Lawsuit Regarding Recent Lincoln Park Flooding

jp
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR COUNTY OF WAYNE
Wilgus Webb, Vanessa Webb,
Nino Certa, Anna Certa,
William Drugalis, Cheryl Hovey
And Joseph Hovey, on Behalf of
Themselves and Other Similarly
Situated, a Class Action,
Plaintiffs
v.
City of Lincoln Park,
Defendant
Phillip G. Bazzo P 25243
Attorney for Plaintiffs
3856 Fort Str.
Lincoln Park, MI 48146
248-321-8600
FloodLaw@Comcast.Net
PhillipGBazzoEsq@Comcast.Net
CASE NO.:
HONORABLE
CE 16-011327-CE
FILED IN MY OFFICE
WAYNE COUNTY CLERK
9/6/2016 8:10:18 AM
CATHY M. GARRETT
COMPLAINT ASSERTING UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING AND

SEEKING EQUITABLE RELIEF OF AN EMERGENCY ADEQUATE
RESTRICTIVE STORMWATER CATCHBASIN GRATE PLAN AND
OTHER RELIEF
And
DEMAND FOR JURY
To the best of the undersigneds knowledge,
there are no other pending cases arising out of the
same occurrence as complained of herein.
/s/Phillip G. Bazzo
Phillip G. Bazzo P25243
Webb v. City of Lincoln Park - Original Complaint - Jury Demand
Pg 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. TERMS AND DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................. 3
II. THE PARTIES...................................................................................................................... 6
III. NUCLEUS OF OPERATIVE FACTS RELATING TO THE CITY: THE CITY
KNOWINGLY FAILED TO PROPERLY MANAGE SEWER WATER WITH
SUBSTANTIAL CERTAINTY THAT SEWAGE BACKUPS WOULD OCCUR WITHIN
THE LINCOLN PARK SEWAGE SYSTEM WHEN IT INTENTIONALLY DECIDED
NOT TO OPTIMALLY INCREASE THE NUMBER OF RESTRICTIVE CATCHBASIN
GRATES. ....................................................................................................................................... 8
III.A. SAFE SEWAGE DISPOSAL A TOP, FIRST TIER PRIORITY OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENT ........................................................................................................................... 8
III.B. OWNERSHIP, CONTROL AND OPERATION............................................................. 8
III.C. PLAINTIFF CLASS AT HIGHEST RISK AS AT THE HIGHEST HYDRAULIC
GRADELINE/BOTTLENECK WITHIN THE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM.............. 11
III.D. AUGUST 13, 1994 SEWAGE INVASIONS SUSTAINED BY PLAINTIFF CLASS. 11
III.E. MULTIPLE SEWAGE INVASIONS DURING PAST 22 YEARS.............................. 11
III.F. ADEQUATE TIME TO REMEDY BETWEEN AUGUST 13, 1994 AND AUGUST 16,
2016 INCLUDING IMPLEMENTING AN ADEQUATE RESTRICTIVE STORMWATER
GRATE PLAN............................................................................................................................. 12
III.G. ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF ADEQUATE RESTRICTIVE CATCHBASIN PLAN
SOLUTION ................................................................................................................................. 13
III.H. IMMUNITY FROM U.S. E.P.A AND MDEQ FINES.................................................. 13
III.I. AUGUST 16, 2016 SEWER WATER INVASIONS....................................................... 14
III.J. A MANAGEABLE RAINFALL; NOT AN ACT OF GOD RAINFALL .................... 15
III.K. FAILING TO DESIGN FOR GRAVITY RUNOFF INTO OPEN SPACES............. 15
III.L. INCREASE LEVEL OF RISK DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE................................. 16
III.M. INTERIM EMERGENCY SHORT TERM PLAN WHILE CITY IMPLEMENTS
LONG TERM PLAN.................................................................................................................. 16
IV. DAMAGES............................................................................................................................ 18
V. 2012 UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISION UPHOLDING TEMPORARY
FLOODING TAKING CLAIM................................................................................................. 20
VI: CLASS ACTION AVERMENTS: A SINGLE CLASS .................................................... 21
COUNT 1: MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION: ART. 10, SEC. 2 UNCONSTITUTIONAL
TAKING OF PLAINTIFFS REAL PROPERTY................................................................... 23
COUNT 2: MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE 10 SECTION 2:
UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING OF PLAINTIFFS PERSONAL PROPERTY ............ 25
COUNT 3: U.S. CONSTITUTION FIFTH AMENDMENT:................................................. 26
TAKING OF REAL PROPERTY............................................................................................. 26
COUNT 4: U.S. CONSTITUTION FIFTH AMENDMENT:................................................. 28
TAKING OF PERSONAL PROPERTY .................................................................................. 28
COMMON RELIEF ................................................................................................................... 30
JURY DEMAND......................................................................................................................... 30
________________________________________________________________
Pg 2
COMPLAINT ASSERTING UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING AND

SEEKING EQUITABLE RELIEF OF AN EMERGENCY ADEQUATE
RESTRICTIVE STORMWATER CATCHBASIN GRATE PLAN AND
OTHER RELIEF
and
DEMAND FOR JURY
The Plaintiffs Wilgus Webb, Vanessa Webb, Nino Certa, Anna Certa, William Drugalis, Cheryl
Hovey and Joseph Hovey, on Behalf of Themselves and Other Similarly Situated, a Class Action,
by and through their attorney, Phillip G. Bazzo, Esq., commences this civil action by complaining
of the following tortious acts and/or omissions of Defendant City of Lincoln Park as follows.
I.
TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
1. Council Point Park: Council Point Park is a City park owned and operated by the City of
Lincoln generally situated at Stewart Avenue and River Drive on the eastside of Lincoln Park
where the North Branch and the South Branch of the Ecorse Creek join before discharging into
the Detroit River. The Intake Sewer between the Stewart/River Driver Pumphouse and the
Lincoln Park Retention Basin traverses east under Council Point Park to the Lincoln Park
Retention Basin situated on the Ecorse side of the North Branch of the Ecorse Creek
2. Council Point Park Neighborhood: For purposes of this case, the Council Point Park
Neighborhood is hereby generally defined as that neighborhood within the City of Lincoln
Park generally bounded on the north by Mill Street, the east by the North Branch and South
Branch of the Ecorse Creek, on the south by Riverbank and on the west by Electric Street.
3. Council Point Park Neighborhood Google Aerial Photograph-1: Council Point Park
Neighborhood Google Aerial Photographs-1 (herein abbreviated Council Point Aerial Photo
1) generally is the Council Point Park Neighborhood setting forth the approximate boundaries
of the Council Point Park Neighborhood, said image downloaded from Google Earth. Original
Pg 3
Complaint Exhibit 1 1 is the Council Point Aerial Photo 1.

