Case 3:22-cv-00239-SLH Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 1 of 15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RONALD J. SHAWLEY AND )

JANE E. SHAWLEY, ) 3:22-CV-239
Civil Action No.:__________
172 Allbaugh Park Road )
Johnstown, PA 15909, )
Plaintiffs, )
v. )
) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P. )
8111 Westchester Drive, Suite 600 )
Dallas, TX 75225, )
Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Ronald J. Shawley and Jane E. Shawley, by and through their undersigned

counsel, file this Complaint against Defendant Sunoco Pipeline L.P. and in support thereof, aver

as follows:

Introduction

1. This is an action brought by Plaintiffs who are residents and owners of property located

in Johnstown, Cambria County, Pennsylvania. Their claims are premised on (a) private,

temporary, continuing, abatable nuisance; and (b) negligence/recklessness against Defendant

Sunoco Pipeline L.P. Plaintiffs have suffered injuries and sustained damages arising from

Defendant’s natural gas pipeline construction and associated activities as described more fully

below.

2. As more fully set forth below, Plaintiffs’ quality of life has been negatively impacted to

such a significant extent that they are no longer able to use and enjoy their home and property in

the way they previously enjoyed prior to Defendant’s acts and/or omissions.

3. Such wrongful conduct is not new for Defendant Sunoco Pipeline, L.P.
 Case 3:22-cv-00239-SLH Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 2 of 15

4. On 8/5/2022, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, in relevant part, indicated

“…that Sunoco Pipeline L.P., and ETC Northeast Pipeline LLC (ETC), both
subsidiaries of Energy Transfer, L.P. (Energy Transfer), were convicted of
criminal charges related to their conduct during the construction of two major
pipelines in Pennsylvania. Mariner East 2 Pipeline, which crosses 17 counties in
the southern tier of Pennsylvania, and Revolution Pipeline, a 42.5 mile pipeline
that starts in Butler County, and is routed through Beaver and Allegheny counties,
and connects to a gas processing plant in Washington County.

[emphasis added]

*****

We have a constitutional right in Pennsylvania to clean air and pure water,” said
AG Shapiro. “It’s a right that was enshrined in our state constitution at a time
when the people of Pennsylvania learned a tough lesson first-hand — the health
of our children, and our economic future, depended on protecting our
environment from reckless profit and unchecked corporate interests. Today we’re
upholding our oath to our constitution and holding Energy Transfer accountable
for their crimes against our natural resources.”
Following an investigation by the Office of Attorney General Environmental
Crimes Section and recommendations from the 45th Statewide Investigating
Grand Jury, Sunoco Pipeline L.P. was charged with 48 counts of
environmental crimes for their conduct during the construction of the
Mariner East 2 Pipeline…”

[emphasis added]

See https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/taking-action/case-update-energy-transfer-convicted-of-
criminal-charges-related-to-construction-of-mariner-east-2-pipeline-revolution-pipeline-in-
pennsylvania/

5. In this current matter, Defendant’s actions have rendered the Plaintiffs’ household nearly

uninhabitable, forcing Plaintiffs to live with regular flooding of their home, often with raw

sewage from a compromised septic system, and the resulting damage to household appliances,

furniture, walls and floors and a lack of access to clean, potable groundwater.

6. Despite the ongoing injuries to Plaintiffs clearly caused by Defendant’s actions as

documented by both local and state officials, as well as expert hydrologists, Defendant has

refused to take adequate actions to remedy the ongoing harm to Plaintiffs, thereby forcing the

-2-
 Case 3:22-cv-00239-SLH Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 3 of 15

filing of this complaint.

Parties

7. Plaintiff Ronald J. Shawley is an adult individual who resides with his wife at 172

Allbaugh Park Road, Johnstown, Cambria County, PA 15909.

8. Plaintiff Jane E. Shawley is an adult individual who resides with her husband at 172

Allbaugh Park Road, Johnstown, Cambria County, PA 15909.

9. Plaintiff Ronald J. Shawley and Plaintiff Jane E. Shawley are husband and wife and shall

be collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs” herein.

10. Defendant Sunoco Pipeline L.P. (“SPLP”) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Energy

Transfer LP. SPLP is organized and exists under the laws of the state of Texas. SPLP is

headquartered in Dallas, TX at 8111 Westchester Drive, Suite 600, Dallas, TX 75225. SPLP is

registered to conduct business within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as a Foreign Limited

Partnership under the following entity number: 3047391.

