Case 1:14-cv-00217 Document 1-6 Filed 05/06/14 Page 1 of 2 ...104) Class Plaintiffs have further...

CIVIL COVER SHEET

(SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b)(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

(c) (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)

PTF DEF PTF DEF(U.S. Government Not a Party) or

and(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY

PROPERTY RIGHTS

LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY PERSONAL PROPERTY

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS FEDERAL TAX SUITSHabeas Corpus:

IMMIGRATIONOther:

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

(specify)

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION(Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity)

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:

CLASS ACTION DEMAND $JURY DEMAND:

VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY (See instructions):

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

CARA BARBER, MELISSA JONES, MELISSA STREETER AND KATIEECKROTH, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,

See attachment

OHANA MILITARY COMMUNITIES, LLC, FOREST CITYRESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, INC.; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10,

See attachment

28 U.S.C. 1332(d)

Class Action Fairness Act

05/06/2014 /s/ Christine A. Terada

Case 1:14-cv-00217 Document 1-6 Filed 05/06/14 of 2 PageID #: 53

ATTORNEYS FOR CLASS PLAINTIFFS P. Kyle Smith, Esq. Lynch Hopper Salzano & Smith 970 N. Kalaheo Ave., Suite A301 Kailua, HI 96734 Telephone: (808) 791-9555 and Terrance M. Revere, Esq. Malia R. Nickison-Beazley, Esq. Revere & Associates Pali Palms Plaza 970 N. Kalaheo Ave., Suite A301 Kailua, HI 96734 Telephone: (808) 791-9550

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS OHANA MILITARY COMMUNITIES, LLC and FOREST CITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, INC. GOODSILL ANDERSON QUINN & STIFEL LLPLISA WOODS MUNGER 3858-0 RANDALL C. WHATTOFF 9487-0 CHRISTINE A. TERADA 10004-0 First Hawaiian Center, Suite 1600 999 Bishop Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Telephone: (808) 547-5600

Case 1:14-cv-00217 Document 1-6 Filed 05/06/14 of 2 PageID #: 54

4769301.1

GOODSILL ANDERSON QUINN & STIFEL A LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP LLP

LISA WOODS MUNGER 3858-0 [email protected] RANDALL C. WHATTOFF 9487-0 [email protected] CHRISTINE A. TERADA 10004-0 [email protected] First Hawaiian Center, Suite 1600 999 Bishop Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Telephone: (808) 547-5600 Facsimile: (808) 547-5880

Attorneys for Defendants OHANA MILITARY COMMUNITIES, LLC, FOREST CITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, INC.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

CARA BARBER, MELISSA JONES, MELISSA STREETER AND KATIE ECKROTH, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,

Class Plaintiffs,

vs.

OHANA MILITARY COMMUNITIES, LLC, FOREST CITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, INC.; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10,

Defendants.

CV 14-217

DEFENDANTS OHANA MILITARY COMMUNITIES, LLC, AND FOREST CITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL; DECLARATION OF TINA JACOBS; DECLARATION OF GENEVIEVE BAUER; DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE A. TERADA; EXHIBITS A - B; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Case 1:14-cv-00217 Document 1 Filed 05/06/14 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 1

2

DEFENDANTS OHANA MILITARY COMMUNITIES, LLC AND FOREST CITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, INC.’S

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants Ohana Military

Communities, LLC and Forest City Residential Management, Inc. (collectively

“Ohana”) hereby petition the United States District Court for the District of

Hawaiʻi for removal of the above-captioned state court action, Civil No. 14-1-

0850-04 JHC, from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaiʻi,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, 1446 and 1453.

This case squarely meets the requirements for removal under the Class

Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), codified at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d) and

1453, because the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5 million

exclusive of interest and costs, a member of the class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a

state different from a defendant, and the number of all proposed plaintiff class

members in the aggregate is more than 100. Moreover, since less than one-third of

the putative class members are citizens of the state where the action was filed,

removal is non-discretionary.

I. STATUS OF PROCEEDINGS IN STATE COURT

1. On April 3, 2014, Plaintiffs Cara Barber, Melissa Jones,

Melissa Streeter, and Katie Eckroth (collectively “Plaintiffs”) commenced an


3

action in State Court by filing the above-entitled Class Action Complaint

(“Complaint”) in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii, Civil No.

14-1-0850-04-JHC (the “Action”). The Complaint alleges the following counts:

(1) Breach of Contract; (2) Tortious Breach of Contract; (3) Breach of Implied

Warranty of Habitability; (4) Violation of Hawai‘i Revised Statute Chapter 521 –

Landlord Tenant Code; (5) Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices; (6) Negligence;

(7) Negligent and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (8)

Fraud/Intentional Misrepresentation; (9) Negligent Misrepresentation; and (10)

Prima Facie Tort.

2. With the Complaint, Plaintiffs also included a Summons and a

Demand for Jury Trial. A true and correct copy of the Complaint, Summons, and

Demand for Jury Trial are attached hereto as Exhibit A. Terada Decl., ¶ 2.

Exhibit A constitutes all of the pleadings served upon Ohana Military

Communities, LLC and Forest City Residential Management, Inc. in this action,

and all of the documents in the State Court docket. Id. at ¶ 3.

3. Plaintiffs served the Complaint on Ohana Military

Communities, LLC and Forest City Residential Management, Inc. by serving CT

Corporation System, the registered agent for service of process, in Hawaiʻi on

April 16, 2014. Therefore, this Notice of Removal, filed on May 6, 2014, is timely

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1446(b) and 1453(b).


4

II. VENUE

4. Venue lies in the United States District Court for the District of

Hawaiʻi pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a) and 1446(a). This action was originally

brought in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaiʻi.

III. GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL

5. This is a civil action over which this Court has original

jurisdiction and in which Ohana may remove to this Court pursuant to CAFA.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2), 1332(d)(2)(A) and 1332(d)(5)(B), original

jurisdiction extends to class actions, such as the present one, in which (1) the

matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5 million, exclusive of interest

and costs; (2) any member of the class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a state different

from any defendant; and (3) the number all proposed plaintiff class members in the

aggregate is more than 100.

6. Once these three pre-requisites are met, CAFA requires the

Court to look at the citizenship of the putative class members. Where less than

one-third of the putative class members are citizens of the forum state, removal is

mandatory. 15 Moore’s Federal Practice - Civil § 102.26 (Online ed. 2014)

(“[W]hen one-third or fewer of the class members are citizens of the original forum

state, federal courts must exercise jurisdiction over the class action. CAFA does

not permit federal courts to decline to exercise jurisdiction in this situation.”)


5

(emphasis added, citation omitted). Where between one-third and two-thirds of the

putative class members are citizens of the forum state, and where all of the

“primary defendants” are citizens of the forum state, “[a] district court may, in the

interests of justice and looking at the totality of the circumstances, decline to

exercise jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(3). Finally, where greater than two-

thirds of the putative class members are citizens of the forum state, the Court is

generally required to decline jurisdiction under what is known as the “home state

controversy” and “local controversy” exceptions. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(4)(A)-(B).

7. Here, as discussed at length below, removal is mandatory

because the case clearly meets the jurisdictional pre-requisites and because less

than one-third of the putative class members are citizens of Hawai‘i. Moreover,

even if Plaintiffs could somehow show that more than one-third of the putative

class members are citizens of Hawai‘i, the interests of justice do not support

remand given the unique status of the putative class of military service members

and their families.

A. The Amount In Controversy Exceeds $5 Million

8. CAFA requires a $5 million jurisdictional minimum for class

action removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). The claims of the individual class

members are aggregated to determine whether the matter in controversy exceeds

this amount. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(6). Interest and costs are excluded, id., but


6

Courts do include punitive damages and attorneys’ fees, Richmond v. Allstate Ins.

Co., 897 F. Supp. 447, 449-50 (S.D. Cal. 1995). Where the complaint fails to

plead a specific amount of damages, the defendant seeking removal must establish

that it is “more likely than not” that the amount in controversy exceeds the

jurisdictional minimum. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404

(9th Cir. 1996).

9. It is clear that the amount placed in controversy by the

Complaint exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. By their Complaint, Plaintiffs

seek alleged damages for overpaid rent, future medical expenses and medical

monitoring for a proposed class consisting of “thousands of current and former

tenants.” Compl., ¶¶ 15, 47, 56, 68, 76, 86, 93, 104, 114, 125, 135. Plaintiffs also

request special, treble, consequential, exemplary and punitive damages, as well as

attorneys’ fees. Comp., ¶¶ 48-50, 57-61, 67-69, 74-77, 85-87, 92-96, 105-07, 116-

18, 127-29, 137-39; Prayer for Relief, ¶ 2, 3, 6.

10. Plaintiffs define the class as “All former and present persons

who have leased or resided in residential property from Ohana MC at Marine Corp

Base Hawaii in Kaneohe, Hawaii, from 2006 to the present.” Compl., ¶ 14. From

January 1, 2006 through March 31, 2014, there were approximately 6,400 military

service members (not including dependents) who lived at MCBH, Jacobs Decl., ¶

7, and there are 2,232 military service members (not including dependents)


7

currently living at MCBH, id. at ¶ 6. Therefore, there are at least 8,632 potential

class members (and likely significantly more once dependents are included).

11. A proposed class consisting of approximately 8,632 former and

current military service members (not including dependents), means that each

individual class member would only need a claim for $580 in order to meet the

jurisdictional minimum. Moreover, if each military member had only one

dependent living with them at MCBH, that would bring the number of potential

class members under Plaintiffs’ proposed definition to 17,264, which would only

require a claim for $290 per person to reach the jurisdictional minimum.

12. Accordingly, the broad scope of damages asserted in the

Complaint—which includes overpaid rent, future medical expenses and medical

monitoring—as well as Plaintiffs’ claim for attorneys’ fees, multiplied by each

potential member of the proposed class, clearly exceeds the jurisdictional

minimum of $5 million set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).

B. Minimal Diversity

13. The Complaint, on its face, satisfies the minimal diversity

requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), which requires that any member of the

plaintiff class be a citizen of a different state than any defendant.

14. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), Ohana Military

Communities, LLC is a citizen of the State of Hawaiʻi and the State of Ohio


8

because its Articles of Organization were filed in the State of Hawaiʻi and its

principal place of business is in the State of Ohio. Bauer Decl., ¶¶ 6-7. Forest City

Residential Management, Inc., is a citizen of the State of Ohio because it is a

corporation incorporated and with its principal place of business in the State of

Ohio. Id. at ¶¶ 8-9; 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).

15. The proposed class consists of “[a]ll former and present

persons” who lived on MCBH from 2006 to the present. Compl., ¶ 14. Although

the Complaint fails to assert the citizenship of the proposed class members, id. at

¶¶ 14-15, minimal diversity is demonstrated by the fact that many of the former

tenants are citizens of states other than Hawai‘i and Ohio—indeed, all 50 states are

represented in the forwarding addresses left by former tenants, Jacobs Decl., ¶ 8.

Therefore, the minimal diversity requirement is satisfied because there are

members of the plaintiff class who are citizens of states other than Hawaiʻi and

Ohio.

C. The Proposed Class Consists of More Than 100 Members

16. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5)(B) requires that the number of members

of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate be more than 100. Because the

Complaint alleges that the proposed plaintiff class “consists of thousands of current

and former tenants who lived on MCHB from 2006 to present,” 28 U.S.C. §

1332(d)(5)(B) is satisfied. Compl., ¶ 15.


