Community Within The Corridor's (CWC)

Case 2023CV004417 Document 3 Filed 06-14-2023 Page 1 of 33
FILED
06-14-2023
Anna Maria Hodges
Clerk of Circuit Court
2023CV004417
STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT MILWAUKEE COUNTY Honorable Thomas J.
McAdams-07
Branch 7
TIFFANY BOWEN
3100 W. Center St., Apt. # 3093,
Milwaukee, WI 53210
On Behalf Of Herself And All
Case No.: ___________________
Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, Case Codes: 30301, 30405, 35002
v.
COMMUNITY WITHIN THE CORRIDOR
LIMITED PARTNERHSIP
c/o CT Corporation System, Its Registered Agent
301 S. Bedford St., Suite 1
Madison, WI 53703
–and–
FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS A–C
Addresses Unknown
Defendants.
SUMMONS
THE STATE OF WISCONSIN, to each person or entity named above as a Defendant:
You are hereby notified that the Plaintiff in the above–captioned action has filed a lawsuit
or other legal action against you. The Complaint, which is attached, states the nature and basis of
the legal action. Within 45 days of receiving this Summons, you must respond with a written answer,
as that term is used in Chapter 802 of the Wisconsin Statutes, to the Complaint. The Court may
reject or disregard an answer that does not follow the requirements of the statutes.
Your answer must be sent or delivered to the Court and Plaintiff’s counsel, whose respective
addresses are set forth below:

MILWAUKEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT BARTON CERJAK S.C.

901 North 9th Street Michael J. Cerjak, Esq.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53233 313 North Plankinton Avenue, Suite 207
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203
You may have an attorney help you or represent you. If you do not provide a proper answer
within 45 days, the Court may grant a judgment against you for the award of money or other legal
action requested in the Complaint, and you may lose your right to object to anything that is or may
be incorrect in the Complaint.
A judgment may be enforced as provided by law. A judgment awarding money may become
a lien against any real estate you own now or in the future, and may also be enforced by garnishment
or seizure of property.
Dated this 14th day of June, 2023.
BARTON CERJAK S.C.
/s/ Electronically signed by Michael J. Cerjak

Michael J. Cerjak (SBN: 1056777)
Email: [email protected]
James B. Barton (SBN: 1068900)
Joshua S. Greenberg (SBN: 1107959)
313 North Plankinton Ave., Ste. 207
Milwaukee, WI 53203
T: (414) 877–0690
F: (414) 877–3039
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Tiffany Bowen,