4. Homes: Homes mean the real property improvement commonly referred to as a singlefamily home or house which home or house has a basement and all contiguous real property
including land on which the real property improvement of the home is situated and through
which the homes building lead connected to the municipal sewer servicing that home.
5. Lincoln Park Retention Basin: Lincoln Park Retention Basin refers to the Retention
Basin owned and operated by the City of Lincoln Park but situated on the eastern/northern
bank of the North Branch of the Ecorse Creek in the City of Ecorse. Said Basin was designed
to received stormwater flows from the Lincoln Park Sewage System in excess of said Systems
capacity * .
6. Restrictive Catchbasin Grate: Restrictive Catchbasin Grate means a Stormwater
Catchbasin Grate which covers a municipal stormwater surface inlet and which restricts the
stormwater runoff flow into the storm sewers. Original Complaint Exhibit 2A
is an
example of a Restrictive Catchbasin Grate situated east of Fort Street on Wilson. Stormwater
runoff flow is restricted by reducing the number of grate openings from the Standard
Catchbasin Grate.
7. A Restrictive Catchbasin Grate restricts the stormwater flow into the stormwater sewer by
covering one or more of the openings in a standard pattern of openings of a standard
Stormwater Sewer Inlet Grate. Restrictive Catchbasin Grates can be ordered and constructed
by design and construction to limit stormwater flows or by the use of cement, welded metal or
by other means or by manufacturing or modifying another Stormwater Grate to reduce the
Original Complaint Exhibit 1 is the Council Point Aerial Photo 1.

Original Complaint Exhibit 2A is an example of a Restrictive Catchbasin Grate in Lincoln
Park.
2
Pg 4
amount of stromwater entering the sewers through the Grate.

8. Standard Catchbasin Grate: Standard Catchbasin Grate means a Stormwater Catchbasin
Grate. Original Complaint Exhibit 3A 3 is an example of a Standard Catchbasin Grate. The
Standard Catchbasin Grate does not restrict the flow of surface stormwater runoff into the
storm sewers in comparison with the Restrictive Catchbasin Grate. This Standard Catchbasin
Grate is located east of Fort on Wilson.
9. River Drive Interceptor: River Drive Interceptor refers to an interceptor sewer located
approximately under and/or parallel to River Drive traversing the eastern boundary of Lincoln
Park from the Southfield Expressway on the north to Gooddard Road on the south.
10. Stormwater Management Model: Stormwater Management Model (also known as
SWMM) refers to a computer model which manages the collection, transportation and
storage of a stormwater sewer system. Since the early 1970s, SWMM Computer Models have
been publicly available without charge through the United States Environmental Protection
Agency.
11. Emergency Stormwater Management Manpower Mobilization Plan: Stormwater
Management Response Mobilization Plan would be rainfall runoff emergency Manpower
Mobilization Plan consist of Lincoln Park municipal employees tasked with monitoring the
Lincoln Park Stormwater Management Sewage Disposal System before, during and after a
rainfall risking sewage backups and assisting in preventing surface water storage issues before,
during and after a rainfall risking sewage backups.
11.1.
Lincoln Park Department of Public Works
Original Complaint Exhibit 3A is an example of a Standard Catchbasin Grate in Lincoln

Park.
Pg 5
Chief/Commissioner John Kozuh when employed by the City of Allen Park would
monitor stormwater in Allen Park the Allen Park Stormwater Management Sewage
Disposal System during a storm event by driving from one pump station to another pump
station to monitor stormwater management operations before, during and after a storm to
assure proper functioning of the Allen Park.
11.2.
Given Mr. Kozuhs leadership of the Lincoln
Park Department of Public Works as its Chief/Commissioner, Lincoln Park has both the
knowledge of and the capacity to mobilize city employees before, during and after a storm
to assure safe, non-trespassory sewer water invasions from the Lincoln Park Stormwater
Management Sewage Disposal System.
11.3.
Many municipalities have in place fire and/or
police mobilization plans in cases of unusual events. Similar municipal manpower plans
could be developed to prevent negative consequences of stormwater management in the
streets such as: (a) pumping street stormwater from main streets to side streets and/or (b)
pumping stormwater into creating lower elevation spaces into which to pump excess street
stormwater.
12. At all relevant times: At all relevant times prefaces all averment(s) herein unless otherwise
evident.
13. Upon information and belief: An asterisk (*) is placed at the end of a sentence to denote if
the averment is based upon information and belief.
II.
THE PARTIES
14. Named Plaintiffs: Plaintiffs Wilgus Webb, Vanessa Webb, Nino Certa, Anna Certa,
William Drugalis, and Cheryl Hovey and Joseph Hovey reside in and own their homes
within the City of Lincoln Park, County of Wayne, State of Michigan.
Pg 6
14.1.
The Webb Household consists of Wilgus Webb and Vanessa Webb
and all others within the home; their joint losses exceed $25,000 for the entire household;
14.2.
The Certa Household consists of Nino Certa and Anna Certa and all
others within the home; their joint losses exceed $25,000 for the entire household;
14.3.
The Drugalis Household consists of William Drugalis and any others
within the home; their joint losses exceed $25,000 for the entire household; and
14.4.
The Hovey Household consists of Cheryl and Joseph Hovey and any
others within the home; their losses exceed $25,000 for the entire household.
15. Defendant CITY OF LINCOLN PARK (herein City) is a Michigan municipality which
has jurisdiction and control over the sanitary sewers, storm sewers, Lincoln Park Retention
Basin and other related sanitary and stormwater components such as pump stations and/or
lift stations situated within the City of Lincoln Park or owned by the City of Lincoln. The
Citys Offices are situated at 1355 Southfield Rd, Lincoln Park, MI 48146. The City Clerk
is Ms. Donna Breeding.
16. The amount in controversy exceeds $25,000 per household and is otherwise within this Courts
jurisdiction.
17. Venue is proper in Wayne County as Defendant City of Lincoln Park conducts its municipal
business within the County of Wayne.
18. Proposed Plaintiff Class: Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, proposing to represent the following class of Lincoln Park
homeowners and occupants:
Persons owning and/or residing in homes situated in the Council Pointe Park
Neighborhood which homes sustained sewer water home invasions backing up
through the City of Lincoln Park combined sanitary stormwater system on
(1) August 13, 1994 and (2)(a) August 16, 2016 and/or (2)(b) other dates
Pg 7
since August 13, 1994.

