UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
3G FISHING CHARTERS LLC, LAUNCH
WATERFRONT EATERY LLC,
GALVESTON FISHING CHARTER COMPANY, MATT GARNER D/B/A ALL AMERICAN FISHING CHARTERS, 3G BAIT AND TACKLE SHOP, LLC, SAMMY FLORES D/B/A SALT WATER SOUL, ADAM KLECZKOWSKI, GREG VERM D/B/A FISHING GALVESTON TEXAS, CAROLINE COPE, and SCOTT MOSS D/B/A BAYOU BAIT CAMP AND SCOTTY’S CRABS
Plaintiffs v.
KIRBY INLAND MARINE, LP;
and CLEOPATRA SHIPPNG AGENCY LTD Defendants
CAUSE NO. ________________ JURY DEMAND
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, 3G Fishing Charters, LLC, Launch Waterfront Eatery LLC, Galveston Fishing Charter Company, Matt Garner d/b/a All American Fishing Charters, 3G Bait and Tackle Shop, LLC, Sammy Flores d/b/a Salt Water Soul, Adam Kleczkowski, Greg Verm d/b/a Fishing Galveston Texas, Caroline Cope, and Scott Moss d/b/a Bayou Bait Camp and Scotty’s Crabs, individually and as representatives of the class defined herein bring this class action against
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiffs include individuals and/or entities who have suffered property losses, economic damages, and/or other costs (including removal costs) as a result of the collision on March 22, 2013 and the subsequent discharge of marine fuel oil into the surrounding water. Plaintiffs are businesses and individuals who rely on the natural resources found in and around Galveston Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, including its fish, shellfish, oysters, and other aquatic life for their livelihood and/or have property damage associated the collision on March 22, 2013 and subsequent discharge of marine fuel oil into the surrounding water. They bring this class action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against Defendants for losses and damages arising out of the oil spill in Galveston Bay caused by the collision on March 22, 2013 and the discharge of marine fuel oil into the surrounding water.
2. On March 22, 2014, a collision occurred between a barge being pushed by the M/V MISS SUSAN and the 585-foot bulk carrier, M/V SUMMER WIND. As a result of the collision, the barge’s hull and tank were breached resulting in a large spill of marine fuel oil (also known as special bunker). The barge also sank to the bottom of the channel and lies partially submerged. At the time of this filing, it is unknown how much of the 924,000 gallons being carried by the barge was released into Galveston Bay, but the spill was very large and has had a wide and devastating effect on Galveston Bay, the Gulf of Mexico, and the people who use and depend on it.
3. At the time of this filing, much of the marine traffic in the Bay has been stopped. It is unknown how long marine traffic will be stopped. Coast Guard officials have reported that this is “an extremely serious spill” and that “This is a persistent oil. It’s a large quantity. It will spread. People should be aware of that.” The marine fuel oil that was released is a heavy crude and highly
Galveston Bay and the Gulf of Mexico polluting oil that does not evaporate quickly making it particularly harmful to the environment and difficult to clean up. The spilled marine fuel oil has already caused tremendous damage to and its marine, coastal, and estuarine environments, which are used by Plaintiffs and the Class Members to earn their livelihoods. With the marine fuel oil still leaking, Plaintiffs and Class Members are suffering and will continue to suffer serious losses. II. PARTIES
4. Plaintiffs 3G Fishing Charters, LLC, Launch Waterfront Eatery LLC, Galveston Fishing Charter Company, Matt Garner d/b/a All American Fishing Charters, 3G Bait and Tackle Shop, LLC, Sammy Flores d/b/a Salt Water Soul, Adam Kleczkowski, Greg Verm d/b/a Fishing Galveston Texas, Caroline Cope, and Scott Moss d/b/a Bayou Bait Camp and Scotty’s Crabs are individuals and business that work in Galveston Bay and the Gulf of Mexico.
5. As a result of the events described herein, Plaintiffs have been harmed and suffered damages as a result of the contamination caused by the spill and the events alleged herein.
6. Defendant, Kirby Inland Marine, LP, (‘’Kirby Marine”) is a Delaware limited partnership that does business in the State of Texas and throughout the United States.
