Case Type: Tort

STATE OF MINNESOTA

DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF TODD

SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

TRAVIS WINTER, AIMEE GOODWIN,

COREY GOODWIN, JOEL WALSH,
AMY WALSH, KATRINA DOWNES,
RUSSELL ANDERSON, FRAN
RECHTZIGEL, and GREG
RECHTZIGEL,
Plaintiffs,

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Jury Trial Demanded

v.
GOURLEY PREMIUM PORK, L.L.C.,
d/b/a GOURLEY BROTHERS and
GOURLEY BROS. PREMIUM PORK;
and
PROTEIN SOURCES, LLP and PROTEIN
SOURECS MILLING, LLC;
and
JOHN DOE,
Defendants.

COMPLAINT
COME NOW the Plaintiffs, through their Counsel, and allege the following against the
Defendants Gourley Premium Pork, L.L.C., d/b/a Gourley Brothers and/or Gourley Bros.
Premium Pork (Gourley Premium Pork); Protein Sources, LLP and Protein Sources Milling,
LLC (Protein Sources); and John Doe.

NATURE OF THE CASE

1.

This is a private temporary nuisance action brought by residents of central

Minnesota on their own behalf against the Defendants.

The Defendants individually and

together own hogs, raise hogs, and/or manage hogs at a confined animal feeding operation
(CAFO) that they own and/or manage in close proximity to the Plaintiffs homes or other
properties.
2.

The operation, known as Gourley Premium Pork, L.L.C., is a CAFO located in

Todd County, Minnesota, which houses approximately 4,000 hogs at any given time. The land
that the Gourley facility now occupies was previously open cropland. Construction began on the
facility in 2012, and it became operational in July, 2013.
3.

Noxious odors emanating from the Gourley facilities have offended the Plaintiffs

senses, impaired the Plaintiffs ability to use and enjoy their properties, and caused substantial
damage to the Plaintiffs quality of life.
4.

The method of manure disposal at the Gourley facility includes holding the

manure and urine (manure) in a pit on site, and then land applying the manure to neighboring
fields. The horrendous manure management practices at the Gourley facility cause and create
offensive and invasive odors and other emissions that have disrupted and substantially interfered
with the Plaintiffs lives and the use and quiet enjoyment of their homes and properties.
THE PARTIES
5.

Plaintiffs Aimee Goodwin, Corey Goodwin, Joel Walsh, Amy Walsh, Travis

Winter, Katrina Downes, Russell Anderson, Fran Rechtzigel, and Greg Rechtzigel are all current

or former residents of Todd County, Minnesota who reside(d) and/or own property in close
proximity to the Defendants Minnesota hog facility.
6.

Plaintiffs Russell Anderson and Katrina Downes live at 12142 County Road 65,

Carlos, Minnesota. Russell has resided on the property since 1972. Katrina has lived on the
property since 2012. Russell and Katrinas home borders the Gourley hog barn to the West and
the South. Russell and Katrinas home is approximately 1,350 feet from the Gourley facility.
7.

Plaintiff Travis Winter lives at 25108 County Road 1, Long Prairie, Minnesota.

Travis has lived at his home since July 2007. Traviss wife, Laura, and his infant son also reside
at that address. Traviss older son lives there part-time. Traviss house is approximately 1,700
feet from the Gourley facility.
8.

Plaintiff Joel Walsh lives at 25695 County Road 1, Carlos, Minnesota. Her

property adjoins the Gourley land, and her house is approximately 1,350 feet from the facility.
Joel purchased her property in 1973 or 1974, and has resided there since 1978. Plaintiff Amy
Walsh resides part-time at 25695 County Road 1, Carlos, Minnesota. She is Joel Walshs
daughter, and grew up on the residence. She spends a third to half of her time at the property,
and often sleeps there. Amy is primarily responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the
residence.
9.

Plaintiffs Aimee and Corey Goodwin own property at 11982 County Road 65 NE,

Carlos, Minnesota. Their property is 2,500 feet from the Gourley facility. The Goodwins and
their four children moved to the property in 1996, and built their dream house there. They
intended to live there for many years, but were recently forced to move to a new home to escape
the nuisance created by the Gourley facility. They continue to own their property by the Gourley
facility.

10.

Plaintiffs Greg and Fran Rechtzigel own property and reside at 26569 113th

Avenue, Carlos, Minnesota. Greg and Fran have lived on the property since 1995. The property
is less than a mile from the Gourley facility.
11.