III.
NUCLEUS OF OPERATIVE FACTS RELATING TO THE CITY: THE CITY

KNOWINGLY FAILED TO PROPERLY MANAGE SEWER WATER WITH
SUBSTANTIAL CERTAINTY THAT SEWAGE BACKUPS WOULD OCCUR
WITHIN THE LINCOLN PARK SEWAGE SYSTEM WHEN IT
INTENTIONALLY DECIDED NOT TO OPTIMALLY INCREASE THE
NUMBER OF RESTRICTIVE CATCHBASIN GRATES.
III.A. SAFE SEWAGE DISPOSAL A TOP, FIRST TIER PRIORITY OF LOCAL

GOVERNMENT
19. Safe Sewage Disposal arguably is within the first tier priority of municipal government,
ranking arguably as high as the 3rd priority of municipal government.
20. Arguably, this First Tier of municipal services by priority logically would be as follows:
20.1.
The provision of Police Protection: personal safety though Police Protection is the
first priority;
20.2.
The provision of Safe Drinking Water: safe drinking water is the second priority;
20.3.
The provision of Safe Sewage Disposal, that is, sewage disposal without sewage
backups: safe sewage disposal removes e-coli, other harmful, dangerous bacteria,
harmful, dangerous viruses, and other disease causing substances from citizens homes.
Safe Sewage Disposal is a higher priority than Fire Protection as more damage occurs
from Unsafe Sewage Disposal than Unsafe Fire Protection. For example, the losses from
the August 16, 2016 sewer water invasions into Plaintiffs class homes alone exceeds
over $1,000,000 in damages to real property, personal property, out-of-pocket expenses,
lost time from work, time spent remediating and repairing, and reduced market value not
including non-economic stress, annoyance and inconvenience sustained by Plaintiffs.
III.B. OWNERSHIP, CONTROL AND OPERATION
21. Ownership and Control of Stormwater Sewage Components of Sewage Disposal System:
Pg 8
The City of Lincoln Park owns and operates the combined sanitary-stormwater sewers
servicing the Plaintiffs homes and the connected municipal Sewage Disposal System
including but not limited to the following components of the Lincoln Park Stormwater
Management Sewage Disposal System:
21.1.
Lateral Sewers: The City owns and controls the combined sanitary-stormwater
laterals sewers which collect sewage from the homes and which collects stormwater
runoff from the streets and adjacent-to-the-street front lawns and drives of adjacent
homes *;
21.2.
River Drive Interceptor: The City owns and controls the River Drive Interceptor
into which these Lateral Sewers discharges their combined sewage *;

21.3.
Stewart/River Drive Pump Station: The City owns and controls the the
Stewart/River Drive Pump Station situated on the eastside of River Drive at the road
entrance into Council Point Park including the underground interceptor gates which
divert excess stormwater flow from the River Drive Interceptor into the Lincoln Park
Retention Basin; and
21.4.
Lincoln Park Retention Basin: The City owns and controls the Lincoln Park
Retention Basin which is situated in Ecorse on the northeastern bank of the North Branch
of the Ecorse Creek; when sewage flows exceed the capacity of the River Drive
Interceptor to safely convey this combined sewage, the Stewart/River Drive Pump Station
opens it diversion gate(s) to allow flow to the Lincoln Park Retention Basins Wet Well.
Stormwater pumps then lift the sewage into the Retention Basin. The City has permission
to discharge excess quantities of stormwater sewage directly into the Ecorse Creek to
prevent damage to property of its residents from sewage backups including the Plaintiff
Pg 9
Class property.
22. General Design of the Sewage Disposal System: Generally, the Citys combined sanitary
sewage-stormwater flows from the westside of Lincoln Park to the eastside of Lincoln Park.
As such, the combined sanitary sewage-stormwater collects in the River Drive Interceptor
under River Drive on the eastern border of Lincoln Park in the Council Point Park
Neighborhood *.
23. Operation: The City of Lincoln Park owns and operates the combined sanitary-stormwater
sewage disposal system servicing the Plaintiffs homes and the connected municipal Sewage
Disposal System including but not limited to the following components of the Lincoln Park
Sewage Disposal System:
23.1.
Generally, the combined sanitary-stormwater sewers collect sewage and street
runoff stormwater from the adjacent homes *;

23.2.
Generally, the combined sanitary-stormwater sewage is transported from west-to-
east generally discharging into the River Drive Interceptor *;

23.3.
Generally, the Stewart/River Drive Pump Stations diversion gates to the LP
Retention Basin open as pre-defined hydraulic grade line/high lows; and

23.4.
Generally, in situations of high flow in the River Drive Interceptor, diversion of
these flows occurs at the Lincoln to the Lincoln Park Retention Basin generally at River
Drive and Steward at the Lincoln Park Pump Station set forth in the Council Park Point
Aerial Photo 1; and
23.5.
Generally, overflows from the interceptor are pumped into the Lincoln Park
Retention Basin for storage until the River Drive Interceptor is able to safely convey this
stormwater-sanitary sewer water downstream to the Wayne County Sewage Treatment
Pg 10
Plant located in Wyandotte near Pennsylvania Road and Biddle Avenue/Jefferson

Avenue.
III.C. PLAINTIFF CLASS AT HIGHEST RISK AS AT THE HIGHEST HYDRAULIC
GRADELINE/BOTTLENECK WITHIN THE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM.
24. Plaintiff Class Most Vulnerable: The Plaintiff Class is the most vulnerable within the City
as sewage flows from west to east collecting downstream in the Council Point Park Plaintiff
Class Neighborhood.
25. The Plaintiff Class is greatest at risk for a sewage disposal system failure as they are located
in homes which are the first homes filled during a sewage backup due to defects in the River
Driver Interceptors capacity, the Lincoln Park Retention Basins capacity and/or other sewers
connected to Plaintiff Class homes capacity.
III.D. AUGUST 13, 1994 SEWAGE INVASIONS SUSTAINED BY PLAINTIFF CLASS
26. On August 13, 1994, Plaintiffs sustained sewer water home invasions from the City of
Lincoln Parks combined sanitary and stormwater sewer system when the City of Lincoln
Park failed to properly control its combined stormwater-sanitary sewage including the Citys
failure to properly operate its River Drive Interceptor and the Citys failure to properly
operate the Citys Lincoln Park Retention Basin.
27. The August 13, 1994 rainfall runoff was not an Act of God rainfall but a rainfall safely
manageable by Lincoln Park if the City had properly operated its Sewage System.
III.E. MULTIPLE SEWAGE INVASIONS DURING PAST 22 YEARS
28. Upon information and belief, multiple sewage backups have been suffered by Plaintiffs Class
after August 13, 1994 including but not limited to the August 16, 2016 sewer water invasions
into Plaintiffs Class homes.
29. Specifically, some members of the Plaintiffs Class suffered sewage backups on or about July
Pg 11
2014 and/or August 2014

