UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

______________________________________________________________________________

MARIA PARSONS and MICHAEL PARSONS,

MARY ANN JONES and JAMES ARTHUR JONES, SR.,

SHANTELL SHAMEA JONES, Individually,

and as the Parent and Natural Guardian of

CARLOS UDAE STEPHENSON, AARON JONES STEPHENSON,

and OZIAH CARSON JONES, Minor Children,

SANDRA WATTS KENNEDY and KEVIN KENNEDY,

Individually, and as the Parents and Natural Guardians

of MURIELLE KEELY KENNEDY, a Minor Child; and

FARINDA OSTEEN, all individually and

on Behalf of a Class of Persons who are Similarly Situated,

 Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

KOPPERS INC. f/k/a

KOPPERS INDUSTRIES, INC., 

BEAZER EAST, INC., f/k/a KOPPERS

COMPANY, INC., KOPPERS HOLDINGS

INC., and BEAZER LIMITED

 Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

______________________________________________________________________________

 

 Plaintiffs, MARIA PARSONS and MICHAEL PARSONS, MARY ANN JONES and 

JAMES ARTHUR JONES, SR., SHANTELL SHAMEA JONES, individually and as the Parent 

and Natural Guardian of CARLOS UDAE STEPHENSON, AARON JONES STEPHENSON, 

and OZIAH CARSON JONES, Minor Children, SANDRA WATTS KENNEDY and KEVIN 

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 1 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

2

KENNEDY, individually, and as the Parents and Natural Guardians of MURIELLE KEELY 

KENNEDY, a Minor Child, and FARINDA OSTEEN, bring this action on their own behalf, and 

on behalf of a Class of similarly situated persons as defined below against Defendants 

KOPPERS INC. f/k/a KOPPERS INDUSTRIES, INC., and BEAZER EAST, INC., f/k/a 

KOPPERS COMPANY, INC., KOPPERS HOLDINGS INC., and BEAZER LIMITED and state 

as follows:

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

1. This is a class action arising from conduct by the Defendants -- and/or by their 

predecessors or other entities whose conduct in connection with the "Cabot Koppers Superfund 

Site" created conditions and circumstances for which the Defendants are legally accountable and 

responsible – which conduct caused and/or allowed toxic and dangerous substances, 

contaminants, and hazardous materials to leave the Site and contaminate the hereinafter-defined 

"Class Affected Area." 

2. Plaintiffs bring this action individually, and as representatives of, and on behalf 

of, a class of persons (hereinafter, the "Class Members") who are past or present residents within, 

or own real property located within, the Class Affected Area, who have been and/or are being 

subjected to legal injury by exposure to and/or real property contamination from toxic and 

dangerous substances, contaminants, and hazardous materials.

3. The "Cabot Koppers Superfund Site" (hereinafter "the Site") is an area of 

approximately 140 acres, located on NW 23d Avenue in the City of Gainesville, in Alachua 

County, Florida, that is, and/or has been, the location of a commercial wood treatment operation 

and a commercial charcoal/wood oil production operation and related operations and activities.

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 2 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

3

4. Poor waste handling practices by KOPPERS INC. and its predecessors resulted in 

contaminated ground water and soil, and as set for the herein, have caused, or will cause, serious 

personal injury and property damage to the surrounding residents and area.

5. The "Class Affected Area" is the geographic area surrounding the Site, including 

numerous residences where people of all ages live. The Site includes the residences of many 

children who are especially susceptible to the toxic and dangerous contaminants described 

herein.

6. The Class Affected Area is the geographic area within approximately a two-mile 

radius from the Site, but not including the Site itself. This area is subject to modification 

according to the evidence as the instant case progresses.

7. The Plaintiffs reside and/or own real property within the Class Affected Area.

PLAINTIFFS

8. Plaintiffs are residents of, and/or owners of real property in the city of 

Gainesville, Alachua County, in the State of Florida.

9. Plaintiffs MARIA PARSONS and MICHAEL PARSONS reside and own real 

property in Gainesville, Florida, at 439 NW 37th Avenue; and they own other real property at 

514 NW 37th Avenue. Both properties are located within the Class Affected Area.

10. The past, present, and (if not corrected and abated) future contamination in the 

Class Affected Area, as set forth herein, with toxic and dangerous substances, contaminants, and 

hazardous materials originating from the Site has proximately caused and in the future (if not 

abated) will cause Plaintiffs MARIA PARSONS and MICHAEL PARSONS to wrongfully 

suffer unreasonable harm, conditions, and/or legal injuries, to-wit: (1) an elevated risk of latent 

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 3 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

4

disease and other harm to the health and well-being of these Plaintiffs; and/or (2) injury and 

harm to the market value, use value, and/or beneficial enjoyment/value of their residence and 

real property, and consequent annoyance and inconvenience, and stigma.

11. Plaintiffs MARY ANN JONES and JAMES ARTHUR JONES, SR., reside at 3119 NW 

4th St. in Gainesville, Florida, within the Class Affected Area.

12. The past, present, and (if not corrected and abated) future contamination in the Class 

Affected Area, as set forth herein, with toxic and dangerous substances, contaminants, and 

hazardous materials originating from the Site has proximately caused and in the future (if not 

abated) will cause Plaintiffs MARY ANN JONES and JAMES ARTHUR JONES, SR., to 

wrongfully suffer unreasonable harm, conditions, and/or legal injuries, to-wit: (1) an elevated 

risk of latent disease and other harm to the health and well-being of these Plaintiffs; and/or injury 

and harm to the beneficial enjoyment of their residence, and consequent annoyance and 

inconvenience.

13. Plaintiff SHANTELL SHAMEA JONES, daughter of Plaintiffs MARY ANN JONES 

and JAMES ARTHUR JONES, SR., is the Parent and Natural Guardian of CARLOS UDAE 

STEPHENSON (age 6), AARON JONES STEPHENSON (age 3), and OZIAH CARSON 

JONES (age 5 months), minor children; they all reside at 3119 NW 4th St. in Gainesville, 

Florida, within the Class Affected Area.

14. The past, present, and (if not corrected and abated) future contamination in the Class 

Affected Area, as set forth herein, with toxic and dangerous substances, contaminants, and 

hazardous materials originating from the Site has proximately caused and in the future (if not 

abated) will cause Plaintiffs SHANTELL SHAMEA JONES and her three minor children 

CARLOS UDAE STEPHENSON, AARON JONES STEPHENSON, and OZIAH CARSON 

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 4 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

5

JONES to wrongfully suffer unreasonable harm, conditions, and/or legal injuries, to-wit: (1) an 

elevated risk of latent disease and other harm to the health and well-being of these Plaintiffs; 

and/or injury and harm to the beneficial enjoyment of their residence, and consequent annoyance 

and inconvenience.