Defendant Gourley Premium Pork, L.L.C., also known as Gourley Brothers,

L.L.C. and Gourley Bros. Premium Pork, is an Iowa company with its home office address at
2970 Inkpaduta Avenue, Webster City, IA 50595. Gourley Premium Pork is registered to do
business in Minnesota, and lists its Minnesota address as 503 Silver Street E, PO Box 308,
Mapleton, MN 56065.
12.

Gourley Premium Pork owns hog facilities in Iowa and Minnesota, and on

information and belief, owns the Todd County hog facility at issue in this case.
13.

Defendant Protein Sources, LLP, and Protein Sources Milling, LLC are

Minnesota companies that provide management services to hog facilities in Iowa and Minnesota.
Protein Sources lists its Chief Executive office address as 503 Silver Street E, Mapleton, MN,
56065. This address is the same Minnesota address used by Gourley Premium Pork. At certain
times relevant to this lawsuit, Protein Sources provided management services to the Todd County
facility. Protein Sources is also a registered agent of Gourley Premium Pork, L.L.C.
14.

Defendant John Doe is any other person, or entity, that has acted, and/or continues

to act, as an agent of the above-mentioned Defendants in a joint enterprise.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
15.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these claims because the damages

to Minnesota citizens alleged to have been caused by the Defendants were sustained in the State
of Minnesota. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because, inter alia, they
conduct business, own property, and/or reside within the State of Minnesota.

16.

Venue is appropriate in this Court because this is a tort action and the Plaintiffs

injuries occurred in Todd County, Minnesota.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
17.

The Plaintiffs reside(d) at, own(ed), lease(d), or otherwise are and/or were in

rightful possession of their respective properties in the State of Minnesota.

18.

The Gourley facility is 97,520 square feet, and is licensed to hold almost 4,000

animals (and over 1,000 animal units): 300 swine under 55 pounds, 2,930 swine over 300
pounds, and 750 swine between 55 and 300 pounds. The building sits atop a concrete manure pit
that is twelve feet deep.
19.

The facility contains a compost structure, which is a 60-by-100-foot open pad

with 8-foot walls used for composting dead hogs.1 The Defendants estimate that thirty to forty
hogs die at the facility every month, not including dead piglets.
20.

The Defendants claim that the facility generates five million gallons of manure a

year, although the pit is capable of holding a greater amount of manure. The facility stores the
manure onsite. Once the manure has been collected, it is then agitated and distributed on
farmland in the surrounding area.
21.

The Defendants estimate that hydrogen sulfide emissions at the site are 29.32

parts per billion. Minnesota state law requires that no area exceed hydrogen sulfide emissions of
30 parts per billion.

The numbers cited come from the Defendants Todd County land use permit. In the Department of Natural
Resources Environmental Assessment Worksheet, however, the compost structure is described as [a] covered 72foot by 60-foot mortality compost structure . . . constructed of a poured concrete pad with 6-foot concrete sidewalls,
wooden studs, and rafters covered by steel siding. The reason for this discrepancy is unclear.

September 6, 2012: Todd County Planning Commission

Conditionally Approves Gourley Facility
22.

On September 6, 2012, owners and operators Gourley Premium Pork and Protein

Sources were able to secure conditional approval for the Gourley facility from the Todd County
Planning Commission.
23.

The Planning Commissions decision was contingent on the Defendants meeting

several conditions. One such condition was the installation of a bark biofilter, designed to
reduce projected hydrogen sulfide emissions to no more than twenty-three parts per billion.
November 6, 2012: Todd County Board of Commissioners
Remove Biofilter Requirement
24.

On November 6, 2012, the Todd County Board of Commissioners approved the

application for a conditional use permit for the Gourley facility.

25.

When making their approval, the Todd County Board of Commissioners stripped

the requirement for installation of a bark biofilter.

26.

To date, the Defendants have not installed a bark biofilter.

The Plaintiffs Ask the Defendants to Relocate Gourley Facility

27.

Throughout 2012, before construction began on the Gourley facility, some of the

Plaintiffs and their relatives tried to work with the Defendants to locate the facility somewhere
that would not disturb longtime residents. On multiple occasions various Plaintiffs offered to
show the Defendants locations with fewer or no close neighbors. They also offered to show
them land that was coming up for sale that would make a good location for a hog facility.
28.

