PG&E Liable for Contamination Caused by Gas Plant Formerly Located in Ghirardelli Square

SAN FRANCISCO, January 12, 2022 – Federal Judge William H. Orrick (N.D. Cal.), yesterday evening, issued an Order finding that PG&E is liable under the federal Clean Water Act (“CWA”) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) for any proven contamination caused by a manufactured gas plant—commonly known as the “Cannery MGP”—formerly owned and operated by PG&E’s predecessors in the current location of the Argonaut Hotel near Ghirardelli Square, above Aquatic Park Cove, San Francisco. The Order resolved cross-motions for summary judgment brought by PG&E and Plaintiff Dan Clarke, represented by Gross & Klein LLP, a concerned citizen and former resident of the Marina District, who has successfully fought PG&E to address manufactured gas plant contamination in the Marina and Fisherman’s Warf Districts for over a decade.

The Court agreed with Mr. Clarke that PG&E was liable for any such contamination under the CWA and RCRA, based on three independently sufficient grounds: (1) evidence that PG&E’s direct predecessor, San Francisco Gas & Electric Company (“SFG&E”), operated the Cannery MGP for some period in 1903; (2) evidence that SFG&E dismantled and removed components of the Cannery MGP thereafter; and (3) evidence that SFG&E acquired the Cannery MGP, not through an asset sale, as PG&E has claimed for decades, but rather, as Mr. Clarke argued, a stock sale by which SFG&E transformed the plant’s former owner into a mere instrumentality of SFG&E.

In the 1980s, a limited investigation of the Cannery MGP’s former location was conducted, the results of which, Mr. Clarke alleges, indicated the likely existence of high levels of dangerous contamination from the former plant. However, PG&E denied any responsibility to further investigate or remediate the contamination, and no state or federal government agency ever took action to compel PG&E to do so. As a result, over forty years have passed during which no action to address the contamination has occurred. Manufactured gas plant contamination contains high levels of various toxic chemicals, in particular, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, which are well-known human carcinogens and are highly toxic to marine life. Mr. Clarke alleges that the contamination not only threatens human health, but also the health of the environment, including that of the Bay into which he alleges toxic chemicals from the contamination are continuously discharged. Investigations of other former PG&E manufactured gas plants along San Francisco’s northern waterfront have revealed extensive contamination, including large deposits of highly toxic coal tar at different locations in the Marina, Fisherman’s Wharf, and offshore of both.

“This is an important day for the health of San Francisco and the Bay,” commented Stuart G. Gross of Gross & Klein. “It is also an important day for the principles of ‘polluter pays’ and corporate accountability,” Mr. Gross continued. “For decades, PG&E was able to evade responsibility on the basis of its assertion—now refuted—that it never owned or operated the plant. No government agency ever challenged that assertion, letting PG&E off the hook. Mr. Clarke stepped into and filled that gap and, in so doing, provided an extraordinary public service. We’re honored to represent him in this fight.”

Mr. Clarke discovered the existence of the Cannery MGP while doing research in connection with separate litigation against PG&E related to three other manufactured gas plants formerly located on San Francisco’s northern waterfront. “When I raised the issue of the Cannery MGP to PG&E, they refused to even discuss it,” Mr. Clarke observed. “‘Never owned it, never operated it,’ was their line. I knew that wasn’t true, then, and it’s gratifying to have the Court agree. I look forward to the site being finally investigated and remediated.”

Gross & Klein LLP represented Mr. Clarke and the San Francisco Herring Association in a separate action, San Francisco Herring Association, et al. v. PG&E, et al., No. 14-4393-WHO (N.D. Cal.), which resulted inter alia in two separate consent decrees, addressing offshore and terrestrial contamination in the Marina and Fisherman’s Wharf. Gross & Klein has also successfully represented, and currently represents, a number of Marina homeowners in related cases against PG&E.

The lawsuit is titled, Clarke v. PG&E, No. 20-4626-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

A copy of the Order Granting, in Part, and Denying, in Part, the Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment is available here.