9

D. Removal Is Mandatory Because Less Than One-Third of the Proposed Class Members Are Citizens of the State of Hawaiʻi

17. Where the requirements of CAFA are met, and where less than

one-third of the putative class members are citizens of the state where the action

was filed, removal is mandatory. See, e.g., Steinberg v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.,

418 F. Supp. 2d 215, 218 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction

over the present case, since less than one-third of the proposed class members are

citizens of the State of Hawaiʻi.

18. It is well settled that citizenship for purposes of diversity means

domicile rather than residence. See, e.g., Stifel v. Hopkins, 477 F.2d 1116, 1120

(6th Cir. 1973) (citing Gilbert v. David, 235 U.S. 561, 569 (1915)). “To acquire

domicile within a particular state, a person must be physically present in the state

and must have either the intention to make his home there indefinitely or the

absence of an intention to make his home elsewhere.” Id. (citing Gilbert, 235 U.S.

at 569-70). Residency alone is not sufficient to demonstrate intent to remain; only

domicile is determinative. Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th

Cir. 2001).

19. It is widely recognized that military service members do not

automatically establish a new domicile at the state in which they are stationed.

It makes eminent good sense to say as a matter of law that one who is in a place solely by virtue of superior force exerted by another should


10

not be held to have abandoned his former domicile . . . . The most obvious example is the serviceman. It has long been the rule that presence at his military station, without more, cannot make the station his domicile because a serviceman is subject to the orders of his superior officer. A corollary of this rule is that a serviceman who lives on the military base, even if his family is living on-base with him, cannot establish a domicile at the base.

Stifel, 477 F.2d at 1121-22 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). The presumption

is rebuttable only by a showing of “clear and unequivocal evidence” of intent to

make a home in the place of military service. See, e.g., Rosado-Marrero by

Rosado-Cancel v. Hospital San Pablo, 927 F. Supp. 576, 577 (D.P.R. 1996);

Volmer v. Volmer, 371 P.2d 70, 72 (Or. 1962) (“[T]he ordinary conduct of a person

residing in this state incident to a military assignment here does not constitute

sufficient evidence of the necessary domiciliary intent. To be relevant, conduct

must be probative of intent, and not merely an incident of living in a given place.”)

(Emphasis added).

20. Here, significantly less than one-third of MCBH’s former

tenants have evidenced an intent to stay in Hawaiʻi upon expiration of their orders.

Once a service member’s order expires, he or she moves out of base housing, such

as MCBH. Ohana maintains a business record of forwarding addresses for the

military service members when this occurs. Jacobs Decl., ¶¶ 4, 8. Of the

approximately 5,749 military members who leased units at MCBH between

January 1, 2006 and March 31, 2014 and provided forwarding addresses, only


11

1,131 of those individuals—19.67 percent—provided forwarding addresses located

in the State of Hawaiʻi upon move-out. Id. at ¶ 8. Therefore, at most only 19.67

percent, far less than one-third, of the military members who lived at MCBH

intended to establish a domicile in the State of Hawaiʻi.

21. Since forwarding addresses are only available for former

tenants, home phone numbers of current tenants may be evidence of whether they

intend to establish a permanent domicile in Hawaiʻi. Only 238 of the military

members currently leasing units at MCBH—11.53 percent—out of a total of 2,064

of those who provided home phone numbers when they moved into MCBH

obtained a Hawaiʻi number. Id. at ¶ 9-10.

22. Given the forwarding addresses of former tenants, as well as the

home phone numbers of current tenants, the evidence shows that more than two-

thirds of the military members stationed in Hawaiʻi, and their dependents, do not

consider Hawaiʻi their permanent home and cannot be considered citizens of the

state. Therefore, the Court has mandatory jurisdiction because the class action

meets the minimal diversity requirement and less than one-third of the proposed

class members are citizens of the State of Hawaiʻi.


12

E. Even if Removal Was Not Mandatory, the “Interests of Justice” Do Not Require Remand in This Case

23. However, even if the Court somehow finds that more than one-

third of the plaintiffs are Hawaiʻi citizens, this is not a case where the “interests of

justice” require remand.

24. First, to the extent that the one-third amount is exceeded, the

data on forwarding addresses and phone numbers suggests that it would be

minimal. In such an event, the Court should consider how often military members

and their dependents are stationed in different states or countries for only a few

years before moving to a new location. Military members and their families are a

highly mobile population, and the case law demonstrates that they cannot be

presumed to adopt a new citizenship each time they receive orders to relocate.

25. Second, the purpose of the Class Action Fairness Act is to

“expand[] federal jurisdiction over class actions and facilitate[] their removal.” In

re DirecTV Early Cancellation Litig., 738 F. Supp. 2d 1062, 1072 (C.D. Cal. 2010)

(emphasis added), rev’d on other grounds, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 23952 (9th Cir.

2013) (citation omitted); see also West Virginia ex rel. McGraw v. Comcast Corp.,

705 F. Supp. 2d 441, 449 (E.D. Pa. 2010) (“With … significant changes in place,

federal courts have jurisdiction over more class action suits than they did prior to

CAFA’s enactment, which was Congress’s intent.”).


13

26. Third, the nature of this dispute is uniquely federal. All of the

residences in questions are on land owned by the federal government; defendant

Ohana Military Communities, LLC is a public-private partnership between a

private entity and the federal government; the housing at issue is a product of a

unique federal statute known as the Military Housing Privatization Initiative; and

all of the purported class members are federal service members or their family

members. Given the numerous unique federal issues in this case, the federal court

is the appropriate forum to litigate it.

IV. NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTIES AND STATE COURT

27. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), a copy of this Notice shall be

promptly served on Plaintiffs’ counsel of record and will be filed with the Clerk of

the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaiʻi.

V. CONCLUSION

28. By removing this action to this Court, Ohana does not waive

any defenses, objections, or motions available under state or federal law. Ohana

expressly reserves the right to move for dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claim pursuant to

Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (and/or any other rule).