Despite these overtures, the Defendants remained unwilling to consider an

alternative to the present location, and they refused to locate the Gourley facility away from the
Plaintiffs/longtime neighbors.

The Gourley Facility Begins Operation

29.

The Defendants broke ground on the Gourley operation in winter 2012.

30.

On July 12, 2013, hogs arrived at the Gourley facility, and it began its operations.

31.

On October 4, 2013, the Defendants obtained a permit to appropriate up to eight

million gallons of groundwater per year for their operation. On November 26, 2013, a group of
neighbors to the facility (the Relators), several of whom are Plaintiffs in this lawsuit, filed suit
against the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Gourley Brothers, L.L.C.
in connection with the DNRs unlawful issuance of a water appropriation permit. The Relators
allege that the DNRs decision to issue a water appropriation permit was arbitrary and
capricious, unlawful, and otherwise invalid for a number of reasons, including that the DNR had
failed to make a meaningful assessment of the impact of the proposed appropriation of the
aquifer on which the Relators depend for water. On August 18, 2014, the Minnesota Court of
Appeals held that Gourley Brothers, L.L.C. had failed to provide all of the necessary information
in its water appropriation permit. The Court also held that the Department did not provide any
findings or conclusions supporting the issuance of the Gourley permit. The Court remanded the
matter to the DNR to make such findings and conclusions.
The Plaintiffs Lives are Upended by Smell from Facility
32.

All of the Plaintiffs are able to smell a terrible odor coming from the facility year-

round. They describe it as smelling like manure and dead animals not a normal barn/farm
smell, but an extremely foul, unnatural odor. The say the smell is horrible, and like rotting hog
excrement and decomposing hogs. The smell is so powerful that it often sticks in the Plaintiffs
throats, and makes them gag. The Plaintiffs say that being near the facility is draining,
oppressive, and soul-crushing. They do not feel at ease in their own homes, and feel heartbroken
that they cannot fully use the land that some of them have lived on for decades.
7

33.

Russell Anderson and Katrina Downes often smell the facility.

34.

Previously, Russell Anderson and his family used to enjoy eating outdoors at their

picnic table and other outdoor activities, but the smell now often prevents them from doing so.
35.

Russell Anderson and Katrina Downes are often forced to keep their windows

closed in order to keep the smell out.

36.

Travis Winter and his family smell the facility on frequent occasions. When the

wind is coming from the North or Northwest, Travis and his family are forced to stay indoors.
37.

Some days the stench from the facility is so bad that Travis and his family are

unable to go outside to do any activities.

38.

The odor has made Travis gag, and frequently has caused his eyes to water and

39.

Both Travis and his wife experience very frequent headaches as a result of the

burn.

smell from the Gourley facility.

40.

On several occasions the smell has made Traviss nose burn.

41.

Travis and his wife like to grill outside in the spring and summer, but have been

impeded by the smell from the facility.

42.

In 2013, Travis attempted to host a 40th anniversary party for his father- and

mother-in-law, but the festivities were disrupted by the smell.

43.

In April, 2014 Travis twice attempted to paint his newborns bedroom. The

stench from the facility was so strong that both times Travis was unable to open the windows in
order to obtain sufficient ventilation, and was thus unable to safely paint the babys bedroom.

44.

In May, 2014 Travis attempted to finish painting the babys bedroom. When

Travis and his wife tried to open the windows, the smell from the facility was so strong it gave
them both a headache. They were forced to close the windows.
45.

Finally, several weeks later, Travis was forced to paint the babys room despite

the terrible smell from the Defendants facility.

46.

Previously, Travis and his older son enjoyed playing outside. Now, however, the

smell often makes spending time together outdoors unpleasant.

47.

Travis now tries to wear a protective mask if he must go outside when there is an

48.

Previously, Travis and his family used a window air conditioner to cool their

odor.

home. After the facility began operating, Travis installed a central air conditioner, so that the
window unit would not disseminate the odor from the facility throughout the house. He was
particularly concerned about keeping the odor outside the house now that there is a newborn in
the home.
49.

Travis has taken several steps to have the smell abated. He has submitted

complaint forms to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Travis also called an employee at
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency about the smell, but she was unhelpful. He has
contacted his local county commissioners, township board members, the Todd County Soil and
Water Division, and the Todd County Sheriffs Office about the smell.
50.