III.F. ADEQUATE TIME TO REMEDY BETWEEN AUGUST 13, 1994 AND AUGUST
16, 2016 INCLUDING IMPLEMENTING AN ADEQUATE RESTRICTIVE
STORMWATER GRATE PLAN.
30. Appreciate City Efforts But the City Could Have and Should Have Done Better: The
Plaintiff Class appreciates the Citys efforts of attempting to remedy the ongoing, existing
sewage disposal system defects. However, these efforts have shown over the past twentytwo years to be inadequate; and an Adequate Restrictive Catchbasin Plan is feasible if the
City wills it to be so. If there is City will, then there is a City way to remedy these sewage
backups.
31. Twenty-Two Years to Implement a Fix: Between August 13, 1994 and August 16, 2016,
the Defendant had over twenty-two years (22 years) to investigate, design, redesign, repair,
construct and develop protocols for the safe, non-sewage invading, legal operation of its
sewage system including that part of its sewage system traversing through and/or serving the
Council Pointe Park Neighborhood.
32. Estimated between 1% and 5% of Catchbasin Grates Restrictive Catchbasin Grates: For
example, prior to August 16, 2016, at some point during these 22 years, the City did deploy
Restrictive Catchbasin Grates in approximately 1% to 5% of the Catchbasins in the
Southeastern Quadrant of the City, generally the area bounded by Fort Street on the west,
Southfield on the north, the Ecorse Creek on the east, and Goodard on the south.
32.1.
However, these Restrictive Catchbasin Grates have been insufficient and
inadequate to prevent stormwater runoff from surcharging the Lincoln Park Sewage
Disposal System; and
32.2.
The City has had full knowledge prior to the August 16, 2016 that its Plan of
Pg 12
Restrictive Catchbasin Grates have been inadequate to prevent sewage backups.

33. Restrictive Catchbasin Grates: The City had adequate opportunity to investigate methods
of preventing sewage backups into Plaintiffs homes by the additional use of Restrictive
Catchbasin Grates including by using computer Stormwater Management Models to
determine the best practices and best methods to prevent sewage backups with the use of
Restrictive Catchbasin Grates.
34. Other Cities Developed Adequate Restrictive Catchbasin Plans: In the 1990s, the City of
Grosse Pointe Park implement an installation pattern of restrictive catchbasin grates to
prevent combined sanitary sewage-stormwater backups from invading residents homes.
During the period of implementation, Grosse Pointe Park lowered if not eliminated sewage
backups during the use of restrictive catchbasin grates.
III.G. ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF ADEQUATE RESTRICTIVE CATCHBASIN PLAN
SOLUTION
35. Knew Existing Restrictive Catchbasin Plan Defective: Given the repetitive sewage
backups during the past 22 years, sewage backups almost occurring on a frequency of one
major catastrophic sewage backup for each year at an annual cost to citizens exceeding OneMillion Dollars each year, the City had adequate opportunity to implement a better, safer
Restrictive Catchbasin Grate Plan. Such an Adequate Plan would have restricted the flow of
street stormwater especially to the side streets to prevent inflow into the sewage disposal
system during a rainfall.
III.H. IMMUNITY FROM U.S. E.P.A AND MDEQ FINES
36. Knew Existing Restrictive Catchbasin Plan Illegal: The City knew that the policy of
storing stormwater in the street with Restrictive Catchbasin Grates was a legal policy rather
than the policy of discharging stormwater-sanitary sewage into Plaintiffs homes which is a
Pg 13
civilly illegal, knowingly negligent policy.

37. Knew of Safer Adequate Restrictive Catchbasin Plan: The City knew that storing surface
stormwater in the streets and front yards within Lincoln Park with Restrictive Catchbasin
Grates was a legal policy in contrast to the illegal, negligent policy of using Plaintiffs
basements to store excess stormwater-sanitary sewer water.
38. Safer to Discharge into the Ecorse Creek than into Citizens Basements: The City knew
that it was safer for reasons of public health to discharge excess combined sanitary sewagestormwater into the Ecorse Creek than to discharge into the Plaintiff Class homes.
38.1.
Sewage bacteria in citizens homes is a far greater risk than highly diluted sewer
water being discharged into the Ecorse Creek.

39. City Had Ecorse Creek Discharge Authority: The City knew that the City could discharge
combined stormwater-sanitary sewer water into the North and South Branches of the Ecorse
Creek legally and did not have to discharge was a preferred, non-negligent policy than using
Plaintiffs basements to use excess stormwater.
40. NPDES Permission to Discharge: The City knew that the City could discharge combined
stormwater-sanitary sewer water into the Ecorse Creek with no legal consequences as the
City has permission to do so per Lincoln Parks National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Permit (NPDES) granted by the United Stated Environmental Permit System *.
41. NO STATE OR FEDERAL SANCTION: Because of the NPDES Permission to discharge
excess sewer water into the Ecorse Creek, the City would not have incurred any U.S. EPA
or Michigan Department of Environmental Quality fines, penalties or sanctions.
III.I. AUGUST 16, 2016 SEWER WATER INVASIONS
42. On August 16, 2016, sewer water invaded the Council Point Park Plaintiff Class homes from
Pg 14
the Citys combined sewage disposal system.

43. As a proximate cause of the Citys invasion of Plaintiffs homes with combined sanitarystormwater sewage, the Plaintiff Class has sustained damaged to their real property, personal
property, and market value of their homes besides other damages detailed later herein, said
damage exceeding $1,000,000.
III.J. A MANAGEABLE RAINFALL; NOT AN ACT OF GOD RAINFALL
44. The rainfall was safe rainfall to the Council Park Point Neighborhood and the northern part
of Wyandotte along both sides and blocks north and south of Emmons in Wyandotte.
45. Despite identical rainfalls, Wyandotte did not sustain sewage invasions whereas the
immediately adjacent area of Lincoln Park did.
46. Lincoln Park proximately sustained sewage invasions because of defects in its sewage
disposal system not because of the rainfall. Otherwise, the immediately, adjacent area in
Wyandotte would have sustained sewage disposal system sewer water invasions which it did
not.
47. Wyandotte was able to manage the same rainfall over the adjacent areas as Lincoln Park was
not.
III.K. FAILING TO DESIGN FOR GRAVITY RUNOFF INTO OPEN SPACES
48. The City has failed to design its streets, its parks, and its and/or public and/or quasi-public
open spaces to optimize conveyance of street stormwater to side streets.
48.1.
For example, Electric traverses Lincoln Park from north to south and contains
substantial open space to create mini-retention ponds the entire length of Electric. These
mini-retention ponds could retain stormwater during rainfalls involving intense
quantities of stormwater.
Pg 15
49. The inconvenience to homeowners on side streets is far less significant than the
inconvenience of sewage in citizens basements.
III.L. INCREASE LEVEL OF RISK DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE
50. Since the beginning of 1990s, evidence of Climate Change has been known by the City.
51. Specifically, the City knew that increases in air temperature has resulted into significant
higher levels of moisture stored in storm clouds, resulting in more intense rainfalls and higher
rainfall quantities of rainfall.
52. As a result of larger quantities of rainfall, the Plaintiff Class was at increased risk for sewage
backups given Climate Change.
53. The City knew that Plaintiffs were at increased risk for sewage backups during rainfalls given
Climate Change.
III.M. INTERIM EMERGENCY SHORT TERM PLAN WHILE CITY IMPLEMENTS
LONG TERM PLAN
54. Interim Emergency Necessary: As acknowledged early, the Plaintiff Class recognizes the
positive long terms plans which the City is seeking to implement. However, in the interim,
an Interim Short Term Adequate Restrictive Catchbasin Grate Plan is necessary to prevent
further damage to the Plaintiff Class.
55. February 1, 2016 Sanitary Sewer Defects Admitted: In February 1, 2016, the City took the
positive step of admitting to the existing defects in the Sewage Disposal System. Original
Complaint Exhibit 4 4 is the Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project-SRF Loan Information
Sheet. See http://www.lincolnpark.govoffice.com/ (the City of Lincoln Parks Official
Website), click on Government tab, and then click on City Council Agenda/Minutes/E-
Original Complaint Exhibit 4 is the Sanitary Sewer Improvement-SRF Loan Information