15. Plaintiffs SANDRA WATTS KENNEDY and KEVIN KENNEDY reside at 514 NW 

31st Lane in Gainesville, Florida, within the Class Affected Area. They are the parents and 

natural guardians of MURIELLE KEELY KENNEDY, age 12, a minor child who resides with 

them. 

16. The past, present, and (if not corrected and abated) future contamination in the Class 

Affected Area, as set forth herein, with toxic and dangerous substances, contaminants, and 

hazardous materials originating from the Site has proximately caused and in the future (if not 

abated) will cause Plaintiffs SANDRA WATTS KENNEDY and KEVIN KENNEDY, and their 

minor child MURIELLE KEELY KENNEDY, to wrongfully suffer unreasonable harm, 

conditions, and/or legal injuries, to-wit: (1) an elevated risk of latent disease and other harm to 

the health and well-being of these Plaintiffs; and/or injury and harm to the beneficial enjoyment 

of their residence, and consequent annoyance and inconvenience.

17. Plaintiff FARINDA OSTEEN resides and owns real property at 437 NW 29th Ave., 

Gainesville, Florida, within the Class Affected Area.

18. The past, present, and (if not corrected and abated) future contamination in the Class 

Affected Area, as set forth herein, with toxic and dangerous substances, contaminants, and 

hazardous materials originating from the Site has proximately caused and in the future (if not 

abated) will cause Plaintiff FARINDA OSTEEN to wrongfully suffer unreasonable harm, 

conditions, and/or legal injuries, to-wit: (1) an elevated risk of latent disease and other harm to 

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 5 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

6

the health and well-being of this Plaintiff; and/or (2) injury and harm to the market value, use 

value, and/or beneficial enjoyment/value of her residence and real property, and consequent 

annoyance and inconvenience, and stigma.

DEFENDANT KOPPERS INC., F/K/A KOPPERS INDUSTRIES, INC

19. Defendant, KOPPERS INC. f/k/a KOPPERS INDUSTRIES, INC. (hereinafter 

referred to as “KOPPERS INC.”), is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of 

business located at 1750 Koppers Bldg, 436 7th Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1800.

20. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant KOPPERS INC. formerly known as 

KOPPERS INDUSTRIES, INC. acquired, managed, and/or operated the aforesaid wood 

treatment operations at the Site and related and subsequent operations and activities at the Site 

and is responsible for the contamination of the Site and Class Affected Area.

21. In 1988, KOPPERS INC. became a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant 

KOPPERS HOLDINGS due to a stock conversion into shares of common and preferred stock of 

Defendant KOPPERS HOLDINGS.

22. KOPPERS INC. was formed in 1988 to acquire the assets of Defendant BEAZER 

EAST. 

DEFENDANT BEAZER EAST F/K/A KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.

23. Defendant, BEAZER EAST, INC. f/k/a Koppers Company, Inc. (hereinafter 

referred to as “BEAZER EAST”), is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business 

located at One Oxford Centre 3000, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. 

24. Defendant BEAZER EAST obtained ownership of the Site on or about March 30, 

2010. 

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 6 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

7

25. Before March 30, 2010, BEAZER EAST undertook the duty to clean the 

contamination of the Site.

26. Upon information and belief, Defendant BEAZER EAST, under the terms of an 

asset purchase agreement with Defendant KOPPERS HOLDINGS, assumed the liability for and 

indemnified Defendant KOPPERS HOLDINGS for certain clean-up liabilities for contamination 

on the Site, including contamination in the Class Affected Area. 

27. Upon information and belief, In July 2004, Defendant Koppers Holdings entered 

into an agreement with Beazer East to amend a December 29, 1988 asset purchase agreement to 

provide, among other things, for the continued tender of pre-closing environmental liabilities to 

Beazer East for the Site.

DEFENDANT KOPPERS HOLDINGS

28. Defendant KOPPERS HOLDINGS INC. (hereinafter KOPPERS HOLDINGS), is 

a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business located at 436 7th Avenue, 

Pittsburgh, PA 15219.

29. KOPPERS HOLDINGS was formed in 2004 as holding company for Defendant 

KOPPERS, INC. 

30. KOPPERS HOLDINGS does not have any operations independent of Defendant 

KOPPERS, INC., except as to certain administrative matters. 

31. Defendant KOPPERS HOLDINGS acquired the assets and liabilities of 

Defendant KOPPERS INC. and is therefore responsible for all liability imposed on Defendant 

KOPPERS INC. as a result of the claims made in this Complaint. 

DEFENDANT BEAZER LIMITED

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 7 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

8

32. Upon information and belief, Defendant, BEAZER LIMITED, is a foreign 

corporation with its principal place of business in England.

33. BEAZER LIMITED is the parent company of BEAZER EAST.

34. BEAZER LIMITED unconditionally guaranteed BEAZER EAST’S performance 

of an indemnity for environmental and other liabilities relating to KOPPERS COMPANY INC.’s

(BEAZER EAST) operations, environmental and other liabilities, purchased from BEAZER 

EAST by KOPPERS HOLDINGS. Upon information and belief, the aforementioned guarantee 

of indemnity by BEAZER LIMITED includes the liabilities relating to the affected Site and the 

Class Affected Area.

35. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant BEAZER LIMITED pursuant 

federal law, Florida’s Long-Arm Statute and due process because BEAZER LIMITED engaged 

in substantial and not isolated activity in Florida, and Alachua County by entering into a contract 

to unconditionally guarantee BEAZER EAST’S performance of an indemnity for environmental 

and other liabilities relating to KOPPERS COMPANY INC.’s (BEAZER EAST) operations, 

environmental and other liabilities in the State of Florida and Alachua County. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

36. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) (diversity jurisdiction), in that (i) there is complete diversity (Plaintiffs are 

citizens of Florida; and Defendants are domiciled in Pennsylvania and Delaware, and, in all 

events, not Florida, and, to the extent pertinent, maintain their principal places of business in 

Pennsylvania, and in all events, not Florida); (ii) the amount in controversy exceeds 

$5,000,000.00 (Five Million Dollars) exclusive of interests and costs; and (iii) there are 100 or 

more members of the proposed Plaintiff class.