7. At all material times hereto, the M/V MISS SUSAN was owned, manned, possessed, managed, controlled, chartered and/or operated by Kirby Marine.
8. Defendant, Cleopatra Shipping Agency LTD, is a foreign corporation with offices in Greece that does business in the State of Texas and throughout the United States.
9. At all material times hereto, the M/V SUMMER WIND was owned, manned, possessed, managed, controlled, chartered and/or operated by Cleopatra Shipping Agency LTD.
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10. Jurisdiction exists before this Court pursuant to Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, which empowers the federal judiciary to hear “all Cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.”
11. The claims presented herein are admiralty or maritime claims within the meaning of Rule 9(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12. In addition, this Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Oil Pollution Act, 33 U.S.C. § 2717 (b) (the “OPA”).
13. Prosecution of this action in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the events or omissions giving rise to the claims asserted herein occurred in this district.
IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
14. On March 22, 2014, a collision occurred between a barge being pushed by the M/V MISS SUSAN and the 585-foot bulk carrier, M/V SUMMER WIND. As a result of the collision, the barge’s hull and tank were breached resulting in a large spill of marine fuel oil (also known as special bunker) the barge also sank to the bottom of the channel and lies partially submerged. At the time of this filing, it is unknown how much of the 924,000 gallons being carried by the barge was released into Galveston Bay, but the spill was large and has had a wide and devastating effect on Galveston Bay, The Gulf of Mexico, and the people who use and depend on it. Much of the marine traffic in the Bay has been stopped.
15. It is unknown how long marine traffic will be stopped. Coast Guard officials have reported that this is “an extremely serious spill” and that “This is a persistent oil. It’s a large quantity. It will spread. People should be aware of that.” The marine fuel oil that was released is a
heavy crude and highly polluting oil that does not evaporate quickly making it particularly harmful to the environment and difficult to clean up.
16. The spilled marine fuel oil has already caused tremendous damage to Galveston Bay and its marine, coastal, and estuarine environments, which are used by Plaintiffs and the Class Members to earn their livelihoods. With the marine fuel oil still leaking, Plaintiffs and Class Members are suffering and will continue to suffer serious losses.
V. CLASS DEFINITION
17. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, who are members of the following Class: All Texas residents who claim economic losses, or damages to their occupations, businesses, and/or property damages as a result of the oil spill which occurred, as a result of the collision between the M/V MISS SUSAN and the M/V SUMMER WIND, in Galveston Bay on March 22, 2014.
18. Excluded from the Class are: (a) the officers and directors of any Defendants; (b) any judge or judicial officer assigned to this matter and his or her immediate family; and (c) any legal representative, successor, or assign of any excluded persons or entities.
VI. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
19. Plaintiffs’ claims are made on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
A. Numerosity of the Class
20. On information and belief, the Class consists of hundreds or thousands of individuals and/or businesses who have been legally injured by the disaster, making joiner impracticable.
B. Typicality and Commonality
21. The claims of the representative Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Class in that the representative Plaintiffs, like all Class Members, have suffered adverse effects proximately caused by the spill.
22. Furthermore, the factual bases of Defendants’ misconduct are common to all Class Members and represent a common thread of misconduct resulting in injury to all members of the Class.
C. Adequacy
23. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiffs have retained counsel with substantial experience in maritime law, and in prosecuting environmental, mass tort, and complex class actions, including catastrophic oil spills.
24. Plaintiffs and their counsel are committed to prosecuting this action vigorously on behalf of the Class and have the financial resources to do so. Neither Plaintiffs nor their Counsel have interests adverse to those of the Class.
D. Predominance of Common Questions of Fact and Law
25. There is a well-defined community of interest that the questions of law and fact common to the Class predominate over questions affecting only individual Class Members and include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) Whether Defendants caused and/or contributed to collision and oil spill; (b) Whether Defendants were negligent;
(c) Whether Defendants acted maliciously or with reckless disregard; and
E. Superiority
26. Absent class treatment, Plaintiffs and Class Members will continue to suffer harm and damages as a result of Defendants’ unlawful and wrongful conduct.
27. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Without a class action individual Class Members would face burdensome litigation expenses, deterring them from bringing suit or adequately protecting their rights. Because of the ration of the economic value of the individual Class Members’ claims in comparison to the high litigation costs in complex environmental cases such as this, few could likely seek their rightful legal recourse. Absent a class action, Class Members would continue to incur harm without remedy.