On multiple occasions, Fran and Greg Rechtzigel have smelled a terrible stench

coming from the Gourley facility. The Rechtzigels are forced to stay indoors when the smell
from the facility is strong.

51.

The three-sided open-air dead animal composting shed where the Defendants

throw their dead pigs is very close to Joel and Amy Walshs property. As a result, the smell of
dead animals is very strong as often as several days a week.
52.

The smell from the facility has disrupted Walsh family gatherings, including

holiday gatherings. Further, it has frequently impaired the familys ability to do any outdoor
activity outside, and has prevented them from enjoying their home.
53.

When the smell is particularly bad, Joel and her family will not go outside, and

will instead wait for a day when the wind is blowing from a different direction. As a result, the
Walshes have had a great deal of difficulty performing yard work and mowing the lawn.
54.

Joel and Amy used to love going for walks around the property and sitting

outside, but they are now unable to enjoy those experiences.

55.

Prior to the facility being built, Amy Walsh often enjoyed sleeping with the

windows open when it was warm out. Since the barn has been operational, she has been forced
to close her windows at night.
56.

Amy Walsh used to prefer to cool the house by opening windows when it was

warm. The smell from the facility now sometimes prevents her from being able to do so. As a
result, she and Joel have had to use the air conditioner much more than normal.
57.

Joel and Amys basement has flooded twice this summer. They would have liked

to have opened the windows in order to air out the basement, but were unable to do so for long
periods of time because of the stench coming from the facility.
58.

Joel and her family sometimes smell the stench from the facility inside their

home, even when all of the windows are closed.

10

59.

The smell from the facility has caused Amy to experience headaches, burning

eyes, and a sore throat.

60.

Joel has also experienced burning eyes and headaches as a result of the smell from

the facility.
61.

Another of Joels daughters, Mary Jo, recently gave birth. While Mary Jo was

pregnant, she was afraid to visit Joel, because of concerns about what the chemicals from the
facility could do to her pregnancy. Manure from CAFOs can leach into soil and groundwater,
causing elevated nitrate levels in private wells. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for Concentrated Animal
Feed Operations (CAFOs), 68 Fed. Reg. 7176, 7181 (Feb. 12, 2003). Indeed, the Minnesota
Department of Health has stated that the private wells near the Defendants facility are
particularly vulnerable to elevated levels of nitrate nitrogen. The Centers for Disease Control
has determined that there may be a link between high nitrate levels in well water near feedlots
and spontaneous abortions in humans. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, Spontaneous
Abortions Possibly Related to Ingestion of Nitrate-contaminated Well Water LaGrange
County, Indiana, 1991-1994, 45:26 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 569, 569-71 (July
1996).
62.

Joel and her family have submitted several complaints to various state and county

agencies regarding the Gourley facility, including the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and
the Todd County Soil and Water Commission.
63.

Aimee and Corey Goodwin frequently smell the facility.

11

64.

The Goodwins have had many activities disrupted by the smell. The stench has

deterred them from partaking in outdoor activities, or from working outside, and has prevented
their children from playing outside.
65.

For example, there was an occasion when Aimee and her children were outside

flying kites on their property when the odor from the facility became so severe that their eyes
watered and they retched.
66.

Aimee Goodwin has filed complaints about the facility to the Township, the

County Commissioners, the Minnesota Health Department, and the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency.
The Plaintiffs Lives Are Disrupted in Other Ways
67.

It is not merely the smell from the facility that has disrupted the lives of the

Plaintiffs. There are a dozen huge lights outside of the Gourley facility that shine continuously
throughout the night. The powerful lights are left on all night every night, and have disturbed the
neighboring Plaintiffs.
68.

The bright lights shine into four different rooms in Travis Winters house. These

lights are particularly troublesome for Travis during the winter when there is no foliage to block
the glare of the lights.
69.

The lights also shine into the bedroom windows of Joel Walsh, which she finds

aggravating and distracting.

70.

There has been a great deal of traffic associated with the Gourley facility. The

traffic began as soon as construction began, but has continued even after construction was
completed. The heavy daily flow of semi-trucks, feed trucks, and gas trucks coming in and out
creates a great deal of noise.

12

71.

The heavy traffic has also ruined the roads surrounding the facility and the

Plaintiffs land. The roads were repaved in July 2011, and are already very cracked.
72.