11. SPLP operates numerous pipelines, including the Mariner East 2 (“ME2”) pipeline, and

conducts a substantial portion of its business in Pennsylvania.

Subject Matter Property

12. The Subject Matter Property is located at 172 Allbaugh Park Road, Johnstown, Cambria

County, PA 15909 (“Shawley Property” or “Subject Matter Property”).

13. Plaintiffs own the Subject Matter Property.

Jurisdiction and Venue

14. Given the nature of their injuries and damages, Plaintiffs seek to recover an amount in

excess of $150,000.00 as set forth in their claims (counts) below.

15. Jurisdiction is proper in the United States District Court for the Western District of

-3-
 Case 3:22-cv-00239-SLH Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 4 of 15

Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) since (a) there exists complete diversity of

citizenship between the parties; and (b) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 23. Venue

is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

16. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 in so far as the following alleged unlawful

conduct that forms the factual and legal bases of this Complaint occurred within the geographical

limits of this District.

Factual Allegations

17. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege all prior paragraphs of the Complaint as

if fully set forth herein.

18. Plaintiffs have possessory interests in property in Cambria County, PA.

19. Specifically, Plaintiffs use the Shawley Property as their primary residence and for work

and recreational activities, as well as a donation center for military veterans and a base to provide

them with support services.

20. Since living in Cambria County, Plaintiffs had come to expect and enjoy the quiet, fresh

air, fresh water, privacy, and overall peacefulness of the area.

21. The Shawley Property is serviced with a private water supply well and a private on-lot

septic system.

22. Plaintiffs rely on their private water supply for drinking, bathing, cooking, washing

and/or other daily residential uses.

23. Plaintiffs rely on their private on-lot septic system for residential sewage disposal and

removal.

24. In or around June 2017, SPLP constructed, or caused to be constructed the Mariner East

II pipeline (“ME2”) on and in close proximity to the Shawley Property. The ME2 is an

-4-
 Case 3:22-cv-00239-SLH Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 5 of 15

underground natural gas (petroleum) pipeline extension of Defendant’s Mariner East I pipeline.

As part of the construction activities, Defendant also drilled a horizontal borehole (“HDD

Borehole”) on the Shawley Property.

25. Prior to commencing construction activities for construction and installation of ME2 on

the Shawley Property, SPLP never conducted any safety briefing for the benefit of Plaintiffs.

26. During ME2’s construction and installation activities, over sixty (60) large trees were

removed from the Shawley Property along with some trees associated with the ME2 pipeline

construction area.

27. SPLP removed so many trees from the Shawley Property that several remaining trees

were subsequently knocked down by exposure to winds. Ultimately, these falling tress fell into

Koi and goldfish ponds which Plaintiff Ronald Shawley had self-constructed and self-

maintained. All of Plaintiffs’ fish died and the ponds were completely destroyed.

28. The foregoing 60-cut trees were laid down in three (3) piles around the Shawley

Property.

29. The ME2 pipeline system and the associated HDD Borehole traverse the Shawley

Property and are within 25 feet of Plaintiffs primary residence and private residential well.

30. Sewage from Plaintiffs’ residence is discharged to a septic holding tank located south of

their house. At that point, solids are separated from liquids and, thereafter, the liquids move

through a discharge line into a leach field located northeast of the site.

31. The access area used for ME2 pipeline construction vehicles and maintenance and

support vehicles is within 15 feet of Plaintiffs’ house, private water well and also overlies a

portion of their septic system, including the septic-discharge line and its associated leach field.

32. The active access areas for construction vehicles during the ME2 pipeline project and its

-5-
 Case 3:22-cv-00239-SLH Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 6 of 15

servicing overlapped with a portion of the septic discharge line and its associated leach field.

33. In addition, the pipeline runs directly under Plaintiffs’ septic discharge line.

34. During the construction activities, Plaintiffs’ well water became turbid as a result of the

Defendant’s HDD Borehole drilling methodologies.

35. Upon informing Defendant of the foregoing damages and as a result of Defendant’s

wrongdoing, SPLP provided a temporary water supply tank system to Plaintiffs’ residence in an

attempt to establish potable water supply. This tank is located on the north side of the residential

house.

