?0 NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: DEMANDADO): TREASURE ISLAND DEVELOPMENT TREASURE ISLAND HOMELESS DEVELOPMENT SHAW SULLIVAN, DAVID CLARK, YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (L0 ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): Andre Patterson, Faiita Sample, lnciuding All Parties Listed Herein, and Doe Plaintiffs 1- 2,000 You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you responc within 30 days. Read the information below. You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to ?le a written response at this court and have a copy served on the ptaintitf..A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form ltyou want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can ?nd these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Hetp Center your county law iibrary, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the ?ling fee. ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. if you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court. There are other iegal requirements. You may want to cali an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free iegal services from a nonpro?t legal services program. You can locate these nonpro?t groups at the California Legal Services Web site the California Courts Online Self-Heip Center or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory iien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. Lo nan demandadc. Si no responds dentro de 30 dies, [a code puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea [a infermaci?n a continuacion. Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDA RIO despu?s de que le entreguen esta citecion papeles legales para presenter una respuesta per escn'to en esta corte hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una certs una [lamada telefonica no lo protegen. Su respuesta per escn'to tiene que ester en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su case an [a corte. Es posible due haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de [a corte mas informacion en el Centre de Ayude de [es Cortes de California en la biblioteca de [eyes de su condado 0 en [a corte que le quee'e mas cerca. Si no puede pagarla cueta o'e presentacion, pida a! secretario de la corte que la es un formulario o'e exencion de page do cuotas. Sine presents an respuesta a lien-1pc, puede perder el caso porincumplimiento la corte le cadre? guitar su sueldo, dine-re bienes sin mas advertencia. Ha etros requisites legales. Es recomendable qua [lame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no ccnoce a un abegado, puede [tamer a un servicio de remision a abogados. Si no puecle pagar'a un abegao'c. es pesible que cumpia con [es requisites para obtener servicios legales gratuiios de un programa de servicios [egales sin ?nes de iucro. Pueo'e encontrar estos grapes sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, en at Centre de Ayue'a de [es Cortes de California, (an/11w. sucen?e. ca. gov) poniendese en contacto con la con?e 0 el colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Per lay, [a oerte tiene derecho a reclamar [as cuotas [es cosfos exentos porimponer un grevamen sebre cualquier recuperacien de $10,000 6 mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo 0 one concesidn e'e arbitraje en on case do derecho civil. Tiene que pager el gravamen de [a corte antes de que [a certs pueda desechar el case. The name and address of the court is; UMBE (Numere del Case). (El nombre direccion de [a corte es): 52 San Francisco Superior Court, 400 MoAltister St, San Francisco, Ca 94102 The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El [a direccion el mimero de tel?fono o?el abogado del demandanle, 0 del demandante que no tiene abogado, es): Stanley Goff, 15 Boardman Place, San Francisco Ca 94103, 415-571-9570 DAT: ,fDe (F9503) JAN 2 3' 2.20 C?efk 0f the Court gi?eETio) (#05022) (For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form (Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use of formulario Proof of Service of Summons, NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 1. as an individual defendant. 2. as the person sued under the ?ctitious name of (specify): 3. on behalf of (specify): under: CCP 416.10 (corporation) CCP 416.60 (minor) CI CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) 2 GOP 416.70 (conservatoe) CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) IMMI CCP 416.90 (authorized person) Er] other (specify): 4. by personal delivery on (date) Page 1 0? Form Adopted for Mandatory Use SUMMONS Code of Civit Procedure 412.20. 465 Judicial Council of Caiifornia SUM-100 gRev. July 1, 2009} mp sum-200m) SHORT TITLE: CASE Andre Patterson, Falita Sample, et at. v. Treasure Island Development, INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE This form may be used as an attachment to any summons if space does not permit the listing of all parties on the summons. If this attachment is used, insert the following statement in the plaintiff or defendant box on the summons: ?Additional Parties Attachment form is attached.? List additional parties (Check only one box. Use a separate page for each type ofparty.): Plaintiff Defendant I: Cross-Complainant Cross?Defendant KEITH FORMAN, TETRA TECH EC, DAN L. BATRACK, STATE DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF- PUBLIC LENNAR FIV POINT HOLDING-S, LLC., JOHN STEWART COMPANY and DOES 1?100 Page of 33392 1 of 1 Form Adopted for Manda ten Use sum-zoom} {Reva Januagy 1, 2001?3 603,553 of Cal?omia ADDITIONA PARTIES ATTACHMENT Attachment to Summons 10DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC 11-1. 1 11 11 RICH COL STANLEY GOFF (Bar No. 289564) 1390 Isl?$1711r OFFICE OF STANLEY GOFF JAN 3 3 2020 15 Boardman Place Suite 2 San Francisco, CA 94l03 Telephone: (415) 571-9570 Email: scrai Rgoff@aol. com ANGELICA SUNGA Attomey for Plaintiffs THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORIA COUNTY OF- SAN FRANCISCO TREASURE ISLAND FORMER AND CASE NO 36$ CURRENT RESIDENTS, ANDRE a 8 1.1. 8 2 11?11 31 PATTERSON, FELITA SAMPLE, A CLASS 1113111011 LAWSUET {Handing All Parties Listed and COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES incorporated Herein; and Doe Plaintiffs 1- 2 000,011 behalf of ihemselw es and! all others 1- FALSE AND MKSLEAEENG similarly Situated, STATEMENTS 2. NEGLIGENCE REAR 011 CANCER Piaintiffs, 3. STRICT LIABILITY FOR ULTRAHAZARDOUS ACTIVITEES vs. 1. 