The fans from the facility can also be quite loud.

73.

On occasion, Joel and her family have been forced to leave the property in order

to escape the noise from the facility.

The Plaintiffs Endure Other Hardship as a Result of Gourley Facility, and Have Begun to
be Pushed out of Their Homes
74.

Many of the Plaintiffs have endured other hardship as a result of the Defendants

conduct.
75.

Russell Anderson makes his living by farming, and uses the property near his

home as his farmland. Primarily as a result of the odors from the Gourley facility, he has quit
farming seven acres of his land. Russell used some of that land to plant trees, in an effort to
reduce the light and odor nuisance from the facility.
76.

Russells son, Randall Anderson, had planned to raise livestock on his fathers

land. Randall has been deterred, however, because he is concerned about contamination from
the Gourley facility.
77.

Greg and Fran Rechtzigel have planted two hundred pine trees, and several lilac

bushes, in an effort to mask the stench from the facility.

78.

The Rechtzigels had hoped to retire to their home near the Gourley facility, but

are now concerned about their ability to retire there and still enjoy a good quality of life because
of the poorly situated and operated Gourley facility.
79.

Aimee and Corey Goodwin built their dream home near the Gourley facility, long

before the Gourley facility was built, but have recently been forced to move in order to escape
the facility, and the effect it was having on their familys health and wellbeing.
13

80.

Although Aimee and Corey Goodwins property near the Gourley facility has

been on the market continuously for ten months, they have been unable to sell it. According to
the Goodwins realtor, potential buyers have been concerned about the propertys proximity to
the Gourley facility.
81.

Aimee and Corey Goodwins inability to sell their property has been a significant

financial hardship for them.

82.

Travis Winter made substantial improvements to his house after he bought it. He

installed a new sewer system, a new roof, a new deck, new windows, new doors, new carpet, and
he patched and painted the walls. Travis also purchased and installed a new furnace, a central air
conditioner, a new water heater, and a water softener. He completely remodeled the bathroom,
put in a new pressure tank, and put in a new well pump. He also fenced seven acres of his land.
Travis has found living near the Gourley facility to be unbearable. Despite all of the
improvements Travis made, he has put his house on the market several times since the Gourley
facility became operational, and has been unable to sell his home.

COUNT I AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS FOR PRIVATE TEMPORARY

NUISANCE MINN. STAT. 561.01 ABATEMENT AND DAMAGES
83.

The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the preceding

paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.

84.

The Plaintiffs, and each of them, are and/or were in lawful possession or

occupation of their property.

85.

The Defendants do, or have at relevant times, own(ed), control(ed), and/or

operate(d) the above-described Gourley facility in close proximity to the Plaintiffs properties.

14

86.

Foul-smelling odors, other harmful airborne emissions, and/or contaminated

wastewater have escaped and continue to frequently escape from the Gourley facilitys premises
onto the vicinity of the Plaintiffs properties, and thus have materially and substantially impaired
and continue to impair the Plaintiffs use and quiet enjoyment of their homes and properties.
The Plaintiffs have thereby been damaged.
87.

The Defendants knew or should have known that foul-smelling odors, flies,

particulate matter, and other harmful emissions from the Gourley facility would encroach upon
the Plaintiffs properties, and substantially impair the Plaintiffs use and quiet enjoyment of their
properties.
88.

The Defendants wrongful acts and omissions in the operation and maintenance of

the Gourley facility have and continue to unreasonably, unusually, substantially, indecently,
offensively, and materially interfere with the Plaintiffs health, senses, welfare, rights of
habitation, comfortable enjoyment of property and life, and property rights. The Plaintiffs
superior rights of health and habitation far outweigh the rights of the Defendants business
operations.
89.

The Defendants Gourley facility has created a private temporary nuisance since

opening in 2013, and continues to be a daily nuisance.

90.

The Defendants have refused to adopt generally accepted agricultural practices.

91.

The Defendants have failed to adopt measures to prevent odor or reduce flies.

92.

The Defendants have failed to adopt measures to reduce light nuisance.

93.

The Plaintiffs enjoyment of and/or ability to engage in activities such as general

and daily habitation, gardening, outdoor hobbies, playing outside, participating in outdoor
recreation, having friends over, picnicking, sitting on their porch, farming or other work, or

15

simply walking on their property, has been substantially impaired by the odor and other harmful
emissions emanating from the Defendants operation.
94.

