1

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

McCormick, Barstow,

Sheppard, Wayte &

CARRUTH LLP

7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET

FRESNO. CA 93720

McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard,

Wayte & Carruth LLP

Hagop T. Bedoyan, #131285

hasoD. bedovan(a)mcconnickbarstow. com

7647 North Fresno Street

Fresno, California 93720

Telephone: (559)433-1300

Facsimile: (559) 433-2300

Attorneys for Scott and Charlyse Raven

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re

PG&E CORPORATION,

- andPACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC

COMPANY,

Debtors.

[ ] Affects PG&E Corporation

[x] Affects Pacific Gas and Electric Company

[ ] Affects Both

*All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case

No. 19-30088

Case No. 3:19-bk-30088-DM

Chapter 11

(Lead Case Jointly Administered)

DECLARATION OF SCOTT RAVEN IN

SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RELIEF

FROM PLAN INJUNCTION AND/OR

ABSTENTION

Date: November 30,2022

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Place: Ct. Rm. 17

United States Bankruptcy Court

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Hearing will be conducted

telephonically or by video

Judse: Honorable Dennis Montali

I, Scott Raven, declare as follows:

1. I am over the age of eighteen (18), provide this declaration in support of Scott &

Charlyse Raven's motion for relieffrom plan injunction and/or abstention, provide this testimony

based on my personal knowledge, andwould testify consistently herewith if called to do so.

///

///

///

1 CaseNo. 19-30088-DM

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13076-1 Filed: 10/14/22 Entered: 10/14/22 10:50:56 Page 1

of 19
1

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

McCormick, Barstow,

Sheppard, Wayte &

Carruth LLP

7S47 NORTH FRESNO STREET

FRESNO. CA 83720

2. I, and my wife Charlyse, are plaintiffs in a state court action pending in Monterey

County Superior Court, case no. 18CV00258, styled Scott Raven and Charlyse Raven v. Jennifer

Hodges, Hot Line Construction, Inc, andPacific Gas & Electric Company, Inc., against PG&E,and

others, seeking damages against PG&E due to the Parkland Fire caused by PG&E.

3. We are engaged in the commercial production of livestock and own a cattle ranch

located at 4725 Vineyard Canyon road, approximately three miles northeast of the town of San

Miguel, California (the "Raven Ranch"). The Raven Ranch is comprised of approximately 3,4446

acres in San Luis Obispo and Monterey Counties. The Movants also lease an additional approximate

160 acres. The Raven Ranch contained an extensive fencing system, dividing the ranch into six

different pastures with associated roadways and stock watering systems, allowing the ranch to use

a rotational grazing system for the herd.

4. Jennifer Hodges ("Hodges") was the owner of approximately 931 acres located at

77820 Vineyard Canyon Road, land which is roughly across the street from the Raven Ranch (the

"Hodges Property"). The Hodges Property includes an equestrian riding arena with an elevated

lighting system.

5. PG&E and/or its contractor. Hot Line Construction, Inc. ("Hot Line"), constructed,

modified, and/or maintained an electrical powerline and associated equipment on the Hodges

Property and in close proximity to a light pole that was part ofthe equestrian riding arena located

on the Hodges Property.

6. Due to wind, the powerline and lighting fixture came into contact and ignited a fire

on July 8, 2017. The blaze grew into what was to be known as the Parkfield Fire. The fire spread

to the surrounding properties, including the Raven Ranch. Over roughly half ofRaven Ranch was

burned, including two pastures totaling 1680 acres of forage that was reserved to feed our herd

during the late summer and fall. Seven miles of fencing, stock watering systems, and shade

structures were lost, one cow was destroyed and the road system was damaged. The fire burned to

the exterior wall of our residence, destroying portions of the yard, irrigation system, entry gate,

domestic water well, and causing extensive smoke damage to our residence.

///

0 CaseNo. 19-30088-DM

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13076-1 Filed: 10/14/22 Entered: 10/14/22 10:50:56 Page 2

of 19
^ January 18, 2018, we filed the lawsuit against PG&E, Hodges and Hot Line in 21MontereyCounty SuperiorCourt. Case No. 18CV00258, asserting causes ofaction arising from the

3 Parkfield Fire for trespass, negligence, negligence interference with economic relations, inverse

4 condemnation (the "State Court Action"). We filed asecond amended complaint on July 26,2018,

5 atrue and correct copy ofwhich is attached as Exhibit A. While expert witness reports have been

6 prepared, discovery has not been completed. We have requested ajury trial. Raven decl. at %7.

7II 8. PG&E filed its Voluntary Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Petition (the "Petition") on January

8II29, 2019 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District ofCalifornia.

^ August 28, 2019, we electronically filed our proof of claim in the PG&E

10 II bankruptcy case as ageneral unsecured claim in the amount of$8,000,000 (the "Claim")

In accordance with the General Claims Procedures, we submitted a response to

12II PG&E's Information Questionnaire, and Movants received a"Notice of Standard Mediation,"

13 wherein we and Hot Line were notified that they were required to attend non-binding mediation

14 II relating to the Claim.

2022, PG&E, Hot Line and us participated in mediation before Judge

16II Patrick J. O'Hara (Ret.) via Zoom. Hodges did not participate since she sought relief under the

17 Bankruptcy Code. Unfortunately, the mediation did not result in resolution ofthe Claim

of the date of this filing, Tam not aware of any objection by the Reorganized

19II Debtors to ourClaim

20II 1declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe United States of America that the

21 II foregoing statements are true and correct.

22

23 II Dated: _October 11, 2022 By: ^

24

25

26

27

28

McCormick. Barstow,

Shep?ard,wayte4

CarruthlLP.

W4JNORtX miSHO STREET

mUrK>.CAM720

Scott Raven

039515-000000 8660039.2

Case No. 19-30088-DM

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13076-1 Filed: 10/14/22 Entered: 10/14/22 10:50:56 Page 3

of 19
EXHIBIT "A"

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13076-1 Filed: 10/14/22 Entered: 10/14/22 10:50:56 Page 4

of 19
1

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

CMO«EMftCM(tMaiE

APior.Cbir.

AOMaTOmctCtma

I61S KwiMHum Anmai

nmaCMooMAnni TkuiMotaisniUt^Mn

Justin T. Campagne, #211825

Campagne &Campagne AProfessional Coloration

Aimort Office Center

1685 North Helm Avenue

Fresno, California 93727

Telephone: (559) 255-1637

Facsimile: (559) 252-9617

Email:jcampagne@campagnelaw.com

Attomeys for PlaintiffsScottRaven andCharlyse Raven

ELECTRONICALLY FILED BY

Superior Court of California,

County of Monterey

On 7/26/2018 4:00 PM

By:Janet Nicholson, Deputy

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF MONTEREY-UNLIMITED CIVIL

-oOoSCOTT RAVEN and CHARLYSE

RAVEN,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

LINE CONSTRUCTION, INC., a

California corporation; PACIFIC GAS &

ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., a

Califomia coloration; andDOBS 1

through 100, mclusive.

Defendants.

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

\\\

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

ICase No. 18CV000258

Complaint Filed: January 19, 2018

SECOND

FOR:

AMENDED COMPLAINT

1. Trespass

JENNIFERHODGES, an individual; HOT) 2. Nuisance

13. Ne^igence

14. Negligent Interference With Prospective

Economic Advantage

and

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13076-1 Filed: 10/14/22 Entered: 10/14/22 10:50:56 Page 5

of 19
1

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

CMtftfDOt*Cmumboi

Anm.CMr

AamrrOfneiCam

lujNomKnuAvixM

PlRpxaCAUCtNUnill TiumaMitsniswum FmUIHUI-MII

Plaintiffs, as their Complaint against Defendants, hereby aver and allege as

follows:

L THE PARTIES.

1. Plaintif& Scott Raven and Charlysc Raven (collectively referred to as

"Plaintiff*) own property located in San Luis Obispo and Monterey Counties and are

engaged in the commercial production oflivestock on such property.

2. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that information and

belief alleges, that Defendant Jennifer Hodges own property located on Vineyard Canyon

Road in Monterey County.

3. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that information and

belief alleges, that Defendant Hot Line Construction Company is a California corporation

duly organized and existing under the laws ofthe State ofCalifornia.

4. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that information and

belief alleges, that Defendant Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Inc. is a California

corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State ofCalifornia.

5. The true names and capacities (whether individuals, corporate or

otherwise) of the Defendants who are sued herein as Does 1 through 100, inclusive,

("Does") are presently unknown to the Plaintiff; therefore Plaintiff now sues those

Defendants by fictitious names. The Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to state the true

capacities ofsuch fictitiously named Doe Defendants, when their names and identities are

ascertained. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis, alleges that all the

fictitiously named Doe Defendants, and each ofthem, have taken some part in the acts or

omissions complained of herein, or are otherwise responsible in some manner for the

wrongfiil conduct herein alleged, and have caused injury in this County. The Plaintiff is

informed and believes, and on that information and belief, hereby alleges that each named

Defendant and each fictitiously named Doe Defendant acted as an agent, employee,

subsidiary, alter ego, or representative, of each and every other Defendant, or in concert

with each and every other Defendant, and acted in the course and scope ofsaid agency,

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13076-1 Filed: 10/14/22 Entered: 10/14/22 10:50:56 Page 6

of 19
1

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

C«M/U>U«CMiMOn Afior.Oa**.

AnfonOmeeCcNTR

lOU KOtTKHOMAVIHUI

ntiMiCAumMMtmi TtunmiOsnjSMaT nuc(iit)ii]-Mi7

employment, subsidiary relationship, alter ego, or representation, or in concert at all

relevant times herein.

IL JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that

all property which is the subject ofthis action is located in the State ofCalifornia, County

ofMonterey. Venue is proper in this Court based on the fact that each of the Defendants

reside, have their places of business, and/or conduct substantial activities in Monterey

County. Further, the amount of damages that Defendants owe to Plaintiff at the date of

this filing is in excess ofthe Court*sjurisdictional amount.

m. BACKGROUND ALLEGATIONS

7. The Plaintiff is engaged In the commercial production oflivestock in

Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties. As part ofthis endeavor, Plaintiffowns property

east ofthe community of San Miguel, near Vineyard Canyon Road.

8. The Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges, that

Defendant Jennifer Hodges owns real property located at 77820 Vineyard CanyonRoad

(APNs 424-131-041; 424-131-042; 424-131-060; and 424-131-061), and more

particularly described as:

''PARCEL 1:

"PARCEL 1. IN THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY. STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE MAP FILED JANUARY 9.

1980 IN VOLUME 13. PAGE 186 OF PARCEL MAPS. IN THE

OFFICE OF THE COUNTYRECORDER OFSAID COUNTY,

"EXCEPT THEREFROM. AN UNDIVIDED ONE-HALF

INTEREST IN ALL OIL. GAS AND/OR MINERALS. IN SAID

LANDS. TOGETHER. WITH THE RIGHT OF THE GRANTOR.

HIS HEIRS. ASSIGNS. LESSEES AND LEGAL

REPRESENTATIVES ATALL TIMES TO ENTER ON THEABOVE

DESCRIBED LAND AND TO TAKE AU OF THE USUAL.

NECESSARY OR CONVENIENT MEANS TO BORE WELLS.

MAKE EXCAVATIONS AND TO REMOVE THE OIL. GAS

AND/OR MINERALS FOUND THEREON. ASEXCEPTED IN THE

DEED FROM WIKLIE C MAHONEY. RECORDED NOVEMBER

7.1962 INREEL 112. PAGE 399. OFFICIAL RECORDS.

"ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM AN UNDIVIDED 1/2

INTEREST IN AND TO ALL OIL GAS AND/OR MINERALS IN

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 2

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13076-1 Filed: 10/14/22 Entered: 10/14/22 10:50:56 Page 7

of 19
1

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

CMtfMM& CmI rAONC

ARt«.Oaw.

AaiorrOmnCKnti

IH) NeCRI (UlM AVOAK PtUMXCMMOtMUnW

TUMNondmut-mi

SAID LAND AS RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM JOSE

ERROTABERE, ET UX, RECORDED FEBRUARY 8. 1980 IN

REEL 1389, PAGE 200, OFFICIAL RECORDS,

PARCEL 2:

"A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS

OVER THE SOUTH 40 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST ONEQUARTER OF THE SOUTHWESTONE-QUARTER OFSECTION

33, TOWNSHIP 24, SOUTHRANGE 12 EAST, MDM

^'PARCEL 3:

""THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THESOUTHEAST QUARTER

OF SECTION 29 AND THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF

NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SOUTH 32 IN TOWNSHIP 24

SOUTH, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF.

''EXCEPT ALL OIL AND GAS IN THE LANDS SO PATENTED,

AND TO IT, OR PERSONSAUTHORIZED BYIT, THE RIGHT TO

PROSPECT FOR MINE AND REMOVE SUCHDEPOSITS FROM

THE SAME UPON COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS

AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF

THE ACT OF JULY 17, 1914 (38 STAT, 509) AS RESERVED IN

THE PATENT FROM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

RECORDED JUNE 23, 1925 IN VOLUME 59, PAGE 334,

OFFICIAL RECORDS.

"PARCEL 4:

"THE SOUTH HALF OF NORTHEAST QUARTER AND THE

NORTH HALF OF SOUTHEASTQUARTER OF SECHON 29 IN

TOWNSHIP 24 SOUTH, RANGE 12 EAST, M.D.M., IN THE

COUNTY OF MONTEREY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF.

"EXCEPT THEREFROM THE EXCLUSIVE AND PERPETUAL

RIGHT TO ALL OF THE OIL, GAS AND OTHER

HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES AND OTHER MINERALS, AND

MINERAL RIGHTS, WHETHER METALLIC, OR NONMETALUC, IN, UNDER OR THAT MAY BE TAKEN FROM THE

LAND HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED WITH THE PERPETUAL

RIGHT OF INGRESSAND EGRESS TO AN D FORM[sic] SAID

UND, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DRILLING, EXPLORING,

MINING AND IN EVERY WAY OPERATING FOR SUCH

MINERALS AND REMOVING THE SAMEAS RESERVED IN THE

DEED FROM WALTER P. FRICK, JR, ETAL RECORDED JUNE

27, 1950 IN VOLUME 1226, PAGE 533, OFFICUL RECORDS."

Said property is hereinalter referred to as the 'lodges Properly."

9. The Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant PG&E and/or

Hot Line Construction, Inc., constructed, modified, and/or maintained electrical

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PSgC 3

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13076-1 Filed: 10/14/22 Entered: 10/14/22 10:50:56 Page 8

of 19
1

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

CMffMsatCwrMiia

APtti.Ootr.

AfltraftTOrmODon l«iNe«ni HbmAvnwE

PuticaCttiKMAnW

Tiuni»tji»>lU>l«aT

powerlines and associated equipment on the Hodges Property and in close proximity to a

light fixture surrounding Defendant Hodges' horse riding arena. The Plaintiffis informed

and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Defendant PG&E and/or Hot Line Construction,

Inc. constructed and/or maintained said electrical system in close proximity to the lighting

fixtures, in violation of the PG&E's own requirements and/or building codes and/or

applicable law.

10. On or about July 8, 2017, the Plaintiff is informed and believes that

the electrical powerline came into contact with Defendant Hodges' pole and light fixture.

As a result, the powerline fell into dry grass and started a fire. The Plaintiff is currently

unaware of whether the powerline foiled resulting in the contact, or whether the lighting

fixture failed causing the contact, or both. However, the Plaintiff is informed and believes

and thereupon alleges that as a result of the Hodges' pole and lighting fixture and

powerline being Impermlssibly close together, they were able to come into contact,

resulting in the fire.

11. The fire spread to surrounding properties, including the Plaintiffs

property. It destroyed over 1,800 acres ofthe Plaintiffs vegetation, which they use to feed

the cattle, as well damaged or destroyed many of the Plaintiffs oak trees and historic

olive trees, destroyed fencing and other improvements, destroyed cattle, caused smoke

damage to the Plaintiffs home, and threatened to destroy the Plaintiffs home before

being extinguished by emergency services. As a result of the fire, the Plamtiff has been

unable to maintain a normal herd size for the property, resulting in lost profits.

12. Following the fire, the Plaintiff observed substantial numbers of the

trees defoliating on his property. As time progressed, the trees have died or shown

substantial injury. Because the Defendants injured the Plaintiffs trees, the Plaintiff is

entitled to recover double damages for injuries to such trees pursuant to Civil Code

Section 3346. Further, in the event the trespass is not determined to be simply

"casual or involuntarily" as defined by the statute, the PlainttfiT will be entitled to

recover treble damages, instead of double damages, pursuant to Civ. Code § 3346.

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PdgC 4

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13076-1 Filed: 10/14/22 Entered: 10/14/22 10:50:56 Page 9

of 19
1

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

CuVMMt ACMrMtM! AMW.CDIf.

AwesrOmetCORn

IWNoMnKtlMAvcn*

fudnlCnumxM nf17

itunontuOUMnT pju(s>qm-Mi7

13. Further, because the Defendants trespassed on Plaintiffs land as

described throughout this Complaint, and Plaintiffs land is currently under agricultural

use for the raising of livestock, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys'

fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.9.

14. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that information and

belief hereby alleges, that each fictitiously named Defendant acted as an agent, employee,

subsidiary, alter ego, or representative, of the Defendants, or in concert with each other

Defendant, and acted in the course and scope of said agency, employment, subsidiary

relationship, alter ego, or representation, or concert at all relevant times herein; so that all

Defendants are jointly and severally liable for each other's conduct and omissions.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Trespass against All Defendants)

15. The Plaintiffhereby incoiporates, as iffully set forth herein,all ofthe

factual allegations contained within this Complaint.

16. At all relevant times, the Plaintiff owned property near Vineyard

Canyon Road, east of San Miguel, California. Plaintiff used the properly for the

production ofcattle.

17. On or aboutJuly 8,2017, a fire emanated from the Hodges Property.

18. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Jennifer Hodges controlled

the Hodges Property and Defendants PQ&E and/or Hot Line Constmction, Inc. controlled,

maintained, and/or installed the electrical powerline and associated equipment located on

the Hodges Property.

19. The Defendants placed their respective lighting fixture and electrical

powerline improperly close to one another, in violation of applicable policies and building

requirements. As a result, the two came into contact, resulting in the fire.

20. The fire would not have entered the Plaintiffs property had the

Defendants constructed or maintained their respective property and equipment properly

and in compliance with the applicable building requirements and policies.

SECOND AMBNDBD COMPLAINT PUgC 5

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13076-1 Filed: 10/14/22 Entered: 10/14/22 10:50:56 Page

10 of 19
1

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

CamfaskiACami'asxi Aftar,&a> AoroarOinciCpna

lUINORHKUMAVIMtl

PitnacxuioiMAnnT

F«x(unin-MiT

21. As a proximate result of the Defendants* conduet, the Plaintiff has

suffered property damage, including but not limited to the destruction ofthe grasses used

for cattle feed, lost cattle, smoke damage to the house, increased erosion, destroyed

fencing, and damaged or dying trees and is unable to maintain its normal herd size due to

the destruction of approximately 1,800 acres ofvegetation which would have been used to

feed said cattle.

22. Such conduct caused the Plaintiff to suffer emotional distress. Such

emotional distress was foreseeable as the likely result of the conduct described in this

Complaint, as it was imminently foreseeable that the Plaintiff would suffer emotional

distress &om the fire and threat to their house and cattle.

23. As a proximate result of Defendants* conduct, the Plaintiff has

suffered damages in excess ofthe Court*s minimum jurisdictional amount.

24. The conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as described in this

Complaint, particularly in this cause of action, entitles Plaintiff to recover double

damages pursuant to Civil Code § 3346 for the damage the Defendants inflicted on

Plaintiffs trees and vegetation. Further, in the event the trespass is not determined to

be simply ^'casual or involuntarily*' as defined by the statute, the Plaintiff will be

entitled to recover treble damages, instead of double damages, pursuant to Civ. Code

§3346.

25. The conduct complained of in this Complaint, particularly in this

cause of action, constitutes a trespass on Plaintiffs land. The Plaintiffs land was used for

the raising of livestock within the meaning ofCCP § 1021.9, so that the Plaintiffshall be

entitled to reasonable altomeys* fees in addition to any other damages assessable against

the Defendants as allowed by law.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Nuisance against All Defendants)

26. The Plaintiffhereby incorporates, as iffully set forth herein, all ofthe

factual allegations contained within this Complaint.

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PugC 6

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13076-1 Filed: 10/14/22 Entered: 10/14/22 10:50:56 Page

11 of 19
1

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

CAXtnoai ACmmmct

AHfiflOstK

Amon'OnietCP'm

lUS StonN XtuiAvntt

Pltna iUunuii«anT TuweKiOMlllMttT FAX0it|m<WI7

27. As detailed above, in violation of applicable building standards and

policy, the Defendants maintained a condition on the Hodges Property that created a

hazard extremely dangerous to the surrounding residents and properties.

28. The resulting fire and smoke was an obstruction to the free use of

Plaintiffs properly, interfered with their comfortable enjoyment of life and property, and

constitutes a nuisance under Section 3479 ofthe Civil Code.

29. The conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as described in this

Complaint entitles Plaintiff to double damages pursuant to Civil Code § 3346 for the

damage the Defendants inflicted on the Plaintiffs trees and vegetation. Further, in the

event the trespass is not determined to be simply ''casual or involuntarily" as defined

by the statute, the Plaintiff will be entitled to recover treble damages, instead of

double damages, pursuant to Civ. Code § 3346.

30. The conduct complained of in this Complaint constitutes a trespass

on Plaintiffs land by Defendants, and each ofthem. The Plaintiffs property was used for

the raising oflivestock within the meaning of COP § 1021.9, so that the Plaintiffshall be

entitled to reasonable attorneys* fees In addition to any other damages assessable against

the Defendants as allowed by law.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligence against All Defendants)

31. The Plaintiffhereby incorporates, as iffully set forth herein, all of the

factual allegations contained within this Complaint

32. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that information and

belief allege, that the Defendants negligently constructed, repaired, and/or maintained

their respective light pole and light fixture in close proximity to the power pole and

powerline, in violation of applicable standards, and otherwise negligently controlled and

managed their property, which resulted in a Hre that spread to the Plaintiffs property

which damaged said property and threatened the Plaintiffs residence.

33. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that information and belief

SECOND AMENDEDCOMPLAINT Page 7

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13076-1 Filed: 10/14/22 Entered: 10/14/22 10:50:56 Page

12 of 19
1

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

APioiLCaif.

AiuMtOimiCbtm

tasiNotiMHtuiAviwn

ratiua,CMjmocMtnn

alleges that Defendants were aware ofthe condition and negligently failed and/orrefused

to properly remediate the conditloa

34. As a proximate result of the Defendants* breach of duty of care.

Plaintiffsuffered property damage to its property, including but not limited to the loss of

the grasses on approximately 1,800 acres used to feed its cattle, smoke damage to the

house, destroyed cattle, damage and/or destruction to the Plaintiffs trees, reduced herd

size, erosion, destruction offencingand other improvements.

35. As a further proximate result of Defendants* breach, the Plaintiff

suffered emotional distress as the fire threatened their house and cattle herd.

36. Defendants failed to act as a reasonable property owner and/or a

reputed power and construction experts, by creating the above described dangerous

condition caused by the proximitybetweenthe lightingpole and fixturenext to the power

pole and powerline.

Negligence Per Se

37. As stated above, the Defendants constructed, repaired, and/or

maintained a light pole and fixture in an improperly close proximity to a powerline and

equipment, resulting in a fire on or about July 8,2017, in violation of building standards

and PG&B*s own standards. The Plaintiff is a member of the class of persons that such

requirements were designed to protect.

38. California Penal Code § 384a provides, in relevant part, that it is

unlawful to willfully or negligently destroy or mutilate any tree on another's land. As

alleged above. Defendant violated this statute by negligently damaging and desUoying the

Plaintiffs trees and vegetation. The Plaintiffis a member ofthe class of persons that this

statute was designed to protect.

39. Califomia Civil Code § 3479 provides, in relevant part, that it is an

unlawful nuisance to obstruct the free use of property and interfere with the comfortable

enjoyment oflife or property. As alleged above, Defendants obstructed the Plaintiffs free

use and enjoyment oftheir property and life. PlaintifiT is members ofthe class of persons

SEOOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PUgC 8

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13076-1 Filed: 10/14/22 Entered: 10/14/22 10:50:56 Page

13 of 19
1

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

CMaMMtiCMnUKt APKOft.ClDtf>

AitMtTOmetConu

t ttlNamiBumAvtMut

PUniQ,CUMMAtlW tci»Kwiasni}S*ttli

that this statute is designed to protect.

40. As a proximate result of Defendants' breach of duty of care, the

Plaintiff has suffered property damage, including but not limited to lost grasses used to

feed the cattle, smoke damage to the home, destroyed cattle, increased erosion, destroyed

fencing, reduced herd size, and damaged and/or destroyed trees.

Res iDsa Loquitur

41. Alternatively, the Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that

information and belief alleges, that on or about July 8, 2017, a fire started on the Hodges

Property, and spread to the Plaintiffs property. Defendants' owned, controlled, and/or

managed the land and improvements located thereon. During those activities. Defendants

so carelessly and negligently controlled, conducted, and carried out their activities as to

cause the fire that subsequently entered onto Plaintiffs land, causing the destruction and

damage detailed above.

42. At the above referenced time and place. Defendants had exclusive

control and management of their respective items of property. The placement,

construction, and/or maintenance of the light pole and fixture in close proximity to the

power pole and powerline, which caused the resulting fire and damages set forth in this

Complaint, are such that in the ordinary course of things, would not have occurred if

Defendants had exercised ordinary care in the management of their respective items of

property. Because the Defendants had the exclusive control and management ofthe land,

improvements, and activities conducted thereon, they possessed superior, if not exclusive,

information, and control concerning the precise cause of damage suffered by the Plaintiff,

and Plaintiffrelies on the negligence ofDefendants as inferred firom the general situation

alleged in this Complaint.

43. The damage resulting to Plaintiffs property was not due to any

voluntary action or contribution on the Plaintiffs part.

44. Such conduct caused the Plaintiff to suffer the emotional distress

described below. Such emotional distress was foreseeable and the likely result of such

SECOND AMENDEDCOMPLAINT PSgC 9

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13076-1 Filed: 10/14/22 Entered: 10/14/22 10:50:56 Page

14 of 19
1

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

CxiaiisaliCMitfUn

Aftor.Cotf.

ABuaxrOmnCniisi

lUSMMHKnMAvwifl

CMJ»>MunnT

mDMNinsfluJ-iiJT PAScssqui-Hi?

conduct described above, as it was imminently foreseeable that Plaintiff would suffer

emotional distress as a result ofthe fire and the threat to their house and cattle.

45. As a proximate result of the acts alleged above, said Plaintiff has

suffered mental anguish and emotional distress, including fnght, nervousness, anxiety,

worry, and shock.

46. As a further proximate result of Defendants' breach, Plaintiff has

suffered damages in excess ofthe Court's minimumjurisdictlonal amount

47. The conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as described in this

Complaint, particularly in this cause of action, entitles the Plaintiff to double damages

pursuant to Civil Code § 3346 for the damage the Defendants inflicted on Plaintiffs trees

and vegetation. Further, in the event the trespass is not determined to be simply

"casual or Involuntarily" as defined by the statute, the Plaintiff will be entitled to

recover treble damages, instead of double damages, pursuant to Civ. Code § 3346.

.48. The conduct complained of in this Complaint constitutes a trespass

on the Plaintiffs land. The Plaintiffs property was used for the raising oflivestock within

the meaning of CCP § 1021.9, so that the Plaintiff shall be entitled to reasonable

attomeys' fees in addition to any other damages assessable against the Defendants as

allowed by law.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic

Advantage Against All Defendants)

49. The Plaintiffhereby incorporates,as iffully set forth herein,all ofthe

factual allegations contained within this Complaint

50. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times herein, was engaged in the

business ofraising cattle.

51. On or about July 8, 2017, the Defendants' property started a fire that

subsequently damaged the Plaintiffs property.

52. The Defendants knew or should have known, ofthe risk of harm to

Plaintiffs prospective economic advantages, gained through the production and sale of

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Page 10

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13076-1 Filed: 10/14/22 Entered: 10/14/22 10:50:56 Page

15 of 19
1

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

CMffMNtftCwrMM Ataf.CMK

AawMTOMRtComa

MU MniHHumAvuiut

ntttKo^ oumMAnm TMiIIMDKMM«)»S*IAll

cattle, if they created a condition that was likely to start a fire. In addition, Defendants

knew, or should have known, ofthe risk of harm and damage that a fire would cause to

the surrounding cattle operations, including the Plaintiffs.

53. Defendants nevertheless failed to construct, manage and otherwise

operate their respective items of property, resulting in the subsequent fire that damaged

the Plaintiffs property.

54. As a result ofthe fire, a substantial portion ofthe Plaindfi^s grasses

and vegetation was destroyed and cattle were killed. Such grasses and vegetation was used

for feed for the Plaintiffs cattle. As a result ofthe destruction ofthe feed, the property is

unable to support the herd and the Plaintiffs cattle business has been damaged as a result.

55. As a further proximate result ofthe activities ofDefendants, Plaintiff

has suffered economic damages in excess ofthe Court's minimum jurisdictional amount,

and will continue to suffer further monetary and property damage in subsequentyears, the

exact amount ofwhich to be proven at trial,

56. The conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as described in this

Complaint, entitles Plaintiff to double damages pursuant to Civil Code § 3346 for the

damage the Defendants inflicted on Plaintiffs trees and vegetation. Further, In the event

the trespass is not determined to be simply ''casual or involuntarily" as defined by

the statute, the Plaintiff will be entitled to recover treble damages, instead of double

damages, pursuant to Civ. Code § 3346.

57. The conduct complained of in this Complaint, constitutes a trespass

on Plaintiffs land. Plaintiffs land was used for the raising of livestock within the

meaning of CCP § 1021.9, so that Plaintiff shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees

in addition to any other damages assessable against the Defendants as allowed by law.

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS FOR JUDGMENT AGAINST

THE DEFENDANTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. For general and special damages in an amount to be proven at trial;

2. For double damages for the amount of the damage and injury to

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PagC 11

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13076-1 Filed: 10/14/22 Entered: 10/14/22 10:50:56 Page

16 of 19
1

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

CAWAOMftCMtfMWl

APlV.OOtr.

MtMCTOmetCtimi

IMJNmnilbuiAVBM

PUWQiCunatnAnm

TiuviiwiiMniiS-tUT rMcssttin-Mn

Plaintiffs trees and vegetation pursuant to Civil Code § 3346. Further, in the event the

trespass is not determined to be simply ''casual or involuntarily*' as defined by the

statute, the Plaintiff will be entitled to recover treble damages, instead of double

damages, pursuant to Civ. Code § 3346;

3. For Plaintiffs attorneys' fees (Code Civ, Proc., §§ 1021.9 and 1036);

4. For the cost ofsuit herein incurred; and

5. Forsuch other and further relief as provided by law.

Dated: July^ 2018 Respectfully submitted,

Law Firm ofCampagne & Campagne.

A Professional Corporation

Attome

Justi i T. Campagne

for

—Plaintiffs Scott Raven and Charly le^ven

dld:F:\DATA\docslVRavcn. Scott andChaityscVHodgcs FircVPtcBdiagsNSccoad Anmdcd ComptoinLdoc

SECOND AMENDED OOMPLAlKr Page 12

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13076-1 Filed: 10/14/22 Entered: 10/14/22 10:50:56 Page

17 of 19
1

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

CAwrwKiftCau'aum

APur.Ootii

AiiMarOnKaCiMnii

ittjKo imIktM Avnts

l>uiiia,c«UKiwiA»nT Ta»KaRUini»|in

PROOF OF SERVICE

I am a citizen ofthe United States ofAmerica, a resident ofFresno County,

California, over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business address is 16^ N. Helm, Fresno,California93727.

On July ^ 2018, 1 served the attached SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT on the parties in this action by placing a true copy in an envelope and

delivering it as follows:

^(By Overnight Courier) I caused such envelope, with postage fully prepaid, to be

sent by

^(By Certified Return Receipt Requested Mail) I deposited the envelope, with

postage fully prepaid for Certified Return Receipt Requested mail, with the United

States Postal Service at Fresno, Fresno County, California.

^(By Mail) I deposited the envelope, with postage fully prq)aid, with the United

States Postal Service at Fresno, Fresno County, California.

^(By Mail) I placed the envelope for collection and processing for mailing

following this business' ordinary practice with which I am readily familiar. On the

same day correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the

ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service with postage fully

prepaid.

^(By Hand) I caused each envelopeto be delivered by hand.

X (Bv Electronic Mail) I caused the attached document be sent by electronic mail to

the below-described email address(es). My electronic services address is

donna@campagnelaw.com.

(By Fax) I caused each document to be sent by facsimile to the below-described

number(s).

Each envelope (and/or fax) was addressed and delivered as follows:

See attached Service List

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of California

that the above is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on July^ 2018,

at Fresno, California. I declare that I am employed in the office ofa member of the Bar or

this Court at whose direction the service was made.

Donna L. Dolf 0

dldd^:\DATA\(locsMlaven. Scott andChariyseNHodges FiteVPleadtngsNSecond AmendedComplainLdoc

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13076-1 Filed: 10/14/22 Entered: 10/14/22 10:50:56 Page

18 of 19
1

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

CMUAOKtA

H,nsr.Caa.

AnMarOmetCbnn

IMSNOERKHUilAVBIUI

ruwaCuimiMn7» -m»t(»a(u»us>un

Fii3C(SS«)Ul-«l7

Raven v.Bodges

Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 18CV000258

Service List

Brian C. Merges

Mokri Vanis & Jones LLP

515 S. Flower St., Ste. 1800

Los Angeles, CA 90071

Telephone: (213)236-3695

Facsimile: (213) 236-3696

Email:bmerps^nvjllp.com

cramirez@mvjllp.com

Attorneys for Defendant and CrossComplainant Hot Line Construction, Inc;

Mark J. Sweeney

Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Inc.

77 Beale Street, B30A

P.O. Box 7442

San Francisco, CA 94105

Telephone: (415)_973-2527

Facsimile: (415) 973-5520

Email: mark.swecncy@pge.com

Attorneys for Pacific Gas & Electric

Company, Inc.

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

David A. Harris

Santana & Vierra

71 Stevenson Street, Suite 700

San Francisco, CA 94105

Telephone: (415) 777-1308

Facsimile: (603) 430-0513

Email: david.ha^01@libertymutual.com

Attorneys for Defendant and CrossComplainantJennifer Hodges

Mark J. Hancock

Peter J. Messrobian

Cough Sc Hancock LLP

Two Rmbarcadero Center, Suite 640

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 848-8916

Email:mark.hancock^ghcounsel.com

Peter.messrobian@ghcounsel.com

Jennifer.mcneil@ghcounsel.com

Attorneys for Pacific Gas ife Electric

Company, Inc.

Page 14

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13076-1 Filed: 10/14/22 Entered: 10/14/22 10:50:56 Page

19 of 19