1J1OLA110N 011 RROResmom 613 5.. PUBLIC NUISANCE TREASURE ISLAND DEVELOPMENT 6. PRIVATE N-UISANCE 7. ?11111. CONSPIRACY 8' ENEUNCTIVE RELEEF US. NAVY TREASURE ISLAND CLEAN UP DIRECTOR IEVI SULLIVAN, in his individual capacity; US. NAVY . TREASURE ISLAND CLEAN UP LEAD PROJECT MANAGER DAVID CLARK, in his individual capacigr; US. NAV REPRESENTATIVE KEITH. ORNIAN, in his individual capaciiy; TETRA TECH EC, INC, DAN L. BATRACK, in his individual and official capacity; STATE DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUB STANCE SAN FRANCISCO HIRY TREAL DEMANDED LENNAR FIVE POINT HOLDING-S, -. 14 15 l6 17 18 19 LLC., JOHN STEWART COMPANY and DOES l- i 00 Inclusive, Defendants. Plaintiffs FORMER AND CURRENT TREASURE ISLAND RESIDENTS individually and on behalf of all others similariy situated, demanding ajury trial, bring this action against all named Defendants as well as DOES 1?25; inclusive, for general, consequential, compensatory, punitive, injunctive relief and statutory damages, costs and attorneys? fees resulting from defendants? unconstitutionai and tortious conduct. 1. 1. Class Plaintiffs are former and current residents of Treasure Island, consisting of individuals who have been living in, or had substantial contact with, the Treasure Island Community, from 2006 to the present. Plaintiffs also include the following adult and minor Plaintiffs and those Plaintiffs listed andincorporated herein as though fuily set forth in this paragraph, plus Doe Plaintiffs 142,000: . Andre Patterson . Felita Sample . Cierra Hammond Earnstine Davis 31. Andre Patterson Ill 5. Steven A. Arnold 32. Nicole Walker 6. Ralph Greene 33. Lakrista Jackson Michelle Baker?Greene 34. Michelle Mathews 8. Devonaire Lemons 3 5. Donna Marie McDani el 9. Rarity Lemons 36. Aaron Medler 10. Leerma Petterson 37. Shamila Butler 11. Charles McGee 38. Bobbie Johnson 1.2. Ruth Ann Booker 39. Carmella Johnson 13. Ayana Arnold 40. Joseph Spooner l4. Arlando Arnold 41. Calvin Johnson 15. Terri Johnson 42. Tramila Butler 1. 6. Kent Davis 43. Astrid Mills 1. 7. Teresa. Johnson. 44. Michael Meede 18. Lailonnie Arnold 45. Charles PatteISOn 19. Victor Wilson 46. Dreyana Patterson 20. Ronald L. Johnson 47. Vancois Wilson 21. Johnathan Johnson 22. Flint Collins 23. Peter Boutte 24. Otis Bronghton 25. Stanley Daglow 26. Arthur Glen Ayers 27. Alfonzo B. Williams 28. Donald Johson 29. Tracy Marks 30. Vancois D. Amour] DOE PLAENTIFFS 2. DOE PLAINTIFFS l?2,000 are former or current residents of TREASURE. ISLAND, consisting of individuals who have been living in, or had substantial contact with, the Treasure Island Community, from 2006 to the present but have not to date discovered the elements of their causes of action. This action will be amended to include those DOE PLAINTIFFS 1. -2,000 when those PLAINTIPFS have ascertained and discovered each element of each cause of action against each ofthe named DEFENDANTS herein. DEFENDANTS Tetra. Tech, Inc. and Tetra Tech EC, Inc. are Cali?lt?oniia corporations that have contracted with the United States Navy and United States government to perform clean?up and remediation services on Treasure Island in San Francisco. 4. DEFENDANTS Shaw Environrnental, Inc. is a California corporation that has contracted with the United States Navy and United States government to perform clean-up and remediation services on Treasure Island in San Francisco. 5. DEFENDANTS TREASURE ISLAND DEVELOPNTENT AUTHORITY, is a California entity under the municipality of the City of San Francisco. 6. DEFENDANTS TREASURE ISLAND HOMELESS DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE, is a California entity under the municipality of the City of San Francisco. DEFENDANT U. S. NAVY TREASURE ISLAND CLEAN UP DIRECTOR JIM SULLIVAN, was employed by the United States Navy at all times relative to this complaint. 8. US NAV TREASURE ISLAND CLEAN UP LEAD PROJECT MANAGER DAVID CLARK, was employed by the United States Navy at all times relative to this complaint. 9. DEFENDANT U. S. NAVY ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR KEITH ORMAN, was employed by the ?United States Navy at all times relative to this complaint. 10. DEFENDANT STATE DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL is a California entity under the authority of the state of California. I l. DEFENDANT SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH is a entity under the authority of the City and County of San Francisco. l6 17 18 19 20 12. DEFENDANT JOHN STEWART COMPANY is a corporation doing business in the State of California and the City and County of San Francisco; 13. DEFENDANT Lennar, Inc. is headquartered in Miami, Florida and is doing business in California. DEFENDANT Five Point Holdings, LLC is headquartered in Aliso i ejo, California. DOE DEFENDANTS 14. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, subsidiary, officer, director, employee, other representative, or otherwise, of DOE DEFENDANTS by a ?ctitious name. PLAINTIFF are informed and believe and thereupon allege that each of these fictitiously named DEFENDANTS are responsible, in some manner, for the damages alleged herein. PLAINTIFFS therefore designate DOE DEFENDANTS '1 through 50 by such ?ctitious names, and when their names have been ascertained, PLAINTIFF will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities. '11. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ?15. Jurisdiction is pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 382 providing: ?When the question is one of a common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties are numerous, and it is impracticable to bring them all before the court, one or more may sue or defend for the benefit of all.? This court also has jurisdiction under. Cal ifomia Business (J1 Professions Code ?l7203. Venue is proper in this judicial district because TREASURE ISLAND injuries, damages and harms occurred in this judicial district. 16. Further, one or more of the DEFENDANTS reside, are headquartered and conduct business in this judicial district. wrongful acts and omissions are giving rise to claims for restitution and equitable reiief. IV. RESPONDEAT SUPEREOR 17. All of the described conduct, acts, and failures to act are attributed to agents and employees under the direction and control, and with the permission, consent and authorization of DEFENDANTS. Said acts, conduct and failures to act were within the scope of such agency and/or employment, and each of the DEFENDANTS rati?ed, endorsed, and agreed to the acts and omissions of each of the other DEFENDANTS. Each. of these acts and failures to act is alleged against each DEFENDANT, whether acting individually, jointiy, or severally. At all times relevant herein, each DEFENDANT was acting within the course and scope of his or her employment, agreement, and ratification. V. STATEMENT 9F FACTS CGMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 18. Treasure Island (?Site?) is a deactivated US. Naval Base located in San Francisco, California, adjacent to San Francisco Bay. 19. Treasure Island, an infill proiect located in the San Francisco Bay, was created by the federal government in the late 30s to host the 1939 Golden Gate International Expo, and was Eater converted to a naval base as the US prepared for World War II. 20. By ii 997, the Navy entered into agreements with the City? and County of San Francisco to turn over the island for civilians to reside on it. The goal then was to grow the island?s population from 2,000 to 19,000 with the deveiopment ofliigh rises and infrastructure across the oid base, which was projected to cost $1.5 billion. 