San Francisco Bay Herring Fishers Sue Chevron to Hold it Responsible for Richmond Refinery Oil Spill

SAN FRANCISCO, February 16, 2021. The San Francisco Herring Association, John Mellor, and Chris Cameron—respectively, a herring fishers’ association dedicated to protecting the Bay’s herring stock and fishery and two career herring fishers—filed a class action suit, today, in Contra Costa Superior Court, against Chevron, in response to the devastating oil spill that occurred at the Chevron Richmond Refinery on February 9, 2021. Hundreds of gallons of poisonous petroleum product spilled into the waters of San Pablo Bay, directly into some of the Bay’s best herring spawning grounds. As alleged in the Complaint, the spill is certain to cause immediate and long-term damage to the Bay’s Pacific herring stock and the fishery dependent on it.

As alleged in the Complaint, this oil spill is the latest in a long line of environmental disasters and close calls at the Richmond Refinery, the result of Chevron’s long-standing pattern and practice of placing profits over the safety of the environment. Not only did Chevron’s carelessness result in the spill, but its careless actions and failures to act before and after the spill greatly exacerbated the harm the spill caused to the Bay’s herring stock and habitat on which it depends. No booming or other spill mitigation measures were in place prior to the spill. And after the spill, Chevron dragged its feet putting such measures in place, and then, it boomed the spill in such a way that its effects were concentrated in highly productive herring spawning grounds.

John Mellor, a named plaintiff, class representative, and Vice-President of the San Francisco Herring Association, stated, “Herring fishers don’t just fish. We have been working for years to preserve and protect the herring that spawn in the Bay. You dedicate your life and career to something like that, and then an oil company that sits on the water goes and reverses your work to save a buck. It’s more than a little frustrating.”

Petroleum products of the type spilled into the Bay last Tuesday are loaded with toxic compounds, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (“PAHs”). PAHs are “genotoxic”, in that they damage the genetic information within a cell and cause mutations. When herring eggs and herring larvae are exposed to PAHs, very significant levels of mortality occur both acutely and over-time. Thus, PAH exposure both kills off a large portion of exposed fertilized eggs and larvae and weakens the surviving herring, decreasing the long-term survival of the fish.

As alleged in the Complaint, last Tuesday’s spill occurred in some of the Bay’s best herring spawning habitat, where a spawn had been observed just weeks prior. As a result, the vast majority of those eggs and larvae will die, those that don’t will live dramatically shortened lives, and herring will likely not return to spawn at the site for many years. The spill’s impact on the Bay’s herring stock and fishery will be felt for years.

Matt Ryan, President of the San Francisco Herring Association, noted, “All of the herring that you see spawning in the Bay were, themselves, spawned here as many as eight years before. Thus, when a spill like this occurs, its effects are felt for years.” He continued, “As part of the association’s settlement with PG&E regarding contamination along San Francisco’s waterfront, we secured millions of dollars to improve the Bay’s herring habitat. This includes a project to remove the creosote pilings just around the corner from the spill, on San Pablo point, and eelgrass restoration work elsewhere in the area. The point of all this work is to improve the overall health of the Bay’s herring stock, not to create herring habitat for Chevron to destroy.”

“Herring fishers livelihoods depend on the long-term health of the herring stock and its environment. Thus, they steward that stock and the environment, which ultimately benefits us all,” said Stuart G. Gross of Gross & Klein LLP, which is representing the plaintiffs. “Chevron takes the opposite approach: it cuts corners to add a little more to its billion-dollar bottom line, externalizing the costs of its conduct onto the environment and those that depend on it. This lawsuit seeks to reverse that equation.”

Stuart Gross Named a 2021 Super Lawyer in Business Litigation by Thompson Reuters

SAN FRANCISCO, February 1, 2021: Thompson Reuters has named Gross & Klein LLP partner Stuart Gross to its list of Super Lawyers in Northern California in the area of Business Litigation. The designation of Super Lawyer is given only to attorneys who “have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.” Thompson Reuters has named Stuart a Super Lawyer every year since 2013, and designated him a Rising Star each of the previous three years.

San Francisco's Crabbing Fleet Sues City to Recoup Losses From Devastating Pier 45 Fire

SAN FRANCISCO, December 16, 2020— Over twenty-five commercial fishers—who together make up the bulk of San Francisco’s crabbing fleet—filed suit today in San Francisco Superior Court, alleging that the Port of San Francisco (a subdivision of the City and County of San Francisco) was grossly negligent in its management and oversight of Pier 45, resulting in the destructive four-alarm fire that ravaged the pier on Memorial Day weekend of this year. The fire destroyed Pier 45’s Shed C, a more than 85,000 square-foot Port-operated facility in which the plaintiff fishers stored the fishing and crabbing gear upon which they depended to earn their livelihoods.