and the Putative Class
2
FILED
06-14-2023
Anna Maria Hodges
Clerk of Circuit Court
2023CV004417
STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT MILWAUKEE COUNTY Honorable Thomas J.
McAdams-07
Branch 7
TIFFANY BOWEN
3100 W. Center St., Apt. # 3093,
Milwaukee, WI 53210
On Behalf Of Herself And All
Case No.: ___________________
Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, Case Codes: 30301, 30405, 35002
v.
COMMUNITY WITHIN THE CORRIDOR
LIMITED PARTNERHSIP
c/o CT Corporation System, Its Registered Agent
301 S. Bedford St., Suite 1
Madison, WI 53703
–and–
FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS A–C
Addresses Unknown
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
NOW COMES Plaintiff, Ms. Tiffany Bowen (“Tiffany”) by her attorneys, Barton Cerjak
S.C., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and for her Class Action Complaint
against Defendants, Community Within The Corridor Limited Partnership (“CWCLP”) and
Fictitious Defendants A–C (collectively, “Defendants”), alleges and states as follows:
OVERVIEW
1. More than one hundred former residents of the Community Within the Corridor
(“CWC” or the “Community”) are facing an existential crisis through no fault of their own. These
individuals (the “Community Residents”) were some of the first tenants to sign lease agreements and
begin a new chapter of their lives at the Community; an ambitious redevelopment project that touted
its commitment to providing “proper resources to build a sustainable family” and including
“everything that was needed on site for a successful family.”
2. Buying into that vision, these Residents were welcomed to the Community and
began moving into the development. Despite the Community’s immaculate outward–facing
appearance, however, the land used for the redevelopment (the “Site” or the “Property”) posed a
grave danger to the Residents’ health and safety.
3. Indeed, the Property on which the Community sits was a former industrial site; a
parcel laden with environmental hazards—including the known carcinogen trichloroethylene
(“TCE”)—of which Defendants, as overseers of redevelopment, were acutely aware. Of course, this is
why the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”) instructed CWCLP and its
affiliates—on multiple occasions over the course of many years—that a concrete remediation and
testing plan needed to be completed before the Community could open its doors to the public.
4. Rather than heed the DNR’s advice, however, Defendants openly flouted it. CWCLP
and its affiliates began moving Community Residents into the Property despite Defendants’ failure
to fully remediate these hazards. At no point, of course, were Community Residents informed that
their health and safety was being cavalierly disregarded; that by signing their respective leases to
become the first Community Residents, they would unwittingly expose themselves to known
carcinogens of which CWCLP, their landlord, was acutely aware.
5. Nor does this appear to be an accident. Indeed, publicly available records referenced
below make plain that Defendants: (i) actively misled the DNR and concealed that they were already
shepherding Residents into the Community despite admonitions to the contrary; and (ii) further
misrepresented to local housing authorities the extant health and safety risk the Site posed given
2
these environmental hazards when Defendants obtained temporary occupancy permits before their
remediation efforts were complete.
6. So, this merely begs the question: why would CWCLP and its affiliates gamble with
the lives of these Community Residents? Defendants have claimed it was a result of “project
financing,” meaning they needed occupants for economic reasons. Indeed, other publicly available
records lay bare that Defendants were motivated to hastily move Residents into the Community to
“secure WHEDA credits[;]” federal tax dollars that, on information and belief, improved Defendants’
position in their investment the faster they obtained occupancy for the Property.
7. The resultant tragedy in the months thereafter was all too predictable. Community
Residents moved in, the DNR learned that TCE levels at the Site were still excessively high, and the
Residents were immediately forced to evacuate in March 2023. Since that time, they have been
shuttling between various short–term hotel rentals without access to nearly all of their possessions,
which are still stranded at the Site.
8. And now things have gone from bad to worse, as the Community Residents just
learned that the prospect of them returning to the Community after a full remediation cannot
happen until at least next year. In response, CWCLP informed these Residents that Defendants are
going to stop funding these short–term accommodations by June 27, 2023, leaving scores of lower–
income families a few weeks to restart their lives and find suitable accommodations, all without
sufficient means to do so. Accordingly, this action is designed to give Community Residents an
option to fully address their rights.
3
THE PARTIES
9. Plaintiff, Tiffany Bowen, is an adult resident of the state of Wisconsin whose
principal residence is located at 3100 West Center Street, Apartment # 3093, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
53210.
10. According to the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institution’s records,
Defendant, Community Within The Corridor Limited Partnership, is a foreign limited partnership
whose principal place of business is located at 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801.
11. On information and belief, Fictitious Defendants A, B, & C are unknown parent,
subsidiary, or affiliate entities and/or corporate predecessors of CWCLP that participated in the
design, development, marketing, and leasing of apartments within the Community. Pursuant to
Wis. Stat. § 807.12(2), the pleadings of this action will be amended once the true identities of these
entities are revealed.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12. On information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants
pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 801.05(1)(d), (3), and (6) because, inter alia: (i) Defendants engage in
substantial, non–isolated activities within this state; (ii) this action concerns local acts and omissions
committed by Defendants that caused Plaintiff and the Class (defined infra) to sustain injuries in
this state; and (iii) the case involves rental property located within this state.
13. Venue is proper in Milwaukee County pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 801.50(2)(a), (b) &
(c) because it is the county where Plaintiff’s and the Class’s claims arose, the real property which is
the subject of the claims is situated, and Defendants conduct substantial business in this county
through their redevelopment and marketing of this real property.
4
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLASS MEMBERS
The CWC Community – Background
14. The CWC Community is the largest privately owned affordable housing
development in Wisconsin, spanning six former industrial buildings on seven acres bordered by
West Center Street, West Hadley Street, North 33rd Street, and Union Pacific railroad tracks.
15. The property was recently redeveloped, with groundbreaking for the project
beginning in January 2021.
16. The redevelopment of the property was funded in part by governmental resources,
including low–income housing tax credits, federal and state historic preservation tax credits, a federal
grant, and a tax–incremental financing district.
5
17. According to one of its lead developers, the Community aimed to provide the
“proper resources to build a sustainable family” and “to include everything that was needed on site
for a successful family.”
18. For example, the Community sought to support families by incorporating a 35,000–
square–foot–community facility, a child–care facility for 200 children between ages 6 weeks and 12
years, a health club, and a covered park, among other amenities.
The CWC Community: History & Environmental Contamination
19. The origins of the Site on which the Community was developed date back to the
early 1900s. 1
20. On information and belief, the Property was originally used by Romadka Brothers
Co. to manufacture trunks, suitcases, and travel bags.
21. By 1951, the Property was occupied by a Briggs and Stratton factory that
manufactured engines. Briggs and Stratton operated out of the Property until the mid–1980s, at
which point it then sat largely vacant for years.
22. In January 2001, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”) was
notified of environmental contamination related to the historical use of the Property and by August
2008, the Site was closed with land–use limitations as a result of the contamination.
23. Thus, in preparation for redevelopment of the Property, the DNR mandated that
concrete plans be developed and submitted to address these extant environmental concerns.
1
Jeremy Jannene, “190 Apartments for Sherman Park: $60 million, multi–phase development planned for factory
near 33rd and Center,” URBAN MILWAUKEE, https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2017/10/10/eyes-on-milwaukee-190-
apartments-for-sherman-park/ (Oct. 10, 2017, 3:14 PM).
6
24. As such, Defendants were acutely aware of: (i) the presence of TCE, amongst other
environmental hazards, at the Site; and (ii) their obligation to sufficiently address these hazards in
connection with their redevelopment efforts given the hazards they posed to future residents at the
Property.
The Science: TCE Is A Known Carcinogen
25. According to the 15th Report on Carcinogens (the “Report”), a publication released in
December 2021 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“DHHS”), TCE “is known
to be a human carcinogen based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in humans.”
(See Report at 1 (emphasis in original), a true and correct copy of which is set forth in the hyperlink
below:
• https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/ntp/roc/content/profiles/trichloroethylene.pdf)
26. As the Report explained, “[s]tarting in the early 1900s, [TCE] was primarily used as a
degreaser, to remove grease, wax, or dirt form metal parts before painting, plating, or other
processes[,]” but its usage in this capacity declined in the 1970s. (See id. at 3 (Use).)
27. TCE is classified as a hazardous substance by multiple federal regulations, including
the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), to name a few. (See id. at 5–6 (Regulations).)
28. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) National Air Toxics Program
designated TCE as one of thirty–three hazardous air pollutants that present the greatest threat to
public health in urban areas. (See id.)
7
29. Indeed, excessive exposure to TCE has been causally connected to developing
numerous types of cancer, including kidney cancer, Non–Hodgkin Lymphoma, and liver cancer.
(See id. at 1–2 (Carcinogenicity).)
30. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for women who are
or may become pregnant, TCE exposure could lead to development problems for their babies,
including heart defects. 2
The DNR Advises CWCLP That The Property