WHEREFORE, Ohana prays that the above-entitled action be

removed from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaiʻi, to the United

States District Court for the District of Hawaiʻi.


14

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, May 6, 2014.

/s/ Christine A. Terada LISA WOODS MUNGER RANDALL C. WHATTOFF CHRISTINE A. TERADA



4769301.1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

CARA BARBER, MELISSA JONES, MELISSA STREETER AND KATIE ECKROTH, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,

Class Plaintiffs,

vs.

OHANA MILITARY COMMUNITIES, LLC, FOREST CITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, INC.; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10,

Defendants.

CV 14-217

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, on the dates and by the methods of service noted

below, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on the following at their

last known addresses:

Served Electronically through CM/ECF P. Kyle Smith, Esq. [email protected] Terrance M. Revere, Esq. [email protected] Malia R. Nickison-Beazley, Esq. [email protected] Attorneys for Class Plaintiffs


2

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, May 6, 2014.

/s/ Christine A. Terada LISA WOODS MUNGER RANDALL C. WHATTOFF CHRISTINE A. TERADA



LYNCH HOPPER SALZANO &SMITHP. KYLE SMITH 9533970 N. Kalaheo Ave., Suite A301Kailua, HI 96734T: (808} 791-955

REVERE &ASSOCIATESTERRANCE M. REVERE 5857-0MALIA R. NICKISON-BEAZLEY9289-0Pali Palms Plaza970 N. Kalaheo Ave., Suite A301Kailua, HI 96734T: (808}791-9550

Atto~~neys for Class Plaintiffs

n ~-2 ~~:~~ _~ ~~~ ~~ ~9

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF HAWAII

CAR.A BARBER, MELISSA JONES,MELISSA STREETER AND KATIEECKROTH, On Behalf of Themselves andAll Others Similarly Situated,

Class Plaintiffs,

ss.

OHANA MILITARY COMMUNITIES,LLC, FOREST CITY RESIDENTIALMANAGEMENT, INC.; and DOEDefendants 1-10,

Defendants.

CIVIL NO. ~ 4 - T ` 0 8 5 .0 - r~ ~ ~ " := ~:.~(Other Non-Vehicle Tort)

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FORDAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL;SUMMONS

Case 1:14-cv-00217 Document 1-4 Filed 05/06/14 Page 1 of 26 PageID #: 26

EXHIBIT A

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned attorneys, allege the following allegations and claims

against Forest City ("Forest City"):

I.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1) This Court has jurisdiction and venue over the above Defendants under Hawaii Revised

Statutes § 634-35, because the causes of action arise as the result of Defendants' business

transactions within this state, Defendants' commission of alleged tortious acts and injuries

within this state, and the Defendants' and Plaintiffs' use and possession of real property

within this state. Defendants are subject to the jurisdiction of this Court because they reside

and conduct business in this Circuit.

2} Fw-ther, this Court has jurisdiction and venue under the terms of Defendants' lease

agreements with Plaintiffs, which agree that Lease and contractual relationship between the

parties will be construed exclusively in accordance with, and shall be exclusively governed

by the substantive laws of the State of Hawaii, including but not limited to Hawaii State

Revised Statutes, chapter 521, and the common law intezpreting those statutes.

3) This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under Hawaii Revised Statute §

603-21.5.

4) Venue is proper before this Court under Hawaii Revised Statute § 603-36.

2 Lynch Hopper Salzano &SmithRevere &Associates


II.

PARTIES

~) Plaintiffs are military families who have leased residential housing from Defendant Forest

City housing at Marine Corp Base Hawaii (MCBH) in Kaneohe, Oahu, after 2006 from

Defendants.

6) Cara Barber is the spouse of a military service member and former tenant of Ohana

Military Communities, Kaneohe; Hawaii, from approximately August 2006 to November

2008, and August 2009 to Apri12011.

7) Melissa Jones is the spouse of a military service member and current tenant of Ohana

Military Communities, Kaneohe, Hawaii, from approximately July 2010 to present.

8) Melissa Streeter is the spouse of a military service member and fornzer tenant of Ohana

Military Communities, Kaneohe, Hawaii, from approximately Jtu-le ?009 to August 2011.

9) Katie Eckroth is the spouse of a military service member and current tenant of Ohana

Military Communities, Kaneohe, Hawaii, from approximately August 2009 to present.

10) Upon information and belief, Defendant Ghana Military Communities, LCC ("Ghana

MC") is and has been at all relevant times a Hawaii corporation, having its principal place

of business in the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii.

11 } Upon information and belief, Defendant Forest City Residential Management, Inc.,

("Forest City RM") is and has been at all relevant times a foreign corporation doing

business in Hawaii and having its principal place of business in Cleveland, Ohio.

12) Plaintiff has reviewed records that were made available to them in order to ascertain the

true and full names and identities of all defendants in this action, but no fizrther knowledge

or information regarding the parties responsible is available at this time and Plaintiff is



unable to ascertain the identity of the defendants in this action designated as DOE

DEFENDANTS 1-10 ('`Doe Defendants"). Doe Defendants are sued herein under fictitious

names for the reason that their true names and identities are unknown to Plaintiff except

that they may be connected in some manner with Defendants and may be agents, attorneys,

servants, employees, employers, representatives, co-venturers, co-conspirators, associates,

or independent contractors of Defendants and/or were in some manner responsible for the

injuries or damages to Plaintiff and their true names, identities, capacities, activities and

responsibilities are presently unknown to Plaintiff or their attorneys.

IV.

CLASS ALLEGATION

13) A class action is alleged pursuant to Hawaii Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

14) Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons ("Class") that includes:

All former and present persons who have leased or resided in residentialproperfy from Ohana MC at Marine Corp Base Hawaii in Kaneohe, Hawaii,from 2006 to the present.

