 U.S.C. § 9601(9).

814. “[H]azardous substance[s],” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 9601(14), 

including, but not limited, to lead, leaded dust, and lead-containing waste, were disposed 

of or treated at the Properties during the period in which Defendant Closed Loop leased 

and operated the facility at the Properties and during the period in which the 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 173 of 186 PAGEID #: 976
174

Arranger/Transporter Defendants transported or arranged to be transported CRTs and other 

e-waste to the Properties.

815. There was a “disposal” of hazardous substances at the Properties within the 

meaning of 42 U.S.C. §§ 9610(29) & 6903(3).

816. There was “treatment” of hazardous substances at the Properties within the 

meaning of 42 U.S.C. §§ 9610(29) & 6903(34).

817. There have been and continue to be “releases” and/or “threatened releases” 

of hazardous substances at, on, to or from the Properties, within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 9601(22) and 9607(a).

a. CERCLA defines “release” as including “any spilling, leaking, pumping, 

pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, 

dumping, or disposing into the environment (including the abandonment or 

discarding of barrels, containers, and other closed receptacles containing 

any hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant).” 42 U.S.C. §

9601(22).

b. The vast majority of the e-waste in the Properties consists of used CRT 

glass, much or all of which was not maintained in appropriate containers 

and much of which was released from its initial confinement, spilling to the 

floor as a result.

c. CRT processing, which involves breaking leaded glass, releases hazardous 

leaded dust, which became airborne and has released and dispersed 

throughout the Properties and the warehouse perimeter; has become 

embedded in the CRT processing equipment, surrounding structures, bay 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 174 of 186 PAGEID #: 977
175

doors, and e-waste; has collected on the floor and adhered to the walls and 

rafters; and was tracked by workers throughout the warehouses.

d. A “release” occurred at the Properties, regardless of whether the leaded 

glass or leaded dust escaped from initial confinement, given that Congress 

expressly defined the term “release” in CERCLA as “including the 

abandonment or discarding of barrels, containers, and other closed 

receptacles containing any hazardous substance or pollutant.”

e. “[T]hreatened releases” occurred at the Properties, because hazardous 

leaded dust can contaminate articles and personal protective equipment 

removed from the warehouses; because persons walking through the 

buildings can track hazardous leaded dust outside on their shoes and 

clothing; because damaged bay doors pose a threatened release of hazardous 

leaded dust outdoors prior to their repair and replacement; and because 

hazardous leaded dust can escape through open air conduits under, and 

through cracks in, bay doors and man doors, as well as other outlets.

f. Defendant Closed Loop’s failure to comply with the speculative 

accumulation requirements set forth in 40 C.F.R. §§ 261.4(a)(22) & 261.39 

and Ohio Admin. Code 3745-51-04(A)(22) & 3745-51-39 constitute a 

threatened release.

g. The past and future transfers of broken CRT glass from trucks into and out 

of the Properties likewise posed and will pose a threatened release of

hazardous leaded dust.

h. The underlying purpose of the CRT conditional exclusion, which Defendant 

Closed Loop failed to maintain, is to “minimize releases to the environment 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 175 of 186 PAGEID #: 978
176

of CRT glass (including fine solid materials).” See 40 C.F.R. § 261.39 and 

Ohio Admin. Code 3745-51-39. See also 71 Fed. Reg. 42,928, 42,931 (July 

28, 2006) (“[B]roken CRTs and processed CRT glass are likely to pose a 

greater immediate risk of environmental releases” than intact CRTs.)

818. As a result of the releases and/or threatened releases of hazardous 

substances, Garrison has incurred and continues to incur response costs within the meaning 

of 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(23) and (25).

a. To date, Garrison has incurred in excess of $140,000 in such costs. 

Garrison will continue to incur response costs in the future.

b. All of Garrison’s response costs for which recovery is sought were and are 

being incurred consistent with CERCLA’s NCP, 42 U.S.C. § 9605(a) and 

40 C.F.R. Part 300.

c. These costs are “necessary” costs of response as described in 

42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4)(B), inter alia, because they were incurred: (i) to 

prevent trespassers from vandalizing the Properties; (ii) to prevent further 

deterioration of the CRTs and other e-waste, which releases additional 

lead; (iii) to seal the warehouses, to the extent possible, to prevent lead 

dust from escaping outdoors; (iv) to characterize the contents, nature, and 

quantity of the hazardous substances so that they can be properly stored 

prior to removal, remedial action, recycling and/or disposal; (v) to identify 

potential options, locations, and cost estimates for recycling or disposing 

of the wastes so that they can be effectively removed and disposed of; and 

(vi) to prepare a health and safety procedures plan to avoid injuries to the 

workers who clean up the warehouses.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 176 of 186 PAGEID #: 979
177

819. Defendant Closed Loop had the authority to direct, manage and control, and 

did direct, manage and control, the acceptance, intake, handling, disposition, treatment, 

storage and disposal of the CRTs and other e-waste at the Properties.

