January 25, 2020

January 24, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 23, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 22, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Third Time Is the Charm for Refinery in Getting Claims Dismissed With Prejudice

In a case that tested a federal judge’s patience for inadequate pleadings, a Michigan federal court shut down a group of business owners’ repeated attempts to craft viable tort claims against an oil refinery in a semi-residential Detroit neighborhood.  See Mourad v. Marathon Petroleum Co. LP, No. 14-CV-14217, 2015 WL 5439738 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 15, 2015).

Plaintiffs were current or former business owners in the Oakwood Heights neighborhood in Detroit.  Defendant operates an oil refinery that began processing tar sands in 2012 after an expansion project at the facility.  Defendant initiated a buyout program for local homeowners, but not for businesses, through which Defendant acquired 277 of 294 residential properties in the neighborhood.  With such a significant portion of the neighborhood’s residents gone, Plaintiffs’ businesses suffered.  

Plaintiffs brought suit in 2014.  The original and first amended complaints were both dismissed in earlier proceedings without prejudice.  The second amended complaint, which was at issue here, contained two counts: tortious interference with business relationships or expectancy and nuisance. 

In their tortious interference claim, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant, through its residential buyout program, sought to reduce future liability for environmental contamination by seeking to intentionally drive out neighborhood businesses and reduce property values so Defendant could later acquire real estate at a discount.  The Court dismissed this claim, finding that Plaintiffs had failed to allege Defendant acted with an improper motive.

In their nuisance claim, Plaintiffs alleged the refinery expansion caused increased air emissions.  The Court found, however, that Plaintiffs’ “bare bones allegations” failed to allege any facts explaining how the emissions substantially interfered with the use and enjoyment of their properties or how the interference was unreasonable in light of the refinery’s utility.  Plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint, but the Court declined, noting “Plaintiffs have benefitted from the opportunity to amend their pleading twice previously,” and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.  Id. at *20.

© 2020 Beveridge & Diamond PC

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Sarah A. Kettenmann, Beveridge Diamond, general environmental litigation lawyer, regulatory practice attorney
Associate

Sarah Kettenmann maintains a general environmental litigation and regulatory practice. Prior to joining the Firm, Sarah served as a judicial clerk for Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers in the Supreme Court of Connecticut.

During her time at Pace Law School, Sarah  served as a judicial extern for Judge Laura Taylor Swain in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.), and  interned in the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, S.D.N.Y., and in the King’s County District Attorney’s Office.  She also served as an...

(212) 702-5425
Daniel M. Krainin, Environmental Attorney, Beveridge Diamond Law Firm
Principal

Daniel M. Krainin is a Principal in the New York office of Beveridge & Diamond, P.C.  He was named to the 2011 and 2012 Super Lawyers list for the New York Metropolitan area, holds an AV Preeminent Peer Review Rating from Martindale-Hubbell, and serves as a Vice Chair of the ABA Environment Section's Environmental Litigation and Toxic Torts Committee.

212-702 5417
Graham C. Zorn, Environmental Law Attorney, Beveridge Diamond Law Firm
Associate

Graham C. Zorn is an Associate in the Washington, D.C. office of Beveridge & Diamond, P.C., with a general litigation, regulatory, and environmental practice.  Graham has represented individual businesses, trade associations, and municipalities in compliance, enforcement, and counseling matters involving the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, CERCLA and other state and federal statutes.  He has worked extensively on a series of complex products liability and toxic tort cases related to alleged groundwater contamination involving a gasoline additive.  Graham has also counseled domestic...

202-789-6024