# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # !198+'5? $/,)5,$? &,610 ?$? $/,)40,$? 14214$8,10 ?$0&? !? ? ,0%/97,:'? Ventura Superior Court Accepted through eDelivery submitted 07-09-2018 at 12:09:35 PM ,8=?1(?!$0? 9'0$:'0894$ ?$? $/,)5,$? +$48'4? ,8=? &APU5'Q-U)--@UMP-, U$5-U*APHNU?'TU,-*6,-U'4'6@MNUTAPUR7N5APNUTAPGU)-7@4U5-'H,UP@<-MMUTAPUH-MEA@,UR6N57@U U,'TM U!-',UN5-U7@/AG?'N6A@U )--UTAPGUH-MEA@M-UA@UN7?- UTAPU?'TUA`7a>7>c “ #8Uac“q†ca>A“>Aa‡y“>A“ @O;… “ [7“+CK.UeŠA>A“>A=O>Og“Aa“…Š“=ca‡i“ …Oa“A…=Š=N7g“…Š“Ž O a “+A7“[7“OaEcv7=O a“'U =ca‡OaŠ7=O a “ 3OAaA“ %)#2“%&“$#+&,%#0“*.“>A…eŠB…“>A“fŠA“[A“Aa‡gAMŠAa“A…‡7“=O‡7=O a“‘“e7eA[A…“ AM7[A…“e7j“eq…Aa‡8g“Ša7“gA…eŠA…‡7“ecg“A…=sˆd“Aa“A…‡7“ =c~C“‘“N7=Ag“fŠA“…A“Aa‡gAMŠA“Ša7“=ceO7“7[“>A`7a>7a‡A “4a7“=7~8“ Ša7“[\7`7>7“‡A[AE aO=7“ac“[c“ex‡AMAa “ gA…eŠA…‡7“ecg“A…=gO‡c“‡OAaA“fŠA“A…‡7g“ Aa“Ecv7‡c“[AM7[“=c{C=‡c“…O“>A…A7“fŠA“ex=A…Aa“…Š“=7…c“Aa“[7“=cC “&…“ec…O<[A“fŠA“N7‘7“Ša“Ecg`Š 7tc“fŠA“Š…‡A>“eŠA>7“Š…7g“e7g7“…Š“q…eŠA…‡7 “ /ŠA>A“Aa=ca‡jg“A…‡c…“EcvŠ[7gOc…“>A“[7“=c€C“‘“`9…“OaEcg`7=O a“Aa“A[“$Aa‰y“>A“#‘Š>7“>A“[7…“$c~C…“>A“$7[TGdwO7“ MP*AHO- *' 4AQ UAa“[7“ A“ A‘A…“ >A“…Š“=ca>7>c“CUAa“[7“=c~C“fŠA“[A“fŠA>A“`9…“=An7 “#9Uac“eŠA>A“e7M7g“[7“=Šc‡7“>A“ eq…Aa‡7=O a “ eO>7“7[“…A=gA‡7uc“>A“ [7“=cC“ fŠA“[A“>B“Ša“EcvŠ[7tc“>A“AAa=Ua“>A“e7Mc“>A“=Šc‡7… “2O“ac“eq…Aa‡7“…Š“q…eŠA…‡7“7“‡OA`ec “ eŠA>A“eAoAg“A[“=7…c“ecg“V=Š`e[O`OAa‡c“‘“[7“=cA“[A“ ec>k“fŠO‡7g“…Š“…ŠA ?c “>OaAgc“‘“Ah‡Aa=O7 “ '7‘“c‡y…“qfŠO…O‡c…“[AM7 A… “&…“q=c`Aa>7< A“fŠA“L7`A“7“Ša“7c“Oa`A>O7‡7`Aa‡A “2O“ac“=cac=A“ EŠa“7c “ eŠA>A“ 7`7g“ EŠa“…A‚Q=Oc“>A“ q`O…O a“(U7c… “2O“ac“eŠA>A“e7M7g“(UŠa“7c “ A…“ec…O<[A“fŠA“=Š`e[7“=ca“[c…“qfŠO…O‡c…“e7j“c<‡AaAg“…AhR=Oc…“ AM7 A…“Mj‡ŠO‡c…“>A“Ša“ ezMl`7“>A“…AƒS=Oc…“[AM7[A…“…W“KA…“>A“[Š=z “/ŠA>A“Aa=ca‡jg“A…‡c…“MgŠec…“…Oa“JbA…“>A“ Š=gc“Aa“A[“…O‡Oc“A<“>A“$7^wO7“+AM7[“2A‚S=A… “ RR <'R5-A“#‘Š>7“>A“[7…“$cC…“>A“$7[OEcwO7 “ RS MP*AHN- *' 4AQ UCUecaODa>c…A“Aa“=ca‡7=‡c“=ca“[7“=:g‡C“CUA[“ =c[AMOc“>A“7c…“ [c=7[A… “#6 2.!“/cg“FA’ “ [7“=c~C“‡OAaA“>Aq=Nc“(UgA=[7`7g“[7…“=Šc‡7…“‘“[c…“=c…‡c…“AAa‡c…“ecg“O`ecaAg“Ša“ Ml7`Aa“…:A“ “`9…“>A“7[cg“q=O7“`A>O7a‡A“Ša“7=ŠApc“CUŠa7“=ca=A…O a“>A“7mXiYA“Aa“Ša“=7…c“>A“>Aq=Nc“=OO[ “3OAaA“fŠA“ e7M7g“A[“Mj7`Aa“>A“[7“=:~C“7a‡A…“>A“fŠA“[7“=:~A“eŠA>7“>A…A=N7g“A[“=7…c “ (#E0 .#E 0"E ""6#99E2%E;(#E!2>6;E)9 E /C120 6 CBC +6 + 1C C/ C 26>!C < C !93'4,14? 1948?$8?#'0894$? 1908=? ?!198+?#,%814,$? :'09'? ? 1. #6E2%E5- )0;)%&9E =260#B E26E5- *0;)%'EA*;(2>;E 0E ;;260#B E*9 E /C120 7 C/ C +6 + 1CBC /C1@0 8C C= /#&212C $C 2) 2C C 0 1 1= C2C C 0 1 1= C5A C12C=+ 1 C 2) 2 C : C ? ?? ? 1+0? ? ,6.' ? ? ? " ? ? ? ? 1$68? ,*+;$> ?!9-8'? ?!1/$0$? '$%+ ? ? ?? ? Michael D. Planet E E ,#6+ E BE * C 6 = 6+2 C C 26C3622%C2%C: 9, C2%C=*+:C:?//31: E A: C 622%E2%E #6@)!#E2%E >..209E %260C C C .209 6 C36A C C 1?) C C := C += =+ 1CA: C /C%260A/ 6+2C 622%E2%E #6@)!#E2%E >..209 E 2>E 6#E9#6@#"E # K 9E 0E)0"*@)"> -E"#%#0" 0; 9E;(#E5#6920E9>#"E>0"#6E;(#E%)!;*;)2>9E0 .#E2%E :3 +' 07/09/2018 E #5>;BE .CA1=2 C 20E #( ,%E2%E :3 +( >0"#6 E E E !26526 ;*20 E E "#%>0!;E!26526 ;*20 E E 992!) ;)20E26E5 80#69()5 4<($7E ;4" -( BE5#6920 -E "#,)@#6CE20E = ;@8K ,;>C-,K/=?K (:,(D;AIK %B-K E,3*3(5K ;E9+36K;0K (541;?:3(K #& K '"-G K F5HK K K E E .)026 E E E !209#6@ ;## E E E >;(26*D#"E5#6920 E ). <2 K ;,-K;/K 3G47K!?;*-,E?-JJK K K !"" # Ventura Superior Court Accepted through eDelivery submitted 07-09-2018 at 12:09:35 PM 56-2018-00514648-CU-PO-VTA Ventura Superior Court Accepted through eDeIivery submitted 07-09-2018 at 12:09:Plaintiff CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA (?Plaintiff? or ?the hereby brings the following Complaint for injuries and damages against SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, a California Corporation and other as of yet unknown entities and individuals (collectively, ??Defendants?) as a result of the injuries and damages that Plaintiff sustained in the ?Thomas Fire? that started on or about December 4 and December 5 2017. I. INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiff is a charter city of the State of California, organized under the laws of the State of California. Plaintiff suffered harm and/or damages by the severe and devastating ?Thomas Fire? in and around Ventura, California, starting on or about December 4th and 5th 2017. Plaintiff seeks just compensation and damages as more particularly described below. 2. On information and belief, the ?Thomas Fire? started when: (1) electrical infrastructure owned, operated, and maintained by SCE came into contact with vegetation inspected and maintained by (2) power lines owned, operated, and maintained by SCE came into contact with one another causing a spark and resulting ?re to the surrounding vegetation; and/or (3) an arcing event occurred causing a spark and resulting ?re to the surrounding vegetation. The ?Thomas Fire? burned more than 280,000 acres, destroyed over 1,000 structures, claimed several lives and significantly impacted and burdened the lives of thousands of residents. 3. On information and belief, the ?Thomas Fire? [hereinafter ?Thomas Fire? or ?Fire?] was caused by: the negligent and improper operation of the power lines and related equipment by (2) the failure of power lines, and/or electrical infrastructure, and/or equipment that was designed, constructed, operated and maintained by SCE and Defendants as alleged herein; and/or (3) the Defendants? negligent failure to maintain vegetation with prescribed California regulations and law concerning vegetation clearance from power lines and electrical infrastructure. 2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Ventura Superior Court Accepted through eDeIivery submitted 07-09-2018 at 12:09:II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. Defendant SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON is incorporated in California and based in Rosemead, California. At all times mentioned herein, it has acted to provide electrical services to members of the public in California, including Ventura County, through its electrical transmission and distribution systems. 5. At all times herein mentioned, SCE provided electrical services to millions of customers in Southern California, including to residents of Ventura County, through its electrical transmission and distribution systems. 