22. However, soil at the site is contaminated with radioactive waste, with nuclear byproducts on the island that were ?higher than [the] Navy disclosed. 23. The US Navy had not properly assessed the levels of cesiurn~l37, a ?ssion byproduct, in soil samples dating back to the 1970s In reality, contamination ievels are some three times higher than the Navy reported, and 60 percent higher than the Navy's own safety guidelines. 24. A 2006 survey by the Navy found that while problems occasionally happened, nuclear activities at the Treasure Island base were closely regulated and frequentiy inspected. 25. This 2006 report intentionally ignored decades of audits that found poor safety procedures for radiation and toxic removal at the island. 26. In 2007, as the Navy readied to hand the island over to the City of San Francisco, a study by a civilian contractor named Robert McLean found the island to be far more contaminated with radiation than the Navy disclosed to the public. 27. The Navy chose not to revise its 2006 historical radiation survey swiitiy to incorporate the new knowledge and instead, military officials continued to proceed as though the 2006 report were accurate, not updating it until 2012.. 28. Even after its 2012 update, the Navy failed to account for the base?s history oflax radiation safety or for dangers posed by ships irradiated at Bikini Atoll. l6 I7 18 19 29. In 2012, reporters from the Center of Investigative Reporting launched a yearlong investigation that revealed mishaps and omissions by the Navy and its contractors in the Treasure Island cleanup. 30. It is alleged based on information and belief that DEFENDANTS Tetra Tech, Inc. and Tetra Tech EC, Inc. were aware that the levels of radiation on Treasure Island were signi?cantly higher than the Navy disclosed to the public and that this Defendant also chose not to disclose this information to the Plaintiffs. 31. It is alleged based on information and belief that DEFENDANTS Shaw Environmental, Inc. were aware that the levels of radiation on Treasure Island were signi?cantly higher than the Navy disclosed to the public and that this Defendant also chose not to disclose this information to the Plaintiffs. 32. It is alleged based on information and belief that DEFENDANTS TREASURE ISLAND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, were aware that the levels of radiation on Treasure Island were signi? cantly higher than the Navy disclosed to the public and that this Defendant also chose not to disclose this information to the Plaintiffs. 33. It is alleged based on information and belief that DEFENDANTS TREASURE ISLAND HOMELESS DEVELOPEVIENT INITIATIVE, were aware that the levels of radiation on Treasure Island was signi?cantly higher than the Navy disclosed to the public and that this Defendant also chose not to disclose this information to the Plaintiffs. 17 18 19 34. It is alleged based on information and belief that DEFENDANT US. NAVY TREASURE ISLAND CLEAN UP DIRECTOR JIM SULLIVAN, was aware that the levels of radiation on Treasure Island were signi?cantly higher than the Navy disclosed to the public and that this Defendant also chose not to disclose this information to the Plaintiffs. 35. It is alleged based on information and belief that DEFENANT US. NAVY TREASURE ISLAND CLEAN UP LEAD PROJECT MANAGER DAVID CLARK, was aware that the levels of radiation on Treasure Island were signi?cantly higher than the Navy disclosed to the public and that this Defendant also chose not to disclose this information to the Plaintiffs. 36. It is alleged based on information and belief that DEFENDANT US. NAVY REPRESENTATIVE KEITH FORMAN, was aware that the levels of radiation on Treasure Island were significantly higher than the Navy disclosed to the public and that this Defendant also chose not to disclose this information to the Plaintiffs. 37. It is alleged based on information and belief that DEFENDANT STATE DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL was aware that the levels of radiation on Treasure Island were significantly higher than the Navy disclosed to the public and that this Defendant also chose not to disclose this information to the Plaintiffs.- 38. It is alleged based on information and belief that DEFENDANT SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH was aware that the levels of radiation on Treasure Island were signi?cantty higher than the Navy disclosed to the public and that this Defendant also chose not to disclose this information to the Plaintiffs. l6 17 18 19 VII. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION 39. bring this lawsuit as a class action and on behalf of themselves and all others who are similarly situated. The class is composed of all persons who RESIDENTS OR ARE RESIDENTS 0F TREASURE ISLAND. consisting of individuals who have been living, working, attending school or had substantial contact withthe community from 2007 to present. 40. The members of the class are so numerous, approximately 2,000 residents, that joining them all individually would be impracticable. PLAINTIFF don?t know the exact number of the members of the class at this time, but the number and identity of the class members is easily ascertainable through business records. 41. PLAINTIFF have the same interest in this matter as all other members of the class. 42. claims are typical of all the members of the class. 43. A well-de?ned community of interest in the questions of law and fact involving all members of the class exists. 44. Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions that may affect only individual class members. Questions of Law: I. The nature and application of statutory and common law duties to avoid unfair and fraudulent business practices; 2. The nature and application of statutory and common law duties to avoid false and misleading communications about the remediation of radiation and toxins on Treasure Island, which is causing harm, fear= mental and emotional distress to alt The nature and application of the duties with respect to the operation, management and supervision of the soil remediation and cl can-up operation of Treasure Island; applicabie standard of care with respect to the operation, management and supervision of the remediation of radiation and clean-up operation of Treasure Island. Common Questions of Fact: Did DEFENDANTS breach their statutory and common law duties to avoid false and misleading communications about the soil remediation and clean- up operation of Treasure Island? Did DEFENDANTS breach their duties with respect to the operations, management and supervision of the soil remediation and clean?up operation of Treasure Island? 45. claims are typical of all class member claims because all class members? claims arise from failure to disclose to the Plaintiffs and to the public about the levels or radioactive materials and other toxins located in the soil of Treasure 46. The evidence and the legal issues regarding the wrongful conduct are substantially identical for PLAINTIFFS and all of the class members. 47. DEFENDANTS have acted or failed to act on grounds generally applicable to all class members, making equitable restitution to each class member?-appropriate to the class as a whole. 48. The court should certify the class because common questions of law and fact predominate over individual questions. Legal issues regarding duty and standard of care are 1 'l common to all class members? claims. Factual issues regarding breach and the measure of restitution are common to all class members? claims. 49. A class action is superior to all other available procedures for the fair and efficient adjudication of these claims. Even if any individual class member could afford indivi dual litigation, it would be unduly burdensome to the courts in which the separate lawsuits would proceed. A single ciass action is preferable to separate, individual lawsuits because it provides the benefits of unitary adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive adjudication. by a single court. REWREEISENTATEVEE PLAENTEFFS ANBRE and SAMEKE 50. Are both educated, articulate, professionals who will fairiy and adequately protect the interests of the members of the class. 51. FLA. do not have interests that are contrary to or in con?ict with those of the members of the class they seek to represent. PLAINTIFF undersigned counsel is experienced and capable of managing a ciass action of this anticipated size and complexity, and will vigorously prosecute the class claims. 52. The prosecution of separate, individual lawsuits by individual members of the class would create a risk of inconsistent or contradictory findings of fact and could impose incompatible standards of conduct for would lead to repetitious trials of the numerous common questions of ?fact and law. 53. PLAENTIFFS know of no dif?culty that will be encountered in the management of this litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a class action. As a result, a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of these claims. Q.) 54. Class members may be identified and noti?ed of developments in this class action through state or nationwide publications. 55. PLAINTIFFS and class members have suffered ?nancial losses and irreparable harm as a result of wrongful conduct. Without a class action, PLAINTIFF and members of the class will continue to suffer losses, thereby allowing wrongful conduct to proceed without remedy, and allowing DEFENDANTS to retain the proceeds of their ill?gotten profits, contrary to California law and public policy. FERST CAUSE OF ACT ION (FALSE AND MESLEADENG STATEMENTS) (Against SHAW EINWIRGNMENTAL, JIM SULLWAN, DAVED CLARK, KEITH FORMAN, TETRA TECH EC, DAN L. BATRACK, LENNAR FIVE POINT HOLDINGS, LLC., JOHN STEWART COMP, and BOES 1-100) 56. PLAINTIFF and class members hereby incorporate allegations contain in the preceding paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein. 57. wrongful conduct constitutes unfair and fraudulent business practices that have in fact deceived PLAINTIFFS and class members in vioiation of California Business 85 Professions Code 17500. 58. DEFENDANTS made untrue and misleading statements about the implementation, execution, disposition, discharge, clean?up, and remediation of radiation and toxins at Treasure Island. CAESE ACTEGN (NEGLIGENCE FEAR OF (Against: ENVERGNWEENTAL, Mis?t SULLEVAN, EAVED CLARK, KEETH TETRA TECH it; BAN L. BATRACK, LENNAR FEVE HGLBENGS, 3082b! STEWART CGMPANY and DOES 1-100) 59. PLAINTIFFS and class members hereby incorporate ailegations contained in the preceding paragraphs: as though t?uily set forth herein. 60. That Plaintiffs were exposed to radiation: carcinogens and other toxic substances, as a result of Defendants? negligent conduct for failing to disclose to the Plaintiffs and the public the true levels of radioactivity on Treasure Isiand; 61. That the Defendants? conduct was despicable and subjected Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of the Plaintiffs? rights; 62. That Defendants intentionally misrepresented or concealed a material fact known to the Defendants, intending to cause Piaintitif's harrn; 63. That the Plaintiffs suffered serious emotional distress from a fear that they will develop cancer as a result of the exposure; 64. That reliable medical or scienti?c opinion con?rms that the Plaintiffs? risk of developing cancer, was signi?cantiy increased by the exposure and has resulted in an actual risk that is signi?cant; and 65. That the Defendants? conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs? serious emotional distress. 14 66. DEFENDANTS acted with malice or oppression, or fraudulent or intent in exposing Plaintiffs to carcinogens and toxic substances, and that this conduct caused Plaintiffs to suffer serious emotional distress. THERE CAUSE 0i? ACTEON (Against SHAW EWERGNMENTAL, .3 1M SULLIVAN, ?rms/ED CLARK, FORMAN, TEQH EC, DAN L. BATRAQK, LENNAR FIVE Paint?? LLC. STEWART and DGES 1?180) 67. PLAINTIFF and class members hereby incorporate allegations contained in the pre ceding paragraphs, as though. fully set forth herein. 68. and each of them, engaged in an ultra-hazardous activity that caused harm, damages, losses, injuries, including fear of centracting cancer, birth defects for their children, born and unborn, and economic and non-economic damages. 69. DEFENDANFS, and each of them, are responsible for that harm, injuries, damages, both economic and noneconomic because DEFENDANFS engaged in remediation of nuclear waste, radioactive materials, an ultra-hazardous activity at Treasure Island. 70. injuries, damages, losses, fear and harm are the kind of harm that would be anticipated as a result of the risk created by exposure to a radiation release as the nature and kind that was released at Treasure island. 