Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 1 of 40

IN THE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

FANNIE AND ALBERT TARTT,

individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
CASE NO. ________________
Plaintiffs,
v. CLASS ACTION

BIO-LAB, INC., and KIK

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CONSUMER PRODUCTS INC.,

Defendants.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Fannie and Albert Tartt (“Named Plaintiffs” or “Plaintiffs”),

individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the “Class,” as more fully

defined below), by their undersigned counsel, brings this class action lawsuit against

Defendants Bio-Lab, Inc. (“Bio-Lab”) and KIK Consumer Products Inc. (“KIK”)

(collectively, “Defendants”) for real property-related damages sustained as the result

of a September 29, 2024, fire and smoke plume, which occurred at Defendants’

Conyers, Georgia chemical plant and caused widespread “evacuat[ions] as toxic

smoke billow[ed] from [a] chemical-fueled inferno.”1 As a result of the preventable

1
[Link]
toxic-smoke-billows-chemical-fueled-inferno.
1
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 2 of 40

fire and toxic smoke and dust plume, Plaintiffs and the other Class members have

suffered a variety of real property-related damages including loss of use and

enjoyment, remediation and clean-up costs, lost profits, and diminution of property

value.

Defendants’ negligence, recklessness, and failure to prevent the fire and toxic

smoke and dust plume caused and continues to cause harm to Plaintiffs and the other

Class members. Plaintiffs make the following allegations upon personal knowledge

as to Defendants’ acts and/or omissions, upon information and belief, and upon

Plaintiffs' attorneys’ investigation as to all other matters:

I. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
A. Parties

1. Plaintiff Fannie Tartt has been a resident of Rockdale County, Georgia

and a citizen of the state of Georgia since approximately August 2007.

2. Plaintiff Albert Tartt has been a resident of Rockdale County, Georgia

and a citizen of the state of Georgia since approximately August 2007.

3. On September 29, 2024, Plaintiffs resided at 1849 Kings Row, Conyers,

GA, 30012, approximately 1.3 miles from the Conyers, Georgia chemical plant,

located at 1700 Covington Hwy, Conyers, GA 30012 (“Conyers Plant”).

4. Defendant Bio-Lab is a Georgia company engaged in the business of

manufacturing and/or supplying swimming pool and spa water care chemicals under
2
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 3 of 40

product names that include BioGuard, SpaGuard, Natural Chemistry, SeaKlear,

AquaPill, Coral Seas, ProGuard, and Pro Series. At all relevant times, Bio-Lab

owned and operated the Conyers, Georgia chemical plant located at 1700 Covington

Hwy, Conyers, GA 30012 (“Conyers Plant”).

5. Bio-Lab is a Delaware corporation, based at 1725 N. Brown Rd. in

Lawrenceville, Georgia 30043, licensed to do business in the State of Georgia, and

conducting business in several counties in the State of Georgia, including, Gwinnett

and Rockdale Counties; Bio-Lab is a wholly owned subsidiary of defendant KIK;

Bio-Lab may be served through its registered agent for service of process, CT

Corporation System, 289 S. Culver St., Lawrenceville, Georgia 30046.

6. Defendant KIK is one of North America’s largest independent

manufacturers of consumer products. KIK acquired Bio-Lab in order to expand its

pool and spa treatment business.

7. KIK, at all relevant times, owned and operated the Conyers Plant.

8. KIK is a foreign corporation, with its principal offices and headquarters

located in Canada.

B. Jurisdiction and Venue

9. This action is brought on behalf of residents of Rockdale County,

Georgia and surrounding communities for losses to real property located in and

around Rockdale County, Georgia as a result of Defendants’ utter indifference,

3
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 4 of 40

reckless, willful and wanton conduct and acts of negligence, nuisance, and trespass

that took place in and around Rockdale County, Georgia.

10. It is expected that nearly all (far more than two-thirds) of the proposed

Class members are Georgia citizens.

11. The principal injuries of Plaintiffs and the other Class members were

incurred in Georgia.

12. Plaintiffs' and the other Class members’ injuries directly resulted from

Defendants’ acts or omissions at and around the Conyers Plant.

13. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the other Class members, are

seeking significant relief from Bio-Lab and KIK in the form of injunctive and

monetary relief.

14. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1332(a) because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest

and costs, and the parties are citizens of different states. Plaintiffs are citizens of the

State of Georgia. Upon information and belief, Defendant is a corporation organized

and existing under the laws of a state other than Georgia and has its principal place

of business in a state other than Georgia.

15. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a

substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in Rockdale County,

Georgia in the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.

4
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 5 of 40

C. Background Facts

16. Bio-Lab has maintained a presence in Rockdale County since 1973.2

17. Bio-Lab markets itself as “an industry leader in the development and

marketing of innovative products that provide clear water for pools and spas and for

keeping homes fresh and clean.”3

18. In 1973, Bio-Lab built the Conyers Plant.

19. At all relevant times, Bio-Lab operated the Conyers Plant.

20. “Among other operations, the [Conyers Plant] received, blended, and

packaged [trichloroisocyanuric acid] material into finished consumer products.”4

21. Bio-Lab has a history of fires and toxic chemical releases at the Conyers

Plant.