Needs To Be Remediated
31. Because the Property was formerly used as an industrial site for about eighty years
and was being rehabbed into a mixed–use development with numerous residents, the DNR advised
CWCLP early on to conduct a detailed sub–soil vapor investigation to assess for environmental
contamination issues.
32. Redevelopment efforts progressed at the Site based on location, with work beginning
on a west block at the Site followed by redevelopment of buildings on an east block (“East Block”).
33. Testing performed as early as November 2020 at the Site detected the ongoing
presence of TCE.
34. In March 2021, the DNR advised CWCLP that it needed to provide a vapor
migration system design plan and commissioning plans to address the contamination issues.
35. In April 2021, the DNR required that CWCLP agree to conduct a more extensive
vapor investigation for TCE.
2
“How does TCE affect my health,” ATSDR, https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tox-
tool/trichloroethylene/04/tce_4c.html (last updated Dec. 29, 2015).
8
36. Testing performed between November and December 2021 demonstrated
contamination related to TCE and a report that followed identified TCE as the most widespread
contaminant of concern associated with past industrial uses of buildings in the East Block.
37. Ongoing testing performed until December 2022 confirmed the ongoing presence
of TCE.
38. CWCLP ultimately submitted a vapor mitigation system commissioning plan to the
DNR on December 28, 2022, relative to the East Block. On January 23, 2023, however, the DNR
rejected the vapor mitigation plan submitted by CWC and “strongly recommend[ed]” that CWC
complete all necessary rounds of commissioning and testing prior to any occupancy:
9
39. In a letter dated February 8, 2023, however, one of CWCLP’s consultants explained
that—although his client acknowledged DNR’s concerns regarding TCE contamination—imposing a
delay on occupancy to complete all rounds of commissioning would create an “enormous economic
burden” on the project:
40. The DNR had repeatedly, and strongly, recommended in writing a number of times
that the building not be occupied until developers completed several rounds of commissioning and
testing, and when the DNR asked for an update on the commissioning and occupancy schedule on
February 8, 2023, a project engineer replied that a first round of commissioning would occur the
following week and that occupancy depended on the results:
10
39. Six days later, when the DNR requested whether the first round of commissioning
had been done, the project engineer indicated that commissioning would start the week of February
20, 2023, again implying based on the parties’ previous correspondence that occupancy would not
occur until after this commissioning process was complete:
11
Defendants Flout The DNR’s Advice And Start Moving Tenants