As alleged in the Complaint, the Port created or knowingly failed to prevent a number of dangerous conditions which culminated with the fire at Pier 45. For example, the Port knew that unhoused individuals frequently trespassed in Shed C – which was never locked and always had at least one open door – and knew that they regularly started camping and cooking fires inside the shed. The Port nevertheless failed to prevent the unhoused individuals from accessing the shed. The Port further failed: to maintain the poorly aged electrical systems in Shed C; to install required and appropriate fire safety, prevention, and mitigation measures, including sprinklers or a standpipe that the fire marshal had specifically directed the Port to install. The Port, in fact, allowed vehicles to be parked in the shed, after being specifically ordered by the fire marshal to prohibit such parking unless and until it installed sprinklers in the shed and took other measures. The Port likewise allowed dangerous flammable and explosive materials to be stored haphazardly within the Shed, including volatile fuels and piles of wooden pallets and garbage that the Port failed to clear. On top of these and other derelictions, the Port failed to ensure that an adequate water supply was available to firefighters at the time of the fire, preventing the fire department from taking quick action to mitigate its spread. The Plaintiffs allege that these and other acts and omissions by the Port were grossly negligent and violated various codes, regulations, and local ordinances intended to avert this exact type of catastrophe.

As a tragic result of this confluence of grossly negligent failures, the complaint alleges, the plaintiff fishers lost millions of dollars worth of equipment, losses that have hobbled their ability to engage in their usual fishing and crabbing activities, thereby incurring further losses. Many plaintiffs have been forced to scramble to secure new gear in time to partake in the 2020-2021 Dungeness crab season, but others have effectively been shut out of the industry to which they have dedicated their careers.

John Barnett, one of the plaintiffs and president of the San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association, observed, “San Francisco’s crabbers have had a rough few years, with seasons getting canceled or shortened because of ocean conditions; and, like everyone, the pandemic has made everything harder. To add to this getting all of your gear destroyed in a fire caused by someone else’s carelessness is a punch in the gut.”

Another plaintiff and long-time crabber and fisher John Mellor put it this way, “Each one of us lost hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gear in the fire. Most fishermen don’t make a lot of extra money each year, so we don’t have a pot of savings that can be dipped into when something like this happens. It’s a desperate situation. The Port needs to make this right.”

“San Francisco is not San Francisco without its fishing community,” said the plaintiffs’ attorney Stuart G. Gross of Gross & Klein LLP. “For well over 100 years, San Francisco’s fishing community has been literally synonymous with the City’s waterfront. If we lose that community, the waterfront loses its soul.” Gross continued, “The fire at Pier 45 threatens that community’s survival, and the fire was preventable. When the Port told the crabbers to store their gear in the shed, it assumed the obligation to make reasonable efforts to ensure that it was safe for that purpose. The Port had ample notice of the myriad fire risks in Shed C, and every opportunity to mitigate those risks. It did not do so, and San Francisco’s fishing community has suffered the consequences. They deserve better.”

The lawsuit is titled Burchell, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco.

Lawsuit Challenges Logging Threat to Endangered Wildlife in Northern California Redwoods

GUALALA, Calif., September 15, 2020 — Gross & Klein LLP, today, filed an Endangered Species Act lawsuit in the Northern District of California, on behalf of conservation groups against the Gualala Redwood Timber Company to protect threatened and endangered fish, birds, and frogs from a logging project in a redwood forest near Northern California’s Gualala River.

Today’s action by the Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of Gualala River seeks a court order stopping the timber company from logging some of the last remaining mature floodplain redwood forest in the region. The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, aims to protect Northern California steelhead, Central California Coast coho salmon, California red-legged frogs, and northern spotted owls from extinction.

“We hope the court puts an end to this destructive logging project,” said Peter Galvin, cofounder of the Center. “The Gualala River’s redwood ecosystem is a California treasure that must be protected to stop the extinction crisis facing species like the steelhead and coho salmon.”