22. In 2004, the warehouse of the Conyers Plant caught fire, injuring 28

people.5 The fire produced a toxic chlorine plume that affected residents within 50

miles of the Conyers Plant, and authorities closed Interstate 20. Residents within a

2
[Link]
distribution-center-in-conyers-georgia-under-construction-by-arco-designbuild-
[Link].
3
[Link]
inc?srsltid=AfmBOoq9nf-WP5fAL-
mdKtjxxn0AMWVtMxRW52di0yu0qDac3FlKPNh9.
4
[Link]
5
[Link]
georgia-2004-similar-incident/85-d71cc6d6-78cf-4283-9510-03c93b2ee71c.
5
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 6 of 40

1.5 mile radius of the facility were evacuated. The fire was caused by an explosion

at the Conyers Plant fueled by 250,000 pounds of dry chlorine pellets. The explosion

and fire resulted in a $7 million settlement paid to those impacted by the fire.

23. In 2016, a fire ignited in a storage shed at the Conyers Plant.6 The fire

was only noticed and reported because a nearby resident smelled smoke and

chemicals and called the authorities. The fire was fueled by reactions from chlorine

pellets contained in the storage shed. Residents within a 1 mile radius of the facility

were evacuated.

24. In 2020, a water line leaked in the Conyers Plant, flooding part of the

facility and reacting with the trichloroisocyanuric acid used in the facility. 7 The

reaction produced dangerous fumes and a plume of hazardous chemicals. Following

the incident, chlorine levels in the air at nearby business property measured 12 times

the permissible exposure limit set by the federal government. Nearby businesses

were evacuated, and the highway was closed. The leak and resulting fumes cost an

estimated $1,007,000 in property damage. Nine firefighters were hospitalized as a

result of their response to the fumes.

6
[Link]
conyers-warehouse/85-231326577.
7
[Link]
6
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 7 of 40

25. The community of Rockdale County, Georgia has approximately

93,000 residents. The community of Conyers, Georgia has approximately 17,000

residents.

26. Numerous residential, commercial, and public properties are located in

close proximity to the Conyers Plant. These properties include:

a. Homes, schools, commercial buildings and stores, churches, and

athletic fields;

b. Shoal Creek Elementary School, located 1.6 miles from the

Conyers Plant;

c. Conyers Middle School, located 2.2 miles from the Conyers

Plant;

d. Rockdale County High School, located 1.9 miles from the

Conyers Plant;

e. CJ Hicks Elementary School, located 2.1 miles from the Conyers

Plant;

f. Georgia College of Construction, located 1.6 miles from the

Conyers Plant;

g. Rockdale County 911 Emergency Center, located 1.3 miles from

the Conyers Plant;

h. Conyers Rockdale Library System, located 1.6 miles from the

Conyers Plant;

i. Conyers First Methodist Church, located 1.4 miles from the

Conyers Plant;

7
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 8 of 40

j. Victorious Life Church, located 1.8 miles from the Conyers

Plant;

k. Antioch East AME Church, Inc., located 1.8 miles from the
Conyers Plant;

l. Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses, located 1.7 miles from

the Conyers Plant;

m. Rockdale County Parks & Rec, located 1.8 miles from the
Conyers Plant;

n. AMMY Nursery, located 2.3 miles from the Conyers Plant;

o. Conyers Apostolic Church, located 1.8 miles from the Conyers

Plant;

p. Way of the Cross Baptist Church, located 2.1 miles from the
Conyers Plant.

27. Upon information and belief, Bio-Lab stored chlorine and other

chemicals at the Conyers Plant.

28. At all relevant times, the risk of a chemical fire and the release of a

toxic smoke and dust plume was reasonably foreseeable to Defendants.

29. At all relevant times, it was reasonably foreseeable to Defendants that

the risk of a chemical fire and the release of a toxic smoke and dust plume could

impact the properties and present a hazard to the Rockdale residents located near the

Conyers Plant.

8
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 9 of 40

D. The Fire and the Ensuing Toxic Plume

30. On September 29, 2024, a fire ignited at the Conyers Plant, resulting in

a chemical reaction that caused an enormous toxic smoke and dust plume—the

plume was so large that it could be “seen for miles.”8 The plume was visible from

at least 30 miles away. 9

31. Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5, below, depict the smoke and dust plume.

8
[Link]
georgia/[Link].
9
[Link]
ordered-after-chemical-plant-fire-in-conyers-ga.
9
Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 10 of 40

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

10
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 11 of 40

Figure 5

32. The fire ignited on the roof of the Conyers Plant at approximately 5

a.m. The fire then triggered a malfunctioning sprinkler head at the facility, 10 which

sprayed water onto water-reactive chemicals contained in the fire and at the facility.

This reaction created the large smoke and dust plume depicted above.

33. The fire was initially contained but reignited around 12 p.m., sending a

large plume of black smoke into the air. The fire was not contained again until

approximately 4 p.m.

