Blodgett Oil Company, Inc

Blodgett Oil Company, Inc., et al. v Corrpro Companies, Inc., and Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

On December 21, 2003, the Ingham County Circuit Court (Court) heard Defendant’s, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ), Motion for Summary Disposition as to Plaintiff’s Complaint. The motion was filed to request that the Court dismiss the DEQ from the Plaintiff’s original complaint. By Court Order dated December 21, 2003, Count V of Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleging Estoppel against the DEQ was DISMISSED.

On November 20, 2003, the plaintiffs filed Plaintiff’s (Blodgett Oil Company, Inc., et al.) Motion for Reconsideration with the Court. This motion was filed in response to the Court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint. On November 24, 2003, the Court ordered that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

On October 29, 2003, the Court heard and GRANTED Plaintiff’s Motion to Approve Settlement with Corrpro Companies, Inc. (Corrpro). By this settlement, the plaintiff Class agreed to fully and forever release and discharge Corrpro, and the other released parties, from any and all claims and causes of action of every kind, nature, and description which the Class, collectively and individually, may have had, or may now have, or possibly could have against them in return for Corrpro’s payment of $1,500,000 to the plaintiff Class.

Also, on October 29, 2003, the Court heard oral arguments on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint. The amended complaint requested the Court to declare that the DEQ’s actions to “red-tag” underground storage tanks (USTs) found to not be in compliance would be in violation of the United States Constitution and Michigan’s Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and enter an order enjoining the DEQ from placing “red-tags” on Plaintiffs without providing the required notice and opportunity to establish compliance as required under the APA. On November 6, 2003, the Court entered an Order DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint.

On October 24, 2003, the DEQ rejected the joint settlement proposal of the Plaintiffs and Corrpro, which was submitted for DEQ review on August 28, 2003. The proposal called for a complete review of facility records related to determine those facilities that are in substantial compliance with cathodic protection (CP) maintenance and requirements. Those facilities found to be in substantial compliance would be subject to inspection of the CP systems, and those facilities where the CP system was found to be in substantial compliance would be the subject of further statistical review for a determination of the integrity of the USTs. It was proposed that a random field inspection of five percent of all facilities from this population be conducted by examining results of previously performed internal inspections, tank observations, or internal video inspections. If 80 percent or more of the subject USTs exhibited adequate structural integrity, then the DEQ would validate Corrpro’s assessment and upgrade of the remaining USTs. For various reasons, the DEQ denied the proposal and concluded that the proposal would not provide for an assessment of the structural integrity of the subject USTs to determine their suitability for CP upgrade in a manner that is equivalent to and at least as protective of the public health and the environment as the structural integrity assessment required by law.

On May 21, 2003, the Court heard the DEQ’s oral argument in the matter of the DEQ’s Motion for Summary Disposition and Brief in Support of the DEQ’s Motion for Summary Disposition Against Plaintiff Owners and Operators of USTs. The Court neither granted nor denied the DEQ’s motion but ruled that the matter was to be taken under advisement. The effect of this ruling is to keep the DEQ as a party to the litigation for the purpose of bringing about an amicable resolution to this litigation for all parties concerned, and the ruling did not enjoin the DEQ from proceeding with the administrative enforcement process outlined in the DEQ’s Brief in Support of the DEQ’s Motion for Summary Disposition Against Plaintiff Owners and Operators of USTs.

On April 15, 2003, the DEQ filed its brief in this matter in reply to Corrpro’s First Request for Production of Documents to the DEQ, Corrpro’s First Interrogatories to the DEQ, and Corrpro’s First Request for Admissions to the DEQ.

On April 9, 2003, the Court of Claims in the Ingham County Circuit Court (Court) heard oral arguments in the matter of Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff Corrpro’s Cross-Claim against the DEQ and the DEQ’s Motion for a Protective Order Limiting Discovery by Defendant and Cross-Plaintiff Corrpro from the DEQ to the Administrative Record. On this date, the Court of Claims granted the DEQ’s Motion for Summary Disposition, thereby dismissing Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff Corrpro’s Cross-Claim against the DEQ. The Court denied the DEQ’s Motion for Protective Order. In addition to denying the DEQ’s Motion for Protective Order, the Court indicated that the current case was not another opportunity to relitigate matters previously determined in prior proceedings. A Court order to this effect was issued on April 28, 2003.

On April 7, 2003, the DEQ filed its Motion for Summary Disposition and Brief of Motion for Summary Disposition Against Plaintiff Owners and Operators of USTs with the Ingham County Circuit Court.

On April 3, 2003, the DEQ filed its Response Brief in Support of the DEQ’s Motion for a Protective Order and Response Brief in Support of the DEQ’s Motion for Summary Disposition Against Plaintiff Owners and Operators of USTs.

On March 28, 2003, Corrpro filed Defendant-Appellant Corrpro’s Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Application for Leave to Appeal with the State of Michigan, Court of Appeals. To date, the Court of Appeals has not ruled on Corrpro’s Application for Leave to Appeal or the Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Application for Leave to Appeal.

On February 20, 2003, the DEQ filed a Motion for Summary Disposition and supporting brief in the matter of Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff Corrpro’s Cross-Claim against the DEQ and also filed a Motion for a Protective Order Limiting Discovery by Defendant and Cross-Plaintiff Corrpro from the DEQ to the Administrative Record and supporting brief in this matter and the matter of the cross-claim.

On February 12, 2003, Corrpro filed and served the DEQ with Corrpro’s First Request for Production of Documents to the DEQ, Corrpro’s First Interrogatories to the DEQ, and Corrpro’s First Request for Admissions to the DEQ in this matter.

On January 8, 2003, the Court heard oral arguments on Corrpro’s Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Application for Leave to Appeal, which was filed on December 17, 2002. The Court denied Corrpro’s motion, which means that the scheduling of activities related to the class action litigation may proceed while Corrpro’s Application for Leave to Appeal is before the Michigan Court of Appeals. On January 8, 2003, the Court entered the Scheduling Conference Order that stipulates the schedule of activities related to the class action litigation. Activities, such as discovery, identification of witnesses, submittal of motions, and trial by jury are scheduled through June of 2004.