IBill Robins (SBN 296101) Robert T. Bryson (SBN 156953) Kevin M. Pollack (SBN 272786) ROBINS CLOUD LLP 808 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 450 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Tel.: (310) 929-4200 Fax: (310) 566-5900 robins@robinscloud.com kpollack@robinscloud.com Donald S. Edgar (SBN 139324) EDGAR LAW FIRM 408 College Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Tel.: (707) 799?4090 Fax: (707) 324?6796 don@classattorneys.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs EN - [jun 4 . {yetim Cililli'ltll ram-13.5w LJ ount?f 0m 1 7 1-. - r?f? I 5* OI i . BY: Dept?) SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO CASE 310,380? 1, 7 56103 7 Judge; WAYNE L. HARVELL, JENNIFER L. HARVELL, Plaintiffs, vs. PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC and DOES 1 though 100, inclusive, Defendants. Dept: CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES INVERSE PRIVATE VIOLATION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE ?2106; AND VIOLATION OF HEALTH SAFETY CODE ?13007 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Beginning on or about October 8, 2017, residents and property owners in Sonoma, Mendocino, Santa Rosa, and Napa, Butte and Solano Counties were devastated by a severe wild?res known as the Tubbs Fire, the Atlas Fire and the Nuns Fire (collectively the ?Wine Country Fires?). The Wine Country Fires were started when electrical infrastructure owned, operated and maintained by CORPORATION and PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC COMPANY (hereinafter came into contact with vegetation inspected and maintained by At present, the ?res are still raging and causing extensive damages within the general areas of Sonoma, Mendocino? Napa, Butte and Solano Counties, in the State of California. The Wine Country Fires, to date, have burned more than 220,000 acres, burned more than 3,000 homes, burned numerous commercial structures, and other structures. In addition, the Fire caused the deaths of at least 41 people, and injured others. The Plaintiffs in this case are victims of the Wine Country Fires who individually seek just compensation and damages. Speci?cally, Plaintiffs in this action seek damages for, inter alia, personal injury; damage to and loss of use of real and personal property; pain and suffering; injury to livestock and pets; loss of income; consequential and incidental damages; and/or for emotional suffering, fear and anxiety, inconvenience, and other harm caused by the wrongful conduct of CORPORATION, PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC COMPANY, and Does 100, inclusive. 2.0 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2.1 The Plaintiffs are now and at all times relevant herein individuals, residents, domiciliaries and property owners who resided in in Sonoma County. All of their claims arise from events or occurrences related to the Wine Country Fires within which resulted in the damages, losses, and injuries as hereinafter alleged. 2.2 At all times herein mentioned Defendants CORPORATION and PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC COMPANY, were corporations authorized to do business, and doing business, 2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES in the State of California, with their principal place of business in the County of San Francisco, State of California. Defendant CORPORATION is an energy-based holding company headquartered in San Francisco. It is the parent company of Defendant PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC COMPANY. CORPORATION subsidiaries provide customers with public utility services, and services relating to the generation of energy, transmission of electricity and natural gas, generation of electricity, and the distribution of energy. 2.3 At all times mentioned herein, CORPORATION, PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 50, and each of them, were suppliers of electricity to members of the public. As part of supplying electricity to members of the public, installed, constructed, built, maintained, and operated overhead power lines, together with supporting poles and appurtenances, for the purpose of conducting electricity for delivery to members of the general public. Furthermore, on information and belief, CORPORATION, PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 100, are responsible for maintaining vegetation near, around, and in proximity to their electrical equipment in compliance with State and Federal Regulations, speci?cally including but not limited to Public Resource Code 4292, Public Resource Code 4293, General Order 95, and General Order 165. 2.4 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the Defendants herein, and each of them, were agents and/or employees each of the other and in acting and/or failing to act as alleged herein, the Defendants, and each of them, were acting in the course and scope of said agency and/or employment relationship. 2.5 Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to Section 410.10 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. 2.6 Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Sections 392, 395 and 395.5 of the California Code of Civil Procedure because Defendants are headquartered here, Plaintiffs reside, own, or had interests here, and/or Plaintiffs? property and/or business are or were located here, and/or the liability arising from the Wine Country Fires occurred in this venue. Ill 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 3.0 THE PLAINTIFFS 3.1 The Plaintiffs are individuals who suffered varying types of injuries, damages, losses, and/or harm as a result of the Wine Country Fires. 3.2 Plaintiffs Wayne L. Harvell and Jennifer L. Harvell owned and resided at the property located at 3748 Mocha Lane, Santa Rosa, CA 95403. 