10
[Link]
11
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 12 of 40

34. The fire caused a “complete collapse” of the Conyers Plant building, as

the roof caved in and multiple walls fell as a result of the fire. 11

35. Bio-Lab did not have an adequate fire protection system in order to

quickly and effectively extinguish fires at their facility while also avoiding causing

dangerous chemical reactions with water-reactive chemicals.

36. Bio-Lab’s failure to possess and utilize an effective fire protection

system exacerbated the harm caused by the fire at the Conyers Plant and delayed

emergency response to the fire.

37. At approximately 1:10 p.m., authorities in Rockdale County, Georgia

issued an Evacuation Alert asking residents living between Sigman Road and

Interstate 20 near the Conyers Plant to evacuate immediately and announcing that

Interstate 20 would be closing (“Evacuation Alert”).

38. The Evacuation Alert displaced more than 17,000 residents.

39. At the same time, Rockdale County authorities announced the closing

of Interstate 20 in both directions between Salem Rd and Turner Hill, an eight-mile

stretch of the highway, causing significant traffic disruptions. All southbound traffic

on Hi-Roc Road between Irwin Bridge and Highway 138 was shut down, and all

11
[Link]
georgia/[Link].
12
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 13 of 40

traffic from Highway 138 to Interstate 20 from Turner Hill Road to Salem Road

was shut down.

40. Interstate 20 remained closed on September 30, 2024, causing

additional traffic disruptions.

41. Evacuated residents were unable to return to their homes to obtain

personal items and necessities, including medication, technology, and

communication devices to inform loved ones of their wellbeing.

42. At approximately 7:45 p.m., Rockdale County, Georgia authorities

issued a shelter-in-place order for all residents of Rockdale County (“Shelter-in-

Place Order”) between 7:45 p.m. and midnight.12 More than 77,000 residents were

affected and could not leave their homes.

43. Those sheltering in place were asked by County officials “to turn the

air conditioning off and keep windows and doors shut.”13

44. The Shelter-in-Place order was extended and continued on September

30, 2024. 14

45. All businesses in Rockdale County were asked to close operations

12
[Link]
13
[Link]
shelter-in-place-continuing/.
14
[Link]
shelter-in-place-continuing/.
13
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 14 of 40

while the Shelter-in-Place Order was in effect.

46. Piedmont Rockdale Hospital evacuated patients and announced that the

hospital was on diversion, delaying care for those in need of emergency medical

treatment.15

47. Newton County Schools closed all schools on September 30, 2024, due

to the fire and toxic smoke and dust plume from the Conyers Plant.16

48. Georgia Piedmont Technical College closed both their Newton and

Rockdale campuses until further notice because of the fire and toxic smoke and dust

plume.

49. Government buildings, including the Rockdale County Courthouse,

Administration Building, Water Resources, Elections Office, Animal Services, Tax

Commissioner, and Board of Commissioner’s Office were all closed on September

30, 2024, due to the fire and toxic smoke and dust plume. 17

15
[Link]
fire-latest-updates-monday-september-30/85-2a4ac3d6-4263-4b25-aec8-
5d0865c7c960.
16

[Link]
_closed_monday__september_30?fbclid=IwY2xjawFm09ZleHRuA2FlbQIxMAA
BHQ-
KlsTtwU5LXzxpISGupG0F0A2fijFc32ZrSQSNx2GxNd1uQSyYwVLQug_aem_7
E6-2smPIyp0ljqw_kYpxg.
17
[Link]
fire-county-school-closings-monday/CP52YJPW7FAGTNPVK6MF5P53VM/.
14
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 15 of 40

50. The City of Conyers closed City Hall, municipal court, and Conyers

University through October 2, 2024, and cancelled a Conyers Downtown

Development Authority meeting scheduled for October 1, 2024. 18

51. Government offices in nearby Newton County closed on September 30,

2024, as well due to health concerns.

52. Churches in Rockdale County, and from Rockbridge to Northside

County, were all asked to cancel or immediately end services on Sunday, September

29, 2024. 19

53. The Rockdale County Fire Rescue, the local fire department, was

dispatched to respond to the fire at the Conyers Plant.

54. The Rockdale County Emergency Management Agency mobilized in

response to the fire. The state also sent officials from the Georgia Environmental

Protection Division (“EPD”) to respond and assess the air quality after the fire.

55. The Georgia Department of Transportation managed road closures and

accompanying transportation delays in response to the fire.

18
[Link]
fire-latest-updates-monday-september-30/85-2a4ac3d6-4263-4b25-aec8-
5d0865c7c960.
19
[Link]
to-evacuation-of-17000/NLTZ6RLMIZCERF76B7FHUQFRYE/.
15
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 16 of 40

56. The federal Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) also responded,

assisting in air quality monitoring and assessment, 20 and the Federal Emergency

Management Agency was called to respond and assist in emergency management as

well.21

57. Shelter locations and evacuation sites were established for affected

residents, including sites in Lithonia, Covington, and Stockbridge, with assistance

from the American Red Cross and DeKalb County Emergency Management.

