FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA

Filed and Attested by the
Office of Judicial Records
02 JUN 2016 11:28 am
C. FORTE

ELENI DELOPOULOS, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,
No.

Plaintiff,

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

v.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA,
Defendant.

NOTICE TO DEFEND

NOTICE

AVISO

You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the
claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within
twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by
entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing
in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims
set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the
case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered
against you by the court without further notice for any money
claimed in the complaint of for any other claim or relief requested
by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights
important to you.

Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere

defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas
siguientes, usted tiene veinte (20) dias de plazo al partir de
la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Hace falta
ascentar una comparencia escrita o en persona o con un
abogado y entregar a la corte en forma escrita sus
defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de su
persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte
tomara medidas y puede continuar la demanda en contra
suya sin previo aviso o notificacion. Ademas, la corte
puede decider a favor del demandante y requiere que
usted cumpla con todas las provisiones de esta demanda.
Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades u otros
derechos importantes para usted.

You should take this paper to your lawyer at once. If you do not have
a lawyer or cannot afford one, go to or telephone the office set forth
below to find out where you can get legal help.

Lleve esta demanda a un abogado immediatamente. Si no

tiene abogado o si no tiene el dinero suficiente de pagar tal
servicio. Vaya en persona o llame por telefono a la oficina
cuya direccion se encuentra escrita abajo para averiguar
donde se puede conseguir asistencia legal.

Philadelphia Bar Association

Lawyer Referral
and Information Service
One Reading Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
(215) 238-6333
TTY (215) 451-6197

10-284

Asociacion De Licenciados
De Filadelfia
Servicio De Referencia E
Informacion Legal
One Reading Center
Filadelfia, Pennsylvania 19107
(215) 238-6333
TTY (215) 451-6197

Case ID: 160503980

Christopher A. Seeger
SEEGER WEISS LLP
77 Water Street
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 564-2300
Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
cseeger@seegerweiss.com

Steve W. Berman
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
steve@hbsslaw.com

Scott Alan George

Identification No. 81996
SEEGER WEISS LLP
1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102
Telephone: (215)564-2300
Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
sgeorge@seegerweiss.com

Elizabeth A. Fegan
Mark Vazquez
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (708) 628-4949
Facsimile: (708) 628-4950
beth@hbsslaw.com
markv@hbsslaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY - CIVIL TRIAL
ELENI DELOPOULOS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
No.
Plaintiff,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
v.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA,
Defendant.

Case ID: 160503980

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I.

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1

II.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE ........................................................................................ 3

III.

PARTIES ........................................................................................................................... 3

IV.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ............................................................................................ 3

V.

VI.

A.

Overview of Lead Poisoning ................................................................................. 3

B.

The City Knows the Water Supply Is at Risk for Lead

Contamination ........................................................................................................ 7

C.

The Lead and Copper Rule .................................................................................. 11

D.

Despite the Risks of Lead Contamination in the Water, the City

Intentionally Adopted a Testing Protocol in Violation of the Lead
and Copper Rule, Contrary to EPA Guidelines, and Designed to
Avoid Revealing Lead Contamination................................................................. 13

E.

The City Disproportionally Tests Low-Risk Homes in Violation of

the Lead and Copper Rule and Skewing Its Overall Test Results ....................... 14

F.

The City Instructs Residents to Collect Samples in Such a Way as

to Increase the Likelihood of a False Negative .................................................... 16

G.

The City Has No Excuse for Using These Modified Testing

Procedures and Has Been Aware of Their Likelihood to Conceal
Lead Contamination for Years ............................................................................. 18

CLASS ALLEGATIONS ................................................................................................ 20

A.

Numerosity........................................................................................................... 21

B.

Common Questions of Fact or Law ..................................................................... 21

C.

Typicality ............................................................................................................. 22

D.

Adequacy ............................................................................................................. 22

E.

Superiority............................................................................................................ 22

CLAIMS ALLEGED ....................................................................................................... 23

COUNT I MEDICAL MONITORING ....................................................................................... 23

-i000700-00 876895 V1

Case ID: 160503980

COUNT II NEGLIGENCE .......................................................................................................... 24

COUNT III INVERSE CONDEMNATION ............................................................................... 25
PRAYER FOR RELIEF .............................................................................................................. 26
VII.

JURY DEMAND ............................................................................................................. 27

- ii 000700-00 876895 V1

Case ID: 160503980

Plaintiff, Eleni Delopoulos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
through her attorneys, complains as follows:
I.
1.

INTRODUCTION

The City of Philadelphia (the City or Defendant) has known and

acknowledged that, for years, construction projects and water main repairs have caused elevated
and unsafe levels of lead to contaminate the water traveling through its residents homes.
Indeed, certain officials with the Citys Water Department have contributed to or actively
participated in studies that, at the very least, revealed Philadelphias water supply to not be as
safe as previously believed.
2.

For example, one study, led by the Water Research Foundation, showed how the

practice of partially replacing a lead service line not only pollutes the water supply with lead in
the short term, but also creates the perfect conditions for the remaining lead pipe to corrode
much more quickly. The result is that lead slowly and intermittently leaches into a residents
drinking water over time. And yet, the City employs this practice nonetheless.
3.

Furthermore, another 2006 study exposed certain lead testing methods as the

reason a significant contamination in Durham, North Carolina, went undetected. The City, who
participated in the study, continues to employ these methods anyway.
4.

Despite these blatant red flags, the City has not only failed to initiate any change,

take preventative measures, or warn its residents, but has also actively taken steps to conceal the
problem. The City accomplishes this deception by rigging its lead testing procedures in two
ways.
5.