6. Venue is proper in this County as SCE and Defendants perform business in Ventura County, and a substantial part of the events, acts, omissions, and transactions complained of herein occurred in this County. THE PARTIES 7. Plaintiff is a charter city of the State of California that suffered varying types of injuries, damages, losses, and/or harm as a result of the Fire. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names of DOES 1 through 200 and, therefore, sue them as Defendants under these ?ctitious names. Plaintiff will amend its Complaint to add the true names of such Defendants when ascertained. 8. As a result of the Fire caused by SCE, Plaintiff suffered millions of dollars in damages including but not limited to property damages, ?re suppression costs, economic losses such as taX loss and loss of business like income, and other damages including but not limited to the following: debris removal from CITY property, ash and soot remediation from CITY property, labor, personnel, and overtime costs, lost water storage, water treatment, and other damages. 9. The physical property damage includes but is not limited to damages to debris, soot, and ash damage to CITY sidewalks, streets, parking lots, water reservoirs, and other CITY property and infrastructure. Economic losses suffered have a direct and substantial nexus and 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Ventura Superior Court Accepted through eDeIivery submitted 07-09-2018 at 12:09:were caused by physical damage to CITY property. 10. The injuries, losses, and damages suffered by Plaintiff include but are not limited to the following: injury to or destruction of real and/or personal property; injury to or destruction of infrastructure; out-of?pocket expenses directly and proximately incurred as a result of the Fire; fire suppression and/or emergency response costs; employee and personnel overtime; loss of revenue from proprietary and/or business-like activities; loss of tax revenue including but not limited to property, sales, or transient occupancy tax revenues; costs associated with governmental services in response to the Fire for relief and recovery; loss of natural resources; injury to land including but not limited to loss of soil productivity and stability; loss of aesthetic value; and, loss or injury to trees, landscaping, and public resources; and, other injuries, losses, and damages, both physical and economic. The damages caused by the Defendants are extensive and ongoing. IV. THE DEFENDANTS ll. SCE is an electrical corporation and public utility pursuant to sections 218(a) and a 216(1) of the California Public Utilities Code. SCE is in the business of providing electricity to the residents of Ventura, Santa Barbara, and Los Angeles Counties through a network of electrical transmission and distribution lines, and other infrastructure. 12. At all times material to this Complaint, DOES 1 through 200 were the agents and/or employees of SCE and acting within the course and scope of their agency and/or employment. 13. The true names of DOES 1 through 200, whether individual, corporate, associate, agency or otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiff who, under California Code of Civil Procedure ?474, sue these Defendants under ?ctitious names. Each of the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the conduct alleged herein, including, without limitation, by way of conspiracy, aiding, abetting, acting with actual or ostensible authority, or as an alter ego, or single enterprise, furnishing the means and/or acting in capacities that create agency, respondeat superior, and/or predecessor or successor-in-interest relationships with the Defendant. The DOE 4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Ventura Superior Court Accepted through eDeIivery submitted 07-09-2018 at 12:09:Defendants are private individuals, associations, partnerships, corporations, subcontractors, or otherwise that actively assisted and participated in the negligent and wrongful conduct alleged herein in ways that are currently unknown to Plaintiff. Some or all of the DOE Defendants may be residents or conduct business in the State of California. Plaintiff 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. l4. DOES 1 through 200 are and/or were the agents and/or employees of the SCE and were acting within the course and scope of their agency and/or employment with SCE when they committed the acts and omissions set forth herein. 15. SCE has a non-delegable duty to properly maintain, own, operate, control, and manage its electrical transmission and distribution systems including all infrastructure and equipment. 16. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that on December 4 and December 5, 2017, the Thomas Fire was proximately caused by operation, ownership, control, and/or maintenance of its overhead electrical equipment, potentially including but not limited to lines, transformers, conductors, poles, and other equipment. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Thomas Fire was caused when one or more of the following occurred: electrically charged power lines were maintained too loosely allowing certain lines to slap together, come in contact with one another, causing a sparking or arcing event that ignited surrounding vegetation, SCE failed to shut down certain power lines in anticipation of high winds, (0) a tree or other vegetation that had been negligently maintained by Defendants struck or came into contact with an overhead power line owned by SCE, conductors negligently designed, operated, and maintained by Defendants came into contact with each other causing a spark or arcing event that ignited surrounding vegetation; and/or (6) SCE, and potentially other Defendants, failed to properly inspect, maintain and operate their equipment, including but not limited to lines, conductors, transformers, poles, and other equipment, which failed. The Thomas Fire proceeded to burn through a number of communities in and around the CITY, destroying over 1,000 structures and other property, killing individuals, 5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Ventura Superior Court Accepted through eDeIivery submitted 07-09-2018 at 12:09:and displacing thousands of residents. V. GENERAL ALLEGATION 17. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants, inclusive of DOES 1-200, are and were aware of the danger of ?res in the City of San Buenaventura. Before 2017, increasingly severe wildfires put SCE and DOES 1?200 on notice of the level of care required to prevent high voltage transmission and distribution lines from causing wild?res in foreseeable California weather conditions. However, SCE and DOES 1-200 failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent wildfires from occurring. As a result, the CITY was struck in December 2017 by the devastating Thomas Fire, which was entirely preventable. The Fire was not an ?Act of God? but rather was caused by the intentional, negligent, and wrongful conduct of SCE and other Defendants. The Thomas Fire was started by sparks from high voltage distribution lines, appurtenances, and electrical equipment which was the direct result of failures in design, construction, inspection, operation, maintenance, and vegetation control by SCE and the DOE Defendants. 18. Wires carrying electricity and electrical infrastructure are dangerous instruments. The transmission and distribution of electricity through power line constitutes 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, but not limited to, the weather conditions and the risk of fire). 19. Defendants, inclusive of DOES 1?200 as employees and/or agents of SCE, failed in their duty to exercise care commensurate with, and proportionate to, the combined danger of an area susceptible to ?re and the dangerous activity of wires carrying electricity and electrical infrastructure, thereby creating a substantial factor in the cause of the Thomas Fire, as more fully set forth herein. 20. The conditions and circumstances at the time of the ignition in the fire origin area, including the condition of electrical infrastructure, instruments, drought, low humidity, and 6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Ventura Superior Court Accepted through eDeIivery submitted 07-09-2018 at 12:09:tinder-like dry vegetation were foreseeable (and could reasonably have been expected) by a reasonably prudent person and, therefore, were reasonably foreseeable to, and should have been expected by, Defendants, particularly with their special knowledge and expertise as a public utility company (and/or employees and/or agents, thereof). 21. This action seeks damages for Plaintiff, according to its individual proof and not as a part of a ?class action,? for any and all harm it suffered as a result of the Fire. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that SCE and DOES 1-200 knew of the dangerous condition of the property that eventually resulted in the Fire but recklessly and with careless and conscious disregard to human life and safety, decided to ignore the ?re risk, inclusive of warning regarding the speci?c tree and/or power that caused the Fire. To make sure that the necessary precautions are taken in the future, this action seeks punitive and exemplary damages against SCE and DOES 1-200. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Inverse Condemnation) (Against SCE and DOES 1 through 200) 22. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained above as though the same were set forth herein in full. 23. Defendants? operation of its electrical equipment, lines, and infrastructure were a substantial cause of Plaintiff?s damages, are a public improvement for a public use, and constitute an ?Electrical Plant? pursuant to California Public Utilities Code ?217. 24. Defendants? facilities, wires, lines, equipment, infrastructure and other public improvements, as deliberately designed and constructed, present an inherent danger and risk of ?re to private property. In acting in furtherance of the public objective of supplying electricity, Defendants took and did take on or about December 4th and 5th, 2017, a known, calculated risk that private property would be damaged and destroyed by ?re. 25. On or about December 4th and 5th, 2017, the inherent risk of ?re became a reality, which directly and legally resulted in the taking of Plaintiff? 3 private property. 26. The conduct as described herein was a substantial factor in causing damage to a 7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Ventura Superior Court Accepted through eDeIivery submitted 07-09-2018 at 12:09:property interest protected by the Fifth Amendment of the US. Constitution and Article 1, Section 19, of the California Constitution, which entitles Plaintiff to just compensation according to proof at trial for all damages incurred. 27. That further, under and pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure ?1036, Plaintiff is entitled to recover all litigation costs and expense with regard to the compensation of damage to properties, including attomey?s fees, expert fees, consulting fees and litigation costs. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence and Respondeat Superior) (Against all Defendants) 28. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained above as though the same were set forth herein in full. 29. Defendants 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, inclusive of vegetation clearance. 30. Defendants 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. 31. Prior to the subject fire, Defendant SCE hired, retained, contracted, allowed, and/or otherwise collaborated with vegetation management companies and 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 vegetation management companies and 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 SCE, 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. 32. Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known that the activities of DOE Defendants, and/or other parties, involved a risk that was peculiar to the operation of 8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Ventura Superior Court Accepted through eDeIivery submitted 07-09-2018 at 12:09:Defendants? business that was foreseeable and arose from the nature and/or location of the work. Notwithstanding the above, 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. 33. 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 identi?ed herein. 34. The negligence of Defendants was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff?s damages. 35. Defendants negligently breached those duties by, among other things: a. Failing to conduct reasonably prompt, proper 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 to avoid igniting ?res; 0. Failing to design, construct, operate and maintain high voltage transmission and distribution lines and equipment to withstand foreseeable conditions to avoid igniting ?res; d. Failing to maintain and monitor high voltage transmission and distribution lines in ?re prone areas to avoid igniting ?re and spreading ?res; 6. 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 igniting ?res; 9 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Ventura Superior Court Accepted through eDeIivery submitted 07-09-2018 at 12:09:35 PM Is.) f. Failing to keep equipment in a safe condition at all times to prevent fires; Failing to inspect fixtures vegetation within proximity to energized ?Ft transmission and distribution lines; h. Failing to de~energize power lines during ?re prone conditions; i. Failing to de-energize power lines after the tire's ignition; i. Failing to properly train and supervise employees and agents responsible for maintenance and inspection of the distribution lines; it. Failing to implement and follow regulations and reasonably prudent practices to avoid fire ignition; l. Failing to properly investigate, monitor. and maintain vegetation sufficient to mitigate the risk of fire. 36. Defendants? failure to comply with their duty of care proximately caused damage to Plaintiff. 37. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants? negligence, and the subsequent Fire. Plaintiff incurred significant and actual damages. as described herein and in an amount to be proven at trial. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Trespass) (Against all Defendants) 38. Plaintiff hereby revallcges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained above as though the same were set forth herein in full. 39. At all times relevant herein. Plaintiff was the owner, tenant. andfor lawful occupier ofpropeity damaged by the Fire. 40. Defendants negligently allowed the Fire to ignite and/?or spread out of control. which caused the resultant damage to Plaintiff as alleged in greater detail herein. Plaintiff did not grant permission to Defendants to cause the Fire to enter its property. It} I-?t?lR nit-stators Ventura Superior Court Accepted through eDeIivery submitted 07-09-2018 at 12:09:direct, proximate and substantial cause of the trespass, Plaintiff incurred signi?cant and actual damages, as described herein and in an amount to be proven at trial. 43. Plaintiff sustained damage to timber, trees, or underwood as a result of Defendants? trespass and seeks treble or double damages for wrongful injuries to its property inclusive of timber, trees, or underwood on its property as permitted by California Civil Code ?3346. 44. Further, the conduct alleged against Defendant in this complaint was despicable and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of its 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 Plaintiff, constituting malice, for which Defendants must be punished by punitive and exemplary damages according to proof. An of?cer, director, or managing agent of SCE personally committed, authorized and/or rati?ed the despicable and wrongful conduct alleged in this complaint. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Nuisance) (Against all Defendants) 45. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained above as though the same were set forth herein in full. 46. Defendants? actions, conduct, omissions, negligence, trespass, and failure to act resulted in a ?re hazard and a foreseeable obstruction to the free use of Plaintiff?s property, invaded the right to use the Plaintiff?s property and interfered with the enjoyment of Plaintiff? property, causing Plaintiff to suffer unreasonable harm and substantial actual damages constituting a nuisance, pursuant to California Civil Code ?3479. 47. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants and the resultant Fire, Plaintiff incurred signi?cant and actual damages, as described herein and in an amount to be proven at trial. 11 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Ventura Superior Court Accepted through eDeIivery submitted 07-09-2018 at 12:09:35 PM FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION {Negligence Per Se) (Against all Defendants) 48. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained above as though the same were set forth herein in full. 49. Defendants at all times herein had a duty to properly design, construct, operate, maintain, inspect, and manage its electrical infrastructure as well as trim trees and vegetation in compliance with all relevant provisions of applicable orders, decisions, directions, rules or statutes, including those delineated by, but not limited to, Public Utilities Commission General Order 95, including but not limited to Rules 31.2 and 38, Public Resources Code Section 4435, and Public Utilities Commission General Order 165. SD. The violation of a legislative enactment or administrative regulation which defines a minimum standard ofconduct is unreasonable per se. 51. Defendants violated the above by, but not limited to: a. Failing to service, inspect or maintain electrical infrastructure, structures and vegetation affixed to and in close proximity to high voltage electrical lines; b. Failing to provide electrical supply systems ofsuitable design; c. Failing to construct and to maintain such systems for their intended use of safe transmission ofelectricity considering the known condition of the combination of the dry season and vegetation of the area, resulting in Plaintiffts) being susceptible to the ignition and spread of fire and the fire hazard and danger of electricity and electrical transmission and distribution; d. Failing to properly design, construct, operate, maintain, inspect and manage its electrical supply systems and the surrounding arid vegetation resulting in said vegetation igniting and accelerating the spread of the fire; 12 litll't Ventura Superior Court Accepted through eDeIivery submitted 07-09-2018 at 12:09:Failing to properly safeguard against the ignition of fire during the course and scope of employee work on behalf of SCE. f. By failing to comply with the enumerated legislative enactments and administrative regulations. 52. The violation of General Order 95, including, but not limited to, Rules 31.2 and 38, Public Resources Code section 4435, and Public Utilities Commission General Order 165 by the Defendants proximately and substantially caused the destruction, damage and injury to Plaintiff. 53. Plaintiff was and is within the class of persons for whose protection General Order 95, including but not limited to Rules 31.2 and 38, Public Resources Code section 4435, and Public Utilities Commission General Order 165 were adopted. 54. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for all loss, damages and injury caused by and resulting from Defendants? violation of General Order 95, including, but not limited to Rules 31.2 and 38, Public Resources Code Section 4435, and Public Utilities Commission General Order 165 as alleged herein according to proof. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of Public Utilities Code 2106) (Against all Defendants) 55. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained above as though the same were set forth herein in full. 56. As a Utility and employees of a Utility, Defendants are legally required to comply with the rules and orders promulgated by the California Public Utilities Commission pursuant to California Public Utilities Code ?702. 57. A Utility that performs or fails to perform something required to be done by the California Constitution, a law of the State, or a regulation or order of the Public Utilities Commission, which leads to the loss or injury, is liable for that loss or injury, pursuant to Utilities Code ?2106. 58. As Utilities, Defendants are required to provide, maintain, and service equipment 13 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Ventura Superior Court Accepted through eDeIivery submitted 07-09-2018 at 12:09:and facilities in a manner adequate to maintain the safety, health and convenience of their customers and the public, pursuant to Public Utilities Code ?45 1. 59. Defendants are required to design, engineer, construct, operate and maintain electrical supply lines in a manner consonant with their use, taking into consideration local conditions and other circumstances, so as to provide safe and adequate electric service, pursuant to Public Utility Commission General Order 95, Rule 33.1 and General Order 165. 60. Through their omissions, commissions, and conduct alleged herein, Defendants violated Public Utilities Code sections 702 and 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 ?2106. 61. Further, the conduct alleged against Defendant in this complaint was despicable and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of its 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 Plaintiff, constituting malice, for which Defendants must be punished by punitive and exemplary damages according to proof. An officer, director, or managing agent of SCE personally committed, authorized and/or rati?ed the despicable and wrongful conduct alleged in this complaint. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Health Safety Code ?13007 et. seq. and 13009) (Against all Defendants) 62. Plaintiff hereby re?alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained above as though the same were set forth herein in full. 63. By engaging in the acts and omissions alleged in this Complaint, Defendants, and each of them, wilfully, 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 ?l3007 et. seq. and ?13009. 64. As a legal result of Defendants? Violation of California Health Safety Code 14 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Ventura Superior Court Accepted through eDeIivery submitted 07-09-2018 at 12:09:?13007 and ?13009, Plaintiff suffered recoverable damages to property under California 1% Safety Code ?13007 et. seq. and ?re suppression costs recoverable under Health and Safety @de?13009. 65. As a further legal result of the violation of California Health Safety Code ?13007 et. seq. and ?13009 by Defendants, Plaintiff suffered damages that entitles it to reasonable attOrney?s fees under California Code of Civil Procedure ?1021.9 for the prosecution of this cause of action. 66. Further, the conduct alleged against Defendant in this complaint was despicable and subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of its 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 Plaintiff, constituting malice, for which Defendants must be punished by punitive and exemplary damages according to proof. An of?cer, director, or managing agent of SCE personally committed, authorized and/or rati?ed the despicable and wrongful conduct alleged in this complaint. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiff seeks the following damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial: For Inverse Condemnation (1) Repair, depreciation, and/or replacement of damaged, destroyed, and/or lost personal and/or real property; (2) Loss of the use, bene?t, goodwill, and enjoyment of Plaintiff?s real and/or personal property; (3) Loss of wages, earning capacity and/or business pro?ts and/or any related displacement expenses; (4) All costs of suit, including attorneys? fees, expert fees, and related costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure ?1036 and any other applicable law; (5) Any and all relief, compensation, or measure of damages available to Plaintiff by law based on the injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff; 15 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Ventura Superior Court Accepted through eDeIivery submitted 07-09-2018 at 12:09:(6) (7) Prejudgment interest from December 4, 2017, according to proof; and For such other and further relief as the Court shall deem proper, all according to proof. For Negligence, Trespass, Nuisance, Negligence Per Se, Violation of Public Utilities Code 82106 and Violation of Health Safety Code 813007 et. seq. and Health (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Safety Code 813009 General and/or special damages for all damages to property according to proof; Loss of the use, bene?t, goodwill, and enjoyment of Plaintiff?s real and/or personal property; Loss of wages, earning capacity, goodwill, and/or business pro?ts or proceeds and/or any related displacement expenses; Evacuation expenses and alternate living expenses; Erosion damage to real property; Fire suppression costs under Health and Safety Code ?l3007 et. seq. and Health and Safety Code ?13009; Attorneys? fees, expert fees, consultant fees and litigation costs and expense, as allowed under California Code of Civil Procedure ?1021.9 and/or any other statute; Treble or double damages for wrongful injuries to timber, trees, or underwood on its property, as allowed under California Civil Code ?3346; For punitive and exemplary damages against Defendants in an amount according to proof for Defendants? unlawful trespass onto Plaintiffs land, Defendants? violation of California Public Utilities Code ?2106, Defendants? violation of Health and Safety Code 13007 et. seq. and Health and Safety Code ?l3009, and under any and all other statutory or legal basis that may apply; Costs of suit; 16 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Ventura Superior Court Accepted through eDeIivery submitted 07-09-2018 at 12:09:35 PM l) Prejudgment interest; and (12) Any and all other and further such relief as the Court shall deem proper, all according to proof. JURY TRIAL DEMAND Plaintiff respectfully demands a jury trial on all causes of action for which a jury is available under the law. Dated: July 6, 2018 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA By: oasooav G. DIAZ ANDY H. VIETS Attorneys for Plaintiff City of San Buenayentura Dated: July 6.2018 BARON 8c BUDD, P.C. SC TT SUMMY {Pro Hac Vice Pending} JOHN P. FISKE VICTORIA E. Plaintiff-CM 17 (HUM .A H'tlw?: "Įšr- ( <Į- Į?" )<Įþ)é-všĮ"Į)r- ( <ĮŖW{fµĮö«W«fĮâWĜĮĖĨ{Ăfĝ xĮWxxĞ樨 º í gėĮt½ĮåKªďJĮkC`eĮ]χ]І€Įœċ i }ČDĮCgJ}ĐKhĮkCĮ ĊeĮlÊ]lĮĭĮÓ C ĥiĮ C­££°Įkt} ĮDžąĮœK JĮěJhžKhŸ€Į `ŠõóeĮ±Į`ý‚ĮtoĮ †„lĮe¾Įo DªiĮ KŸgĬD°¶ĮC­KiJĮ è‚ĮC đDhDĮ `JD g·Į oŠĮ‡]„ÔÑĮ p"Ā(-ÀĮ 7 ) ï ?‘-( Į(-¿ˆĮ 7 "))- ( <Įp- Į²–W{f´×Į %/47,!7 *7 1 * 2 */1- 7 */1- 7 V) )Į"II VV‰Į 7 ,1/#7 % /,-% 7 72 *1 d"êðì(q "II ©©ØĮ 7 ,37 7 …)< "(Èͅ? Ę ÙĮ */1- 7 7 7 Œ "(Ž‘Į("d ÚĮ */1- 7 ((7,!7 1./% 7 SH˜TĮñHsTÛĮ %067,!7 *7 1 * 2 */1- 72 7 ,1/$ -*7 (%"-+& 7 %.,+ 7 /7 (7 Ventura Superior Court Accepted through eDelivery submitted 07-09-2018 at 12:09:35 PM Ž"V Į(vdŒ ÜĮ 56-2018-00514648-CU-PO-VTA L‹ Į îvIq ˆĮ b ĮA Į Į Į*6Į Į Į Į I ?÷‰Į ~FmE111Į ĮĒ MĮ L2 ƒĮ U $ Į Į2 ¸Į ĮGOP1FMĮ ' &, , "*, )&', , " # ' , & , !&'$) ("!&,"!,# , , Ë0Į 2 zĮ * >Į* $ AĮ Į Į Į 6 Į Į* Į * Į Į Ý L‹ Į Į > Į~FmN111MĮ 0/82#$8? 980? 04? H! Į 55 Į ú ! +Į Į³:R Į 20:*7*0/#,->? 0.1,&=? *:*-? *8*(#8*0/?  4Į YĮ ħ [Į ,R Į #, ? 9-&7?0'? 095 ?29-&7? ? H # ĩ Ħ + Į 3Ī # Į ,' Į u! Į'0n:,Į Į ,_ Į ; 4 Į   Į ,_ Į c ! Į 9 ¥ 3 Į 8^ Į H X Į ,: Į ; 4 Į Į 'Õ Į @ +! Į X Z [Į 5: Į &#,? 201&28>? s +# Į . # Į :Q Į Į+ \c 9 Į T + Į 8: Į ; 4 Į@ \@aÇĮ 5' Į w 3Y!ēĮ 9 # Į '' Į 0/ ? 8)&2 ? 06? ! # Į \! = ĮX! Į. Į ,n Į ; 4 Į% Į. . ¬Į 5R Į !/,#<9,? &8#*/&2? S#9 ZĮ #34 Į ,^ Į S Į '8 Į a = Į 8' Į u #+ Į '5 Į æ !+Į 8R Į a !3 '^ Į c ĕ ! ZĮ. . ¬Į 8_ Į 9%*$*#,? &:*&;? @ = Į 3 3 Į ÎQ Į H Į=Ěğ ! Į ,Q Į ; 4 Į »@ \@aÆôĮ ġĮ 'Q Į @ Į ÞĮ X # Į ® +Į Ì8 Į .1,0>.&/8? w 3Y!ZĮ Į 'R Į w Į =Į + Į ,5 Į ; 4 Įč!+ Į 9 ®Į '_ Į ; 4 Į . [ Į 8Q Į 8)&2? " ? &270/#,? /+92> 201&38>? #.#(& 20/('9-? ) ?øęĠĮ S ! Į+ = Į 8, Į s Į Į :, Į ˜ ! Į #3 Į 5^ Į T 9# ĉù ¯ Į Į ', Į X 9 Į # +Į. 9# Z[Į c ! Į 9 3 Į Į 3ĮY Į 4 Į . ¯Į Į [. Į T = Ą Į YĮĎ!+3 Į 5, Į *7$&,,#/&097? *:*,? 0.1,#*/8? uëSÉ 5n Į ; 4 Į . # Į :5 Į *7$&,,#/&097? *:*,? &8*8*0/? @ 4 .Į +Į . Į3 9 Į 58 Į ; 4 Į. # Į :' Į FO › Į Į Į Į Į >Į Į $ ĮG0P11Į Į Į2 ¤ Į U $ Į Į2 ¦0Į’ Į Į Į Į $ >EĮ %zĮ =& Į 7Į > Ĥ Į¡ ĔĮ &7 à B • 7 Į * Į Į % 6Į % Į % Á • 7 Į * %Į ĮA ä> / Į Į Į% 7Į y Į Į / 0 2 ĮA Į $& Į Į 7Į Į Į Į Į Į ĮA $Į* Į ¼ 7Į Į $/ Į Į Į NĮ EĮ %Į EĮ Į Į&Į $Į % Į  ™ * Į Į Į §Į / ĈĮ ™ * Į ¡ 7 Į¢ Į / Į *0Į §áĮ & 6Į Į ¢ / Į Į GB PB mOĮ Ò0 U Į 7 Į , ,' ', ## + , &0āĮ & 6 ò * %Į Į Į Į Į &# , 2 * › Į Į Į Į Į Į Į Į 0 “ Į Į Į 6Įz A Į $ Į & ¹Į Į Į / Į&Į Į Į Į 0Į "), +,)& , "%, / 0Į ã ßĮ 1)57 7 7 ,#*7 7 %.' 7 ) Į $ Į Į Į %Į Į $ %Į Į— * Į2 NĮb& $6Į2 NĮ Įÿ Į& Į’ Į2 MBĮL2 $0ĮU Į Į2 % EĮ ĮGOFF1BMĮb $ Į Į = Į 6Į% Į B j b Į Į / Į Į Į Į Į 6Į / Į Į Į*6Į Į ¦Į 0 j “ Į Į Į Į >Į Į ĮGÄP11Į Į BĮ Į Į2 y¤ ĮU Į Į2 ĢEĮ6 Į Į ¥/ Į&Į 6Į Į Į / Į Į Į Į &ģ# Į Į Į& Į Į ăĆ 7à j ü Į Į Į Į Į Į Į ĮGOÖP1Į Į&Į >Į NĮ Į / Į ĮA $Į* Į Į Į & Į % Į $īƒ L ;) L <:L '<=D('L*H1(AL L L K L L $1 L!E$8'$>'CL<*L H'.%,$5L '7/80BG>$F,<8 L AF' L L SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA 800 South Victoria Avenue Ventura , CA 93009 (805) 289-8525 WWW.VENTURA.COURTS.CA.GOV NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT AND MANDATORY APPEARANCE Case Number: 56-2018-00514648-CU-PO-VTA Your case has been assigned for all purposes to the judicial officer indicated below. A copy of this Notice of Case Assignment and Mandatory Appearance shall be served by the filing party on all named Defendants/Respondents with the Complaint or Petition, and with any Cross-Complaint or Complaint in Intervention that names a new party to the underlying action. ASSIGNED JUDICIAL OFFICER COURT LOCATION DEPT/ROOM Ventura 41 Hon. Vincent O'Neill HEARING MANDATORY APPEARANCE CMC/Order to Show Cause Re Sanctions/Dismissal for Failure to File Proof of Service/Default EVENT DATE EVENT TIME 12/05/2018 EVENT DEPT/ROOM 08:15 AM 22B SCHEDULING INFORMATION Judicial Scheduling Information AT THE ABOVE HEARING IS MANDATORY. Each party must file a Case Management Statement no later than 15 calendar days prior to the hearing and serve it on all parties. If your Case Management Statement is untimely, it may NOT be considered by the court (CRC 3.725). If proof of service and/or request for entry of default have not been filed: At the above hearing you are ordered to show cause why you should not be compelled to pay sanctions and/or why your case should not be dismissed (CCP 177.5, Local Rule 3.17). Advance Jury Fee Requirement At least one party demanding a jury trial on each side of a civil case must pay a non-refundable jury fee of $150. The non-refundable jury fee must be paid timely pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 631. Noticed Motions/Ex Parte Matters To set an ex parte hearing, contact the judicial secretary in the assigned department. Contact the clerk's office to reserve a date for a law and motion matter. Telephonic Appearance Telephonic appearance at the Case Management Conference is permitted pursuant to CRC 3.670. In addition, see Local Rule 7.01 regarding notice to the teleconference provider. The court, through the teleconference provider, will contact all parties and counsel prior to the hearing. Clerk of the Court, Date: 07/10/2018 By: Shannon DeFisher, Clerk VEN-FNR082 NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT AND MANDATORY APPEARANCE VN242 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF VENTURA ALTERNAT,VE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) INFORMATION Most civil disputes are resolved without filing a lawsuit, and most civil lawsuits are resolved without a trial. The courts, community organizations, and private providers offer a variety of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes to help people resolve disputes without a trial. Many courts encourage or require parties to try ADR before trial, and it may be beneficial to do this early in the case. Below is some information about the potential advantages and disadvantages of ADR, the most common types of ADR, and how to find a local ADR program or neutral. You can read more information about these ADR processes and watch videos that demonstrate them at www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/adr/types.htm. A form for agreeing to use ADR is attached. Potential Advantages and Disadvantages ADR may have a variety of advantages or disadvantages over a trial, depending on the type of ADR process used and the particular case: Potential Advantages Ɣ Saves time Ɣ Saves money Ɣ Gives parties more control over the dispute resolution process and outcome Ɣ Preserves or improves relationships Potential Disadvantages Ɣ May take more time and money if ADR does not resolve the dispute Ɣ Procedures to learn about the other side’s case (discovery), jury trial, appeal, and other court protections may be limited or unavailable Most Common Types of ADR Mediation – A neutral person called a “mediator” helps the parties communicate in an effective and constructive manner so they can try to settle their dispute. The mediator does not decide the outcome, but helps the parties to do so. Mediation is usually confidential, and may be particularly useful when parties want or need to have an ongoing relationship, such as in disputes between family members, neighbors, co-workers, or business partners. Settlement Conferences – A judge or another neutral person called a “settlement officer” helps the parties to understand the strengths and weaknesses of their case and to discuss settlement. The judge or settlement officer does not make a decision in the case but helps the parties to negotiate a settlement. Settlement conferences may be particularly helpful when the parties have very different ideas about the likely outcome of a trial and would like an experienced neutral to help guide them toward a resolution. Arbitration – The parties present evidence and arguments to a neutral person called an “arbitrator” who then decides the outcome of the dispute. Arbitration is less formal than a trial, and the rules of evidence are usually relaxed. If the parties agree to binding arbitration, they waive their right to a trial and agree to accept the arbitrator’s decision as final. With nonbinding arbitration, any party may reject the arbitrator’s decision and request a trial. Arbitration may be appropriate when the parties want another person to decide the outcome of their dispute but would like to avoid the formality, time, and expense of a trial, or want an expert in the subject matter of the dispute to make a decision. Local ADR Programs for Civil Cases Mediation – The Ventura Superior Court has maintained a mediation program since April 1, 1993. Its goals are to speed resolution of cases by bringing the parties together before they have made a major economic and emotional investment in litigation, and to increase awareness of this effective method of alternative dispute resolution. Mediators need not be attorneys, but must have 25 hours of formal mediation training by a recognized mediation training/education provider. Mediator duties include a brief review/preparation time and three hours of hearing time on a pro bono basis and pursuant to such rules as may be designated for mediators by the Ventura Superior Court. VN242 (07/2012) ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) INFORMATION Page 1 of 2 VN242 Party Pay Mediation Panel – The court has a second mediation panel where mediators are paid by the parties rather than offering their services pro bono. Mediators on the “party pay” panel must have completed 25 hours of formal mediation training and have participated as mediator a minimum of 25 court assigned mediations with a minimum hearing time of two hours each from any California Superior Court. All mediators on the “party pay” panel will provide three hours of mediation services per case at the rate of $150 per hour to be shared equally by all participating parties. Arbitration – Arbitration is normally an informal process in which a neutral person (the arbitrator) decides the dispute after hearing the evidence and arguments of the parties. The parties can agree to binding or nonbinding arbitration. Binding arbitration is designed to give each side a resolution of their dispute when they cannot agree between themselves or with a mediator. If the arbitration is nonbinding, any party can reject the arbitrator’s decision and request a trial. Mandatory Early Settlement Conference – The MESC program was implemented through joint efforts of the Superior Court and the Ventura County Bar Association working primarily through the Bench/Bar Subcommittee. Cases that are appropriate for the program are identified and referred to a settlement officer to conduct a settlement conference. The parties have the opportunity for a serious exchange of facts, theories, and evaluations at the earliest possible time with an impartial attorney volunteer conducting the conference. The basic difference between cases assigned to the MESC and Mediation programs is the nature of the case and the relief sought. If the injury or damage is compensable in money damages and there is no emotional component or “hidden agenda” on the part of one or more of the parties, as is frequently the case in mediation cases, then the case is sent to the MESC program. MESC may be appropriate when negotiations between the parties have not proven successful. Settlement Conference – Settlement Conferences may be mandatory or voluntary. In general, if the settlement conference is mandatory, ordered by the judge, the parties to the dispute and their attorneys will meet with a judge who conducts conference aimed at negotiating an agreement to settle the dispute rather than doing through the formal trial process. More Information about Court-Connected ADR: Visit the court’s webpage at www.ventura.courts.ca.gov. Dispute Resolution Programs Act (DRPA) funded ADR Program - The following community dispute resolution programs are funded under DRPA (Bus. and Prof. Code 465 et seq.): Ɣ Ventura Center for Dispute Settlement, 4001 Mission Oaks Blvd., #L, Camarillo, CA 93012 805-384-1313 Ɣ Ventura County District Attorney’s Consumer Mediation Unit 805-654-3110 Private ADR – To find a private ADR program or neutral, search the internet, your local telephone or business directory, or legal newspaper for dispute resolution, mediation, settlement, or arbitration services. Legal Representation and Advice – To participate effectively in ADR, it is generally important to understand your legal rights and responsibilities and the likely outcomes if you went to trial. ADR neutrals are not allowed to represent or to give legal advice to the participants in the ADR process. If you do not already have an attorney, the California State Bar or your local County Bar Association can assist you in finding an attorney. Information about obtaining free and low cost legal assistance is also available on the California Courts Website at www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/lowcost. VN242 (07/2012) ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) INFORMATION Page 2 of 2 VN164 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name and Address) Telephone Number FOR COURT USE ONLY ATTORNEY FOR (Name): SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF VENTURA 800 SOUTH VICTORIA AVE. VENTURA, CA 93009 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT 67,38/$7,21 72 86( 2) $/7(51$7,9( ',6387( 5(62/87,21 352&(66 CASE NUMBER: The parties and their attorneys stipulate that the claim(s) in this action shall proceed to the following alternative dispute resolution process: Private Mediation Volunteer Mediation _________________________ Mandatory Early Settlement Conference Assignment to Private Judge Binding Arbitration Non-Binding Arbitration Other (specify) : ________________________________________________________________________________ It is further stipulated that the deadline for selection of a neutral and completion of the ADR process is: ________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff (print) Defendant (print) Signature of Plaintiff Signature of Defendant Plaintiff’s Attorney (print) Defendant’s Attorney (print) Attorney’s Signature Attorney’s Signature Dated: _________________________ Dated: _________________________ ,7 ,6 62 25'(5(' IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT: __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Dated: ________________________________ _______________________________________ Judicial Officer Optional Form VN164 (01/02) 67,38/$7,21 72 86( 2) $/7(51$7,9( ',6387( 5(62/87,21 352&(66 PCS-015 FOR COURT USE ONLY ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): _.Iohn P. Fiske (SBN 249256) Victoria E. Sherlin (SBN 312337) Scott Summy (Pro Hac Vice pending) BARON BUDD, PC. 603 N. Coast Highway, Suite G, Solana Beach, CA 92075 TELEPHONE NO.I 619-261-4090 FAX NO. (Optional): 214_520_] 18] E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): ATTORNEY FOR - I Clty of San Buenaventura SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF Venture STREET ADDRESS: 800 South Victoria Avenue MAILING ADDRESS: p0 Box 6489 CITY AND ZIP CODE: Ventura, CA 93009 BRANCH NAME: Civil Division City Of San Buenaventura DEFENDANTIRESPONDENT: Southern California Edison CASE NUMBER: 56-2018-00514648-CU-PO-VTA NOTICE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF TO (insert name of party being served): SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON NOTICE The summons and other documents identi?ed below are being served pursuant to section 415.30 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Your failure to complete this form and return it within 20 days from the date of mailing shown below may subject you (or the party on whose behalf you are being sewed) to liability for the payment of any expenses incurred in serving a summons on you in any other manner permitted by law. If you are being served on behalf of a corporation. an unincorporated association (including a partnership), or other entity. this form must be signed by you in the name of such entity or by a person authorized to receive service of process on behalf of such entity. In all other cases. this form must be signed by you personally or by a person authorized by you to acknowledge receipt of summons. If you return this form to the sender. service of a summons is deemed complete on the day you sign the acknowledgment of receipt below. Date of mailing: 7/1 6/20] 8 Jennifer Nard (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) TURE OF NOT BE A PARTY IN THIS CASE) ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT This acknowledges receipt of (to be compieted by sender before mailing): 1. A copy of the summons and of the complaint. 2. Other (specify): Civil Case Cover Sheet, ADR information and Notice of Case Assignment To be completed by recipient): Date this form is signed: (TYPE OR PRINT YOUR NAME AND NAME OF ENTITY, IF ANY. (SIGNATURE OF PERSON ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT WITH TITLE ON WHOSE BEHALF THIS FORM IS . I ACKNOWLEDGMENT IS MADE ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PERSON OR ENTITY) Page 1 of 1 NOTICE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT CIVIL gangster, PCS-015 [Rev January 1, 2005]