In an article that makes one wonder whether the mayor of Akron is perhape lead poisoned, the Cleveland Plain Dealer today gleefully reports " The City of Akron has dropped its lawsuit against Sherwin-Williams Co. (NYSE: SHW [1]) and other former manufacturers of lead pigment, but it’s not saying exactly why" and "Motley Rice partner Jack McConnell said it’s his understanding that (Akron Mayor) Plusquellic wanted the suit dismissed for the time being, but that when the outside lawyers working with the city wanted to meet with the mayor to discuss his intention he refused." I'll point out that in the term of this mayor it is safe to say more people in his domain have been lead poisoned than died in 9/11, and than the Americans who have died in Iraq, and if it is not the fault of Sherwin-Williams it is Mayor Plusquellic's fault, and he should be subject to litigation. He has been mayor for five terms and, as Wikipedia reports [2]: "He is widely praised and criticized by both sides of the aisle--and some affiliated with neither Parties. In 2006, it was announced by an independent watchdog group that the city was 1.1 billion USD in debt, more per capita then any other city of its size in Ohio. The public school system has suffered due to a very strong tax abatement structure Plusquellic employed to bring new development to downtown Akron. Some complain that the City does not run like a municipal body but a business, complete with press releases and news conferences." More to follow on this shift of responsibility for lead poisoning to the Mayor of Akron.
Akron drops lead paint lawsuit [3]
The City of Akron has dropped its lawsuit against Sherwin-Williams Co. (NYSE: SHW [1]) and other former manufacturers of lead pigment, but it’s not saying exactly why.
Meanwhile, a downstate lawmaker hopes to amend a law that would derail other attempts to go after the Cleveland paint company over lead hazards.
Akron law director Max Rothal said he talked with Akron Mayor Don Plusquellic before withdrawing the suit but would not disclose the mayor’s comments, calling them privileged communications.
“We dismissed it because I wanted to step back and take a more in depth look at it,” Rothal said. He declined to elaborate.
Plusquellic’s assistant Mark Williamson referred all questions about the suit to Rothal.
Akron filed suit against the Cleveland paint company and several other co-defendants in early October. It sought compensation for the removal of lead-paint hazards in homes and buildings throughout the city.
But Rothal withdrew the suit Nov. 7, election day. It was “dismissed without prejudice,” he said, which means the city has the right to re-file it.
The dismissal surprised Thomas Bevan, whose private law firm had been hired on a contingency basis to help represent the city. Asked if the mayor wanted the suit dismissed, Bevan said, “I don’t know. I assume, but I don’t know.”
Also working with Rothal has been the law firm of Motley Rice. The high-powered firm represents Rhode Island, which earlier this year won a major lead-pigment verdict against Sherwin-Williams and two other defendants. That suit, which may still be appealed, set the tone for Akron’s suit and similar ones filed by East Cleveland, Toledo and Lancaster.
Motley Rice partner Jack McConnell said it’s his understanding that Plusquellic wanted the suit dismissed for the time being, but that when the outside lawyers working with the city wanted to meet with the mayor to discuss his intention he refused.
McConnell suspects Sherwin-Williams is behind the city’s change of heart. He accused the company of engaging in “strong-armed lobbying tactics” with Ohio cities and the state legislature.
Sherwin-Williams spokesman Bob Wells was out of town and did not return a voice-mail message. Antonio Dias, a Jones Day attorney in Pittsburgh representing Sherwin-Williams, also was out of town and did not return a message.
In Columbus, meanwhile, State Rep. Bill Seitz, a Cincinnati Republic, said Wednesday that he hopes to tweak previously passed legislation that would prevent cities or anybody else from using the state’s public nuisance law to sue the lead pigment manufacturers. Seitz thinks the law already prevents the lawsuits but wants to make sure the language is “crystal clear.”
Motley Rice’s strategy in Rhode Island was to have old lead paint in homes declared a public nuisance that Sherwin-Williams and others would have to clean up. The state only had to show that the defendants made or marketed lead pigment in the state at one time. The Ohio suits are taking a similar route.
Sherwin-Williams has filed a lawsuit of its own in federal court in Columbus hoping to have the cities’ lawsuits invalidated. The company claims the public nuisance claims in the suits are too vague to be fairly defended and that the company should not be held accountable for actions that were legal years ago.
The company also takes exception to the cities’ use of Motley Rice and other outside counsel working on a contingency basis — for a percentage of any financial settlement or award. The company claims that being prosecuted by lawyers that stand to gain financially from the outcome violates the company’s right to fair treatment under the law.
Despite Akron’s action, the suits brought by East Cleveland, Toledo and Lancaster are going forward, McConnell said, adding that he expects Columbus and Cincinnati to eventually file as well.
By Peter Krouse, pkrouse [at] plaind [dot] com