The Plaintiffs have also suffered a variety of sudden onset reactions as a direct

result of the foul odors from the Defendants facility including, in many cases, nausea, gagging,
and other digestive problems; headaches; breathing difficulty, or respiratory ailments; burning,
dry, and/or irritated eyes, noses and throats. These reactions subside when the Plaintiffs are able
to escape the odorous conditions. In addition, the Plaintiffs have suffered impairment to their
ability to eat and sleep normally, as well as substantial emotional strain, anguish, and discomfort
as a direct result of the odors from the Defendants facility.
95.

The Defendants have maintained a condition that is injurious to health, indecent

or offensive to the senses, and obstructs the free use of property.

96.

An ordinary person living in the area would also have had his or her enjoyment

and/or ability to engage in activities of daily habitation substantially impaired by the Defendants
activities.
97.

There is, and has been, technology available to substantially reduce and/or

eliminate foul and noxious-smelling odors and other emissions emanating from the Defendants
facility, but the Defendants have failed to use this technology and/or have delayed the use of this
technology in order to save money.
98.

The Defendants outrageous conduct described above constitutes a private

continuing and temporary nuisance under Minnesota law, which the Defendants have
intentionally and willfully failed and refused to remedy or abate within a reasonable period of
time.

16

99.

The Defendants are active and knowing participants in the nuisance to the

Plaintiffs described herein.

100.

By their conduct described above, the Defendants created and/or contributed to

the creation and/or maintenance of the nuisance complained of herein.

101.

In short, the Defendants outrageous conduct described above constitutes an

unreasonable use of the property by the Defendants.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully request judgment against the Defendants,
jointly and severally, awarding the Plaintiffs actual damages in a fair and reasonable sum in an
amount to be determined at trial sufficient to compensate the Plaintiffs for the interference of
their right to the use and quiet enjoyment of their respective properties, with each Plaintiff
having incurred damages in excess of $50,000; for an order requiring the Defendants to abate the
nuisances emanating from the Defendants operation; that the costs of the action be assessed
against the Defendants; and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and
appropriate.
COUNT II AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS
NEGLIGENCE
102.

The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the preceding

paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.

103.

At all times material to this cause of action, the Defendants had or have common

law duties to act and use their property reasonably.

104.

The Defendants have continually breached those common law duties by

continuing their hog operation and manure spreading, and allowing substantial and frequent foul
and obnoxious odors and other harmful emissions to go onto their neighbors properties,
including onto the Plaintiffs properties.
17

105.

The aforesaid breaches of common law duties by the Defendants directly and

proximately resulted in significant interference with the Plaintiffs use and enjoyment of their
properties:
a. The Plaintiffs yard, garden, and farm work is interfered with by the strong odors
and other harmful emissions, often driving them indoors;
b. The Plaintiffs have had family outings and parties on their properties interfered
with because of the odor and other harmful emissions;
c. Friends and relatives have been reluctant to visit the Plaintiffs because of the
odors;
d. Odors from the hog operation interfere with the Plaintiffs cooking and eating
outdoors;
e. The Plaintiffs keep their homes closed most of the time because of the
unpredictability of the odors and other harmful emissions from the hog operation;
and
f. The Plaintiffs have experienced nausea, gagging, headaches, burning eyes,
burning throat, and anxiety.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully request judgment against the Defendants,
jointly and severally, awarding the Plaintiffs actual damages in a fair and reasonable sum in an
amount to be determined at trial sufficient to compensate the Plaintiffs for the interference of
their right to the use and quiet enjoyment of their respective properties, with each Plaintiff
having incurred damages in excess of $50,000; that the costs of this action be assessed against
the Defendants; and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate.

18

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

The Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.
I hereby acknowledge that sanctions may be awarded
pursuant to Minn. Stat. 549.211.
SCHWEBEL GOETZ & SIEBEN, P.A.

Dated: ___________________

By
William R. Sieben (#100808)
James S. Ballentine (#209739)
5120 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-2246
Telephone: 612-377-7777
and
Amanda Hungerford
(Pro hac vice admission pending)
Humane Society of the United States
2100 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-676-2337
ahungerford@humanesociety.org
Rebecca Cary
(Pro hac vice admission pending)
Humane Society of the United States
2100 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-676-2330
rcary@humanesociety.org
ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

19