15) The Class consists of thousands of current and former tenants who lived on MCBH from

?006 to the present. The Class is thezefore so numerous that joinder of all individual

plaintiffs would be impractical.

16) The Class involves questions of la~~ and fact common to al] individual members of the

Class, suc11 as ~vhetller Defendants knowingly exposed military families to toxic pesticides

and other toxins without their knowledge or consent.

17) The claims and damages sought by the Class are typical of the claims and relief that could

be sought by individual members of the class. Specifically, all members have suffered

similar injury and damages as a result of Defendants' failure to provide safe and healthy

4. Lynch Hopper Salzano &SmithRevere &Associates


living conditions and the claims and defenses of the Class arise front the same conduct by

Defendants and a1•e based on the same legal theories.

18) Plaintiffs will adequately and fairly represent the interests of individual members of the

proposed Class in that they are similarly situated persons who lived on MCBH and who

~~-ere subjected to unsafe living conditions w°ithaut disclosure by- Defendants.

19) Finally, prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class would create a

risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the

Class, which ~~~ould establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the

Class. Accordingly, a class action under Rule 23 of the Hawaii. Rules of Civil Procedure is

in the best interests of judicial economy.

II.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

20) In 1996, under the provisions of the Military Housing Privatization Initiative, the United

States Congress authorized legislation to privatize military housing whereby private

companies were allowed to own and manage housing on military bases.

21) Thereafter, Ghana Military Communities, LLC ("Ghana MC") was created to renovate and

construct new housing at Marine Corp Base Hawaii ("MCBH")

22) Forest City Residential Management, Inc. ("Forest City RM"), acts as Ghana MC's agent

for the Lease of residential housing to military families on MCBH during all relevant times.

23) After Defendants took control of military housing at MCBH in approximately 2006,

Defendants have entered several thousand leases with military families for residential

housing at MCBH.



24) Plaintiffs and the Class are present and former tenants who have leased residential housing

at MCBH after 2006 from Ohana MC.

25} Under the terms of their leases, Ohana MC and tenants agree:

a. Military families will pay monthly rent equal to their Basic Allowance for Military

Housing (``BAH"); I

b. Ohana MC will provide safe and habitable housing;2 and

c. To mediate any disputes or claim between them arising out of this Lease.3

26} After assuming confrol of MCBH residential housing, Ohana MC began to lease newly and

previously constructed residential housing to military families in 2006. Upon information

and belief, the older residential housing contained asbestos, lead-based paint, extensive

mold infestation, etc. During this time Ohana MC began demolishing portions of the older

residential housing to build new residential units for future lease.

27) Before taking control of MCBH housing, Defendants were warned by the contractor

previously hired by the Department of the Navy to carry out demolition and construction

of military housing that MCBH soils were contaminated with pesticides including

chlordane, heptachlor, and heptachlor epoxide, and that all contaminated topsoil should be

removed in addition to other measures.4

S`ee, e.g. Ohana MC Lease Agreement at 2, ~(3 ("Resident agrees to pay monthly Rent equal to the BasicAllowance for Military Housing at the ̀ with dependent' rate (the ̀ BAH') at the Resident's duty station of

the pay grade of the Resident service member."). Note that assignment to privatized housing is voluntary.

In other words, service members have the ability to use their BAH as they see fit; i.e. rent in the civilian

market or purchase real estate in the civilian market.

'' Id. at 5, X12 ("Owner is responsible ... for ensuring that the Premises are safe and habitable.")

(emphasis added).

3 Id. at 10, X34.

4 Chlordane was baru~ed by the EPA in 1988 and is classified as a Group B2 carcinogen by the EPA.

Similarly, heptachlor was banned by the EPA in 1974 and is listed as a Group B2 carcinogen.



28) Thus, before taking over MCBH residential housing, Defendants were aware that

chlordane levels were many times higher than the EPA's Tier 1 environmental action

levels ("EAL") and that chemical contamination at MCBH housing presented increased

health risks for military families at MCBH.

29) Despite these warnings, Defendants did not disclose the presence of pesticide-

contaminated soils to military families before leasing housing to them at MCBH.

30) Instead, after learning of the presence of pesticide-contaminated soils, Ohana MC

investigated and confirmed the presence of pesticide contamination at MCBH.

31} Because of positive test results within several MCBH neighborhoods, Ohana MC

concluded that all neighborhoods should be assumed to contain pesticide impacted soils

beneath all existing foundations and surrounding perimeters.

32} Thus, in spite of specific knowledge of chemical contamination of MCBH residential

housing, Defendants took over existing leases and entered new leases with military

families without disclosure to these families that pesticide-contaminated soils had been

found and confirmed at MCBH.

33) Upon information and belief, in addition to heptachlor; chlordane, and heptachlor epoxide

levels in excess of EPA Tier 1 and Tier 2 levels EAL levels, Defendants are also aware of

chemical contamination for aldrin, dieldrin, and endrin at MCBH in excess of

recommended limits, but likewise failed to provide any notice of dangers associated with

these risks to military families.

34) After learning of the presence of pesticide-contaminated soils at MCBH, Defendants

created a Pesticide Soils Management Plan (the "Plan"} with input from the Hawaii

Department of Health (HDOH}.



35) Within the Plan, Defendants decided to allow soil contamination levels above the Tier 1

EALs based on the underlying assumption that military families would not live at MCBH

longer than 6 years (i.e. two 3-year tours of duty at MCBH). Further, the Plan:

a. Confirmed the presence ofpesticide-contaminated soils at MCBH;

b. Assumed all neighborhoods contained pesticide-contaminated soils beneath all

existing home foundations and surrounding perimeters;

c. Recommended specific remediation practices to address pesticide contaminated soils

such as confirming that "no visible dust" should occur during demolition and

construction because of the danger of pesticide-contaminated soils;

d. Claimed that detailed maps would be kept and made available to the Department of

the Navy, MCBH property. management, and the HDOH detailing where pesticide-

contaminated soils had been found and addressed; and

e. Confirmed that written notification would be provided to residents anywhere they

may contact pesticide-contaminated soils.