First, the City tests an inordinate amount of low risk homes, diluting its testing

pool and skewing the results in such a way as to paint a woefully inaccurate picture of the Citys

-1

Case ID: 160503980

overall lead contamination. In 2014, for example, a whopping two-thirds of the homes tested by
the City came from homes with little risk of lead contamination. Such a practice is not only
deceptive, reckless, and unethical, but plainly violates federal law; EPA regulations require a city
the size of Philadelphia, which has thousands of residences with lead service lines, to collect
samples from exclusively high-risk homes.
6.

Second, in the event the City actually does collect a sample from a high-risk

home, it does so in such a way as to increase the likelihood of a false negative. Specifically, the
City instructs its residents to take three steps when collecting the water sample: (1) remove the
aerator from the faucet; (2) run the water for two minutes the night before collecting the sample;
and (3) slowly run the faucet when filling the bottle. These three instructions, while seemingly
inconsequential, can temporarily hide a homes lead contamination. In fact, the EPA and water
experts around the country specifically advise municipalities against using such testing
procedures for this reason. The City continues to defiantly ignore these warnings.
7.

To date, the Citys excuses for its shortcomings have been insincere and illogical.

Simply put, the City has no scientific or legitimate basis for implementing its suspect
methodology, thereby illuminating its true motive: to obfuscate and conceal the citywide lead
contamination problem.
8.

Because of this negligent, reckless, and deceptive conduct, Plaintiff, her child, and

the Class face a significantly increased risk of lead poisoning. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to
recover the costs of diagnostic testing necessary to detect lead poisoning to her, her child, and the
Class. Further, given that the City has interfered with their private property and caused damage
that cannot be reversed, Plaintiff seeks to require the City to replace her service lines in full.

-2

Case ID: 160503980

II.
9.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. 931, 5301 because

Defendant is a municipal corporation that resides in and regularly conducts transactions in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
10.

Venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to Rule 1006 of the Pennsylvania

Rules of Civil Procedure because the Defendant is located in Philadelphia County and all of
Plaintiffs claims arise from transactions and occurrences that took place in both the City and
County of Philadelphia.
III.
11.

PARTIES

Plaintiff Eleni Delopoulos is a resident of the City of Philadelphia, residing on

South 48th Street, with her minor son. The City is currently replacing the water mains on her
block. She did not receive any advance warning of the work or related risk. As a result of the
Citys actions, Plaintiff and her family are at an increased risk of lead exposure and poisoning.
12.

Defendant is a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
IV.
A.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Overview of Lead Poisoning

13.

Lead is a dense, malleable, naturally occurring metal that has been used by people

in a variety of ways for thousands of years. Lead has been used in construction materials,
batteries, and gasoline, to name just a few of its applications.
14.

With its many useful properties, lead initially seemed like the perfect material

with which to construct plumbing; it is soft enough to form into shapes that deliver water most

-3

Case ID: 160503980

efficiently, while still being strong enough to resist leaks. 1 Thus, for nearly two centuries, cities
across the United States, including Philadelphia, installed miles upon miles of lead piping in their
water supplies. Over time, however, science has shown lead to be highly poisonous to humans.
And given its widespread use for so long, lead remains a dangerous environmental contaminant
whose adverse health effects have been well documented. 2
15.

Generally, lead exposure harms an individuals nervous system. This can result in

a number of medical afflictions, including neuropathy, motor nerve dysfunction, weakened

immunity to disease, renal failure, gout, hypertension, muscle and joint pain, memory and
concentration problems, and infertility. Lead exposure has also been identified as a probable
cause of cancer. 3
16.

For a child, however, the effects of lead poisoning can be far more dramatic.

Children are more sensitive to lead exposure than adults because of the immaturity of the bloodbrain barrier, increased gastrointestinal absorption, and hand-to-mouth behaviors, all of which
increase exposure. Even the slightest amount of lead in a childs blood stream is dangerous;
no safe blood lead threshold for the adverse effects of lead on infant or child neurodevelopment
has been identified. 4

Lead in Plumbing, SAFEPLUMBING.ORG, https://www.safeplumbing.org/health-safety/leadin-plumbing (last visited Apr. 14, 2016).

2

Mary Jean Brown & Stephen Margolis, Lead in Drinking Water and Human Blood Lead
Levels in the United States, 61 MORBIDITY & MORTALITY WKLY. REP. (SUPP.) 1, 1 (August 10,
2012), available at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/other/su6104.pdf.
3

Id. at 2; World Health Organization, Lead in Drinking-water: Background document for

development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality, 5-8 (2011), available at
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/lead.pdf; see also What expert
agencies say, LEAD - CANCER.ORG, http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/
othercarcinogens/athome/lead (last visited February 9, 2016).
4

Brown & Margolis, supra n.2, at 2.

-4

Case ID: 160503980

17.

Given this sensitivity and the way it affects the central nervous system, lead has

unsurprisingly been shown to interfere with a childs cognitive function, growth, and
development. In addition to the symptoms descried above, pediatric lead poisoning can result in
lower IQ, reading disabilities, attention deficit disorder, hyperactivity, behavioral problems,
delinquency, stunted growth, and hearing impairment. 5
18.

Moreover, lead is a cumulative poison; that is, your body does not change lead

into any other form, allowing it to accrue in the body. Shortly after lead is introduced to the
body, it travels via the blood stream to soft tissue and organs, where it may remain for years.
Much of the lead, however, ultimately settles in ones bones and teeth, where it can potentially
remain for decades. 6
19.

Consequently, the effects of lead poisoning on children can be long lasting, if

not permanent. 7
20.