Sheet.
Pg 16
Packet tab, click on Minute Meetings tab and then proceed to the February 1, 2016
Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project-SRF Loan Information Sheet.
55.1.
On February 1, 2016, the City specifically in its Sanitary Sewer Improvement
Project-SRF Loan Information Sheet took the positive step of admitting to the defects
of infiltration and inflow within its sanitary sewer system causing customer
inconvenience due to backups in residential and commercial basements:
Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project
SRF Loan Information Sheet
Need for Project: Based upon a methodical analysis of the sanitary sewer
system, the City has identified numerous locations where infiltration and inflow
(I and I) is present within the system. This I and I cause considerable
management and capacity issues in the operation of the system. These issues
result in increased contractual costs for treatment of effluent from the City and
customer inconvenience due to backups in residential and commercial
basements.
55.2.
The Scope of the Project admitted pipes where
severe defects have been detected including moderate to severe longitudinal and
multiple cracking of the pipe, offset joints along the mainline sewer and or broken or
deformed pipes:
Scope of Project: The project involves the rehabilitation of 121 sewer segments
utilizing trenchless technologies to correct pipes where severe defects have been
detected. Defects include moderate to severe longitudinal and multiple cracking of
the pipe, offset joints along the mainline sewer and or broken or deformed pipes.
When the project is completed over 11,000 linear feet of pipe will be corrected
using Cured-In-Place Pipe Lining, or in some cases sections of pipe will be
removed and replaced. Additionally, the project will include repairs to the
Retention Basin Outlet and Valve SS-8. This repair and upgrade will allow the City
to better manage the operation of the Retention Basin and better utilize its allowed
capacity during storm water events that cause the surcharge of the interceptor
sewer.
Pg 17
55.3.
The current operation of the Retention Basin and
the current surcharging of the interceptor (presumably the River Drive Interceptor) as
noted as defective.
56. August 1, 2016 Retention Basin Work Proposal Retracted: On August 16, 2016, the City
retracted its proposal relating to Retention Basin Work because of the inability to obtain
reasonable bid amounts.
57. August 15, 2016 Retention Basin Repairs: On August 15, 2016, the day before the August
16, 2016 sewage invasions complained of herein, the City Council adopted a resolution
relating to the Retention Basin Repairs, constituting both a positive act to repair but also an
admission of ongoing defects in the Retention Basins conditions and repair.
58. Stormwater Defects Not Addressed by SSIP: Upon information and belief, this Sanitary
Sewer Improvement Project does not remedy the Stormwater Sewer Defects; specifically,
this Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project does not remedy the ongoing stormwater runoff
inflow from City street stormwater grates surcharging of the combined sanitary sewers and
the River Drive Interceptor and the ongoing combined sanitary sewage-stormwater water
invasions except to the extent that defective conditions at the Lincoln Park Retention Basin
caused the Plaintiff Class sewer water home invasions.
IV. DAMAGES
59. PROXIMATE CAUSE: As a substantial proximate cause of these acts and/or omissions by
the City, each Plaintiff household and/or member has sustained substantial and significant
injuries and damages.
60. These substantial damages proximately caused by each Defendant to each Plaintiffs include
the following set forth for purposes of description but not limitation the following damages.
Pg 18
61. All Plaintiffs have lost the practical usefulness and utility of their basements to vary levels
of loss; in many homes, the Plaintiffs basement comprise a significant percentage of the
habitable space of the home with basement bedrooms, living rooms, bathrooms and other
first floor level habitable spaces. Further, in many homes, the height of the sewage backups
damaged hot water tanks, furnaces, washers and dryers rendering these critical home
appliances destroyed and/or irreversibly damaged.
62. All Plaintiffs have suffered reduced market value because, given the multiple sewage
floodings, the Plaintiffs basements are no longer functionally useful; and the market value of
all Plaintiffs homes have been reduced given the inhabitability of the Plaintiffs basements.
Specifically, basement bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchens and other living spaces have been
destroyed and reconstruction is at risk for total destruction of their basement finished
habitable basements.
63. All Plaintiffs suffered total destruction and/or partial destruction of real property or
components of the real property including but not limited to damage to furnaces, hot water
tanks, wall-to-wall carpet, drywall, paneling, doors, base molding, base cabinetry and/or
other components of the finished and/or partially finished lower levels/basements.
64. All Plaintiff residents have suffered total destruction to and/or partial destruction and/or
damage to personal property including but not limited to damage to washers, dryers,
furniture, electronics, clothing and other personal property situated in the lower
levels/basements.
65. All Plaintiffs paid out out-of-pocket expenses, including but not limited to the cost of
cleanup, remediation, tearing out drywall, tearing out studs to which the drywall was attached
and/or rebuilding their pre-existing finished lower levels/basements.
Pg 19
66. All plaintiffs suffered lost time and additional labor costs including but not limited to the
performance of sewage clean-up, the performance and/or coordination of the moving of
personal property, the performance and/or coordination of the tear out of real property and/or
other related work done causing the loss of time.
67. All Plaintiffs suffered loss of use of Plaintiffs real and personal property.
68. All Plaintiffs suffered reduced market value due to having to report under the Michigan Real
Estate Disclosure Act facts relating to this sewage invasion.
69. Certain Plaintiffs suffered increase in insurance premiums.
70. Certain Plaintiffs suffered other economic injury and damages.
71. These damages when totaled for each household exceed the jurisdiction minimum of $25,000
for each household.
V. 2012 UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
TEMPORARY FLOODING TAKING CLAIM
DECISION
UPHOLDING
72. Governmentally induced temporary flooding may constitute an illegal, unconstitutional