36) Defendants, however, did not inform military families of the Plan nor did Defendants tell

military families that Defendants had agreed to accept pesticide-contaminated soils above

the Tier 1 EAL at MCBH. Defendants also failed to follow their own Plan. For example:

a. Rather than notifying residents that they may come in contact with pesticide-

contaminated soils, Defendants' Residential Community Handbook for Marine Corp

Neighborhoods ("Community Handbook") —which was provided to residents after

they entered leases with Defendants —only contained anon-specific reference that

chlordane and other pesticides "may be found" throughout the United States rather

than acknowledging pesticide-contaminated soils had been confirmed at MCBH:



Chlordane was one of the most common pesticides applied to the soil a~~ound

homes and bz~sinesses throughout the United States for protectiofZ against

termites from 1948 to 1988. Other pesticides used in and around housing to

prevent insect infestation and disease outbreak have also been banned.

Althozrgh chlordane and othe~~ pesticides are no longer ztsed, they may be

found in soils under and around housing constYztcted in both civilian and

military communities. Families can safely woj~k and play in theit~ yards;

howevea~, we recommend residents use pYudent pYactices by thoroughly

washing theiY hands after diYect soil contact and washing all plants and

vegetables g~~own on-site before consuming.5

37) Despite the provisions of the Soil Management Plan, substantial fugitive dust occurred at

MCBH throughout the demolition of old housing and the construction of new housing.

38) Further, when military families complained about excessive dust, Defendants never

disclosed that pesticide-contaminated soils had been confirmed at MCBH. Instead,

Defendants told military families tkere was no danger.

39) Since at least 2006, Defendants have therefore failed to warn military fanulies of pesticide-

contaminated soils at MCBH and knowingly and intentionally exposed military families at

MCBH to higher rates of cancer and other adverse health outcomes without disclosing

these risks to military families or taking sufficient steps to protect military families from

such chemical contamination.

40) After military families discovered Defendants' failure to disclose the presence of pesticide-

contaminated soils, residents asked L}efendants to confirm what steps had been taken to

address pesticide-contaminated soils at their homes and also asked for Defendants to

mediate with them to address their concerns about pesticide-contaminated soils at MCBH.

41) Defendants, however, refused to mediate with residents despite the plain language of their

lease agreements with the Class to address these issues.

5 Forest City Residential Community Handbook Marine Corp Neighborhoods, at 14.



FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

{Breach of Contract)

42) Class Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate the above paragraphs herein.

43) Valid contracts ~~ere entered between Class Plaintiffs and Defendants for the lease of

residential housing on MCBH.

44} Under the terms of their lease contracts, Class Plaintiffs agreed to pay rent in exchange for

safe and healthy residential housing and that the parties' respective lease obligations and

responsibilities will be construed exclusively under the substantive laws of the State of

Hawaii, including but not limited to, Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 521 and the

common law interpreting those statutes.

45) Under the terms of their leases and Hawaii law, Defendants have breached their agreement

to provide safe and healthy residential housing.

46) Specifically, Defendants have failed to:

a. Disclose the presence ofpesticide-contaminated soils at MCBH;

b. Provide safe and healthy housing;

c. Fully implement their Pesticide Soii Management Plan; and

d. Mediate residents' concerns as required under the terms of Plaintiffs' leases.

47) Class Plaintiffs have sustained damages as a result of this breach, which includes the

overpayment of rent, future medical expenses, and medical monitoring of their health and

the health of their family members for Defendants' breach of contract.

48) Because of Defendants' breach of contract, it has been necessary for Class members to

incur expenses and other special damages in an amount to be proven at trial.



49) Under the terms of (heir Tease, Class Plaintiffs are entitled as the prevailing party to

reasonable attorneys' fees and costs required to pursue this action.

50) As a proximate and legal result of Defendants' breach of contract, Class members have

been compelled to resort to litigation and therefore request an award of all consequential

damages, including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees and costs incurred in such litigation,

in amounts to be proven at time of trial.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Tortious Breach of Contract)


52) Valid contracts exist between Class P1aizltiffs and Defendants for the lease of residential

housing on MCBH.

53) Under the terms of their lease contracts, Class Plaintiffs agreed to pay rent in exchange for

safe and healthy residential housing and that the parties' respective lease obligations and

responsibilities will be construed exclusively under the substantive laws of the State of

Hawaii, including but not limited to, Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 521 and the

common law interpreting those statutes.

54) Under the terms of their leases and Hawaii law; Defendants tortiously breached their

agreement to provide safe and healthy residential housing.

55) Specifically, Defendants intentionally and knowingly exposed Plaintiffs and their families

to increased health risks for cancer and other adverse health outcomes without their

knowledge and against their will despite specific and express warnings by the Department

of Health for the State of Hawaii and other persons.



56) Plaintiffs have sustained damages as a result of Defendants' tortious breach, which

includes the overpayment of rent and future medical expenses and medical monitoring of

their health and the health of their family members.

57} Because of Defendants' tortious breach of contract, it has been necessary for Class

members to incur expenses and other special damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

58) Defendants' conduct was undertaken with reckless disregard for the foreseeable

consequences to Plaintiffs.

59) Defendants' conduct therefore justifies an award of exemplary or punitive damages in an

amount to be proven at the trial of this matter.

60) Under the terms of their lease, Class Plaintiffs are entitled as the prevailing party to

reasonable attorneys' fees and costs required to pursue this action.



damages, including; but not limited to, attonleys' fees and costs incurred in such litigation,


THIRD CLAIM FAR RELIEF

(Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability)


63) Defendants owe a duty to Class Plaintiffs to provide safe and healthy residential housing

for military families.

64) Under the terms of their lease contracts, Class Plaintiffs agreed to pay rent in exchange for

safe and healthy residential housing.