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 8 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

9

37. Venue lies in this District, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391, because Plaintiffs reside 

in this Judicial District and/or own real property located in this Judicial District, and a substantial 

part of the conduct and events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ and the Class Members’ claims occurred 

in this Judicial District. 

38. This Court also has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1332 because there is complete diversity of citizenship between all Plaintiffs and 

Class Members and Defendants and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

39. Each Defendant participated in the wrongful acts herein. Defendants also acted in 

joint enterprise, joint venture and as each other’s agent within the course and scope of said 

agency.

40. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants acted by and through their employees, 

agents, apparent agents and representatives, who were acting within the course and scope of their 

employment, agency, apparent agency and representation and in the furtherance of Defendants’ 

interests.

41. At times relevant hereto, Defendant BEAZER EAST – and/or its predecessor(s) 

or other entities for whose conduct and circumstances created thereby Defendant BEAZER 

EAST is legally liable and responsible -- owned, acquired, managed, and/or operated the 

aforesaid wood treatment and related and subsequent operations and activities at the Site.

42. Upon information and belief, Defendant BEAZER EAST has entered into a legal 

arrangement with Defendants KOPPERS INC. and KOPPERS HOLDINGS and possibly other 

entities whereby BEAZER EAST has assumed a financial, legal, managerial, and/or operational 

responsibility and liability for environmental and toxic or hazardous conditions and 

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 9 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

10

consequences associated with the Site, including the alleged wrongful contamination of the Class 

Affected Area complained of herein; and, upon information and belief, there has been no 

separate and/or distinct conduct by BEAZER, as opposed to by KOPPERS, and vice versa, with 

respect to the creation of said contamination as described herein.

43. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants have caused and/or allowed, toxic and 

dangerous substances, contaminants, and hazardous materials, to leave the Site and contaminate 

residences in the Class Affected Area. Those toxic and dangerous substances, contaminants, and 

hazardous materials, include, but not limited to the following:

(a) dioxin and dioxin-like compounds which are associated with 

Pentachlorophenol, a wood preservative employed at relevant times at the Site. 

Pentachlorophenol and dioxin and dioxin-like compounds are toxic and dangerous substances. 

More specifically, the term “dioxin” refers to a family of compounds typified by benzene rings 

with a single or double oxygen bond with associated chlorine atoms in different arrangements 

which allow for the identification of approximately 70 congeners of “dioxin” and numerous 

other compounds generally referred to in the scientific literature as “dioxin-like compounds.” 

All dioxin and dioxin-like compounds are toxic and dangerous to human beings, with one or 

more dioxins and dioxin-like compounds associated with the development and promotion of 

cancer, endocrine disruption, central and peripheral nervous system damage, developmental 

delays in children, diabetes, as well as numerous other adverse health effects, most of which are 

permanent and lasting in nature. Children are particularly vulnerable and susceptible to the 

risks and adverse effects of exposure to dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, because of 

children's smaller sizes, which makes exposures relatively more potent; and because of 

children's developmental processes;

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 10 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

11

(b) arsenic and hexavalent chromium aretoxic are toxic and dangerous substances

associated with one or more wood treatment modalities employed at relevant times at the Site. 

More specifically, arsenicals in combination with other compounds generally referred to as 

copper and chromate formulations with arsenic, known generally as "CCA" were employed at 

the Site at relevant times in connection with wood treatment operations. These compounds are 

known carcinogens and are also particularly toxic and dangerous to children; and

(c) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (hereinafter "PAHs") are toxic and 

dangerous substances. More specifically, among the approximately 10,000 PAHs, 

benzo(a)pyrene is extraordinarily toxic and dangerous to humans. Human exposure to benzo-apyrene is known to be associated with the following: (1) cancer: benzo(a)pyrene, a common 

PAH, is known to cause lung and skin cancer in laboratory animals and is a human carcinogen; 

(2) reproductive effects: reproductive problems and problems in unborn babies’ development 

have occurred in laboratory animals that were exposed to benzo(a)pyrene and present a clear risk 

to humans; (3) organ systems: lungs, liver, skin, and kidneys can be damaged by exposure are at 

risk for damage resulting from exposure to benzo(a)pyrene. These compounds are also 

particularly dangerous to children.

44. Upon information and belief, the aforementioned wood treatment operations at 

the Site involved and utilized materials and processes that contained and/or generated the toxic 

and dangerous substances, contaminants, and hazardous materials described herein.

45. The wood treatment operations and related conduct and activity at the Site were 

caused and/or allowed the toxic and dangerous substances, contaminants, and hazardous 

materials described herein to leave the Site and enter the Class Affected Area, resulting in past, 

current, and (if not corrected) future injurious contamination of real property from, and exposure 

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 11 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

12

of residents within the Class Affected Area to, dioxin and dioxin-like compounds; and, upon 

belief, by arsenic, PAHs, and other toxic and dangerous substances, contaminants, and hazardous 

materials.

46. The primary mechanism for the release and dispersion of toxic and hazardous 

substances from the Site and the consequent wrongful contamination of the Class Affected Area 

from wood treatment operations complained of herein has been through airborne transport from 

the Site. 

47. The airborne transport is as a result of the release of particulates and vapors from 

activities, operations, and conditions on the Site, including but not limited to the following:

a. particulates and vapors released from wood treatment vessels, tanks, 

containers, and other treatment processes;

b. gaseous and particulate discharges from the combustion of treated wood and 

other wastes; 

c. the disturbance and airborne dispersion of dust and soil particles from drip 

pads, roads, and other portions of the Site that have been contaminated by 

toxic and hazardous substances; 

d. all other activities, operations, and conditions that resulted in airborne 

transport from the Site into the Class Affected Area; and

e. upon information and belief, waterborne transport of toxic and hazardous 

materials through runoff from the Site has resulted in some off-site 

contamination of the Class Affected Area.

48. Plaintiffs first became on notice of the aforesaid contamination and exposure in 

the Class Affected Area after testing of a sample of residences, in the Class Affected Area was 

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 12 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

13

completed and the results reported in February, 2010. Since that time, Plaintiffs real property 

has been tested and the Plaintiffs’ real property is contaminated.

49. Samples taken from residences in the Class Affected Area during January, 2010, 

showed levels of total dioxins and dioxin-like compounds in indoor household dust exceeding 1 

part per billion. By way of comparison, Florida Department of Environmental Protection soil 

cleanup target levels for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds are set at 7 parts per trillion, which 

means that the indoor dust sample obtained from one residence in the Class Affected Area 

exceeded this soil cleanup target level by almost 1000 times. (See, Exhibit 1, attached hereto, 

for a complete Report of Sample Results during the January 2010, testing).