The proposed logging, on 342 acres of private land in Sonoma County, would remove mature redwoods from the lower Gualala River watershed. The Gualala River redwood forest is much beloved by locals and has been staunchly defended by Friends of Gualala River since 1992.

“As Mother Earth faces climate change and growing numbers of species are going extinct, FoGR has a responsibility to speak for the threatened and endangered species that are trying to maintain their existence and keep the ecosystem of the Gualala River intact,” said Charles Ivor, president of Friends of Gualala River. “This is why we joined with the Center for Biological Diversity to file a federal Endangered Species Act lawsuit.”

“Gross & Klein is proud to have been tapped for this fight,” said Stuart G. Gross of Gross & Klein LLP. “If these kinds of actions are not brought and won, endangered and threatened species will forever disappear. That would be an incalculable loss, and we won’t let that happen.”

The Endangered Species Act prohibits the “taking” of imperiled wildlife, including actions that “harass, harm, pursue, wound, or kill,” threatened or endangered species. The logging project will remove redwoods in a floodplain that a federal recovery plan has identified as “essential” to the Northern California steelhead. Likewise, the federal recovery plan for Central California Coast coho salmon lists logging as a major reason for the species’ current endangered status.

To remove redwoods from the area, the proposed logging project will use heavy equipment and build roads and skid trails. This will destroy the California red-legged frogs’ habitat and is likely to kill or injure frogs. The logging plan itself acknowledges the potential for logging activities to kill slow-moving animals.

Northern spotted owls rely on old forest stands with dense canopy cover, a habitat type that continues to decline because of commercial logging operations. In addition to reducing the habitat these birds need to survive, logging leads to increased competition for the owls.

The lawsuit is titled: Friends of Gualala River, et al. v. Gualala Redwood Timber, LLC, No. 20-cv-6453.

A copy of the Complaint can be found here.

PG&E Sued To Compel Investigation and Cleanup of Contamination In SF's Ghiradelli Square and Aquatic Park

SAN FRANCISCO, July 11, 2020 – Gross & Klein LLP filed a complaint, yesterday evening, on behalf of a concerned citizen, in the federal court of the Northern District of California, seeking the investigation and cleanup of contamination from a manufactured gas plant or “MGP” that PG&E formerly owned and operated in the current location of the Argonaut Hotel in the Ghirardelli Square area of Fisherman’s Wharf, in San Francisco.

As alleged in the complaint, the manufactured gas plant, known as the “Cannery MGP,” in the late 19th and 20th centuries, turned coal and crude oil into a gas that was piped to homes and businesses for heating and lighting. Despite internal documents that acknowledge its responsibility for the contamination caused by the Cannery MGP, PG&E has publically and falsely denied ever owning or operating the MGP and has repeatedly refused to even investigate the contamination caused by it.

A limited investigation conducted in the mid-1980s revealed dangerous levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or PAHs at the site of the Cannery MGP. PAHs are known human carcinogens and can have devastating effects on animals exposed to them, particularly fish exposed when they are in eggs or during their larval stage. The area offshore of the Cannery MGP, including Aquatic Park, is not only one of the few areas of the Bay where people regularly swim it is also a known spawning ground for Pacific herring, a keystone species for the Bay’s ecology that is known to be particularly sensitive to PAH exposure.

The complaint alleges that groundwater passing through the former Cannery MGP site is transporting dangerous PAHs and other chemicals into Aquatic Park and other areas of the Bay. It further alleges that sediment in Aquatic Park itself contains large amounts of contamination from the MGP and that PAHs and other dangerous chemicals are partitioning from that waste into the water column. Investigations of other MGPs for which PG&E is responsible along the northern waterfront of San Francisco have revealed extensive contamination, including large deposits of tar in the areas of Gas House Cove and Pier 39. 

“PG&E's refusal to own up to its responsibility for this contamination is incredibly, but not surprisingly, cynical," said Stuart G. Gross of Gross & Klein. "Unfortunately, this company, since its founding in the 1800s, has consistently put profits ahead of people and the environment. They don't do the right thing unless forced to, and we are going to force them to."

The lawsuit brings claims under the federal Clean Water Act, the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and California state common law. It seeks the establishment of environmental remediation trust funded by PG&E that will be responsible for managing the investigation and remediation of the contamination.