58. The repeated incidents at the Bio-Lab facility highlight ongoing safety

concerns and the need for improved safety measures to protect the community.

59. Beginning on September 29, 2024, and continuing through the date of

this Complaint, Rockdale residents have been unable to use and enjoy their indoor

and outdoor property as a result of the debris and poor air quality caused by the fire.

60. The EPD and the EPA conducted air quality surveys on September 29

and 30, 2024, and the results indicated “the harmful irritant chlorine” emitting from

the Conyers Plant. 22 The chlorine was present in the plume of smoke coming from

20
[Link]
shelter-in-place-following-chemical-plant-fire/.
21
[Link]
georgia/[Link].
22
[Link]
shelter-in-place-continuing/.
16
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 17 of 40

the facility, and wind patterns made the toxic chlorine pollution follow an

“unpredictable path.”

61. Residents living near the Conyers Plant have observed smoke and ash

debris on their property and around their homes. 23

62. The toxic smoke and dust plume caused concern in counties adjacent to

Rockdale County. Newton County closed schools and government buildings.

Walton County dispatched the Walton County Emergency Management Agency and

the Walton County Fire Rescue to aide in the response to the fire and toxic smoke

and dust plume. Walton County also advised residents to “turn off your air

conditioners, turn on your ceiling fans, and if possible bring your outside animals

indoors.”24

63. At the time of the fire, Plaintiffs were in their residence at 1849 Kings

Row, Conyers, GA 30012, which is approximately 1.3 miles from the Conyers Plant.

64. As a result of the fire and resulting toxic smoke and dust plume,

Plaintiffs had concerns about their health and well-being and the health and well-

being of their family because their residence is in the area directly impacted by the

plume.

23
[Link]
is-sufficiently-dissipated-but-stay-indoors/.
24
[Link]
is-sufficiently-dissipated-but-stay-indoors/.
17
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 18 of 40

65. Plaintiffs were not able to evacuate. They have closed their home,

turned off the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system, and sheltered in

place. They have not been able to leave their home for any reason, including to

attend a scheduled physical therapy session.

66. As a result of the fire and resulting toxic smoke and dust plume, toxic

and harmful substances, smoke, debris, particulate matter, other dust, and other

pollutants have been deposited in, on, and around Plaintiffs’ property. As a result,

Plaintiffs have not been able to use and enjoy their home.

67. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to act with reasonable care,

acted with utter indifference, recklessly, and with willful and wanton misconduct.

68. Defendants failed to prevent the chemical fire and the resulting toxic

smoke and dust plume and otherwise acted with utter indifference, recklessly, and

with willful and wanton misconduct.

69. Defendants, alternatively, failed to discover the hazards that resulted in

the chemical fire and resulting toxic smoke and dust plume, where such hazards

could have been discovered by the exercise of ordinary care and otherwise acted

with utter indifference, recklessly, and with willful and wanton misconduct.

70. Defendants failed to act with reasonable care to take sufficient

precautions which would have prevented or mitigated the chemical fire and toxic

18
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 19 of 40

smoke and dust plume and otherwise acted with utter indifference, recklessly, and

with willful and wanton misconduct.

71. Defendants failed to act with reasonable or ordinary care to prevent

toxic chemicals, dust, and hazardous by-products from being released into the

environment and onto the properties of Plaintiffs and the other Class members and

otherwise acted with utter indifference, recklessly, and with willful and wanton

misconduct.

72. Defendants failed to act with reasonable or ordinary care to contain the

discharge of toxic smoke, dust, and hazardous by-products after the fire occurred

and otherwise acted with utter indifference, recklessly, and with willful and wanton

misconduct.

73. At all relevant times, it was foreseeable to Defendants that their failures

would seriously injure Plaintiffs and the other Class members.

I. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

74. Pursuant to Rule 23(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

Plaintiffs seek to certify and represent a class defined as:

All owners and lessees of real property in Rockdale County and surrounding
communities who were subject to the evacuation and shelter-in-place orders
and advisories issued as a result of the plume of toxic smoke, debris, and
particulate matter that emanated from the Conyers Plant because of the fire
and chemical reaction.

19
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 20 of 40

75. Specifically excluded from the Class are Defendants, including any

parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or controlled person of Defendants; Defendants’

officers, directors, agents, or employees, the judicial officers assigned to this

litigation and any members of their staffs and immediate families, and any juror

assigned to this action.

76. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend or modify the Class definition with

greater specificity or division after having had an opportunity to conduct discovery.

77. Numerosity. Upon information and belief, there are thousands of

members of the Class, making the members of the Class so numerous that joinder of

all members is impracticable. Although the exact number of members of the Class

is currently unknown to Plaintiffs, tens of thousands of people live in Rockdale

County alone, thousands of properties were subject to the Evacuation Alert, and

thousands of pieces of real and personal property were affected. Class members may

be identified through objective means, including objective data available to the

Parties regarding the persons and property present in the affected areas following the

fire. Class members may be notified of the pendency of this action by recognized,

Court-approved notice dissemination methods, which may include U.S. mail,

electronic mail, Internet postings, social media and/or published notice. Thus,

pursuant to Rule 23(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the large size of

20
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 21 of 40

the Class renders the Class so numerous that joinder of all individual members is

impracticable.