50. The aforesaid contamination in the Class Affected Area and exposure of the 

Plaintiffs and Class Members in the normal course of their daily lives has proximately caused 

and created, and in the future will create (unless corrected and abated) a significantly elevated 

risk of contracting serious latent diseases, disorders, and harm to the physical health and wellbeing for the Plaintiffs and Class Members, as a result of exposure to the aforesaid toxic and 

dangerous substances, contaminants, and hazardous materials in the Class Affected Area.

51. The aforesaid contamination in the Class Affected Area has proximately caused 

and/or in the future will cause (unless corrected and abated) injury and harm to the Plaintiffs' and 

Class Members' interests in the market value, use value, and/or beneficial enjoyment/value of 

their residences and/or owned real property, and consequent annoyance, inconvenience, 

diminished quality of life, and stigma.

52. There exist reasonable and feasible methodologies of property remediation that to 

a meaningful extent can detect, alleviate, remove, and/or render substantially less dangerous and 

harmful the aforesaid injurious contamination of real properties in the Class Affected Area.The 

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 13 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

14

Plaintiffs and Class Members' exposure to toxic and dangerous substances has been and is at 

greater than normal background levels and as a result of tortious, negligent, and otherwise 

culpable conduct for which the Defendants are liable; and as a proximate result of said exposure, 

the Plaintiffs and Class Members experience a significantly increased risk of contracting a 

serious latent disease or disorder and suffering serious physical injuries and harms; and 

additionally, according to contemporary scientific principles, there exist reasonably necessary 

monitoring, screening, and testing regimes, different from those normally recommended in the 

absence of such exposure, that would make possible the early detection and diagnosis of and 

harm reduction related to these latent diseases, disorders, and other harms to health and wellbeing for which the Plaintiffs and Class Members are at an elevated risk as a result of exposure 

to the aforesaid toxic and dangerous substances, contaminants, and hazardous materials in the 

Class Affected Area from and originating in the Site. Plaintiffs do not in this lawsuit seek relief 

or remedy for any present physical injury or disease suffered by any Plaintiff or Class Member, 

nor do they assert that they have necessarily received and/or currently have, in their body, 

dangerous levels or dosages of one or more of the aforesaid toxic substances as a result of their 

exposure to elevated levels of the aforesaid substances that are contaminating the environment in 

the Class Affected Area. Plaintiffs do assert that in their daily lives and/or persons making 

reasonable use of the property encounter and are exposed to the aforesaid toxic and hazardous 

substances at levels exceeding normal background levels and that such persons have an increased 

risk of receiving harmful dosages as a result of the contamination of the environment in the Class 

Affected Area for which Defendants are liable.

53. Upon information and belief, each of the Defendants currently has or in the 

relevant past has had a legal, managerial, operational, ownership, financial, and/or controlling 

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 14 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

15

relationship with, interest in, responsibility for, and/or involvement with the Site and/or 

operations at the Site, in such a fashion and to such a degree as to render each Defendant legally 

responsible, liable, and accountable for all or a portion of the claims, injuries, damages, 

remedies, and relief that are asserted, alleged, and sought by the Plaintiff in this action. 

54. The Defendants, and/or persons or entities for whose conduct and circumstances 

created thereby the Defendants are legally liable and responsible, failed to take effective action 

to prevent, reduce, alleviate, investigate, monitor, evaluate, assess, measure, correct, compensate 

for, repair, and/or remediate the aforesaid contamination in the Class Affected Area.

55. The conduct complained of herein by the Defendants, and/or their predecessors or 

other entities whose conduct in connection with the Site created conditions and circumstances for 

which the Defendants are legally accountable and responsible, including business activities 

conducted at the Site, was undertaken with conscious disregard or indifference to the rights, 

welfare, and safety of persons and property within the Class Affected Area; and was reckless, 

grossly negligent, and/or intentional.

56. Defendants, and/or persons or entities for whose conduct and circumstances created 

thereby the Defendants are legally liable and responsible, knew or should have known that a high 

degree of risk existed in the creation, use, management, storage and/or disposal of toxic and 

dangerous substances, contaminants, and hazardous materials as described herein; and knew or 

should have known that a substantial likelihood existed that harm might occur should any such 

substances and materials escape from the Site into the Class Affected Area.

57. Plaintiffs have retained the undersigned counsel and are obligated to pay them reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs.

58. All conditions precedent to bringing this action have been met.

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 15 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

16

FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 23 REQUIREMENTS 

Numerosity of the Class

59. Plaintiffs bring this action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(a) and 

23(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) as a class action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly 

situated for the purpose of asserting the claims alleged in this complaint on a common basis.

60. Plaintiffs bring this action individually and as representatives of and on behalf of a class 

of persons who are past or present residents within, or own real property located within, the 

Class Affected Area, who have been and/or are being legally injured by personal exposure to 

and/or real property contamination from toxic and dangerous substances, contaminants, and 

hazardous materials, in such a fashion and to such a degree according to objective criteria for 

such exposure and contamination so as to entitle these persons to the relief and remedies 

requested herein. 

61. The Class Members are so numerous as to make it impractical to bring them all before 

this Court. Plaintiffs are unable to state the exact number of Class Members without further 

discovery.

Commonality and Predominance of Common Questions of Law and Fact

62. There are common questions of law and fact affecting the rights of each Class Member 

for which common relief is sought. The claims asserted by Plaintiffs individually and on behalf 

of Class Members present questions of fact or law common to the class including, inter alia, 

whether Defendants, and/or others for whose conduct Defendants are legally liable and 

responsible, caused and allowed, and/or failed to take effective action to prevent, reduce, 

alleviate, investigate, monitor, evaluate, assess, measure, correct, compensate for, repair, and/or 

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 16 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

17

remediate the toxic and dangerous contamination in the Class Affected Area as described herein; 

and whether said conduct entitles Plaintiffs and Class Members to the relief requested herein.

Typicality

63. The claims asserted by Plaintiffs individually are typical of the other Class Members’ 

claims in that the other Class Members in that Plaintiffs and Class Members suffered similar 

damages resulting from Defendants’ single, continuing course of conduct—the failure to take 

effective action to prevent, reduce, alleviate, investigate, monitor, evaluate, assess, measure, 

correct, compensate for, repair, and/or remediate the toxic and dangerous contamination in the 

Class Affected Area as described herein. Each class member asserts the same legal cause of 

action.