Taking of Real Property and Personal Property per the 2013 United States Supreme Court
decision in Arkansas Game & Fish Commn, 568 U.S. 511, at 519, 133 S.Ct. at 519 (2012)
(quoting United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 266, 66 S.Ct. 1062, 90 L.Ed. 1206 (1946)):
[a] temporary takings claim could be maintained as well when government action
occurring outside the property gave rise to a direct and immediate interference with
the enjoyment and use of the land. Arkansas Game & Fish Commn, 568 U.S. 511 at
519, 133 S.Ct. at 519 (quoting United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 266, 66 S.Ct. 1062,
90 L.Ed. 1206 (1946)) and government-induced flooding of limited duration may be
compensable. Id. at , 133 S.Ct. at 519.
73. Plaintiffs also rely upon precedent upon which Arkansas Game & Fish relied including
Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall. 166, 80 U.S. 166, 20 L.Ed. 557 (1871) holding that
government-induced flooding could constitute a taking and United States v. Cress, 243 U.S.
Pg 20
316, 37 S.Ct. 380, 61 L.Ed. 746 (1917) holding that seasonally recurring flooding could
constitute a taking.
74. The Citys conduct including its substantial certain knowledge of sewage invasions during
manageable rainfalls arises to violations of both the United States and Michigan Due Process
Clauses as further set forth herein.
VI: CLASS ACTION AVERMENTS: A SINGLE CLASS
75. Relating to the numerosity requirement of MCR 3.501(1)(a), the Plaintiff Class is so numerous
that joinder of all members is impracticable. At a minimum, over 100 households sustained
sewer water invasions within the Council Point Park Neighborhood of the City of Lincoln
Park. Given that the average household size exceeds 2.2 person according to the 2010 U.S.
Census, over 220 persons at a minimum suffered sewer water invasions from the City sewers.
76. Relating to MCR 3.501(1)(b), there are questions of law and fact common to the members of
the Class that predominate over questions affecting only individual members. These common
questions of law and fact are those issues of law and fact set forth and raised by this Complaint
and including but not limited to:
76.1.
Whether the City knew or should have known
with substantial certainty that multiple sewer water invasions were occurring during
ordinary rainfalls which were preventable by the implementation of an Adequate
Restrictive Catchbasin Grate Plan including the use of restrictive catchbasin grates
distributed based upon standard computer Stormwater Management Models of its
Combined Sanitary-Stormwater Management Sewage Disposal System?
76.2.
Whether the Citys substantially certain knowing
decisions during the past 22 years not to remedy with an Adequate Restrictive Catchbasin
Pg 21
Plan a known substantially certain risk of sewer water invasions during multiple ordinary
rainstorms like the August 13, 2016 rainstorm constitutes a Taking under the Fifth
Amended to the United States Constitution?
76.3.
Whether the Citys substantially certain knowing
decisions during the past 22 years to remedy with an Adequate Restrictive Catchbasin Plan
a known substantially certain risk of sewer water invasions during multiple ordinary
rainstorms like the August 16, 2016 rainstorm constitutes a Taking under Article II,
Section 15 of the Michigan Constitution?
77. Relating to MCR 3.501(1)(c), the claims of the representative parties are typical of the claims
of each class as there are common issues of law, fact and/or mixed law-fact questions.
Specifically, the claims of Michigan Constitution Article II, Section 15 Taking of Real
Property (Count 1) and Personal Property (Count 2) and the United States Constitution 5th
Amendment Taking of Real Property (Count 3) and Personal Property (Count 4) are set forth
herein are common to all members of the Class.
78. Relating to MCR 3.501(1)(d), the representative parties will fairly and adequately assert and
protect the interests of each class. Specifically, each plaintiff representative experienced the
sewage invasion, each plaintiff representative continues to reside and/or rent and/or operate
homes at their respective address and each plaintiff representative is prosecuting this action.
79. Relating to MCR 3.501(2), the maintenance of the action as a class action will be superior to
other available methods of adjudication in promoting the convenient administration of justice
because the average claim of members of the Class is in the range of $50,000 including effects
on market value, it is prohibitive for each member household to prosecute their own action
because the litigation costs exceed the recovery amount given that (a) an expert climatologist,
Pg 22
hydrologist, and/or civil engineer would need to be retained and (b) an attorney to prosecute
the individual household claim would need to be retained.
80. Relating to MCR 3.501(2)(a)(i), the prosecution of separate actions by individual members of
each class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to
individual members of each class that would confront the party opposing each class with
incompatible standards of conduct. For example, different judges may decide similar claims
differently relating to the elements of proof for negligence, trespass and nuisance and whether
plaintiffs have proven each element.
81. Relating to MCR 3.501(2)(b)(ii), adjudications with respect to individual members of each
class would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of other members not parties to
the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests.
82. Relating to MCR 3.501(2)(c), this action is manageable as a class action. Specifically, all class
members have a residential address for purpose of notice.
83. Proposed Plaintiff Class: Plaintiffs Plaintiffs request the certification of the following class:
Persons owning and/or residing in homes situated in the Council Pointe Park
Neighborhood which homes sustained sewer water home invasions backing up
through the City of Lincoln Park combined sanitary stormwater system on
(2) August 13, 1994 and (2)(a) August 16, 2016 and/or (2)(b) other dates
since August 13, 1994.
COUNT 1: MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION: ART. 10, SEC. 2: UNCONSTITUTIONAL
TAKING OF PLAINTIFFS REAL PROPERTY
84. Plaintiffs reaver and incorporate the preceding allegations set forth previously herein.
85. Article 10 Section 2 of the Michigan Constitution states:
M.C.L.A. Const. Art. 10, 2
2. Eminent domain; compensation
Pg 23
Sec. 2. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation
therefore1 being first made or secured in a manner prescribed by law. If private
property consisting of an individuals principal residence is taken for public use, the
amount of compensation made and determined for that taking shall be not less than
125% of that propertys fair market value, in addition to any other reimbursement
allowed by law. Compensation shall be determined in proceedings in a court of record.
Public use does not include the taking of private property for transfer to a private
entity for the purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues.
Private property otherwise may be taken for reasons of public use as that term is
understood on the effective date of the amendment to this constitution that added this
paragraph.
In a condemnation action, the burden of proof is on the condemning authority to
demonstrate, by the preponderance of the evidence, that the taking of a private property
is for a public use, unless the condemnation action involves a taking for the eradication
of blight, in which case the burden of proof is on the condemning authority to
demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the taking of that property is for a
public use.
Any existing right, grant, or benefit afforded to property owners as of November 1,
2005, whether provided by this section, by statute, or otherwise, shall be preserved and
shall not be abrogated or impaired by the constitutional amendment that added this
paragraph.
86. Article 10 Section 2 of the Michigan Constitution states that private property shall not be
taken without payment of just compensation.
87. Article 10 Subsection 2 of the Michigan Constitution applies to all real property.
88. On the Occurrence Date, water and sewage accumulated and controlled by the CITY
physically invaded and settled upon Plaintiffs' real properties.
89. The physical invasion of Plaintiffs' properties by water and sewage unjustifiably and
unlawfully, interfered, hindered, prevented and deprived Plaintiffs of their exclusive right to
utilize their real properties for the purpose which they were intended to be used.
90. Plaintiffs have not been paid just compensation for the interference or unconstitutional taking
of their real properties.
Pg 24
91. Plaintiffs did not consent to the invasions and unconstitutional takings of their properties.
92. The Unconstitutional Takings of Plaintiff's properties entitle Plaintiffs to an award of just
compensation and attorney fees.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request relief against the CITY as set forth later herein in the Relief
Section.
COUNT 2: MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE 10 SECTION
UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING OF PLAINTIFFS PERSONAL PROPERTY
2:
93. Plaintiffs reaver and incorporate the preceding allegations set forth herein.
94. Article 10 Subsection 2 of the Michigan Constitution states that private property shall not be
taken without payment of just compensation.
95. Article 10 Subsection 2 of the Michigan Constitution applies to all personal property.
96. On the Occurrence Date, water and sewage accumulated and controlled by CITY physically
invaded and settled upon Plaintiffs' personal properties.
97. The physical invasion of Plaintiffs' properties by water and sewage unjustifiably and
unlawfully, interfered, hindered, prevented and deprived Plaintiffs of their exclusive right to
utilize their personal properties for the purpose which they were intended to be used.
98. Plaintiffs have not been paid just compensation for the interference or unconstitutional taking
of their personal properties.
99. Plaintiffs did not consent to the invasions and unconstitutional takings of their personal
properties.
100. The Unconstitutional Takings of Plaintiff's personal properties entitle Plaintiffs to an
award of just compensation and attorney fees.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request relief against the CITY as set forth later herein in the
Relief Section.
Pg 25
COUNT 3: U.S. CONSTITUTION FIFTH AMENDMENT:

TAKING OF REAL PROPERTY
102. The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution states:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in
the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War
or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice
put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be
a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
just compensation.
103. The last phrase of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the
taking of private property for public use without payment of just compensation to the citizenvictim of the taking.
104. Pursuant to the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, this CITY was under
a duty to provide just compensation for this CITYs taking of Plaintiffs real property
including residences and homes.
105. The Plaintiffs are parties beneficially interested to maintain this action because they are
entitled to just compensation from CITY relating to the CITYs taking of Plaintiffs real
property.
106. This CITY took Plaintiffs homes and other real property without just compensation in
violation the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
107. Because undiluted sanitary sewage from these public improvements for public uses
invaded the Plaintiffs, the physical overflows and invasions into Plaintiffs homes, residences
and properties by undiluted sanitary sewage water unjustifiably and unlawfully, interfered,
hindered, and prevented Plaintiffs from their exclusive right to use Plaintiffs properties for
Pg 26
their intended purposes as homes.

108. On the Occurrence Date, the Plaintiffs suffered a direct encroachment upon their real
properties when undiluted sanitary sewage invaded their real properties and which subjected
Plaintiffs real properties including residences and homes to a public use as retention basins
and/or detention basins of this CITYs undiluted sanitary sewage and/or undiluted sanitary
sewage under this CITYs ownership, control, management, supervision and/or jurisdiction.
109. On the Occurrence Date, these water invasions into the Plaintiffs homes excluded or
restricted the Plaintiffs dominion and control over their real properties including their
residences and homes.
110. Despite these destructive water invasions, Plaintiffs have not received just compensation
for this substantial interference of their real properties including their homes and residences.
111. CITY proximately caused injury and damage to the Plaintiffs real properties including
their homes and properties to become partial and/or totally uninhabitable by this CITYs
actions and/or inactions as set forth herein resulting in water invasions into the Plaintiffs
real properties including homes and residences.
112. This CITY has proximately caused the undiluted sanitary sewage invasive floodings from
its sewers, into Plaintiffs real properties including homes and residences, thereby destroying
and/or impairing the usefulness and market value of the Plaintiffs real properties including
homes and residences.
113. These invasive sewer water invasions show that CITY has unconstitutionally taken the
Plaintiffs real property and real property interests including their residences and homes
without just compensation being paid to the Plaintiffs as required by the Fifth Amendment
of the United States Constitution, thereby requiring this CITY now to pay just compensation
Pg 27
for the permanent injury to the real and personal property interests to the Plaintiffs.
Wherefore, the Plaintiffs request relief against this CITY as set forth in the Relief Section of this
Complaint.
COUNT 4: U.S. CONSTITUTION FIFTH AMENDMENT:
TAKING OF PERSONAL PROPERTY
115. The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the taking of private
property for public use without payment of just compensation to the citizen-victim of the
taking.
116. Pursuant to the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the CITY was under a
duty to provide just compensation for the Citys taking of Plaintiffs real personal property
including washers, dryers, appliances, furniture, electronics, and other items of personal
property.
117. The Plaintiffs are parties beneficially interested to maintain this action because they are
entitled to just compensation from the CITY relating to the CITYs taking of Plaintiffs
personal property.
118. The City took Plaintiffs personal property without just compensation in violation the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
119. Because undiluted sanitary sewage from these public improvements for public uses
invaded the Plaintiffs homes, the physical overflows and invasions into Plaintiffs homes,
residences and properties by undiluted sanitary sewage water unjustifiably and unlawfully,
interfered, hindered, and prevented Plaintiffs from their exclusive right to use Plaintiffs
properties for their intended purposes.
120. On the Occurrence Date, the Plaintiffs suffered a direct encroachment upon their personal
Pg 28
properties when undiluted sanitary sewage invaded their real properties and which subjected
Plaintiffs real properties including residences and homes to a public use as retention basins
and/or detention basins of the CITYs undiluted sanitary sewage and/or undiluted sanitary
sewage under the CITYs ownership, control, management, supervision and/or jurisdiction.
121. On the Occurrence Date, these water invasions into the Plaintiffs homes excluded or
restricted the Plaintiffs dominion and control over their personal properties including their
residences and homes.
122. Despite these destructive water invasions, Plaintiffs have not received just compensation
for this substantial interference of their personal properties.
123. The CITY has proximately caused the Plaintiffs personal properties to become partial
and/or totally uninhabitable by this CITYs actions and/or inactions as set forth herein
resulting in water invasions into the Plaintiffs personal properties.
124. The CITY has proximately caused the undiluted sanitary sewage invasive floodings from
its combined sewers, into Plaintiffs personal properties, thereby destroying and/or impairing
the usefulness and value of the Plaintiffs personal properties.
125. These invasive sewer water invasions show that the CITY has unconstitutionally taken the
Plaintiffs personal property and personal property interests without just compensation being
paid to the Plaintiffs as required by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution,
thereby requiring the CITY to now to pay just compensation for the permanent injury to the
personal property interests to the Plaintiffs.
Wherefore, the Plaintiffs request relief against the CITY as set forth in the Relief Section of this
Complaint.
Pg 29
COMMON RELIEF
The Plaintiffs Wilgus Webb, Vanessa Webb, Nino Certa, Anna Certa, William Drugalis,
Cheryl HoveyAnd Joseph Hovey, on Behalf of Themselves and Other Similarly Situated, , a
putative class action, request the following relief against the Defendant City of Lincoln Park:
A. That the Defendant City of Lincoln Park be compelled to adopt an Emergency Adequate
Restrictive Stormwater Grate Plan to keep stormwater runoff on open space surfaces such as
streets, especially side streets, parks, and other public and/or quasi-public open spaces so as to
prevent combined stormwater and sanitary sewage from invading citizens basements together
with the implementation of Emergency Stormwater Management Manpower Mobilization
Plan to mobilize City employees before, during and after a rainfall to prevent municipallyinduced sewage backups and to minimize surface water storage issues;
B. That this action be certified as a class action;
C. That each Plaintiff Household be awarded just compensation in excess of $25,000;
D. The award of attorney fees and court costs; and
E. Such other relief which this Court deems just and right.
Date: September 6, 2016
/s/Phillip G. Bazzo P25243

