caution tape around the PG&E power poles located at or near Highway 128 and Bennett Lane, 

2 where the outage reports originated. Several trees were dangerously close to power poles and 

3 electrical wires coming off the poles in the area of the Tubbs Fire origin. Further, electric 

4 equipment that appeared to have come off the poles in the area of the Tubbs Fire origin was on the 

5 ground. 

6 The Highway 37 Fire 

7 128. Cal Fire reported that the origin of the Highway 37 Fire was at or near the 

8 intersection of Highway 37 and Lakeville Highway near Sonoma, California. Cal Fire also 

9 reported that the Highway 37 Fire started on October 9, 2017, at or around 2:00p.m., and burned 

10 approximately 1,660 acres in Sonoma County. 53 

11 129. PLAINTIFFS are informed that witnesses observed downed power lines, 

12 exploding transformers, improper fuses, improper connections, improper clearances, aged and 

13 defective poles, unrepaired poles, problems with other electrical equipment, and/or down trees, 

14 tree limbs, and/or other vegetation in the area in and around the Highway 37 Fire. 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAWOFPICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

F. AND 01\IIIS:SI(JINS ""'~·'"'""Li..., AND rnl'l.rTnn::tn'T"17n 

'--"V.:Jil""' THE NORTH BAY 

1. The 2013 Liberty Report Found that PG&E's Distribution System 

Presented "Significant Safety Issues" 

130. On May 6, 2013, a report was sent to the Safety and Enforcement Division ofthe 

CPUC from the Liberty Consulting Group who had been retained to conduct an independent 

review of capital and operations and maintenance expenditures proposed by PG&E (hereinafter 

the "20 13 Liberty Report"). 54 The 2013 Liberty Report concluded that: "several aspects of the 

PG&E distribution system present significant safety issues." It also found: (a) "addressing risks 

associated with electrical distribution components has been overshadowed by electric transmission 

and gas facilities;" (b) "addressing aging infrastructure and adding SCAD A to the system comprise 

53 http://cdfdata.fire.ca.gov/incidents/incidents _details _info?incident_id= 1882 (last accessed 

February 12, 2018). 54 http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/publisheddocs/efile/g000/m065/k394/6539421 O.pdf (last accessed 

MASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 37 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 1

of 35
the maJor focuses of safety initiatives for the distribution system;" and (c) "current 

2 employee/contractor serious injury and fatality levels require significantly greater mitigation." 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAWOFPICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

2. The 2013 Liberty Report Found that PG&E's Wires Were Highly 

Susceptible to Failure Due to Age 

131. One of the first key findings of the 2013 Liberty Report was that PG&E had a 

"large amount of small size obsolete conductor remaining on PG&E's system." PG&E has 

113,000 miles of conductors, and according to the report, over 60 percent of those conductors are 

highly susceptible to failure. The conductors are very small, and generally more susceptible to 

breaking than standard size conductors. As a conductor ages, it becomes even more susceptible to 

breaking. Weather conditions, such as winds and lightning strikes, will also wear a small conductor 

more than larger ones. For these reasons, "[t]his conductor was once popular, but is now 

recognized as obsolete, due to its small size." 

132. PG&E's failure to replace these undersized and obsolete conductors was a 

proximate cause of the North Bay Fires and Plaintiffs' harm and damages arising therefrom. 

3. PG&E Failed to Inspect, Maintain, Repair, and/or Replace Its 

Equipment 

133. PG&E failed to perform the necessary inspections, maintenance, repair, and/or 

replacement of its electrical equipment. 

134. A 2015 audit of PG&E's Sonoma Division revealed that there were over 3,500 

unfilled PG&E repair and maintenance requests in the area of the Tubbs Fire. 55 The volume of 

unfilled repair and maintenance requests reflects PG&E's reckless and conscious disregard for 

public safety in the North Bay Fire zones. 

135. In a December 31, 2015, letter to PG&E regarding the audit, Fayi Daye, a 

supervising electric safety regulator with the CPUC, outlined the violations found in the review of 

records between 2010 and 2015 and a spot check of PG&E electrical distribution equipment. She 

stated the following: 

55 http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUC _Public_ Website/Content/Safety/ 

Electric_ Safety_ and_ Reliability/Reports_ and_ Audits/Electric _Facilities/EA20 15-0 18.pdf (last accessed 

MASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 38 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 2

of 35
2 

3 

4 

5 

PG&E's records indicated that from August 2010 to September 21, 2015, 

a total of 3,527 work orders were completed past their scheduled date 

of corrective action per PG&E's Electric Notification Prioritization 

Standards. Late work orders included overhead and underground 

facilities. 56 

136. The letter concluded that these delays violated CPUC General Order No. 128, Rule 

6 17.1, which sets forth the CPUC's design, construction, and maintenance rules for electrical 

7 systems. 

8 137. The audit also reviewed PG&E's maps for its electrical distribution lines and found 

9 that over 50 pieces of overhead equipment - including pole mounted transformers and power lines 

10 has not been inspected every year as required by law. This was a violation ofCPUC General Order 

11 No. 165, § 111-B, which sets forth standards for inspections. 5

7 

12 138. According to State Senator Jerry Hill, these findings are especially troubling 

13 because "they are getting the money for these, they are getting the funds to do the work in a timely 

14 manner." 58 Yet, PG&E takes the money but fails to correct the problems. 

15 139. Further, according to records maintained by Cal Fire, approximately 135 fires in 

16 Sonoma and Napa Counties were caused by electrical equipment from 2011 through 2015. 59 In 

17 2015, the last year of reported data, electrical power problems sparked the burning of 149,241 

18 acres across California more than twice the amount from any other cause. 60 

19 140. Since prior to 1996, PG&E has known or should have known that its choice of 

20 chemical treatments for its poles can also make its equipment unsafe. For example, PG&E uses 

21 and has used poles treated with pentachlorophenol in liquefied petroleum gas by the Cellon® 

22 process. Those poles tend to experience surface decay below ground regardless of the type of 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAWOFPICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

56 Ibid. 57 Ibid. 58 https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/locai/State-Audit-Shows-PGE-Had-Repair-Job-Backlog-inSonoma-Santa-Rosa-451996923.html (last accessed February 12, 2018). 59 http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire _protection/fire _protection _fire _info _redbooks (last accessed 

February 12, 2018). 60 http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-utility-wildfires-20 171017 -story .html (last accessed 

MASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 39 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 3

of 35
wood used for the poles. As a result, digging inspections are required for poles treated by these 

2 processes for all wood types. However, PG&E has failed to conduct the proper inspections. 

3 Further, when PG&E has been advised of necessary repairs to such poles, it has failed to repair 

4 the poles in a timely manner. 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAWOFPICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

141. According to the 2017 CPUC Order 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 Guejito 

Fire of 2007 which (together with the Witch Fire) burned 197,990 acres and 

caused two deaths. Three more deaths occurred in 2011 when an electrical 

conductor separated from a pole in high winds, causing a live wire to fall to 

the ground. At least five more people lost their lives in pole-related failures 

in 2012 and 2015. 

Unauthorized pole attachments are particularly problematic. A pole 

overloaded with unauthorized equipment collapsed during windy 

conditions and started the Malibu Canyon Fire of 2007, destroying and 

damaging luxury homes and burning over 4500 acres. Windstorms in 2011 

knocked down a large number of poles in Southern 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 excessive and/or unauthorized attachments can 

put utility workers at risk. Facilities deployed in the field may differ from 

what appears on paper or in a utility's database. 61 

142. In the June 29, 2017 CPUC press release for the investigation, CPUC President 

Michael Picker stated, "Plain old wooden poles, along with their cousins, the underground 

conduits, are work horses, carrying most of our power and telecommunications. They sometimes 

get crowded and fail, causing outages and fires because of all the equipment crammed onto them." 