28. The consideration of common questions of fact and law will conserve judicial resources and promote a fair and consistent resolution of these claims.
F. Class Certification under F.R.C.P. 23(b)(1)
29. Individual litigation of Plaintiffs’ claims would present a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants, as well as the risk that adjudications for some individual class members could impair the ability for other class members to protect their own interests, thereby making class certification of this action appropriate under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) and (B).
30. Individual litigation could spawn inconsistent or contradictory judgments on issues of Defendants’ knowledge, intent, recklessness, conduct, and duty –– concepts that should not vary, as of any particular point in time, from Class member to Class member. Individual litigation would
also increase the delay and expense to all parties and the court system and could undermine public confidence and trust in that system.
31. In the particular context of punitive damages, piecemeal adjudications of punitive damages on economic loss and property damage claims on an individual basis do not and cannot hold Defendants legally accountable for the total scope of their unique tortious conduct).
32. Plaintiffs here seek class-wide adjudication as to the issue of punitive damages, with respect to the total amount Defendants may be constitutionally or equitably required to pay into a punishment fund (the “limits of punishment”), and the appropriate allocation and distribution of such damages to any member of the Class and/or Subclasses for their benefit, and that of society. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class and/or Subclasses on such claims and issues would create an immediate risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications. These varying adjudications would be prejudicial to members of the Class, Subclasses, and Defendants, would frustrate the purposes and policies of punitive damages by fostering sub-optimal punishment and deterrence, and would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants.
33. Piecemeal adjudications will frustrate the efforts of this or any court to determine and enforce the constitutional limits of aggregate punishment for this course of misconduct, thereby (a) forcing victims to compete in a race for judgments in order to claim against a diminishing resource, resulting in recoveries for some victims and worthless judgments for the rest; (b) ignoring what the Supreme Court has termed the substantive limit that due process places on the amount of punitive damages that may be awarded; and (c) thereby creating inequitable disparities among members of the Class and/or Subclasses.
34. Moreover, individual awards of punitive damages in the context of mass misconduct would frustrate the broader societal interest in not only punishing Defendants for their misconduct, but in directing an appropriate share of any award toward the greatest possible public benefit, e.g., without limitation, scientific research, environmental remediation programs, clean energy programs, programs geared toward sustaining and retraining those whose livelihoods were impacted by the spill.
35. Finally, piecemeal adjudications may under-deter Defendants’ misconduct by failing to account for the full scope or total social costs, thereby frustrating the purpose of punitive damages – the vindication of society’s interests in deterrence and punishment that is fully and fairly proportionate to the scope and nature of the misconduct and its harm to society as a whole.
36. By contrast, class treatment, will allow one single adjudication of the single course of Defendants’ conduct that is the underlying cause of all the injuries suffered by Plaintiffs. Class treatment presents far fewer management difficulties than repetitive individual litigation, and provides the benefits of economies of scale, exercise of equity jurisdiction, and comprehensive supervision by a single court, in order to achieve justice and proportionality, avoid underdeterrence, and determine the proper roles of the “limits of punishment” theory raised by the common questions of punitive damages under the unique circumstances of this case, without offending the due process constraints articulated by the Supreme Court. Class treatment best ensures that Defendants pay for the economic and environmental costs of their misconduct and that there is a fair distribution of compensatory and punitive damages among Class and/or Subclass members for their benefit, for the benefit of their beneficiaries, and for the benefit of society and the environment.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
I. Claims Under General Maritime Law A. Negligence
37. Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation set forth in all preceding paragraphs as if fully restated here.
38. At all times material hereto Defendants owed and breached duties of ordinary and reasonable care to Plaintiffs in connection with collision occurred between a barge being pushed by the M/V MISS SUSAN and the 585-foot bulk carrier, M/V SUMMER WIND, and additionally owed and breached duties to Plaintiffs to guard against and/or prevent the risk of an oil spill.
39. Defendants were under a duty to exercise reasonable care to ensure that if oil discharged in the event of a collision, that it would be contained and/or stopped within the immediate vicinity of the Vessel in an expeditious manner.
