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

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

EXHIBIT C

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 1

of 51
1 

2 

3 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

Dario de Ghetaldi- Bar No. 126782 ENQ()r\SE.0 

Amanda L. Riddle-Bar No. 215221 f \LE. Puperiorcourt 

Steven M. Berki - Bar No. 245426 seo covnlY 

Clare Capaccioli Velasquez-Bar No. 290466 Sall Francl · · 

COREY, LUZAICH, QC1 1 6 20\S 

DE GHETALDI & RIDDLE LLP "\'wf:. coURi 

700 El Camino Real CLERK Of. n BB --- :P-;G~e-x-66-9----------------~~_____,\"\E-'f\.a,,,.,,_..":';n,.....-,""ut=;)/ csr.;10=· ----t---

Millbrae, CA 94030-0669 13Y:______. =r 

Telephone: (650) 871-5666 

Facsimile: (650) 871-4144 

deg@coreylaw.com 

alr@coreylaw.com 

smb@coreylaw.com 

ccv@coreylaw.com 

Michael S. Danko-Bar No. 111359 

Kristine K.. Meredith-Bar No. 158243 

Shawn R. Miller- Bar No. 238447 

DANKO MEREDITH 

333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 145 

Redwood Shores, CA 94065 

Telephone: (650) 453-3600 

Facsimile: (650) 394-8672 

mdanko@dankolaw.com 

kmeredith@dankolaw.com 

smiller@dankolaw.com 

Eric Gibbs -Bar No. 178658 

Dylan Hughes -Bar No. 209113 

Steven A. Lopez - Bar No. 300540 

GIBBS LAW GROUP 

505 14th Street, Suite 1110 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Telephone: (510) 350-9700 

Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 

ehg@classlawgroup.com 

dsh@classlawgroup.com 

sal@classlawgroup.com 

15 Attorneys for Plaintiff,<; 

16 

17 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

18 

COORDINATION PROCEEDING 

19 

Special Title (California Rule of Court 3.550) 

20 

CALIFORNIA NORTH BAY FIRES 

21 

BARBARA THOMPSON, individually, and as 

22 Trustee of the Barbara W. Thompson Revocable 

Living Trust, JOHN THOMPSON, PETER 

23 THOMPSON, and MATTHEW THOMPSON, 

24 Plaintiffs, 

V. 

25 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, 

26 PG&E CORPORATION, AND DOES 1 

THROUGH 20, 

27 

28 

Defendants. 

JCCP 4955 

CGC-18-570629 

INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFF'S SHORT 

FORM COMPLAINT 

TUBBS-CDGG-0048 

JCCP 4955 

SHORT FORM COMPLAINT OF BARBARA THOMPSON, ET AL. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 2

of 51
1 Pursuant to Case Management Order No. 1, Plaintiff(s) hereby submit(s) this Short Form 

2 Complaint ("SFC") against Defendants identified below, and hereby adopt(s) and incorporate(s) 

3 by reference as set forth in Plaintiffs' most recent Master Complaint filed in this matter on March 

4 12, 2018, and any and all later amendments thereto. 

5 PLAINTIFF BARBARA THOMPSON, individually, and as Trustee of the Barbara W. 

6 Thompson Revocable Living Trust, was damaged by the North Bay Fires as set forth below and 

7 makes the claims set forth below. 

8 PLAINTIFF JOHN THOMPSON, in his individual capacity, was damaged by the North 

9 Bay Fires as set forth below and makes the claims set forth below. 

10 PLAINTIFF PETER THOMPSON, in his individual capacity, was damaged by the North 

11 Bay Fires as set forth below and makes the claims set forth below. 

12 PLAINTIFF MATTHEW THOMPSON, in his individual capacity, was damaged by the 

13 North Bay Fires as set forth below and makes the claims set forth below. 

14 

15 PLAINTIFFS COMPLAIN OF EACH DEFENDANT AS FOLLOWS: 

16 1. Notice of Adoption of the Master Complaint. Plaintiff(s) refer(s) to and 

17 incorporate(s) herein by reference that Master Complaint filed on behalf of Individual Plaintiffs in 

18 the CALIFORNIA NORTH BAY FIRE CASES, Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding No. 

19 4955, as though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff(s) hereby adopt(s) the Master Complaint and 

20 agree(s) to be bound by any rulings with respect to the pleadings. 

21 2. Plaintiff(s) adopt(s) each of the general allegations of the Master Complaint except 

22 for those paragraph numbers set forth here, if any: NI A. 

23 3. Plaintiff( s) incorporate( s) by reference each of the causes of action in the Master 

24 Complaint checked below against those Defendants named in that cause of action: 

25 

26 

27 

28 

D 

D 

First Cause of Action for Negligence 

Second Cause of Action for Wrongful Death 

Third Cause of Action for Survival Action 

- 1 -

SHORT FORM COMPLAINT OF BARBARA THOMPSON, ET AL. 

JCCP 4955 Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 3

of 51
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 4. 

Fourth Cause of Action for Inverse Condemnation 

Fifth Cause of Action for Public Nuisance 

Sixth Cause of Action for Private Nuisance 

Seventh Cause of Action for Premises Liability 

Eighth Cause of Action for Trespass 

Ninth Cause of Action for Private Action Under Public Utilities Code§ 2106 

Tenth Cause of Action for Violation of Health & Safety Code§ 13007 

Eleventh Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 

In addition to the defendant(s) named in the Master Complaint, Plaintiff(s) also 

10 name(s) the following individual(s) as Nominal Defendant(s): NIA 

11 5. Plaintiff(s) respectfully reserve(s) the right to seek transfer or remand of the trial of 

12 this action to the County of Sonoma, Napa, Lake, Mendocino, Butte, or another appropriate venue. 

13 

14 

ADDRESSES OF ALL AFFECTED PROPERTIES 

Plaintiff(s) allege(s) the following properties have been impacted by the CALIFORNIA 

15 NORTH BAY FIRES for which Plaintiff(s) seeks recovery: 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

~ 

D 

~ 

D 

D 

D 

D 

9960 Franz Valley School Road 

Calistoga, CA 94515 

APN: 120-160-012-000 

SPECIFY WHETHER PLAINTIFF(S) ARE: 

Insured by State Farm 

Uninsured 

Owner of real property 

Renter ofreal property 

Business owner 

Employee 

Other 

- 2 -

SHORT FORM COMPLAINT OF BARBARA THOMPSON, ET AL. 

JCCP 4955 Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 4

of 51
1 CALIFORNIA NORTH BAY FIRE THAT IMPACTED PLAINTIFF(S): 

2 D Atlas Fire (Master Complaint ,i,i 80-86) 

3 D Cascade/LaPorte Fire (Master Complaint ,i,i 87-91) 

4 D Cherokee Fire (Master Complaint ,i,i 92-93) 

5 D Honey Fire (Master Complaint ,i,i 94-95) 

6 D Lobo Fire (Master Complaint ,i,i 96-97) 

7 D Maacama or No Name Fire (Master Complaint ,i,i 98-99) 

8 D McCourtney Fire (Master Complaint ,i,i 100-101) 

9 D Nuns Fire (Master Complaint ,i,i 102-109) 

10 D Pocket Fire (Master Complaint ,i,i 110-111) 

11 D Point Fire (Master Complaint ,i,i 112-113) 

12 D Redwood Valley/ Potter Fires (Master Complaint ,i,i 114-116) 

13 D Sullivan Fire (Master Complaint ,i,i 117-119) 

14 D Sulphur Fire (Master Complaint ,i,i 120-122) 

15 ~ Tubbs Fire (Master Complaint ,i,i 123-127) 

16 D Highway 3 7 Fire (Master Complaint ,i,i 128-129) 

17 D Other Ignition Point [Describe in Additional Allegations Section below, p. 7] 

18 

19 PLAINTIFFS SUFFERED DAMAGE IN THE FOLLOWING WAY: 

20 D Wrongful death and survival 

21 D Personal injury 

22 ~ Emotional distress (including but not limited to presence in zone of danger) and/or 

bystander claims) 

23 

Mental anguish (including but not limited to loss of use and enjoyment of property ~ 

24 under nuisance) 

25 ~ Residence destroyed 

26 D Residence damaged 

27 ~ Other structures destroyed 

28 

- 3 - JCCP 4955 

SHORT FORM COMPLAINT OF BARBARA THOMPSON, ET AL. Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 5

of 51
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 

IS] 

D 

IS] 

IS] 

IS] 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

Other structures damaged 

Real property improvements (fences, roads, well, septic system, etc.) destroyed 

Real property improvements (fences, roads, well, septic system, etc.) damaged 

Personal property damage 

Damage to trees 

Diminution in value of real property 

Damage to crops 

Damage to business equipment 

Damage to business goodwill or brand 

Loss of use of business property 

Loss of future profits 

Loss or reduction of future insurance benefits due to lower crop yield in 2017 

Harm to pets or livestock 

Employment-related damages 

DAMAGES ALLEGED: 

AS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS for Inverse Condemnation, all according to proof, 

for: 

Diminution in real property and/or personal property value, cost of repairs, loss of 

use of the property, loss of rent, loss of profits, loss of prospective profits, increased 

operating expenses, and/or all other detriment proximately caused by the harm to 

Plaintiffs' property; 

All costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees, appraisal fees, engineering 

fees, other expert fees, and related costs; 

Prejudgment interest; 

For such other and further relief as the Court shall deem just and proper. 

AS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS for Wrongful Death and Survival Action, all 

according to proof, for: 

D 

D 

D 

Loss oflove, society, solace, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, 

affection, and moral support from Decedent/s; 

Funeral and burial expenses, and related medical expenses; 

Economic loss, including but not limited to the loss of financial support and/or the 

loss of household services; 

- 4 - JCCP 4955 

SHORT FORM COMPLAINT OF BARBARA THOMPSON, ET AL. Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 6

of 51
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 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

Recovery ofDecedent/s' damages as allowed under Code of Civil Procedure§ 

377.30 under the causes of action alleged in the Master Complaint for, inter alia, 

inverse condemnation, negligence, nuisance, premises liability, trespass, and 

violations of statutes and regulations; 

Expenses for the identification and/or removal of Decedent/s' remains and other 

medical and/or emergency services; 

Punitive and exemplary damages as allowed under Civil Code § 3294; 

All costs of suit; 

Prejudgment interest; and 

For such other and further relief as the Court shall deem just and proper. 

AS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS for Negligence, Public Nuisance, Private Nuisance, 

Premises Liability, Trespass, Private Action Under Public Utilities Code§ 2106, and 

Violation of Health & Safety Code§ 13007, all according to proof, for: 

D 

D 

IZl 

Repair, diminution in value, and/or replacement of damaged, destroyed, and/or lost 

personal and/or real property; 

Loss of use, income, wages, earning capacity, goodwill, profits or proceeds, 

increased operating expenses, and/or all other detriment proximately caused by the 

harm to Plaintiffs' business property or concerns; 

Lost wages and/or earning capacity; 

Additional living expenses, and/or other related displacement expenses; 

Past and future medical expenses and incidental expenses; 

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

anguish, emotional distress, loss of the use, benefit, goodwill, and quiet enjoyment of 

property, and personal injury; 

An order enjoining continued violation of: (a) Public Resources Code§§ 4292, 

4293, and 4295; (b) Public Utilities Code§ 451; (c) Public Utilities Commission 

General Order 95, Rules 31.1-31.5, 35, 38, 43, 43.2, 44.1-44.4, 48-41.1; and (d) 

Public Utilities Commission General Order 165; 

An order to abate the existing and continuing nuisances caused by the California 

North Bay Fires; 

Treble damages for wrongful injuries to timber, trees, or underwood as allowed 

under Civil Code§ 3346; 

Treble damages for injuries to trees as allowed under Code of Civil Procedure § 

733; 

Exemplary damages as allowed under Civil Code § 3294; 

- 5 - JCCP 4955 Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 7 SHORT FORM COMPLAINT OF BARBARA THOMPSON, ET AL. of 51
1 D 

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 

Exemplary damages for wrongful injuries to animals as allowed under Civil Code § 

3340; 

Exemplary damages as allowed under Public Utilities Code§ 2106; 

Attorneys' fees, expert fees, consultant fees, and litigation costs and expenses as 

allowed under Code of Civil Procedure§ 1021.9; 

All costs of suit; 

Prejudgment interest; and 

For such other and further relief as the Court shall deem just and proper. 

ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS, IF ANY 

(Plaintiff-Specific, not Addressed by Master Complaint) 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

PLAINTIFF(S) hereby demand(s) a trial by jury as to all claims in this action. 

- 6 -

SHORT FORM COMPLAINT OF BARBARA THOMPSON, ET AL. 

JCCP 4955 Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 8

of 51
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 

DATED: October 16, 2018 :;~ETALDI & RIDDLELLP 

DarioeGhetaldi 

Amanda L. Riddle 

Steven M. Berki 

Clare Capaccioli Velasquez 

DANKO MEREDITH 

Michael S. Danko 

Kristine K. Meredith 

Shawn R. Miller 

GIBBS LAW GROUP 

Eric Gibbs 

Dylan Hughes 

Steven A. Lopez 

- 7 - SHORT FORM COMPLAINT OF BARBARA THOMPSON, ET AL. JCCP 4955 Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 9

of 51
Bill Robins III (SBN 296101) 

Robert T. B1yson (SBN 156953) 

2 Kevin M. Pollack (SBN 272786) 

ROBINS CLOUD LLP 

3 808 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 450 

4 Santa Monica, CA 90401 

Tel.: (310) 929-4200 / Fax: (310) 566-5900 

5 robins@robinscloud.com 

rbiyson@robinscloud.com 

6 kpollack@robinscloud.com 

7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

8 

9 

ENDORSES Fil Superior Co!li1 o Eau ornl~ County ot sem ~~nota<ld 

OCT 2 b 2018 

CLERK OF THE COURT 

B't _, DAVID W. YUEN 

• " Deputy Clerk 

10 

11 

12 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

13 COORDINATION PROCEEDING 

14 Special Title (Califo111ia Rule of Comt 3.550) 

15 

16 

CALIFORNIA NORTH BAY FIRES 

17 JOHN CASLIN AND JOHN CASLIN, 

TRUSTEE OF THE 1999 CASLIN 

18 REVOCABLE TRUST U/D/T, 

19 

Plaintiff/s 

v. 

20 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMP ANY, 

21 

PG&E CORPORATION, AND DOES 1 

THROUGH 20, 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Defendants. 

INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS' SHORT 

FORM COMPLAINT 

TUBBS-ROCL-0080 

BY FAX 

ONE LEGAL LLC 

1 JCCP 4955 

SHORT FORM COMPLAINT OF JOHN CASLIN AND JOHN CASLIN, TRUSTEE OF THE 1999 CASLIN 

REVOCABLE TRUST U/D/T 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 10

of 51
1 Pursuant to Case Management Order No. 1, Plaintiff(s) hereby submit(s) this Short Form 

2 Complaint ("SFC") against Defendants identified below, and hereby adopt(s) and incorporate(s) 

3 by reference as set forth in Plaintiffs' most recent Master Complaint filed in this matter on March 

4 12, 2018, and any and all later amendments thereto. 

5 PLAINTIFF JOHN CASLIN in his personal capacity was damaged by the North Bay 

6 Fires as set forth below and makes the claims set forth below. 

7 PLAINTIFF JOHN CASLIN as Trustee of the 1999 CASLIN REVOCABLE TRUST 

8 U/D/T was damaged by the North Bay Fires as set forth below and makes the claims set forth 

9 below. 

10 PLAINTIFFS COMPLAIN OF EACH DEFENDANT AS FOLLOWS: 

11 1. Notice of Adoption of the Master Complaint. Plaintiff(s) refer(s) to and 

12 incorporate(s) herein by reference that Master Complaint filed on behalf oflndividual Plaintiffs in 

13 the CALIFORNIA NORTH BAY FIRE CASES, Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding No. 

14 4955, as though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff(s) hereby adopt(s) the Master Complaint and 

15 agree(s) to be bound by any rulings with respect to the pleadings. 

16 2. Plaintiff(s) adopt(s) each of the general allegations of the Master Complaint except 

17 for those paragraph numbers set forth here, if any: None. 

18 3. Plaintiff( s) incorporate( s) by reference each of the causes of action in the Master 

19 Complaint checked below against those Defendants named in that cause of action: 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

~ 

D 

D 

First Cause of Action for Negligence 

Second Cause of Action for Wrongful Death 

Third Cause of Action for Survival Action 

Fourth Cause of Action for Inverse Condemnation 

Fifth Cause of Action for Public Nuisance 

Sixth Cause of Action for Private Nuisance 

Seventh Cause of Action for Premises Liability 

Eighth Cause of Action for Trespass 

- 1 - JCCP 4955 

SHORT FORM COMPLAINT OF JOHN CASLIN AND JOHN CASLIN, TRUSTEE OF THE 1999 CASLIN 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 11 REVOCABLE TRUST U/D/T 

of 51
1 

2 

3 

4 

Ninth Cause of Action for Private Action Under Public Utilities Code § 2106 

Tenth Cause of Action for Violation of Health & Safety Code§ 13007 

Eleventh Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 

In addition to the defendant(s) named in the Master Complaint, Plaintiff(s) also name(s) 

5 the following individual(s) as Nominal Defendant(s): At this time, Plaintiffs reserve the right to 

6 assert additional allegations at a future date. 

7 4. Plaintiff(s) respectfully reserve(s) the right to seek transfer or remand of the trial of 

8 this action to the County of Sonoma, Napa, or another appropriate venue. 

9 

10 

ADDRESSES OF ALL AFFECTED PROPERTIES 

Plaintiff(s) allege(s) the following properties have been impacted by the CALIFORNIA 

11 NORTH BAY FIRES for which Plaintiff(s) seeks recovery: 3742 Sawgrass Lane, Santa Rosa, 

12 California 95403, APN 173-610-029-000 and 3705 Cross Creek Lane, Santa Rosa, California 

l3 95403, APN l 73-650-039-000. 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

D 

~ 

D 

~ 

D 

D 

SPECIFY WHETHER PLAINTIFF(S) ARE: 

Insured by: American Mutual Insurance Company 

Uninsured 

Owner of real property 

Renter of real property 

Business owner 

Employee 

Other 

CALIFORNIA NORTH BAY FIRE THAT IMPACTED PLAINTIFF(S): 

D Atlas Fire (Master Complaint ,r,r 80-86) 

D Cascade/LaPorte Fire (Master Complaint ,r,r 87-91) 

D Cherokee Fire (Master Complaint ,r,r 92-93) 

D Honey Fire (Master Complaint ,r,r 94-95) 

D Lobo Fire (Master Complaint ,r,r 96-97) 

- 2 - JCCP 4955 

SHORT FORM COMPLAINT OF JOHN CASLIN AND JOHN CASLIN, TRUSTEE OF THE 1999 CASLIN Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 12 REVOCABLE TRUST U/D/T 

of 51
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 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

Maacama or No Name Fire (Master Complaint ,r,r 98-99) 

McCourtney Fire (Master Complaint ,r,r 100-101) 

Nuns Fire (Master Complaint ,r,r 102-109) 

Pocket Fire (Master Complaint ,r,r 110-111) 

Point Fire (Master Complaint ,r,r 112-113) 

Redwood Valley/ Potter Fires (Master Complaint ,r,r 114-116) 

Sullivan Fire (Master Complaint ,r,r 117-119) 

Sulphur Fire (Master Complaint ,r,r 120-122) 

Tubbs Fire (Master Complaint ,r,r 123-127) 

Highway 37 Fire (Master Complaint ,r,r 128-129) 

Other Ignition Point [Describe in Additional Allegations Section below, p. 7] 

PLAINTIFFS SUFFERED DAMAGE IN THE FOLLOWING WAY: 

Wrongful death and survival 

Personal injury 

Emotional distress (including but not limited to presence in zone of danger) and/or 

bystander claims) 

Mental anguish (including but not limited to loss of use and enjoyment of property 

under nuisance) 

Residence destroyed 

Residence damaged 

Other structures destroyed 

Other structures damaged 

Real property improvements (fences, roads, well, septic system, etc.) destroyed 

Real property improvements (fences, roads, well, septic system, etc.) damaged 

Personal property damage 

Damage to trees 

Diminution in value of real property 

Damage to crops 

- 3 - JCCP 4955 

SHORT FORM COMPLAINT OF JOHN CASLIN AND JOHN CASLIN, TRUSTEE OF THE 1999 CASLIN 

REVOCABLE TRUST U/D/T Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 13

of 51
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 

D 

D 

~ 

D 

D 

D 

Damage to business equipment 

Damage to business goodwill or brand 

Loss of use of business property 

Loss of future profits 

Loss or reduction of future insurance benefits due to lower crop yield in 2017 

Ham1 to pets or livestock 

Employment-related damages 

DAMAGES ALLEGED: 

AS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS for Inverse Condemnation, all according to proof, 

for: 

Diminution in real property and/or personal property value, cost ofrepairs, loss of 

use of the property, loss ofrent, loss of profits, loss of prospective profits, increased 

operating expenses, and/or all other detriment proximately caused by the harm to 

Plaintiffs' property; 

All costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees, appraisal fees, engineering 

fees, other expert fees, and related costs; 

Prejudgment interest; 

For such other and further relief as the Court shall deem just and proper. 

AS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS for Wrongful Death and Survival Action, all 

according to proof, for: 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

Loss oflove, society, solace, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, 

affection, and moral support from Decedent/s; 

Funeral and burial expenses, and related medical expenses; 

Economic loss, including but not limited to the loss of financial support and/or the 

loss of household services; 

Recovery ofDecedent/s' damages as allowed under Code of Civil Procedure§ 

377.30 under the causes of action alleged in the Master Complaint for, inter alia, 

inverse condemnation, negligence, nuisance, premises liability, trespass, and 

violations of statutes and regulations; 

Expenses for the identification and/or removal of Decedent/s' remains and other 

medical and/or emergency services; 

Punitive and exemplary damages as allowed under Civil Code § 3294; 

All costs of suit; 

Prejudgment interest; and 

- 4 - JCCP 4955 

SHORT FORM COMPLAINT OF JOHN CASLIN AND JOHN CASLIN, TRUSTEE OF THE 1999 CASLIN Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 14 REVOCABLE TRUST U/D/T 

of 51
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 

D For such other and further relief as the Court shall deem just and proper. 

AS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS for Negligence, Public Nuisance, Private Nuisance, 

Premises Liability, Trespass, Private Action Under Public Utilities Code§ 2106, and 

Violation of Health & Safety Code§ 13007, all according to proof, for: 

D 

D 

D 

Repair, diminution in value, and/or replacement of damaged, destroyed, and/or lost 

personal and/or real property; 

Loss of use, income, wages, earning capacity, goodwill, profits or proceeds, 

increased operating expenses, and/or all other detriment proximately caused by the 

harm to Plaintiffs' business property or concerns; 

Lost wages and/or earning capacity; 

Additional living expenses, and/or other related displacement expenses; 

Past and future medical expenses and incidental expenses; 

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

anguish, emotional distress, loss of the use, benefit, goodwill, and quiet enjoyment 

of property, and personal injury; 

An order enjoining continued violation of: (a) Public Resources Code§§ 4292, 

4293, and 4295; (b) Public Utilities Code§ 451; (c) Public Utilities Commission 

General Order 95, Rules 31.1-31.5, 35, 38, 43, 43.2, 44.1-44.4, 48-41.1; and (d) 

Public Utilities Commission General Order 165; 

An order to abate the existing and continuing nuisances caused by the California 

North Bay Fires; 

Treble damages for wrongful injuries to timber, trees, or underwood as allowed 

under Civil Code § 3346; 

Treble damages for injuries to trees as allowed under Code of Civil Procedure § 

733; 

Exemplary damages as allowed under Civil Code§ 3294; 

Exemplary damages for wrongful injuries to animals as allowed under Civil Code § 

3340; 

Exemplary damages as allowed under Public Utilities Code§ 2106; 

Attorneys' fees, expert fees, consultant fees, and litigation costs and expenses as 

allowed under Code of Civil Procedure § 1021. 9; 

All costs of suit; 

Prejudgment interest; and 

For such other and further relief as the Court shall deem just and proper. 

- 5 - JCCP 4955 

SHORT FORM COMPLAINT OF JOHN CASLIN AND JOHN CASLIN, TRUSTEE OF THE 1999 CASLIN 

REVOCABLE TRUST U/D/T 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 15

of 51
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 

ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS, IF ANY 

(Plaintiff-Specific, not Addressed by Master Complaint) 

At this time, Plaintiffs reserve the right to assert additional allegations at a future date. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

PLAINTIFF(S) hereby demand(s) a trial by jury as to all claims in this action. 

DATED: October 26, 2018 

By 

ROBINS CLOUD LLP 

( 

Bill Robins 

Robert Bryson 

Kevin Pollack 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

- 6 - JCCP 4955 

SHORT FORM COMPLAINT OF JOHN CASLIN AND JOHN CASLIN, TRUSTEE OF THE 1999 CASLIN Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 16 REVOCABLE TRUST U/D/T of 51
SUM-100 

SUMMONS 

(CITACION JUDICIAL) 

FORCOURTUSEONLY 

(SOLO PARA USO De LA CORTE) 

NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, a 

(A VISO AL DEMAN DADO): California corporation; PG&E CORPORATION, a 

California corporation; and DOES l Through 20, inclusive 

YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: PETE FOURKAS, individually and as 

(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): TRUS1EE of the Fourkas 

Family Trust; ELIZABETH FOURK.AS, individually and as TRUSTEE of the 

Fo)lfkas Family Trust; and ALISSA FOURKAS, individually 

NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the lnlormallon 

below, 

You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this couri and have a copy 

served on the plalnllff. A letter or phone call wlll not protect you. Your written response must be In proper legal form II you want the court lo hear your 

case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more Information al the Calllomla Courts 

Online Self-Help Center (www.courtlnfo.ca.gov/selfhafp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask 

the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property 

may be taken wHhout further warning from the couri. ' 

There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away, Ir you do not know an attorney, you may want lo call an attorney 

referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be ellglble for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate 

these nonprofit groups et the California Legal Services Web site (wwwJawhelpcal/tomla.org), the Calllomla Courts Online Sell-Help Center 

(www.courtJnfo.ca.gov/se/fhe/p), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory Hen for waived fees and 

costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more In a cMI case. The court's lien must be paid before the court wlll dismiss lhe case. 

/A VISO/ Lo han demandado. SI no responds dentro de 30 dlos, la corla puede decldlr en su contra sin ascuchar su venidn. Lea la JnformacJ6n a continuacldn. 

1iane 30 DIAS DE CALENDAR/0 despues de que Fe entreguen esta cifaddn y papa/as legates para presentar una respuasta por escrlfo en esta 

corle y hacer que se entregua una cop/a al demandanta. Una oarla o una 1/amada fe/ef6n/ca no To protegan. Su respuesta por escrito tfena que aster 

en formato Tega/ correcto s/ dasea qua procesan su caso en la corle. Es poslble qua haya un formu/arfo que usted pueda usar para su respuasta. 

Puede encontrar estos formularlos de la corla y mas lnformad6n en el Centro da Ayuda de las Cortes de Califomla (',Yww,sucorte,ca.gov), an la 

blblloteca de feyes de su condado o an la corle que le quade mils ceroa. SI no puade pager fa cuota de presentacldn, plda al secretario de la corla 

qua Fe di! un tormularlo da axencldn de pago de cuotas. SI no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, pued11 perdar el caso por lncump/fmfento y fa corle le 

podra qullar su sue/do, dinero y blanes sin mils advarlancla. 

Hay otros requ/s/tos lega/es, Es recomandab/e qua llama a un abogado lnmedlatamente. SI no conoce a un abogado, pueda 1/amar a un servfclo de 

remlsi6n a abogados. SI no puada pagar a un abogado, es poslbfe que cumpla con Jos requls/tos para obt11nar servtclos Jaga/es gratu/tos de un 

programa de servfc/os legalas sin fines de /ucro. Puedo encontrar as/os grupos sin finos do Jucro an el sltio web de Callfomla Legal Services, 

(',Yww.lawhelpcallfomla,org), en el Centro de Ayuda d11 /as Co,tes de Callfom/a, ('www.sucorte.ca.gov) o pon/endose en contacto con /a co,te o el 

colegfo de abogados locales. AV/SO: Por /ey, la corte t/ena derecho a rec/emar las cuotas y los costos exentos por lmponer un gravamen sobre 

cua/quler recuparac/6n da $10,000 6 mas de valor rec/blda madfanta un acuardo o una concesldn de atbllra}a en un caso da derecho civil. 1iane que 

pager el gravamen de la corle antes de que la corle pueda dasechar el caso. 

The name and address of the court is: 

(£/ nombre y direcci6n de la corte es): . 

Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 

400 McAllister Street 

San Francisco, California 94102-4515 

The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: FRANK PITRE/DONALD MAGILLIGAN 

(El nombre, la d/recci6n y el numero de telefono de/ abogado de/ demandante, o de/ demandante qua no tlene abogado, es): 

COTCHETT PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 

840 Malcolm Ro;i!,l,,i;:lu,i;Jiqgame, CA 940 I 0 . (650) 697-6000 

DATE: JAN 2 a 2019 CLERK OF THE cou~erk, by 

(Fecha) · ' rsecrelario) DE LA VEGA-NAVARRO Rossa·,Re~uty , 'ftldJunto) 

(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).) 

(Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el formu/ario Proof of Service of summons, (POS-010)). 

[SE.l.L] 

Forni Adopted lot Mandnto,y U&e 

Judicial Council of Catilomla 

SlJM.100 [Rev. July 1, 2009] 

NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 

1. D as an individual defendant. 

2. D as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): 

3. D on behalf of (specify): 

under: D CCP 416.10 (corporation) D CCP L 

D CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) D CCP 4 

D CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) D CCP 4 

D other (specify): 

4. D by personal delivery on (data): 

SUMMONS 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 17

of 51
CM-010 

ATTORNEY OR PARTY WllHOUT ATTORNEY (N:irrw, Sl,1lu B.:1111tm1l1m, umJ m/dies~). 

FRANK PITRE/DONALD MAGILLIGAN SBN: 100077/25771,1 

COTCHE'IT PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 

840 Malcolm Road, 13urlingamc, CA 9,10 I 0 

TcLEPHOfiE N0.:(650) 697-6000 FAX N0.:(650) 697-0577 

ATTORNEY FOR /N,,mrJ:Plaintiffs: Pete. Elizabeth. and Alissa Fourkas 

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, courrrv OF SAN FRANCISCO STREET ADDRESS: 400 McAllister Street 

MAILING ADDRESS: 4 00 McA II istcr Street 

FOnCOUllTUSF. ONI. Y 

~NDORSED 

S perio} cot"n o~Q,nia unty of San Francisco 

CITY ANDZJPcooc:San Francisco, 94102-4515 

BRANCH NAME: Civic Center Courthouse 

CLE K OF THE COURT 

BY: R Y DE LA VEGA 

CASE NAME: Fourkas ct al., v. Paci lie Gas and Electric Company ct al. 

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation CA$[ NUIAUEJl: 

"J°"C..C-~ 495S [K] Unlimited D Limited D Counter D Joinder 

(Amount (Amount ~oGE: 

demanded demanded Is Filed with first appearance by defendant r, 

exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) El\lJ 

Items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2). 

1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case: 

Auto Tort Contract 

D Aulo (22) D Breach ol contracVwarranty (06) 

D Uninsured molorisl (46) D Rule 3.7,fO collections (09) 

Other Pl/PD/WO (Personal Injury/Property D Olher collcclions (09) 

Damage/Wrongful Dcnth) Tort D Insurance coverage (18) 

D Asbestos (04) D Other contract (37) D Product liabilily (24) 

D Medical malpracllcc (45) 

D Other Pl/PD/WO (23) 

Non-Pl/PD/WO (Other} Tort 

Real Property 

D Eminenl domain/Inverse 

condemnalion (14) 

D Wrongful eviction (33) 

D D Olher real properly (26) Business lortlunlair business praclice (07) 

D Civil rights (08) Unlawlul Detnlner 

D Defamation (13) D Commercial (31) 

D Fraud (16) D Residenlial (32} 

D intellectual property (19) D Drugs (38) 

D Prolcssional negligence (25) Judicial Review 

D Other non-PI/PD/WD tort (35) D Assel lorfci1ure (05) 

Employment D Pelilion re: aibilralion award (11) 

D Wrongful termination (36) D Writ ol mandate (02) 

D Oiher employmenl (15) D Olher judicial review (39) 

Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation 

(Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400--3.403) 

D 

D 

m 

Antitrust/Trade rogulalion (03) 

Construction doloct (iO) 

Mass ton (40) 

D Securities liligalion (28) 

D Environmenlal/Toxic lort (30) 

D Insurance covcr,190 claims mising lrom the 

above !isled provisionally complex case lypes (,11) 

Enforcement of Judgment 

D 1:nlorcemenl ol judgmenl (20) 

Miscellaneous Civil Complaln1 

0 HIC0(27) 

D Olher complainl (no/ specified above) (42) 

Miscellaneous Civil Petition 

D Par1nership and corpora le governance (21} 

D 01her pelilion (not specified above) (43) 

2. This case W is LJ is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. ii tile case is complex, mark lhe 

factors requiring exceptional judicial management: 

a. !JD Large number of separately represented parties d. D Large number of witnesses 

0 

b. D Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. lJD Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courls 

issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court 

c. D Substantial amount of documentary evidence I. D Substantial postjudgmenl judicial supervision 

3. Remedies sought (check all that apply): a.[x] monetary b.0 nonmonelary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. [x]punitivo 

4. Number of causes of action (specl/y):N[NE , .. , . 1 • 

· 5. This case O is Wis not a class action suit. JUR'\ l l,IAL DU,•IANDl:D 

6. ii there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You may use form CM-015.) 

~;~~~K PI~l'X;~~U~o ~IAGJLUGAN ~ tt/\, /~v\ /L/'-_ 

(TYPE OR PRINT NAM~! !SI h TUf1E OF PAR' R ATTORNEY fOR Pi\llTY) 

NOTICE / • Plaintiff must Ille this cover sheet with the lirsl paper liled in the action or proceedin'g-(e cept sm Ii clai s """"" -· """"" "'""' 

under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and lnslitulions Code). (Cal. Flules ot Court, rule 3.220. 

in sanctions. 

• File this cover sheet in addition lo any cover sheet required by local court rule. 

• If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy ol 1 

other parties to the action or proceeding. 

• Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for stali 

Fcrrn Adop1ed lor lknd:i!ory U5e 

Juddal Council ot Cnldorni.1 

CM•OIO IRL...,, July 1, 2007] 

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET C:il, Hul.'!1 ol Cou,1, 

c.v.. Stant.In 

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

of 51
1 FRANK M. PITRE (SBN 100077) 

fpitre@cpmlegal.com 2 DONALD MAGILLIGAN (SBN 257714) 

3 dmagilligan@cpmlegal.com 

COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 

4 San Francisco Airport Office Center 

840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 

5 Burlingame, CA 94010 

6 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 

7 STEVEN M. CAMPORA (SBN 110909) 

scampora@dbbwlaw.com 

8 DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD CAMPORA, LLP 

20 Bicentennial Circle 

· 9 Sacramento, CA 95826 

10 Telephone: (916) 379-3500 Facsimile: (916) 379-3599 

11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

12 [Additional co-counsel listed on the signature 

page] CGC--19-5733?0 

13 

14 

15 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

16 COORDINATION PROCEEDING 

17 Special Title (California Rule of Court 3 .550) 

CALIFORNIA NORTH BAY FIRES 

18 

19 PETE FOURKAS, individually, and as TRUSTEE 

of the Fourkas Family Trust; and ELIZABETH 

20 FOURKAS, individually, and as TRUSTEE of the 

Fourkas Family Trust; ALISSA FOURKAS, an 

21 Individual. 

22 

23 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

24 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, a 

California Corporation; PG&E CORPORATION, 

25 a California Corporation; AND DOES 1 

THROUGH 20, inclusive, 

26 

27 

28 

Defendants. 

JCCP 4955 

San Francisco Superior Court 

INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS' 

SHORT FORM COMPLAINT 

TUBBS-CPMC-0049 

SHORT FORM COMPLAINT FOR PETE, ELIZABETH, and ALISSA FOURKAS Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 19

of 51
(9k\' 

1 Pursuant to Case Management Order No. 1, Plaintiffs hereby submit this Short Form 

2 Complaint ("SFC") against Defendants identified below, and hereby adopt and incorporate by 

3 reference as set forth in Plaintiffs' most recent Master Complaint filed in this matter on March 

4 12, 2018, and any and all later amendments thereto. 

5 PLAINTIFF PETE FOURKAS, individually and as Trustee of the Fourkas Family Trust, 

6 was damaged by the North Bay Fires as set forth below and makes the claims set forth below. 

7 PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH FOURKAS, individually and as Trustee of the Fourkas 

8 Family Trust, was damaged by the North Bay Fires as set forth below and .makes the claims set 

9 forth below. 

10 PLAINTIFF ALISSA FOURKAS. an individual, was damaged by the North Bay Fires as 

11 set forth below and makes the claims set forth below. 

12 

13 PLAINTIFFS COMPLAIN OF EACH DEFENDANT AS FOLLOWS: 

14 1. Notice of Adoption of the Master Complaint. Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate 

15 herein by reference that Master Complaint filed on behalf of Individual Plaintiffs in the 

16 CALIFORNIA NORTH BAY FIRE CASES, Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding No. 

17 4955, as though fully set forth herein. Plaintiffs hereby adopt the Master Complaint and agree to 

18 be bound by any rulings with respect to the pleadings. 

19 2. Plaintiffs adopt each of the general allegations of the Master Complaint except fo 

20 those paragraph numbers set forth here, if any: Not applicable. 

21 3. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each of the causes of action in the Master 

22 Complaint checked below against those Defendants named in that cause of action: 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

~ First Cause of Action for Negligence 

D Second Cause of Action for Wrongful Death 

Third Cause of Action for Survival Action 

Fourth Cause of Action for Inverse Condemnation 

Fifth Cause of Action for Public Nuisance 

Sixth Cause of Action for Private Nuisance 

SHORT FORM COMPLAINT FOR PETE AND ELIZABETH FOURKAS - 1 - Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 20

of 51
181 Seventh Cause of Action for Premises Liability 

181 Eighth Cause of Action for Trespass 

181 Ninth Cause of Action for Private Action Under Public Utilities Code§ 2106 

181 Tenth Cause of Action for Violation of Health & Safety Code § 13007 

181 Eleventh Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 4. In addition to the defendants named in the Master Complaint, Plaintiffs also name 

7 the following individuals as Nominal Defendants: Not applicable. 

8 5. Plaintiffs respectfully reserve the right to seek transfer or remand of the trial of 

9 this action to the County of Sonoma, Napa, or another appropriate venue. 

10 ADDRESSES OF ALL AFFECTED PROPERTIES 

11 Plaintiffs allege the following properties have been impacted by the CALIFORNIA 

12 NORTH BAY FIRES for which Plaintiffs seek recovery: 19230 Hwy. 128, Calistoga, CA 94S1S 

13 SPECIFY WHETHER PLAINTIFF(S) ARE: 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

181 

D 

181 

0 

D 

0 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

Insured by Nationwide 

Uninsured 

Owner of real property 

Renter ofreal property 

Business owner 

Employee 

Other· 

CALIFORNIA NORTH BAY FIRE THAT IMP ACTED PLAINTIFF(S): 

Atlas Fire (Master Complaint ml 80-86) 

Cascade/LaPorte Fire (Master Complaint 1187-91) 

Cherokee Fire (Master Complaint 11 92-93) 

Honey Fire (Master Complaint 11 94-95) 

Lobo Fire (Master Complaint 11 96-97) 

Maacama or No Name Fire (Master Complaint 11 98-99) 

Mccourtney Fire (Master Complaint 11 100-101) 

SHORTFORMCOMPLAJNl'FORPETEANDELIZABETHFOURKAS -2 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 21

of 51
1 D Nuns Fire (Master Complaint ,ni t 02" 109) 

2 D Pocket Fire (Master Complaint ,i,i 110-111) 

3 D Point Fire (Master Complaint 11112-113) 

4 D Redwood Valley/ Potter Fires (Master Complaint 11114-116) 

5 D Sullivan Fire (Master Complaint 11117-119) 

6 D Sulphur Fire (Master Complaint ,i1120-122) 

7 181 Tubbs Fire (Master Complaint ,i,r 123-127) 

8 D Highway 37 Fire (Master Complaint,i,i 128-129) 

9 D Other Ignition Point [Describe in Additional Allegations Section below, p; 7] 

10 

11 PLAINTIFFS SUFFERED DAMAGE IN THE FOLLOWING WAY: 

12 D Wrongful death and survival 

13 D Personal injury 

14 181 Emotional distress (including but not limited to presence in zone of danger) and/or 

bystander claims) 

15 Mental anguish (including but not limited to loss of use and enjoyment of property 181 

16 under nuisance) 

17 181 Residence destroyed 

18 181 Residence damaged 

19 181 Other structures destroyed 

20 181 Other structures damaged 

21 181 Real property improvements (fences, roads, well, septic system, etc.) destroyed 

22 181 Real property improvements (fences, roads, well, septi_c system, etc.) damaged 

23 181 Personal property damage 

24 181. Damage to trees 

25 181 Diminution in value of real property 

26 181 Damage to crops 

27 D Damage to business equipmel!,t 

28 D Damage to business goodwill or brand 

SHORT FORM COMPLAINT FOR PETE AND ELIZABETH FOURKAS -3-

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 22

of 51
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 

0 

0 

D 

181 

D 

Loss of use of business property 

Loss of future profits 

Loss or reduction of future insurance benefits due to lower crop yield in 2017 

Harm to pets or livestock 

Employment-related damages 

DAMAGES ALLEGED: 

AS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS for Inverse Condemnation, all according to proof, 

for: 

181 

181 

181 

Diminution in real property and/or personal property value, cost of repairs, loss of 

use of the property, loss of rent, loss of profits, loss of prospective profits, increased 

operating expenses, and/or all other detriment proximately caused by the harm to 

Plaintiffs' property; 

All costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees, appraisal fees, engineering 

fees, other expert fees, and related costs; 

Prejudgment interest; 

For such other and further relief as the Court shall deem just and proper. 

AS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS for Wrongful Death and Survival Action, all 

according to proof, for: 

D 

D 

0 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

Loss of love, society, solace, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, 

affection, and moral support from Decedenf/s; 

Funeral and burial expenses, and related medical expenses; 

Economic loss, including but not limited to the loss of financial support and/or the 

loss of household services; 

Recovery of Decedent/s' damages as allowed under .Code of Civil Procedure § 

377.30 under the causes of action alle~ed in the Master Complaint for, inter alia, 

inverse condemnation, negligence, nuisance, premises liability, trespass, and 

violations of statutes and regulations; 

Expenses for the identification and/or removal ofDecedent/s' remains and other 

medical and/or emergency services; 

Punitive and exemplary damages as allowed under Civil Code § 3294; 

All costs of suit; 

Prejudgment interest; and 

For such other and further relief as the Court shall deem just and proper. 

SHORT FORM COMPLAINT FOR PETE AND ELIZABETH FOURKAS -4 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 23

of 51
1 

2 

3 

4 

s 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

1S 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 II 

AS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS for Negligence, Public Nuisance, Private Nuisance, 

Premises Liability, Trespass, Private Action Under Public Utilities Code§ 2106, and 

Violation of Health & Safety Code § 13007, all according to proof, for: 

D 

Repair, diminution in value, and/or replacement of damaged, destroyed, and/or lost 

personal and/or real property; . . 

Loss of use~ income, wages, earning capacity, goodwill, profits or proceeds, 

increased operating expenses, and/or all other detriment proximately caused by the 

harm to Plaintiffs' business property or concerns; 

Lost wages and/or earning capacity; 

.. Additional living expenses, and/or other related displacement expenses; 

181 Past and future medical expenses and incidental expenses; 

D 

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

anguish, emotional distress, loss of the use, benefit, goodwill, and quiet enjoyment of 

property, and personal injury; 

An order enjoining continued violation of: (a) Public Resources Code §§ 4292, 

4293, and 4295; (b) Public Utilities Code§ 451; (c) Public Utilities Commission 

General Order 95, Rules 31.1-31.S, 3S, 38, 43, 43.2, 44.1-44.4, 48-41.1; and (d) 

Public Utilities Commission General Order 165; 

An order to abate the existing and continuing nuisances caused by the California 

North Bay Fires; 

Treble damages for wrongful injuries to timber, trees, or underwood as allowed 

under Civil Code§ 3346; 

Treble damages for injuries to trees as allowed under Code of Civil Procedure § 

733; 

Exemplary damages as allowed under Civil Code § 3294; 

Exemplary damages for wrongful injuries to animals as allowed under Civil Code § 

3340; 

Exemplary damages as allowed under Public Utilities Code § 2106; 

Attorneys' fees, expert fees, consultant fees, and litigation costs and expenses as 

allowed under Code of Civil Procedure§ 1021.9; 

All costs of suit; 

Prejudgment interest; and 

For such other and further relief as the Court shall deem just and proper. 

SHORT FORM COMPLAINT FOR PETE AND ELIZABETH FOURKAS -S 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 24

of 51
0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS, IF ANY 

(Plaintiff-Specific, not Addrcss~d by Master Complaint) 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

PLAINTIFF(S) hereby demand(s) a trial by jury as to all claims in this action. 

8 

9 DATED: Ja V\ kt.WV 1f/, 2019 COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARHY LLP 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

By 

STEVEN M. CAMPORA 

DREY BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD 

CAMPORA, LLP 

20 Bicentennial Circle 

Sacramento. CA 95826 

BRIAN J. PA NISH 

P ANISH SHEA & BOYLE, LLP 

11111 Santa Monica Blvd .• Suite 700 

Los Angeles, CA 90025 

MICHAEL A. KELLY 

WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & 

SCHOENBERGER 

650 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 941,08 

MICHAEL D. GREEN 

ABBEY, WEITZENBERG, WARREN & 

EMERY,PC 

100 Stony Point Road, Suite 200 

Santa Rosa, CA 95401 

SHORT FORM COMPLAINT l'OR PETE AND ELIZABETH FOURKAS -6-

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 25

of 51
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

Dario de Ghetaldi - Bar No. 126782 

Amanda L. Riddle - Bar No. 215221 

Steven M. Berki - Bar No. 245426 

Clare Capaccioli Velasquez - Bar No. 290466 

COREY, LUZAICH, 

DE GHETALDI & RIDDLE LLP 

700 El Camino Real 

P.O. Box 669 

Millbrae, CA 94030-0669 

Telephone: (650) 871-5666 

Facsimile: (650) 871-4144 

deg@coreylaw.com 

alr@coreylaw.com 

smb@coreylaw.com 

ccv@coreylaw.com 

Michael S. Danko - Bar No. 111359 

Kristine K. Meredith - Bar No. 158243 

Shawn R. Miller-Bar No. 238447 

DANKO MEREDITH 

333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 145 

Redwood Shores, CA 94065 

Telephone: (650) 453-3600 

Facsimile: (650) 394-8672 

mdanko@dankolaw.com 

kmeredith@dankolaw.com 

smiller@danko law .com 

EN00R_eES 

sufario, ck1 oma1~n\a county of San FranclSC:0 

JUL 12 2018 

CLERK OF THE COURT 

BVr OAVIO W. YUEN ,. · "' '" '" Deputy Clerk 

Eric Gibbs - Bar No. 178658 

Dylan Hughes - Bar No. 209113 

Steven A. Lopez - Bar No. 300540 

GIBBS LAW GROUP 

505 14th Street, Suite 1110 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Telephone: (510) 350-9700 

Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 

ehg(a),classlawgrouo.com 

dsh(a),classlawgroup. com 

sal@classlawgroup.com 

15 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO CGO -18 -5 6 8 O 6 · 

COORDINATION PROCEEDING 

Special Title (California Rule of Court 3 .550) 

CALIFORNIA NORTH BAY FIRES 

STEPHEN BREITENSTEIN and RAYMOND 

BREITENSTEIN, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, 

PG&E CORPORATION, AND DOES 1 

THROUGH 20, 

Defendants. 

JCCP 4955 

INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFF'S SHORT 

FORM COMPLAINT 

TUBBS-CDGG-0021 

':. F i'""' 

) 

',,; l ! '. 

JCCP 4955 

SHORT FORM COMPLAINT OF STEPHEN BREITENSTEIN, ET AL. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 26

of 51
1 Pursuant to Case Management Order No. 1, Plaintiff(s) hereby submit(s) this Short Form 

2 Complaint ("SFC") against Defendants identified below, and hereby adopt(s) and incorporate(s) 

3 by reference as set forth in Plaintiffs' most recent Master Complaint filed in this matter on March 

4 12, 2018, and any and all later amendments thereto. 

5 PLAINTIFF STEPHEN BREITENSTEIN, in his individual capacity, was damaged by the 

6 North Bay Fires as set forth below and makes the claims set forth below. 

7 PLAINTIFF RAYMOND BREITENSTEIN, in his individual capacity, was damaged by 

8 the North Bay Fires as set forth below and makes the claims set forth below. 

9 

10 PLAINTIFFS COMPLAIN OF EACH DEFENDANT AS FOLLOWS: 

11 1. Notice of Adoption of the Master Complaint. Plaintiff(s) refer(s) to and 

12 incorporate(s) herein by reference that Master Complaint filed on behalf oflndividual Plaintiffs in 

13 the CALIFORNIA NORTH BAY FIRE CASES, Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding No. 

14 4955, as though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff(s) hereby adopt(s) the Master Complaint and 

15 agree(s) to be bound by any rulings with respect to the pleadings. 

16 2. Plaintiff(s) adopt(s) each of the general allegations of the Master Complaint except 

17 for those paragraph numbers set forth here, if any: N/ A. 

18 3. Plaintiff(s) incorporate(s) by reference each of the causes of action in the Master 

19 Complaint checked below against those Defendants named in that cause of action: 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

D 

D 

First Cause of Action for Negligence 

Second Cause of Action for Wrongful Death 

Third Cause of Action for Survival Action 

Fourth Cause of Action for Inverse Condemnation 

Fifth Cause of Action for Public Nuisance 

Sixth Cause of Action for Private Nuisance 

Seventh Cause of Action for Premises Liability 

Eighth Cause of Action for Trespass 

- 1 -

SHORT FORM COMPLAINT OF STEPHEN BREITENSTEIN, ET AL. 

JCCP 4955 Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 27

of 51
1 

2 

3 

4 

IZI Ninth Cause of Action for Private Action Under Public Utilities Code § 2106 

1Z1 Tenth Cause of Action for Violation of Health & Safety Code§ 13007 

IZI Eleventh Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 

4. In addition to the defendant(s) named in the Master Complaint, Plaintiff(s) also 

5 name(s) the following individual(s) as Nominal Defendant(s): NIA 

6 5. Plaintiff(s) respectfully reserve(s) the right to seek transfer or remand of the trial of 

7 this action to the County of Sonoma, Napa, Lake, Mendocino, Butte, or another appropriate venue. 

8 

9 

ADDRESSES OF ALL AFFECTED PROPERTIES 

Plaintiff(s) allege(s) the following properties have been impacted by the CALIFORNIA 

10 NORTH BAY FIRES for which Plaintiff(s) seeks recovery: 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

D 

IZI 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

9501 Franz Valley School Road 

Calistoga, CA 94515 

APN: 120-170-160 

SPECIFY WHETHER PLAINTIFF(S) ARE: 

Insured by AAA and Emcompass 

Uninsured 

Owner ofreal property 

Renter of real property 

Business owner 

Employee 

Other [Please indicate] 

CALIFORNIA NORTH BAY FIRE THAT IMPACTED PLAINTIFF(S): 

Atlas Fire (Master Complaint ,r,r 80-86) 

Cascade/LaPorte Fire (Master Complaint ,r,r 87-91) 

Cherokee Fire (Master Complaint ,r,r 92-93) 

Honey Fire (Master Complaint ,r,r 94-95) 

Lobo Fire (Master Complaint ,r,r 96-97) 

- 2 -

SHORT FORM COMPLAINT OF STEPHEN BREITENSTEIN, ET AL. 

JCCP 4955 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 28

of 51
1 D Maacama or No Name Fire (Master Complaint ,r,r 98-99) 

2 D Mccourtney Fire (Master Complaint ,r,r 100-101) 

3 D Nuns Fire (Master Complaint ,r,r 102-109) 

4 D Pocket Fire (Master Complaint ,r,r 110-111) 

5 D Point Fire (Master Complaint ,r,r 112-113) 

6 D Redwood Valley/ Potter Fires (Master Complaint ,r,r 114-116) 

7 D Sullivan Fire (Master Complaint ,r,r 117-119) 

8 D Sulphur Fire (Master Complaint ,r,r 120-122) 

9 IS] Tubbs Fire (Master Complaint ,r,r 123-127) 

10 D Highway 37 Fire (Master Complaint ,r,r 128-129) 

11 D Other Ignition Point [Describe in Additional Allegations Section below, p. 7] 

12 

13 PLAINTIFFS SUFFERED DAMAGE IN THE FOLLOWING WAY: 

14 D Wrongful death and survival 

15 D Personal injury 

16 IS] Emotional distress (including but not limited to presence in zone of danger) and/or 

bystander claims) 

17 

Mental anguish (including but not limited to loss of use and enjoyment of property IS] 

18 under nuisance) 

19 IS] Residence destroyed 

20 D Residence damaged 

21 IS] Other structures destroyed 

22 IS] Other structures damaged 

23 IS] Real property improvements (fences, roads, well, septic system, etc.) destroyed 

24 D Real property improvements (fences, roads, well, septic system, etc.) damaged 

25 IS] Personal property damage 

26 IS] Damage to trees 

27 IS] Diminution in value of real property 

28 

- 3 - JCCP 4955 

SHORT FORM COMPLAINT OF STEPHEN BREITENSTEIN, ET AL. Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 29

of 51
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 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

Damage to crops 

Damage to business equipment 

Damage to business goodwill or brand 

Loss of use of business property 

Loss of future profits 

Loss or reduction of future insurance benefits due to lower crop yield in 2017 

Harm to pets or livestock 

Employment-related damages 

DAMAGES ALLEGED: 

AS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS for Inverse Condemnation, all according to proof, 

for: 

Diminution in real property and/or personal property value, cost of repairs, loss of 

use of the property, loss ofrent, loss of profits, loss of prospective profits, increased 

operating expenses, and/or all other detriment proximately caused by the harm to 

Plaintiffs' property; 

All costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees, appraisal fees, engineering 

fees, other expert fees, and related costs; 

Prejudgment interest; 

For such other and further relief as the Court shall deem just and proper. 

AS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS for Wrongful Death and Survival Action, all 

according to proof, for: 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

Loss oflove, society, solace, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, 

affection, and moral support from Decedent/s; 

Funeral and burial expenses, and related medical expenses; 

Economic loss, including but not limited to the loss of financial support and/or the 

loss of household services; 

Recovery ofDecedent/s' damages as allowed under Code of Civil Procedure§ 

377.30 under the causes of action alleged in the Master Complaint for, inter alia, 

inverse condemnation, negligence, nuisance, premises liability, trespass, and 

violations of statutes and regulations; 

Expenses for the identification and/or removal of Decedent/s' remains and other 

medical and/or emergency services; 

Punitive and exemplary damages as allowed under Civil Code § 3294; 

All costs of suit; 

- 4 -

SHORT FORM COMPLAINT OF STEPHEN BREITENSTEIN, ET AL. 

JCCP 4955 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 30

of 51
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 

D 

D 

Prejudgment interest; and 

For such other and further relief as the Court shall deem just and proper. 

AS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS for Negligence, Public Nuisance, Private Nuisance, 

Premises Liability, Trespass, Private Action Under Public Utilities Code§ 2106, and 

Violation of Health & Safety Code§ 13007, all according to proof, for: 

D 

D 

D 

Repair, diminution in value, and/or replacement of damaged, destroyed, and/or lost 

personal and/or real property; 

Loss of use, income, wages, earning capacity, goodwill, profits or proceeds, 

increased operating expenses, and/or all other detriment proximately caused by the 

harm to Plaintiffs' business property or concerns; 

Lost wages and/or earning capacity; 

Additional living expenses, and/or other related displacement expenses; 

Past and future medical expenses and incidental expenses; 

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

anguish, emotional distress, loss of the use, benefit, goodwill, and quiet enjoyment of 

property, and personal injury; 

An order enjoining continued violation of: (a) Public Resources Code§§ 4292, 

4293, and 4295; (b) Public Utilities Code§ 451; (c) Public Utilities Commission 

General Order 95, Rules 31.1-31.5, 35, 38, 43, 43.2, 44.1-44.4, 48-41.1; and (d) 

Public Utilities Commission General Order 165; 

An order to abate the existing and continuing nuisances caused by the California 

North Bay Fires; 

Treble damages for wrongful injuries to timber, trees, or underwood as allowed 

under Civil Code§ 3346; 

Treble damages for injuries to trees as allowed under Code of Civil Procedure § 

733; 

Exemplary damages as allowed under Civil Code § 3294; 

Exemplary damages for wrongful injuries to animals as allowed under Civil Code § 

3340; 

Exemplary damages as allowed under Public Utilities Code§ 2106; 

Attorneys' fees, expert fees, consultant fees, and litigation costs and expenses as 

allowed under Code of Civil Procedure§ 1021.9; 

All costs of suit; 

Prejudgment interest; and 

IZl For such other and further relief as the Court shall deem just and proper. 

- 5 - JCCP 4955 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 31 SHORT FORM COMPLAINT OF STEPHEN BREITENSTEIN, ET AL. 

of 51
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 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

PLAINTIFF(S) hereby demand(s) a trial by jury as to all claims in this action. 

DATED: July 11, 2018 COREY, LUZAICH, DE GHET ALDI & RIDDLE LLP 

By:~ Darhetaldi 

Amanda L. Riddle 

Steven M. Berki 

Clare Capaccioli Velasquez 

DANKO MEREDITH 

Michael S. Danko 

Kristine K. Meredith 

Shawn R. Miller 

GIBBS LAW GROUP 

Eric Gibbs 

Dylan Hughes 

Steven A. Lopez 

- 6 -

SHORT FORM COMPLAINT OF STEPHEN BREITENSTEIN, ET AL. 

JCCP 4955 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 32

of 51
1 FRANK M. PITRE (SBN 100077) 

2 fpitre@cpmlegal.com 

JOSEPH W. COTCHETT (SBN 36324) 

3 jcotchett@cpmlegal.com 

ALISON E. CORDOVA (SBN 284942) 

4 acordova@cpmlegal.com 

ABIGAIL D. BLODGETT (SBN 278813) 

5 8'r: ablodgett@cpmlegal.com 

6 COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 

San Francisco Airpo1i Office Center 

7 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 

Burlingame, CA 94010 

8 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 

9 STEVEN M. CAMPORA (SBN 110909) 

scampora@dbbwlaw.com 1 O DREYER BABICH BUCCO LA WOOD CAMPORA, LLP 

20 Bicentennial Circle 11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

L,\WOFFICES 

COTCl-!ETI, PITRE & 

McCARTHY. Ll.P 

Sacramento, CA 95826 

Telephone: (916) 379-3500 Facsimile: (916) 379-3599 

Counsel for Plaint(ffs 

[Additional co-counsel listed on the signature page] 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

GREGORY WILSON, an individual; and 

CHRISTINA WILSON, an individual; 

Plaintiffs, 

V. 

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, 

a California corporation; 

PG&E CORPORATION, a California 

corporation; and 

DOES 1 through 20, inclusive; 

Defendants. 

COMPLAINT 

case No. CG -17- 45 ----------

COMPLAINT FOR: 

1. NEGLIGENCE 

2. INVERSE CONDEMNATION 

3. PUBLIC NUISANCE 

4. PRIVATE NUISANCE 

5. PREMISES LIABILITY 

6. TRESPASS 

7. VIOLATION OF PUBLIC 

UTILITIES CODE § 2106 

8. VIOLATIONOFHEALTH& 

SAFETY CODE § 13007 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 33

of 51
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 

LAW OFFICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

MCCARTIN, LLP 

I. 

II. 

III. 

IV. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE ....................................................................................... 5 

THE PARTIES .................................................................................................................. 6 

A. PLAINTIFFS .......................................................................................................... 6 

B. DEFENDANTS ...................................................................................................... 6 

C. DOE DEFENDANTS ............................................................................................. 9 

D. AGENCY & CONCERT OF ACTION .................................................................. 9 

STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................. 10 

A. THE NORTH BAY FIRES ................................................................................... 10 

B. THE DEADLY AND DESTRUCTIVE TUBBS FIRE ....................................... 13 

C. PG&E WAS AW ARE OF FORESEEABLE WEATHER CONDITIONS AND 

EFFECTS OF THOSE CONDITIONS ON AGING INFRASTRUCTURE ....... 18 

D. PG&E KNEW ITS INFRASTRUCTURE WAS AGING .................................... 21 

AND LESS RELIABLE TO PREVENT FIRES .................................................. 21 

1. PG&E's Wires Were Found Highly Susceptible to Failure Due to Age ..... 21 

11. Many of PG&E's Wires Do Not Remotely De-Energize When Down and In 

a Hazardous State ......................................................................................... 21 

iii. The CPUC Announced that Aging Power Poles Are Causing Significant 

Safety Hazards That Must Be Addressed .................................................... 22 

iv. PG&E Was Not Tracking the Condition oflts Electrical Assets, Despite Its 

Aging Infrastructure ..................................................................................... 23 

E. PG&E KNEW ITS ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT WAS UNSAFE .................... 23 

F. DESPITE THIS KNOWLEDGE, PG&E DID NOT MAINTAIN, REPAIR, OR 

G. 

H. 

REPLACE ITS EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 24 

PG&E'S "RUN TO FAILURE" APPROACH TO MAINTENANCE ................ 25 

PG&E'S LONG HISTORY OF SAFETY VIOLATIONS ................................. 26 

COMPLAINT 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 34

of 51
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 

LAW OFFICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

V. 

VI. 

1. The 1994 Trauner Fire ................................................................................. 27 

11. The 2003 Mission District Substation Fire .................................................. 27 

iii. The 2008 Rancho Cordova Explosion ......................................................... 28 

1v. The 2010 San Bruno Explosion ................................................................... 29 

v. The 2011 Cupertino Explosion .................................................................... 30 

v1. The 2014 Carmel Explosion ........................................................................ 30 

vii. The 2015 Butte Fire ..................................................................................... 30 

I. THE CORPORA TE CULTURE AT PG&E THAT PUTS PROFITS BEFORE 

SAFETY ............................................................................................................... 31 

J. PG&E IS REQUIRED TO SAFELY DESIGN, OPERATE, AND 

MAINTAIN ITS ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS AND THE SURROUNDING 

VEGETATION ..................................................................................................... 32 

DETAILS OF PLAINTIFFS' LOSSES ........................................................................ 35 

CAUSES OF ACTION ................................................................................................... 37 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

NEGLIGENCE ............................................................................................................... 37 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

INVERSE CONDEMNATION ...................................................................................... 39 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 

PUBLIC NUISANCE ...................................................................................................... 40 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

PRIVATE NUISANCE ................................................................................................... 43 

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

PREMISES LIABILITY ................................................................................................ 43 

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

TRESPASS ...................................................................................................................... 44 

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

VIOLATION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE§ 2106 .............................................. 45 

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

VIOLATION OF HEALTH & SAFETY CODE§ 13007 ........................................... 46 

COMPLAINT ii 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 35

of 51
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 

LAW OFFICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTIIY, LLP 

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................. 47 

VIII. JURY DEMAND ............................................................................................................. 50 

COMPLAINT iii 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 36

of 51
1 PLAINTIFFS bring this action for damages against Defendants PG&E 

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

3 (collectively, "DEFENDANTS") as follows: 

4 I. 

5 

INTRODUCTION 

1. This case arises from PG&E CORPORATION and/or PACIFIC GAS & 

6 ELECTRIC COMP ANY's ( collectively, "PG&E") longstanding corporate culture of decision 

7 making that places profits over public safety. PG&E's well-documented disregard for safety 

8 regulations, and blindeye towards the use of effective maintenance and inspection practices for 

9 their facilities and equipment in light of an aging infrastructure, lies at the root of the various 

10 factors which caused and/or contributed to causing some of the most destructive and deadly 

11 wildfires California has ever seen ( collectively, "North Bay Fires"), including the Tubbs Fire. 

12 2. On the night of Sunday, October 8, 2017, the North Bay Fires started when power 

13 lines, transformers, conductors, poles, insulators, reclosers, and/or other electrical equipment 

14 constructed, owned, operated, managed, and/or maintained by PG&E fell down, broke, failed, 

15 sparked, exploded, and/or came into contact with vegetation, all because of PG&E's disregard of 

16 mandated safety practices and foreseeable hazardous risks associated with its infrastructure. 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAW OFFICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

Santa Rosa Before and After the Tubbs Fire, one of the North Bay Fires1 

1 http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/fires/aiiicle 178223651.html. 

COMPLAINT 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 37

of 51
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 

LA \Y./ OFFICES 

COTCHETT, PlTRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

0 

L-------' 

tf/Lf 

South End of the Tubbs Fire2 

2 http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Bad-news-weather-forecast-for-Wine-Country-High1226714 7. h ; http:// rojects.sfchronicle.com/2017 /interactive-ma -wine-country-fires/. 

COMPLAINT 2 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 38

of 51
3. Over the following days, the Nmih Bay Fires spread rapidly and caused extensive 

2 damage throughout N01ihern California, including populated neighborhoods and sprawling 

3 vineyards. The North Bay Fires claimed the lives of at least 43 individuals, displaced a massive 

4 number of people, burned over 200,000 acres, and destroyed thousands of homes and structures. 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 4. 

Flames from the Tubbs Fire Engulfing Structures in Santa Rosa3 

As set fotih in more detail in the following pages, based on prior repmis, audits, 

19 and/or investigations, it is clear that the North Bay Fires were an inevitable byproduct of PG&E's 

20 willful and conscious disregard of public safety. PG&E, although mandated to do so, failed to 

21 identify, inspect, manage, and/or control vegetation growth near its power lines and/or other 

22 electrical equipment. This created a foreseeable danger of trees and/or other vegetation coming 

23 into contact with PG&E's power lines and/or other electrical equipment and causing electrical 

24 problems. Further, PG&E failed to construct, manage, track, monitor, maintain, replace, repair, 

25 and/or improve its power lines, poles, transformers, conductors, insulators, reclosers, and/or other 

26 

27 

28 

LAW OFFICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

MCCARTHY, LLP 

3 http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/aiiicle/California-wildfires-Mike-Grabow-40-among-dead12279761.php. 

COMPLAINT 3 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 39

of 51
1 electrical equipment, despite being aware that its infrastructure was unsafe, agmg, and/or 

2 vulnerable to environmental conditions. 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

- 10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

Failing PG&E Equipment Along Parker Hill Road in the Tubbs Fire4 

5. PG&E knew about the significant risk of wildfires from its ineffective vegetation 

16 management programs, unsafe equipment, and/or aging infrastructure for decades before the North 

17 Bay Fires began, and has been repeatedly fined and/or convicted of crimes for failing to mitigate 

18 these risks: 

19 a. In 1994, PG&E's failure to trim trees near its power lines caused the devastating 

20 "Trauner Fire" in Nevada County, California. In 1997, a jury found PG&E liable for 

21 739 counts of criminal negligence for causing this fire. Subsequent to the trial, a report 

22 authored by the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") revealed that from 

23 1987 through 1994, PG&E diverted $495 million from its budgets for maintaining its 

24 systems, and instead, used this money to boost corporate profits. 

25 b. In 2003, PG&E's apparent inability to learn from its past mistakes caused a fire at its 

26 Mission District Substation in San Francisco. In 2004, the CPUC investigated the fire 

27 

28 

LAW OFFICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

4 http://www.mercurynews.com/2017 /10/25/pge-missed-electricity-inspections-violated-safetyrules-in-bay-area-including-north-bay-audits/. 

COMPLAINT 4 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 40

of 51
1 and concluded that "it finds it quite troubling that PG&E did not implement its own 

2 recommendations" after a previous fire at the same substation to prevent the 2003 fire. 5 

3 c. In 2008, PG&E's inadequate repair job and infrastructure caused a deadly explosion 

4 in Rancho Cordova, Califomia. In 2010, the CPUC fined PG&E $38 million since 

5 PG&E caused and failed to prevent the explosion. 

6 d. In 2010, PG&E's aging infrastructure caused the deadly gas explosion in San Bruno, 

7 California. As a result, the CPUC slapped PG&E with a $1.6 billion fine, and PG&E 

8 was later found guilty of six felony charges. 

9 e. In 2011, PG&E caused an explosion in Cupertino because it failed to replace a plastic 

10 pipe that it knew was unsafe since at least 2002. PG&E ignored warnings about the 

11 dangerous nature of the pipe, and instead chose to do nothing. 

12 f. In 2014, PG&E's inadequate recordkeeping and disregard for public safety caused an 

13 explosion in Carmel. As a result, PG&E was required to pay over $36 million in fines. 

14 g. Since 2014, PG&E has been fined $9.65 million by the CPUC for incidents solely 

15 related to their electrical distribution systems.6 

16 h. In 2015, PG&E was once again responsible for causing a massive wildfire called the 

17 "Butte Fire" due its inadequate and unlawful vegetation management practices and 

18 disregard for public safety. After the fire, in 2017, the CPUC fined PG&E a total of 

19 $8.3 million for violating multiple safety laws. 

20 All of these devastating events, and many more, resulted from PG&E's long history of choosing 

21 to divert funds from its vegetation management, public safety, and/or infrastructure maintenance 

22 programs to instead line its own corporate pockets. 

23 II. 

24 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Code of Civil 

25 395(a) because, at all times relevant, Defendants and each of them have resided in, been 

26 incorporated in, or done significant business in the State of California so as to render the exercise 

27 

28 

LAW OFFICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

MCCARTHY, LLP 

5 http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/publishedDocs/published/Report/ 40886 .PDF. 6 htt ://www.cpuc.ca.gov/General.as x?id=l965. 

COMPLAINT 5 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 41

of 51
1 of jurisdiction over Defendants and each of them, by California Courts consistent with traditional 

2 notions of fair play and substantial justice. The amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional 

3 minimum of this Court. 

4 7. Venue is proper in this County pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 395.5 

5 because, at all times relevant, Defendants and each of them have their principal place of business 

6 in the County of San Francisco. 

7 III. THE PARTIES 

8 

9 

A. 

8. 

PLAINTIFFS 

Plaintiffs GREGORY WILSON and CHRISTINA WILSON ( collectively, 

10 "PLAINTIFFS") are a husband and wife who lost their home on Lorraine Way in Santa Rosa, 

11 California. PLAINTIFFS have suffered, and continue to suffer, physical, emotional, and/or 

12 economic injuries as a result of the Tubbs Fire. All of the injuries and damages alleged herein 

13 occurred in and around Sonoma County and arose from the Tubbs Fire, as set f01ih in more detail 

14 below. 

15 

16 

B. 

9. 

DEFENDANTS 

At all times herein mentioned Defendants PG&E CORPORATION and 

17 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMP ANY ( collectively, "PG&E") were corporations 

18 authorized to do business and doing business, in the State of California, with their principal place 

19 of business in the County of San Francisco, California. Defendant PG&E CORPORATION is 

20 an energy-based holding company headquartered in San Francisco. It is the parent company of 

21 Defendant PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY. PG&E CORPORATION and 

22 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMP ANY provide customers with public utility services, 

23 and services relating to the generation of energy, transmission of electricity and natural gas, 

24 generation of electricity, and the distribution of energy. 

25 10. PLAINTIFFS allege that PG&E CORPORATION and PACIFIC GAS & 

26 ELECTRIC COMPANY are jointly and severally liable for each other's wrongful acts and/or 

27 omissions as hereafter alleged, in that: 

28 

LAW OFFICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

COMPLAINT 6 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 42

of 51
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 

LAW OFFICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTrN, LLP 

a. PG&E CORPORATION and PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY operate 

as a single business enterprise operating out of the same building located at 77 Beale 

St, San Francisco, California for the purpose of effectuating and carrying out PG&E 

CORPORATION's business and operations and/or for the benefit of PG&E 

CORPORATION; 

b. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY and PG&E CORPORATION do not 

operate as completely separate entities, but rather, integrate their resources to achieve 

a common business purpose; 

c. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMP ANY is so organized and controlled, and its 

decisions, affairs and business so conducted as to make it a mere instrumentality, agent, 

conduit and/or adjunct of PG&E CORPORATION; 

d. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY's income contribution results from its 

function, integration, centralization of management and economies of scale with 

PG&E CORPORATION; 

e. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY's and PG&E CORPORATION's 

officers and management are intertwined and do not act completely independent of one 

another; 

f. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY's and PG&E CORPORATION's 

officers and managers act in the interest of PG&E CORPORATION as a single 

enterprise; 

g. PG&E CORPORATION has control and authority to choose and appoint PACIFIC 

GAS & ELECTRIC COMP ANY's board members as well as its other top officers 

and managers; 

h. Despite both being Electric Companies and Public Utilities, PACIFIC GAS & 

ELECTRIC COMPANY and PG&E CORPORATION do not compete with one 

another, but have been structured, organized, and businesses effectuated so as to create 

a synergistic, integrated single enterprise where various components operate in concert 

one with another; 

COMPLAINT 7 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 43

of 51
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 

LAW OFFICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

MCCARTHY, LLP 

1. PG&E CORPORATION maintains unified administrative control over PACIFIC 

GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY; 

J. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY and PG&E CORPORATION are 

insured by the same carriers and provide unifonn or similar pension, health, life and 

disability insurance plans for employees; 

k. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY and PG&E CORPORATION have 

unified 401 (k) Plans, pensions and investment plans, bonus programs, vacation policies 

and paid time off from work schedules and policies; 

l. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY and PG&E CORPORATION invest 

these funds from their programs and plans by a consolidated and/or coordinated 

Benefits Committee controlled by PG&E CORPORATION and administered by 

common trustees and administrators; 

m. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY and PG&E CORPORATION have 

unified personnel policies and practices and/or a consolidated personnel organization 

or structure; 

n. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY and PG&E CORPORATION have 

unified accounting policies and practices dictated by PG&E CORPORATION and/or 

common or integrated accounting organizations or personnel; 

o. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY and PG&E CORPORATION are 

represented by common legal counsel; 

p. PG&E CORPORATION's officers, directors, and other management make policies 

and decisions to be effectuated by PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMP ANY and/or 

otherwise play roles in providing directions and making decisions for PACIFIC GAS 

& ELECTRIC COMPANY; 

q. PG&E CORPORATION's officers, directors, and other management direct certain 

financial decisions for PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMP ANY including the 

amount and nature of capital outlays; 

COMPLAINT 8 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 44

of 51
I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

r. PG&E CORPORATION's written guidelines, policies, and procedures control 

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, its employees, policies, and practices; 

s. PG&E CORPORATION files consolidated earnings statements factoring all revenue 

and losses from PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMP ANY as well as consolidated 

tax returns, including those seeking tax relief; and/or, without limitation; and 

t. PG&E CORPORATION generally directs and controls PACIFIC GAS & 

ELECTRIC COMPANY's relationship with, requests to, and responses to inquiries 

from, the Public Utilities Commission and uses such direction and control for the 

benefit of PG&E CORPORATION. 

C. DOE DEFENDANTS 

11. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or 

12 otherwise of the Defendants DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, are unknown to PLAINTIFFS who 

13 therefore sue said Defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 

14 474. PLAINTIFFS fmiher allege that each of said fictitious Defendants is in some manner 

15 responsible for the acts and occurrences hereinafter set forth. PLAINTIFFS will amend this 

16 Complaint to show their true names and capacities when the same are ascertained, as well as the 

17 manner in which each fictitious Defendant is responsible. 

18 

19 

D. 

12. 

AGENCY & CONCERT OF ACTION 

At all times herein mentioned herein, DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, 

20 hereinabove, were the agents, servants, employees, paiiners, aiders and abettors, co-conspirators, 

21 and/or joint venturers of each of the other DEFENDANTS named herein and were at all times 

22 operating and acting within the purpose and scope of said agency, service, employment, 

23 partnership, enterprise, conspiracy, and/or joint venture, and each DEFENDANT has ratified and 

24 approved the acts of each of the remaining DEFENDANTS. Each of the DEFENDANTS aided 

25 and abetted, encouraged, and rendered substantial assistance to the other DEFENDANTS in 

26 breaching their obligations to PLAINTIFFS as alleged herein. In taking action to aid and abet 

27 and substantially assist the commission of these wrongful acts and other wrongdoings complained 

28 of, as alleged herein, each of the DEFENDANTS acted with an awareness of his/her/its primary 

LAW OFFICES COMPLAINT 9 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARnN, LLP Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 45

of 51
1 wrongdoing and realized that his/her/its conduct would substantially assist the accomplishment of 

2 the wrongful conduct, wrongful goals, and wrongdoing. 

3 IV. STATEMENTOFFACTS 

4 THE NORTH BAY FIRES 

5 

A. 

13. As families were settling in for the night on Sunday, October 8, 2017, tragedy struck 

6 communities across N01ihern California. That evening, several fires began raging in and around 

7 multiple counties in the N01ihern Bay Area, including the Tubbs Fire in Sonoma and Napa 

8 Counties. These fires quickly ripped through neighborhoods, destroying everything in their path, 

9 including residences, structures, businesses, trees, and vegetation in Santa Rosa. 

10 14. The North Bay Fires are some of the most destructive fires in California's history. 

11 In just a week, the fires caused the deaths of at least 43 people, displaced about 100,000 people 

12 who were forced to leave their 

13 homes and search for safety, / 

' · 'RedW!:lod/ 

14 burned over 200,000 acres, and llalley"Fire 

15 destroyed at least 8,000 homes 

16 and buildings. In particular, l'"hji,t({"q 

17 the Tubbs Fire destroyed 

18 approximately five percent of 

19 Santa Rosa's housing stock, 

20 burned over 36,000 acres 

21 across two counties, and killed 

22 at least 19 individuals. 

Nuns Fire/Patrick Fire , ,. ' 

:;37 Fire----t) ,, , r ,,,,1 !,' !-J.,1a11, 

23 15. On the evening of Sunday, October 8, 2017, emergency responders began receiving 

24 dozens of calls regarding fires and other hazards in and around Northern California. At least ten 

25 of the calls reported electrical problems, transformer explosions, transformer fires, arcing 

26 transformers, down power lines, arcing power lines, and/or flames in trees. Fmiher, several 

27 calls repotied problems with PG&E's electrical equipment in the vicinity of the Tubbs Fire, 

28 including a call at approximately 9:24 p.m. repotiing a PG&E transformer explosion, a call at 

LAW OFFICES 

CurcHETT, PITRE & 

MCC\RTIIY, LLP 

COMPLAINT 10 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 46

of 51
approximately 9:58 p.m. reporting down power lines, a call at approximately 10:14 p.m. reporting 

2 flames in trees, and a call at approximately 10:34 p.m. repo1iing falling power line wires. 7 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 16. 

Broken and Burned Electrical Equipment in Santa Rosa, California8 

One witness in Santa Rosa observed a power line and/or transformer near his home 

14 sparking for approximately two minutes at or around 9:50 p.m. The sparks fell onto trees that were 

15 right next to PG&E's power lines and other electrical equipment. After the sparking stopped, the 

16 witnesses' neighborhood lost power and PG&E's power lines and/or other electrical equipment 

17 fell down. This sparking occurred just outside of the Tubbs Fire. 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAW OFFICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

MCCARTHY, LLP 

PG&E Electrical Equipment Sparking in Trees Near the Tubbs Fire9 

7 http://www.mercurynews.com/2017 /10/10/pge-power-lines-linked-to-wine-countly-fires. 

s Id. 

9 http://abc7news.com/i-team-pg-e-workers-believe-hurricane-level-winds-caused-deadly-northbay-wildfires- ower-line-dama e/2525497. 

COMPLAINT 11 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 47

of 51
1 17. PLAINTIFFS are informed that witnesses observed and described downed power 

2 lines, exploding transformers, improper fuses, improper connections, improper clearances, aged 

3 and defective poles, and unrepaired poles in the area of the Tubbs Fire. Further, PLAINTIFFS 

4 are informed that reclosers in PG&E's system were set to avoid outages and not to avoid fires, 

5 even though fire conditions were known to be extreme. PLAINTIFFS are also informed that 

6 PG&E failed to have a reasonable system in place to make sure that its contractors were properly 

7 performing tree and/or vegetation inspections and removal, pole clearance, and pole inspections. 

8 PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that PG&E failed to take any steps to look for what it 

9 calls Facility Protect Trees (trees which pose a risk of falling into the line), even though it knew 

10 such trees were likely to exist after its contractors had performed their work. PLAINTIFFS are 

11 informed that PG&E failed to properly construct its power lines and thereafter failed to take 

12 reasonable steps to make sure the poles and lines were sufficiently strong to support lines and other 

13 equipment that were added by third patties. Finally, despite knowing that wildfires posed the 

14 greatest risk to the public from its electrical operations, PG&E chose to not ensure that its 

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

16 contractors hired people who met PG&E's minimum qualifications, and chose to not participate 

17 in the training of its contractors. PG&E owes the public a non-delegable duty with regard to the 

18 operation of its power lines, including as it relates to maintenance, inspection, repair, vegetation 

19 management and all other obligations imposed by the Public Utilities Code and the CPUC, 

20 specifically including, but not limited to, General Orders Numbers 95 and 165. Even when PG&E 

21 chooses to hire contractors, its obligations remain non-delegable. PG&E's acts and omissions, as 

22 described herein, were a cause Tubbs Fire and/or aggravated the spread and destruction of the 

23 Tubbs Fire. 

24 18. PG&E responded to the North Bay Fires by acknowledging that there were 

25 problems with its electrical equipment on the night of Sunday, October 8, 2017. However, PG&E 

26 

27 

28 

LAW OFFICES 

COTCHETI, PITRE & 

MCCARTHY, LLP 

COMPLAINT 12 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 48

of 51
1 blamed its failing electrical equipment on winds combined with "millions of trees weakened by 

2 years of drought and recent renewed vegetation growth from winter storms." 10 

3 19. At all times relevant to this action PG&E had specific knowledge that the greatest 

4 risk to the public from its operations was wildfire. PG&E specifically knew that wildfire could 

5 result in death and injury to members of the public and could result in the destruction of structures 

6 and propetiy. Despite such knowledge, PG&E chose to accept vegetation management that would 

7 result in 17 tree related outages for each 1,000 miles of line, despite knowing that such outages 

8 could result in wildfires that would kill people, injure people, burn homes, and destroy property. 

9 PG&E chose to accept that nearly 0.02 percent of the trees along its lines or nearly 20 in 1,000 

10 trees would come into contact with or could fall into its lines and cause a fire. PG&E consciously 

11 chose to accept that risk without providing any warning to the public. PG&E has specifically 

12 acknowledged and at all times relevant to this action knew that if it spent more money on its 

13 vegetation management program it could reduce the risk of wildfire. PG&E cited its limited 

14 resources as the reason it chose to put the public in danger, while at the same time it was making 

15 approximately $1,400,000,000 in profits each year. Therefore, PG&E made a conscious decision 

I 6 to put profits over the safety of the public. PG&E's choice resulted numerous deaths, injuries, 

17 and damage to structures and property, just as PG&E knew it could, when it made the choice. 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAW OFFICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

MCCARTIN, LLP 

B. 

20. 

THE DEADLY AND DESTRUCTIVE TUBBS FIRE 

CalFire reported that the origin of the Tubbs Fire was in or around Highway 128 

and Bennett Lane, in Calistoga, California. CalFire also reported that the Tubbs Fire sta1ied at or 

around 9:45 p.m. on Sunday, October 8, 2017. 11 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

10 http://www.pgecurrents.com/2017 /10/11/pge-statement-on-north-bay-wildfires/. 11 http://www. fire. ca. ov / current incidents/ind dentdetails/Index/ 18 6 7. 

COMPLAINT 13 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 49

of 51
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 

LAW OFFICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

TUBBS FIRE (CENTRAL LNU COMPLEX) 

Tubbs Fire (Central LNU Complex) Incident information: 

Last Updated: 

Date/Time Started: 

Administrative Unit: 

County: 

Location: 

Acres Burned -

Containment: 

Evacuations: 

Incident Management 

Team: 

Longi'Lat: 

Conditions: 

Phone Numbers 

Phone Numbers 

COMPLAINT 

Octol)er 27, 2017 8:40 am 

October 08, 2017 9:45 pm 

CAL FIRE Sonoma-Lal-:e-Napa Unit 

Napa County,Sonoma Counti,r 

off of Hwy 128 and Bennett Ln, Calistoga 

36,807 acres - 95% contained 

10.126/2017 @ 5:30pm - Areas of Mark \1\ 1'est Sorinqs Road to 

Calis!oqa Road Now Ooen for limi~ed. Restrictecl Re-entr{ of 

Burned Out Areas. Cilek here to see the new·s release for more 

information. 

See lile latest lnciclent Upda!e for more information on this fire. 

CAL FIRE Incident Management Team 1 

-122.62879/38.60895 

See me latest incident Upclale for more information on this fire. 

Central LNU Complex Evacuation Map 

Resources: 

• Sonoma Countv Fire Information 

• Sonoma Coun!v \i\t'ebsite 

• CAL FIRE Structure Status Map Please no!e that damage 

assessment is still on-going. If a structure point does not appear 

on !he map it may still have been impacF.ed by tl1e fires. 

{707) 800-9634 (Media Une ), 

{70T) 967-4207 (Fire Information line) 

14 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 50

of 51
21. PG&E's website reports electric outages in real time. According to the website: 

2 any person can "select an icon on the map to view outage details or request outage updates. The 

3 map is updated every 15 minutes with any new information." 12 

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 

LAW OFFICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

I EMelHlENCIES 

RESlDENTIAL BUSINESS 

YDIJR.M:COIJNT CUSTOMER SERVICE 01.ffAGES RATE:lll..1\NS SAVEENERSY&MDNE.ll Silt.AR&' 

Report & Viev,1 Electric Outages 

A WILDFIRE UPDATES, Due to the w:iof,res. a1.;torr,cJted 8ut39e upd3tes n1ay be !Jrned c-ff ir. yc.ur ;irea. Orce 

FIRE, we. can generally- ,~e: po•.ver restored in L:3-72 hours. Get v.'lldfire responsf! updates and safety tips. 

SIGN UP FOR ALERTS 

REPORT OR VIEW BY ADDRESS 

VIEW BY CITY 

Scroll thrc, 1.1gh the list tc select tJUr city 

VIEW CITY LIST 

SEARCH THE MAP 

Select 3n iun en th-e rrap to view C".1tage deta1ls or req1.1est 01.1t29e ,.1pdates. The map is updated e•,ery 15 rni1rn 

Wildfire inform;;;t•,Jn ,Jn the outage map ,:omes from the Gco,~le State•.v:de Fire Map. For the latest •.r,ew, ~efres~ 

1,1 _{,t' l! li ij 

<'},-1!!', 1-"' ,i1 

San I 

12 https://m. ge.com/?WT. geac=Home_Outages#outa es. 

COMPLAINT 

I 

(,J 

ll L 

15 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-4 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 51

of 51