Further, "Not knowing where all the poles are and who owns them, how loaded they are, how safe 

they are, and whether they can handle any additional infrastructure, is problematic to both the 

61 http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/GOOO/Ml90/K872/190872933.pdf (last 

MASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 40 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 4

of 35
utilities and to the CPUC. Creating a database of utility poles could help owners track attachments 

2 on their poles and manage necessary maintenance and rearrangements, and can help the CPUC in 

3 our oversight role. " 62 

4 143. PG&E's failure to conduct proper and regular inspections of its wood utility poles 

5 and failure to replace them or make necessary repairs contributed to causing the North Bay Fires. 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAWOFPICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

4. PG&E Failed to Ensure Its Infrastructure Could Withstand 

Foreseeable Weather Conditions as Required by Law 

144. Despite PG&E's public protestations to the contrary, Northern California did not 

experience uncommon weather patterns the night the North Bay Fires began. Readings at weather 

stations in the areas impacted by the North Bay Fires show that winds were at foreseeable levels 

when PG&E's electrical equipment began to fail. For example, on October 8, 2017, a weather 

station in Santa Rosa in the vicinity of the Tubbs Fire recorded wind gusts of about 30 miles per 

hour at or around 9:29p.m. About an hour later, the same station recorded wind gusts of 41 miles 

per hour. These wind speeds were surpassed in other recent storms in the area on a number of 

occasions. 

145. According to PG&E's 2014 Annual Electric Distribution Reliability Report, sent 

to the CPUC on February 27, 2015, weather conditions have accounted for many of the top ten 

PG&E electrical outages each year since at least 2004, putting the utility on notice that these 

weather conditions occur and that they can cause electrical problems. For example, four of the 

"ten largest 2004 outage events" for PG&E occurred in the Santa Rosa and Sonoma areas where 

winds were documented in the 35 to 65 mph range, much higher levels than those of October 8, 

2017. 63 

146. PG&E's largest outage in 2009 was caused by a strong early season storm that 

"affected the entire service area with many stations reporting wind gusts over 50 mph. National 

Weather Service records indicate this stonn was the strongest October rain and wind event since 

62 http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/GOOO/M 191/K560/191560905.pdf (last 

accessed February 12, 2018). 63 https://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/myhome/outages/outage/reliability/ 

MASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 41 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 5

of 35
1962. Therefore, PG&E had notice of the type of winds that occurred on October 8, 2017, the 

2 night the North Bay Fires began. 

3 147. PG&E's wood utility poles in the areas where the North Bay Fires began did not 

4 meet the wind load and safety factors required by General Order 95, Rule 48, under which wood 

5 utility poles must be replaced if they are not strong enough to withstand wind speeds of 92 mph. 

6 No weather station in the areas affected by the North Bay Fires recorded wind speeds at or above 

7 92 mph on the night of October 8, 201 7. 

8 148. PG&E's failure to replace old and deteriorated wood utility poles that did not meet 

9 the strength and safety requirements of General Order 95, Rule 48, and that could not withstand 

10 wind speeds of less than 92 mph contributed to the cause of the North Bay Fires. 

11 5. PG&E's Unsafe Use ofReclosers 

12 149. Another key finding of the 2013 Liberty Report was that on a daily basis and in 36 

13 percent of cases, PG&E cannot remotely de-energize a downed line and must send someone on14 site to manually tum off the feed. An energized downed line is a hazard, and, according to the 

15 2013 Liberty Report, this hazard has "contributed to a number of fatalities and injuries." 

16 150. PG&E has a long-standing practice of using reclosers throughout its system to 

1 7 automatically restart power after interruptions, even though it knows these devices may cause 

18 wildfires. Reclosers are circuit breakers equipped with a mechanism that can automatically 

19 "reclose" the breaker and reenergize a power line after it has been "opened" due to a fault. Many 

20 ofPG&E's reclosers are set to reenergize the line up to three times after a fault. 

21 151. Reclosers are key tools to prevent power blackouts, but if a fault occurs from 

22 contact between a line and a tree or vegetation, reenergizing the line can ignite fires. This danger 

23 is so significant that the other two major utilities in California, San Diego Gas & Electric Company 

24 and Southern California Edison, have reprogramed their electrical systems during fire seasons to 

25 ensure that reclosers do not automatically restart electrical currents after a service interruption. 

26 152. PG&E knew that its reclosers posed a great risk of wildfire but has only taken slow 

27 and incomplete steps to eliminate that risk. At a Congressional hearing in 2015, PG&E's Senior 

28 Vice President of Electrical Operations, Patrick Hogan, stated that PG&E had the ability to 

LAWOFPICES MASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 42 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 6

of 35
reprogram its reclosers during fire season to not restart power. Patrick Hogan claimed that shutting 

2 down power means "you take the reliability hit, but you gain the wildfire benefit." 64 

3 153. In contrast to San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Southern California Edison 

4 having disabled all of their reclosers from reenergizing lines during fire season, and despite its 

5 own knowledge of the dangers posed by reclosers, PG&E began an experimental pilot program in 

6 201 7 to reprogram its reclosers that only affected a limited area of California. 

7 154. Even before the Butte Fire in 2015, PG&E began a process of replacing all 

8 reclosers that can only be programmed or controlled on-site with reclosers that can be remotely 

9 programmed and controlled. However, that process has been so slow and deliberate many of its 

10 reclosers must still be programmed or controlled only at the site where they are installed. 

11 155. On its own initiative, PG&E did not turn off a number of reclosers on transmission 

12 and distribution systems in the area of the North Bay Fires. Instead, PG&E left those reclosers 

13 active and did not turn them off until directed to do so by Cal Fire between October 12 and 15, 

14 2017. 

15 156. PG&E's failure to turn off its reclosers during fire season and its failure to ensure 

16 all of its reclosers could be programmed and controlled remotely proximately caused the North 

17 Bay Fires and the injuries, deaths, harm and property destruction arising therefrom. 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAWOFPICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

6. PG&E Knew That Its Down-Guy Design Was Flawed and Could 

Cause Ground Currents That Create Arcing and Spark Vegetation 

157. Electrical arcing is a process by which guy wires or "down-guys," when designed 

improperly and/or installed according to improper design, conduct ground current at ground level 

during high winds, igniting fires to nearby vegetation. Guy wires are the metal support cables that 

are used to tie electrical poles to the ground. PG&E utilizes an inverted "V" shape design without 

any separation or in-line insulators as an attempt to help its poles withstand high wind. However, 

in PG&E's sub-transmission design, PG&E does not separate the connection at the pole by 12 

inches, utilize any in-line insulator to prevent ground current from flowing, or utilize a shunt so 

64 http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Power-line-restart-device-implicated-in-pastMASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 43 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 7

of 35
when ground current exists it does not cause an electrical arc. In addition, if not properly 

2 maintained, the down-guys become loose. In high wind conditions, when the poles sway and 

3 ground currents exist, arcing occurs. With the combination of high winds, swaying poles, loose 

4 connections, two down-guys attached by a common bolt, and ground current, electrical arcing 

5 occurs, igniting local vegetation. 

6 158. It is believed that arcing from San Diego Gas & Electric wires was the cause of the 

7 2007 San Diego "Witch Creek" Fires, in addition to the 2003 Cedar and Paradise Fires. 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAWOFPICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

159. The down-guy design utilized by PG&E is a violation of CPUC General Order 

Number 95. Industry experts have demonstrated to the CPUC and California utilities how the 

dangerous design causes arcing and fires for over a decade. They believe this design is 

unreasonably dangerous and that the fix is cheap and easy. CPUC General Order Number 95 sets 

forth two possible solutions: either have a 12-inch separation on a pole; or add an in-line insulator. 

An additional solution is adding a shunt from the down-guy anchor to the down-guy itself. All 

three inexpensive solutions prevent electrical arcs at ground levels that ignite fires. 

7. PG&E's Reckless Adoption of the VMII Program Where It Paid Its 

Contractors to Cut Fewer Trees 

160. PG&E's Vegetation Management Program performs two types of tree work: 

annual routine compliance tree work and reliability tree work. 

161. Annual routine compliance work focuses on maintaining regulatory distances 

between energized conductors and vegetation. Reliability tree work focuses on locations where 

there has been a history of vegetation-related outage problems based on three historical indexes: 

System Average Interruption Frequency Index ("SAIFI"), Customer Experiencing Multiple 

Interruption ("CEMI"), and System Average Interruption Duration Index ("SAID!"). 

162. In 2006, PG&E's Vegetation Management Program adopted the "Vegetation 

Management Incentive Initiative" ("VMII"). The ostensible purpose of VMII was to reduce the 

annual routine compliance tree work and share the resulting cost savings with the contractors 

whose compensation would be reduced by the loss of actual work. The actual purpose of VMII 

was to shift costs from annual routine compliance work to fund additional reliability work. 

MASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 44 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 8

of 35
163. For example, in 2011, PG&E set a goal to reduce routine "units" worked from 1.18 

2 million trees in 2011 to 1 million in 2012 in order to increase the amount of money available for 

3 reliability work by $20 million. In 2012, PG&E set a goal to goal to reduce routine "units" worked 

4 by 25 percent in 2013 in order to increase the amount of money available for reliability work by 

5 $35 million. In 2013, PG&E only performed routine patrol inspections on 75 percent of its 

6 distribution circuits, using the cost savings to increase its reliability patrols. In 2014, PG&E set a 

7 goal to reduce routine units worked by 7.5 percent annually through 2016. 

8 164. Between 2006 and 2013, PG&E actually reduced the number of routine trees 

9 worked from 1.7 million to 1.25 million in 2013, paid contractors $85 million, and increased 

10 reliability spending by $134 million. During that time, customer satisfaction as measured by 

11 SAIFI increased by 40 percent. 

12 165. Most of PG&E's annual routine compliance work is performed in rural areas in 

13 California, while most of PG&E's "reliability" work is performed in the more densely populated 

14 urban or semi-urban areas where outages will generate more complaints per square mile than in 

15 the rural counties served by PG&E. Although the actual vegetation management work performed 

16 in the annual routine compliance patrols and the reliability patrols is virtually the same, PG&E's 

17 only comprehensible rationale for differentiating the "two types of work" is that the "reliability" 

18 work is directed at reducing statistical measurements of customer dissatisfaction over outages and 

19 that goal can be better accomplished by concentrating on work in urban or semi-urban areas at the 

20 expense of work needed in rural areas. 

21 166. Under PG&E's bonus incentive program, reducing the number of customer 

22 complaints over outages leads to an increased likelihood of increases in executive and management 

23 bonuses. 

24 167. PG&E's reckless implementation and continued application ofVMII proximately 

25 caused the North Bay Fires and the injuries, deaths, harm and property destruction arising 

26 therefrom. 

27 /// 

28 /// 

LAWOFPICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

MASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 45 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 9

of 35
8. PG&E Failed to Fully Employ LiDAR to Identify Hazard Trees 

2 168. LiDAR (an acronym for "Light Detection and Ranging") is a surveying method that 

3 measures distances to a target by illuminating that target with a pulsed laser light and measures the 

4 reflected pulses with a sensor. These light pulses, when combined with other data recorded by the 

5 system, orthoimagery, and hyperspectral data, can generate precise three-dimensional images and 

6 information about the shape of the Earth and objects such as buildings or trees. 

7 169. When used in a vegetation management program for electric utilities, LiDAR scans 

8 and analyses can be used to identify trees that have the potential for contacting conductors, whether 

9 because of proximity to the conductors or because they are dead, diseased, or dying. Annual 

10 LiDAR scans and analyzes the change in the dead or diseased vegetation by comparing one year's 

11 data to the prior year's inventory of dead or diseased trees. When the analysis is conducted over a 

12 subset dataset, it can provide a statistical understanding in the percent change in vegetation 

13 identified as dead or diseased. 

14 170. PG&E's use of LiDAR is funded by its "Catastrophic Event Memorandum 

15 Account" ("CEMA"). If a catastrophic event is declared a state of emergency by the state or 

16 federal government, then utilities like PG&E can record costs caused by the event in this 

1 7 memorandum account. By recording these costs, the utilities can later ask for recovery of these 

18 costs from the CPUC. 

19 171. In 2014, PG&E began to use LiDAR to scan and analyze small sections of its 

20 electric transmission and distribution system. In 2015, PG&E employed a contractor who created 

21 spatially accurate alignment information for approximately 10 percent of PG&E distribution lines 

22 using LiDAR and imagery. The contractor identified 2.2 million "Hazard Trees" in the LiDAR 

23 data having the potential to fail-in or encroach on distribution lines, performed "dead and diseased 

24 analysis" on 1.6 million trees, and identified 23,000 trees as potentially dead or diseased. 

25 172. In 2015, for some unfortunate reason PG&E scheduled the LiDAR contractor's 

26 deliverables for October 2015 at the very tail end of California's fire season. The contractor's 

27 final product identified the 44 foot-tall gray pine that started the Butte Fire as a "Hazard Tree" that 

28 

LAWOFPICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

MASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 46 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 10

of 35
had the potential to fall into one ofPG&E's distribution lines, but unfortunately PG&E received 

2 the information over a month after the Butte Fire started. 

3 173. In 2016 and 2017, PG&E again employed LiDAR technology to scan and analyze 

4 its electric transmission and distribution system, but only employed the technology in limited 

5 sections of that system, and again scheduled the deliverables at the tail end of the California 

6 wildfire season. 

7 174. PG&E's failure to fully employ LiDAR technology in the area of the North Bay 

8 Fires and its failure to timely schedule deliverables of LiDAR analyses proximately caused the 

9 North Bay Fires and the injuries, deaths, harm and property destruction arising therefrom. 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAWOFPICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

9. PG&E Failed to Treat the Conditions of Its Aging Electrical Assets as 

an Enterprise-Level Risk 

175. Another recommendation of the 2013 Liberty Report was "the establishment of a 

formal asset management program 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 be 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 GRC." 

176. The 2013 Liberty Report specifically recommended that "PG&E treat aging 

infrastructure as an enterprise-level risk." 

177. PG&E's failure to treat its agmg infrastructure as an enterprise-level risk 

proximately caused the North Bay Fires and the injuries, deaths, harm and property destruction 

arising therefrom. 

10. PG&E's "Run to Failure" Approach to Maintenance 

178. PG&E 's: failure to address the "significant safety hazards" identified by the 2013 

Liberty Report; failure to replace obsolete and undersized conductors; failure to halt its unsafe use 

of reclosers; adoption of the VMII program; failure to fully employ LiDAR to identify hazard 

MASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 47 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 11

of 35
trees; failure to treat the conditions of its aging infrastructure as an enterprise-level risk; failure to 

2 inspect, maintain, repair, and!or replace its aging equipment; failure to conduct an inventory of its 

3 electrical assets; and failure to ensure its infrastructure could withstand foreseeable weather 

4 conditions as required by law are all indicative of what has been called PG&E's "run to failure" 

5 approach to its infrastructure. 

6 179. PG&E has a well-documented history of implementing this "run to failure" 

7 approach with its aging infrastructure, ignoring necessary maintenance and creating hazards to the 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAWOFPICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

public. According to a filing by Office of Ratepayer Advocates with the CPUC in May 2013: 

However, as we saw in Section V.F.3 above, the Overland Audit explains how 

PG&E systematically underfunded GT &S integrity management and 

maintenance operations for the years 2008 through 2010. PG&E engaged in 

a 'run to failure' strategy whereby it deferred needed maintenance projects 

and changed the assessment method for several pipelines from ILl to the less 

informative ECDA approach all to increase its profits even further beyond 

its already generous authorized rate of return, which averaged 11.2% between 

1996 and 2010. 

Given PG&E's excessive profits over the period of the Overland Audit, there 

is no reason to believe that Overland's example regarding GT &S operations 

between 2008 and 2010 was unique. The IRP Report supplements the 

Overland Audit findings with additional examples of PG&E management's 

commitment to profits over safety. Thus, it is evident that while the example 

of GT &S underfunding between 2008 and 2010 might be extreme, it was not 

an isolated incident; rather, it represents the culmination of PG&E 

management's long-standing policy to squeeze every nickel it could from 

PG&E gas operations and maintenance, regardless of the long term 'run to 

failure' impacts. And PG&E has offered no evidence to the contrary. 65 

180. PG&E's "run to failure" approach to maintenance proximately caused the North 

Bay Fires and the injuries, deaths, harm and property destruction arising therefrom. 

11. PG&E's Purchase of Insurance Coverage for Punitive Damages 

181. Insurance Code § 533 provides in pertinent part: "An insurer is not liable for a loss 

caused by the willful act of the insured." 