Indeed, children exposed to lead may not experience any issues until they are

adults and certain events occur. For example, when a woman gets pregnant, the lead may begin
to leach from her bones where it previously lay dormant and pass through the placenta and
umbilical cord to the baby, causing the baby to be born with increased blood lead levels. 8
Similarly, menopause may rouse previously latent lead deposits in a womans bones to travel

Committee on Environmental Health, Lead Exposure in Children: Prevention, Detection,

and Management, 116 PEDIATRICS 1036, 1037-38, 1041 (2005) (Pediatrics), available at
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/116/4/1036.full.pdf.
6

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Toxicological profile for lead-update, 7-8
(Aug. 2007), available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp13.pdf.
7

Pediatrics, supra n.5, at 1038.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Guidelines for the Identification and
Management of Lead Exposure in Pregnant and Lactating Women, 30-31 (Nov. 2010), available
at http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/publications/leadandpregnancy2010.pdf.
-5

Case ID: 160503980

through her body, causing a number of health issues, including increased blood pressure, nerve
disorders, muscle and joint pain, and problems with memory or concentration. 9
21.

With such health problems comes massive financial costs. The annual costs of

environmentally attributable diseases in American children total $54.9 billion, of which the vast
majority arises from lead poisoning; it is estimated that the total cost of lead poisoning in the
U.S. each year is $43.4 billion.10
22.

One such cost is associated with a blood test, a universally recognized method for

testing lead levels. The relatively simple but reliable procedure compares the amount of lead
identified in the blood sample to the published reference level of 5 micrograms per deciliter
(g/dL), established by the Center for Disease Control. Thus, a person exhibits elevated lead
levels when the amount of lead contained in the sample exceeds 5 g/dL. 11
23.

Blood lead testing can also signal the need for further medical examinations,

which can lead to a more definite diagnosis.

24.

Lead poisoning is, of course, entirely preventable, but hundreds of thousands of

children in the U.S. become poisoned regardless, and Philadelphias rate of lead poisoning
remains alarmingly high. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Health in 2014, of the

Dana Lintea, Lead Poisoning and Menopause: How Similar Are They? Does Lead Make
Menopause Worse?, GLOBAL LEAD ADVICE & SUPPORT SERVICE, 1 (July 2010), available at
https://www.lead.org.au/fs/Lintea_Lead_poisoning_and_menopause_20100728.pdf.
10

See Philip J. Landrigan, et al., Environmental Pollutants and Disease in American

Children: Estimates of Morbidity, Mortality, and Costs for Lead Poisoning, Asthma, Cancer, and
Developmental Disabilities, 110 ENVTL. HEALTH PERSPECTIVES 721, 726 (July 2002), available
at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240919/pdf/ehp0110-000721.pdf.
11

Standard Surveillance Definitions and Classifications, CDC.GOV,

http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/data/definitions.htm (last visited Apr. 5, 2016).
-6

Case ID: 160503980

nearly 36,000 children tested in Philadelphia under the age of seven, more than one in every ten
exhibited elevated blood lead levels. 12
B.

The City Knows the Water Supply Is at Risk for Lead Contamination
25.

In 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed into law an amendment to the Safe

Drinking Water Act. The amendment, which sought to increase protections on the nations
drinking water, imposed a ban on the use of lead piping in public water systems. 13
26.

Philadelphias public water system, however, existed long before 1986, and thus

contains thousands of lead service lines (i.e., the pipes connecting to the residence to the water
main) throughout the city. The Philadelphia Water Department estimates that it delivers drinking
water via lead pipes to approximately 60,000 homes in Philadelphia. 14
27.

Not surprisingly, these lead service lines pose a health concern. According to

EPA estimates, lead contaminated water could account for 5-50% of childrens total lead
exposure and for more than 85% of total lead exposure for formula-fed infants. 15

12

Pa. Dept Health, Childhood Lead Surveillance Annual Rep., 46 (2014), available at
http://www.health.pa.gov/My%20Health/Infant%20and%20Childrens%20Health/Lead%20Poiso
ning%20Prevention%20and%20Control/Documents/2014%20Lead%20Surveillance%20Annual
%20Report%20r2.pdf.
13

Press Release, Environmental Protection Agency, President Signs Safe Drinking Water
Act Amendments (June 20, 1986), available at http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/president-signssafe-drinking-water-act-amendments; 42 U.S.C. 300g-6.
14

Pat Loeb, Philadelphia Water Department Offers Tips to Avoid the Risks of Lead
Plumbing, CBSLOCAL.COM, Mar. 21, 2016,
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/03/21/philadelphia-water-department-offers-tips-to-avoidthe-risks-of-lead-plumbing.
15

Letter from American Academy of Pediatrics to Aaron Yeow of EPA (Mar. 22, 2011),
available at
https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/177871EFC7607CD08525785C0050AAB1/$File/aa
pcomments.PDF.
-7

Case ID: 160503980

28.

To minimize this risk, Philadelphia treats the water supply with a chemical

specifically, zinc orthophosphate. This treatment chemically reacts with the surface of the pipes
to form a thin coating on the interior of the water mains, house services, and plumbing to prevent
the pipes from corroding and lead leaching into the drinking water. 16
29.

The chemical treatment is not, however, 100 percent effective. The anti-corrosion

treatment can fail for a number of reasons, especially when pipes are disturbed by construction or
street work, water and sewer main replacement, meter installation or replacement, or plumbing
repairs. 17
30.

The sizable disturbances caused by such projects for example, drilling,

hammering, and sawing disrupt the coating that protects the service lines from corrosion. This
lapse in protection then allows for alarmingly high levels of lead to leach from service lines into
the nearby residents water supply. 18
31.

In a 2013 recent study, experts compared a number of water samples collected

from various homes. Of the 13 sites where there had been a recently documented physical
disturbance (i.e., construction, plumbing repairs, etc.), virtually all of them produced samples
that exceeded federal safety regulations 19:

16

Philadelphia Water Department, Meeting the Lead Standard (2015), available at

http://www.phila.gov/water/PDF/LeadStandard_2015.pdf
17

See generally Miguel Del Toral, et al., Detection and Evaluation of Elevated Lead Release
from Service Lines: A Field Study, 47 ENVTL. SCI. & TECH. 9300 (2013).
18

Id. at 9304.

19

Id.
-8

Case ID: 160503980

32.

Furthermore, these disturbances can release lead from service lines for weeks or

months, meaning lead contamination can persist in ones drinking water long after the
disturbance has occurred. 20
33.

This phenomenon is hardly a recent revelation. Indeed, the City has known about

the problem for years and even acknowledged its existence as far back as 2010. 21
34.

Disturbances to lead service lines, however, are not the only cause of lead

contamination during construction projects. During water main or meter replacement, the City
has to reconnect the lead service lines to the newly installed water mains or meters. To do so,
the City performs what is known as a partial lead service line replacement, whereby it replaces

20

American Water Works Association, Communicating About Lead Service Lines: A Guide
for Water Systems Addressing Service Line Repair and Replacement, 2 (2014), available at
http://www.awwa.org/Portals/0/files/resources/publicaffairs/pdfs/FINALeadServiceLineCommG
uide.pdf.; see Del Toral, supra n.17, at 9304.
21

Phi. Water Dept, Drinking Water Quality Report 2010, available at

http://www.phila.gov/water/wu/Water%20Quality%20Reports/WQR2010.pdf (when disturbed,
these [lead service] lines can contribute to lead in tap water).
-9

Case ID: 160503980

only the portion of the service line necessary to reconnect it to the public water supply. To
achieve this, the City must cut directly into the lead service line, which can cause even more lead
particulates to break off from the pipe and contaminate the water supply. 22
35.

Additionally, contamination from partial service line replacements occurs when

the City replaces sections of the lead pipe with copper. Lead and copper, being dissimilar
metals, create what is known as a galvanic cell (i.e., a battery) when in contact with the same
aqueous solution. When [t]he different electrochemical properties of the metals can result in
one of them (the anode) corroding faster than it would under normal conditions. When lead and
copper are connected, lead acts as the anode, thus causing it to corrode more aggressively than
normal and exacerbating any lead contamination to the residents water supply. 23
36.

The City has long known of the dangers associated with partial lead service line

replacements. At the very least, the City discovered these risks in 2008, when Washington, D.C.
stopped its accelerated lead service line replacement program due to the dangers of galvanic
corrosion causing lead contamination. 24
37.

Since that time, experts have continuously documented the relationship between

lead contamination and partial lead service line replacements. For example, in September of
2011, the EPAs Science Advisory Board found that the available data indicates that partial lead
22

Water Research Foundation, Contribution of Galvanic Corrosion to Lead in Water After

Partial Lead Service Line Replacements 1 (2010), available at
http://www.waterrf.org/PublicReportLibrary/4088b.pdf.
23

Water Research Foundation, Galvanic Corrosion Following Partial Lead Service Line
Replacement 3-4 (2013), available at http://www.waterrf.org/PublicReportLibrary/4349.pdf ;
Letter from American Academy of Pediatrics to Aaron Yeow of EPA (Mar. 22, 2011), available
at https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/177871EFC7607CD08525785C0050AAB1/$File/
aapcomments.PDF.
24

Michael E. Ruane, WASA Backs Off Lead Pipe Program, WASHINGTON POST, Sep. 5,
2008, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/09/04/AR2008090403613_2.html.
- 10

Case ID: 160503980

service line replacement may pose a risk to the population, due to the short-term elevations in
drinking water lead concentrations. 25 Likewise, the American Academy of Pediatrics
recommended a moratorium on the practice because [t]here is considerable evidence that, under
certain conditions, partial lead service line replacements cause persistent, often intermittent,
elevated water lead levels. 26 Both the CDCs Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead
Poisoning Prevention and the EPAs Childrens Health Protection Advisory Committee have
also expressed concerns about elevated lead concentrations in drinking water from partial lead
service line replacements. 27
38.

A manager with the Philadelphia Water Department even advised one such study

conducted by the Water Research Foundation in 2013. 28

39.

Nevertheless, the City continues to ignore these dangers and, as detailed below,

has recently gone so far as to conceal these risks to the public.

C.

The Lead and Copper Rule

40.

The Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) is the existing federal regulation for the

sampling of water. The goal of the LCR is to manage lead levels in drinking water by setting a
lead action level. Currently under the LCR, the lead action level is exceeded if the
concentration of lead in more than 10 percent of tap water samples collected during any
25

Letter from EPA and SAB to Hon. Lisa P. Jackson re: SAB Evaluation of the Effectiveness
of Partial Lead Service Line Replacements (Sep. 28, 2011), available at
http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201509/documents/sab_evaluation_partial_lead_service_lines_epa-sab-11-015.pdf.
26

Letter from American Academy of Pediatrics to Aaron Yeow of EPA (Mar. 22, 2011).

27

See Important update: Lead-based Water Lines, CDC.GOV,

http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/waterlines.htm; American Water Works Association, supra n.20,
at 5.
28

Water Research Foundation, Galvanic Corrosion Following Partial Lead Service Line
Replacement, supra n.23, at xxi.
- 11

Case ID: 160503980

monitoring period . . . is greater than 0.015 mg/L. In such a scenario, a municipality will be
required to take certain steps to resolve the issue, such as informing the public and replacing lead
service lines when present in the system. 29
41.

When the EPA first published the LCR in 1991, municipalities serving more than

50,000 people, such as Philadelphia, were required to collect and test samples from 100 sites
biannually. If a municipality did not exceed the lead action level for three consecutive years, it
could then proceed with reduced monitoring, whereby eventually it would only need to collect
and test samples from 50 sites once every three years. 30 The City currently collects samples
under the reduced monitoring requirements.
42.

Under the LCR, samples should only be collected from certain types of sites,

which the EPA divides into three tiers. Tier 1 includes single family structures (or, in some
instances, multi-family residences) that either contain lead piping or copper pipes with lead
solder installed after 1982, or that are served by a lead service line. Tier 2 includes buildings
and multi-family residences that either contain lead piping or copper pipes with lead solder
installed after 1982, or that are served by a lead service line. Finally, Tier 3 includes
single family structures that contain copper pipes with lead solder installed before 1983. 31
43.