Adequacy of Representation

64. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class 

because (i) Plaintiffs have retained counsel experienced in the prosecution of such litigation and 

counsel has the necessary resources to conduct this litigation, and counsel will adequately 

represent the interests of the class; (ii) Plaintiffs and their counsel are aware of no conflicts of 

interest between Plaintiffs and absent Class Members or otherwise; and (iii) Plaintiffs are 

knowledgeable concerning the subject matter of this action and will assist counsel in the 

prosecution of this litigation.

Superiority

65. The prosecution of separate actions by individual Class Members would create a risk of 

inconsistent and varying adjudications that would establish incompatible standards of conduct 

for the Defendants and Class Members. Adjudication with respect to individual Class Members 

would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of other Class Members who are not 

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 17 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

18

parties to such adjudications, thereby impairing or impeding their interests. A class action 

provides a fair and efficient method for adjudicating this controversy and is superior to the other 

available methods of adjudication in that: (i) neither the size of the Class, nor any other factor, 

make it likely that difficulties will be encountered in the management of this Class as a class 

action; (ii) the prosecution of separate actions by individual Class Members, or the individual 

joinder of all Class Members in this action is impracticable and would create a massive and 

unnecessary burden on the resources of Courts and could result in inconsistent adjudications, 

while a single class action can determine, with judicial economy, the rights of each member of 

the Class; (iii) because of the disparity of resources available to Defendants versus those 

available to individual Class Members, prosecution of separate actions would work a financial 

hardship on may Class Members, and (iv) the conduct of this action as a class action conserves 

the resources of the parties and the Court system and protects the rights of each member of the 

Class and meets all due process requirements as to fairness to all parties. A class action is also 

superior to maintenance of these claims on a claim by claim basis when all actions arise out of 

the same circumstances and course of conduct.

COUNT I

MEDICAL MONITORING & EQUITABLE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

66. Plaintiffs and the Class Members adopt and restate paragraphs 1-64 as if fully set forth 

herein

67. Plaintiffs and the Class Members are without adequate remedy at law, rendering 

injunctive and other equitable relief appropriate.

68. Plaintiffs and the Class Members will suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not render 

the injunctive relief and medical monitoring relief set forth herein.

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 18 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

19

69. Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, demand injunctive and 

equitable relief and further, that Defendants be ordered to institute, at their own cost, a public 

awareness campaign to alert the Class and general public of the defect, dangers associated with 

the contamination in the Class Affected Site and create, fund, and support a medical monitoring 

program.

70. Until contaminants at the Class Affected Site have been removed, Defendants should 

provide continued environmental monitoring in Plaintiffs and Class Members’ homes and 

property.

71. Plaintiffs and Class Members have been exposed to greater than normal background 

levels of the contaminants and hazardous substances in the Class Affected Area, as set forth 

herein, because of Defendants’ activities at the Site. 

72. The contaminants and other hazardous substances set forth herein from the Site and 

present in the Class Affected Area from Defendants’ activities at the Site, which Plaintiffs and 

Class Members have been exposed are proven hazardous, dangerous, or toxic substances. 

73. Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ exposures were caused by the Defendant’s negligence or 

otherwise tortious conduct.

74. Plaintiffs and Class Members exposure may lead to serious health problems, diseases, 

and medical conditions that may be prevented by timely medical diagnosis and treatment.

75. The method and means for diagnosing the Plaintiffs and Class Members potential 

medical problems are well accepted in the medical and scientific community and will be of great 

benefit to the Plaintiffs and Class Members by preventing or minimizing health problems that 

they may encounter as a result of the aforementioned contaminants and hazardous substances.

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 19 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

20

76. As a proximate result of their exposure to the contaminants and hazardous substances set 

forth herein, Plaintiffs and Class Members have developed a significantly increased risk of 

contracting a serious latent disease.

77. Monitoring procedures exist that makes the early detection of any latent disease possible 

that are different from those normally recommended in the absence of the exposure. 

78. The prescribed monitoring regime is reasonably necessary according to contemporary 

scientific principles.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of all others similarly situated demand injunctive and/or 

equitable relief against the Defendants as follows:

a. an Order certifying the Class and appointing Plaintiffs as Class 

Representatives;

b. an order appointing Class Counsel to the represent the Class;

c. an order and judgment requiring the necessary repairs, remediation, relocation 

costs, personal property replacement, establishment of environmental and 

medical monitoring programs; 

d. pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowable at 

law;

e. an award of attorneys’ fees to class counsel based upon a common fund 

theory, for the benefits conferred upon the Class and/or as allowed by contract 

or statute;

f. the costs and disbursements incurred by Plaintiffs and Class Members in 

connection with this action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees based on the 

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 20 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

21

benefits conferred upon the Class, a common fund, statutory, and/or 

contractual basis;

g. `equitable and injunctive relief;

h. pursuant to Rule 23, Plaintiffs seek notice to Class Members of the 

contaminants present in the Class Affected Area, the need to have Class 

Members’ homes and property inspected and tested, and potential health risks 

associated with the aforementioned hazardous and toxic substances;

i. environmental monitoring;

j. medical monitoring; and

k. such other and further relief under all applicable state and federa1 law and any 

other relief the Court deems just and appropriate.

COUNT II

STRICT LIABILITY FOR ULTRAHAZARDOUS ACTIVITY

79. Plaintiffs and the Class Members adopt and restate paragraphs 1-64 as if fully set forth 

herein.

80. Defendants, as the owner/operator of the Site conducted ultrahazardous activities due to 

the nature of the chemicals and materials utilized at the Site. As such, Defendants are strictly 

liable for the consequences of their ultrahazardous activity.

81. Defendants had a duty to exercise due care in the ownership and operation of a facility 

using, storing, and containing hazardous materials and was under a duty to comply with all laws 

and regulations relating to the treatment, storage, and disposal of the hazardous materials so as to 

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 21 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

22

ensure that the treatment, storage, and disposal did not harm Plaintiffs and Class Members in the 

Class Affected Area. Defendants breached their duty duties described above, by: 

a. preventing the escape of toxic and dangerous substances, contaminants, and 

hazardous materials from the Site to the Class Affected Area;

b. failing to adequately train and supervise their employees and agents with 

regard to proper procedures to prevent the release and spread of toxic and 

dangerous substances, contaminants, and hazardous materials from the Site 

into the Class Affected Area;

c. failing to adequately warn of the escape of toxic and dangerous substances, 

contaminants, and hazardous materials from the Site to the Class Affected 

Area; and

d. otherwise failing to using reasonable care in the operation of the Site to 

prevent the escape of toxic and dangerous substances, contaminants, and 

hazardous materials from the Site to the Class Affected Area.