65 ftp://ftp2.cpuc.ca.gov/PG&E20 150 130ResponseToA 13120 12Ruling/20 13/03/ 

MASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 48 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 12

of 35
182. Civil Code § 1668 provides: "All contracts which have for their object, directly or 

2 indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person 

3 or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of 

4 the law." 

5 183. Despite the statutory exoneration given to insurance companies for liability for 

6 losses caused by willful acts of an insured, and despite the fact that the public policy of the State 

7 of California invalidates any insurance contract that purports to provide coverage for punitive 

8 damages, PG&E has purchased policies of insurance from offshore companies in Bermuda, 

9 London, and elsewhere that expressly provide coverage for punitive damages in amounts that 

10 exceed hundreds of millions of dollars. 

11 184. PG&E purchased insurance policies that cover punitive damages for the purpose 

12 of providing corporate security at the cost of public safety. This contributed to a culture of reckless 

13 disregard for the safety of the residents of Northern and Central California and contributed to 

14 causing the North Bay Fires. 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAWOFPICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

G. THE THE 

185. PG&E has a virtual monopoly in the provision of gas and electric services to the 

general public in almost all counties and cities across Northern and Central California. 66 

186. Over the past thirty-plus years, PG&E has been subject to numerous fines, 

penalties, and/or convictions as a result of its failure to abide by safety rules and regulations, 

including the fines, penalties, settlements, and convictions detailed above. Despite these recurring 

punishments, PG&E continues to display a shocking degree of arrogant complacency, refuses to 

modify its behavior, and continues to conduct its business with a conscious disregard for the safety 

of the public, including PLAINTIFFS. 

187. Rather than spend the money it obtains from customers for infrastructure 

maintenance and safety, PG&E funnels this funding to boost its own corporate profits and 

MASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 49 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 13

of 35
compensation. This pattern and practice of favoring profits over having a solid and well2 maintained infrastructure that would be safe and dependable for years to come left PG&E 

3 vulnerable to an increased risk of a catastrophic event such as the North Bay Fires. 

4 188. For example, according to documents released by The Utility Reform Network 

5 ("TURN"), PG&E planned to replace a segment of the San Bruno pipeline in 2007 that it identified 

6 as one of the riskiest pipelines in PG&E's system. PG&E collected $5 million from its customers 

7 to complete the project by 2009, but instead deferred the project until it was too late and repurposed 

8 the money to other priorities. That same year, PG&E spent nearly $5 million on bonuses for six 

9 of its top executives. 

10 189. Further, Geisha Williams, PG&E's CEO, is slated to receive at least $12.23 million 

11 in bonuses over the next few years, depending on the future performance of the company. This 

12 is on top ofher $1.085 million annual salary, which rose 3 percent from 2017 to 2018. 67 

13 190. Moreover, PG&E has implemented multiple programs that provide monetary 

14 incentives to its employees, agents, and/or contractors to not protect public safety. Prior to the 

15 Butte Fire, PG&E chose to provide a monetary incentive through the VMII program to its 

16 contractors to cut fewer trees, even though PG&E was required to have an inspection program in 

17 place that removed dangerous trees and reduced the risk of wildfires. Robert Urban, a regional 

18 officer for a PG&E contractor, stated that he had a concern that the bonus system incentivized his 

19 employees to not do their job, but PG&E chose to keep this program despite knowing this risk. 

20 191. Similarly, prior to the San Bruno explosion, PG&E had a program that provided 

21 financial incentives to employees to not report or fix gas leaks and keep repair costs down. This 

22 program resulted in the failure to detect a significant number of gas leaks, many of which were 

23 considered serious leaks. According to Richard Kuprewicz, an independent pipeline safety expert, 

24 PG&E's incentive system was "training and rewarding people to do the wrong thing," emblematic 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAWOFPICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

67 https :/ /www .sfchronicle.com/business/article/PG-E-CEO-could-get-more-than-12-million-inMASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 50 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 14

of 35
of "a seriously broken process," and "explains many of the systemic problems in this operation 

2 that contributed to the [San Bruno] tragedy." 68 

3 192. As detailed above, the North Bay Fires are just one example of the many tragedies 

4 that have resulted from PG&E's enduring failure to protect the public from the dangers associated 

5 with its operations. PG&E power lines, transformers, conductors, poles, insulators, and/or other 

6 electrical equipment have repeatedly started wildfires due to PG&E's ongoing failure to create, 

7 manage, implement, and/or maintain effective vegetation management programs for the areas near 

8 and around its electrical equipment. Further, PG&E's aging infrastructure has caused multiple 

9 disasters throughout California. 

10 193. As detailed more fully above, PG&E's failures to reduce the risk of wildfire are 

11 serious and widespread, and contributed to causing the North Bay Fires. The reclosers in PG&E's 

12 system were set to avoid outages and not to avoid fires, even though fire conditions were known 

13 to be extreme. PG&E failed to have a reasonable system in place to make sure that its contractors 

14 were properly performing tree and/or vegetation inspections and removal, pole clearance, and pole 

15 inspections. PG&E failed to take any steps to look for what it calls Facility Protect Trees (trees 

16 which pose a risk of falling into the line), even though it knew such trees were likely to exist after 

1 7 its contractors had performed their work. PG&E failed to properly construct its power lines and 

18 thereafter failed to take reasonable steps to make sure the poles and lines were sufficiently strong 

19 to support lines and other equipment that were added by third parties. Finally, despite knowing 

20 that wildfires posed the greatest risk to the public from its electrical operations, PG&E chose to 

21 not ensure that its contractors were properly trained in tree inspections and removal, chose to not 

22 ensure that its contractors hired people who met PG&E's minimum qualifications, and chose to 

23 not participate in the training of its contractors. 

24 194. As the numbers of disasters caused by PG&E continue to mount, the number of 

25 "feel good" commercials it airs increases exponentially. Those "concerned neighbor" 

26 commercials cannot hide the true nature of PG&E's corporate culture of greed, indifference, 

27 

28 

LAWOFPICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

68 http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/PG-E-incentive-system-blamed-for-leak-oversightsMASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 51 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 15

of 35
dogged refusal to take responsibility for its actions, and persistent failure to institute obvious 

2 measures to protect the public. 

3 v. 

4 

5 

CAUSES OF ACTION 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

NEGLIGENCE 

(Against All Defendants) 

6 195. PLAINTIFFS incorporate and re-allege each of the paragraphs set forth above as 

7 though fully set forth herein. 

8 196. The North Bay Fires were a direct and legal result of the negligence, carelessness, 

9 recklessness, and/or unlawfulness of DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them. DEFENDANTS, 

10 and/or each of them, breached their respective duties owed individually and/or collectively to 

11 PLAINTIFFS by, including but not limited to: (1) failing to comply with the applicable statutory, 

12 regulatory, and/or professional standards of care; (2) failing to timely and properly maintain, 

13 manage, inspect, and/or monitor the subject power lines, electrical equipment, and/or adjacent 

14 vegetation; (3) failing to properly cut, trim, prune, and/or otherwise keep vegetation at a sufficient 

15 distance to avoid foreseeable contact with power lines; (4) failing to trim and/or prune vegetation 

16 so as to avoid creation of a safety hazard within close proximity of the subject power line; (5) 

1 7 failing to make the overhead lines safe under all the exigencies created by surrounding 

18 circumstances and conditions; (6) failing to conduct adequate, reasonably prompt, proper, 

19 effective, and/or frequent inspections and/or repairs of the electrical transmission lines, wires, 

20 and/or associated equipment; (7) failing to design, construct, monitor, and/or maintain electrical 

21 transmission and/or distribution power lines in a manner that avoids the potential to ignite a fire 

22 during long, dry seasons by allowing vegetation to grow in an unsafe manner; (8) failing to install 

23 the equipment necessary and/or to inspect and/or repair the equipment installed, to prevent 

24 electrical transmission and distribution lines from improperly sagging, operating, and/or making 

25 contact with other metal wires placed on its poles and igniting fires; (9) failing to keep equipment 

26 in a safe condition and/or manage equipment to prevent fire at all times; ( 1 0) failing to de-energize 

27 power lines during fire prone conditions; (11) failing to de-energize power lines after the ignition 

28 of the North Bay Fires; and/or (12) failing to properly train and to supervise employees and/or 

LAWOFPICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

MASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 52 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 16

of 35
agents responsible for maintenance and inspection of the distribution lines and/or vegetation areas 

2 nearby these lines. 

3 197. As a direct and legal result of DEFENDANTS' actions and/or omissions, and/or 

4 each of them, PLAINTIFFS were injured in their health, strength, and/or activity in an amount 

5 according to proof at trial. 

6 198. As a further direct and legal result of the premises, PLAINTIFFS were required to 

7 and/or continue to employ physicians and other healthcare providers to examine, treat, and/or care 

8 for their injuries. PLAINTIFFS have incurred, and will continue to incur, medical and/or 

9 incidental expenses in an amount according to proof at trial. 

10 199. As a further direct and legal result of the premises, PLAINTIFFS have suffered 

11 and/or continue to suffer great mental pain and suffering, including worry, emotional distress, 

12 humiliation, embarrassment, anguish, anxiety, and/or nervousness. PLAINTIFFS are informed 

13 and believe, and upon such information and belief allege, that such injuries have resulted in 

14 debilitating injuries in an amount according to proof at trial. 

15 200. As a further direct and legal result of the premises, PLAINTIFFS have suffered a 

16 loss of income, loss of earning capacity, loss of profits, increased expenses due to displacement, 

17 and/or other consequential economic losses in an amount according to proof at trial. 

18 201. As a further direct and legal result of DEFENDANTS' actions and/or omissions, 

19 and/or each of them, PLAINTIFFS have suffered damage to real property, including the loss of 

20 vegetation, trees, and structures, the creation of hydrophobic soil conditions, and a loss of use, 

21 benefit, goodwill, diminution in value, and/or enjoyment of such property in an amount according 

22 to proof at trial. 

23 202. As a further direct and legal result of DEFENDANTS' actions and/or omissions, 

24 and/or each of them, PLAINTIFFS have suffered damage to and/or a loss of personal property, 

25 including but not limited to items of peculiar value to PLAINTIFFS, in an amount according to 

26 proof at trial. 

27 203. As a further direct and legal result of DEFENDANTS' actions and/or omissions, 

28 and/or each of them, PLAINTIFFS have incurred and will continue to incur expenses and other 

LAWOFPICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

MASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 53 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 17

of 35
economic damages related to the damage to their property, including costs relating to storage, 

2 clean-up, disposal, repair, depreciation, and/or replacement of their property, and/or other related 

3 consequential damages in an amount according to proof at trial. 

4 204. PG&E has a virtual monopoly over the transmission and distribution of electrical 

5 power to the areas affected by the North Bay Fires and has individual contracts with all residents 

6 and businesses in those areas to whom it distributes that electrical power. The communities 

7 affected by the North Bay Fires are all dependent upon the safe transmission and distribution of 

8 that electrical power for continuous residential and commercial usage, and PG&E has contractual, 

9 statutory, and public duties to provide that electrical power in a manner that promotes those 

10 individual and public interests. 

11 205. The potential harms to PLAINTIFFS from wildfires such as the North Bay Fires 

12 were objectively foreseeable both in nature and in scope and were subjectively known to PG&E 

13 from its long and tragic history of causing such wildfires. 

14 206. As set forth above and as will be shown by proof, there is a high degree of certainty 

15 that PLAINTIFFS have suffered those injuries and damages, and that there is an extremely close 

16 connection between those injuries and damages and DEFENDANTS' conduct. A high degree of 

17 moral blame is attached to DEFENDANTS' conduct, and the policy of preventing future harm 

18 justifies both the recognition of the existence of a duty of care owed by DEFENDANTS to all 

19 PLAINTIFFS and the imposition of all damages described above. 

20 207. Based on the foregoing, DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, acted willfully, 

21 wantonly, with oppression, fraud, malice, and/or with a knowing, conscious disregard for the rights 

22 and/or safety of others, such the PLAINTIFFS request that the trier of fact, in the exercise of 

23 sound discretion, award PLAINTIFFS additional damages pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 

24 3294 for the sake of example and sufficient to punish the DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, 

25 for their despicable conduct, in an amount reasonably related to PLAINTIFFS' actual damages 

26 and DEFENDANTS' financial condition, yet sufficiently large enough to be an example to others 

27 and to deter DEFENDANTS and others from engaging in similar conduct in the future. 

28 

LAWOFPICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

MASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 54 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 18

of 35
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAWOFPICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

208. 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 § 3340. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

WRONGFUL DEATH 

(Against All Defendants) 

209. PLAINTIFFS incorporate and re-allege each of the paragraphs set forth above as 

though fully set forth herein. 

210. As a direct and legal result of DEFENDANTS' actions and/or omissions, and/or 

each of them, at least 44 people died in or from the North Bay Fires ("DECEDENTS"). 

211. As a further direct and legal result of DEFENDANTS' actions and/or omissions, 

and/or each of them, PLAINTIFFS suffered and continue to suffer the loss oflove, society, solace, 

companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, and/or moral support from 

DECEDENTS in an amount to be detennined at trial. 

212. As a further direct and legal result of DEFENDANTS' actions and/or omissions, 

and/or each of them, PLAINTIFFS incurred funeral and/or burial expenses and/or related medical 

expenses in an amount according to proof at trial. 

213. As a further direct and legal result of DEFENDANTS' actions and/or omissions, 

and/or each of them, PLAINTIFFS suffered economic losses, including but not limited to the loss 

of financial support, and/or the loss of household services in an amount according to proof of trial. 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 

SURVIVAL ACTION 

(Against All Defendants) 

214. PLAINTIFFS incorporate and re-allege each of the paragraphs set forth above as 

though fully set forth herein. 

215. Prior to DECEDENTS' death, this cause of action arose in their favor. Since 

DECEDENTS' death, PLAINTIFFS have served as representatives for DECEDENTS' estates 

and are authorized as successors in interest with respect to their interest in the property that was 

damaged, lost, and/or destroyed in the North Bay Fires, to pursue any and all legal claims for 

MASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 55 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 19

of 35
damages relevant thereto, and/or to recover damages for expenses incurred related to medical 

2 and/or emergency services related to the fires. 

3 216. As set forth above, the North Bay Fires were a direct and legal result of the 

4 negligence, carelessness, recklessness, and/or unlawfulness of DEFENDANTS, and/or each of 

5 them. 

6 217. As a direct and legal result ofDEFENDANTS' actions and/or omissions, and/or 

7 each of them, immediately prior to DECEDENTS' death, DECEDENTS suffered personal 

8 injuries, great pain and suffering, and/or damage to their real and/or personal property. Had they 

9 survived, DECEDENTS would have been entitled to recover all such damages allowed under 

I 0 Code of Civil Procedure § 377.30 under the causes of action alleged in this Master Complaint for, 

11 inter alia, inverse condemnation, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, private 

12 nuisance, public nuisance, premises liability, trespass, and/or violations of statutes and regulations. 

13 218. As a further direct and legal result of DEFENDANTS' actions and/or omissions, 

14 and/or each of them, expenses were incurred for the identification and/or removal of 

15 DECEDENTS' remains and other medical and/or emergency services related to the North Bay 

16 Fires. 

17 219. As a further direct and legal result of the wrongful acts and/or omissions of 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAWOFPICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, PLAINTIFFS seek the recovery of punitive and exemplary 

damages against DEFENDANTS as set forth above. 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

INVERSE CONDEMNATION 

(Against All Defendants) 

220. PLAINTIFFS incorporate and re-allege each of the paragraphs set forth above as 

though fully set forth herein. 

221. On or around October 8 or 9, 2017, PLAINTIFFS were owners of real property 

and/or personal property located within Butte, Calaveras, Lake, Mendocino, Napa, Nevada, 

Solano, Sonoma, and/or Yuba Counties in the area of the North Bay Fires. 

MASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 56 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 20

of 35
222. Prior to and on October 8 or 9, 2017, DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, 

2 installed, owned, operated, used, controlled, and/or maintained power lines and other electrical 

3 equipment for the public delivery of electricity, including power lines in and around the location 

4 of the North Bay Fires. 

5 223. On or around October 8 or 9, 2017, as a direct, necessary, and legal result of 

6 DEFENDANTS' installation, ownership, operation, use, control, management, and/or 

7 maintenance for a public use the power lines and/or other electrical equipment, the power lines 

8 and/or other electrical equipment came in contact with vegetation and/or broke, failed, fell down, 

9 sparked, and/or exploded, causing wildfires that burned thousands of acres, including property 

10 owned or occupied by PLAINTIFFS. The fires damaged and/or destroyed PLAINTIFFS' real 

11 and/or personal property. 