78. Predominance of Common Questions of Law or Fact. Common

questions of law and fact predominate in this matter because Defendants’ conduct

towards Plaintiffs and the other Class members is uniform. These common questions

of law or fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class

members. Common questions include, but are not limited to the following:

a. Whether Defendants engaged in the wrongful conduct alleged

herein;

b. Whether Defendants caused the fire at the Conyers Plant in

violation of rules, regulations, and customs;

c. Whether Defendants caused the release of toxic chemicals and

particulate matter into the Rockdale community and surrounding

communities;

d. Whether Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care in

allowing the fire at the Conyers Plant to occur;

e. Whether Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care in causing

the chemical reaction that caused the release of toxic chemicals

and particulate matter into the Rockdale community and

surrounding communities;
21
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 22 of 40

f. Whether Defendants omitted required, reasonable, or minimal

safety measures resulting in the fire at the Conyers Plant;

g. Whether Defendants failed to follow required, reasonable, or

minimal safety measures that would have mitigated the fire at the

Conyers Plant;

h. Whether Defendants engaged in ultrahazardous activities;

i. Whether Defendants were negligent;

j. Whether Defendants created a nuisance;

k. Whether Defendants engaged in trespass to the properties of the

Class members;

l. Whether Plaintiffs and the other Class members suffered injury

and damages as a result of Defendants’ conduct;

m. Whether Plaintiffs and the other Class members are entitled to

damages, equitable relief, and other relief.

79. Plaintiffs share a common interest with the other Class members in the

objectives of the action and the relief sought.

80. Plaintiffs satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because their claims arise from Defendants’ course

of conduct which led to the single incident affecting all of the Class members and

are based on the same legal theories as all other Class members’ claims.
22
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 23 of 40

81. Adequacy. Pursuant to Rule 23 (a)(3) and (4) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs can and will adequately represent the other Class

members and their interests are common to and coincident with them. By proving

their individual claims, Plaintiffs will necessarily prove the other Class members’

claims and prove Defendants’ class wide liability. Plaintiffs have no known conflicts

of interest with any of the other Class members, their interests and claims are not

antagonistic to those of any other Class member, nor are their claims subject to any

unique defenses.

82. Moreover, Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of all other Class

members because all such claims arise from Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein.

83. Plaintiffs and the other Class members’ legal claims arise from the same

single event, namely, the Conyers Plant catching fire, followed by the creation of a

large plume of toxic smoke and dust that emitted from the facility and spread

throughout the Rockdale County area and beyond. The material facts underlying

each Class member’s claim are the same material facts as those supporting Plaintiffs'

claims alleged herein and require proof of the same material facts.

84. Plaintiffs, therefore, can and will fairly and adequately protect and

represent the other Class members’ interests.

85. Plaintiffs' counsel—DiCello Levitt LLP, Stewart Miller Simmons Trial

Attorneys, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., and Collins Law Environmental &
23
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 24 of 40

Personal Injury Lawyers—have extensive experience in environmental and toxic tort

litigation and class actions, and have adequate financial resources to ensure that the

interests of the Class will be adequate represented.

86. If appointed Class representative, Plaintiffs are aware of, and are

committed to, faithfully upholding their fiduciary duties to absent Class members.

87. Plaintiffs and their counsel are committed to the vigorous prosecution

of this action and will allocate the appropriate time and resources to ensure that the

Class is fairly represented.

88. Plaintiffs and their counsel will, therefore, fairly and adequately assert

and protect the Class’ interests.

89. Appropriateness. Class treatment provides an appropriate method for

adjudication of this controversy insofar as the class action can best secure the

economics of time, effort, and expense and promote uniformity of decision. Indeed,

the prosecution of separate actions by individual Class members would create a risk

of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual Class members

that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the

Class. As a result, separate actions brought by individual Class members would

possibly lead to a situation where identical language is interpreted differently.

90. Resolution of the common issues of fact and law affecting Plaintiffs'

and the other Class members’ claims, including, but not limited to the common
24
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 25 of 40

issues discussed above, in a single action will eliminate the chance of inconsistent

and/or varying adjudications. Such resolution will further allow Class members to

present their claims efficiently; share the costs of litigation, experts, and discovery;

and preserve judicial time and resources. A class action is thus superior to other

available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of Plaintiffs' and the other

Class members’ claims.

91. In the alternative, the proposed classes may be certified because:

a. The prosecution of separate actions by each individual Class

member would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications
with respect to individual members of the Class which would
establish incompatible standards of conduct for the Defendants;

b. The prosecution of individual actions could result in adjudications

with respect to individual members of the Class which would as a
practical matter be dispositive of the interests of non-party Class
members or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect
their interests; and

c. Defendants acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable

to the proposed classes, thereby making appropriate final injunctive
relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the Class as
a whole.

II. CLAIMS ALLEGED

COUNT I
Negligence
(Against All Defendants)

92. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate Paragraphs 1-91, as though fully set

forth herein.
25
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 26 of 40

93. Defendants knew or should have known of the risk of fire, chemical

reaction, and toxic plume at the Conyers Plant.

94. Defendants knew or should have known of the risk that a fire at the

Conyers Plant would result in the release of toxic substances into the surrounding

neighborhood and communities.

95. Defendants knew or should have known of the risk that a fire at the

Conyers Plant would result in the release of toxic and harmful smoke into the

surrounding neighborhood and communities.

96. Defendants knew or should have known of the risk that a fire at the

Conyers Plant would result in the release of toxic and harmful debris into the

surrounding neighborhood and communities.

97. Defendants knew or should have known of the risk that a fire at the

Conyers Plant would result in the release of toxic and harmful particulate matter into

the surrounding neighborhood and communities.

98. Defendants knew or should have known of the risk that a fire at the

Conyers Plant would result in the release of toxic and harmful dust into the

surrounding neighborhood and communities.

99. Defendants knew or should have known of the risk that a fire at the

Conyers Plant would result in the release of toxic and harmful pollutants into the

surrounding neighborhood and communities.

26
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 27 of 40

100. Defendants knew or should have known that the release of toxic and

harmful substances, smoke, debris, particulate matter, other dust, and/or other

pollutants would pose a risk of serious damage to, diminution in the value of, and

loss of use and enjoyment of the affected property.

101. Defendants had a duty to Plaintiffs and the other Class members to

exercise reasonable care to prevent the foreseeable interference with Class members’

use and enjoyment of their properties that has resulted from the release of toxic and

harmful substances, smoke, debris, particulate matter, other dust, and/or other

pollutants from the fire and toxic smoke and dust plume.

102. Defendants had a duty to prevent the release of toxic and harmful

substances, smoke, debris, particulate matter, other dust, and/or other pollutants

from the Conyers Plant.

103. Defendants breached the duties that they owe to Plaintiffs and each of

the other Class members, to exercise reasonable care, which has interfered with

Class members’ property and caused property damage, lost profits, loss of use, and

expected diminution of property value.

104. Specifically, Defendants breached their duties by:

a. Choosing not to take sufficient precautions to prevent a fire;

b. Choosing not to take sufficient precautions to prevent a chemical

reaction with water-reactive chemicals;

27
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 28 of 40

c. Choosing not to take sufficient precautions to extinguish a fire;

d. Choosing not to take sufficient precautions to prevent and

mitigate the emissions of toxic chemicals from the Conyers

Plant;

e. Allowing enormous amounts of toxic and harmful substances,

smoke, debris, particulate matter, other dust, and/or other

pollutants to be deposited on Class members’ properties; and/or

f. Otherwise failing to take sufficient precautions to control the

emissions of toxic and harmful substances, smoke, debris,

particulate matter, other dust, and/or other pollutants from Class

members’ property.

105. As a direct and proximate cause of one or more of the aforementioned

negligent acts or omissions, Plaintiffs and the other Class members suffered property

damage, lost profits, loss of use, and expected diminution of property value.

106. As a direct and proximate cause of one or more of the aforementioned

negligent acts or omissions, Plaintiffs and the other Class members have incurred,

and will continue to incur, monetary damages arising from the property damage, lost

profits, loss of use, and diminution of property value.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly

situated, respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against
28
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 29 of 40

Defendants in an amount in excess of $75,000, which will adequately and fairly

compensate them, plus the costs of this lawsuit, and an injunction requiring

Defendants to remediate the resulting harm at or threatening their residences and for

other appropriate injunctive relief.

COUNT II
Nuisance
(Against All Defendants)

107. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate Paragraphs 1-91, as though fully set

forth herein.

108. Defendants knew or should have known of the risk of fire at the

Conyers Plant.

109. Defendants knew or should have known of the risk that a fire at the

Conyers Plant would result in the release of toxic substances into the surrounding

neighborhood and communities.

110. Defendants knew or should have known of the risk that a fire at the

Conyers Plant would result in the release of toxic and harmful smoke into the

surrounding neighborhood and communities.

111. Defendants knew or should have known of the risk that a fire at the

Conyers Plant would result in the release of toxic and harmful debris into the

surrounding neighborhood and communities.

29
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 30 of 40

112. Defendants knew or should have known of the risk that a fire at the

Conyers Plant would result in the release of toxic and harmful particulate matter into

the surrounding neighborhood and communities.

113. Defendants knew or should have known of the risk that a fire at the

Conyers Plant would result in the release of toxic and harmful dust into the

surrounding neighborhood and communities.

114. Defendants knew or should have known of the risk that a fire at the

Conyers Plant would result in the release of toxic and harmful pollutants into the

surrounding neighborhood and communities.

115. The fire at the Conyers Plant caused the uncontrolled discharge of toxic

and harmful substances, smoke, debris, particulate matter, other dust, and/or other

pollutants, which invaded the Plaintiffs’ and the other Class members’ properties,

and Plaintiffs and the other Class members did not consent to the entry of such

materials onto their properties.

