Oct 30, 2013 3 min read

The U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh entered default judgment Tuesday in a class action suit filed by three Masontown residents who claim pollution discharges from FirstEnergy’s Hatfield’s Ferry power station damaged their properties.

The lawsuit was filed in August by Julius and Francine Jesso and Sheilah Novasky and seeks to represent more than 1,000 residents who live within 1.5 miles of the power plant.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs, James DePasquale and Peter Macuga II, had filed a request for default judgment stating FirstEnergy failed to respond to the complaint within the time provided by federal rules of civil procedure. The court Tuesday entered default judgment against the company.

FirstEnergy had been served with the complaint but failed to respond within the required time frame, said DePasquale, reached Wednesday afternoon. The plaintiffs also had attempted to serve another company which FirstEnergy claimed was its agent, but that company refused to accept the complaint, he said.

The judgment doesn’t necessarily mean the case is concluded. “They can attempt to open up the default, but they have to give plausible reasons for why they allowed the default to be entered,” DePasquale said.

FirstEnergy spokeswoman Jennifer Young said the company intends to file a motion to reopen the case. FirstEnergy, she said, was “never legally served with the complaint.”

FirstEnergy deactivated Hatfield’s Ferry and its Mitchell power station earlier this month citing the high costs of equipping the plants to meet new air-quality regulations as well as factors related to the weak electricity market.

The plaintiffs claim in their suit that they have suffered property damages and an interference of the enjoyment of their homes as the result of odors, gases, soot and other coal combustion byproducts that were discharged by the plant.

Fallout from the plant was described by residents “as a very heavy black particulate or black powder, or white powder,” the complaint said. It made the “plaintiffs prisoners in their homes and has precluded them from full use and enjoyment of their properties.”

FirstEnergy has failed to operate the plant employing the best available pollution technology to reduce or eliminate emissions, the suit added. It has knowingly allowed the plant to discharge contaminants that are “harmful and noxious and have caused substantial damage to, substantial loss of use of, and substantial interference with, plaintiffs’ properties.”

The lawsuit has not yet been designated by the court to be a class action, DePasquale said. Once it is designated a class action, notice will be sent to potential class members who have suffered damages as a result of plant operations.