36. At present, Plaintiffs’ water well no longer contains any water.

37. In addition to the lack of water, a sewage-odor has permeated into Plaintiffs’ water well.

38. The permeation of the sewage-odor into the water well occurred due to SPLP operating

their ME2 construction vehicles over Plaintiffs’ septic system and causing damage directly

thereto. These foregoing activities conducted by SPLP caused Plaintiffs’ septic system to be

damaged in various capacities.

39. The ME2 pipeline and its related installation work on and around the Shawley Property

was completed in or around October, 2018.

40. Since SPLP’s ME2 pipelines activities have ended, Plaintiffs have suffered an ongoing

series of hydrological problems and property damage, including an inability to use their well

water supply for every day needs, frequent flooding of the foundation and interior of their home,

sewage backups and discharges of sewage from sinks, sewage contamination of kitchen

countertops, cabinets and floors and a regular, persistent sewage odor in their water supply and

surrounding airway.

41. In specific instances, as depicted below, raw sewage comes upward through the

-6-
 Case 3:22-cv-00239-SLH Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 7 of 15

Shawley’s kitchen sink and spills throughout their kitchen.

42. During a subsequent water test, SPLP pumped contaminated groundwater throughout the

house, causing damage to water-connected appliances such as the refrigerator, water heater and

washing machine.

43. Approximately one year after ME2 pipeline construction activities ended, a large

subsidence occurred on the Shawley Property directly above the HDD Borehole. The subsidence

was approximately 10 feet across and three to four feet deep.

44. In response to the foregoing property damage, SPLP filled the subsidence with a concrete

mixture.

45. After a site visit to and inspection of the Shawley Property in 2021 by Township officials,

the Sewage Enforcement Officer (SEO) for Jackson Township indicted in a letter to Plaintiff

Ronald Shawley that the ME2 pipeline activities compromised the integrity of Plaintiffs’ septic

system which resulted in contamination of their water well.

46. In addition to identifying the nature, extent and cause of the damages, the SEO also

-7-
 Case 3:22-cv-00239-SLH Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 8 of 15

indicated that there was no suitable area on the Shawley Property to install a new on-lot septic

system.

47. In an 11/5/21 email from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

(PADEP) to an Energy Transfer representative, the PADEP indicated that it had reviewed a

report submitted to them on 10/15/21 concerning Plaintiffs’ water. In doing so, the PADEP

concluded that: “[b]ased on the information submitted, there is evidence that the SPLP Mariner

East 2 pipeline construction activities impacted the water source.” [emphasis added]

48. Said PADEP correspondence continued: “[i]n accordance with Water Obstruction and

Encroachment Permit E11-352, Special Condition A.2, SPLP should implement a contingency

plan, to the satisfaction of the private water supply owner that addresses all adverse impacts

imposed on the private water supply as a result of the pollution event, including the restoration

or replacement of the impacted water supply.”

49. To date, SPLP has done nothing to fully restore or adequately replace Plaintiffs’ impacted

water supply.

50. The PADEP conducted an Earth Disturbance Inspection on 1/10/22 and produced a report

noting a number of failures by SPLP to comply with the pipeline permit issued for construction

of the ME2 pipeline as it relates to the Shawley Property. In doing so, the PADEP concluded

that site conditions observed by PADEP constituted a violation of 25 Pa. Code Chapters 92a

and/or 102 and Clean Streams Law, the act of June 22, 1937, P.L. 1987, 35 P.S. Section 691.1 et

seq.

51. Specifically, the PADEP provided Compliance Assistance Measures recommending that

SPLP do the following:

a. take soil probes across the Right of Way on Plaintiffs’ property to determine
top soil depth and replace top soil to meet minimum depth requirements;

-8-
 Case 3:22-cv-00239-SLH Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 9 of 15

b. probe Plaintiffs’ property to identify buried waste material and remove such
waste from the site;

c. take steps necessary to remove standing water condition on the road;

d. implement a permanent solution to the well water quantity and quality

inadequacies;

e. assess the condition of Plaintiffs’ French drain discharge pipe and repair as
necessary.

52. To date, SPLP has failed to facilitate and/or initiate and/or perform any of foregoing

recommendations made to them by PADEP in an effort to remedy the ongoing issues related to

the Shawley Property and/or Plaintiffs’ inability to use and enjoy their home and its surrounding

property.

53. Equally, the PADEP has not taken any steps to afford Plaintiffs any relief from the

ongoing injuries which they have suffered at the hands of SPLP’s abject wrongdoing.