71. acts, conduct and behavior proximately caused harm and damage to the 'E'Tll'i'l: S, including personal injury, property damage, loss of enjoyment of their property and life, the need for periodic examination and treatment, as well as economic losses including loss of earnings, stigma. damages, the cost of obtaining potential cure, and other Ix.) 17 18 19 neediess expenditures of time and money. PLAINTIFFS will continue to incur losses and damage in the future. Based on repeated exposure to ionizing radiation, have a reasonable fear that said exposure more likely than not increases their risk of developing cancer in the future. 72. acts, conduct and behavior proximately caused harm and damage to the PLAINTIFFS, including personal injury, pain, anxiety, mental and emotional distress, discomfort, fear, incontinence, suffering, property damage, loss of enjoyment of their property and life, the need for periodic examination and treatment, as well as economic losses inciuding loss of earnings, stigma damages, the cost of obtaining potential cure, and other needless expenditures of time and money. 73. misconduct was deliberate, and undertaken with oppression, fraud or malice within the meaning of Califbmia Civil Code 3294, justifying an award of exemplary damages sufficient to punish DEFENDANTS and to deter them from such misconduct in the future. WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF pray judgment as hereinafter set forth. CAUSE 0F ACTEON (VIOLATION OF PROPOSITION 65) (Against SHAW ENWIRONMENTAL, .Fih'l SULLWAN, DAVID CLARK, KEETH FORMAN, TETRA TECH EC, DAN L. BATRACK, LENNAR POINT HOLDINGS, LLC., JOHN STEWART COMPANY and DOES 1?100) 74. PLAINTIFF and class members hereby incorporate allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein. 16 75. Proposition 65 Caiifomia Health and Safety Code sections 25249.5 - 25249.13 imposes: ?Prohibition On Contaminating Drinking Water With Chemicals Known to Cause Cancer or Reproductive Toxicity. 76. That Proposition 65 Section 25249.6 required the Defendants to disclose and warn the Plaintiffs of the exposure to chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. ?77. That since 2007, ail DEFENDANTS breached this duty when they failed to comply with Proposition 65 by to notify Treasure Island Plaintiffs that they were releasing radioactive materials in the air, and by failing to give warning that DEFENDANTS were leaving, coverin over, paving under, and covering up radioactive materials on the grounds of Treasure Island. 78. acts, conduct and behavior proximately caused harm and damage to the PLAINTIFFS, including personal injury, pain, anxiety, mental and emotional distress, discomfort, fear, incontinence, suffering, property damage, loss of enjoyment of their property and life, the need for periodic examination and treatment, as well as economic losses including loss of earnings, stigma damages, the cost of obtaining potential cure, and other needless expenditures of time and money. 79. misconduct was deliberate, and undertaken with oppression, fraud or malice within the meaning of California iw'l Code 3 294, justi?/ing an award of exemplary damages suf?cient to punish DEFENDANTS and to deter them from such misconduct in the future. WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF pray judgment as herein after set forth. '17 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (PUBLIC NUESANCE) (Against SHAW ENVERQNMENTAL, .3 1M SULLWAN, DAVID CLARK, KEETH FORMAN, TETRA TECH EC, BAN L. BATRACK, LENNAR FIVE POINT HOLDINGS, LEO, JOHN STEWART COMPANY and DOES 1-100) 80. PLAINPIFFS and class members hereby incorporate allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs, as though fuily set forth herein. 81. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, engaged in negligent, reckless, intentional, and criminal conduct by deliberately and premeditatedly leaving and placing radioactive soil on Treasure Island, fuliy aware that dust, debris, and radionuclides would blow with the prevailing winds over the Treasure Island Community and cause life threatening permanent injuries and death. 82. Plaintiffs suffered harm because DEFENDANTS created a nuisance. DEFENDANTS, by leaving radioactive materials and other toxins on Treasure Island, created conditions that were harmful and injurious to health and life, were offensive to the senses; were an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property, unlawfully obstructed the free passage or use, in the customary manner; and created other dangerous conditions to Treasure Island by contaminating ground water, soil for vegetation, lawns, and the quality of the air that the Plaintiffs have to breathe. 83. Ordinary people would be reasonably annoyed, disturbed and offended by conduct in failing to disciose that they left radioactive soil in the densely populated residential community. '18 84. conduct was a substantial factor in causing the Plaintiffs? injuries, losses and harms, including, but not limited to, cancer, asthma, respiratory failure, heart attack, stroke and fear of contracting other life?long injuries. 85. DEFENDANT misconduct was deliberate, and undertaken with oppression, fraud or malice within the meaning of California Civil Code 3294, justifying an award of exemplary damages sufficient to punish DEFENDANTS and to deter them from such misconduct in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment as hereinafter set forth. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION NU (Against SHAW ENVIRONMENTAL, JIM SULLIVAN, DAVID CLARK, KEITH FORMAN, TETRA TECH EC, DAN L. BATRACK, LENNAR FEVE POINT HOLDING-S, LLC., JOHN STEWART COMPANY and DOES 1-100) 86. PLAINFIFFS and class members hereby incorporate atlegatio?ns contained in the preceding paragraphs, as though fuily set forth herein. 8'7. interfered with the Plaintiffs? use and enjoyment of their land by acting or failing to act as hereinabove described, by leaving radioactive materials and other toxins on Treasure Island. 88. Based on their conduct, the Defendants created conditions that were harmful and injurious to health and life; were offensive to the senses; were an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property; unlawfully obstructed the free passage or use, in. the customary manner; and created other dangerous l9 conditions to the Plaintiffs? property by contaminating ground water, soil for vegetation, iawns, and the quality of the air that they had to breath. 