4.0 4.1 PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC COMPANY is both an ?Electrical Corporation? and a ?Public Utility? pursuant to, respectively, Sections 218(a) and 216(1) of the Califomia Public Utilities Code. is in the business of providing electricity to the residents of at least two counties and 26 cities, including but not limited, to Sonoma County and, more particularly, to Plaintiffs' residences and/or properties through a network of electrical transmission and distribution lines. 4.2 CORPORATION is a publicly traded company that owns and/or manages an "Electric Plant" as de?ned in Section 217 of the Public Utilities Code, and, like its subsidiary, PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC COMPANY, is both an ?Electric Corporation? and a ?Public Utility? pursuant to, respectively, Sections 218(a) and 216(a) of the Public Utilities Code. It develops and operates energy infrastructure assets related to the production and distribution of energy such as power plants, electric lines, natural gas pipelines and lique?ed natural gas receipt terminals. 4.3 Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that CORPORATION and PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC COMPANY are jointly and severally liable for each other's negligence, conduct and wrongdoing as alleged herein, in that: a. CORPORATION and PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC COMPANY operate as a single business enterprise operating out of the same building located at 77 Beale St., San Francisco, California for the purpose of effectuating and carrying out CORPORATION's business and operations and/or for the bene?t of 4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Defendants do not operate as completely separate entities, but rather, integrate their resources to achieve a common business purpose; PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC COMPANY is so organized and controlled, and its decisions, affairs, and business so conducted as to make it a mere instrumentality, agent, conduit, or adjunct of PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC income contribution results from function integration, centralization of management and economies of scale with Defendants' of?cers and management are intertwined and do not act completely independent of one another; Defendants' of?cers and managers act in the interest of CORPORATION as a single enterprise; CORPORATION has control and authority to choose and appoint PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC board members as well as its other t0p of?cers and managers; Despite both being Electric Companies and Public Utilities, Defendants do not complete with one another, but have been structured and organized and business effectuates so as to create a synergistic, integrated single enterprise where various components operate in concert one with another; CORPORATION maintains uni?ed administrative control over PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC Defendants are insured by the same carriers and provide uniform or similar pension, health, life, and disability insurance plans for employees; Defendants have uni?ed 401(k) Plans, pensions and investment plans, bonus programs, vacation policies, and paid time off from work schedules and policies; Defendants invest these funds from their programs and plans by a consolidated and/or coordinated Bene?ts Committee controlled by 5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CORPORATION and administered by common trustees and administrators; Defendants have uni?ed personnel policies and practices and/or a consolidated personnel organization or structure; Defendants have uni?ed accounting policies and practices dictated by CORPORATION and/or common or integrated accounting organizations or personnel; Defendants are represented by common legal counsel; of?cers, directors and other management make policies and decisions to be effectuated by PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC COMPANY and/or otherwise play roles in providing directions and making decisions for PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC of?cers, directors, and other management direct certain ?nancial decisions for PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC COMPANY including the amount and nature of capital outlays; written guidelines, policies, and procedures control PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC COMPANY, its employees, policies, and practices; CORPORATION ?les consolidated earnings statements factoring all revenue and losses from PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC COMPANY as well as consolidated tax returns, including those seeking tax relief; and/or, without limitation; CORPORATION generally directs and controls PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC relationship with, requests to, and reSponses to inquiries from, the California Public Utilities Commission and uses such direction and control for the bene?t of Defendant CORPORATION. The true names of DOES 1 through 100, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiffs who, under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 474, sue these Defendants under ?ctitious names. Each of the ?ctitiously named Defendants is 6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES responsible in some manner for the conduct alleged herein, including, without limitation, by way of conspiracy, aiding, abetting, furnishing the means and/or acting in capacities that create agency, respondeat superior, and/or predecessor-or successor-in-interest relationships with the Defendants. The DOE Defendants are private individuals, associations, partnerships, corporations, or otherwise that actively assisted and participated in the negligent and wrongful conduct alleged herein in ways that are currently unknown to Plaintiffs. Some or all of the DOE Defendants may be residents of the State of California. Plaintiffs may amend or seek to amend this Complaint to allege the true names, capacities, and responsibility of these DOE Defendants once they are ascertained, and to add additional facts and/or legal theories. Plaintiffs make all allegations contained this Complaint against all Defendants, including DOES 1 through 100. 