40. Defendants knew or should have known that the acts and omissions described herein could result in damage to Plaintiffs.
41. Defendants, respectively and collectively, failed to exercise reasonable care to ensure that a collision and subsequent oil spill did not occur, and thereby breached duties owed to Plaintiffs.
42. At all times material hereto the M/V MISS SUSAN was owned, navigated, manned, possessed, managed, and controlled by Kirby Marine.
43. At all times material hereto the M/V SUMMER WIND was owned, navigated, manned, possessed, managed, and controlled by Cleopatra Shipping Agency LTD.
WIND, Defendants owed duties of care to Plaintiffs to, inter alia, man, possess, manage, control, navigate, maintain and operate these Vessels with reasonable and ordinary care.
45. Defendants breached these duties owed to Plaintiffs by, inter alia, failing to properly manage, control, maintain and operate these vessels by failing to properly navigate, steer and control the vessels.
46. The conduct of the Defendants with regard to the manufacture, maintenance and/or operation of its vessels and their appurtenances and equipment is governed by numerous state and federal laws and permits issued under the authority of these laws. These laws and permits create statutory standards that are intended to protect and benefit Plaintiffs. One or more of the Defendants violated these statutory standards.
47. Defendants, respectively and collectively, failed to exercise reasonable care to ensure that oil would expeditiously and adequately be contained within the immediate vicinity of the vessels in the event of a collision, and thereby breached duties owed to Plaintiffs.
48. Defendants, respectively and collectively, failed to exercise reasonable care to ensure that adequate safeguards, protocols, procedures and resources would be readily available to prevent and/or mitigate the effects an uncontrolled oil spill into the water, and thereby breached duties owed to Plaintiffs.
49. The violations of these statutory standards constitute negligence per se under Texas and the general maritime law.
50. In addition to the foregoing acts of negligence, Plaintiffs aver that the collision and resulting Spill were caused by the joint, several, and solidary negligence and fault of Defendants in the following non-exclusive particulars:
(a) Failing to properly operate the M/V MISS SUSAN and M/V SUMMER WIND;
(b) Operating the M/V MISS SUSAN and M/V SUMMER WIND in such a manner that a collision occurred, causing it to sink and resulting in the Spill;
(c) Failing to properly inspect the M/V MISS SUSAN and M/V SUMMER WIND to assure that their equipment and personnel were fit for their intended purpose;
(d) Acting in a careless and negligent manner without due regard for the safety of others; (e) Failing to promulgate, implement and enforce rules and regulations pertaining to the safe operations, if they had been so promulgated, implemented and enforced, would have averted the collision, sinking, and Spill;
(f) Operating the M/V MISS SUSAN and M/V SUMMER WIND with untrained and unlicensed personnel;
(g) Negligently hiring, retaining and/or training personnel;
(h) Failing to take appropriate action to avoid or mitigate the accident;
(i) Negligently implementing or failing to implement policies and procedures to safely conduct maritime operations;
(j) Failing to timely bring the oil spill under control;
(k) Failing to provide appropriate accident prevention equipment;
(l) Such other acts of negligence and omissions as will be shown at the trial of this matter; all of which acts are in violation of the general maritime law.
51. Plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment finding Defendants liable, jointly, severally, and solidarily, to Plaintiffs for damages suffered as a result of Defendants’ negligence and awarding Plaintiffs adequate compensation therefor in amounts determined by the trier of fact.
52. The injuries to Plaintiffs were also caused by and/or aggravated by the fact that Defendants failed to take necessary actions to mitigate the danger associated with their operations.
53. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and/or omissions, the Plaintiffs have suffered, inter alia, damages resulting from the closure and pollution of the Galveston Bay water areas, harbors, marinas, boat launches and waterways, including the loss of their livelihoods which directly depend upon a supply of fish, shrimp, oysters and crabs, loss of income, loss of the right of use of Galveston Bay, and Texas, saltwater areas, and costs associated and inconvenience sustained as a result of the closure and pollution of water areas.
54. Plaintiffs have suffered, inter alia, damages associated with a loss of income and inconvenience due to their inability, and the inability of their customers and clients, to use Galveston Bay, the Gulf of Mexico and the Coastal Zone for recreational purposes.
55. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ acts and/or omissions, the Plaintiffs have suffered, inter alia, damage to their property, diminution of value and/or loss of use of their property, stigma damages resulting from the taint of their property caused by the Spill, some have been forced to evacuate their homes, and they have been otherwise injured.
56. Plaintiffs have suffered damages, including, inter alia, loss of business, loss of income and lost profits, and inconvenience due to the decrease in business resulting from the Spill.
B. Gross Negligence and Willful Misconduct
57. Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation set forth in all preceding paragraphs as if fully restated here.
58. Defendants owed and breached duties of ordinary and reasonable care to Plaintiffs in connection with the operation of M/V MISS SUSAN and M/V SUMMER WIND, and
additionally owed and breached duties to Plaintiffs to guard against and/or prevent the risk of a collision and the Spill. The existence and breach of these legal duties are established under the general maritime law and state law as deemed applicable herein.
59. Defendants breached their legal duty to Plaintiffs and failed to exercise reasonable care and acted with reckless, willful, and wanton disregard in the operation of the M/V MISS SUSAN and M/V SUMMER WIND.
60. Defendants knew or should have known that their wanton, willful, and reckless misconduct would result in a disastrous oil spill, causing damage to those affected by the Spill.
61. Defendants with gross negligence, willful misconduct, and reckless disregard for human life and the safety and health of the environment and Plaintiffs.
II. The Oil Pollution Act
62. Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation set forth in all preceding paragraphs as if fully restated here.
63. The Oil Pollution Act, 33 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq. (the “OPA”), imposes liability upon a “responsible party for a... vessel or a facility from which oil is discharged...into or upon navigable waters or adjoining shorelines” for the damages that result from such incident as well as removal costs. 33 U.S.C. § 2702.
64. Therefore, Defendants are strictly liable pursuant to Section 2702 of the OPA for all the damages resulting from the Spill.
65. Defendants are not entitled to limit their liability under Section 2704(a) of the OPA because the Spill was proximately caused by their gross negligence, willful misconduct, or violation of applicable safety, construction or operating regulations. 33 U.S.C. § 2704(c).
66. As a result of the Spill, Plaintiffs have not been able to use natural resources (air and water, and potentially wetlands and other areas and spaces that have and/or may become contaminated by the spilled oil), and they are entitled to recover from Defendants for such damages in amounts to be determined by the trier of fact, in addition to the damages as set forth below.
67. As a result of the Spill, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages pursuant to Section 2702(b)(2)(B), which provides for recovery of damages to real or personal property, including “[D]amages for injury to, or economic losses resulting from destruction of, real or personal property, which shall be recoverable by a claimant who owns or leases that property, including the diminution in the value of their property.”
68. As a result of the Spill, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages pursuant to Section 2702(b)(2)(C), which provides for recovery for “[D]amages for loss of subsistence use of natural resources, which shall be recoverable by any claimant who so uses natural resources which have been injured, destroyed, or lost, without regard to the ownership or management of the resources.”
69. As a result of the Spill, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages pursuant to Section 2702(b)(2)(E), which provides for “[D]amages equal to the loss of profits or impairment of earning capacity due to the injury, destruction, or loss of real property, personal property, or natural resources, which shall be recoverable by any claimant.”
III. State Law Claims For Relief A. Nuisance
70. Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation set forth in all preceding paragraphs as if fully restated here.
interference, but failed to do so. The harm suffered by the Property Plaintiffs was significant and of a kind that would be suffered by a normal person in the community or by property in normal condition and used for normal purpose. Plaintiffs have also suffered the migration of contaminants and noxious odors as a result of the Spill.
72. Defendants acted in an unreasonable manner in creating the nuisance described herein.
73. The Spill that Defendants caused and/or contributed to has polluted the Plaintiffs’ property, constituting a nuisance that has caused and will continue to cause injury to the Property Plaintiffs, including, but not limited to, damages to and diminution in the value of their residential, commercial, or investment properties and the surrounding marine and coastal environments, and stigma damages resulting from the taint of their properties caused by the Spill.
74. Defendants are liable to the Plaintiffs for actual and compensatory damages sustained as the direct and proximate result of the nuisance alleged herein.