Into The Community Despite Failed Remediation Efforts
41. Despite the DNR’s ongoing concerns regarding the health and safety of prospective
Community Residents given the ongoing risks associated with TCE and other environmental
contaminants, it appears that CWCLP and its agents were actively misleading the DNR regarding
their plans to move tenants into the Community.
42. Indeed, on or about July 20, 2022, CWCLP applied for a temporary occupancy
permit for Buildings 2A and 2B on the East Block of the Site. In making this request, CWCLP
explained that it was proposing to seek occupancy of the various buildings comprising the East Block
in stages. According to the permit application, CWCLP’s plan was to occupy Buildings 2A and 2B
by September 2022 and then prepare the remaining buildings in the East Block for occupancy by
December 2022.
43. CWCLP offered a variety of reasons why it requested to stage occupancy of the East
Block, but never suggested in its July 2022 application that staging occupancy in the East Block was
necessary given its ongoing TCE remediation efforts at the Site.
44. Public records further memorialize that when CWCLP was asked to describe “the
exceptional or extraordinary building code matter that cause[d] [it] to apply” for a temporary
occupancy permit, it tersely responded that “Customers need to move in By September[:]”
12
45. Delays ensued, however, and CWCLP did not obtain a temporary occupancy permit
for Buildings 2A and 2B until September 30, 2022 pursuant to TOCC–22–00030.
46. On or about December 16, 2022, CWCLP then applied for a temporary occupancy
permit for Buildings 1B, 1D, and 1C on the East Block of the Site, pursuant to Application No.
NOCC–22–01988:
13
47. On information and belief, various buildings in the East Block—including Buildings
1B, 1D, and 1C—were the Site locations with the highest levels of TCE; precisely why the DNR was
raising serious concerns about the health, safety, and welfare of Community Residents and which is
why it “strongly recommend[ed] completing all necessary rounds of commissioning prior to any occupancy,” as
memorialized in Jane Pfeiffer’s January 23, 2023 email.
48. As subsequent correspondence from CWCLP’s agents lay bare, however, CWCLP
actively misled the DNR, insinuating that CWCLP would not seek occupancy until after the requisite
commissioning had taken place; a plan that CWCLP represented would occur no earlier than the
week of February 20, 2023.
49. In truth, however, CWCLP flouted the DNR’s advice and began moving in residents
in late 2022, as The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has reported. 3
50. As the DNR said months later, however, it “was not notified that the east block [of
the Community] was occupied until March 22, 2023, despite requests to the developer for information
on the timeline for occupancy.” 4
51. Why would Defendants actively mislead the DNR? Finances. In fact, CWCLP’s
project manager, Daniel Grams, explained as much when he applied for the temporary permit on
December 16, 2022: “The reason we need a temporary occupancy for East Block is because the project
financing is contingent upon having use of the residential units before the end of 2022. . . .[:]”
3
Alison Dirr, “Who knew what and when? Evacuation of contaminated Milwaukee apartments leads to finger–
pointing between city and state officials,” MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL,
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/milwaukee/2023/03/30/evacuation-of-contaminated-milwaukee-
building-leads-to-finger-pointing/70066441007/ (last updated Mar. 30, 2023, 9:20 PM).
4
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, “Wisconsin DNR Statement on Community Within The Corridor,”
URBAN MILWAUKEE, https://urbanmilwaukee.com/pressrelease/wisconsin-dnr-statement-on-community-within-the-
corridor/ (Mar. 30, 2023, 6:29 PM).
14
52. Publicly available records shed further light on CWCLP’s concerns about “project
financing.” Specifically, Defendants informed DHS that “[c]ustomers need to move in by December
19th to secure WHEDA credits[:]”
53. This reference to “WHEDA” refers to the Wisconsin Housing and Economic
Development Authority (“WHEDA”), the organization responsible for allocating and administering
the federal housing tax credit (“HTC”) program, which are governed by Section 42 of the IRS Code.
15
54. As WHEDA explains on its website, HTCs are federal tax credits that are used to
offset income tax liability. The owner of a housing development uses HTCs to generate an equity
investment in the property.
55. On information and belief, the more quicky a developer can gain occupancy, the
more HTCs that developer can earn to generate equity in the development, thus improving the
bottom line. In other words, “the exceptional or extraordinary building code matter” ostensibly
justifying a temporary occupancy permit had nothing to do with the safety of Community Residents.
56. Thus, on information and belief, CWCLP and its affiliates were motivated to quickly
gain occupancy at the Property despite the potential health risks to residents because the quicker
these new buildings gained occupancy, the greater the tax advantages that Defendants could garner
from the development.
57. Accordingly, Defendants appear to have knowingly placed Community residents at
risk despite ever–present environmental consequences, so that they could quickly achieve occupancy
in the East Block and gain additional HTCs through the WHEDA program.
58. Days later, on December 21, 2022, a temporary occupancy permit (TOCC–22–
00081) was issued to CWCLP:
16
The DNR Suddenly Evacuates CWC Residents
59. On March 23, 2023, the DNR received results of air tests from the Property, and
high levels of TCE were found at nineteen locations within residential and communal spaces.
60. Upon information and belief, the levels of TCE in some areas of the building were
100 times more than allowable levels.
61. On March 25, 2023, a public health order was issued by the City of Milwaukee.
62. On March 31, 2023, an emergency order was issued by the DNR that required action
to be taken by CWC.
63. With little to no notice, residents were required to immediately evacuate their homes
on March 25th as a result of the public health order.
64. Due to the severity of the situation, the residents had a limited amount of time to
collect their belongings. Most of their things were left behind, including clothing, furniture, and
other family heirlooms.
65. The residents were moved to temporary housing in hotels, and over time, many
residents have been shuffled between multiple temporary properties.
As Remediation Of The Property Lags On, Defendants Prepare To Oust