12 224. The above described damage to PLAINTIFFS' property was legally and 

13 substantially caused by the actions of DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, in their installation, 

14 ownership, operation, use, control, management, and/or maintenance of the power lines and other 

15 electrical equipment for a public use. PG&E is a privately owned public utility which enjoys a 

16 state-protected monopoly or quasi-monopoly derived from its exclusive franchise provided by the 

17 State of California, is more akin to a governmental entity than a purely private entity, and runs its 

18 utility affairs like a governmental entity. PG&E's monopoly is guaranteed and safeguarded by 

19 the CPUC, which possesses the power to refuse to issue certificates of public convenience and 

20 necessity to permit potential competition to enter the market. The policy justifications underlying 

21 inverse condemnation liability are that individual property owners should not have to contribute 

22 disproportionately to the risks from public improvements made to benefit the community as a 

23 whole. Under the rules and regulations set forth by the CPUC, amounts that DEFENDANTS must 

24 pay in inverse condemnation can be included in their rates and spread among the entire group of 

25 rate payers so long as they are otherwise acting as a reasonable and prudent manager of their 

26 electric distribution systems. 

27 

28 

LAWOFPICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

MASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 57 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 21

of 35
225. PLAINTIFFS have not received adequate compensation for the damage to and/or 

2 destruction of their property, thus constituting a taking or damaging of PLAINTIFFS' property 

3 by DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, without just compensation. 

4 226. As a direct and legal result of the actions and/or omissions of the DEFENDANTS, 

5 PLAINTIFFS suffered damages to their real and/or personal property, including loss of use, 

6 interference with access, and/or diminution in value and/or marketability in an amount according 

7 to proof at trial. 

8 227. As a direct and legal result of the actions and/or omissions of the DEFENDANTS, 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAWOFPICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

PLAINTIFFS have incurred and will continue to incur costs, disbursements, and/or expenses, 

including reasonable attorney, appraisal, engineering, and/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 § 1036. 

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

PUBLIC NUISANCE 

(Against All Defendants) 

228. PLAINTIFFS incorporate and re-allege by this reference each of the paragraphs 

set forth as though fully set forth herein. 

229. PLAINTIFFS own and/or occupy property at or near the site of the fire which is 

the subject of this action. At 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. 

230. DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, owed a duty to the public, including 

PLAINTIFFS herein, to conduct their business, in particular the maintenance and/or operation of 

power lines, power poles, and/or electrical equipment on power poles, and adjacent vegetation in 

proximity to their power lines in and around Butte, Calaveras, Lake, Mendocino, Napa, Nevada, 

Solano, Sonoma, and/or Yuba Counties in a manner that did not threaten harm or injury to the 

public welfare from operation of those power lines. 

231. DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, by acting and/or failing to act, as alleged 

hereinabove, created a condition which was harmful to the health of the public, including these 

MASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 58 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 22

of 35
PLAINTIFFS, and which interfered with the comfortable occupancy, use, and/or enjoyment of 

2 PLAINTIFFS' property. 

3 232. PLAINTIFFS did not consent, expressly or impliedly, to the wrongful conduct of 

4 DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, in acting in the manner set forth above. 

5 233. The hazardous conditions that were created by and/or permitted to exist by 

6 DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, affected a substantial number of people within the general 

7 public, including PLAINTIFFS herein, and constituted a public nuisance under Civil Code §§ 

8 3479 and 3480 and Public Resources Code § 4171. Further, the ensuing uncontrolled wildfire 

9 constituted a public nuisance under Public Resources Code§ 4170. 

10 234. The damaging effects of DEFENDANTS' maintenance of a fire hazard and the 

11 ensuing uncontrolled wildfire are ongoing and affect the public at large. As a result of the fire's 

12 location, temperature, and/or duration, extensive areas of hydrophobic soils developed within the 

13 fire's perimeter. This further caused significant post fire runoffhazards to occur, including hillside 

14 erosion, debris flow hazards, sediment laden flow hazards, and hillside erosion. As a result, large 

15 quantities of ash and sediment will be deposited in perennial and ephemeral watercourses. 

16 235. As a direct and legal result ofthe conduct ofDEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, 

17 PLAINTIFFS suffered hann that is different from the type of harm suffered by the general public. 

18 Specifically, PLAINTIFFS have lost the occupancy, possession, use, and/or enjoyment of their 

19 land, real and/or personal property, including, but not limited to: (a) a reasonable and rational fear 

20 that the area is still dangerous; (b) a diminution in the fair market value of their property; (c) an 

21 impairment of the salability of their property; (d) soils that have become hydrophobic; (e) exposure 

22 to an array of toxic substances on their land; (f) the presence of "special waste" on their property 

23 that requires special management and disposal; and (g) a lingering smell of smoke, and/or constant 

24 soot, ash, and/or dust in the air. 

25 236. As a further direct and legal result of the conduct of DEFENDANTS, and/or each 

26 of them, PLAINTIFFS have suffered, and will continue to suffer, discomfort, anxiety, fear, 

27 worries, annoyance, and/or stress attendant to the interference with PLAINTIFFS' occupancy, 

28 possession, use and/or enjoyment of their property, as alleged above. 

LAWOFPICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

MASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 59 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 23

of 35
237. A reasonable, ordinary person would be reasonably annoyed or disturbed by the 

2 condition created by DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, and the resulting fire. 

3 238. The conduct of DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, is unreasonable and the 

4 seriousness of the harm to the public, including PLAINTIFFS herein, outweighs the social utility 

5 ofDEFENDANTS' conduct. 

6 239. The individual and/or collective conduct ofDEFENDANTS set forth above, and/or 

7 each of them, resulting in the North Bay Fires is not an isolated incident, but is ongoing and/or a 

8 repeated course of conduct, and DEFENDANTS' prior conduct and/or failures have resulted in 

9 other fires and damage to the public. 

10 240. The unreasonable conduct of DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, is a direct and 

11 legal cause of the harm, injury, and/or damage to the public, including PLAINTIFFS herein. 

12 241. DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, have individually and/or collectively, failed 

13 and refused to conduct proper inspections and to properly trim, prune, and/or cut vegetation in 

14 order to ensure the sole delivery of electricity to residents through the operation of power lines in 

15 the affected area, and DEFENDANTS' individual and/or collective failure to do so exposed every 

16 member of the public, residing in Butte, Calaveras, Lake, Mendocino, Napa, Nevada, Solano, 

17 Sonoma, and/or Yuba Counties, to a foreseeable danger of personal injury, death, and/or a loss of 

18 or destruction of real and personal property. 

19 242. The conduct ofDEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, set forth above constitutes a 

20 public nuisance within the meaning of Civil Code§§ 3479 and 3480, Public Resources Code§§ 

21 4104 and 4170, and Code of Civil Procedure § 731. Under Civil Code § 3493, PLAINTIFFS 

22 have standing to maintain an action for public nuisance because the nuisance is especially injurious 

23 to PLAINTIFFS because, as more specifically described above, it is injurious and/or offensive to 

24 the senses of the PLAINTIFFS, unreasonably interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of their 

25 properties, and/or unlawfully obstructs the free use, in the customary manner, of PLAINTIFFS' 

26 properties, and have suffered harm, injury, and/or damages. 

27 243. For these reasons, PLAINTIFFS seek a permanent injunction ordering that 

28 DEFENDANTS, and each of them, stop continued violation of: (a) General Order No. 95, Rules 

LAWOFPICES MASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 60 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 24

of 35
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAWOFPICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

31.1-31.5, 35, 38, 43, 43.2, 44.1-44.4, and 48-48.1; (b) General Order No. 165; (c) Public 

Resources Code§§ 4292, 4293, and 4435; and (d) Public Utilities Code§ 451. PLAINTIFFS 

also seek an order directing DEFENDANTS to abate the existing and continuing nuisance 

described above. 

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

PRIVATE NUISANCE 

(Against All Defendants) 

244. PLAINTIFFS incorporate and re-allege by this reference each of the paragraphs 

set forth as though fully set forth herein. 

245. DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, by their acts and/or omissions set forth 

above, directly and legally caused an obstruction to the free use of PLAINTIFFS' property, an 

invasion the PLAINTIFFS' right to use their property, and/or an interference with the enjoyment 

of PLAINTIFFS' property, resulting in PLAINTIFFS suffering unreasonable harm and 

substantial actual damages constituting a nuisance pursuant to Civil Code § § 34 79 and 3481. 

246. As a direct and legal result of the wrongful acts and/or omissions of 

DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, PLAINTIFFS suffered, and continue to suffer, the injuries 

and/or damages as set forth above. 

247. As a further direct and legal result of the wrongful acts and/or omissions of 

DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, PLAINTIFFS seek the recovery of punitive and exemplary 

damages against DEFENDANTS as set forth above. 

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

PREMISES LIABILITY 

(Against All Defendants) 

248. PLAINTIFFS incorporate and re-allege by this reference, each of the paragraphs 

set forth as though fully set forth herein. 

249. DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, were the owners of an easement and/or real 

property in the area of the origins of the North Bay Fires, and/or were the owners of the power 

lines upon said easement(s) and/or right(s) of way. 

MASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 61 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 25

of 35
250. DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, acted wantonly, unlawfully, carelessly, 

2 recklessly, and/or negligently in failing to properly inspect, manage, maintain, and/or control the 

3 vegetation near its power lines along the real property and easement(s), allowing an unsafe 

4 condition presenting a foreseeable risk of fire danger to exist on said property. 

5 251. As a direct and legal result of the wrongful acts and/or omissions of 

6 DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, PLAINTIFFS suffered, and continue to suffer, the injuries 

7 and/or damages as set forth above. 

8 252. As a further direct and legal result of the wrongful acts and/or omissions of 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAWOFPICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, PLAINTIFFS seek the recovery of punitive and exemplary 

damages against DEFENDANTS as set forth above. 

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

TRESPASS 

(Against All Defendants) 

253. PLAINTIFFS incorporate and re-allege by this reference each of the paragraphs 

set forth as though fully set forth herein. 

254. At all times relevant herein, PLAINTIFFS were the owners, tenants, and/or lawful 

occupants of property damaged by the North Bay Fires. 

255. DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, in wrongfully acting and/or failing to act in 

the manner set forth above, caused the North Bay Fires to ignite and/or spread out of control, 

causing harm, damage, and/or injury to PLAINTIFFS herein, resulting in a trespass upon 

PLAINTIFFS property interests. 

256. PLAINTIFFS did not grant permission for DEFENDANTS to wrongfully act in 

a manner so as to cause the North Bay Fires, and thereby produce fires which spread and 

wrongfully entered upon their property, resulting in the harm, injury, and/or damage alleged above. 

257. As a direct and legal result of the wrongful conduct of DEFENDANTS, and/or 

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. 

MASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 62 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 26

of 35
258. As a further direct and legal result of the wrongful conduct of DEFENDANTS, 

2 PLAINTIFFS, whose land was under cultivation, and was used for raising livestock or was 

3 intended to be used for raising livestock, have hired and retained counsel to recover compensation 

4 for loss and damage and are entitled to recover all attorney's fees, expert fees, consultant fees, and 

5 litigation costs and expenses, as allowed under Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.9. 

6 259. As a further direct and legal result of the conduct of DEFENDANTS, 

7 PLAINTIFFS seek treble damages for injuries to trees or timber on PLAINTIFFS' property as 

8 allowed tmder Code of Civil Procedure § 733. 

9 260. As a further direct and legal result of the conduct of DEFENDANTS, 

10 PLAINTIFFS seek exemplary damages for injuries to PLAINTIFFS' animals as allowed under 

11 Code of Civil Procedure § 3340. 

12 261. As a further direct and legal result of the conduct of DEFENDANTS, 

13 PLAINTIFFS seek double or treble damages for the negligent, willful, and wrongful injuries to 

14 timber, trees, or underwood on their property, as allowed under Civil Code § 3346. 

15 262. As a further direct and legal result of the wrongful acts andJor omissions of 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAWOFPICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

DEFENDANTS, andJor each of them, PLAINTIFFS seek the recovery of punitive and exemplary 

damages against DEFENDANTS as set forth above. 

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

PRIVATE ACTION UNDER PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE§ 2106 

(Against All Defendants) 

263. PLAINTIFFS incorporate and re-allege each of the paragraphs set forth above as 

though fully set forth herein. 

264. Public Utilities Code § 2106 creates a private right of action against "[a]ny 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 .... " 

265. As a Public Utility, DEFENDANTS at all times herein had a duty to properly 

design, construct, operate, maintain, inspect, and manage its electrical infrastructure as well as trim 

MASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 63 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 27

of 35
trees and vegetation in compliance with all relevant provisions of applicable orders, decisions, 

2 directions, rules or statutes, including, but not limited to, those stated in: (a) General Order No. 

3 95, Rules 31.1-31.5, 35, 38, 43, 43.2, 44.1-44.4, and 48-48.1; (b) General Order No. 165; (c) Code 

4 of Civil Procedure § 733; (d) Public Resources Code §§ 4292, 4293, and 4435; and (e) Public 

5 Utilities Code § 451. 

6 266. The violation of a legislative enactment or administrative regulation which defines 

7 a minimum standard of conduct is unreasonable per se. 

8 267. DEFENDANTS violated the above listed requirements, by: 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

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 PLAINTIFFS being 

susceptible to the ignition and spread of fire and the fire hazard and danger of 

electricity and electrical transmission and distribution; 

d. Failing to properly design, construct, operate, maintain, inspect and manage its 

electrical supply systems and the surrounding arid vegetation resulting in said 

vegetation igniting and accelerating the spread of the fire; 

e. Failing to properly safeguard against the ignition of fire during the course and 

scope of employee work on behalf of DEFENDANTS; and 

f. Failing to comply with the enumerated legislative enactments and 

administrative regulations. 

24 268. DEFENDANTS proximately and substantially caused the destruction, damage, 

25 and injury to PLAINTIFFS by their violations of applicable orders, decisions, directions, rules or 

26 statutes, including, but not limited to, those stated in: (a) General Order No. 95, Rules 31.1-31.5, 

27 35, 38, 43, 43.2, 44.1-44.4, and 48-48.1; (b) General Order No. 165; (c) Code of Civil Procedure 

28 § 733; (d) Public Resources Code§§ 4292,4293, and 4435; and (e) Public Utilities Code§ 4511. 

LAWOFPICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

MASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 64 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 28

of 35
269. PLAINTIFFS were and are within the class of persons for whose protection 

2 applicable orders, decisions, directions, rules or statutes were adopted, including, but not limited 

3 to, those stated in: (a) General Order No. 95, Rules 31.1-31.5, 35, 38, 43, 43.2, 44.1-44.4, and 48-

4 48.1; (b) General Order No. 165; (c) Code ofCivil Procedure§ 733; (d) Public Resources Code 

5 §§ 4292,4293, and 4435; and (e) Public Utilities Code§ 451. 

6 270. As alleged herein according to proof, DEFENDANTS are liable to PLAINTIFFS 

7 for all loss, damages and injury caused by and resulting from DEFENDANTS' violation of 

8 applicable orders, decisions, directions, rules or statutes were adopted, including, but not limited 

9 to, those stated in: (a) General Order No. 95, Rules 31.1-31.5, 35, 38, 43, 43.2, 44.1-44.4, and 48-

10 48.1; (b) General Order No. 165; (c) Code of Civil Procedure§ 733; (d) Public Resources Code 

11 §§ 4292, 4293, and 4435; and (e) Public Utilities Code§ 451. 

12 271. As a further direct and legal result of the wrongful acts and/or omissions of 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAWOFPICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, PLAINTIFFS seek the recovery of punitive and exemplary 

damages against DEFENDANTS as set forth above. 

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

VIOLATION OF HEALTH & SAFETY CODE§ 13007 

(Against All Defendants) 

272. PLAINTIFFS incorporate and re-allege each of the paragraphs set forth above as 

though fully set forth herein. 

273. By engaging in the acts and/or omissions alleged in this Master Complaint, 

DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, willfully, negligently, carelessly, recklessly, and/or in 

violation of law, set fire to and/or allowed fire to be set to the property of another in violation of 

Health & Safety Code§ 13007. 

274. As a direct and legal result of DEFENDANTS' violation of Health & Safety Code 

§ 13007, PLAINTIFFS suffered recoverable damages to property under Health & Safety Code§ 

13007.21 and continue to suffer the injuries and damages described above. 

MASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 65 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 29

of 35
275. As a further direct and legal result of the DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, 

2 violating Health & Safety Code§ 13007, PLAINTIFFS are entitled to reasonable attorney's fees 

3 under Code ofCivi1 Procedure§ 1021.9. 

4 276. As a direct and legal result of the wrongful acts and/or omissions of 

5 DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, PLAINTIFFS suffered, and continue to suffer, the injuries 

6 and/or damages as set forth above. 

7 277. As a further direct and legal result of the wrongful acts and/or omissions of 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAWOFPICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, PLAINTIFFS seek the recovery of punitive and exemplary 

damages against DEFENDANTS as set forth above. 

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 

(Against All Defendants) 

278. PLAINTIFFS incorporate and re-allege each of the paragraphs set forth above as 

though fully set forth herein. 

279. As set forth above, the North Bay Fires were a direct and legal result of the 

negligence, carelessness, recklessness, and/or unlawfulness of DEFENDANTS, and/or each of 

them. 

280. As a result of the wrongful acts and/or omissions of DEFENDANTS, and/or each 

of them, PLAINTIFFS suffered serious emotional distress. As set forth above, PLAINTIFFS 

were physically injured by the North Bay Fires. Further, as set forth above, PLAINTIFFS 

suffered from damage to and/or loss of real and/or personal property and were in the zone of danger 

while evacuating from the North Bay Fires. DEFENDANTS knew or should have known that 

PLAINTIFFS would suffer serious emotional distress during and as a result of their wrongful acts 

and/or omissions and the ensuing North Bay Fires due to their injuries, death, property damages, 

and/or other damages. DEFENDANTS' wrongful acts and/or omissions were a substantial factor 

in causing PLAINTIFFS' serious emotional distress. 

281. Additionally and/or alternatively, the wrongful acts and/or om1sswn of 

DEFENDANTS, and/or each ofthem, resulted in the deaths of DECEDENTS and/or injuries to 

MASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 66 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 30

of 35
PLAINTIFFS' loved ones as PLAINTIFFS watched the horrific North Bay Fires destroy, 

2 damage, and/or injure their communities and loved ones in person, on television, on the internet, 

3 and/or through text messages and/or other communications from their loved ones. PLAINTIFFS 

4 knew that that their loved ones were trapped in and around their burning homes, structures, and/or 

5 vehicles, and/or trying to evacuate from the North Bay Fires. PLAINTIFFS were thus aware that 

6 their loved ones were being injured. The DEFENDANTS' wrongful acts and/or omissions were 

7 a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFFS' serious emotional distress. 

8 282. As a direct and legal result of the wrongful acts and/or omissions of 

9 DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, PLAINTIFFS have suffered and will continue to suffer 

10 great mental pain and suffering, including emotional suffering, anguish, fright, horror, 

11 nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, embarrassment, shame, and/or other 

12 emotional distress. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and upon such infonnation and belief 

13 allege, that such injuries have resulted in debilitating injuries in an amount according to proof at 

14 trial. 

15 283. As a further direct and legal result of the wrongful acts and/or omissions of 

16 DEFENDANTS, and/ or each of them, PLAINTIFFS seek the recovery of punitive and exemplary 

17 damages against DEFENDANTS as set forth above. 

18 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS pray for relief as set forth below. 

19 VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

20 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS pray for judgment against Defendants PG&E 

21 CORPORATION, PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 20, and 

22 each of them as follows: 

23 From All DEFENDANTS for Inverse Condemnation: 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1. Repair, depreciation, and/or replacement of damaged, destroyed, and/or lost 

LAWOFPICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

personal and/or real property; 

2. Loss of the use, benefit, goodwill, and enjoyment of PLAINTIFFS' real and/or 

personal property; 

MASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 67 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 31

of 35
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

Loss of wages, earning capacity, and/or business profits or proceeds and/or any 

related displacement expenses; 

All costs of suit, including attorneys' fees where appropriate, appraisal fees, 

engineering fees, and related costs; 

Prejudgment interest according to proof; and 

For such other and further relief as the Court shall deem proper, all according to 

7 proof. 

8 From All DEFENDANTS for Negligence, Wrongful Death, Survival Action, Public 

9 Nuisance, Private Nuisance, Premises Liability, Trespass, Private Action Under Public 

10 Utilities Code§ 2106, Violation of Health & Safety Code§ 13007, and Negligent Infliction of 

11 Emotional Distress: 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAWOFPICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

Repair, depreciation, and/or replacement of damaged, destroyed, and/or lost 

personal and/or real property; 

Loss of the use, benefit, goodwill, and enjoyment of PLAINTIFFS' real and/or 

personal property; 

Loss of wages, earning capacity, and/or business profits or proceeds and/or any 

related displacement expenses; 

Past and future medical expenses and incidental expenses according to proof; 

Treble damages for wrongful injuries to timber, trees, or underwood on their 

property as allowed under Civil Code § 3346; 

Treble damages in an amount according to proof for injuries to trees as allowed 

under Code of Civil Procedure§ 733; 

Exemplary damages in an amount according to proof as allowed under Civil Code 

§ 3294; 

Exemplary damages in an amount according to proof for wrongful injuries to 

animals as allowed under Civil Code§ 3340; 

Exemplary damages in an amount according to proof as allowed under Public 

Utilities Code§ 2106; 

MASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 68 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 32

of 35
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAWOFPICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

General damages for fear, worry, annoyance, disturbance, inconvenience, mental 

anguish, emotional distress, loss of quiet enjoyment of property, personal injury, 

and for such other and further relief as the Court shall deem proper, all according 

to proof; 

Imposition of a permanent injunction ordering that DEFENDANTS, and each of 

them, stop continued violation of: (a) General Order No. 95, Rules 31.1-31.5, 35, 

38, 43, 43.2, 44.1-44.4, and 48-48.1; (b) General Order No. 165; (c) Public 

Resources Code§§ 4292,4293, and 4435; and (d) Public Utilities Code§ 451. 

Issuance of an order directing DEFENDANTS to abate the existing and continuing 

nuisance they created; 

Attorney's fees, expert fees, consultant fees, and litigation costs and expense as 

allowed under Code of Civil Procedure § 1 021.9; 

For all costs of suit incurred; 

Prejudgment interest according to proof; and 

For such other and further relief as the Court shall deem proper, all according to 

proof. 

COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 

Dated: March 12, 2018 By: /s/ Frank M. Pitre 

Dated: March 12, 2018 

FRANK M. PITRE 

Co-Lead Counselfor Individual Plaint(ft~ 

WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & 

SCHOENBERGER 

By: ~M=I~c=H~A~E=L-A~.~K=E=L~L~Y=---------

Co-Lead Counsel for Individual Plaint~ffs 

MASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 69 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 33

of 35
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAWOFPICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

ROBINS CLOUD LLP 

Dated: March 12, 2018 By: /s/ Bill Robins III 

BILL ROBINS, III 

Co-Lead Counselfor Individual PlaintiffS 

VII. JURY DEMAND 

PLAINTIFFS demand a trial by jury as to all claims in this action. 

Dated: March 12, 2018 

Dated: March 12, 2018 

Dated: March 12, 2018 

COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 

By: /s/ Frank M. Pitre 

FRANK M. PITRE 

Co-Lead Counselfor Individual Plaintiffs 

WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & 

SCHOENBERGER 

By:~~=-==--~==~~--------- MICHAEL A. KELLY 

Co-Lead Counselfor Individual Plaintiffs 

ROBINS CLOUD LLP 

By: /s/ Bill Robins III 

BILL ROBINS, III 

Co-Lead Counsel for Individual Plaintiffs 

MASTER COMPLAINT- INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS 70 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 34

of 35
2 

3 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

I declare under penalty of 

tor·eg.om:g is true and correct. 

Ex~~cuted on March 2018, at 

under laws of the State of California the 

Francisco, California. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-3 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 35

of 35