Tier 1 sites are most vulnerable to lead contamination and are deemed a priority

under the LCR. Municipalities should therefore collect samples exclusively from Tier 1 sites
half of which should be served by lead service lines and only resort to collecting samples from
Tier 2 sites when there are not enough Tier 1 sites to complete the testing. Tier 2 sites are
deemed the second most vulnerable sites and, likewise, municipalities should only collect from
29

See 40 C.F.R. 141.80-.85.

30

Id. 141.86(d).

31

Id. 141.86(a).
- 12

Case ID: 160503980

Tier 3 sites in the event there are collectively not enough Tier 1 and Tier 2 sites to complete
testing. Given the size and age of Philadelphia, which contains approximately 60,000 homes
with lead pipes, the City should collect its samples exclusively from Tier 1 sites under the
LCR. 32
44.

The LCR also requires the City to collect the samples in a manner consistent with

specified collection methods. First, all samples should be first-draw samples, defined as a
one-liter sample of tap water . . . that has been standing in plumbing pipes at least 6 hours and is
collected without flushing the tap. Second, all samples shall be collected from the cold water
kitchen tap or bathroom sink tap. Third, the samples may be collected by the system or the
system may allow residents to collect first-draw samples after instructing the residents of the
sampling procedures specified in [the LCR]. 33
D.

Despite the Risks of Lead Contamination in the Water, the City Intentionally
Adopted a Testing Protocol in Violation of the Lead and Copper Rule, Contrary to
EPA Guidelines, and Designed to Avoid Revealing Lead Contamination
45.

The collection methods promulgated by the LCR attempt to replicate a worst

case scenario by testing the most vulnerable sites under conditions where lead exposure is most
likely to occur. The purpose of such testing is to help water utilities best assess whether their
water treatment has been effective in reducing lead and other contaminants in homes most
susceptible to contamination. 34 Indeed, despite treating its water with an anticorrosive chemical

32

Id.; see also Lisa Riordan Seville, Is Philadelphia Testing Its Drinking Water Correctly?,
NBCNEWS.COM, Feb. 19, 2016, available at http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/flint-watercrisis/philadelphia-testing-its-drinking-water-correctly-n521036 (Cities are supposed to draw all
their test homes from Tier 1.).
33

40 C.F.R. 141.86(b)(2).

34

Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for
Lead and Copper, 56 Fed. Reg. 26460-01 (Jun. 7, 1991).
- 13

Case ID: 160503980

since the 1980s, the City exceeded the lead action level when it first began LCR testing in 1992
and specifically sought to test water samples from high-risk homes. 35
46.

Since then, however, the City has gradually altered its strategy to avoid testing

under the worst case scenario conditions that the LCR intends to capture. Specifically, the City
selects a disproportionate number of low risk sites for LCR testing, while simultaneously
advising residents to collect water samples in such a way that, unbeknownst to them, increases
the likelihood of a false negative when testing for lead. These methods some of which plainly
violate the LCR and all of which defy valid justification are designed to game the system and
elude exceeding the lead action level. Meanwhile, as the City sweeps the problem under the
rug, the residents of Philadelphia are left inadequately protected from a highly toxic and
dangerous contaminant.
E.

The City Disproportionally Tests Low-Risk Homes in Violation of the Lead and
Copper Rule and Skewing Its Overall Test Results
47.

One way the City covers up the problem with lead contamination is through site

selection. In particular, the City tests an inordinate number of Tier 3 sites which are far less
likely to have lead contamination thereby diluting the testing pool with low risk homes.
According to experts, this allows the City to favorably skew the overall test results, minimizing
the risk of exceeding the LCRs lead action level and avoiding any ensuing responsibilities on
the part of the City. 36

35

Ramona Smith, Is There Lead in Your Water? Who Knows, PHI. DAILY NEWS, Oct. 6,
2004, at 8.
36

See Seville, supra n.32; see also Lynn Rebuck, Townships Sampling from Only LowestRisk Homes Could Mislead Residents Regarding Actual Lead Risk, LITITZDAILYNEWS.COM,
http://lititzdailynews.com/2016/02/8665.
- 14

Case ID: 160503980

48.

In 2002, the City came very close to exceeding the lead action level after testing

63 sites 54 from Tier 1 homes and 9 from Tier 3. In fact, the City would have exceeded the
lead action level had it not been able to fudge[] its results by tossing aside one single high
reading. According to the City, the test result didnt jibe with prior tests and asked to retake it
because the homeowner had recently changed a shower faucet. While water departments are
not supposed to discard high tests except under very limited circumstances, the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection allowed the Water Department to retest the home
anyway, and the City just barely avoided exceeding the lead action level. 37
49.

In subsequent testing years (i.e., 2005, 2008, 2011, and 2014), however, the City

began testing fewer high-risk Tier 1 homes, while simultaneously testing more low-risk Tier 3
sites. Not surprisingly, the ratio of sites reflecting elevated lead levels diminished after the City
began using this diluted testing pool. 38
50.

In 2014, for example, the City tested 134 sites, of which only 42 were the high-

risk Tier 1 homes. These 42 homes represented less than a third of the total testing pool. A city
like Philadelphia, however, has thousands of homes with lead service lines and should be testing
exclusively high-risk Tier 1 homes. 39
51.

According to one expert, the Citys failure to test the requisite number of Tier 1

homes is inexcusable:
A city like Philadelphia, which has thousands of lead lines, should
have been able to find sufficient Tier 1 homes, said [Marc]
Edwards of Virginia Tech. Provide me with the addresses and
37

Smith, supra n.35; Carol D. Leonnig, Jo Becker and David Nakamura, Lead Levels in
Water Misrepresented Across U.S., WASH. POST, Oct. 5, 2004, available at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7094-2004Oct4.html.
38

Seville, supra n.32.