89. acts, conduct and behavior proximately caused harm and damage to the PLAINTIFFS, including personal injury, pain, anxiety, mental and emotional distress, discomfort, fear, incontinence, suffering, property damage, loss of enjoyment of their property and life, the need for periodic examination and treatment, as well as economic losses including loss of earnings, stigma damages, the cost of obtaining potential cure, and other needless expenditures of time and money. .90. mi sconduct was deliberate, and undertaken with oppression, fraud or malice within the meaning of California Civil Code 3294, justifying an award of exemplary damages suf?cient to punish DEFENDANTS and to deter them from such misconduct in the future. WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF pray judgment as hereinafter set forth. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (CONSPIRACY) (Against: SHAW JIM SULLIVAN, DAVE) CLARK, KEITH. TERRA TECH EC, DAN L. BATRACK, WVE HOLDENGS, LLC., JOHN STEWART COMPANY and DOES 1-100) .91. That all named Defendants conspired and planned to intentionally falsify statements to the Plaintiffs and the public regarding the true leveis of radiation contamination on Treasure Island and to not issue true disclosures and warnings regarding the true ievels of toxins and other hazardous waste on Treasure Island. Ix.) Ix.) Lu EIGHTH CAUSE OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Against TREASURE ESLAND DEVELOPMENT TREASURE ZSLAND HOMELESS DEVELOPMENT STATE DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE SAN FRANCESCO BEPARTMENT 0F PUBMC LENNAR, ENC, POENT HOLDENGS, LLC and Does I to 100) 92. PLAINTIFF and class members hereby incorporate allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein. 93. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, are aware that their remains dangerous levels of radiation on Treasure Island which endangers the local community and any other people who eventually relocate there. 94. PLAINTIFFS have repeatedly demanded that DEFENDANTS stop any development on Treasure Island until thorough, complete, and veri?ed test results prove that all the toxins and radioactive materials have been removed, but DEFENDANTS have ignored PLAINTIFF demands. 95. PLAINTIFFS have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable injury unless and until this Court enjoins DEFENDANTS from continuing their wrongful conduct. wrongful conduct is ongoing and threatens to be continued in the future. 96. PLAINTIFFS have no adequate remedy at law for the injuries suffered. An award of monetary damages would not provide an adequate remedy because money damages cannot replace safety, health and iives lost from exposure to radiation and other toxins confirmed now at Treasure Island. INIUNCTION is the only remedy available to PLAINIIEFS to protect themselves, and the general public. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment as hereinafter set forth. PRAYER FOR RELIEF HEREF ORE, PLAINTIFFS pray judgment against DEFENDANTS as follows: 1. For an order requiring DEFENDANTS to Show cause, if any they have, why they should not be enjoined as set forth in this complaint, during the pendency of this action; For a preliminary injunction, enjoining and each of them, and their agents, servants, and employees, and all persons acting under, in concert with, or for them to: a. Take ?anticipatory action? to prevent harm and through exploration of current toxicity and careful analysis of courses of action in order to present the least threat to residents on Treasure Island and; b. Conduct an immediate Health and Safety assessment for residents, workers and students on Treasure Island. . DEFENDANTS, and each of them, must be ordered to ALL DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION, BUILDING, DIGGING, ERECIING, DISTURBING THE SOIL, DIRT, EARTH, BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, PIPES, AND ALL ACTIVITY AT TREASURE ISLAND UNTIL INDEPENDENT VERIFIED REPORTS CAN BE OBTAINED SHOWING COMPLETE AND TOTAL REMEDIATION OF ALL TOXIC SUBSTANCES, INCLUDING ALL RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS FROM Treasure Island; Monetary damages in the amount of $2 billion doilars, 5. For costs of suit incurred in this action; and 6. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper. WHEREFORE, further PLAINTIFFS and members of the Class request that the Court enter an order or judgment against DEFENDANTS, and each of them as named in the future, as follows: 1. For an order certifying the Class, appointing PLAINTIFFS and their counsel to represent the Class, and notice to the Class to be paid by 2. For an injunction ordering DEFENDANTS to cease and desist from seeking to engage in any additional remediation at Treasure Island. For an order requiring DEFENDANTS to immediately pay for medical screenings for La.) early detection of any radiation related medical conditions. Date: January '17, 2020 LAW OFFICE OF STANLEY GOFF STA NIJETY GOF 61% STANLEY GOFF Attorney for Plaintiffs IQ Lu SU Bil?1 00 SUMWNS (CITA CION JUDICIAL) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: AL DEMANDADO): TREASURE ISLAND DEVELOPMENT TREASURE ISLAND HOMELESS DEVELOPMENT SHAW JEM SULLIVAN, DAVID CLARK, YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ES TA DEMANDANDO EL Andre Patterson, Falita Sample, including Ali Parties Listed Herein, and Doe Piaintitfs 1- 2,000 You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you responc within 30 days. Read the information below. You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to ?ts a written responso at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can ?nd these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Selaneip Center your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the ?ling fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not ?le your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money. and property may be taken without further waming from the court. There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonpro?t legal services program. You can locate these nonpro?t groups at the California Legal Services Web site Iawhelpcalifomia. org), the California Courts Online Self?Help Center or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court hasa statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $1 0,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. Lo hen demandado. Si no responds dentro de 30 dies, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lee to informaci?n a continuacion. Tiene 30 DE CALENDARIO despu?s de que lo entreguen esta citacion papeies legales para presenter una respuesta por escriro en esta corte yhacer que se entregue una copia ai demandante. Una carts 0 one llamada telefonica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que ester en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su case en la certs. Es posib/e que haya un formulario