54. At a minimum, neither SPLP nor DEP have taken any measures whatsoever to prevent

raw sewage from coming through Plaintiffs’ sinks and disseminating throughout their kitchen;

nor have they ever offered to remediate such an egregious, disgusting condition and/or

compensate Plaintiffs for remediation.

55. SPLP deployed its own engineering consultants to the Shawley Property to conduct an

inspection and determine the feasibility of providing Plaintiffs with a functioning drinking water

and septic system. Upon information and belief, that inspection, and prior ones conducted by

SPLP, confirm that its ME2 pipeline construction activities have detrimentally impacted the

Plaintiffs’ well water and septic system.

56. Despite knowledge of the injuries suffered and damages sustained by Plaintiffs, SPLP has

taken no reasonable measures to remedy the ongoing injuries to Plaintiffs caused by its actions.

-9-
 Case 3:22-cv-00239-SLH Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 10 of 15

57. As a result of SPLP’s wrongdoing relating to their natural gas pipeline-related activities

on and/or in close proximity to the Shawley Property, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to

suffer significant injuries, including to their rights to the use and enjoyment of their property and

damage to their primary residence for which they are entitled to compensation.

COUNT I
PRIVATE NUISANCE

58. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege all prior paragraphs of the Complaint as

if fully set forth herein.

59. Defendant SPLP, by its acts and/or omissions, including those of its officers, agents,

contractors, and/or employees, including the improper ownership, construction, control,

operation, and maintenance of its ME2 pipeline on and/or in close proximity to the Shawley

Property, has caused, created, and maintained unreasonable, private, temporary, continuing, and

abatable invasions of Plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their property.

60. Defendant SPLP, by its acts and/or omissions, including those of its officers, agents,

contractors, and/or employees has negligently, recklessly, knowingly, intentionally, or otherwise

intermittently and unreasonably impaired Plaintiffs’ private use and enjoyment of their property

by improperly engaging in natural gas activities and causing, but not limited to, the following

conditions:

a. drilling fluids and drilling activity from the ME2 pipeline construction
resulted in significant turbidity in Plaintiffs’ water supply; and

b. construction vehicles, associated with the ME2 pipeline construction

activities, damaged Plaintiffs’ on-lot septic system causing a release of
sewage waste that continues to contaminate Plaintiffs’ water supply.

61. As a direct and proximate result of SPLP’s acts and/or omissions in the construction and

maintenance of its pipeline, Plaintiffs have suffered the following:

- 10 -
 Case 3:22-cv-00239-SLH Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 11 of 15

a. inability to use their water supply for drinking and other household activities;

b. substantial discomfort;

c. annoyance;

d. offense to the senses;

e. angst, anxiety, distress, disgust, embarrassment, fear, and concern;

f. difficulty sleeping;

g. health concerns, including, but not limited to increased intermittent sinus

issues, headaches, burning eyes, rashes, coughing, diarrhea, abdominal pain,
fever, and intermittent fatigue;

h. destruction of personal property; and

i. concern for, and actual intermittent degradation of soil, water and air quality;
for which Plaintiffs are entitled to compensation.

62. Defendant SPLP, including its officers, agents, and/or employees knew or was

substantially certain that its pipeline construction activities on Plaintiffs’ property and in such

close proximity to Plaintiffs’ residence, water well and septic system would create and maintain

a continuing nuisance to Plaintiffs.

63. Each of the above injurious conditions created by Defendant SPLP is reasonably and

practicably abatable through better operation, procedures, management, repair, technology,

oversight, maintenance, or otherwise.

64. Despite having knowledge of the harmful effects of its activities, Defendant SPLP has

failed to take known reasonable, practicable, and necessary steps to warn of, abate, minimize, or

eliminate such conditions.

65. Defendant SPLP’s use of property and the impairment to Plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of

their property has been and continues to be unreasonably and abnormally dangerous.

66. As a result, Defendant SPLP is liable for all of the damages and injuries to the Plaintiffs

- 11 -
 Case 3:22-cv-00239-SLH Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 12 of 15

caused by its acts and/or omissions and natural gas pipeline construction activities and its failure

to abate such nuisance.