820. CERCLA § 107(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(2), provides, in pertinent part,

that any person who at the time of disposal of any hazardous substance operated a facility 

at which such hazardous substances were disposed of is liable to any person who, as a result 

of a release or threatened release of hazardous substances from the facility, incurs response 

costs consistent with the NCP. As such, Defendant Closed Loop is jointly and severally 

liable under CERCLA for all of Garrison’s response costs for the Properties.

821. CERCLA § 107(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(2), provides that any person

who at the time of disposal of any hazardous substance owned any facility at which such 

hazardous substances were disposed of is liable to any person who, as a result of a release 

or threatened release of hazardous substances from the facility, incurs response costs 

consistent with the NCP. The corporate veil of MS-South LLC should be pierced given the 

extensive and exclusive control exercised by Defendant Silagi. As such, Defendant Silagi 

is jointly and severally liable under CERCLA for all of Garrison’s response costs for the 

Properties.

822. CERCLA § 107(a)(3), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(3), provides that any person 

who arranged for the disposal or treatment of hazardous substances owned or possessed by 

such persons at any facility owned or operated by another party or entity is liable to any 

person who, as a result of a release or threatened release of hazardous substances from the 

facility, incurs response costs consistent with the NCP. As such, the other Defendants and 

their predecessors are each jointly and severally liable under CERCLA to Garrison for all 

of Garrison’s response costs for the Properties.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 177 of 186 PAGEID #: 980
178

823. CERCLA § 107(a)(4), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(3), provides that any person 

who accepted hazardous substances for transport to sites selected by such person is liable 

to any other person who, as a result of a release or threatened release of hazardous 

substances from the facility, incurs response costs consistent with the NCP. As such, the 

other Defendants and their predecessors are also each jointly and severally liable under 

CERCLA to Garrison for all of Garrison’s response costs for the Properties.

824. Given the manner in which Defendant Closed Loop processed, 

disassembled, stockpiled, and cross-contaminated CRTs and other e-waste, the harm 

caused by Defendant Closed Loop, Defendant Silagi, and the Arranger/Transporter 

Defendants at the Properties is indivisible and incapable of apportionment.

825. Defendant Closed Loop operated the Properties at the time of the disposal 

and treatment of hazardous substances; therefore, it is strictly, jointly and severally liable 

for environmental cleanup costs under CERCLA as the harm caused to Garrison is 

indivisible and is incapable of apportionment.

826. Defendant Silagi owned the Properties at the time of the disposal and 

treatment of hazardous substances; therefore, he is strictly, jointly and severally liable for 

environmental cleanup costs under CERCLA as the harm caused to Garrison is indivisible 

and is incapable of apportionment.

827. The Arranger/Transporter Defendants transported and/or arranged for the 

transport of hazardous substancesto the Properties for disposal or treatment; therefore, they 

are strictly, jointly and severally liable for environmental cleanup costs under CERCLA as 

the harm caused to Garrison is indivisible and is incapable of apportionment.

828. Plaintiffs are also entitled to statutory interest pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

9607(a)(4).

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 178 of 186 PAGEID #: 981
179

C. Third Cause of Action (Recovery of Preliminary Investigative Costs

under CERCLA)

829. Garrison repeats and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs. 1 through 828

of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

830. Certain costs incurred by Garrison as described in this Complaint are the 

costs of initial or preliminary investigation, site-assessment, evaluation of the impacts of 

releases and threatened releases, and monitoring costs for which Defendants are liable to 

Garrison under 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), whether or not these costs are consistent with the 

NCP. Garrison will continue to incur such costs.

D. Fourth Cause of Action (Common Law Negligence and Negligence 

Per Se)

831. Garrison repeats and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 830 

of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

832. For purposes of the Fourth Cause of Action, “Defendants” do not include 

Defendant UNICOR or Defendant Silagi.

833. Each of the Defendants owed a common law duty to Garrison, the owner of 

the Properties, to use reasonable care to avoid causing reasonably foreseeable damage to 

the Properties. 

834. A reasonable and prudent person engaged in the transport of, or arranging 

for the transport of, CRTs and other e-waste exercises due diligence on downstream 

recipients to avoid causing injury to public health, property, or the environment.

835. Ohio Rev. Code § 3734.02(F) prohibits a person from storing, treating, or 

disposing of hazardous waste at any premises other than the types of facilities described in 

Paragraphs (1) through (5) of that section. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 179 of 186 PAGEID #: 982
180

836. Ohio Rev. Code § 3734.02(F) prohibits a person from transporting 

hazardous waste or causing hazardous waste to be transported to any premises other than 

the types of facilities described in Paragraphs (1) through (5) of that section. 

837. The Properties are not among the types of facilities that are described in 

Paragraphs (1) through (5) of Ohio Rev. Code § 3734.02(F).

838. The Defendants had a statutory duty to Garrison to refrain from engaging 

in the activities prohibited by Ohio Rev. Code § 3734.02(F) on the Properties. 

839. Defendant Closed Loop violated its common law duty and statutory duty 

under Ohio Rev. Code § 3734.02(F) by storing, treating, and disposing of hazardous waste 

at the Properties and by causing hazardous waste to be transported to the Properties.

840. The Arranger/Transporter Defendants violated their common law duty and 

statutory duty under Ohio Rev. Code § 3734.02(F) by transporting hazardous waste to the 

Properties, causing hazardous waste to be transported to the Properties, and/or disposing 

of hazardous waste at the Properties.

841. Ohio Rev. Code § 3734.02(F) was promulgated to prevent damage to 

persons such as Garrison from the illegal disposal of hazardous wastes at locations not 

authorized to receive those wastes; the damage to Garrison resulted from violations of that 

prohibition.

842. At all times relevant, Garrison detrimentally relied on Defendant Closed 

Loop’s representations that it had a feasible means of recycling the CRTs that were 

accumulated at the Properties.

843. At all times relevant, Garrison detrimentally relied on the 

Arranger/Transporter Defendants’ due diligence on Defendant Closed Loop as well as on 

the Arranger/Transporter Defendants’ failure to perform their contractual obligations to 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 180 of 186 PAGEID #: 983
181

Defendant Closed Loop in compliance with applicable federal and state hazardous waste 

law, which required a feasible means of recycling the CRTs and other e-waste disposed of 

at the Properties.

844. The Arranger/Transporter Defendants created the condition that caused 

damage to Garrison by transporting and/or arranging for the transport for CRTs and other 

e-waste to the Properties, and disposing of these wastes at the Properties, despite the fact 

that there was no feasible means of recycling them, whereas such acts and omissions 

advanced to a point so as to have launched a force or instrument of harm against Garrison, 

as the owner of the Properties.

845. By the acts and omissions of Defendants, Defendants were negligent and 

breached their duties to Garrison, thereby causing reasonably foreseeable damage to 

Garrison, as the owner of the Properties.

846. Because their acts and omissions violated Ohio Rev. Code § 3734.02(F), 

the Defendants were negligent per se.

847. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendants, 

Garrison cannot rent or sell the Properties in their present condition and has suffered and 

continues to suffer physical harm to the Properties as well as economic harm, including, 

but not limited to, loss of rent, loss of business opportunity, and costs of environmental 

cleanup.

848. Garrison has lost at least $2.6 million in rent starting in April 2016, due to 

the presence of the CRTs and other e-waste at the Properties and will continue to incur 

these losses until the Properties are remediated.

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 181 of 186 PAGEID #: 984
182

849. The Defendants’ sham recycling scheme was designed to shift the costs of 

disposing of the CRTs and other e-waste in the Properties directly to Garrison, the owner 

of the Properties.

850. The Defendants knew or should have known that their actions created strict 

liability under CERCLA and RCRA and their state corollaries for owners of properties at 

which there are releases or threated releases of hazardous substances or wastes, even when 

those properties are contaminated by third parties.

851. Furthermore, the Defendants acted with conscious disregard for the hazards 

associated with the hazardous substances they handled at the Properties, and through their 

reckless acts and omissions caused the release or threatened release of hazardous 

substances and wastes at the Properties for which the owner of the Properties may be held 

liable under federal and state hazardous waste law. 

E. Fifth Cause of Action (Private Nuisance)

852. Garrison repeats and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 851 

of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

853. For purposes of the Fifth Cause of Action, “Defendants” do not include 

Defendant UNICOR or Defendant Silagi.

854. The actions and omissions of the Defendants have created and maintained 

a private nuisance at the Properties.

855. The actions and omissions of the Defendants have unreasonably interfered 

with Plaintiff’s private use and enjoyment of the Properties. This nuisance exists today 

and will continue to exist unless and until the Defendants either take action to abate the 

nuisance or otherwise compensate Plaintiff for the costs of abating the nuisance. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 182 of 186 PAGEID #: 985
183

856. The nuisance that exists at the Properties constitutes an absolute nuisance. 

The intentional conduct and/or abnormally dangerous conditions that have been created by 

the Defendants cannot be maintained without injury to the Property, no matter what care is 

taken. 

857. The nuisance at the Properties also constitutes a qualified nuisance. The 

Defendants caused and have maintained conditions at the Properties that create an 

unreasonable risk of harm that has resulted or will ultimately result in injury to the 

Properties.

858. The damages suffered by Plaintiff, which directly arise from the nuisance 

created by the Defendants, include, but are not limited to, damages for environmental 

cleanup, the loss of the Properties’ value, the loss in the value of Plaintiff’s use of the 

Properties (including lost rent and loss of business opportunity), and Plaintiff’s annoyance 

and inconvenience.

VI. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Garrison Southfield Park LLC respectfully requests entry 

of judgment in its favor: 

A. With respect to the First Cause of Action, declaring that Garrison is entitled 

to cost recovery for its removal and remedial actions to address the lead, leaded dust, and 

lead-containing e-waste, including CRTs and other e-waste, and that the Defendants are 

jointly and severally liable for these response costs and damages;

B. With respect to the Second Cause of Action, awarding Garrison response 

costs and damages in the amount of at least $14,247,354.96 from the Defendants jointly 

and severally;

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 183 of 186 PAGEID #: 986
184

C. With respect to the Third Cause of Action, awarding Garrison its costs for 

initial or preliminary investigation, site-assessment, evaluation of the impacts of releases 

and threatened releases, and monitoring; 

D. With respect to the Fourth Cause of Action, awarding Garrison damages in 

the amount of at least $14,247,354.96 for remediating the Properties, as well as damages 

for the loss of past rent in the amount of $2,605,740.32, the loss of future rent until 

remediation is complete, and the loss of business opportunity;

E. With respect to Fifth Cause of Action, awarding damages for the loss of the 

Properties’ value, the loss in the value of Garrison’s use of the Properties (including lost 

rent and loss of business opportunity), and Garrison’s annoyance and inconvenience, as 

well as ordering or otherwise requiring the Defendants to abate the nuisance that exists on 

the Properties or awarding compensation to Garrison for the costs of abating the nuisance;

F. Awarding prejudgment interest to Garrison pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a) 

on all sums it has expended; 

G. Awarding Garrison its legal costs, expert witness fees, and attorney fees to 

the extent authorized by law; and

H. Granting such other and further relief in law or equity as the Court may 

deem proper.

Dated: March 29, 2019

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 184 of 186 PAGEID #: 987
185

Respectfully submitted,

Trial Attorney:

/s/_Jack A. Van Kley_____________

By: Jack A. Van Kley (#0016961)

VAN KLEY & WALKER, LLC

132 Northwoods Blvd., Suite C-1

Columbus, Ohio 43235

Telephone: (614) 431-8900

Facsimile: (614) 431-8905

Email: jvankley@vankleywalker.com

Of Counsel:

Karl R. Heisler 

(Pro Hac Vice)

KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP

525 West Monroe Street

Chicago, IL 60661

Telephone: (312) 902-5430

Facsimile: (312) 902-1061

Email: karl.heisler@kattenlaw.com

Matthew Parrott

(Pro Hac Vice)

FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & 

JACOBSON LLP

One New York Plaza

New York, NY 10004

Telephone: (212) 859-8996

Facsimile: (212) 859-4000

Email: M.Parrott@friedfrank.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Garrison Southfield Park 

LLC

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 185 of 186 PAGEID #: 988
186

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that, on March 29, 2019, a copy of the foregoing 

First Amended Complaint was filed electronically with the Court’s CM/ECF system, which 

will send notification to all attorneys registered to receive such service. Parties may access 

this filing through the Court’s electronic filing system.

In addition, a copy of the foregoing First Amended Complaint was sent on March 

29, 2019 by electronic mail to David Cauchi, 128 Nevada Way, #1050, Gilbert, AZ 

85233, at dcauchi@djc-usa.com, Brian LaPoint, 5953 W. Gary Drive, Chandler, AZ 

85226, at blapoint@gmail.com, and Brent Benham, 31704 N. 139th Place, Scottsdale, AZ 

85262, at brentb@babenham.com, per their written consent to receive filings by email. 

/s Jack A. Van Kley_____________

Jack A. Van Kley (#0016961)

Trial Attorney

Case: 2:17-cv-00783-EAS-EPD Doc #: 85 Filed: 03/29/19 Page: 186 of 186 PAGEID #: 989