Gross & Klein has successfully represented the plaintiff in this case, commercial herring fishermen, homeowners, and others in several other lawsuits regarding the other three MGPs along San Francisco’s waterfront. One such lawsuit resulted in a ten-year consent decree between PG&E and commercial herring fishermen that requires the investigation and cleanup of large portions of the waterfront. However, because of PG&E’s denial of responsibility for it, the consent decree does not address contamination caused by the Cannery MGP.

The lawsuit is titled, Clarke v. PG&E, No. 20-cv-04629 (N.D. Cal.).

A copy of the Complaint can be found here.

San Francisco Herring Association Distributes Over $1.7 Million to Permanently Retire Herring Permits

SAN FRANCISCO, April 21, 2020 – The San Francisco Herring Association (“SHFA”), today, cut checks totaling over $1.7 million to approximately fifty fishermen who agreed to give up one or more of their San Francisco herring permits, permanently reducing by approximately 50% the total number permits available to fish for herring in San Francisco Bay.

The funds used to make the payments were won in a lawsuit that SFHA, represented by Stuart G. Gross of Gross & Klein LLP, brought against PG&E for contamination of herring spawning grounds in San Francisco Bay caused by PG&E’s historical manufactured gas plant operations in the Marina and Fisherman’s Wharf neighborhoods of San Francisco. SFHA’s claims were resolved in September of 2018, when Federal Judge William H. Orrick (N.D. Cal.) entered a consent decree that obligated PG&E to fund the permit retirement program, pay another approximately $3.5 million for environmental restoration, monitoring, and other expenses, and engage in a ten-year-long investigation and clean up of the offshore areas of the Marina and Fisherman's Wharf neighborhoods.

The permit retirement program represents a remarkable example of collaboration between fishermen and resource agencies, specifically the California Fish & Game Commission (the “Commission”) and California Department of Fish & Wildlife (“CDFW”), to achieve shared goals of protecting natural resources and supporting fishing families. The San Francisco herring fishery, at one time, was one of the most lucrative in the world; and, as a result, many fishermen spent tens of thousands of dollars to purchase their herring permits. (Much like a taxi medallion, only a limited number of herring permits are in circulation; and fishermen cannot participate in the fishery without one.) However, over time the fishery has become substantially less lucrative; and stock levels have periodically shown significant weakness. As a result, herring permits are now worth substantially less money, and the total number is higher than what the stock can sustainably support.

SFHA worked closely with the Commission to develop and implement the necessary regulatory changes that would result in the permanent retirement of any permit that a fisherman surrendered. SFHA, then, with the cooperation and assistance of CDFW, contacted permit holders, executed contracts with those who wished to participate, and verified that their permits had been surrendered.

SFHA’s President, Matt Ryan, a long time herring fisherman, who was largely responsible for designing the program and shepherding it through all stages of its implementation, observed, "It's great to see this get done. There were more than a few points along the way where it wasn’t clear that it would come together. The fact that we were able to put tens of thousands of dollars into fishermen's hands and support the health of the stock is a great thing, especially given everything going on right now.”

Stuart G. Gross of Gross & Klein LLP, which represented SFHA in the lawsuit and in the administration of the program, observed, “It always feels good making a polluter pay. The fact that the payees, here, are hardworking fishermen harmed by PG&E’s carelessness makes it all the sweeter. The icing on the cake is that not only will the ecology of the Bay significantly benefit from the reduction in permits, the remaining holders will benefit as well. This is a real win-win-win for everyone . . . except PG&E.”

Gross & Klein LLP represents individuals, businesses, and non-profits in a range of complex litigation—including environmental, commercial, and financial fraud cases. Gross & Klein represents several current and former home and property owners, in separate ongoing cases concerning contamination caused by PG&E’s manufactured gas plants in San Francisco.

The referenced lawsuit was titled, San Francisco Herring Association v. PG&E, No. 14-4393 (N.D. Cal.).