67. Defendant SPLP knew, or should have known, that its conduct described herein,

including, but not limited its ME2 pipeline construction activities on the Shawley Property and in

such close proximity to Plaintiffs’ residence, water well and septic system, has and continues to

cause frequent and significant injury to Plaintiffs, their properties, their property rights as well as

Plaintiffs’ quiet use and enjoyment of their properties.

68. Further, some or all of the acts and/or omissions of Defendant SPLP described herein,

including those of its officers, agents, contractors, and/or employees, were intentional or gross,

reckless or wantonly negligent and were done with full knowledge of an utter disregard for the

Plaintiffs’ rights, property, safety, and well-being.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment

against Defendant SPLP in an amount in excess of the $150,000.00 arbitration limit for the

United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, together with punitive

damages, and other relief, including costs of suit, reasonable attorney and expert fees as well as

all such further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and proper.

COUNT II
NEGLIGENCE

69. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege all prior paragraphs of the Complaint as

if fully set forth herein.

70. Defendant SPLP, at all times relevant herein, owed the following, but not limited to the

following, duties of reasonable care to Plaintiffs:

a. to reasonably and responsibly construct, own, operate, control, and maintain

its pipeline so as not to injure Plaintiffs or otherwise impair their use and
enjoyment of their properties;

- 12 -
 Case 3:22-cv-00239-SLH Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 13 of 15

b. to take all measures reasonably necessary to inform and protect Plaintiffs from
dangerous and/or unreasonable pipeline construction activities;

c. to warn of the conditions and harms that its pipeline construction activities
might, would, or do cause Plaintiffs;

d. to mitigate the impacts of its pipeline construction activites, including as the

relate to excessive odors and damages to Plaintiffs’ water well and septic
system;

e. to follow all regulations, laws, and requirements applicable to their activities;

f. to design and maintain safe and responsible pipeline construction activities,

taking such steps as are necessary to prevent the impacts on the Plaintiffs
property and to their residence;

g. the aforementioned list is by no means exhaustive or exclusive, and Plaintiffs

do not waive their ability to submit additional evidence of additional duties
throughout the course of this case.

71. Defendant SPLP, including its officers, agents, contractors, and/or employees, has

frequently breached these duties of care to Plaintiffs or was otherwise negligent and thereby

is/was directly and proximately causing significant damages to Plaintiffs, for which they are

entitled to compensation.

72. Defendant SPLP, including its officers, agents, and/or employees, should have taken

reasonable precautions and measures to prevent and/or mitigate the problems caused by its

activities.

73. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant SPLP’s acts and omissions stated herein,

Plaintiffs have suffered damages for which they are entitled to compensation.

74. Defendant SPLP, including its officers, agents, and/or employees, knew or in the

exercise of reasonable care should have known, that such problems caused by its negligent and

reckless conduct, and the resultant harm to Plaintiffs and their properties were foreseeable

consequences of Defendant SPLPs acts and/or omissions in the manner in which it engaged in

- 13 -
 Case 3:22-cv-00239-SLH Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 14 of 15

its ME2 pipeline construction activities.

75. Defendant SPLP’s acts and omissions, including those of its officers, agents, contractors,

and/or employees were the direct and proximate cause of the damages to Plaintiffs alleged

herein.

76. Defendant SPLP knew, or should have known, that its conduct described herein,

including, but not limited to the improper pipeline construction activities relating to ME2, had

and continues to cause frequent and significant injury to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ properties; and

Plaintiffs’ property rights.

77. Further, some or all of the acts and/or omissions of Defendant SPLP described herein,

including those of its officers, agents, contractors, and/or employees, were intentional and/or

grossly, recklessly, and/or wantonly negligent, and were done with utter disregard for the

Plaintiffs’ rights, properties, safety, and well-being.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment

against Defendant SPLP in an amount in excess of the $150,000.00 arbitration limit for the

United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, together with punitive

damages, and other relief, including costs of suit, reasonable attorney and expert fees as well as

all such further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.

- 14 -
 Case 3:22-cv-00239-SLH Document 1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 15 of 15

KOTSATOS LAW PLLC

Date: 12/14/22
/s/ John E. Kotsatos
___________________________________
By: John E. Kotsatos, Esquire
PA Identification No.: 92807
717 Washington St.
Easton, PA 18042
Phone: 484-403-6214
Fax: 610-438-6351
Email: [email protected]

Counsel for Plaintiff

- 15 -
JS 44 (Rev. 10/20) Case 3:22-cv-00239-SLH
CIVILDocument
COVER1-1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 1 of 3
SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
Ronald J. Shawley and Jane E. Shawley Sunoco Pipeline, L.P.