CWC Residents From Their Temporary Housing On Short Notice
66. On information and belief, CWCLP’s initial plan was to swiftly remediate the
Property, which would have allowed the CWC displaced tenants to move back into their respective
apartments.
67. In June 2023, however, the DNR advised CWC that soil contamination remained
beneath the building, that additional cleanup options needed to be evaluated, and that several data
collection events needed to happen to show the system is working properly. That meant that CWC
17
would not be completed with work to show its system is working properly until Winter 2023/2024
or later.
68. Given the additional remediation efforts needed at the Site, the CWC–displaced
tenants were informed on or about June 7, 2023, that significant time remained before anyone
would be permitted to move back to CWC.
69. When CWCLP broke the news, many of the Community’s displaced residents were
still living out of their suitcases, being shuttled to various hotels on a short–term basis depending
on availability.
70. As a result, few residents had regular access to a kitchen, let alone their clothes and
furniture, and household goods, which were abandoned in their respective apartments when they
were forced to immediately evacuate.
71. Despite having their lives turned upside–down for months since the evacuation,
CWCLP then delivered another piece of terrible news: Defendants were going to stop paying for the
residents’ hotel accommodations by June 27, 2023, nineteen days from the date this information
was conveyed to the displaced Community residents.
72. As the CWCLP Lease makes clear, however, a tenant’s “move–out date can’t be
changed unless [landlord] and [tenant] both agree in writing.” (See Lease, § 43.)
73. Here, of course, Defendants were advancing the cost to temporarily house the
displaced Community residents because CWCLP blatantly violated its responsibilities under the
Lease to, inter alia, (i) comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws regarding safety, sanitation,
and fair housing; and (ii) make all reasonable repairs to the premises. (See Lease, §§ 30(3)–(4).)
18
74. Even if a rental agreement is properly terminated, however, CWCLP’s Lease notably
requires that a tenant must generally provide sixty–days’ notice before terminating the rental
agreement; a provision expressly designed to give the landlord sufficient time to locate a new tenant
and avoid the harsh economic impact attendant to tenant’s abrupt termination of the lease without
monetary impact:
75. Thus, despite the sixty–day notice set forth in Defendants’ Lease, CWCLP informed
all displaced Community residents that they had nineteen days to secure new housing.
76. As such, all displaced Community residents are scrambling to find suitable
accommodations within weeks, all while lacking their furnishings, kitchen utensils, and the sundry
of basic items that anyone would need when moving into a new home.
77. Thus, CWCLP’s decision to quickly cease providing alternative accommodations to
these displaced Community residents—many of whom are on public assistance—places them in an
existential financial quandary.
78. Indeed, as with anyone in their position, they need immediate access to sufficient
funds, which would allow them to sign a new lease, pay a security deposit, move their furniture from
19
the Community and/or furnish a new apartment, and purchase scores of items that they were forced
to abandon at the Property, just to make a new home functional.
79. To state the obvious, the cash outlay to make this transition under any situation—let
alone on a few weeks’ notice—is simply insurmountable for many residents.
80. Further adding to this crisis is the fact that many of the displaced Community
residents are on public assistance and, on information and belief, there is a shortage of low–income
housing available, like the Community development, where these residents can transition to on
short notice.
81. On information and belief, however, Defendants recognized the financial distress
this decision created for these displaced residents.
82. Specifically, CWCLP offered each displaced resident $5,000 to ostensibly defray the
costs of being jettisoned from their temporary accommodations, but with one significant catch: any
Community resident who accepts these desperately–needed funds has to agree, amongst other
provisions, to fully release any and all claims he or she has against CWCLP and its affiliates.
83. Thus, if a displaced resident executes the release and accepts a mere $5,000 for having
their lives turned upside down, the release deprives this resident of valuable consumer protection
claims designed to curb the sharp practices in which Defendants engaged; namely, the very claims
that Tiffany asserts here on behalf of herself and the Class (defined infra).
84. More troubling, however—and despite the excessively high levels of TCE to which
many Community residents were exposed at the Property—CWCLP’s release bars future injury claims
that some residents may develop in the months and years to come as a result of potential chronic
exposure to a known carcinogen.
20
85. Thus, any resident who accepts Defendants’ proposal is barred from bringing any
claims against Defendants as a result of being exposed to TCE at the Community; this is so even if,
for example, the resident later develops kidney cancer, or liver cancer, or any of the myriad maladies
associated with excessive TCE exposure.
86. These Community residents are thus being put in a Catch–22; they either (a) take
desperately–needed money to restart their lives, but only if they sacrifice potential claims for being
exposed to a known carcinogen that could manifest itself years later; or (b) decline Defendants’ offer
given the potential health consequences they may face years later, and accept the financial
consequences of being ejected from their temporary housing on short notice.
87. On information and belief, Defendants are leveraging the economic vulnerability of
these displaced residents to insulate CWCLP and its affiliates from downstream liability; Defendants
know that many displaced residents have literally no other option but to accept the risk of potential
health consequences that may arise when juxtaposed against the dire financial consequences that will
arise if they decline Defendants’ offer.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS SPECIFIC TO THE NAMED PLAINTIFF
Tiffany Signs Her Lease In February 2023 And Moves Into Her Apartment, But Is
Forced To Evacuate A Month Later, Leaving All Of Her Possessions Behind
88. Before February 2023, Tiffany was living at an apartment in Menomonee Falls, but
her lease term was coming to an end.
89. In considering different options, she came across the Community online. Though it
was in the inner city, she thought that the amenities looked nice and decided to take a tour.
90. Tiffany toured the Community in January and ultimately looked at more than a
dozen available units. She wanted a two–bedroom apartment for her and her son.
21
91. In touring the facility, Tiffany felt comforted that the Property would be safe for her
and her family. Tiffany has a son and two grandchildren. Tiffany felt that the interior basketball
court and fitness center would be attractive for her son, and that she could safely take her
grandchildren to a park area in the interior corridor.
92. Tiffany saw that residents were already living in the East Block of the Community at
the time of her tour and, as a result, she did not have any concern as to whether the development
was completed and fit for residency.
93. Tiffany decided to sign a lease on or about February 13, 2023, and the term was to
begin on February 15.
94. Tiffany went over the lease agreement with a property manager, and the lease was on
a computer screen. The text on the computer was a form and, other than in certain areas specific to
her unit and tenancy, could not otherwise be changed.
95. The form rental agreements are governed by and subject to Wisconsin law and
require the CWC to keep the premises safe and sanitary consistent with prevailing law.
96. At no point before signing the lease, however, was Tiffany informed about the
excessive TCE levels at the Community.
97. Had Tiffany known about this serious health and safety threat to both her and her
son, she would have never entered into a rental agreement to lease an apartment at the Community.
98. Oblivious to the true nature of the Property, Tiffany thus executed the lease and
hired movers to help move her from Menomonee Falls.
22
99. Shortly after arriving in February 2023, Tiffany got sick. She had a headache, was
tired, dizzy, and nauseous. She felt awful and called for paramedics twice. She was transferred to the
emergency department, where healthcare providers had difficulty diagnosing her.
100. Tiffany’s son also experienced symptoms.
101. On March 25, once the evacuation order was put in place, she found out that she
had approximately 30 minutes to leave the premises. Her son was at the barber, and after getting
him home, she took about two days’ worth of clothes. In the rush, she accidentally left behind her
medications.
102. Since then, she has moved between temporary housing facilities. She still does not
have many of her belongings. Her living arrangements have been difficult, but worse yet is the guilt
that she feels for exposing her child and grandchildren to harmful contaminants.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
103. Tiffany brings this action pursuant to Section 803.08(2)(a), (2)(b), and (2)(c) of the
Wisconsin Statutes on behalf of herself and the members of the following proposed class:
The Class: All CWC tenants who signed leases at the Community and were then
displaced as a result of the DNR’s evacuation order.
104. Subject to additional information that will be obtained through further investigation
and discovery, the foregoing class and any potential subclasses (collectively, the “Class” unless
otherwise noted) may be expanded or narrowed by an amendment to the pleadings. The following
parties, however, are specifically excluded from the Class: Defendants; any of Defendants’ parent
companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, dealers, successors, assigns, officers, directors, legal
representatives, employees, agents, family members, and/or co–conspirators; all governmental
entities, and any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over this matter.
23
105. Numerosity: Members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 803.08(1)(a). The Class is composed of more than one
hundred former tenants at the CWC Site who were displaced as a result of the DNR’s emergency
evacuation order. Although the exact number of Class members is not yet known, the Class is readily
identifiable from information and records in Defendants’ possession, custody, and control and can
be ascertained through appropriate discovery.
106. Commonality: There are questions of law or fact common to the Class pursuant to
Wis. Stat. § 803.08(1)(b). Such legal or factual questions include but are not limited to:
i. Whether each tenant signed a form lease agreement subject to Wisconsin