82. The conduct of Defendants as described above also violated Florida Air and Water 

Pollution Act, § 403.011, et seq., Florida Statutes, and/or Florida’s Water Quality Assurance Act, 

§ 376.30, et seq., Florida Statutes.

83. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ acts and omissions, the hazardous 

waste being treated, stored, and disposed of at Defendants’ facility leaked, seeped, or was carried 

onto and into Plaintiffs and Class Members homes and real property in the Class Affected Area 

seriously contaminating it.

84. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiffs and Class 

Members have incurred economic damages and are entitled to recover monetary damages for: 

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 22 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

23

the creation, and funding by Defendants, of a comprehensive community property remediation 

program to alleviate, remediate, and remove contamination in the Class Affected Area, including 

Plaintiffs and Class Members’ homes; if Plaintiffs and Class Members’ homes and property are 

unable to be cleaned to remove contamination from the homes and property, compensatory 

damages for the replacement/repair of their homes; environmental cleaning of their property; loss 

of use and enjoyment of the home and property; loss in value of the home due to the stigma 

attached from the presences of hazardous substances in the home and property; permanent 

diminution in value of the home and property; moving expenses; damage to personal property; 

renting of comparable housing during the duration of the cleanup of the home and property; 

incidental and consequential damages for the cost of moving and/or the same due to cleanup of 

the home and property due to the hazardous substances and other related expenses. 

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs, on behalf of all others similarly situated and the Class, demand: 

a. an order certifying the case as a class action; 

b. an order appointing Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives of the Class;

c. an order appointing undersigned counsel and their firms as counsel for the Class; 

d. compensatory damages; 

e. post-judgment interest; 

f. an award of attorneys’ fees to class counsel based upon a common fund 

theory, for the benefits conferred upon the Class and/or as allowed by contract 

or statute;

g. an award of taxable costs; and,

h. any and all such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT III

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 23 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

24

NUISANCE

85. Plaintiffs and the Class Members adopt and restate paragraphs 1-64 as if fully set forth 

herein.

86. The Defendants’ tortious or wrongful acts or omissions have caused hazardous 

substances, as set forth herein, to enter Plaintiffs and Class Members’ homes and property which 

has unreasonably interfered, and continues to interfere, with the Plaintiffs and Class Members’ 

use and enjoyment of their properties, caused them potential health problems and caused them to 

suffer a significantly increased and elevated risk of latent diseases as described herein.

87. Defendants’ interference has impaired the rights of Plaintiffs and Class Members health, 

comfort, safety, free use of their property, and/or peaceful enjoyment of their property. 

88. Defendants’ invasions were intentional and unreasonable, and/or unintentional but 

otherwise negligent or reckless.

89. The interference with Plaintiffs and Class Members’ use of their property caused by 

Defendants is substantial and is ongoing.

90. Defendants’ private nuisance was the direct, proximate, and foreseeable cause of 

Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class Members’ damages, injuries, harm, economic loss, and increased 

risk of harm, which they suffered and will continue to suffer

91. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiffs and Class 

Members have incurred economic damages and are entitled to recover monetary damages for: 

the creation, and funding by Defendants, of a comprehensive community property remediation 

program to alleviate, remediate, and remove contamination in the Class Affected Area, including 

Plaintiffs and Class Members’ homes; if Plaintiffs and Class Members’ homes and property are 

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 24 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

25

unable to be cleaned to remove contamination from the homes and property, compensatory 

damages for the replacement/repair of their homes; environmental cleaning of their property; loss 

of use and enjoyment of the home and property; loss in value of the home due to the stigma 

attached from the presences of hazardous substances in the home and property; permanent 

diminution in value of the home and property; moving expenses; damage to personal property; 

renting of comparable housing during the duration of the cleanup of the home and property; 

incidental and consequential damages for the cost of moving and/or the same due to cleanup of 

the home and property due to the hazardous substances and other related expenses. 

92. Defendants knew or should have known that their wrongful acts and omissions would 

result in economic, incidental, and consequential damages in the manner set forth herein. 

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs, on behalf of all others similarly situated and the Class, demand: 

a. an order certifying the case as a class action; 

b. an order appointing Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives of the Class;

c. an order appointing undersigned counsel and their firms as counsel for the Class; 

d. compensatory damages; 

e. post-judgment interest; 

f. an award of attorneys’ fees to class counsel based upon a common fund 

theory, for the benefits conferred upon the Class and/or as allowed by contract 

or statute;

g. an award of taxable costs; and,

h. any and all such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT IV

NEGLIGENCE 

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 25 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

26

93. Plaintiffs and the Class Members adopt and restate paragraphs 1-64 as if fully set forth 

herein.

94. Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiffs and Class Members to exercise reasonable care in 

the operation of the Site. Defendants’ duty includes, but was not limited to the following: 

a. preventing the escape of toxic and dangerous substances, contaminants, and 

hazardous materials from the Site to the Class Affected Area;

b. failing to adequately train and supervise their employees and agents with 

regard to proper procedures to prevent the release and spread of toxic and 

dangerous substances, contaminants, and hazardous materials from the Site 

into the Class Affected Area;

c. failing to adequately warn of the escape of toxic and dangerous substances, 

contaminants, and hazardous materials from the Site to the Class Affected 

Area; and

d. otherwise using reasonable care in the operation of the Site to prevent the 

escape of toxic and dangerous substances, contaminants, and hazardous 

materials from the Site to the Class Affected Area.

95. Defendants were negligent and breached their duty to exercise reasonable care in the 

operation of the Site. Defendants’ negligence included, but was not limited to the following: 

a. preventing the escape of toxic and dangerous substances, contaminants, and 

hazardous materials from the Site to the Class Affected Area;

b. failing to adequately train and supervise their employees and agents with 

regard to proper procedures to prevent the release and spread of toxic and 

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 26 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

27

dangerous substances, contaminants, and hazardous materials from the Site 

into the Class Affected Area;

c. failing to adequately warn of the escape of toxic and dangerous substances, 

contaminants, and hazardous materials from the Site to the Class Affected 

Area; and

d. otherwise using reasonable care in the operation of the Site to prevent the 

escape of toxic and dangerous substances, contaminants, and hazardous 

materials from the Site to the Class Affected Area.