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Cambria County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Dallas, Texas
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
John E. Kotsatos
717 Washington St., Easton, PA 18042

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ✖ 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State

2 U.S. Government
Defendant
✖ 4 Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place
of Business In Another State
5
x5
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6
Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent - Abbreviated 460 Deportation
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR 880 Defend Trade Secrets 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud 710 Fair Labor Standards Act of 2016 (15 USC 1681 or 1692)
160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Act 485 Telephone Consumer
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 720 Labor/Management SOCIAL SECURITY Protection Act
195 Contract Product Liability ✖ 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 861 HIA (1395ff) 490 Cable/Sat TV
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 751 Family and Medical 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
Medical Malpractice Leave Act 864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 790 Other Labor Litigation 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 791 Employee Retirement 893 Environmental Matters
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS 895 Freedom of Information
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence or Defendant) 896 Arbitration
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 871 IRS—Third Party 899 Administrative Procedure
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION 26 USC 7609 Act/Review or Appeal of
Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application Agency Decision
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration 950 Constitutionality of
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions State Statutes
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
✖ 1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1)
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Private Nuisance and Negligence
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. 150,000.00 JURY DEMAND: ✖ Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
12/14/2022
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

 Case 3:22-cv-00239-SLH Document 1-1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 2 of 3

JS 44A REVISED June, 2009

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
THIS CASE DESIGNATION SHEET MUST BE COMPLETED

PART A
This case belongs on the ( Erie Johnstown Pittsburgh) calendar.
1. ERIE CALENDAR - If
cause of action arose in the counties of Crawford, Elk, Erie,
Forest, McKean. Venang or Warren, OR any plaintiff or defendant resides in one of said
counties.
2. JOHNSTOWN CALENDAR - If cause of action arose in the counties of Bedford, Blair,
Cambria, Clearfield or Somerset OR any plaintiff or defendant resides in one of
said counties.

3. Complete if on ERIE CALENDAR: I certify that the cause of action arose in

County and that the resides in County.

4. Complete if on JOHNSTOWN CALENDAR: I certify that the cause of action arose in

Cambria County and that thePlaintiffs resides in Cambria County.

PART B (You are to check ONE of the following)

1. This case is related to Number . Short Caption .
2. This case is not related to a pending or terminated case.

DEFINlTIONS OF RELATED CASES:

CIVIL: Civil cases are deemed related when a case filed relates to property included in
another suit or involves the same issues of fact or it grows out of the same transactions
as another suit or involves the validity or infringement of a patent involved in another
suit EMINENT DOMAIN: Cases in contiguous closely located groups and in common ownership
groups which will lend themselves to consolidation for trial shall be deemed related.
HABEAS CORPUS & CIVIL RIGHTS: All habeas corpus petitions filed by the same individual
shall be deemed related. All pro se Civil Rights actions by the same individual shall be
deemed related.

PARTC
I. CIVIL CATEGORY (Select the applicable category).
1. Antitrust and Securities Act Cases
2. Labor-Management Relations
3. Habeas corpus
4. Civil Rights
5. Patent, Copyright, and Trademark
6. Eminent Domain
7. All other federal question cases
8. All personal and property damage tort cases, including maritime, FELA,
Jones Act, Motor vehicle, products liability, assault, defamation, malicious
prosecution, and false arrest
9. Insurance indemnity, contract and other diversity cases.
10. Government Collection Cases (shall include HEW Student Loans (Education),
V A 0verpayment, Overpayment of Social Security, Enlistment
Overpayment (Army, Navy, etc.), HUD Loans, GAO Loans (Misc. Types),
Mortgage Foreclosures, SBA Loans, Civil Penalties and Coal Mine
Penalty and Reclamation Fees.)

I certify that to the best of my knowledge the entries on this Case Designation
Sheet are true and correct

Date: 12/14/2022
ATTORNEY AT LAW

NOTE: ALL SECTIONS OF BOTH FORMS MUST BE COMPLETED BEFORE CASE CAN BE PROCESSED.
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 10/20) Case 3:22-cv-00239-SLH Document 1-1 Filed 12/14/22 Page 3 of 3
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:

I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then
the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service.

VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.