que usted pueda user para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte mas informacicin en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (rwmsucorteca. gov), en la biblioteca de leyes de su condado 0 en la corte que la quede ma?s cerca. Si no puede pager Ia cuota de presentaci?n, pida al secretario de la corte- que la d? un formulario de exencr??n de page do cuotas. Si no presenter su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumpiimiento yla aorta is padre guitar so sue/do, dinero bienes sin ma's advertencia. Hay otros requisites legs/es, Es recomendabie cue llama a un abogacio fnmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de remisi?n a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpia can 108 requisitos para obtener servicios legals-s gratuitos de un programa de servicios legaies sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin ?nes de lucro en ei sitio web de California Legal Services, lawheipcalifornia. org), en el Centro de Ayuo?a de las Cortes de California, (LW/W.3ucorte.ca.gov) poniendose en contacto con la corte 0 el colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: For lay, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar [as cuotas 5/ ice cosios exentos por imponer un gra vamen sobre cualquier recuperaci?n de 10,000 6 mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo una concesion de arbitraje en un caso o'e derecho civil. Tiene qua pager e! gravamen de la corte antes de que la con?e puecia desechar ei case. The name and address of the court is: CASE NUMBER: (Numero del Caso): (El Hombre direccic'm de la corte es): San Francisco Superior Court, 400 McAllister St, San Francisco, Ca 94102 The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, la direccion el numero de tei?fono del abogado del demandante, 0 def demandante que no tiene abogado, es): Stanley Goff, 15 Boardman Place, San Francisco Ca 94103, 415-571-9570 DATE: Clerk, by 1 Deputy (F9008) (Secretario) (Aciiunto) (For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form (Para prueba de entrega cie esta citation use el formuian'o Proof of Service of Summons, NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 1. as an individual defendant. 2. as the person sued under the ?ctitious name of (specify): 3. on behalf of (specify): under: CCP 416.10 (corporation) CCP 416.60 (minor) CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) CCP 416.70 (conservatee) CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) a GOP 416.90 (authorized person) other (specify): 4. by personal delivery on (date) page, on Form Adopted for Mandatory Use SUMMONS Code of Civi: Procedure 412.20, 465 Judicial Council or Caiifomia SUM-100 iRev. Juiy 1, 2009] sum-200m) SHORT TITLE: CASE NUMBER: Andre Patterson, Falita Sample, et al. v. Treasure Island Development, INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE This form may be used as an attachment to any summons if space does not permit the listing of all parties on the summons. if this attachment is used. insert the following statement in the plaintiff or defendant box on the summons: ?Additional Parties Attachment form is attached." List additional parties (Check only one box. Use a separate page for each type of party. )1 I: Ptaintiff Defendant I: Cross-Complainant Cross-Defendant KEITH FORMAN, TETRA TECH EC, DAN L. BATRACK, STATE DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC LENNAR FIVE POINT HOLDING-S, LLC., JOHN COMPANY and DOES 1?100 Page of Page 1 of 1 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Ja nuaty 1, 200?} uadachCama ADDITIONAL PARTIES ATTACHMENT Attachment to Summons R. - ilEY -. 5. .d OURTUSEON ?A7Bliiley awesome: we a We?) FOR 15 Boardmz-in Place San Fransisco, Ca 94] 03 415?571 9570 . Plaintifls m) meats-?59m) am San Fiancisco NTY OF SAN aim aegis sleet lv?rAlLiNG ADDRESS: JAN 2 3 2020 i. 94102 . r?anCiSCO a CLL: KOFT EC UHT BRANCH NAME: CASE NAME: Andre Patterson, alita Sample, et at. V. Treasure Island Development, at a ANGELICA SUNGA Deputy Clerk CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation Wie? 2 m5 8 8 11) Unlimited Limited l:l E3 (Amount (Amount Counter Jornder demanded demanded is Filed with ?rst appearance by defendant JUDGE exceeds 525.000) $25,000 or [855) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT: Items 1?6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2). 1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case: - Auto Tort) Contract Provisionally Compiex Civil Litigation Auto (22) Breach of contract/warranty (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400?3.403) Uninsured motorist (46) Rule 3.?40 collections (09) l: Antitrustfl'rade regulation (03) Other (Personal lnju ry/Property Other coliections (09} Construction defect (10) Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort Mass tort (40) Asbestos (O4) Insurance coverage (18) DEEDS Other contract (37) Securities litigation (28) ?ab'llty (24) Re at aProperty Environmentali'l'oxic tort (30) . Medical malpractice (45) I: Eminent Insurance coverage claims arising from the Other pE/prWD (23) condemnation (14) above listed provisionally complex case Non-PliPo/wo (Other) Tort l: Wrongfill (33) types (41) Business tort/unfair business practice (07) El Other real property (26) Enforcement of Judgment Cl Civil rights (08) Unlawful Detainer Enforcement ofl?udgment (20) [j Defamation (13) El Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint l:l Fraud (is) El Residential (32) Rico (27) I: intellectual property (19) ED Drugs (38) l:l Other complaint (notspeci?ed above} (42) I: Professionai negligence (25) dic al Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition l: Other tort (35) forfeiture (OS) Partnership and corporate governance (21) Employment Petition re: arbitration award (11) Other petition {not speci?ed above) (43) Wrongful termination (36) Writ of mandate (D2) Other employment (15) Other judicial review (39) 2. This case El is I: is not compiex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management: a. El Large number of separately represented parties d. Large number of witnesses b. I: Extensive motion practice raising dif?cult or novel e. :1 Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts issues that wiil be time?consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court c. Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. l: Substantial postjudgmentjudiciai supervision 3. Remedies sought (check all that apply). a- - monetary - nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief C. -punitive 4. Number of causes of action (specify). 