law.
ii. Whether the lease agreements are enforceable under Wisconsin law.
iii. When and to what extent Defendants decided to occupy the Property
notwithstanding environmental contamination concerns repeatedly
raised by the DNR.
iv. Whether Plaintiff and the Class has experienced out–of–pocket and/or
pecuniary losses as a result of Defendants’ conduct.
v. Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to damages and/or other
monetary relief and, if so, in what amount or form should it take.
107. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class pursuant to Wis.
Stat. § 803.08(1)(c) because all Class members are similarly affected by Defendants’ conduct: indeed,
Tiffany and the Class: (i) leased apartments at the CWC Site developed and marketed by
Defendants; (ii) have, are, or will suffer the same or similar monetary harm caused by renting
apartments at the CWC Site, being exposed to potential carcinogens, and being displaced as a result
of the DNR’s evacuation order; and (iii) are all residents of the state of Wisconsin where the events
described herein occurred. Accordingly, Tiffany and the Class’ claims are subject to Wisconsin law
24
and all Class members may enforce their rights against Defendants pursuant to the claims identified
below.
108. Adequacy: Tiffany will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class
pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 803.08(1)(d) because: (i) neither Tiffany nor her counsel have interests that
conflict with the interest of the Class they represent, as all of them, as county residents, want to hold
Defendants accountable for the harm to the Milwaukee community; (ii) Tiffany is willing and able
to vigorously litigate this action on behalf of the Class; and (iii) her proposed class counsel has the
qualifications, experience, capabilities, and sufficient resources to handle the case as a class action.
109. Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 803.08(2)(a), litigating this matter as a class action, as
opposed to separate actions brought by individual Class members, alleviates the risk of: (i)
inconsistent or varying adjudications that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for
Defendants; and/or (ii) adjudications of individual Class members’ actions that may, as a practical
matter, be dispositive of the interests of other Class members not parties to the individual
adjudications, or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests.
110. Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 803.08(2)(b), Defendants have acted or refused to act on
grounds that apply to the Class, thus rendering final injunctive relief, equitable relief, and/or a
corresponding declaratory judgment with respect to the Class as a whole appropriate.
111. Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 803.08(2)(c), the questions of law or fact common to the
Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class members, thus a class action
is superior to other available methods of fairly and efficiently adjudicating this controversy.
112. Treatment of this controversy as a class action is therefore a superior means of
effectuating its fair and efficient adjudication. Such treatment will permit a large number of similarly
25
situated Class members to litigate their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently,
and without the unnecessary duplication of evidence, effort, and expense. The benefits of the Class
mechanism, including providing injured persons or entities with a method for obtaining redress on
claims that might be practicable to pursue individually, substantially outweigh any difficulties that
may arise in the management of this class action.
113. Additionally, the amount of monetary damages at issue for each claim is such that
the expenses of litigating Tiffany and each Class member’s claims individually would be cost
prohibitive, so much so that proceeding individually would deny Tiffany and the Class members a
viable remedy. Proceeding by way of class action is therefore the only fair, efficient, economical, and
sensible way to vindicate the injuries that Tiffany and the Class members have sustained.
114. Tiffany knows of no difficulty, nor can she foresee any difficulty, that she may have
in maintaining this class action that would preclude its maintenance as such.
115. The undersigned counsel for Tiffany and the Class request that this Court appoint
them to serve as Class counsel, first on an interim basis and then on a permanent basis, pursuant to
Wis. Stat. § 803.08(12), as the undersigned counsel has: (i) done substantial work in identifying and
investigating the claims brought in this action; (ii) experience handling complex litigation and the
types of claims asserted in this action; (iii) knowledge of the applicable law; and (iv) sufficient
resources to commit to the representation of the Class. Moreover, the undersigned counsel will fairly
and adequately represent the interests of the Class. See Wis. Stat. §§ 803.08(12)(b)(1) & (2)(a).
26
COUNT I: STATUTORY VIOLATION OF WIS. STAT. § 100.20 &