B. Trespass
75. Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation set forth in all preceding paragraphs as if fully restated here.
76. Defendants knew of the risks of collision and oil spill, and that the oil from such a spill would wash ashore and cause devastating damage to real property along the shores of Galveston Bay and Texas.
77. Defendants discharged a polluting substance beyond the boundary of the Plaintiffs’ property in such a manner that it was reasonably foreseeable that the pollutant would, in due course, invade the Plaintiffs’ property and cause harm.
77. By discharging pollutants, Defendants entered, invaded, and intruded on the properties of Plaintiffs.
78. Defendants had a duty to use reasonable care not to enter, intrude on, or invade the Plaintiffs’ properties. Defendants also owed a duty to the Property Plaintiffs to exercise reasonable care in the operation of the M/V MISS SUSAN and M/V SUMMER WIND.
79. Defendants breached the duties they owed to the Plaintiffs when they outrageously and maliciously, owing to gross negligence, willful, wanton and reckless indifference for the rights of others, which conduct resulted in the entry, intrusion, or invasion on the Plaintiffs’ properties.
80. The outrageous, malicious, rude, oppressive, grossly negligent, willful, reckless, and wanton conduct of Defendants, as described herein, entitles the Plaintiffs to compensatory and punitive damages.
81. The Plaintiffs have also suffered the migration of contaminants and noxious odors onto their properties as a result of the Spill.
82. These acts on the part of Defendants caused oil from the Spill to come ashore in Galveston Bay and Texas. This deliberate invasion and contamination of the property owned by the Plaintiffs constitutes a trespass in violation of Texas law.
83. As a direct and proximate result of their unauthorized invasion, entry and contamination Defendants have caused and continue to cause the Plaintiffs real and personal property damage, economic and business loss, loss of income, loss of value of their property, inconvenience and out-of-pocket expenses, and the creation of conditions that are harmful to human health and the environment, for which Defendants are liable in damages.
IV. Declaratory Relief: Punitive
84. The Plaintiffs, the proposed Class and Subclasses, society, and the Galveston Bay community have a legitimate and legally protected interest, additional to and independent of the interest or entitlement to compensation, in punishment and deterrence of reprehensible and harmful conduct, and in imposing full and effective punishment and deterrence of such conduct. Punitive damages do not compensate for injury. They are private fines, authorized by the General Maritime Law (and/or state law), to punish reprehensible conduct and deter its future occurrence. Punitive damages are specifically designed to exact punishment, in excess of actual harm, to make clear that the defendants’ misconduct is especially reprehensible, to embody social outrage and moral condemnation of such misconduct, and to assure that it is not repeated. Accordingly, plaintiffs seek a judicial declaration against Defendants and in favor of the class that any settlement provisions that purport, directly or indirectly, to release or to affect the calculation of punitive damages without a judicial determination of fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness are ineffective as contrary to law, equity and public policy .
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the Class and/or Subclass Members demand judgment against Defendants, jointly, severally, and solidarily, as follows:
(a) Economic and compensatory damages in amounts to be determined at trial; (b) punitive damages;
(c) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowable by law; (d) attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation;
(f) An order certifying the Class and/or Subclasses as set forth herein under the appropriate provisions of F.R.C.P. 23, appointing Plaintiffs as Class and/or Subclass Representatives, and appointing undersigned counsel as counsel for the Class and/or Subclasses for the purpose of determining the quantum or ratio of punitive damages to be assessed against each of the Defendants, to be paid ratably to Class and/or Subclass members who recover, through claims processes or litigation, actual damages and/or otherwise equitably utilized in accord with the societal purposes of punitive damages; and
(g) Such other and further relief available under all applicable state and federal laws and any relief the Court deems just and appropriate.
JURY DEMAND
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38 (b), Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury. DATED: March 24, 2014
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Sean O’Rourke
Sean E. O’Rourke (Tx. Bar # 24046547) Southern District Id. No. 685220
SIMON-O’ROURKE LAW FIRM, P.C. 11550 Fuqua, Ste. 360
Houston, Texas 77034 Phone: 281-667-4081 Fax: 281-823-7482
E-Mail: sorourke@solawpc.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