65) Defendants breached. their duty to provide safe and healthy residential housing.



66) Specifically, Defendants exposed Class Plaintiffs and their families to increased health

risks for cancer and other adverse health outcomes without their knowledge and against

their will.

67} Because of Defendants' breach of the implied warranty of habitability; it has been

necessary for Class members to incur expenses and other special damages in an amount to

be proven at trial.

68) Plaintiffs have sustained damages as a result of Defendants' breach, which includes the

overpayment of rent and future medical expenses and medical monitoring of their health

and the health of their family members.



damages, including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees and costs incurred in such litigation;


FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Violation of Hawaii Revised Statute Chapter 521 —Landlord Tenant Code)


71) Hawaii Revised Statute §521-10 imposes upon landlords an obligation of good faith in the

performance of their obligations under the lease.

72) Hawaii Revised Statute §521-42(a)(1) obligates Defendants to supply housing that

complies with all applicable building and housing laws materially affecting health and

safety.

73) Despite their obligation to provide healthy and -safe housing to military families,

Defendants intentionally and knowingly exposed Class Plaintiffs and their families to



increased health risks for cancer and other adverse health outcomes without their

knowledge and against their will in addition to knowing violation of Defendants' own

Pesticide Soils Management Plan.

74) Defendants have therefore violated the Hawaii Landlord Tenant Code and Plaintiffs are

entitled to all rights and remedies afforded tenants under Chapter 521, which incudes their

reasonable attorneys fees and costs.

75) Because of Defendants' violation of Chapter 521 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, it has

been necessary for Class members to incur expenses and other special damages in an

amount to be proven at trial.




77) As a proximate and legal result of Defendants' breach of contract; Class members have




FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Unfair &Deceptive Trade Practices)


79) "[U]nfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are

unlawful."6

6 HaW. REV. STAT. §480-2.

1~ Lynch Hopper Salzano &SmithRevere &Associates


80) Class Plaintiffs are "consumers" under Hawaii Revised Statute 480-1 who have personally

invested their resources to lease military housing from Defendants. ~

81) Leasing residential housing at MCBH after the presence of pesticide-contaminated soils

are confirmed at MCBH without disclosing this fact to potential tenants constitutes an

unfair and deceptive act and practice in the conduct of trade and commerce that had the

tendency to mislead potential tenants.

82) To entice military families to enter leases ~~ith Defendants at MCBH, Defendants did not

disclose that pesticide-contaminated soils had been confirmed at MCBH and that

Defendants had decided to accept pesticide-contaminated soils at MCBH above the Tier 1

EAL.

83) Further, after entering leases with Class Plaintiffs, Defendants asserted it is safe for

families to work and play in their yards although they now admit that children and pets

should not be allowed to play in the yards near old house foundations and that families

should not grow fruits or vegetables in the yards near old house foundations.

84) These unfair and deceptive trade practices had a tendency to mislead Class Plaintiffs into

leasing housing at MCBH.

85) Because of Defendants' unfair and deceptive trade practices, it has been necessary for

Class Plaintiffs to incur expenses and other special damages in an amount to be proven at

trial.

86) Plaintiffs have sustained damages as a result of Defendants' breach; which includes the



' Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-1.



87) As a proximate and legal result of Defendants' unfair and deceptive trade practices, Class

members have been compelled to resort to litigation and therefore request an award of all

consequential damages, including; but not limited to, attorneys' fees and costs incurred in

such litigation, in amounts to be proven at time of trial.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Negligence)

88} Class Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate the above paragraphs herein.

89) Defendants have an obligation to provide safe and health housing for residents and a duty

to warn residents of risks.

90} Despite actual knowledge of the presence of pesticide-contaminated soils at MCBH and

related health risks, Defendants provided no warning to military families and instead

intentionally and knowingly exposed Plaintiffs and their families to increased health risks

for cancer and other adverse health outcomes without their knowledge and against their

will in addition to knowing violation of Defendants' own Pesticide Soils Management Plan.

91) Defendants have therefore breached their duties to military families at MCBH and

Plaintiffs are entitled to all rights and remedies, which incudes their reasonable attorneys

fees and costs.

92) Because of Defendants' negligence, it has been necessary for Class members to incur

expenses and other special damages in an amount to be proven at trial.




1C Lynch Hopper Salzano &SmithRevere &Associates


94} Defendants' conduct was undertaken with reckless disregard for the foreseeable

consequences to Plaintiffs.

95) Defendants' conduct therefore justifies an award of exemplary or punitive damages in an

amount to be proven at the trial of this matter.

96) As a proximate and legal result of Defendants' negligence, Class members have been

compelled to resort to litigation and therefore request an award of all consequential



SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Negligent &Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)


98) After Class Plaintiffs discovered Defendants failure to disclose the presence of pesticide-

contaminated soils in 2013, Class Plaintiffs asked to mediate with MCBH in order to

confirm whether pesticide contaminated soils had been remediated.

99) Rather than provide confirmation where pesticide contaminated soils had been found and

specifically addressed, however, Defendants have repeatedly failed to provide evidence of

what steps were taken.

100) Although Defendants historically told residents that it was safe to work and play in their

yards, Defendants now recommend that pets and children not be allowed to play in the

yard near the foundation of the original homes...that are unmarked.

101) And when residents have asked for maps and other information that is supposed to be

available to confirm their homes are safe, Defendants have been neither willing nor able to

make such inforrnatian available.



102) Class Plaintiffs are also now aware that despite actual knowledge of the presence of

pesticide-contaminated soils at MCBH; Defendants provided no warning to military

families and intentionally and knowinbly exposed Class Plaintiffs and their families to

increased health risks for cancer and other adverse health outcomes without their

knowledge and against their will.

103) Defendants' intentional negligent and/or reckless conduct, acts, and omissions have caused

emotional distress by causing fear in the community of exposure to harmful pesticides.