WIS. ADMIN. CODE ATCP § 134.04
(Against All Defendants)
116. Tiffany repeats and realleges the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
117. Tiffany brings this claim on behalf of the Class identified above.
118. Section 100.20 of the Wisconsin Statutes (“Section 100.20”) prohibits individuals
and entities from engaging in unfair trade practices. Wis. Stat. § 100.20(1).
119. To that end, Section 100.20 authorizes Wisconsin’s Department of Agriculture,
Trade and Consumer Protection (“DATCP”) to “issue general orders forbidding methods of
competition in business or trade practices in business which are determined by the [DATCP] to be
unfair.” Id. § 100.20(2)(a).
120. The statute vests any person who suffers pecuniary loss stemming from a violation of
“any order issued under [Section 100.20]” with a cause of action to sue for damages in a court of
competent jurisdiction. Id. § 100.20(5).
121. Relevant here, Chapter ATCP 134 of Wisconsin’s Administrative Code (“ATCP
134”) specifies certain residential rental practice to which a “landlord” must adhere in leasing
residential units to Wisconsin consumers. See Wis. Admin. Code ATCP §§ 134.01 et seq.
122. ATCP 134 was adopted under the authority of Section 100.20(2) and is enforceable
through a private right of action pursuant to Section 100.20(5). Thus, Tiffany may enforce the
mandates of ATCP 134 by way of a Section 100.20(5) claim on behalf of herself and members of
the Class.
27
123. Applied here, ATCP § 134.04(4) specifies certain disclosure requirements that a
“landlord” must make before leasing a residential space, including disclosures of conditions related
to habitability:
CODE VIOLATIONS AND CONDITIONS AFFECTING HABITABILITY. Before entering into

a rental agreement or accepting any earnest money or security deposit from the
prospective tenant, the landlord shall disclose to the prospective tenant:
…
(b) The following conditions affecting habitability, the existence of which the
landlord knows or could know on basis of reasonable inspection, whether
or not notice has been received from code enforcement authorities:
…
4. Any structural or other conditions in the dwelling unit or premises
which constitute a substantial hazard to the health or safety of the
tenant, or create an unreasonable risk of personal injury as a result of
any reasonably foreseeable use of the premises other than negligent
use or abuse of the premises by the tenant.
Wis. Admin. Code ATCP § 134.04(2).
124. In this case, CWCLP, the landlord, failed to disclose to Tiffany, the tenant,
conditions known to landlord that represented a substantial hazard and unreasonable risk of injury
to Tiffany, i.e., environmental contamination, and all other tenants of the East Block.
125. Neither Tiffany, nor any member of the Class—nor any reasonable, prospective
tenant, for that matter—would have executed the lease agreement with CWCLP had Defendants
been honest brokers and explained the truth; namely, that they ignored the DNR’s “strong
recommendations” to properly remediate the Property of TCE and complete necessary testing before
accepting new tenants at the Community.
126. As a result of CWCLP’s violations of ATCP 134, Tiffany and the Class have suffered
pecuniary loss, including but not limited to moving expenses, rent payments, and the loss of use of
their premises and property, medical expenses and costs, as well as displacement.
28
127. Accordingly, Tiffany and the Class bring this claim for Defendants’ violations of
ATCP 134 through the Class’s authority under Wis. Stat. § 100.20 and seek recovery for the losses
suffered—in addition to the other remedies set forth under this statute, including exemplary damages
and attorneys’ fees—in an amount to be determined at trial.
COUNT II: STATUTORY VIOLATION OF WIS. STAT. § 100.20 &