39

Id.
- 15

Case ID: 160503980

phone numbers of [Philadelphia] homes with lead pipe, and the

funding, and we will sample hundreds of those homes, he stated.
I am shocked and saddened by their excuses for failing to meet
the minimum requirements of the law. 40
52.

Not surprisingly, the City does not have any excuse for its failure to test the

required number of Tier 1 homes. According to Philadelphia Water Department Director Gary
Burlingame, the City recruited enough participants to more than complete [its] LCR sampling
in 2014. 41 And yet the City continues to insist it went above and beyond the sampling pool
required [by the LCR]. 42
F.

The City Instructs Residents to Collect Samples in Such a Way as to Increase the
Likelihood of a False Negative
53.

In addition to testing an inordinate number of low-risk sites, the City also advises

its citizens to take three particular steps when collecting a water sample aimed at lowering the
chances lead will end up in the tested sample.
54.

First, the City advises its residents: Remove the aerator from the faucet. Leave

the aerator off until sampling is completed. 43

55.

Second, the City directs its residents to pre-flush the tap before collecting any

sample: Run only the cold water for 2 minutes. Cold water should be the last water run
through this faucet before the 6 or more hours stagnation period. 44

40

Id.

41

Email from Gary Burlingame, Director of Laboratory Services, Philadelphia Water

Department, to Yanna Lambrinidou (Oct. 6, 2014).
42

Seville, supra n.32.

43

Letter from Yanna Lambrinidou, PhD, Affiliate Faculty, Virginia Tech, to Philadelphia
Residents, 4 (Jan. 23, 2016), available at http://flintwaterstudy.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/01/Dear-Philadelphia-Residents.pdf (emphasis in original).
44

Id. (emphasis in original).

- 16

Case ID: 160503980

56.

Lastly, the City tells its residents to [s]lowly fill the bottle with only cold

water. 45
57.

Each of these steps can result in underestimating the amount of lead in a

residents water supply and serves no other purpose but to bias the test results.
58.

For example, when water contaminated with lead passes through a faucet, tiny

lead particles will often get caught in the aerator. These particles then slowly break up into
smaller and smaller pieces that eventually fit through the screen and contaminate the water. By
having residents remove the aerator prior to collecting a sample, the City reduces the chances
that those particles will end up in the water it ultimately tests. 46
59.

Furthermore, the longer water sits in the lead service line the more likely it is to

be contaminated. 47 Pre-flushing the water for two minutes can clear out the water sitting in the
lead service line and reduce the odds that the collected sample will test positive for lead. 48
60.

Finally, water that flows very slowly from the tap is less likely to wrestle any lead

particles from the interior of the pipes and get into the sample. Thus, by instructing residents to
slowly fill the bottle, the City not only fails to accurately reflect the manner in which people
typically use their faucets, but also avoids having to test the worst case samples it is supposed to
be collecting. 49

45

Id.

46

Id. at 1, 4.

47

Sandee LaMotte, How To Test for Lead in Your Home Water Supply, CNN.COM, Feb. 10,
2016, available at http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/health/lead-testing-home-drinking-water.
48

Lambrinidou Letter, at 2-4; Cameron McWhirter, et al., Flint Crisis Puts U.S. WaterTesting Methods Under Scrutiny, WALL ST. J., Feb. 4, 2016, available at
http://www.wsj.com/articles/flint-crisis-puts-u-s-water-testing-methods-under-scrutiny1454607587.
49

Lambrinidou Letter, at 3-4.

- 17

Case ID: 160503980

G.

The City Has No Excuse for Using These Modified Testing Procedures and Has
Been Aware of Their Likelihood to Conceal Lead Contamination for Years
61.

The City fully understands that the testing procedures it uses obscure the test

results and misrepresent the safety of Philadelphias drinking water.

62.

For example, in Spring 2006, a child in Durham, North Carolina, tested positive

for elevated blood lead levels, prompting public health officials to test his apartment and various
locations throughout Durham for lead contamination. The Durham County Health Department
found not only significant lead contamination at the apartment, but also in 35 to 40 additional
sites throughout the city. The Durham Department of Water Management tested many of these
same sites but surprisingly found only three that showed signs of contamination. The Water
Resources Research Institute of the University of North Carolina conducted an independent
review of Durhams response to the crisis and, in its report, attributed the vast discrepancy
between test results primarily to the fact that the Durham Department of Water Management
removed the aerators on the faucets prior to testing; Gary Burlingame, a scientist for the
Philadelphia Water Department, participated in the review. 50
63.

Following the Durham lead contamination, the issue of removing aerators prior to

testing became a point of concern amongst water experts. 51 The EPA promptly issued guidance
in a memorandum on October 20, 2006. In the memorandum, in underlined text, the EPA
explicitly condemned the practice. The memorandum explained:
[I]f customers are only encouraged to remove and clean aerators
prior to drawing a sample to test for lead, the public water system
50

Water Res. Research Inst. of the Univ. of N.C., Report of Third Party Review of Events
and Responses of the Dept. of Water Mgmt. City of Durham, N.C. to the Identification of a Child
with Elevated Blood Lead Level in the Home of a Customer, at 5, 14, 5464 (Mar. 2007),
available at http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2007/04/05/1261961/durhamwaterreport.swf.
51

Id. at 14.
- 18

Case ID: 160503980

could fail to identify the typically available contribution of lead

from that tap, and thus fail to take additional actions needed to
reduce exposure to lead in drinking water. Therefore, public water
systems should not recommend that customers remove or clean
aerators prior to or during the collection of tap samples for lead. 52
64.

The Philadelphia Water Department, however, continues to instruct residents to

remove the aerators in the face of explicit EPA guidance and expert opinions to the contrary.
Indeed, Burlingame who witnessed firsthand the effect of removing the aerators when
reviewing the Durham contamination defended the Citys doing so as good practice because
[the aerator] should be cleaned at least twice a year anyway. 53 But this justification makes
little sense, as the City does not advise residents to clean the aerator at all, merely instructing
them to remove it from the faucet prior to testing. 54
65.

Recently, the EPA released another memorandum that not only reiterates its

position with respect to removing aerators, but also advises against the use of the pre-flushing
technique employed by the City in collecting water samples. Specifically, the EPA noted that
sampling instructions should not contain a pre-stagnation flushing step because it removes
water that may have been in contact with the lead service line for extended periods, which is
when lead typically leaches into drinking water. 55

52

Memorandum from Stephen Heare, Director, EPA Drinking Water Protection Division, to
EPA Drinking Water Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X, at 2 (Oct. 20, 2006), available at
http://durhamnc.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3632 (emphasis in original).
53

Anna Orso, The Truth About Lead in Philly, and What You Can Do About the Problem,
BILLYPENN.COM (Feb. 22, 2016), available at http://billypenn.com/2016/02/22/the-truth-aboutlead-in-philly-and-what-you-can-do-about-it.
54

Lambrinidou Letter, at 4.

55

Memorandum from Peter C. Grevatt, Director, EPA Office of Ground Water & Drinking
Water, to Water Division Directors, Regions I-X, at 12 (Feb. 2016) available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201602/documents/epa_lcr_sampling_memorandum_dated_february_29_2016_508.pdf.
- 19

Case ID: 160503980

66.

In the same memorandum, the EPA acknowledges the problem with collecting the

sample for LCR testing using a slow flow rate from the faucet. The EPA thus recommends using
wide-mouth bottles to allow for a higher flow rate during sample collection which is more
representative of the flow that a consumer may use to fill up a glass of water. 56
67.

The City has not and cannot offer any legitimate reason for why it uses collection

methods that violate both the letter and intent of the LCR. As the EPA memorandum illustrates,
the Citys testing methods merely serve to distort test results that are supposed to reveal the level
of lead contamination in the Citys water supply in high-risk homes. Instead, the Citys
negligent and reckless actions frustrate the goals of the LCR. Then, only adding to the
confusion, the City makes impossible claims that Philadelphias drinking water is lead free, 57
which contradicts what even their flawed testing methods reveal. As a result, the City leaves all
of its residents in the dark about the safety of their water supply. And, more importantly, those
residents whose water supply has been contaminated with lead continue to drink and use this
toxic water, completely unaware of the consequences and health risks they face.
V.
68.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff seeks certification of the following Class pursuant to the Pennsylvania

Rules of Civil Procedure:

All residents of the City of Philadelphia who have resided in an
area where the City has replaced the water mains or meters
between January 1, 2006 and the present.

56

Id.

57

Testimony of Debra McCarty, Commissioner, Philadelphia Water Dept. (Mar. 21, 2016),
available at
http://www.phila.gov/water/wu/Lead%20Information/City_Council_Testimony_03_21_16.pdf.
- 20

Case ID: 160503980

69.

Pennsylvania Civil Procedure provides that an action may be maintained as a

class action if:

A.

(1)

the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is

impracticable;

(2)

there are questions of law or fact common to the class;

(3)

the claims or defenses of the representative parties are

typical of the claims or defenses of the class;

(4)

the representative parties will fairly and adequately assert

and protect the interests of the class under the criteria set
forth in Rule 1709; and

(5)

a class action provides a fair and efficient method for

adjudication of the controversy under the criteria set forth
in Rule 1708. 58

Numerosity
70.

Pursuant to Rule 1702(1), Class members are so numerous that their individual

joinder is impracticable. The precise number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiff, but the
number of people residing in the areas where the City has undertaken water infrastructure
projects greatly exceeds the number considered in this judicial district to make joinder
impossible.
B.

Common Questions of Fact or Law

71.

Pursuant to Rule 1702(2), questions of fact and law, except as to the amount of

damages each member of the Class sustained, are common to the Class. Common questions of
law and fact predominate over the questions affecting only individual Class members. Some of
the common legal and factual questions, without limitation, include:

58

Pa. R. Civ. P. 1702.

- 21

Case ID: 160503980

C.

a.

Whether the Citys construction, street work, meter

installation or replacement, and plumbing repairs caused
lead to leach into Plaintiffs and Class members water
supply, putting them at risk of lead poisoning;

b.

Whether the City owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class

members to fully comply with the LCR and EPA
guidelines;

c.

Whether Defendant intentionally misrepresented the safety

of the Plaintiffs and Class members drinking water to
them and the public; and

d.

The nature and extent of damages and other remedies to

which Defendants conduct entitles Plaintiff and the Class
members.

Typicality
72.

Pursuant to Rule 1702(3), Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the other

members of the Class. Plaintiff and Class members all face the same risk of lead poisoning as a
result of the Citys actions to conceal contamination levels by adjusting its testing protocol. In
other words, Plaintiff and Class members were subject to, and were harmed by, a common policy
and practice applied by the City.
D.

Adequacy
73.

Pursuant to Rule 1702(4), Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests

of the Class. Plaintiff is familiar with the basic facts that form the bases of the Class members
claims. Plaintiffs interests do not conflict with the interests of the other Class members that she
seeks to represent. Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in class action
litigation and intends to prosecute this action vigorously.
E.

Superiority
74.

Pursuant to Rule 1702(5), a class action is an appropriate method for the fair and

efficient adjudication of this controversy because joinder of all Class members is impracticable.

- 22

Case ID: 160503980

The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class would impose heavy
burdens upon the courts and Defendant, and would create a risk of inconsistent or varying
adjudications of the questions of law and fact common to the Class. A class action would
achieve substantial economies of time, effort and expense, and would assure uniformity of
decision as to persons similarly situated without sacrificing procedural fairness.
VI.

CLAIMS ALLEGED
COUNT I

MEDICAL MONITORING
75.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if

fully set forth here.

76.

Defendants water main and construction projects have caused lead to leach into

Plaintiffs water supply.

77.

Instead of attempting to disclose or remedy the problem, Defendant intentionally

and negligently misrepresented the safety of the drinking water, assuring the public that it is
completely safe, and even taking steps to ensure that the dangerously high levels present in the
water supply would not be detected by altering its testing protocol.
78.

Defendants negligence in this regard has exposed Plaintiff to elevated lead levels

in her water supply and subjected her family to a significantly greater risk of lead poisoning.
79.

Even when repeatedly faced with a wealth of warnings from water experts and the

EPA, Defendant refuses to change its flawed testing methods. Nor for that matter has Defendant
made any effort to protect or warn the Citys residents. Instead, Defendant has turned a blind
eye to these inconvenient truths, opting to double-down on statements that its water remains
completely safe.

- 23

Case ID: 160503980

80.

As a result, Plaintiff has been exposed to harmful lead levels that could negatively

affect her health for many years to come.

81.

Plaintiff, being at increased risk, requires blood tests to detect the presence of lead

poisoning. While some patients visiting a doctors office may receive routine blood tests, these
tests will not detect lead unless a patient is aware of his or her exposure and specifically requests
such testing.
82.

Moreover, blood testing is the preferred method by which to test for lead

poisoning, making such a program reasonably necessary here, where Plaintiff has been
continuously exposed to contaminated drinking water.
83.

Plaintiff and Class members are thus entitled to the establishment of a medical

monitoring program that includes, among other things:

(1)

Establishing a trust fund, in an amount to be determined, to

pay for the medical monitoring of all Class members; and

(2)

Notifying all Class members in writing that they may

require frequent medical monitoring necessary to diagnose
lead poisoning.
COUNT II
NEGLIGENCE

84.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if

fully set forth here.

85.

Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty to exercise reasonable care in providing safe

drinking water, reasonably free from dangerous contaminants such as lead that would expose her
to the unnecessary health risks documented herein.
86.

Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care when, despite knowing how its

construction projects and partial lead service line replacements contaminated the water supply of
- 24

Case ID: 160503980

Plaintiff and Class members with lead, it actively concealed such contamination by altering its
testing protocol in such a way as to increase the likelihood of false negatives.
87.

Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiff and the Class members

would foreseeably suffer injury from lead exposure as a result of Defendants failure to exercise
ordinary care.
88.

Defendants negligence proximately caused Plaintiffs and the Class members

damages and their increased risk of harm as documented herein.

89.

Plaintiff and Class members are therefore entitled to the establishment of a

medical monitoring program that includes, among other things:

(3)

Establishing a trust fund, in an amount to be determined, to

pay for the medical monitoring of all Class members; and

(4)

Notifying all Class members in writing that they may

require frequent medical monitoring necessary to diagnose
lead poisoning.
COUNT III
INVERSE CONDEMNATION

90.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if

fully set forth here.

91.

Plaintiff and Class members own or reside at properties that adjacent to

construction or street work, meter installation or replacement, or plumbing repairs conducted by

Defendant.
92.

The tremors and vibrations created by Defendants construction work and

plumbing repairs placed a significant amount of trauma on the lead service lines connected to the
residences of Plaintiff and Class members. This disturbance to the service lines has caused lead
to contaminate Plaintiffs and Class members residential water supply.
- 25

Case ID: 160503980

93.

Moreover, in completing water main repairs, Defendant has performed partial

lead service line replacements, cutting into the lead service lines on Plaintiffs properties and
refitting them to copper pipes and connections. In so doing, Defendant has not only exposed
residents in the short term to lead contamination from cutting into the service line, but has
potentially also subjected those residents to lead exposure over time should galvanic corrosion
cause more and more lead to taint the water supply.
94.

Accordingly, Defendants construction, water main repairs, and partial lead

service line replacements have caused irreversible damage to Plaintiffs property. Plaintiff and
Class members are thus entitled to compensation for the damage to their lead service lines
caused by Defendants work and seek amounts necessary to fully replace their lead service lines
with copper piping.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter an order or judgment against
Defendant including the following:
A.

Certification of the proposed Class pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil

Procedure;
B.

Designation of Plaintiff as representative of the proposed Class and designation of

Plaintiffs counsel as Class counsel;

C.

The establishment of a medical monitoring program that includes, among other

things:
(5)

Establishing a trust fund, in an amount to be determined, to

pay for the medical monitoring of all Class members; and

(6)

Notifying all Class members in writing that they may

require frequent medical monitoring necessary to diagnose
lead poisoning;
- 26

Case ID: 160503980

D.

Compensatory damages, including an amount sufficient to fully replace existing

lead service pipes with copper pipes or other appropriate lines and repair accompanying damage;
E.

The costs of bringing this suit, including reasonable attorneys fees; and

F.

All other relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled at law or in equity.

VII.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a jury trial of twelve jurors on all issues and claims that can be so tried.
DATED this 2nd day of June, 2016.

Respectfully submitted,
By _____/s/ Scott George______
Scott Alan George
Identification No. 81996
SEEGER WEISS LLP
1515 Market St., Suite 1380
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102
Telephone: (215)564-2300
Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
sgeorge@seegerweiss.com
Christopher A. Seeger
SEEGER WEISS LLP
77 Water Street
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 584-0700
Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
cseeger@seegerweiss.com
(admission pro hac vice to be sought)
Steve W. Berman
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
steve@hbsslaw.com
(admission pro hac vice to be sought)
Elizabeth A. Fegan
Mark Vazquez
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410
- 27

Case ID: 160503980

Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (708) 628-4949
Facsimile: (708) 628-4950
beth@hbsslaw.com
markv@hbsslaw.com
(admission pro hac vice to be sought)
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class

- 28

Case ID: 160503980

Case ID: 160503980