104) Class Plaintiffs have further sustained damages as a result of Defendants' conduct and

missions, which includes the overpayment of rent and future medical expenses and medical

monitoring of their health and the health of their family members.

105) Class Plaintiffs are entitled to all rights and remedies, which incudes their reasonable

attorneys fees and costs.

106) Because of Defendants' conduct and omissions, it has been necessary for Class members

to incur expenses and other special damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

107) As a proximate and legal result of Defendants' acts and omissions; Class members have




EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Fraud/Intentional Misrepresentation)

108} Class Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate the above paragraphs herein.

109) Defendants have expressly represented that the housing they provide is safe and habitable


1~ Lynch Hopper Salzano &SmithRevere &Associates


110) Despite these representations; Defendants intentionally and knowingly omitted telling

military families that living at MCBH would result in exposure to elevated risks for cancer

and other adverse health outcomes.

111) Despite these representations; Defendants intentionally and knowingly omitted telling

military families that Defendants had decided it was acceptable to expose military families

to pesticide contamination in excess of Tier 1 EALs.

112) Despite these representations, Defendants now acknowledge that children and pets should

not be allowed to play in their yards and that families should not grow fruits oz vegetables

in their yards if near the foundation of the pre-existing housing...that has never been

disclosed.

113) Defendants have therefore committed fraud against military families by claiming

Defendants would provide safe housing while omitting that pesticide-contaminated soils

had been confirmed at MCBH and that these soils posed increased health risks for military

families.

114) Class Plaintiffs have sustained damages as a result of Defendants' fraudulent acts and

omissions, which includes the overpayment of rent and future medical expenses and

medical monitoring of their health and the health of their family members.

115) Defendants' fraudulent conduct was undertaken with reckless disregard for the foreseeable

consequences to Class Plaintiffs.

116) Defendants' fraudulent acts and omissions therefore justify an award of exemplary or

punitive damages in an amount to be proven at the trial of this matter.

117) Because of Defendants' fraudulent acts and omissions, it has been necessary for Class

members to incur expenses and other special damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

14 Lynch Hopper Saizano &SmithRevere &Associates


118) Class Plaintiffs are entitled as the prevailing party to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs

required to pursue this action.

NINTH CLAIIVI FOR RELIEF

(Negligent Misrepresentation)




121) Despite these representations, Defendants negligently failed to inform military families

that living at MCBH w~~ould result in exposure to elevated risks for cancer and other

adverse health outcomes.

122) Despite these representations, Defendants intentionally and knowingly omitted telling

military families that Defendants had decided it was acceptable to expose military families

to pesticide contamination in excess of Tier 1 EALs.

123) Despite these representations, Defendants now acknowledge that children and pets should

not be allowed to play in their yards if near the foundation of the pre-existing

housing...that has never been disclosed.

124} Defendants' claim they would provide safe housing while omitting that pesticide-

contaminated soils had been confirmed at MCBH and that these soils posed increased

health risks for military families constitutes a negligent misrepresentation to Class

Plaintiffs.

125) Class Plaintiffs have sustained damages as a result of Defendants' negligent acts and





126) Defendants' conduct was undertaken with negligent or reckless disregard for the

foreseeable consequences to Class Plaintiffs.

127) Defendants' grossly negligent and/or reckless acts and omissions justify an award of

exemplary or punitive damages in an amount to be proven at the trial of this matter.

128) Because of Defendants' acts and omissions, it has been necessary for Class members to




TENTH CLAIM F4R RELIEF

(Prima Facie Tort)




132) Despite these representations, Defendants intentionally failed to inform military families

that living at MCBH would result in exposure to elevated risks for cancer and other

adverse health outcomes; and decided without input from military families that it was

acceptable to expose military families to pesticide contamination in excess of Tier 1 EALs.

133) Defendants knew that failing to inform military families would cause expose Class

Plaintiffs to increased health risks for themselves and their families.

134) Defendants' claim they would provide safe housing while omitting that pesticide-

contaminated soils had been confirmed at MCBH and that these soils posed increased

health risks for military families constitutes a prima facie tart.



135) Class Plaintiffs have sustained damages as a result of Defendants' tortious conduct and



136) Defendants' conduct was undertaken with intentional, gross negligence, and/or reckless

disregard for the foreseeable consequences to Class Plaintiffs.

137) Defendants' intentional, grossly negligent, and/or reckless acts and omissions therefore

justify an award of exemplary or punitive damages in an amount to be proven at the trial of

this matter.

13$) Because of Defendants' acts and omissions, it has been necessary for Class members to




WHEREFORE, Class Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants and in favor of the

Plaintiffs as follows:

1. Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to require Defendants to:

a. Investigate the actual risks to military families at MCBH posed by the known

chemical contamination of residential housing;

b. Give warning to all past and present tenants at MCBH of the health risks they

have been exposed to by Defendants; and

c. Enjoin Defendants' lease of any new residential property until Defendants

demonstrate that chemical contamination levels are below accepted action levels

for all homes;

z 2 Lynch Hopper Salzano &SmithRevere &Associates


2. General, special, treble, and consequential damages in an amount to be proven at trial;

3. Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs;

4. Disgorgement of profits;

~. Any prejudgment interest provided by statute;

6. Punitive damages for Defendants' wanton, reckless, and grossly negligent conduct;

7. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

DATED: Kailua, Hawaii; this 3rd day of Apri12014

P. KYL SMITHTERR~NCE M. REVEREMALIA R. NICKISON-BEAZLEY

Atto~•neys for Class Plaintiffs



Case 1:14-cv-00217 Document 1-6 Filed 05/06/14 Page 1 of 2 ...104) Class Plaintiffs have further...

Documents

Transcript of Case 1:14-cv-00217 Document 1-6 Filed 05/06/14 Page 1 of 2 ...104) Class Plaintiffs have further...