WIS. ADMIN. CODE ATCP § 134.09
(Against All Defendants)
128. Tiffany repeats and realleges the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
129. Tiffany brings this claim on behalf of the Class identified above.
130. Apart from a landlord’s disclosure obligations pursuant to ATCP § 134.04, the Code
also proscribes certain conduct designed to induce prospective tenants into a rental agreement:
MISREPRESENTATIONS. (a) No landlord may do any of the following for the purpose
of inducing any person to enter into a rental agreement:
1. Misrepresent the location, characteristics or equivalency of dwelling units
owned or offered by the landlord.
Wis. Admin. Code ATCP § 134.09(9)(a)(1).
131. As alleged above, Defendants advertised the Community as immaculate, new,
family–oriented housing development that offered brand–new facilities and a safe environment for
families, some of which are at subsidized rental rates. Indeed, Defendants maintain these
advertisements on the Community’s website to this day; representations concerning the
characteristics of the Community’s apartments that are offered by CWCLP, the Property’s landlord.
132. In making these representations and holding itself out as the new, premier housing
development in the Milwaukee metropolitan area, Defendants are also representing that the
Community is at least equal to, if not far greater than, other developments from which Tiffany and
the Class could have chosen to rent an apartment.
29
133. As the foregoing makes clear, however, these representations were false; the
Community advertised itself to Tiffany and the Class in this manner when, in fact, it was laden with
a serious environmental defect that forced Tiffany and her fellow Community Residents to evacuate
because it posed a serious risk to their health and safety.
134. In other words, neither characteristics of the Community nor its equivalency to
other, comparable developments were accurate.
135. Nonetheless, Defendants made these false advertisements to induce Tiffany and the
Class to enter their respective leases at the Community and thus unwittingly expose themselves to a
serious environmental hazard.
136. Neither Tiffany, nor any member of the Class—nor any reasonable, prospective
tenant—would have executed their respective lease agreement with CWCLP not made these false
representations.
137. Accordingly, Tiffany and the Class bring this claim for Defendants’ violations of
ATCP 134 through the Class’s authority under Wis. Stat. § 100.20 and seek recovery for the losses
suffered—in addition to the other remedies set forth under this statute, including exemplary damages
and attorneys’ fees—in an amount to be determined at trial.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the following relief, as allowed pursuant to
the above–referenced facts, the applicable caselaw, and the governing statutes:
(A) Certification of the Class under Section 803.08(3) of the Wisconsin Statutes;
(B) Appointment of Plaintiff as a class representative and the undersigned counsel as
class counsel, including as pre–certification interim counsel;
(C) An order that Defendants disgorge all rents, monies, revenues, tax credits, and/or
profits they wrongfully obtained as a result of their acts and practices alleged in
this Complaint;
30
(D) That the Court award Plaintiff and the Class compensatory and/or restitutionary
damages;
(E) That the Court award Plaintiff and the Class punitive and/or exemplary damages
in accordance with applicable law;
(F) That the Court award Plaintiff and the Class costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in
connection with prosecuting this action; and
(G) That the Court award any other relief it deems just and equitable under the
circumstances.
P LAINTIFFS DEMAND A JURY T RIAL ON ALL ISSUES SO T RIABLE
Dated this 14th day of June, 2023.
BARTON CERJAK S.C.
/s/ Electronically signed by Michael J. Cerjak

Michael J. Cerjak (SBN: 1056777)
James B. Barton (SBN: 1068900)
Joshua S. Greenberg (SBN: 1107959)
313 North Plankinton Ave., Ste. 207
Milwaukee, WI 53203
T: (414) 877–0690
F: (414) 877–3039
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Tiffany Bowen,

and the Putative Class
31

Community Within The Corridor's (CWC)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Community Within The Corridor's (CWC)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Community Within The Corridor's (CWC)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2023CV004417 Document 3 Filed 06-14-2023 Page 1 of 33

THE STATE OF WISCONSIN, to each person or entity named above as a Defendant:

addresses are set forth below:

MILWAUKEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT BARTON CERJAK S.C.

be incorrect in the Complaint.

Dated this 14th day of June, 2023.

BARTON CERJAK S.C.

/s/ Electronically signed by Michael J. Cerjak

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Tiffany Bowen,

Fictitious Defendants A–C (collectively, “Defendants”), alleges and states as follows:

“everything that was needed on site for a successful family.”

grave danger to the Residents’ health and safety.

parcel laden with environmental hazards—including the known carcinogen trichloroethylene

carcinogens of which CWCLP, their landlord, was acutely aware.

remediation efforts were complete.

which are still stranded at the Site.

option to fully address their rights.

9. Plaintiff, Tiffany Bowen, is an adult resident of the state of Wisconsin whose

10. According to the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institution’s records,

entities are revealed.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

through their redevelopment and marketing of this real property.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLASS MEMBERS

The CWC Community – Background

beginning in January 2021.

grant, and a tax–incremental financing district.

for a successful family.”

years, a health club, and a covered park, among other amenities.

The CWC Community: History & Environmental Contamination

Co. to manufacture trunks, suitcases, and travel bags.

which point it then sat largely vacant for years.

The Science: TCE Is A Known Carcinogen

to be a human carcinogen based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in humans.”

27. TCE is classified as a hazardous substance by multiple federal regulations, including

public health in urban areas. (See id.)

(See id. at 1–2 (Carcinogenicity).)

including heart defects. 2

The DNR Advises CWCLP That The Property

vapor investigation for TCE.

36. Testing performed between November and December 2021 demonstrated

that—although his client acknowledged DNR’s concerns regarding TCE contamination—imposing a

burden” on the project:

following week and that occupancy depended on the results:

occur until after this commissioning process was complete:

Defendants Flout The DNR’s Advice And Start Moving Tenants

their plans to move tenants into the Community.

necessary given its ongoing TCE remediation efforts at the Site.

occupancy permit, it tersely responded that “Customers need to move in By September[:]”

for Buildings 2A and 2B until September 30, 2022 pursuant to TOCC–22–00030.

memorialized in Jane Pfeiffer’s January 23, 2023 email.

week of February 20, 2023.

in late 2022, as The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has reported. 3

on the timeline for occupancy.” 4

19th to secure WHEDA credits[:]”

investment in the property.

from the development.

57. Accordingly, Defendants appear to have knowingly placed Community residents at

00081) was issued to CWCLP: