Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Defendants.
Plaintiffs Jim and Linda Scoma file this Second Amended Complaint
I.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. The Court has jurisdiction over the lawsuit under U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1)
because the Plaintiffs, Jim Scoma and Linda Scoma, and the Defendants
different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, excluding interest
and costs.
II.
PARTIES
the State of Oklahoma at 6100 N. Western Ave., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73118.
Defendant conducts business in the State of Texas and has its branch office at 301
Commerce St. Suite 600, Fort Worth, Texas 76102. This Defendant has made a
Texas and has its branch office at 301 Commerce Street, Suite 600, Fort Worth,
Texas 76102. Process service may be had upon Defendant by agreement by serving
citation to its counsel of record, Roger C. Diseker, Kelly Hart & Hallman, L.L.P.,
Texas and has its branch office at 301 Commerce Street, Suite 600, Fort Worth,
Texas 76102. Process service may be had upon Defendant by agreement by serving
citation to its counsel of record, Roger C. Diseker, Kelly Hart & Hallman, L.L.P.,
III.
FACTS
1. Plaintiffs, Jim Scoma and Linda Scoma, are the owners of real property
located at 4012 Chisholm Trail, Johnson County, Crowley, Texas 76036. Their
land is situated on the geographic strata known as the Newark East Field or Barnett
Shale.
activities near Plaintiffs property. Among their activities, Defendants have applied
formations. Defendants have also stored their drilling waste at sites and disposal
wells near the Scomas’ property and have disposed of their fracturing waste in
Plaintiffs could not continuously use their water for drinking and washing because
the well water intermittently turned an-orange/yellow color, tasted bad, and gave off
a foul odor. Testing results performed on the well water in 2008 and again in 2009
iron.
IV.
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TOLLED
Plaintiffs’ well water, constitutes a continuing tort. Pursuant to the Continuing Tort
Doctrine, a claim for a continuing tort does not accrue until the tortious conduct
ceases, and to the best of Plaintiffs’ knowledge, the drilling and contamination
continues. This operates to toll the running of the two year limitations period under
V.
NUISANCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST EACH DEFENDANT
above, Defendant interfered with and invaded the Plaintiffs’ private interest in their
storage of drilling waste in disposal wells, injection wells, or other sites near the
well water on Plaintiffs’ property, which substantially interfered with and prevented
Plaintiffs from the use and enjoyment of their well water for drinking and washing.
The contaminated well water offended the Plaintiffs’ senses and made their
damages.
VI.
TRESPASS CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST EACH DEFENDANT
granted for drilling on land adjacent to Plaintiffs’ land because Defendant’s drilling-
Defendant’s unauthorized entry, Plaintiffs could neither drink from, nor use the well
VII.
NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST EACH DEFENDANT
including the subsurface of Plaintiffs’ estate, i.e., the Plaintiffs’ well water.
have used an alternative means of mineral recovery. On the other hand, Plaintiffs
reside on their property and have no reasonable alternative use of their well water,
VIII.
DAMAGES OF PLAINTIFF JIM SCOMA
past expenses related to testing the contaminated well water and buying water from
2. Plaintiff has suffered loss of use of his land, which in all reasonable
3. Plaintiff has suffered loss of market value of his land, which in all
4. Plaintiff has suffered loss of the intrinsic value of the well water,
which in all reasonable probability such loss will continue in the future.
anxiety about the contaminated well water, which in all reasonable probability such
6. Plaintiff also seeks to recover nominal damages for each and every
accordance with Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, § 41.001, et. seq.
IX.
DAMAGES OF PLAINTIFF LINDA SCOMA
an orange color from washing her hair with the contaminated well water. Mrs.
Scoma has incurred past expenses related to testing the contaminated well water and
buying water from an alternative source, which in all reasonable probability such
2. Plaintiff has suffered loss of use of her land, which in all reasonable
3. Plaintiff has suffered loss of market value of her land, which in all
4. Plaintiff has suffered loss of the intrinsic value of the well water,
which in all reasonable probability such loss would continue in the future.
anxiety about the contaminated well water, which in all reasonable probability such
6. Plaintiff also seeks to recover nominal damages for each and every
accordance with Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, § 41.001, et. seq.
X.
EQUITABLE RELIEF
XI.
CLAIM FOR PRE-JUDGMENT AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST
XII.
REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs hereby request that a jury of their peers be empaneled to hear and
decide the fact issues presented in this case. Plaintiffs tender the required fees
herein.
answer herein; and upon final trial, that Plaintiffs have judgment against Defendants
for actual damages, cost of suit, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the
highest legal rates, and for such other relief, both general and special, at law or in
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ T Nguyen
T Nguyen
State Bar No. 24051116
6440 North Central Expressway
1000 Turley Law Center
Dallas, Texas 75206
Telephone No. 214/691-4025
Telecopier No. 214/361-5802
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was
served on the following counsel of record via the Court’s ECF filing system
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 and L.R. 5.1(d) on this 11th day of August, 2010.
Bart A. Rue
Roger C. Diseker
Clark H. Rucker
Kelly Hart & Hallman, L.L.P.
201 Main Street, Suite 2500
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
/s/ T Nguyen