5. This case - is I: is not a class action suit. 6 if there are any known reiated cases, ?le and serve a notice of related case. You me use form Date 1/2 2020 Stanley Goff (TYPE OR PRENT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF may? on ATTOR NCY/r-oljf PARTY) 9 Plaintiff must ?le this cover sheet with the ?rst paper filed in the action or proceeding (except all claims cases-0r cases ?led under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and lnsiituiions Code). (Cal. Rulespf- Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result in sanctions. File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. 6 If this case is complex under rule 3. 400 et seq of the California Rules of Court you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other parties to the action or proceeding. 0 Unless this IS a coilectlons case under rule 3. 740 or a compiex case, this cover sheet will be used for statisticai purposes oniFyRuies otCoorL rueszoe 3.220 3.401%. 40" 3.740; CASE COVER SHEET .- . . . . . . . . (Tat Random: nf ludirml um ?t in Gilli-010 INSTRUC ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. if you are ?ling a ?rst paper (for example, a complaint) in a civil case, you must complete and ?le, along with your ?rst paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1. This information will be used to compile statistics about the types and numbers of cases ?led. You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet. in item 1, you must check one box for the case type that best describes the case. if the case ?ts both a general and a more speci?c type of case listed in item 1, check the more speci?c one. If the case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action. To assist you in completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A cover sheet must be ?led only with your initial paper. Failure to ?le a cover sheet with the ?rst paper ?led in a civil case may subject a party, its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court. To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A "collections case" under rule 3.740 is de?ned as an action for recovery of money owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorney?s fees, arising from a transaction in which property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: (1) tort damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment writ of attachment. The identi?cation of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general time?for-service requirements and case management roles, unless a defendant ?les a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740. To Parties in Complex Cases. in complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the case is complex. if a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, this must be indicated by completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. if a plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may ?le and serve no later than the time of its ?rst appearance a joinder in the plaintiff's designation, a counter?designation that the case is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that the case is complex. Auto Tort Auto (22)?Personal injury/Property DamagelWrongfui Death Uninsured Motorist (46) (if the case involves an uninsured motorist claim subject to arbitration, check this item instead of A uto) Other (Personal injury] Property Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort Asbestos (04) Asbestos Property Damage Asbestos Personal injury! Wrongful Death Product Liability (not asbestos or toxic/environmental) (24) Medical Malpractice (45) Medical Malpractice? Physicians Surgeons Other Professional Health Care Malpractice Other (23) Premises Liability slip and fall) intentional Bodily assault, vandalism) intentional infliction of Emotional Distress Negligent in?iction of Emotional Distress Other (Other) Tort Business Tort/Unfair Business Practice (07) Civil Rights discrimination, false arrest) (not civil harassment) (08) Defamation slander, libel) (13) Fraud (16) intellectual Property (19) Professional Negligence (25) Legal Malpractice Other Professional Malpractice not medical or legal) Other Tort (35) Employment Wrongful Termination (36) Other Employment (15) car?ore [Rev July 2307; CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Contract Breach of ContractWarranty (06) Breach of Rental/Lease Contract {not unlawful delainer or wrongful eviction) Contract/Warranty Breach-Seller Plaintiff (not fraud or negligence) Negligent Breach of Contract! Warranty Other Breach of Contractharranty Collections money ovred, open book accounts) (09) Collection Case?Seller Plaintiff Other Promissory NotelCoiiections Case insurance Coverage (not provisionally complex) (18) Auto Subrogation Other Coverage Other Contract (37) Contractual Fraud Other Contract Dispute Real Property Eminent Domain/inverse Condemnation (14) Wrongful Eviction (33) Other Real Property quiet title) (26) Writ of Possession of Real Property Mortgage Foreclosure Quiet Title Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant. or foreclosure) Unlawful Detainer Commercial (31) Residential (32) Drugs (38) (if the case involves illegal drugs. check this item; otherwise. report as Commercial or Residential) Judicial Review Asset Forfeiture (05) Petition Re: Arbitration Award (11) Writ of Mandate (02) Writ?Administrative Mandamus Writ?Mandamus on Limited Court Case Matter Writ?Other Limited Court Case Review Other Judicial Review (39) Review of Health Officer Order Notice of Appeal?Labor Commissioner Appeals CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Pr'ovisionaiiy Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court Rules 3.400?3.403) Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03) Construction Defect 0) Claims involving Mass Tort (40) Securities Litigation (28) Environmentalfl?oxic Tort (30) insurance Coverage Claims (arising from provisionally complex case type listed above) (41) Enforcement of Judgment Enforcement of Judgment (20) Abstract of Judgment (Out of County) Confession of Judgment (non- domestic relations) Sister State Judgment Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes) Petition/Certi?cation of Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Other Enforcement of Judgment Case Miscellaneous Civil Complaint (27) Other Complaint {not speci?ed above) (42) Declaratory Relief Only inlunctive Relief Only (non- harassment) Mechanics Lien Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-tort/non-complex) Other Civil Complaint Miscellaneous Civil Petition Partnership and Corporate Governance (21) Other Petition (not speci?ed above) (43) Civil Harassment Workplace Violence ElderlDependent Ad uit Abuse Election Contest Petition for Name Change Petition for Relief From Late Claim Other Civil Petition Page 2 012