96. Defendants’ private nuisance was the direct, proximate, and foreseeable cause of 

Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class Members’ damages, injuries, harm, economic loss, and increased 

risk of harm, which they suffered and will continue to suffer

97. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiffs and Class 

Members have incurred economic damages and are entitled to recover monetary damages for: 

the creation, and funding by Defendants, of a comprehensive community property remediation 

program to alleviate, remediate, and remove contamination in the Class Affected Area, including 

Plaintiffs and Class Members’ homes; if Plaintiffs and Class Members’ homes and property are 

unable to be cleaned to remove contamination from the homes and property, compensatory 

damages for the replacement/repair of their homes; environmental cleaning of their property; loss 

of use and enjoyment of the home and property; loss in value of the home due to the stigma 

attached from the presences of hazardous substances in the home and property; permanent 

diminution in value of the home and property; moving expenses; damage to personal property; 

renting of comparable housing during the duration of the cleanup of the home and property; 

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 27 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

28

incidental and consequential damages for the cost of moving and/or the same due to cleanup of 

the home and property due to the hazardous substances and other related expenses. 

98. Defendants knew or should have known that their wrongful acts and omissions would 

result in economic, incidental, and consequential damages in the manner set forth herein. 

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs, on behalf of all others similarly situated and the Class, demand: 

a. an order certifying the case as a class action; 

b. an order appointing Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives of the Class;

c. an order appointing undersigned counsel and their firms as counsel for the 

Class; 

d. compensatory damages; 

e. post-judgment interest; 

f. an award of attorneys’ fees to class counsel based upon a common fund 

theory, for the benefits conferred upon the Class and/or as allowed by contract 

or statute;

g. an award of taxable costs; and,

h. any and all such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT V 

NEGLIGENCE PER SE FOR VIOLATION OF FLORIDA AIR AND 

WATER POLLUTION ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 403.011 ET 

SEQ., AND/OR FLORIDA’S WATER QUALITY ASSURANCE ACT, 

FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 376.30, ET SEQ.

99. Plaintiffs and the Class Members adopt and restate paragraphs 1-64 as if fully set forth 

herein.

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 28 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

29

100. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants had a duty to comply with Florida Air and Water 

Pollution Act, § 403.011, et seq., Florida Statutes, and/or Florida’s Water Quality Assurance Act, 

§ 376.30, et seq., Florida Statutes.

101. As a result of the acts and omissions by Defendants alleged herein and Defendants 

allowing and causing contamination within the Class Affected Area by toxic and dangerous 

substances, contaminants, and hazardous materials, Defendants breached their duty to comply 

with the Florida Air and Water Pollution Act, § 403.011, et seq., Florida Statutes, and/or 

Florida’s Water Quality Assurance Act, § 376.30, et seq., Florida Statutes and violated the 

aforementioned statutes. 

102. Plaintiff and the Class Members are members of the class of people that the Florida Air 

and Water Pollution Act, § 403.011, et seq., Florida Statutes, and/or Florida’s Water Quality 

Assurance Act, § 376.30, et seq. were designed to protect, and the harm suffered is of the type 

that the Acts were designed to prevent. 

103. Violations of the aforementioned Acts constitute negligence per se.

104. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants violating Florida Air and Water Pollution 

Act, § 403.011, et seq., Florida Statutes, and/or Florida’s Water Quality Assurance Act, § 

376.30, Plaintiffs and Class Members have incurred economic damages and are entitled to 

recover monetary damages for: the creation, and funding by Defendants, of a comprehensive 

community property remediation program to alleviate, remediate, and remove contamination in 

the Class Affected Area, including Plaintiffs and Class Members’ homes; if Plaintiffs and Class 

Members’ homes and property are unable to be cleaned to remove contamination from the homes 

and property, compensatory damages for the replacement/repair of their homes; environmental 

cleaning of their property; loss of use and enjoyment of the home and property; loss in value of 

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 29 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

30

the home due to the stigma attached from the presences of hazardous substances in the home and 

property; permanent diminution in value of the home and property; moving expenses; damage to 

personal property; renting of comparable housing during the duration of the cleanup of the home 

and property; incidental and consequential damages for the cost of moving and/or the same due 

to cleanup of the home and property due to the hazardous substances and other related expenses. 

a. an order certifying the case as a class action; 

b. an order appointing Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives of the Class;

c. an order appointing undersigned counsel and their firms as counsel for the 

Class; 

d. compensatory damages; 

e. post-judgment interest; 

f. an award of attorneys’ fees to class counsel based upon a common fund 

theory, for the benefits conferred upon the Class and/or as allowed by contract 

or statute;

g. an award of taxable costs; and,

h. any and all such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT VI

TRESPASS

105. Plaintiffs and the Class Members adopt and restate paragraphs 1-64 as if fully set forth 

herein.

106. Plaintiffs’ and Class Members own or have a possessory interest in homes and real 

property in the Class Affected Area.

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 30 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

31

107. Defendants’ actions in the operations of the Site were intentional, negligent, reckless, or 

as the result of an extrahazardous activity, and proximately responsible for the contamination in 

the Class Affected Area as set forth herein.

108. Defendants, without the consent or authority and against the will of the Plaintiffs and 

Class Members, caused hazardous substances to enter and contaminate Plaintiffs and Class 

Members’ homes and properties in the Class Affected Area as a result of Defendants’ acts and 

omissions at the Site as set forth herein.

109. Defendants’ trespass was the direct, proximate, and foreseeable cause of Plaintiffs and 

Plaintiff Class Members’ damages, injuries, harm, economic loss, and increased risk of harm, 

which they suffered and will continue to suffer

110. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiffs and Class 

Members have incurred economic damages and are entitled to recover monetary damages for: 

the creation, and funding by Defendants, of a comprehensive community property remediation 

program to alleviate, remediate, and remove contamination in the Class Affected Area, including 

Plaintiffs and Class Members’ homes; if Plaintiffs and Class Members’ homes and property are 

unable to be cleaned to remove contamination from the homes and property, compensatory 

damages for the replacement/repair of their homes; environmental cleaning of their property; loss 

of use and enjoyment of the home and property; loss in value of the home due to the stigma 

attached from the presences of hazardous substances in the home and property; permanent 

diminution in value of the home and property; moving expenses; damage to personal property; 

renting of comparable housing during the duration of the cleanup of the home and property; 

incidental and consequential damages for the cost of moving and/or the same due to cleanup of 

the home and property due to the hazardous substances and other related expenses. 