116. Defendants knew or should have known that they caused the disposal

and invasion of toxic and harmful substances, smoke, debris, particulate matter,

other dust, and/or other pollutants on the Plaintiffs’ and the other Class members’

properties but have failed to remove such material from the Plaintiffs’ and the other

Class members’ properties.

30
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 31 of 40

117. Defendants’ uncontrolled discharge of toxic and harmful substances,

smoke, debris, particulate matter, other dust, and/or other pollutants and the disposal

and invasion thereof onto the Plaintiffs’ and the other Class members’ properties is

unreasonable and unlawful.

118. The discharge, disposal, and invasion of toxic and harmful substances,

smoke, debris, particulate matter, other dust, and/or other pollutants onto Plaintiffs’

and the other Class members’ properties have substantially interfered with the lawful

rights of Plaintiffs and the other Class members to use and enjoy their properties,

which constitutes a private nuisance.

119. The nuisance described above continues to this day and has adversely

impacted the life and health of Plaintiffs and the other Class members.

120. The nuisance described above has unreasonably, negligently, and

recklessly interfered with the comfortable use and enjoyment of life and property,

has caused expected diminutions in Plaintiffs’ and the Class members’ property

values, and has thereby created a common law nuisance, for reasons of which

Defendants are liable to the Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class Plaintiffs

represent.

121. As a direct and proximate result of this nuisance, Plaintiffs and the other

Class members suffered unacceptable and unreasonable interference with their rights

31
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 32 of 40

to use and enjoy their properties, interference they should not be required to suffer

without compensation.

122. As a direct and proximate cause of the nuisance, Plaintiffs and the other

Class members have incurred, and will continue to incur, monetary damages arising

from the lost use and enjoyment of their property caused by Defendants’ conduct.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly

situated, respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against

Defendants in an amount in excess of $75,000, which will adequately and fairly

compensate them, plus the costs of this lawsuit, and an injunction requiring

Defendants to remediate the resulting harm at or threatening their residences and for

other appropriate injunctive relief.

COUNT III
Trespass
(Against All Defendants)

123. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate Paragraphs 1-91, as though fully set

forth herein.

124. Defendants knew or should have known of the risk of fire at the

Conyers Plant.

125. Defendants knew or should have known of the risk that a fire at the

Conyers Plant would result in the release of toxic substances into the surrounding

neighborhood and communities.

32
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 33 of 40

126. Defendants knew or should have known of the risk that a fire at the

Conyers Plant would result in the release of toxic and harmful smoke into the

surrounding neighborhood and communities.

127. Defendants knew or should have known of the risk that a fire at the

Conyers Plant would result in the release of toxic and harmful debris into the

surrounding neighborhood and communities.

128. Defendants knew or should have known of the risk that a fire at the

Conyers Plant would result in the release of toxic and harmful particulate matter into

the surrounding neighborhood and communities.

129. Defendants knew or should have known of the risk that a fire at the

Conyers Plant would result in the release of toxic and harmful dust into the

surrounding neighborhood and communities.

130. Defendants knew or should have known of the risk that a fire at the

Conyers Plant would result in the release of toxic and harmful pollutants into the

surrounding neighborhood and communities.

131. Defendants knew or should have known that the release of toxic and

harmful substances, smoke, debris, particulate matter, other dust, and/or other

pollutants into the surrounding neighborhood would pose a risk of serious damage

to, diminution in the value of, and loss of use and enjoyment of the affected property.

33
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 34 of 40

132. The fire at the Conyers Plant caused the uncontrolled discharge of toxic

and harmful substances, smoke, debris, particulate matter, other dust, and/or other

pollutants, which invaded the property in which Plaintiffs and the other Class

members have an interest, and Plaintiffs and the other Class members did not consent

to the entry of such materials onto these properties.

133. Defendants are aware that they caused the disposal and invasion of

toxic and harmful substances, smoke, debris, particulate matter, other dust, and/or

other pollutants on the Plaintiffs’ and the Class members’ properties but have failed

to remove the toxic and harmful substances, smoke, debris, particulate matter, other

dust, and/or other pollutants from the properties.

134. Defendants’ uncontrolled discharge of toxic and harmful substances,

smoke, debris, particulate matter, other dust, and/or other pollutants and the disposal

and invasion thereof onto the Plaintiffs’ and the other Class members’ properties is

unreasonable and unlawful, and such discharge, disposal and invasion have

substantially interfered with the lawful rights of Plaintiffs and the other Class

members to use and enjoy their properties, constituting an unlawful trespass.

135. The trespass is continuing and ongoing.

136. Defendants’ interference with Plaintiffs’ and Class members’

possessory rights was unreasonable and foreseeable.

34
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 35 of 40

137. As a direct and proximate result of the trespass, Plaintiffs and Class

members sustained and will continue to sustain a loss of ability to use and enjoy their

properties.

138. As a direct and proximate cause of the trespass, Plaintiffs have incurred,

and will continue to incur, monetary damages arising from the lost use and

enjoyment of their property caused by Defendants’ conduct.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly

situated, respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against

Defendants in an amount in excess of $75,000, which will adequately and fairly

compensate them, plus the costs of this lawsuit, and an injunction requiring

Defendants to remediate the resulting harm at or threatening their residences and for

other appropriate injunctive relief.

COUNT IV
Punitive Damages
(Against All Defendants)

139. Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate Paragraphs 1-138, as though fully set

forth herein.

140. Defendants’ repeated incidents involving similar fires, smoke plumes,

chemical releases, and toxic smoke and dust emissions from the Conyers Plant

reflect bad faith, reckless, and willful and wanton conduct on the part of Defendants.

35
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 36 of 40

141. Defendants’ failures to address the causes of previous incidents and

allowing another chemical fire to occur without adequately updating fire protection

systems and emergency procedures represent bad faith, reckless, and willful and

wanton conduct on the part of Defendants.

142. Defendants’ misconduct has been willful, malicious and in reckless and

wanton disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs and of others. As such, Defendants

should be required to pay punitive damages in an amount that will deter such

misconduct in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly

situated, respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against

Defendants in an amount in excess of $75,000, which will adequately and fairly

compensate them, plus the costs of this lawsuit, and an injunction requiring

Defendants to remediate the resulting harm at or threatening their residences and for

other appropriate injunctive relief.

III. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the other Class

members, respectfully request that this Court:

a) Issue an order certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Rule

23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the manner described

above;
36
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 37 of 40

b) Appoint Plaintiffs as Class representatives and their undersigned

counsel as Class counsel;

c) Issue a class wide judgment holding Defendants liable for the reasons

described above for their unlawful conduct causing Plaintiffs and the

other Class members to sustain damages resulting therefrom;

d) Enter a judgment declaring that Defendants have committed the

violations of law alleged herein;

e) Award Plaintiffs and the other Class members compensatory damages

in an amount that is fair, just, and reasonable, to be determined at trial;

f) Award Plaintiffs and the other Class members punitive damages in an

amount that is fair, just, and reasonable, to be determined at trial;

g) Award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest to Plaintiffs and the

other Class members as permitted by law;

h) Award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit; and

i) Order equitable, injunctive, and declaratory relief requiring Defendants

to:

i. Provide all Conyers residents with particulate masks;

ii. Provide all Conyers residents with high-efficiency particulate air

filters for their homes;

37
Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 38 of 40

iii. Conduct immediate testing and sampling of the air and

groundwater to detect the presence of toxins and other chemicals

potentially hazardous to human health;

iv. Immediately and publicly disclose all information regarding the

toxins and other compounds that comprised the plume;

v. Institute perimeter particulate matter monitoring at the fence line

of the Conyers Plant;

vi. Install additional air quality monitors in all affected areas;

vii. Provide a full cleanup of all affected residences, businesses, and

common areas;

viii. Wash the exterior of buildings in all affected areas;

ix. Wash the streets and sidewalks in all affected areas;

x. Provide alternative housing for residents in Conyers, Georgia

and affected surrounding communities for the duration of the

cleanup process;

xi. Provide funds for an independent third-party assessor to evaluate

and provide estimates to real property owners in Conyers,

Georgia and affected surrounding communities regarding

property damage and diminution in property value; and

xii. Any and all additional relief that the Court deems just and proper.
38
 Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 39 of 40

IV. JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the other proposed Class members,

demand a trial by jury on all issues herein so triable pursuant to Rule 38 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Dated: September 30, 2024

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Roy E. Barnes

Roy E. Barnes
Georgia Bar No. 039000
John R. Bevis
Georgia Bar No. 056110
J. Cameron Tribble
Georgia Bar No. 754759
BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
31 Atlanta Street
Marietta, GA 30060
Telephone: (770-227-6375
Facsimile: (770) 227-6373
E-Mail: roy@[Link]
E-Mail: bevis@[Link]
E-Mail: ctribble@[Link]

Adam J. Levitt*
Daniel R. Flynn*
Anna Claire Skinner
Georgia Bar No. 797021
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-Mail: alevitt@[Link]
E-Mail: dflynn@[Link]
E-Mail: askinner@[Link]
39
Case 1:24-cv-04407-SEG Document 1 Filed 09/30/24 Page 40 of 40

L. Chris Stewart
Georgia Bar No. 142289
Justin Miller
Georgia Bar No. 001307
STEWART MILLER SIMMONS
TRIAL ATTORNEYS
55 Ivan Allen Jr. Blvd, Suite 700
Atlanta, GA 30308
E-Mail: cstewart@[Link]
E-Mail: jmiller@[Link]

Robert S. Libman*
Roisin Duffy-Gideon*
MINER, BARNHILL & GALLAND,
P.C.
325 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 350
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 751-1170
E-Mail: rlibman@[Link]
E-Mail: rduffy@[Link]

Edward J. Manzke*
Shawn Collins*
THE COLLINS LAW FIRM, PC
1770 Park St., Ste. 200
Naperville, IL 60563
Telephone: (630) 527-1595
E-Mail: shawn@[Link]
E-Mail: ejmanzke@[Link]

*Pro Hac Vice forthcoming.

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the

Proposed Class

40