Complaint Filed To Complete The Cleanup Of Marina Neighborhood Contamination Caused By PG&E

SAN FRANCISCO, March 18, 2020 – Gross & Klein LLP filed a complaint today in the Northern District of California, on behalf of Dan Clarke, to complete the cleanup of PG&E’s contamination of the Marina neighborhood of San Francisco.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, PG&E owned and operated two manufactured gas plants or “MGPs" in the present-day Marina neighborhood. MGPs were refineries that turned coal, oil, and combinations thereof into gas that was pumped to residences in their vicinity. The process created large amounts of highly toxic waste, including waste that contained large concentrations of carcinogenic poly-aromatic hydrocarbons.

As alleged in the complaint, PG&E’s operation and demolition of the MGPs also resulted in extensive lead contamination of former sites of the MGPs, sites on which there are now numerous homes and backyards in which children live and play. PG&E has vigorously resisted even testing for lead, pointing the finger for the indisputably high levels lead at a shifting group of candidates, such as far off downwind industrial operations.

As also alleged, PG&E, in public information provided to Marina parents and other homeowners, has intentionally minimized the health risks presented by the contamination to dissuade them from demanding a cleanup of their homes and has taken no action to clean up its contamination in the many public areas of the Marina neighborhood.

“PG&E has repeatedly demonstrated that it cannot be trusted to put the health and safety of the public first,” said Stuart G. Gross of Gross & Klein LLP. “PG&E consistently puts shareholder profits over people’s welfare, and this situation is no different.”

The original action was filed in 2014 and has resulted in a series of agreements and orders that have forced PG&E to conduct investigations and cleanups that it vigorously refused to do. This new complaint asks the court to finally order PG&E to pay for an independent third party to take over the cleanup and ensure its completion in a manner that will protect the health of Marina residents, workers, and visitors.

The lawsuit is titled, Clarke v. PG&E, No. 14-4393 (N.D. Cal.).

A copy of the complaint is included herewith and can be found here:

Stuart Gross Named a 2020 Super Lawyer in Business Litigation by Thompson Reuters

SAN FRANCISCO, February 1, 2020: Thompson Reuters has named Gross & Klein LLP partner Stuart Gross to its list of Super Lawyers in Northern California in the area of Business Litigation. The designation of Super Lawyer is given only to attorneys who “have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.” Thompson Reuters has named Stuart a Super Lawyer every year since 2013, and designated him a Rising Star each of the previous three years.

See Stuart's listing here

Court Approves Final Settlement of Class Action Snow Removal Price Fixing Case in Truckee/ Tahoe

TRUCKEE CALIFORNIA, August 1, 2019 - The Nevada County Superior Court has entered a final order approving the settlement of a class action that alleged Snowtech, Inc. and Waltman Construction, Inc. – which merged in March 2017 to form Elements Mountain Co. – engaged in an almost decade-long conspiracy to fix the price of snow removal services sold to residents of Tahoe Donner, in Truckee, California.

The settlement provides substantial compensation to any person who purchased snow removal services from Snowtech or Waltman during any snow removal season beginning with the 2008-09 season and continuing through the 2016-17 season. A person who purchased snow removal services from Snowtech or Waltman during each of those seasons will receive a total of $390 in vouchers redeemable for snow removal services or a lower cash amount. Elements Mountain Co., moreover, is barred from raising snow removal prices in Tahoe Donner for the next three years (until the 2022/2023 snow removal season). The total value of the settlement, depending on the level of class member participation in the settlement, could well exceed $3,000,000.

No objections were received to the settlement, and only 20 out of over 8,000 potential class members opted out. Based on this response and the significant value that the settlement provides to victims of the conspiracy, the Court held that the settlement is “reasonable, adequate and fair to all members of the certified class.”

Mark L. Lasser of Lasser Law Office, a Truckee/ Tahoe attorney and resident who represented the class noted, “We believe this case sends an important message that no one is above the law, the antitrust laws must be respected, and will help to promote fair competition in the snow removal services market in Truckee/ Tahoe in the future.”

Stuart Gross of Gross & Klein LLP, who served as co-counsel in the class action lawsuit, stated, “This is a solid result. The settlement ensures that victims of the defendants’ conspiracy are well compensated for the injuries they suffered; and it sends a clear message that claims of illegal price-fixing will be aggressively pursued.”

The case is captioned: Cramer et al. v. Elements Mountain Co. et al., No. TCU17-6880

Copy of the Complaint can be found here.
Copy of the Final Order can be found here.
Copy of the Settlement Agreement can be found here.