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 31 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

32

111. Defendants knew or should have known that their wrongful acts and omissions would 

result in economic, incidental, and consequential damages in the manner set forth herein. 

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs, on behalf of all others similarly situated and the Class, demand: 

a. an order certifying the case as a class action; 

b. an order appointing Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives of the Class;

c. an order appointing undersigned counsel and their firms as counsel for the 

Class; 

d. compensatory damages; 

e. post-judgment interest; 

f. an award of attorneys’ fees to class counsel based upon a common fund 

theory, for the benefits conferred upon the Class and/or as allowed by contract 

or statute;

g. an award of taxable costs; and,

h. any and all such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT VII

VIOLATION OF FLORIDA’S WATER QUALITY ASSURANCE ACT § 376.30, ET 

SEQ., FLORIDA STATUTES

112. Plaintiffs and the Class Members adopt and restate paragraphs 1-64 as if fully set forth 

herein.

113. As set forth herein, Defendants acts and omissions on the Site caused discharge, 

pollution, spilling, leaking, seeping, pouring, emitting and/or dumping of the hazardous 

chemicals, contaminants and pollutants into the Site that have affected the Class Affected Area. 

114. Pursuant to section 376.313(3), Florida Statutes, Plaintiffs and Class Members have a 

private cause of action against Defendants, “for all damages resulting from a discharge or other 

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 32 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

33

condition of pollution covered by ss. 376.30-376.317.” See Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, 39 

So. 3d 1216 (Fla. 2010). 

115. Pursuant to Florida Statutes section 376.205, 

The remedies in this act shall be deemed to be cumulative and not 

exclusive. Nothing in this act shall require pursuit of any claim 

against the fund as a condition precedent to any remedy against a 

responsible party. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 

person may bring a cause of action against a responsible party 

in a court of competent jurisdiction for damages, as defined in 

s. 376.031, resulting from a discharge or other condition of 

pollution covered by ss. 376.011-376.21. In any such suit, it shall 

not be necessary for the person to plead or prove negligence in any 

form or manner. Such person need only plead and prove the fact of 

the prohibited discharge or other pollutive condition and that it 

occurred. The only defenses to such cause of action shall be those 

specified in s. 376.12(7). The court, in issuing any final judgment 

in such action, may award costs of litigation, including reasonable 

attorney's and expert witness fees, to any party, whenever the court 

determines such an award is in the public interest.

(Emphasis supplied).

116. Defendants are a “responsible party” as defined by Florida Statutes section 

376.031(20)(b).

117. Plaintiffs and Class Members are a “person” as defined by Florida Statutes section 

376.031(14).

118. Defendants’ discharge of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, arsenic, polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbon, and benzo(a)pyrenes, among other hazardous substances, to the Affected Class 

Area, constitutes “discharge or other condition of pollution.”

119. Under the Water Quality Assurance Act, “discharge” is defined as including, but not 

limited to “any spilling, leaking, seeping, pouring, emitting and/or dumping which occurs within 

the territorial limits of the state and affects lands and waters within the territorial limits of the 

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 33 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

34

state.” Fla. Stat. § 376.031(7). Defendants’ acts and omissions, as set forth herein, constituted a 

“discharge” into the Class Affected Area. 

120. The Class Affected Area is within the territorial limits of the state and includes waters 

within the territorial limits of the state. 

121. Under the Water Quality Assurance Act, “pollution means the presence in the outdoor 

atmosphere or waters of the state of any one or more substances or pollutants in quantities which 

are or may be potentially harmful or injurious to human health or welfare, animal or plant life, or 

property or which may unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or property including 

outdoor recreation.” Fla. Stat. § 376.031(17). 

122. Defendants’ discharge of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, arsenic, polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbon, and benzo(a)pyrenes, among other hazardous substances, to the Affected Class 

Area, constitute “pollution” as defined by Florida Statutes section 376.031(17). 

123. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violating the Water Quality Assurance 

Act Plaintiffs and Class Members have incurred damage within the meaning of Florida Statutes 

section 376.021(5) and are entitled to recover monetary damages for: the creation, and funding 

by Defendants, of a comprehensive community property remediation program to alleviate, 

remediate, and remove contamination in the Class Affected Area, including Plaintiffs and Class 

Members’ homes; if Plaintiffs and Class Members’ homes and property are unable to be cleaned 

to remove contamination from the homes and property, compensatory damages for the 

replacement/repair of their homes; environmental cleaning of their property; loss of use and 

enjoyment of the home and property; loss in value of the home due to the stigma attached from 

the presences of hazardous substances in the home and property; permanent diminution in value 

of the home and property; moving expenses; damage to personal property; renting of comparable 

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 34 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

35

housing during the duration of the cleanup of the home and property; incidental and 

consequential damages for the cost of moving and/or the same due to cleanup of the home and 

property due to the hazardous substances and other related expenses. 

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs, on behalf of all others similarly situated and the Class, demand: 

a. an order certifying the case as a class action; 

b. an order appointing Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives of the Class;

c. an order appointing undersigned counsel and their firms as counsel for the 

Class; 

d. compensatory damages; 

e. post-judgment interest; 

f. an award of attorneys’ fees to class counsel based upon a common fund 

theory, for the benefits conferred upon the Class and/or as allowed by contract 

or statute;

g. an award of taxable costs, expert witness fees; and,

h. any and all such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of the Class Members demand a trial by jury as to all 

issues so triable.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been 

electronically filed with the Clerk of Court this 6th day of October 2010, by using the CM/ECF 

system which will send notice of electronic filing to all parties of record.

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 35 of 36
Parsons, et. al. v. Koppers, Inc., et. al.

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

Amended Class Action Complaint

36

By: /s/ Ervin A. Gonzalez 

Ervin A. Gonzalez 

Florida Bar Number 500720

Patrick S. Montoya

Florida Bar Number 0524441

COLSON HICKS EIDSON

255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Telephone: (305) 476-7400

Facsimile: (305) 476-7444

Email: Ervin@colson.com

Email: Patrick@colson.com

Jordan L. Chaikin

Florida Bar Number 0878421

PARKER WAICHMAN ALONSO LLP

3301 Bonita Beach Road, Suite 101

Bonita Springs, Florida 34134

Telephone: (239) 390-1000

Facsimile: (239) 390-0055

Email: jchaikin@yourlawyer.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 22 Filed 10/06/10 Page 36 of 36