3856 Fort Str.
(248) 321-8600 FloodLaw@Comcast.Net
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs demand a jury as to all issues so triable.

3856 Fort Str.
Pg 30
STATE OF MICHIGAN
Plaintiffs
v.
Defendant
3856 Fort Str.
248-321-8600
CASE NO.:
HONORABLE
CE 16-011327-CE
FILED IN MY OFFICE
WAYNE COUNTY CLERK
9/6/2016 8:10:18 AM
CATHY M. GARRETT
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT EXHIBIT ONE:

GOOGLE AERIAL PHOTO-1

3856 Fort Str.
STATE OF MICHIGAN
Plaintiffs
v.
Defendant
3856 Fort Str.
248-321-8600
CASE NO.:
HONORABLE
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT EXHIBIT TWO:

RESTRICTIVE STORMWATER CATCHBASIN GRATE

3856 Fort Str.
CE
STATE OF MICHIGAN
Plaintiffs
v.
Defendant
3856 Fort Str.
248-321-8600
CASE NO.:
HONORABLE
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT EXHIBIT THREE:

STANDARD UNRESTRICTED STORMWATER GRATE

3856 Fort Str.
CE
STATE OF MICHIGAN
Plaintiffs
v.
Defendant
3856 Fort Str.
248-321-8600
CASE NO.:
HONORABLE
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT EXHIBIT FOUR:

CITY OF LINCOLN PARKS
SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECTSRF LOAN INFORMATION SHEET PLAN (2 PAGES)

3856 Fort Str.
CE

Lawsuit Regarding Recent Lincoln Park Flooding

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Lawsuit Regarding Recent Lincoln Park Flooding

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

jp

COMPLAINT ASSERTING UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING AND

Webb v. City of Lincoln Park - Original Complaint - Jury Demand

Webb v. City of Lincoln Park - Original Complaint - Jury Demand

COMPLAINT ASSERTING UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING AND

TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Webb v. City of Lincoln Park - Original Complaint - Jury Demand

Complaint Exhibit 1 1 is the Council Point Aerial Photo 1.

Original Complaint Exhibit 1 is the Council Point Aerial Photo 1.

Webb v. City of Lincoln Park - Original Complaint - Jury Demand

amount of stromwater entering the sewers through the Grate.

Lincoln Park Department of Public Works

Original Complaint Exhibit 3A is an example of a Standard Catchbasin Grate in Lincoln

Given Mr. Kozuhs leadership of the Lincoln

Many municipalities have in place fire and/or

The Webb Household consists of Wilgus Webb and Vanessa Webb

The Drugalis Household consists of William Drugalis and any others

since August 13, 1994.

NUCLEUS OF OPERATIVE FACTS RELATING TO THE CITY: THE CITY

III.A. SAFE SEWAGE DISPOSAL A TOP, FIRST TIER PRIORITY OF LOCAL

Webb v. City of Lincoln Park - Original Complaint - Jury Demand

into which these Lateral Sewers discharges their combined sewage *;

Webb v. City of Lincoln Park - Original Complaint - Jury Demand

Generally, the combined sanitary-stormwater sewers collect sewage and street

runoff stormwater from the adjacent homes *;

Generally, the combined sanitary-stormwater sewage is transported from west-to-

east generally discharging into the River Drive Interceptor *;

Generally, the Stewart/River Drive Pump Stations diversion gates to the LP

Retention Basin open as pre-defined hydraulic grade line/high lows; and

Generally, in situations of high flow in the River Drive Interceptor, diversion of

Webb v. City of Lincoln Park - Original Complaint - Jury Demand

Plant located in Wyandotte near Pennsylvania Road and Biddle Avenue/Jefferson

2014 and/or August 2014

However, these Restrictive Catchbasin Grates have been insufficient and

Webb v. City of Lincoln Park - Original Complaint - Jury Demand

Restrictive Catchbasin Grates have been inadequate to prevent sewage backups.

civilly illegal, knowingly negligent policy.

water being discharged into the Ecorse Creek.

the Citys combined sewage disposal system.

Webb v. City of Lincoln Park - Original Complaint - Jury Demand

Original Complaint Exhibit 4 is the Sanitary Sewer Improvement-SRF Loan Information

On February 1, 2016, the City specifically in its Sanitary Sewer Improvement

The Scope of the Project admitted pipes where

The current operation of the Retention Basin and

Webb v. City of Lincoln Park - Original Complaint - Jury Demand

72. Governmentally induced temporary flooding may constitute an illegal, unconstitutional

Webb v. City of Lincoln Park - Original Complaint - Jury Demand

Whether the City knew or should have known

Whether the Citys substantially certain knowing

Webb v. City of Lincoln Park - Original Complaint - Jury Demand

Whether the Citys substantially certain knowing

Webb v. City of Lincoln Park - Original Complaint - Jury Demand

Webb v. City of Lincoln Park - Original Complaint - Jury Demand

Webb v. City of Lincoln Park - Original Complaint - Jury Demand

COUNT 3: U.S. CONSTITUTION FIFTH AMENDMENT:

Webb v. City of Lincoln Park - Original Complaint - Jury Demand

their intended purposes as homes.

Webb v. City of Lincoln Park - Original Complaint - Jury Demand

Webb v. City of Lincoln Park - Original Complaint - Jury Demand

Date: September 6, 2016

/s/Phillip G. Bazzo P25243

Plaintiffs demand a jury as to all issues so triable.

Date: September 6, 2016