5.0 BACKGROUND 5.1 Prior to October 8, 2017 Defendants, and each of them, had a duty to properly maintain and repair the electric transmission lines, and other equipment associated with their duty to transmit electricity and to keep vegetation properly trimmed and maintained so as to prevent contact with power lines and other electrical equipment. In the construction, repair, maintenance, and operation of such equipment and power lines the Defendants, and each of them, had an obligation to comply with statutes, regulations, and standards, specifically including, but not limited to, Public Resource Code 4292, Public Resource Code 4293, General Order 95, and General Order 165. In addition, the Defendants, and each of them, were speci?cally aware that such standards and regulations were minimum standards and that Defendants, and each of them, had a duty to make their lines safe under all the exigencies created by the surrounding circumstances and conditions and that a failure to do constituted negligence and would expose members of the general public to a serious risk of injury or death. 5.2 At all times mentioned herein, Defendants, and each of them, were aware that the State of California, had been in a state of drought, and even though it received more rain this past winter, the summer months brought back drought like conditions. Defendants, and each of them, were aware that the drought conditions had existed and were aware that ?re danger was at an 7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES extraordinarily high level, particularly given the increased vegetation arising from the 2017 winter rains. Defendants, and each of them, knew that if the power lines or other equipment came into contact with, or caused electricity to come into contact with vegetation it was probable that a ?re would result and that, given the drought conditions, a resulting ?re would likely result in the loss of life, signi?cant damage to real and personal property and damage to members of the general public, including these Plaintiffs. 5.3 Defendants, and each of them, were negligent in that they failed to properly maintain, repair, and inspect the subject lines, equipment and adjacent vegetation and negligently failed to properly trim, prune, remove, and/or otherwise maintain vegetation near their electrical equipment so as to secure safety to the public in general, speci?cally including these Plaintiffs. As a direct, proximate, and legal result of the negligence of the Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs suffered the injuries and damages alleged herein. 5.4 On information and belief, beginning on or about October 8, 2017 as a direct proximately result of the negligence of the Defendants, and each of them, power lines and/or other electrical equipment came in contact with vegetation and caused the Wine Country Fires, which burned in excess of 220,000 acres, including property owned or occupied by these plaintiffs. 6.0 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 6.1 Defendants are, and were, aware of the danger from ?res in Sonoma, Mendocino, Santa Rosa, and Napa, Butte and Solano Counties during the summer months when environmental conditions are favorable for extensive con?agration and the high temperatures, absence of moisture, and the prevalence of wind renders the extinguishment of a burning ?re dif?cult. 6.2 Wires and other equipment carrying electricity are a dangerous instrumentalities and a hazardous and dangerous activity requiring the exercise of increased care commensurate with and proportionate to that increased danger so as to make the transport of electricity through wires safe under all circumstances and exigencies offered by the surrounding environment, including the risk of ?re. 8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 6.3 Defendants failed in their duty to exercise care commensurate with and proportionate to the combined danger of an area susceptible to wild?re and the dangerous activity of wires carrying electricity, thereby being a substantial factor in the cause of the ?res, as more fully set forth below. 6.4 The conditions and circumstances existing at the time of the ignition in known ?re origin areas, including the extended drought, high temperature, low humidity, and tinder-like dryness of vegetation, were reasonably foreseeable, if not expected, by a reasOnable and prudent person and were reasonably foreseeable by and to be expected by, Defendants, especially with their special knowledge and expertise. 6.5 This action seeks damages for each Plaintiff named in this case, according to their individual proof, and not as a part of a "class action," for any and all harm they suffered as a result of the Wine Country Fires. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and herein allege that and DOES 1-100 knew of the dangerous conditions of the property that eventually resulted in the Wine Country Fires, but recklessly and with careless and conscious disregard to human life and safety decided to ignore the ?re risks, inclusive of warnings and danger signs regarding trees within in close proximity to power lines, and other equipment that resulted in the Wine Country Fires. To make sure that the necessary precautions are taken in the ?iture, this action seeks punitive and exemplary damages against Defendants. 7.0 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence (Against CORPORATION, PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 100) 7.1 Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege each of the paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein at length. 7.2 Defendants CORPORATION and PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC COMPANY, including their employee/agents DOES 1- 50, have a non-delegable duty to apply a level of care commensurate with and proportionate to the danger of designing, engineering, constructing, operating, and maintaining electrical transmission and distribution systems, including vegetation clearance. 9 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 7.3 Defendants CORPORATION and PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC COMPANY, including their employee/agents DOES 1- 50, have a non-delegable duty of vigilant oversight in the maintenance, use, Operation, repair, and inspection appropriate to the changing conditions and circumstances of their electrical transmission and distribution systems. 7.4 Prior to the subject ?re, Defendant hired, retained, contracted, allowed, and/or otherwise collaborated with the DOE Defendants and/or other parties to perform work along and maintain the network of distribution lines, infrastructure, and vegetation. The work for which the DOE Defendants were hired involved a risk of ?re that was peculiar to the nature of the agency relationship. A reasonable property/easement owner and/or lessee in the position of the knew, or should have recognized, the necessity of taking special precautions to protect adjoining property owners against the risk of harm created by work performed, work to be performed, and/or work otherwise not performed. 7.5 Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known that the activities of the DOE Defendants, and/or other parties, involved a risk that was peculiar to the operation of Defendants' business that was foreseeable and arose from the nature and/or location of the work. Notwithstanding this, Defendants, and each of them, failed to take reasonable precautions to protect adjoining property owners against the foreseeable risk of harm created by their activities. 7.6 Defendants, and each of them, have special knowledge and expertise far above that of a layperson that they were required to apply to the design, engineering, construction, use, operation, inspection, repair, and maintenance of electrical lines, infrastructure, equipment, and vegetation in order to assure safety under all the local conditions in their service area, including but not limited to, those conditions identified herein. 7.7 Defendants negligently breached those duties by, among other things: a. Failing to conduct reasonably prompt, pr0per, and frequent inspections of the electrical transmission lines, wires, and associated equipment; b. Failing to design, construct, monitor, and maintain high voltage transmission and distribution lines in a manner that avoids igniting ?re during long, dry seasons by allowing those lines to withstand foreseeable conditions and avoid IO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 7.8 igniting ?res; Failing to design, construct, operate, and maintain high voltage transmission and distribution lines and equipment to withstand foreseeable conditions to avoid igniting ?res; Failing to maintain and monitor high voltage transmission and distribution lines in ?re prone areas to avoid igniting ?re and spreading ?res; Failing to install the equipment necessary, and/or to inspect and repair the equipment installed, to prevent electrical transmission and distribution lines from improperly sagging, operating or making contact with other metal wires placed on its poles and igniting ?res; Failing to keep equipment in a safe condition at all times to prevent ?res; Failing to inspect vegetation within proximity to energized transmission and distribution lines; Failing to de-energize power lines during ?re prone conditions; Failing to de-energize power lines after the ?re's ignition; Failing to properly investigate, vet, hire, train, and supervise employees and agents responsible for maintenance and inSpection of the distribution lines; Failing to implement and follow regulations and reasonably prudent practices to avoid ?re ignition; Failing to properly investigate, monitor, and maintain vegetation suf?cient to mitigate the risk of ?re. The ?re alleged herein was a direct, legal, and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants CORPORATION, PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC COMPANY, and DOES 1 to 100, and each of them. Defendants, and each of them, further breached their duties owed to Plaintiffs in that said Defendants (1) failed to comply with the applicable statutes, regulations and standards, (2) failed to timely and properly maintain and inspect the subject line and adjacent vegetation, (3) failed to properly cut, trim, prune, and/or otherwise keep vegetation from contact with its line, and (4) failed to make the overhead lines safe under all the exigencies created by the surrounding ll COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES circumstances and conditions. Defendants, and each of them, negligently installed, constructed, maintained, Operated, inspected, and/or repaired the line and as a direct, proximate, and legal result the line caused a ?re and Plaintiffs? damages. As a direct, proximate, and legal result of said negligence these Plaintiffs suffered damages as alleged herein. 7.9 At all times mentioned herein, Defendants CORPORATION, PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC COMPANY, and DOES 1 to 100, and each of them, failed to properly inspect and maintain the subject line and equipment which they knew, given the then existing drought conditions, posed a risk of serious injury, damage or death to others, including Plaintiffs. Defendants CORPORATION, PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC COMPANY, and DOES to 100, and each of them, were aware that if the subject line and/or subject equipment came in contact with vegetation that a ?re would likely result. Defendants, and each of them, also knew that, given the existing drought like conditions, said ?re was likely to pose a risk of serious injury, damage, and/or death to the general public, including these Plaintiffs. 7.10 Over the past approximately 10 years Defendants, CORPORATION, PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC COMPANY, and DOES to 100, and each of them, have been subject to numerous ?nes and penalties as a result of ongoing failure to abide by safety rules and regulations. The most recent ?ne/penalty imposed on for safety violations occurred on April 9, 2015, when the CPUC imposed a record $1.6 billion for safety violations that resulted in deaths, injuries, and destroyed homes related to the San Bruno Fire. One of the stated purposes of the CPUC in rendering such a record ?ne against was to ?ensure that nothing like this happens again.? was also subjected to signi?cant ?nes and penalties for its role in causing the Butte Fire. In addition, disregard for safety has resulted in federal criminal charges. The United States of America has charged PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC COMPANY with various crimes based on PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC knowing and willful violation of various minimum safety standards. Despite these penalties and ?nes - indeed just months after the imposition of the $1.6 billion ?ne/penalty for the safety violations related to the San Bruno Fire - these Defendants have failed and refused to modify their behavior and they have continued to conduct their business with a conscious disregard for the safety of the public. As a result of the continued actions by these 12 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Defendants, in conscious disregard for the safety of others, the California Public Utilities Commission has ordered an investigation into the culture of ignoring safety at The CPUC President has recognized that these Defendants have failed and refused to modify their conduct. Despite penalties and ?nes, in July of 201 5, the President of the CPUC, speci?cally stated: Despite major public attention, ongoing CPUC investigations (011s) and rulemakings (OIRs) into actions and operations, including the investigations we voted on today, federal grand jury, and California Department of Justice investigation, continued safety lapses at continue to occur. 7.10 Nonetheless, Defendants continue to consciously disregard the safety of the public, including these Plaintiffs. Since December 2008, Defendants CORPORATION, PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC COMPANY and DOES 1 to 100, and each of them, have been responsible for the deaths of at least fourteen people and burns and injuries suffered by at least 40 other people. Defendants have admitted to putting pro?ts over safety and to having violated safety regulations. Prior to the Wine Country Fires, the Defendants, acting with conscious disregard for the safety of others, caused the deaths of eight people and destroyed an entire neighborhood in San Bruno, California. Defendants conduct continued with its role in causing the Butte Fire. The deaths, injuries, and damage occasioned by the Wine Country Fires are the result of the ongoing custom and practice of the Defendants, and each of them, of consciously disregarding the safety of the public and not following statues, regulations, standards and rules regarding their business operations. Despite having caused the death and injury to numerous people, these Defendants have continued to act in conscious disregard for the safety of others, and have rati?ed the conduct of their employees. Upon information and belief, no employee has been disciplined or discharged as a result of failing and/or refusing to comply with the regulations and/or as a result of the deaths of members of the public. These Defendants, in order to cut costs, failed to properly inspect and maintain the subject line and/or the subject equipment with full knowledge that any incident was likely to result in a ?re that would burn and/or kill people, damage property, and/or cause harm to the general public, including these Plaintiffs. The actions of these Defendants, and each of them, did in fact result in damages to these Plaintiffs. The Defendants and each of them, failed to make the proper inspections, l3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES failed to properly maintain the lines, failed to properly trim vegetation, failed to properly and timely remove vegetation, and failed to safely operate their line, in order to save money, while at the same time spending millions of dollars on a television advertising campaign falsely representing to the public that the defendants were acting in a safe manner. 7.11 The negligence of Defendants was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs? damages. 7.12 Defendants' failure to comply with their duties of care proximately caused damage to Plaintiffs. 7.13 As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence, Plaintiffs suffered damages including, but not limited to property damage, loss of cherished possessions, emotional distress, annoyance, disturbance, inconvenience, and mental anguish, loss of quiet enjoyment of their property, and costs related to Plaintiffs' evacuation. 7.14 As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants? negligence, Plaintiffs incurred past and future medical expenses according to proof. 7.15 Further, the conduct alleged against Defendants in this complaint was despicable and subjected Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of their rights, constituting oppression, for which Defendants must be punished by punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof. The conduct of the defendants evidences a conscious disregard for the safety of others, including Plaintiffs. The Defendants? conduct was and is despicable conduct and constitutes malice as de?ned by Civil Code Section 3294. An of?cer, director, or managing agent of personally committed, authorized and/or rati?ed the despicable and wrong?il conduct alleged in this complaint. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of punitive damages sufficient to punish and make an example of these Defendants, and each of them. 8.0 CAUSE OF ACTION Inverse Condemnation (Against CORPORATION, PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 100, and each of them) 8.1 Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege each of the paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein at length. Ill 14 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 8.2 On or about October 8, 2017, Plaintiffs were owners of real property and/or personal property located within Sonoma County. 8.3 Prior to and on October 8, 2017, Defendant installed, owned, operated, used, controlled, and/or maintained power lines, and electrical equipment in the above mentioned counties. 8.4 On or about October 8, 2017, as a direct, necessary, and legal result of Defendants? installation, ownership, operation, use, control, and/or maintenance for a public use of the power lines and electrical equipment, Defendants? electrical lines and/or equipment came in contact with vegetation and caused a wild?re which burned in excess of 220,000 acres, including property owned or occupied by these plaintiffs. The fire damaged and/or destroyed Plaintiffs' real and/or personal property. 8.5 The above described damage to Plaintiffs? property was proximately and substantially caused by the actions of Defendants, and each of them, in that Defendants? installation, ownership, Operation, use, control, and/or maintenance for a public use of the power lines and equipment was negligent and caused the subject ?re. 8.6 Plaintiffs have not received adequate compensation for the damage to and/or destruction of their property, thus constituting a taking or damaging of Plaintiffs' property by the Defendants, and each of them, without just compensation. 8.7 As a direct and legal result of the above-described damages to Plaintiffs? property including loss of use, interference with access, enjoyment and marketability, and injury to personal property, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount according to proof at trial. 8.8 Plaintiffs have incurred and will continue to incur attorney's, appraisal, and engineering fees and costs because of Defendant?s conduct, in amounts that cannot yet be ascertained, but which are recoverable in this action under Code of Civil Procedure ?1036. 9.0 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Trespass (Against CORPORATION, PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 100) 9.1 Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege each of the paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein at length. 15 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 9.2 At all times relevant herein, Plaintiffs were the owners and lawful occupiers of property damaged by the Wine Country Fires. 9.3 Defendants negligently allowed the Wine Country Fires to ignite and/or spread out of control, causing injury to Plaintiffs. The spread of a negligently caused ?re to the land of another constitutes a trespass. 9.4 Plaintiffs did r_10_t grant permission for Defendants to cause the Wine Country Fires to enter their properties. 9.5 As a direct, proximate, and substantial cause of the trespass, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer damages, including but not limited to damage to property, discomfort, annoyance, and emotional distress in an amount to be proved at the time of trial. 9.6 As a further direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffs, have hired and retained counsel to recover compensation for loss and damage and are entitled to recover all attorney?s fees, expert fees, consultant fees, and litigation costs and expense, as allowed under California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1021.9. 9.7 As a further direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffs seek treble or double damages for wrongful injuries to timber, trees, or underwood on their property, as allowed under California Civil Code, Section 3346. 9.8 Defendants? conduct was willful and wanton, and with a conscious contempt and disdain for the disastrous consequences that Defendants knew could occur as a result of their dangerous conduct. Accordingly, Defendants acted with malice towards Plaintiffs, which is an appropriate predicate fact for an award of exemplary/punitive damages in a sum according to proof. 10.0 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Private Nuisance (Against CORPORATION, PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 100) 10.1 Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege each of the paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein at length. 10.2 Defendants? actions, conduct, omissions, negligence, treSpass and failure to act resulted in a fire hazard and a foreseeable obstruction to the free use of Plaintiffs property, invaded 16 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES the right to use the Plaintiffs? property, and interfered with the enjoyment of Plaintiffs? property, causing the Plaintiffs unreasonable harm and substantial actual damages constituting a nuisance, pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3479. 10.3 As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffs sustained loss and damage, including but not limited to damage to property, discomfort, annoyance, and emotional distress, the amount of which will be proven at trial. 10.4 Defendants? conduct was willful and wanton, and with a conscious contempt and disdain for the disastrous consequences that Defendants knew could occur as a result of their dangerous conduct. Accordingly, Defendants acted with malice towards Plaintiffs, which is an appropriate predicate fact for an award of exemplary/punitive damages in a sum according to proof. 11.0 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Public Utilities Code 2106 (Against PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 100) 11.1 Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege each of the paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein at length. 11.2 As Public Utilities, Defendants are legally required to comply with the rules and orders promulgated by the California Public Utilities Commission pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 702. 11.3 Public Utilities that perform or fail to perform something required to be done by the Califomia Constitution, a law of the State, or a regulation or order of the Public Utilities Commission, which leads to loss or injury, is liable for that loss or injury, pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 2106. 11.4 As Public Utilities, Defendants are required to provide and maintain service, equipment and facilities in a manner adequate to maintain the safety, health and convenience of their customers and the public, pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 451. 11.5 Defendants are required to design, engineer, construct, operate, and maintain electrical supply lines and associated equipment in a manner consonant with their use, taking into consideration local conditions and other circumstances, so as to provide safe and adequate electric l7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES service, pursuant to Public Utility Commission General Order 95, Rule 33.1 and General Order 165. 11.6 Defendants are required to maintain vegetation in compliance with California Public Resources Code Sections 4293, 4294, 4435 and Health Safety Code Section 13001. 11.7 Through their conduct alleged herein, Defendants violated Public Utilities Code Sections 702, 451 and/or Public Utilities Commission General Order 95, thereby making them liable for losses, damages and injury sustained by Plaintiff pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 2106. 12.0 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Health Safety Code ?13007 (Against CORPORATION, PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 100) 12.1 Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained above as though the same were set forth herein in full. 12.2 By engaging in the acts and omissions alleged in this Complaint, Defendants, and each of them, willfully, negligently, and in violation of law, set ?re to and/or allowed ?re to be set to the property of another in violation of California Health Safety Code 0? 13007. 12.3 As a legal result of Defendants? violation of California Health Safety Code 13007, Plaintiffs suffered recoverable damages to property under California Health Safety Code 13007.21 12.4 As a further legal result of the violation of California Health Safety Code 13007 by Defendants, Plaintiffs suffered damages that are entitled to reasonable attorney?s fees under California Code of Civil Procedure 1021.9 for the prosecution of this cause of action. 12.5 Further, the conduct alleged against Defendant in this complaint was despicable and subjected Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of their rights, constituting oppression, for which Defendants must be punished by punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof. Defendants? conduct was carried on with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiffs, constituting malice, for which Defendant must be punished by punitive and exemplary damages according to proof. An of?cer, director, or managing agent of personally committed, authorized and/or rati?ed the despicable and wrongful conduct alleged in this complaint. 18 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES \OmxleLA-th?s PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, CORPORATION, PACIFIC GAS ELECTRIC COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 100, each of them, as follows: For Negligence, Trespass, Nuisance, Violation of Public Utilities Code 2106 and Violation of Health Safety Code ?l3007 1. Repair, depreciation, and/or replacement of damaged, destroyed, and/or lost personal and/or real property; 2. Loss of the use, alternative living expenses, bene?t, goodwill, and enjoyment of Plaintiffs? real and/or personal property; 3. Loss of wages, earning capacity, and/or business pro?ts or proceeds and/or any related displacement expenses; 4. Past and future medical expenses and incidental expenses according to proof at trial; 5. Attomey?s fees, expert fees, consultant fees, and litigation costs and expense, as allowed under California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1021.9; 6. Treble or double damages for wrongful injuries to timber, trees, or underwood on their property, as allowed under California Civil Code, Section 3346; 7. Punitive/exemplary damages; 8. All costs of suit; 9. Prejudgment interest, according to proof; and 10. General damages for fear, worry, annoyance, disturbance, inconvenience, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of quiet enjoyment of property, personal injury, and for such other and further relief as the Court shall deem proper, all according to proof. For Inverse Condemnation 1. Repair, depreciation, and/or replacement of damaged, destroyed, and/or lost personal and/or real property; 19 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES lLoss of the uSe, bene?t, goodwill, and enjoyment of Plaintiffs? real and/or personal 3. Loss of wages, earning capacity, and/or business profits or proceeds, and/or any related displacement expenses; 4. All costs of suit, including attorneys? fees where appropriate, appraisal fees, engineering fees, and related costs; 5. Prejudgment interest according to proof; 6. For such other and further relief as the Court shall deem proper, all according to proof. Dated: October 17, 2017 ROBINS CLOUD LLP By Bill Robins Robert T. Bryson Kevin M. Pollack Attorneys for Plaintiffs JURY TRIAL DEMAND Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial on all causes of action for which a jury is available under the law. Dated: October 17, 2017 ROBINS CLOUD LLP By 7/2? Bill Robins 111 Robert T. Bryson Kevin M. Pollack Attorneys for Plaintiffs 20 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES