Duriu dc: Gliutuidi Ear Nu. IEETSE Am ?ndEI L. Riddle Elar Nu. RI 5221 Stm'?n M. EErkj Bar Tim. 145426 Sumbi? Manmnr? Bar No. 3EIITIH COREY, LUIAICH, DE RIIJIJLE TEIEI El Caminn Real IECI. Rm; {569 CA Talcphunu: {4551]} Fucsimiiu: [650} BIL-4144 {lug?uuruylamumn smb?gcorcyiawxum Ernu?cm?cylawxom Micha?l S. Dankn? Ear ND. 133*} Kristine R. Mal'adith H?t' Nn. 15324.3 Shawn R- Miller? Bar Nn. 2313-447" IIANKU 333 Twin D?lphin Drive, Suite I45 Hedwumd Simres, CA 9411455 {650} 453-36131} Facsimiiu: mdanlmi??dank?Iawxmm ith @ch an k0]aw.cmn 5m]lIm?qudankmaWLmH Attarneya f?nr Plainti ITS. ENDDFISED I San annim murmur 5mm: Gav-'1 NEW 1 2013 BLEFIH: OF THE GUUHT WEBB nun-w Ell-1: Eric Gilt-lira Bar Nn. Dylan Hughes Bar Nn. 13 14th Suite i i Dakland, CA 94612 {5 Facsimile: [510} dsh?cla?l?wgmup??m CIF THE STATE (IF CALIFCIRNIA CCILINTY SAN SHERRI LAURA SMITH, RITA BELL, BRIAN BELL, LESLIE BELL, FARRERSDN, SPENCE. STEVE CHERMA, CHARLES F- BALDWIN us 'I'I?Llstee Ofthe JENKINS, BRIAN HILL, RACHEL BRANCH, HARGRAVE, IARIIRAVE, BEL-LAME TERITSF. FIFI PAUL HCIFF, SANCHEZ QCINTERII. and MATRA Plaintir?'sjFLA INVERSE NEGLIGENCE VIDLATIDNS PER PUC 21 [Hi PREMISES LIABILITY JIC PRIVATE CIF HEALTH S: CUBE BY FAX CORPORATION, :1 California PACIFIC OAS 3c ELECTRIC COMPANY. 21 Califbrnia Carp?ratiDOES inclu5ive, Defendantis}. COMPLAINT II. IV. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION I JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2 A. Plaintiffs 3 B. Defendants 4 A. IS REQUIRED TO DESIGN. AND MAINTAIN ITS ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS INEXCUSABLE HISTORY OF SAFETY C. BEHAVIOR CONTRIBUTED TO THE CAUSE OF 8 THE CAMP FIRE . 12 3. 4. 5. The 3 Lihertj.f Report Found that Distributicn System Presented ?Signi?cant Safer},r Issues" . Failure tc Treat the Ccnditicns cf Ita Aging Electrical Assets as an Enterprise-Level Risk Failure tc Inspect. Maintain. Repair. cr Replace Its Equipment ?Run tc Failure" Apprcach tc Maintenance . Purchase at Insurance Coverage for Punitive Damages D. CORPORATE CULTURE IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE CAMP FIRE . CAUSES OF ACTION . A. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INVERSE ONDEMNATION AGAINST E. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS .22 COMPLAINT VI. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGAINST ALL DEFEN DANTS FOR DAMAGES PURSUANT TO PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE {~17 El?? 24 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PREMISES AGAINST ALL FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR TRESPASS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 27" SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS ES SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PRIVATE NUISANCE AGAINST EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF HEALTH SAFETY CODE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 32 PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A JURY TRIAL 32 COMPLAINT Gil-?INTRCIDUCTIDN Plaintiffs bring this action for damages against Defendants PIESLE a California Corporation, PACIFIC GAS 3r. ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California Corporation (collectively, or the Defendants?) and DUES inclusive, for damages they suffered arising out of a tire ignited on the early monting of November 3, EDIE, at Camp Creek Road in the town of Paradise, Butte County. This ?re has since been named the ?Camp Fire." 2. The Camp Fire torched the towns of Paradise, Magalia, Pulga, Mineral Slide, Irish Town, Centerville, Parkhill, and Concow, and terrorized several neighboring towns including Ciroville, 'Crririlleyr and Chico. To date, it has killed 42 people, rnalring it the deadliest fire in Califomia history. The Camp Fire tore through and burned acres, threatened 15,501] structures and destroyed 1102 structures. Civer residents have been displaced from their homes as a result of the Camp Fire; over 200 people are unaccounted for. Particularly hard hit was the town of Paradise where 80 to percent of the homes were destroyed. 3. The map below shows the current ?re perimeter of the Camp Fire: Tobin Cohasser Dodge Place Stirling City Rock Creek Forest Ranch Bur: Richard-arm Palmetto i Merrimac Junction Chico House ?d Brush Creel: Ca Roble Durham Butte Berry Creek Oregon City FaatherFalls Blevo 4. The photo below provides a glimpse of the devastation awaiting the residents of Paradise. This photo depicts an aerial view of the intersection and Pearson Road, Paradise: -1- CUM PLAIHT The Camp Fire started when a high voltage transmission line failed igniting a 1vegetation ?re. t3. Plaintiffs are among those damaged by the Camp Fire. Each Plaintiff individually seeks just compensation and damages as more particularly described below. ll. JURISDICTIDN AND VENUE This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Code ofCiyil Procedure 395{a} and 41(1113- because both Corporation and Paci?c Gas 1:5: Electric Company were incorporated in California. have their headquarters in San Francisco, California. engage in the bulk of their corporate activities in California. and maintain the bulk of their corporate assets in California. 8. Venue is proper in San Francisco County pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 395.5 because both PGSLE Corporation and Paci?c Gas 3: Electric Company perform business in San Francisco County, have a principal place of business in San Francisco County, and a substantial part of the events. acts, omissions, and transactions complained occuned in San Francisco County. -2- COMPLAINT The amount in controversy exceeds thejurisdictional minimum of this Court. THE PARTIES A. PLAINTIFFS If]. At all relevant times herein. Plaintiff SHERRI OUAMMEN was an owner andi?or occupant of real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire. At all relevant times herein. Plaintiff LAURA SMITH was an owner and-"or occupant of real property and owners of' personal property damaged by the IOamp Fire. At all relevant times herein. Plaintiff RITA BELL was an owner andfor occupant of real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire. l3. At all relevant times herein. Plaintiffs BRIAN BELL and LESLIE BELL were owners and-for occupants of real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire. At all relevant times herein. Plaintiffs EDITH PARKERSON. RANDALL PA RKERSON. and SPENCE were owners andi?or occupants of real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire. At all relevant times herein. Plaintiffs STEVE CHERMS and CHARLES F. BALDWIN. TRUSTEE OF THE FTF TRUST. were owners andfor occupants of real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire. At all relevant times herein. Plaintiffs TANYA JENKINS and JOHN JENKINS were owners andi'or occupants of real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire. At all relevant times herein. Plaintiffs BRIAN HILL and RACHEL BRANCH were owners andfor occupants of real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire. Their children. PABLO SANCHEZ and HILL. are minors for whom guardians and fitem will be appointed and the names of those guardians will be added to a cotnplaint at the first opportunity. At all relevant times herein. Plaintiffs ADAM HARORAVE and STEPHANIE HARORAVE were owners andfor occupants of real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire. At all relevant times herein. Plaintiffs BRIAN HILL and RACHEL BRANCH were owners andi'or occupants of real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire. COMPLAINT 2t]. Atall relevant times herein. Plaintiffs TERESE BELLAMY and KERRY BELLAMY were owners and-"or occupants of real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire. 21. At all relevant times herein. Plaintiffs PAUL and SANDRA were owners and-"or occupants of real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire. 22. At all relevant times herein. Plaintiffs ROBERTO SANCHEZ QUINTERCI and MAYRA ACCISTA were owners andfor occupants of real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire. B. DEF EH DANTS 23. Defendant Corporation is an energy-based holding company headquartered in San Francisco. California. It is the parent company of Defendant Paci?c Gas 32. Electric ornpany. 24. Defendant Paci?c Gas 3.: Electric Company is incorporated in California and is headquartered in San Francisco. California. Defendant Paci?c Gas a; Electric Company provides public utility services that include the transmission and distribution of natural gas. and the generation. transmission. and distribution of electricity to millions of customers in Northern and Central California. including the residents of Butte County. 25. The P'CrdzE Defendants are jointly and severally liable for each other's negligence. misconduct. and wrongdoing as alleged herein. in that: a. The Defendants operate as a single business enterprise operating out of the same building located at Beale Street. San Francisco. California. for the purpose of effectuating and carrying out Corporation's business and operations andi?or for the benefit of Corporation; b. The Defendants do not operate as completely separate entities. but rather. integrate their resources to achieve a common business purpose; c. Pacific Has a: Electric Company is so organized and controlled. and its decisions. affairs. and business are so conducted as to make it a mere instrumentality. agent. conduit. or adjunct of Corporation; .4- COMPLAINT Paci?c Gas d: Electric Cempany's inceme results frem functien integratien. centralizatien ef management. and ecenemies ef scale with Ptld?rE Cerperatien; The Defendants? ef?cers and management are intertwined and dc net act cempletcly independently ef ene anethcr; The P?cileE Defendants? efficers and managers act in the interest ef [9(3th Cerperatien as a single enteiprise; PGSLE Cerperatien has centrel and autherity te cheese and appeint Paci?c lGas 3.: Electric Eempany?s beard members as well as its ether tep efficers and managers; The PGSCE Defendants de net centpete with ene anether. but have been structured and erganized and their business effectuatcd se as te create a synergistic. integrated single enterprise where yarieus cempenents eperate in cencert ene with anether; Cerperatien maintains uni?ed administrative centrel ever Paci?c Gas 3: Electric Cempany; The PGSLE Defendants are insured by the same carriers and previde uniferm er similar pcnsien. health. life. and disability insurance plans fer empleyees; The PCrditE Defendants have uni?ed 401(k) Plans. pensien and in yestment plans. benus pregrams. vacatien pelicies. and paid time eff frem werk schedules and pelicies; The P?dzE Defendants invest funds ??ent their pregrams and plans by a censelidated andfer ceerdinatcd Bene?ts Cemmittce centrellcd by Cerperatien and administered by cemmen trustees and administraters; The Defendants have uni?ed persenne] pelicies and practices andter a censelidated persenncl erganiaatien er structure; The Ptl?aE Defendants have uni?ed acceunting pelicies and practices dictated by Cerperatien and-?er cemmen er integrated acceunting erganizatiens er persennel; The PEld?eE Defendants are represented by cemmen legal ceunsel; Cerperatien?s ef?cers. directers. and ether management make pelicies and decisiens te be effectuatcd by Paci?c Gas 3r. Electric Cempany andfer play -5- COMPLAINT roles in providing directions and making decisions for Paci?c Gas 3: Electric Company; a, Corporation?s of?cers, directors, and other management direct certain ?nancial decisions for Paci?c Gas 3.: Electric Company including the amount and nature of capital outlays; r. Corporation?s written guidelines, policies, and procedures control Paci?c Gas 3: Electric Company?s employees, policies, and practices; s, PUSLE Corporation ?les consolidated earnings statements factoring in all revenue and losses from Paci?c Gas 3: Electric Company, as well as consolidated tax returns, including those seeking tar: relief; andi'or, without limitation; t, PUSLE Corporation generally directs and controls Pacific Gas Sr Electric Company?s relationship with, requests to, and responses to inquiries from, the CPUC and uses such direction and control for the bene?t of Corporation. so. At all relevant times, each of the Defendants were the partners, principals, agents, employees, servants, and joint venturers of each other, and in doing the things alleged in this Complaint were acting within the course and scope of their authority and relationship as partners, principals, agents, employees, servants and joint venturers with the permission, knowledge, and consent of each other. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise of Does 1 through 5D, are unknown to Plaintiffs who, under Code of Civil Procedure 474, sue these [Joe Defendants under ?ctitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to show their true names and capacities when they are ascertained. Each of the Doc Defendants is in some manner legally responsible the occurrences alleged in this Complaint, and Plaintiffs? damages alleged in this Complaint were legally caused by each of those [Joe Defendants. -5- COMPLAINT IV. THE FACTS A. PGSEE IS REQUIRED TO DESIGN, DPERATE, AND MAINTAIN ITS ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS 23. PGSEE owns. installs. constructs. operates. and maintains overhead power lines. together with supporting towers and appurtenances throughout Northern and Central California for the purpose of tran smitting and distributing electricity the general public. Those transmission lines existed near the origin points of the Camp Fire. 29. Electrical infrastructure is inherently dangerous and hazardous. and recognizes it as such. The transmission and distribution of electricityr requires exercise an increased level of care in line with the increased risk of associated danger. 30. At all times PGSLE had and continues to have a duty to properly construct. inspect. repair. maintain. manage. and operate its transmission lines and other electrical equipment. 31. In the construction. inspection. repair. maintenance. management. ownership. and-"or operation of its power lines and other electrical equipment. P?daE had an obligation to comply with. tater alto: Code of Civil Procedure Public Resources Code 4292. 4293. and 4435; Public Utilities Code 45]; and General Drder Nos. 95 and ld?. 32. In January EU Govemor Jerry Brown declared a state of emergency due to California?s continued drought. In June 20'14. the CPUC directed PEELE and all investor owned utilities pursuant to Resolution ESRB-4 to take remedial measures to reduce the likelihood of fires started by or threatening utility facilities. [n addition. the informed PGSLE that it could seek recovery of incremental costs aSsociated with these remedial measures outside of the standard funding process. agreeing to provide additional funding on top of vegetation management funding already authorized in order to make sure remedial measures would not go unperformed due to lack of funding. 33. PCISEE has a duty to manage. maintain. repair. and-"or replace its aging infrastructure to protect public safety. These objectives could and should have been accomplished in a number of ways. including. by not limited to. putting electrical equipment in wild?re-prone areas underground. increasing inspections. developing and implementing protocols to shut down electrical operations in -7- COMPLAINT emergency situations, modernizing infrastructure, andfor obtaining an independent audit of its risk management programs to ensure effectiveness. 34. knew or should have known that a breach of those standards and duties constituted negligence and would expose members of the general public to risk of death, injury, and damage to their property. B. INEKCUSABLE HISTURY CIF SAFETY FAILURES 35. PGth?s safety record is an abomination. [?13th has developed a regular pattern of placing its own profits before the safety of the California residents it serves and shows no intention of changing this pattern. 36. The Camp Fire was not an isolated incident. has a long history of safety lapses that caused injury and death to Califomia residents, and destroyed or damaged their property: a. 1981 San Francisco Gas Explosion: a gas main in downtown San Francisco exploded, forcing 30,0013 people to evacuate. It took workers nine hours to shut off the gas main?s manual shut off valves and stop the flow of gas that continued to feed the ?ames in the interim. b. 1991 Santa Rosa Gas Exglosion: Two people were killed and three others were injured when a gas line exploded in Santa Rosa. The pipeline was improperly marked, failing to give proper notice to contractors working in the area. A contractor hit the pipe with a backhoe, causing the pipe to leak several months later. c. 1994 Trauner Fire: The Trauner Fire burned down a historic schoolhouse and 12 homes near the scenic Gold Rush town of Rough and Ready. Investigators determined that the Trauner Fire began when a 2] power line brushed against a tree limb that Pila?cE had failed to keep trimmed. Through random spot inspections, the investigators found hundreds of safety violations in the area near the Trauner Fire, approximately son of which involved contact between vegetation and power lines. In June [992, a Nevada County jury found [9(3ch guilty of 239 counts of criminal negligence and it was required to pay $24 million in penalties. After the trial. a [993 CPUC report revealed that [313th diverted $22.6 million from its tree-trimming -3- COMPLAINT budget to other uses from to I994. During that same time, FGSLE underspent its authorized budgets for maintaining its systems by $495 million and, instead, used this money to boost corporate pro?ts. 1995 Mission Substation Electrical Fire: At approximately I :09 AM on November 27, [996. a cable splice at Ptia?tE?s Mission Substation in San Francisco short-circuited, burning and melting the insulation around the splice. Smoke from the fire rose through a floor opening above the splice into a switch cabinet. That smoke was so thick that it caused a flashover between phases of the bus bars connecting the overhead bl bus to the switch. This caused insulation on the bus to ignite and a circuit breaker to open. resulting in the loss of power to a group of FGSEE customers. The substation was unmanned at the time and the fire was only discovered by chance by an employee who had stopped by the substation to use the restroom. I999 Pen_dola Fire: A rotten pine, which the government said FGSLE should have removed, fell on a power line. starting the Pendola Fire. lt burned for [1 days and scorched 1 1,?25 acres. mainly in the Tahoe and Flumas national forests. paid a S1495 million settlement to the US. Forest Service in 9.999. That year, the utility also reached a million settlement with the after regulators found had not spent money earmarked for tree trimming and removal toward those purposes. 1903 Mission Substation Electrical Fire: One third of San Francisco lost power following a BULB fire at Mission District Substation. The fire burned for nearly two hours before FEE-5E workers an'ived on the scene to discover the damage. The CFUC report of the investigation, described careless approach to safety and apparent inability to learn from its past mistakes, stating did not implement its own recommendations from its own investigation of the 1996 fire."' 1994 Sims Fire: In July 2994, the Sims Fire burned over 4,999 acres of forest land in the Sir: Rivers National Forest and the Trinity National Forest. A federal lawsuit COMPLAINT Elialleged that PCith failed to remove a decaying tree. which fell on a transmission line and ignited the blaze. 2004 Fred?s Fire: The Fred?s Fire started Get. 13. Edd-4. near [slyburs in D?r?d? County. A lawsuit ?led by the LLB Government claimed that employees of PGth?s contractor lost control of a large tree they were cutting down. it fell onto a rose powerline and caused a fire that burned over 7,5130 acres. and its contractors paid $29.5 million to settle the lawsuits over the Fredis Fire and the Sims Fire. Power Fire: in lLlIctober the Power Fire burned approximately 1 acres on the Eldorado National Forest and on private timberlands. A federal lawsuit alleged that the Power Fire was ignited by a lit cigarette that was dropped by a tree trimming contractor. and its contractor paid the federal government $45 million to settle the lawsuit. I?fi? San Francisco Electrical Exglosion?. In August a electrical transformer exploded beneath the San Francisco ?nancial district at Keamy and Post Streets. severely burning a woman who had been walking by. A lawsuit by the injured woman settled for an undisclosed sum. Rancho lil?arc'lava Gas Explosion: An explosion and fire caused by a natural gas leak destroyed a residence in Rancho Cordova, Califomia. killing one person, injuring ?ve others and causing damage to several other nearby homes. The cause of the explosion was the use of a section of unmarked and out-of-specification pipe with inadequate wall thickness that allowed gas to leak from a mechanical coupling installed approximately two years earlier. in November Edit}. the CFUC ?led administrative charges alleging that was at fault for the blast because should have discovered the improper repair job that caused the explosion. but failed to timely do so. As a result. the CPUC required [3(3th to pay a $38 million fine. Whiskey Fire: The June sacs Whiskey Fire burned more than acres of land in the Mendocino National Forest. The fire started when a gray pine tree that did -10- COMPLAINT net have the required clearance frem a PGSEE transmissien line came inte centact with the line. [9(3th and its centracters agreed te pay $5.5 millien te settle a federal lawsuit. gees San Francis-ta Electrical Egplesieg: In June a 1?6ch underground vault espleded in dewntewn San Francisce leaving theusauds witheut pewer. Hill] San Erune Gas Esplesien: {Jn September 2131i}. Fuses disregard ef public safety caused the death ef eight peeple. injured 58 peeple. and destreyed an entire neighberheed in San Brune, Califernia when ene ef its gas pipelines espleded and burst inte flames. After the esplesien. the HTSB issued a repert that blamed the disaster en PGdaE?s peer management ef its pipeline. In April 5. the CPUC slapped 13'3th with a $1.6 billien fine fer causing the esplesien and diverting maintenance funds inte steckhelder dividends and executive benuses. Further. in January 2D T. a federal jury feund guilty ef sis feleny charges. Thejudge erdered it tu pay $3 millien in ?nes fer causing the esplesien. and erdered [3113th te submit te ceurt supervisien ef its natural gas eperatiens. . 2014 Carmel Gas Esnlusien: In 2d14. P?dsE employees damaged a gas pipeline in Carmel while digging because they lacked the legally required recerds en the lecatien ef the pipeline. l[IIas escaping frem the pipeline espleded and destreyed an uneccupied cettage. The CPUC fined $31.3 millien and PGSCE paid an additienal 51.6 millien te settle a related lawsuit filed by the City ef Carmel. San Francisce Electrical Esplesien: In September EU a undergreund transfem?ier espleded in Bemal Heights, injuring twe peeple, ene ef thern critically. g?lS Fire ig Calavergs Gem: Du September 9. 2'3] 5. the Butte Fire ignited when a 44 feet tall. weak grey pine tree that sheuld have been remeved by P?daE struck a overhead pewer line that was owned and eperated by The resulting fire burned fer 22 days. killing twe peeple. burning ever acres. destreying and damaging 475 residences. 343 eutbuildings. and 45 ether structures. The ?re alse left tens ef theusands (if dead er dying trees and the risk ef water pellutien COMPLAINT 37. and erosion in its wake. Thousands of people were forced to evacuate their homes, and thottsands were damaged in their person and property. gill? Nurth_?av Fires: [in or around the night of Sunday. October 8. EDIT, the North Bay Fires started when power lines, transfortners, conductors, poles, insulators. reciosers, andr?or other electrical equipment constructed, owned, operated, managed, andfor ntaintained by fell down. broke, failed. sparked. exploded, andfor came into contact with vegetation, all because of disregard of mandated safety practices and the foreseeable risks associated with its infrastructure. The North Bay Fires claimed the lives of at least 43 people, injured many others, burned over 245nm acres, and destroyed over 14,?0? homes. INEICUSAELE BEHAVIOR TD THE CAUSE THE CAMP FIRE l. The 1M3 Liberty Report Found that Distribution System Presented ?Signi?cant Safety Issuesreport was sent to the Safety and Enforcement Division of the CPUC front the Liberty IConsulting Group who had been retained to conduct an independent review of capital and operations and maintenance expenditures proposed by Pti?eE {hereinafter the Liberty The rats Liberty Report concluded that: ?several aspects of the PEELE distribution system present significant safety issues.? It also found: is) ?addressing risks associated with electrical distribution components has been overshadowed by electric transmission and gas facilitiest" ?addressing aging infrastructure and adding SCADA to the system comprise the major focuses of safety initiatives for the distribution system," and to] ?current employeer'coutraetor serious injury and fatality levels require signi?cantly greater mitigation.? 2 seesaw: 1 {1de COMPLAINT EliPGt?rE?s Failure to Treat the Conditions of Its Aging Electrical Assets as an Enterprise-Level Risk 33. Another recommendation of the HHS Liberty Report was ?the establishment of a fomral asset management progratn in Electric Operations." According to the report. ?aging infrastructure is best addressed by having a strategic asset management program in place. These types of programs. such as the PAS 55 program. force a detailed and thorough condition assessment survey of the major assets. These types of formal programs also take failure modes into consideration. Long term sustainable plans can then he prepared to address the asset conditions. A sustainable asset management will mitigate system safety risks from aging infrastructure. which constituted a major portion of the safety items in this 39. The EDIE Liberty Report speci?cally recommended that ?Ptit?zE treat aging infrastructure as an enterprise?level risk.? After the release of the Bill?) Liberty Report. F?tftE began to publicly state that they were treating wildfires as an enterprise-level risk. However. the methodology used by Ffi&E to evaluate the severity of that risk was and is unscientific and was and is not based on valid statistical methodology. Instead. method is to engage in a group discussion where an agreement is reached on a speci?c risk level based on personal opinion. anecdotal evidence. and factual misconceptions. This process has led to PGth?s failure to properly evaluate the frequency and severity of the risk posed by wildfires. 41 . Further. has a corporate policy in which they knowingly ?accept" a certain level of risk. meaning that choose not to maintain their electrical transmission and distribution infrastructure in a manner that will reasonably prevent all risks of which they are aware. thereby leaving the public at risk of death. personal injury. and damage to property. 42. PGtitE?s failure to treat its aging infrastructure as an enterprise?level risk in a reasonable manner contributed to the cause of the ILl?arnp Fire. 3. PGt?rE?s Failure to Inspect. Maintain. Repair. or Replace [ts Equipment 43. failed to perform the necessary inspections. maintenance. repair. andi?or replacement of its electrical equipment. 3- COMPLAINT 44. For example. a 2014 audit of North 1 ta?alley Division reyealed that between 21.1119 and 21114 there were over 3.4111} Pfl?aE repair and maintenance requests in the area of the Camp Fire that were completed past the date of scheduled action.3 This number shows a staggering disregard of the safetyr to the people who eyentually found themselves in the path of the Camp Fire. 43. According to State Senator Jerry Hill. these findings are especially troubling because ?they are getting the money for these. they are getting the funds to do the work in a timely Yet. takes the money but fails to correct the problems. as. Further. according to records maintained by Cal Fire. forty-four [44} tires in Butte County were caused by electrical equipment from 2998 through 2916.5 In 2915, electrical power problems sparked the burning of 149,241 acres across California more than twice the amount from any other causef" 47. According to the 291T ?Clrder Instituting Investigation into the Creation of a Shared Database or Statewide Census of Utility Poles and Conduit?: ?Poorly maintained poles and attachments have caused substantial property damage and repeated loss of life in this State. For example. inadequate clearance between communication and power lines. perhaps in conjunction with a broken cable lashing wire. caused the Southern California Cruejito Fire of 2191]? which l[together with the 1 Witch Fire} burned 19?.999 acres and caused two deaths. Three more deaths occurred in 291 1 when an electrical conductor separated from a pole in high winds. causing a litre wire to fall to the ground. At least ?ve more people lost their lives in pole?related failures in 21112 and 21.115. ?Unauthorized pole attachments are particularly problematic. A pole overloaded with unauthorized equipment collapsed during windy conditions and started the Malibu Canyon Fire of 29-99. destroying and damaging luxury homes and burning 4591} acres. Windstorma in Ell] I knocked down a large number of poles in Southem California. many of which were later found to be weakened by termites. dry rot. and fungal decay. ?Communication and other wires are not infrequently found hanging onto roads or yards. Poles with eacessiye andi'or unauthorized attachments can put utility workers at risk. Facilities deployed in the ?eld may differ from what appears on paper or in a utility?s database.? uploadedFilesi? CPUC_Public_Websitei Contenbr Safety-"EA 29 4?923.pdf Sonoma-Santa-Rosa-45 19969 23.11tlnl 5 ?3 res?1f] l} 7?story.html I gay-"P ublished Doc s1? Pub] ish edi? Cr?fll'li? 4- COMPLAINT 43. failure to conduct proper and regular inspections of its equipment and failure to make necessary repairs contributed to the cause of the Camp Fire. 4. ?Run tn Failure" Approach to Maintenance 49. failure to address the ?signi?cant safety hazards? identi?ed by the Liberty Report, failure to treat the conditions of its aging infrastructure as an enterprise-level risk, failure to inspect, maintain, repair or replace its aging equipment, failure to conduct an inventory of its electrical assets. and failure to ensure its infrastructure could withstand foreseeable weather conditions as required by law are all indicative of what has been called ?run to failure" approach to its infrastructure. 5f]. PGSLE has a well-documented history of implementing this ?run to failure? approach with its aging infrastructure, ignoring necessary maintenance in order to line its own pockets with excessive pro?ts. According to a ?ling by Of?ce of Ratepayer Advocates with the CPUC in May EDIE: ?However, as we saw in Section V.F.3 above, the Overland Audit explains how PGSLE systematically underfunded integrity management and maintenance operations for the years HIDE through PCrditE engaged in a ?run to failure? strategy whereby it defen?ed needed maintenance projects and changed the assessment method for several pipelines from to the less informative ECDA approach all to increase its profits even further beyond its already generous authorized rate of return, which averaged 1.2% between 1996 and Hill}. ?Given P?ch's excessive pro?ts over the period of the Ifillverland Audit, there is no reason to believe that Overland?s example regarding Gsz? operations between MUS and E?l? was unique. The Report supplements the lt'Jverland r?tudit ?ndings with additional examples of PGSLE management?s commitment to pro?ts over safety. Thus, it is evident that while the example of underfunding between 20-03 and mm might be extreme, it was not an isolated incident; rather, it represents the culmination of management?s long standing policy to squeeze every nickel it could froln gas operations and maintenance, regardless of the long tent] ?run to failure" impacts. r?tnd has offered no evidence to the contrary"3 51. Ffl?zE?s failure to address this ?run to failure" approach to maintenance contributed to the cause of the Camp Fire. 3 St] I EDResponseToA [3 2f] lRuling?D FUSES assess .pdf 5- COMPLAINT PGr?zE?s Purchase of Insurance Ceverage fer Punitive Damages 52. Under Insurance Cede :1 533 prevides in pertinent part: ?he insurer is net liable fer a less caused by the willful act ef the insured . . . 53. Civil ICede let-53 prevides: ?All centracts which have fer their ebject, directly er indirectly. te exempt anyene frem respensibility fer his ewn fraud. er willful injury In the persen er preperty ef anether. er vielatien ef law. whether willful er negligent, are against the pelicy ef the law." 54. Despite the statutery exeneratien given te insurance cempanies fer liability fer lesses caused by willful acts efan insured. and despite the fact that the public pelicy ef the State efEalifemia invalidates any insurance centract that purperts re previde ceverage t?er punitive damages. has purchased pelicies ef insurance frem etfshere cempanies in Bermuda. Lenden. and elsewhere that expressly previde ceverage fer punitive damages in ameunts that exceed hundreds ef milliens ef dellars. 55. purchased insurance pelicies that cever punitive damages fer the purpese ef previding cerperate security at the cest ef public safety. This centributed te a culture ef reckless disregard fer the safety ef the residents ef Nerthem and Central alifemia and centrib uted tn the cause ef the l[lamp Fire. CORPORATE CULTURE IS THE RDDT CAUSE DF THE CAMP FIRE 56. is a virtual menepely in the previsien ef gas and electric services te the general public in almest all ceunties and cities acress Nerthem and Central L?alifemia? 57. Dyer the past thirty?plus years. has been subject te numereus ?nes. penalties. andt'er cenvictiens as a result ef its failure te abide by safety rules and regulatiens. including the ?nes. penalties. settlements. and cenvictiens detailed abeve. Despite these recurring punishments. [9(3th centinues te display a sheelting degree ef arregant cemplacency. refuses te medify its behavier. and centinues te cenduct its business with a censcieus disregard fer- the safety ef the public. including Plaintiffs. 9 A few cities like Pale ?lter and Sacramente previde their ewn gas and electric utility services. COMPLAINT Eli53. Rather than spend the money it obtains from customers for infrastructure maintenance and safety. PGSLE funnels this to boost its own corporate pro?ts and compensation. This pattern and practice of favoring pro?ts over having a solid and well?maintained infrastructure that would be safe and dependable for years to conic left vulnerable to an increased risk of a catastrophic event such as the Camp Fire. 59. For example. according to documents released by The Utility Reform Network planned to replace a segment of the San Bruno pipeline in Edi)? that it identi?ed as one of the riskiest pipelines in P?eltE?s system. [9123th collected $5 million from its to contplete the project by sons. but instead deferred the project until it was too late and repurposed the moneyr to other priorities. That satne year. [?13th spent nearly $5 million on bonuses for sis of its top executives. til]. Moreover. has implemented multiple programs that provide monetary incentives to its employees. agents. andror contractors to not protect public safety. Prior to the Butte Fire. chose to provide a monetary incentive to its contractors to cut fewer trees, even though was required to have an inspection program in place that removed dangerous trees and reduced the risk of wild?res. Robert Urban. a regional of?cer for a contractor. stated that he had a concern that the bonus systetn incentivized his employees to not do theirjob, Ptl?cE chose to keep this program despite knowing this risk. Similarly, prior to the San Bruno explosion. had a program that provided ?nancial incentives to employees to not report or ?x gas leaks and keep repair costs down. This program resulted in the failure to detect a signi?cant number of gas leaks. many of which were considered serious leaks. According to Richard Kuprewicz, an independent pipeline safety expert. F?GdrEs incentive system was ?training and rewarding people to do the wrong thing.? emblematic of ?a seriously broken process." and ?explains many of the systemic problems in this operation that contributed to the [San Bruno] tragedy?? s1. As detailed above. the ICamp Fire just one example of the many tragedies that have resulted from PUd?eE?s enduring failure to protect the public from the dangers associated with its 24244313.php 7- COMPLAINT Elioperations. 13'3th power lines. transformers. conductors. poles. insulators. and-?or other electrical equipment have repeatedly started wild?res due to ongoing failure to create. manage. implement, andtor maintain effective vegetation management programs for the areas near and around its electrical equiptnent. Further. F'Gth?s aging infrastructure has caused tnultiple disasters throughout California. 52, Beginning early in the moming on or about November 8. EDIE. the Camp Fire began raging in the town of Paradise. These ?res quickly ripped through neighborhoods. destroying everything in their path. including residences. structures. businesses. trees. and vegetation in Butte County. 63. The ICamp Fire is the most destructive ?re in Califomia?s history. surpassing the damage caused by the Tubbs Fire. one of the North Bay Fires. In just a matter of days. the ?re caused the deaths of at least 42 people. displaced about people who were forced to leave their homes and search for safety. burned over I acres. and destroyed at least 1102 homes and buildings. ea. As detailed more fully above. repeatedly fails to inspect. maintain. repair. or replace its equipment. These failures also contributed to both the Butte and North Bay Fires. yet continues to deny liability for those ?res and even claims that it did nothing wrong. as. Fth?cE owes the public a non-delegable duty with regard to the operation of its power lines. including as it relates to maintenance. inspection. repair and all other obligations imposed by the Public Utilities Code and the CPUC. speci?cally including. but not limited to. General IElrtlers Numbers 95 and 155. Even when [96th chooses to hire contractors. its obligations remain non- delcgable. P?dzE?s acts and omissions. as described herein. were a cause of the Camp Fire andfor aggravated the spread and destruction of the Camp Fire. as. [tn the days leading up to the Camp Fire. began notifying 'i'tl??tl customers of the ?potential that the company would turn off power for safety reasons giver: forecasts of extreme ?re danger conditions.? Despite its own recognition of these impending hazardous conditions. on the day of the Camp Fire?s ignition. Ptlt?zE ultimately made the decision not to proceed with its plans for Elipower shutoff.?I [t was not until November 9, 8, after the amp Fire already incinerated the town of Paradise, that HERE turned off power to some of its customers.12 51'. At all times relevant to this action P?stE had speci?c knowledge that wild?re is the greatest risk to the public from its operations. speci?cally knew that wild?re could result in death and injury to members of the public and could result in the destruction of structures and property. 53, chose to accept and continue implementing its current practices that have resulted in signi?cant safety issues in its transmission system, a failure to treat the conditions of its aging electrical assets and a failure to inspect, maintain, repair and replace. choice resulted numerous deaths, injuries, and damage to structures and property, just as knew it could, when they made the choice. E. THE CAMP FIRE 59, The devastating Camp Fire is the most destructive individual wildfire in Califontia history to date. l[IalFire reported that the Camp Fire started on November 3, 3 at 6:29 am. at Pulga Road and Camp Creek Road near the Jarbo Tl]. Un November EDIE, P?dzE emailed the owner of property in Pulga in the area of origin of the Camp Fire and informed the owner they were ?having problems with sparks" from their transmission lines and needed to inspect a transmission tower. Even though employees had visited the property on November 7. they did nothing to FIR the cause of the sparks.? T1. Radio transmissions from first responders indicated the origin of the fire to be underneath the vicinity ofhigh voltage transtnission lines, across the Feather River from Poe Darn. Defendants? transmission line failed and ignited the Camp Fire. T2. The following photograph shows F?dt?'s transmission pole and lines near the origin of the Camp Fire: enfabouta? new sroomi? new sdetailsir indes.pa 3] [13_pge_determines ornia_counties El ?9_pge_mobilizes_ J1lUI??S_??Ll?liEti "1 COMPLAINT T3. reported that on November 3. at approximately 15:15 am? they esperieneed an outage of the Caribou?Palenno 1 IS k?u? Transmission line loeated in Butte County. Later that day. a transmission tower, approximately one-mile north-east of F?ulga. was reportedly observed to be damaged.IS T4. Thousands of residents were displaeed by the Camp Fire. Foreed to Flee as the tire grew and spread rapidly. Several ofthe deaths resulting from the Camp Fire were ofindividuals ?eeing in their ears who in the proeess ot?their harrowing eseapes were overtaken by the speed of the ?ames that ultimately eonsumed them, leaving their ehan'ed eoiTises behind. These individuals eannot yet be identi?ed due to the eonditions of their seorehed remains. T5. Uther residents who did manage to eseape the ?ames alive did so at a moment's notiee without any of their belongings. and some did so while desperately elutehing to their young ehildren as their surrounding town beeame engulfed in raging flames. 15? l.htm an- CUM PLAIIT CAUSES ACTION A. FIRST CAUSE ACTIDN FDR CDNDEMNATIDN AGAINST PGBLE as. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege each of the paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein. T7. Plaintiffs bring this cause of action for Inverse Condemnation against T3. On November 3. l?l 3. Plaintiffs were owners of real property andi?or personal property located within Butte County in the area of the Camp Fire. 79. Prior to and on November 3. 2013. Defendants. and-"or each of them. installed. owned. operated. used. controlled. andfor maintained power lines and other electrical equipment for the public delivery of electricity. including power lines in and around the location of the Camp Fire. {3n November 3. EDIE. as a direct. necessary. and legal result of Defendants" installation. ownership. operation. use. control. management. andr'or maintenance for a public use of its power lines andfor other electrical equipment. the power lines andfor other electrical equipment came in contact with vegetation andfor other live conductors. andfor broke. failed. fell down. sparked. andfor exploded. causing the ICamp Fire that killed 42 people and burned 17.4301} acres. including property owned andfor occupied by Plaintiffs. 81. The above described damage to Plaintiffs" property was legally and substantially caused by Defendants? actions in their installation. ownership. operation. use. control. management. andfor maintenance of the power lines and other electrical equipment for a public use. 82. Plaintiffs have not received adequate compensation for the damage to andfor destruction of their property. thus constituting a taking or damaging of Plaintiffs? property by Defendants without just compensation. 83. As a direct and legal result of the actions andt'or omissions of the Defendants. Plaintiffs suffered damages to their real andi'or personal property. including the loss of use. interference with access. andtor diminution in 1ralue andi?or marketability in an amount according to proof at trial. 84. As a direct and legal result of the actions andt'or omissions of the Defendants. Plaintiffs have incurred and will continue to incur costs. disbursements. andfor expenses. including reasonable COMPLAINT is 13 14 is illattorney. appraisal. engineering andi'or other expert fees due to the conduct of the Defendants in amounts that cannot yet be ascertained. but which are recoverable pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 112136. B. SECDND CAUSE ACTIDN FDR NEGLIGENCE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 85. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained above as though the same were set forth herein in full. lib. Plaintitfs bring this cause of action for negligence against all Defendants. 87. The amp Fire was a direct and legal result of the negligence. carelessness. recklessness. andi'or unlawfulness of Defendants, andi'or each of them. Defendants. andi'or each of them. breached their respective duties owed individually andfor collectively to Plaintiffs by. including but not limited to: failing to comply with the applicable statutory. regulatory. andror professional standards of care; failing to timely and properly maintain. manage. inspect. andfor monitor the subject power lines. electrical equipment. andior adjacent vegetation; failing to make the overhead lines safe under all the exigencies created by surrounding circumstances and conditions; failing to conduct adequate. reasonably prompt. proper. effective. andi'or frequent inspections of the electrical transmission lines. wires. andfor associated equipment; failing to design. construct. monitor. andfor maintain high voltage electrical transmission. andi?or distribution power lines in a manner that avoids the potential to ignite a fire during long. dry seasons; failing to install the equipment necessary and-for to inspect and repair the equipment installed. to prevent electrical transmission and distribution lines from improperly sagging. operating. andi?or rnahing contact with other metal wires placed on its poles and igniting ?res; failing to keep equipment in a safe condition and-"or manage equipment to prevent fire at all times; failing to de-energiae power lines during fire prone conditions; failing to tie?energize power lines after the fires ignition; and-for failing to properly train and to supervise employees and agents responsible for maintenance and inspection of the transmission lines and-"or vegetation areas nearby these lines. 83. ?ts a direct and legal result of Defendants? actions andfor omissions. Plaintiffs were injured in their health. strength. and-"or activity in an amount according to proof at trial. -32- COMPLAINT Elifurther direct and legal result of Defendants" actions omissions, Plaintiffs were required to andror continue to employ physicians and other healthcare providers to examine, treat, andfor care for their injuries. Plaintiffs have incurred, and will continue to incur, medical and incidental expenses in an amount according to proof at trial. 90. As a further direct and legal result of Defendants? actions andfor omissions, Plaintiffs have suffered and-"or continue to suffer great mental pain and suffering, including worry. emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, anguish, anxiety, and nervousness. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief allege, that such injuries have resulted in debilitating injuries in an amount according to proof at trial. 91. As a further direct and legal result of the Defendants? actions and-?or omissions. Plaintiffs have suffered a loss of income. loss of earning capacity, loss of profits, increased expenses due to displacement, andror other consequential economic losses in an amount according to proof at trial. 92. As a further direct and legal result of the Defendants? actions andror omissions, Plaintiffs have suffered damage to real property, including the loss of vegetation. trees, and structures. the creation of hydrophobic soil conditions, and a loss of use, bene?t, goodwill, diminution in value, and-?or enjoyment of such property in an amount according to proof at trial. 93. As a further direct and legal result of the Defendants? actions auditor omissions, Plaintiffs have suffered damage to andfor a loss of personal property, ineludin but not limited to items of peculiar value to Plaintifls in an amount according to proof at trial. 94. As a further direct and legal result of the Defendants? actions andfor omissions s. Plaintiffs have incurred and will continue to incur expenses and other economic damages related to the damage to their property, including costs relating to storage, clean-up, disposal, repair, depreciation, and-"or replacement of their property, and-lot other related consequential damages in an amount according to proof at trial. 93. As detailed in above, Defendants? safety record is inexcusably horrendous. Defendants have had several other incidents that caused injury and death to California residents, and destroyed properties, and has been subject to numerous penalties, including, but not limited to record fines -33- COMPLAINT following the San Bruno Explosion. as a result of their failure to comply with safety standards. rules and regulations. Despite these ?nes and punishments. Defendants failed to modify their behavior. continuing their practice of placing their own pro?ts over safety and conducting their business with a conscious disregard for the safety and well-being of the public and property. as. The Camp Fire was the result of Defendants? continued practice of prioritizing pro?ts over safety. wherein they failed to properly maintain and inspect their power lines knowing that the likely result was a ?re that would pose risk of serious injury andfor death. and damage to property. 97. At all times prior to the subject incident. the conduct of Defendants, by act omission. demonstrated a wanton andfor reckless indifference for the required maintenance of Defendants? electrical infrastructure. as well as a conscious disregard for and a foreseeable risk of serious injury and death of others. The wrongful conduct of Defendants was more than just inadvertence, mm of judgment or negligence. Rather. Defendants conduct was despicable and showed malice as de?ned by Civil Code ti 32 '94. The state has an extremely strong interest in imposing suf?ciently high punitive damages in actions where the malicious conduct of Defendants leads to the wrongful death of one of its citizens. As a result. Plaintiffs request that the trier of fact, in the exercise of sound discretion of the rights and safety of others. such that additional damages for the sake of example and suf?cient to punish said Defendants for their despicable conduct. in an amount reasonably related to Plaintiffs" actual damages and Defendants" wealth. yet suf?ciently large enough to be an example to others and to deter Defendants and others from engaging in similar conduct in the future. 93. As a further direct and legal result of the conduct of Defendants. Plaintiffs seek exemplary damages for injuries to Plaintiffs* animals as allowed under Code of Civil Procedure 53 334?. C. THIRD DF ACTIDN FDR AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS FDR DAMAGES PURSUANT TD PUBLIC UTILITIES CDDE Il?? 99. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained above as though the same were set forth herein in full. -34- COMPLAINT EliPlaintiffs bring this cause of action for violations of the Constitution. the laws of California, and-tor orders and decisions of the California Public Utilities Commission against all Defendants. l?l. This private right of action is authorized by Public Utilities ode? Zl?b, which pemiits action by a person or entity who have suffered loss. damages, or injury caused by the acts of a public utility which does, causes to be done, or permits any act, matter. or thing prohibited or declared unlawful, or which omits to do any act, matter, or thing required to be done. either by the Constitution, any law of this State, or any order or decision of the commission. It'll Defendants at all times herein had a duty to properly design. construct, operate. maintain, inspect. and manage its electrical infrastructure in compliance with all relevant provisions of applicable orders, decisions, directions, rules or statutes, including, but not limited to, those stated in: General Order No. 95, Rules 31.1?31.2; General Order No. 165; Code of Civil Procedure {51733: Public Resources Code ?at} 42914293, and 4435: and Public Utilities Code 451. [03. The violation of a legislative enactment or administrative regulation which defines a minimum standard of conduct is unreasonable per se. l?4. Defendants violated the above listed requirements. by: 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 of suitable design; c. Failing to construct and to maintain such systems for their intended use of safe transmission of electricity 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 ?re and the ?re 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; -25- COMPLAINT Failing to properlyr safeguard against the ignition of ?re during the course and scope of employee work on behalf of and f. Failing to with the enumerated legislative enactments and administrative regulations. [05. Defendants proximately and substantially caused the destruction, damage, and injury to Plaintiffs by their violations of applicable orders, decisions, directions, rules or statutes, including, but not limited to, those stated in: General Order No. 95, Rules 3l.l-31.2, 35, 33, 43, 43.2, 44.l- 44.4, and 43-48.] General Order No. 165; Code ofCivil Procedure l2} 233; Public Resources Code 4292, 4293, and 4435; and Public Utilities Code 45 l. Plaintiffs were and are within the class of persons for whose protection applicable orders, decisions, directions, rules or statutes were adopted, including, but not limited to, those stated in: General Order No. 95, Rules 31.1-31.2, 35, 38, 43, 43.2, 44.1?44.4, and Order No. l??tc} Code ofCivil Procedure {5 233:, Public Resources Code 4292, 4293, and 4435; and Public Utilities Code i?i 45L l?T. As alleged herein according to proof, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for all loss, damages and injury caused by and resulting from De fendants' violation of applicable orders, decisions, directions, rules or statutes were adopted, including, but not limited to, those stated in: General Order No. ?25, Rules 3l.l?31.2, 35, 33, 43, 43.2, 44.1?44.4, and 43?481; General Order No. 165; Code ofCivil Procedure? 233; Public Resources Code 4292, 4293, and 4435: and Public Utilities Code 45 l. IDS. As a further direct and legal result of the wrongful acts and? or omissions of Defendants, andfor each of them, Plaintiffs seek the recovery of punitive and exemplary damages against Defendants as set forth above. IL FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PREMISES LIABILITY AGAINST ALL DEF EH DANTS [09. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained above as though the same were set fonh herein in full. I ll}. Plaintiffs bring this cause of action for Premises Liability against all Defendants. -35- COMPLAINT Defendants, andi'or each of them. were the owners of an easement and-?or real property in the area of origin of the Camp Fire, and-"or were the owners of the power lines upon said easement andfor right of way. I 12. Defendants, andt'or each of them, acted wantonly, unlawfully. carelessly, recklessly. andfor negligently in failing to properly inspect. manage. maintain, andfor control the vegetation near its power lines along the real property and easement. allowing an unsafe condition presenting a foreseeable risk of fire danger to exist on said property. 1 13. As a direct. proximate and legal result of the wrongful acts andr'or omissions of Defendants. andtor each of them, Plaintiffs suffered, and continue to suffer. the injuries and damages as set forth above. 1 14. As a further direct and legal result of the wrongful acts and-"or omissions of Defendants, andfor each of them, Plaintiffs seek the recovery of punitive and exemplary damages against Defendants as set forth above. E. FIFTH CAUSE ACTIDN FDR TRESPASS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 15. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained above as though the same were set forth herein in full. 1 1s. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained above as though the same were set forth herein in full. I Plaintiffs bring this cause of action for Trespass against all Defendants. 13. At all times relevant herein. Plaintiffs were the owners. tenants, andfor lawful occupants of property damaged by the Camp Fire. 119. Defendants. andi'or each of them, in wrongfully acting and-"or failing to act in the manner set forth above, caused the l1?_?amp Fire to ignite andfor spread out of control, causing harm, damage. aner injury to Plaintiffs herein. resulting in a trespass upon Plaintiffs? property interests. 121}. Plaintiffs did not grant permission for Defendants to wrongfully act in manner so as to cause the Camp Fire, and thereby produce a wildland fire which spread and wrongfully entered upon their property. resulting in the harm. inj ury, andtor damage alleged above. -37- COMPLAINT direct and legal result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants. andfor each of them. which led to the trespass, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer damages as set forth above. in an amount according to proof at trial. Ill. As a further direct and legal result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffs, whose land was under cultivation, andfor was used for raising livestock or was intended to be used for raising livestock, 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 expenses. as allowed under Code of Civil Procedure 1021.9. [23. ?ts a further direct and legal result of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffs seek treble damages for injuries to trees or timber on Plaintiffs? propertyr as allowed under Code of Civil Procedure a rss. [24. ?ts a further direct and legal result of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffs seek double andr'or treble damages for the negligent, willful, and wrongful injuries to timber, trees, or underwood on their property, as allowed under Civil Code 3346. [25. As a direct and legal result of the wrongful acts and-?or omissions of Defendants, andtor each of them, Plaintiffs suffered, and continue to suffer, the injuries and damages as set forth above. As a further direct and legal result of the wrongful acts and-"or omissions of Defendants, andfor each of them, Plaintiffs seek the recovery of punitive and exemplary damages against Defendants as set forth above. F. SIXTH CAUSE DF ACTIDN FUR PUBLIC NUISAHCE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS IET. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained above as though the same were set herein in full. [23. Plaintiffs bring this cause of action for Public Nuisance against all Defendants. IEQ. Plaintiffs own andi?or occupy property at or near the site of the fire that is the subject of this action. all relevant times herein, Plaintiffs had a right to occupy, enjoy, and-"or use their property without interference by Defendants, and-"or each of them. -33- COMPLAINT l3?. Defendants, andfor each of thetn, owed a duty to the public, including Plaintiffs herein, to conduct their business. in particular the maintenance and-for operation of power lines, power poles, andtor electrical equipment on power poles, and adjacent vegetation in proximity to their power lines in Butte County in a manner that did not threaten harm or injury to the public welfare from operation of those power lines. [3 l. Defendants andtor each of them, by acting andt'or failing to act, as alleged hereinabove. created a condition that was harmful to the health of the public, including these Plaintiffs and that interfered with the comfortable occupancy, use, andfor enjoyment of Plaintiffs? property. [32. Plaintiffs did not consent, expressly or impliedly, to the wrongful conduct of Defendants, ande'or each of them, in acting in the manner set forth above. [33. The hazardous condition which was created by and-for permitted to exist by Defendants, andfor each of them, affected a substantial number of people within the general public, including Plaintiffs herein, and constituted a public nuisance under Civil Code 347?? and 3481?.) and Public Resources Code ti 4 I'll . Further. the ensuing uncontrolled wild?re constituted a public nuisance under Public Resources Code 4] IE4. The damaging effects of Defendants? maintenance of a fire hazard and the ensuing uncontrolled wildfire are ongoing and affect the public at large. As a result of the fire?s location, temperature, and-"or duration, extensive areas of hydrophobic soils developed within the fire?s perimeter. This further caused significant post ?re runoff hazards to occur, including hillside erosion. debris flow hazards, and sediment laden flow hazards. As a result, large quantities of ash and sediment will be deposited in perennial and ephemeral watercourses. 3 5. As a direct and legal result of the conduct of Defendants, andfor each of them, Plaintiffs suffered harm that is different from the type of hartn suffered by the general public. Specifically, Plaintiffs have lost the occupancy, possession, use. and? or enjoyment of their land, real and? or personal property, including, but not limited to: a reasonable and rational fear that the area is still dangerous; a diminution in the fair market value of their property; an impairment of the salability of their property; soils that have become hydrophobic; exposure to an array of toxic substances on their land: the -29- COMPLAINT presence of ?special waste? on their property that requires special management and disposal; and a lingering smell of smoke, andfor constant soot, ash, andr'or dust in the air. [36. ?ts a further direct and legal result of the conduct of Defendants, andfor each of them, Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, discomfort, ansiety, fear, worries, annoyance, and-for stress attendant to the interference with Plaintiffs? occupancy, possession, use andtor enjoyment of their property, as alleged above. A reasonable, ordinary person would be reasonably annoyed or disturbed by the condition created by Defendants, and-?or each of them, and the resulting ?re. The conduct of Defendants andtor each of them, is unreasonable and the seriousness of the harm to the public, including Plaintiffs herein, outweighs the social utility of Defendants" conduct. IST. The individual andi'or collective conduct of Defendants set forth above, and-?or each of them, resulting in the Camp Fire is not an isolated incident, but is ongoing andfor a repeated course of conduct, and Defendants" prior conduct andfor failures have resulted in other fires and damage to the public. [33. The unreasonable conduct of Defendants, andfor each of them, is a direct and legal cause of the harm, injury, and-"or damage to the public, including Plaintiffs herein- l39. Defendants, andi'or each of them, have individually andi'or collectively, failed and refused to conduct proper inspections and to properly trim. prune, and-?or cut vegetation in order to ensure the sole delivery of electricity to residents through the operation of power lines in the affected area, and Defendants? individual andi'or collective failure to do so exposed every member of the public, including those residing andfor owning property in Butte County, to a foreseeable danger of personal injury, death, aner a loss of or destruction real and personal property. Hi}. The conduct of Defendants, andi'or each of them, set forth above constitutes a public nuisance within the meaning of Civil Code 3479 and 343i], Public Resources Code ??4l?4 and 4171], and Code of Civil Procedure cg: 73L Under Civil Code 3493, Plaintiffs have standing to maintain an action for public nuisance because the nuisance is especially injurious to Plaintiffs because, as more speci?cally described above, it is injurious andtor offensive to the senses of the Plaintiffs, unreasonably interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of their properties, andi?or COMPLAINT unlawfully ebstructs the free use. in the custeniary manner. ef Plaintiffs? preperties. and have suffered harm. injury. and damages. [41. Per these reasens. Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunctien erdering that Defendants. and each eftheln. step ceutinued vielatien ef: {al ISeneral Clrder He. 95. Rules 3 . 1 -3l .5. 35. 33. 43. 43.2. 44.l-44.4. and General lDrder Ne. 165; Public Resources Cede 4292. 4293. and 4435; and Public Utilities Cede 45 l. Plaintiffs alse seek an erder directing Defendants te abate the existing and centinuing nuisance described abeve. G. SEVENTH CAUSE CIF ACTIDN FDR PRIVATE HUISAHCE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS I42. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incernerate by reference each and every allegatien centained abeve as theugh the same were set ferth herein in full. [43. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incerperate by reference each and every allegatien centained abeve as theugh the same were set ferth herein in full. [44. Plaintiffs bring this cause efaetien fer Private Nuisance against all Defendants. I45. Defendants. and:f er each ef there. by their acts and? er emissiens set ferth abeve. directly and legally caused an ebstructien te the free use ef Plaintiffs? preperty. an invasien the Plaintiffsi right te use their preperty. and-"er an interference with the enjeyment ef Plaintiffs? preperty. resulting in Plaintiffs? suffering unreasenable harm and substantial actual damages censtituting a nuisance pursuant te Civil Cede 3429 and 3481. me. As a direct and legal result efthe wrengful acts audier etnissiens ef Defendants. andfer each ef them. Plaintiffs suffered. and centinue te suffer less and damage te preperty. discen?ifert. anneyance and einetienal distress. and the injuries and damages as set ferth abeve. [42. As a further direct and legal result ef the wren gful acts and-"er ernissiens ef Defendants. andfer each at" them. Plaintiffs seek the recevery ef punitive and exemplary damages against Defendants as set ferth abeve. COMPLAINT EIGHTH CAUSE DF ACTIGN VIDLATIUNS 0F HEALTH 3: SAFETY CODE 13111}? AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS I43. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained above as though the same were set forth herein in full. [49. Plaintiffs bring this cause of action for violations of Health a Safety Code 13am against all Defendants. Defendants, ande'or each of them, by their acts andt'or omissions described above, set fire to andfor allowed fire to be set to the property of another in violation of Health Safety Code IS I. As a direct and legal result of Defendants' violation of Health 3: Safety Code 1300?, Plaintiffs suffered property damages that are recoverable from Defendants under Health Safety Code l, and continue to suffer the injuries and damages described above. l52. As a further direct and legal result of Defendants? violations of Health :51: Safety ICode if JEDUT, Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable attorney?s fees under Code of Civil Procedure 15 1021.9. [53. As a further direct and legal result of the wrongful acts and? or omissions of Defendants. andt'or each of them, Plaintiffs seek the recovery of punitive and exemplary damages against Defendants as set forth above. VI. PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A URY TRIAL l54. Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial. PRAYER WHEREFDRE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows: For the Cause of Action for Inverse Condemnation: a. Repair, depreciation, andtor replacement of damaged, destroyed, andtor lost persona] andt'or real property: b. Loss of the use, benefit, goodwill, and enjoyment ofthe Plaintiffs? real andfor personal ampere; -3 g- COMPLAINT Loss of wages, earning capacity andr?or business pro?ts and! or any related displacement expenses; All costs of suit including attorney?s fees, expert fees, and related costs; Any and all relief. compensation, or measure of damages available to Plaintiffs by law based on the injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs; For prejudgment interest; For all costs of suit incurred herein; and For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. For the Causes of Action for: Negligenee: Private Right of Action under Public Utilities Code 2106; Premises Liability", Trespass: Pt_lblic Ngisance; Priygte Nthance: mi Violations of Health 3.: Safety Code ti E1. Repair, depreciation, andfor replacement of damaged, destroyed, andior lost personal andr?or real property; Loss of the use, bene?t, goodwill, and enjoyment ofthe Plaintiffs? real andfor personal Loss of wages, earning capacity andr?or business pro?ts and! or any related displacement expenses; For general damages in an amount according to proof; For special damages in an amount according to proof: For treble damages in an amount according to proof for injuries to trees as allowed under Code of Civil Procedure 733; For treble or double damages in an amount according to proof for wrongful injuries to timber, trees, or underwood, as allowed under Civil Code 33415; For exemplary damages in an amount according to proof as allowed under Code of Civil Procedureg' 3294; For exemplary damages in an amount according to proof as allowed under Code of Civil Procedure 3341:}; For exemplary damages in an amount according to proof as allowed under Public -33- COMPLAINT Utilities Code 2106; it. For attorney?s fees expert fees. consultant fees and litigation costs and expenses as allewed under Code of Civil 9] ICE 1. For prejudgment interest; in. For all oosts of suit incurred herein; and n. For such ether and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. DATED: November 13, 8 Respectfully submitted, COREY, DE 3f. RIDDLE LLP 135;: Da Gheta Amanda L. Riddle Steven Berki Sumble Manaoor Attorneys Plaintith DANHD Michael S. Danko Kristine K. Meredith Shawn R. Miller Attorneys Plaintith Gibbs Law Group Erie lGibbs Dylan Hughes Attomeys Plaintiffs -3 4- COMPLAINT