l 22. Immediately following the start of the Tubbs Fire, PG&E's website reported two 

2 outages, right next to each other, that were at or very near the origin of the Tubbs Fire. 13 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 23. 

+ 

The causes of the PG&E outages read: "found damaged equipment on a power 

14 pole," and "fire in the area." The sta1t time of both outages was exactly 8:51 p.m. on October 8, 

15 2017 - immediately preceding the reported start time of the Tubbs Fire. 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAW OFFICES 

CoTcHe:rr, Pmu; & 

i\·ICCARTHY, LLP 

Electric Ou I age De1a ils, 

511.ftT TIME, 

ESTIMl\l eo P.EHOl!ATION: 

CUSTOME~S l'\FFEL1Etl: 

su.rus, 

I 11'1I IJl

1

1•Af 0, 

~~------~------

13 Id. 

COMPLAINT 

•JC I II U:'.1 I f"I 

ucr ,,1 I1 1u rM 

111 1 I'/ 11• 1'/1,M 

.. ;• 

)( 

+ 

16 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 1

of 40
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 24. 

I hn 11 It ()ut.;g, Oe111II~ 

Sr.lct l f lff, 

t•, rnt,,Tfifl 11, ',Tui:i,, !ION 

C:U-11<lt~[li' •Arfl) .l1 II 

C~USF.: 

U.Sf \JF'OATEO 

)( 

I,: I O, i I 111,1 

I ; 1 / fl I I !l~ f" I 

r 11 111 lllu Jrtt 

1: 1 \I/, · 11,.1;- ~II 

~u,..•UpdMn 

After containment of the Tubbs Fire, there was caution tape around the PG&E 

12 power pole located at Highway 128 and Bennett Lane, where the outage reports originated. There 

13 are several trees that are dangerously close to the subject power pole and the electric wires coming 

14 off the pole. There was also electric equipment on the ground that appears to have come off the 

15 pole. 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAWOFFICES 

CO'i'CHB'lT, PITRE & 

McCARnl\'1 LLP 

COMPLAINT 17 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 2

of 40
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 

C. 

25. 

PG&E WAS AW ARE OF FORESEEABLE WEATHER CONDITIONS 

AND EFFECTS OF THOSE CONDITIONS ON AGING 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

Northern California did not experience uncommon weather patterns the night the 

North Bay Fires began. A review of readings at weather stations in the areas impacted by the fires 

shows that winds were at standard levels when PG&E's electrical equipment began to fail. For 

example, a weather station in Santa Rosa in the vicinity of the Tubbs Fire recorded wind gusts of 

about 30 miles per hour at or around 9:29 p.m. on October 8, 2017. About an hour later, the same 

station recorded wind gusts of 41 miles per hour. These wind speeds were surpassed in other 

recent storms in the area on a number of occasions. 

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

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

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

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

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

winds were documented at much higher levels than those of October 8, 2017: 

COMPLAINT 18 

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

of 40
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 27. 

No. 3: "A strong weather front with gusty winds and heavy rain crossed the 

service area. Peak wind gusts in the norther and central po1iions of the 

service areas generally ranged in the 35 to 65 mph range (58 mph at Arcata, 

53 mph at Santa Rosa . .. )" 

No. 4: "A strong weather front with gusty winds and heavy rain affected the 

northern half of the service area. Winds gusted from 35 to 65 mph in the 

Bay Area, Redwood and Northern Interior zones on February 17th ( .. .45 

mph at Santa Rosa)" 

No. 6: "A strong weather front with gusty winds and heavy rain affected the 

norther half of the service area ... Winds gusted from 35 to 60 mph ... ( .. . 60 

mph at Santa Rosa)" 

No. 7: "Gusty north winds developed over norther and central portions of 

the service area as a strong high pressure system developed. Peak wind 

speeds included 58 mph at Hopland, 51 mph in Santa Rosa, 47 mph at 

Sonoma. Peak gusts in the East Bay hills ranged from 50-60 mph." 14 

In October of 2004, PG&E's largest outage of the year affected 522,213 customers, 

13 and involved "[T]wo storms (Oct 17 and 19) moved through the service area. Wind gusts were 

14 generally between 24-50 mph (51 mph at Redding, 40 mph at Red Bluff, 37 mph at Napa) on Oct 

15 17, and 35-60 mph on Oct 19 (51 mph Redding, 47 mph at Red Bluff, 51 mph at Marysville, 49 

16 mph at San Francisco Airpo1i, 55 mph at Bellota, 57 mph at San Luis Obispo)." 15 

17 28. Later, in October of 2009, PG&E's largest outage of the year was "A strong early 

18 season storm affected the entire service area with many stations repo1iing wind gusts over 50 mph 

19 (57 mph at Ft. Funston (SF), 56 mph at Fairfield, 5 5 mph at Oroville, 51 mph at Monterey). Single 

20 day rainfall totals ranged between two and five inches at many locations (4.54 in. at Watsonville, 

21 4.27 in. at Fairfield, and 3.66 in. at Napa). National Weather Service records indicate this storm 

22 was the strongest October rain and wind event since 1962." 16 Therefore, PG&E had notice of the 

23 type of winds that occurred on October 8, 2017, the night the N01ih Bay Fires began. 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAW OFFICES 

COTCHETT, PITRJ:l & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

29. Further, according to records maintained by CalFire, approximately 135 fires in 

14 https :/ /ww,.,v. pge. com/includes/ docs/pdfs/myhome/ outages/outage/reliability/ 

Annua!El ectri cDistri buti onReliability Report. pdf. 

1s Id. 

16 Id. 

COMPLAINT 19 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 4

of 40
1 Sonoma and Napa Counties were caused by electrical equipment from 2011 through 2015 .

17 In 

2 2015, the last year of reported data, electrical power problems sparked the burning of 149,241 

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

4 30. In May 2016, the CPUC adopted Fire Map 1, which is a map that "depicts areas of 

5 California where there is an elevated hazard for the ignition and rapid spread of power line fires 

6 due to strong winds, abundant dry vegetation, and other environmental conditions." 19 It was 

7 "developed by a team of independent experts selected and led by the California Department of 

8 Forestry and Fire Protection."20 

9 31. The CPUC adopted Fire Map 1 "in response to past devastating wildfires that were 

10 repo1iedly ignited by power lines. "21 According to CPUC commissioner Mike Florio, "Fire Map 

11 1 represents an important milestone in identifying areas that face a very high risk of a devastating 

12 wild:fire."22 PG&E was put on direct notice of this pap. 

13 32. On Fire Map 1, the area in and around the origin of the Tubbs Fire is both red and 

14 orange, indicating the highest level of elevated hazard for the "ignition and rapid spread of power 

15 line fires due to strong winds, abundant dry vegetation, and/or other environmental conditions." 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

L1\WOFFICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

MCCARTHY, LLP 

17 http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire _protection/fire _protection_ fire _info _red books. 18 http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-utility-wildfires-20171017-story.html. 

19 http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/GOOO/M 162/K498/162498284.PDF. 

20 Id. 

21 Id. 

n Id. 

COMPLAINT 20 

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

of 40
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

D. 

33. 

PG&E KNEW ITS INFRASTRUCTURE WAS AGING 

AND LESS RELIABLE TO PREVENT FIRES 

On May 6, 2013, a report was sent to the Safety and Enforcement Division of the 

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

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

the "2013 Liberty Report").23 The 2013 Liberty Report concluded that: "several aspects of the 

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

associated with electrical distribution components has been overshadowed by electric transmission 

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

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

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

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

34. One of the first key findings of the 2013 Liberty Repo1i was that PG&E had a 

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

113,000 miles of conductors (a.lea. wires), and according to the report, over 60 percent of those 

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

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

more susceptible to breaking. Weather conditions, such as winds and lightning strikes, will also 

wear a small conductor more than larger ones. For these reasons, "[t]his conductor was once 

popular, but is now recognized as obsolete, due to its small size." 

35. 

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

In a Hazardous State 

A second key finding of the 2013 Libe1iy Repo1i was that upon review of 

25 PG&E's documents, on a daily basis and in 36 percent of cases, PG&E cannot remotely de26 energize a downed line and must send someone on-scene to manually turn off the feed. During 

27 

28 

LAW OFFICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

MCCARTIIY, LLP 

COMPLAINT 21 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 6

of 40
1 that time, the downed line is a hazard, and according to the 2013 Libe1iy Report, this hazard has 

2 "contributed to a number of fatalities and injuries." 

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 

36. 

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

Safety Hazards That Must Be Addressed 

According to the 2017 CPUC Order Instituting Investigation Into the Creation of a 

Shared Database or Statewide Census of Utility Poles and Conduit: 

Poorly maintained poles and attachments have caused substantial property 

damage and repeated loss of life in this State. For example, inadequate 

clearance between communication and power lines, perhaps in conjunction 

with a broken cable lashing wire, caused the Southern California Guejito 

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

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

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

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

in 2012 and 2015. 

Unauthorized pole attachments are paiiicularly problematic. A pole 

overloaded with unauthorized equipment collapsed during windy 

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

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

knocked down a large number of poles in Southern California, many of 

which were later found to be weakened by termites, dry rot, and fungal 

decay. 

Communication and other wires are not infrequently found hanging onto 

roads or yards. Poles with excessive and/or unauthorized attachments can 

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

what appears on paper or in a utility's database.24 

37. In the June 29, 2017 CPUC press release for the Order, the CPUC President 

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

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

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

Fmiher, "[n]ot knowing where all the poles are and who owns them, how loaded they are, how 

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

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

24 http://docs.c uc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M 190/K.872/190872933 .PDF. 

COMPLAINT 22 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 7

of 40
1 on their poles and manage necessaty maintenance and rearrangements, and can help the CPUC in 

2 our oversight role."25 

3 

4 

5 38. 

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

Its Aging Infrastructure 

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

6 formal asset management program in Electric Operations." According to the report, "aging 

7 infrastructure is best addressed by having a strategic asset management program in place. These 

8 types of programs, such as the PAS 55 program, force a detailed and thorough condition 

9 assessment survey of the major assets. These types of formal programs also take failure modes 

10 into consideration. Long term sustainable plans can then be prepared to address the asset 

11 conditions. A sustainable asset management will mitigate system safety risks from aging 

12 infrastructure, which constituted a major portion of the safety items in this GRC." 

13 39. The 2013 Liberty Report was so concerned about the state of PG&E's aging 

14 infrastructure that it advised: "[w]e also recommend that PG&E treat aging infrastructure as an 

15 enterprise-level risk." 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAW OFFICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

MCCARTHY, LLP 

E. 

40. 

PG&E KNEW ITS ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT WAS UNSAFE 

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

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

wildfires. Reclosers send pulses of electricity through power lines whenever an interruption occurs 

on lines equipped with the devices. According to experts, if power lines are in contact with trees 

or vegetation, these pulses of electricity can staii fires. For this reason, other utilities have changed 

their operations to protect the public. 

41. The dangers posed by reclosers are so significant that the other two major utilities 

in California, San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Southern California Edison, have 

reprogramed their electrical systems during fire seasons to ensure that reclosers do not 

automatically restart electrical currents after a service interruption. In contrast, PG&E began an 

25 http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/GOOO/M 19 l/K560/19 l 560905.PDF. 

COMPLAINT 23 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 8

of 40
1 experimental pilot program in 2017 in limited parts of California to reprogram its reclosures. Since 

2 PG&E did not reprogram all of its reclosures to keep electricity turned off after a disruption during 

3 fire season, the night the North Bay Fires began, some of PG&E's devices were programmed to 

4 try up to three times to restore power by sparking electricity. 

5 42. PG&E knew that its reclosures posed a great risk of wildfire. At a Congressional 

6 hearing in 2015, PG&E's Senior Vice President of Electrical Operations, Patrick Hogan, stated 

7 that PG&E had the ability to reprogram its reclosures during fire season to not restart power. 

8 Patrick Hogan claimed that shutting down power means "you take the reliability hit, but you gain 

9 the wildfire benefit."26 PLAINTIFFS believe that despite this knowledge and ability, PG&E 

10 never reprogramed all of its reclosures to prevent wildfires. 

11 43. In addition, since prior to 1996, PG&E has known or should have known that its 

12 choice of chemical treatments for its poles can also make its equipment unsafe. For example, 

13 PG&E uses and has used poles treated with pentachlorophenol in liquefied petroleum gas by the 

14 Cellon® process. Those poles tend to experience surface decay below ground regardless of the 

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

16 these processes for all wood types. However, PLAINTIFFS believe that PG&E has failed to 

1 7 conduct the proper inspections and further, when PG&E has been advised of necessary repairs to 

18 such poles, PG&E failed to repair the poles in a timely manner. These failures are a breach of 

19 PG&E obligations to the public and have been a cause of fires. 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAW OFFICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

l'v1CCARTHY, LLP 

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

REP AIR, OR REPLACE ITS EQUIPMENT 

44. On top of having wide-scale aging infrastructure and no formal, organized system 

to track the condition of the infrastructure, PG&E failed to perform the necessary maintenance 

and inspections of its electrical equipment. A 2015 audit of PG&E's Sonoma Division revealed 

26 http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Power-line-restart-device-implicated-in-past12324 764. h . 

COMPLAINT 24 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 9

of 40
1 that there were over 3,500 unfilled PG&E repair and maintenance requests in the area of the Tubbs 

2 Fire. 27 This number is staggering in terms of safety to the people caught up in the fire zones. 

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 

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

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

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

Daye's letter stated the following: 

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

2015, a total of 3,527 work orders were completed past their scheduled 

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

Prioritization Standards. Late work orders included overhead and 

underground facilities. 28 

The letter concluded that these delays violated CPUC General Order No. 128, Rule 17.1, which 

sets forth the CPUC's design, construction, and maintenance rules for electrical systems. 

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

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

- has not been inspected every year as required by law. This was a violation of CPUC General 

Order No. 165, Section III-B, which sets forth standards for inspections. 29 

4 7. According to State Senator Jerry Hill, these findings are especially troubling 

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

manner."30 Yet, PG&E takes the money but fails to correct the problems. 

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

48. PG&E has a well-documented history of implementing a "run to failure" approach 

with its aging infrastructure, whereby it ignores necessary maintenance in order to line its own 

pockets with excessive profits. According to a filing by the CPUC in May 2013: 

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

_and_ Reliability/Repmis _and_ Audits/Electric _Facilities/EA2015-018.pdf. 

2s Id. 

29 Id. 

30 https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/State-Audit-Shows-PGE-Had-Repair-Job-Backlog-inSonoma-Santa-Rosa-45 l 996923 .html. 

COMPLAINT 25 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 10

of 40
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 

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

how PG&E systematically underfunded GT &S integrity management and 

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

in a "run to failure" strategy whereby it deferred needed maintenance 

projects and changed the assessment method for several pipelines from ILI 

to the less informative ECDA approach - all to increase its profits even 

further beyond its already generous authorized rate of return, which 

averaged 11.2% between 1996 and 2010. 

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

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

operations between 2008 and 2010 was unique. The IRP Report 

supplements the Overland Audit findings with additional examples of 

PG&E management's commitment to profits over safety. Thus, it is 

evident that while the example of GT &S underfunding between 2008 

and 2010 might be extreme, it was not an isolated incident; rather, it 

represents the culmination of PG&E management's long standing 

policy to squeeze every nickel it could from PG&E gas operations and 

maintenance, regardless of the long term "run to failure" impacts. And 

PG&E has offered no evidence to the contrary. 31 

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

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

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

including the following fines, penalties, and/or convictions. Despite these recurring punishments, 

PG&E refuses to modify its behavior, and has continued to conduct its business with a conscious 

disregard for the safety of the public, including PLAINTIFFS. 

50. As detailed below, the North Bay Fires are just one example of the many tragedies 

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

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

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

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

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

disasters throughout California. 

31 ftp://ftp2.cpuc.ca.gov/PG&E20150130ResponseToA 1312012Ruling/2013/03/SB _ GT &S _ 

0039691. df. 

COMPLAINT 26 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 11

of 40
1 

2 51. 

1. The 1994 Trauner Fire 

In 1994, PG&E's failure to maintain the vegetation surrounding its electrical 

3 equipment caused a devastating wildfire in Nevada County, California. This Fire, commonly 

4 known as the "Trauner Fire" or the "Rough and Ready Fire," burned approximately 500 acres in 

5 and around the town of Rough and Ready, destroyed 12 homes, and burned 22 structures, including 

6 a schoolhouse that was built in 1868. 

7 52. Investigators determined that the Trauner Fire began when a 21,000-volt power line 

8 brushed against a tree limb that PG&E was supposed to keep trimmed. Through random spot 

9 inspections, the investigators found several hundred safety violations in the area near the Trauner 

10 Fire. Approximately 200 of these violations involved contact between vegetation and one of 

11 PG&E's power lines. As a result, on or around June 19, 1997, PG&E was convicted of 739 

12 counts of criminal negligence and required to pay $24 million in penalties. 

13 53. Subsequent to the trial, a 1998 CPUC repo1i revealed that PG&E dive1ied $77 .6 

14 million from its tree-trimming budget to other uses from 1987 to 1994. During that same time, 

15 PG&E under spent its authorized budgets for maintaining its systems by $495 million and instead, 

16 used this money to boost corporate profits. Despite this public outing, PG&E continued its 

1 7 corporate culture of putting profits before safety. 

18 

19 54. 

ii. The 2003 Mission District Substation Fire 

In December 2003, a fire broke out at PG&E's Mission District Substation in San 

20 Francisco. Despite signs of trouble appearing at control centers, the fire burned for nearly two 

21 hours before PG&E operators showed up at the Substation, finding it full of smoke, and finally 

22 called the Fire Department. The source of the fire was not located until five hours after it began. 

23 As a result, nearly one-third of San Francisco's residents and business owners lost power, with 

24 some waiting over 24 hours for their power to be restored. 

25 55. The CPUC rep01i of the investigation, which was released in 2004, illustrated 

26 PG&E's careless approach to safety and apparent inability to learn from its past mistakes. An 

27 excerpt from the rep01i describes the following: 

28 

LAW OFFICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

j\1fcCAKI1-N, LLP 

COMPLAINT 27 

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

of 40
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

Soon after undertaking the investigation of the 2003 fire, CPSD [CPUC's 

Consumer Protection and Safety Division] discovered that another fire had 

occurred at Mission Substation in 1996. CPSD's investigation team 

conducted a thorough analysis of both fires and found strikingly similar 

contributing factors and root causes. CPSD's team further determined that 

PG&E had not implemented the recommendations resulting from its own 

investigation of the 1996 fire ... . CPSD finds it quite troubling that 

PG&E did not implement its own recommendations from its own 

investigation of the 1996 fire. 32 

The findings related to the Mission Substation Fire should have been a wake-up call to PG&E to 

revamp its operating procedures to prevent future disasters. Instead, PG&E's focus remained on 

corporate profits, while safety was relegated to the backburner. 

iii. The 2008 Rancho Cordova Explosion 

56. In December 2008, a gas leak from a PG&E pipe caused an explosion in Rancho 

Cordova, California. This explosion left one person dead, injured several others, and caused over 

$260,000 in property damage. 

57. A National Transportation Safety Board ("NTSB") investigation revealed that the 

leak was caused by PG&E's incorrect repairs in 2006, at which time PG&E installed a piece of 

pipe to patch up an earlier leak. The investigative report for the incident concluded that the walls 

of the new pipe were too thin, allowing gas to leak from the pipe, and that PG&E failed to timely 

send properly trained personnel to check out the leak, even though PG&E had been told several 

months earlier that its emergency plans fell below required standards. Specifically, the report 

noted the following: 

58. 

Contributing to the accident was the 2-hour 47-minute delay in the arrival 

at the job site of a Pacific Gas and Electric Company crew that was properly 

trained and equipped to identify and classify outdoor leaks and to begin 

response activities to ensure the safety of the residents and public. 33 

In November 2010, the CPUC filed administrative charges against PG&E m 

25 connection with the Rancho Cordova explosion, alleging that PG&E was at fault for the blast and 

26 

27 

28 

LAW OFFICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

32 http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/publishedDocs/published/Rep01i/40886.PDF. 33 htt ://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/Final_decision/146914-03.htm. 

COMPLAINT 28 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 13

of 40
1 that PG&E should have discovered the improper repair job that caused the explosion, but failed 

2 to timely do so. As a result, the CPUC required PG&E to pay a $38 million fine. 

3 

4 59. 

iv. The 2010 San Bruno Explosion 

On September 9, 2010, PG&E's continued disregard of public safety caused the 

5 death of eight people, injured 58 people, and destroyed an entire neighborhood in San Bruno, 

6 California when one of its gas pipelines exploded and burst into flames. Subsequent to the 

7 explosion, the NTSB issued a repo1i that blamed the disaster on PG&E's poor management of its 

8 pipeline. In January 2011, federal investigators repo1ied that the probable cause of the accident 

9 was: (i) PG&E's inadequate quality assurance and quality control during its Line 132 pipeline 

10 relocation project, which allowed the installation of a substandard and poorly-welded pipe section; 

11 and (ii) PG&E's inadequate pipeline integrity management program, which failed to detect and 

12 remove the defective pipe section. 

13 60. As a result, PG&E was required to pay substantial fines for its massive safety 

14 violations. In April 2015, the CPUC slapped PG&E with a $1.6 billion fine for causing the 

15 explosion and diverting maintenance funds into stockholder dividends and executive bonuses. 

16 Fmiher, in January 20 l 7, a federal judge convicted PG&E of six felony charges and ordered it to 

1 7 pay $3 million in fines for causing the explosion. 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAW OFFICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

61. Also, due to PG&E's corporate culture which repeatedly placed profits over safety, 

the CPUC launched an investigation into the manner by which PG&E officers, directors, and/or 

managing agents establish safety policies and practices to prevent catastrophic events. At the 

beginning of the investigation, the CPUC President harped on PG&E's ongoing safety violations: 

Despite major public attention, ongoing CPUC investigations (Olls) and 

rulemakings (OIRs) into PG&E's actions and operations, including the 

investigations we voted on today, federal grand jury, and California 

Depmiment of Justice investigation, continued safety lapses at PG&E 

continue to occur. 34 

34 http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUC _Public_ Website/Content/ About_ Us/ 

Organization/Commissioners/Michael_J._Picker/PresidentPickerCommentsonPGESafetyCultureandEnfor 

cementTheory. pdf. 

COMPLAINT 29 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 14

of 40
1 

2 62. 

V. The 2011 Cupe1iino Explosion 

After the San Bmno explosion, in September 2011, PG&E caused a gas explosion 

3 that partially engulfed a condominium in Cupertino, California. The explosion was the result of 

4 cracked Aldyl-A plastic pipe. 

5 63. Prior to the explosion, the manufacture of Aldyl-A and the NTSB had both issued 

6 warnings about this type of plastic pipe that was prone to premature brittleness, cracking, and 

7 failure dating back to at least 2002. Despite these warnings and PG&E's knowledge of this risk, 

8 PG&E did nothing to prevent the explosion. Although some utilities around the United States 

9 have been replacing Aldyl-A pipes, PG&E did not have a replacement program to phase them out 

10 and adequately protect the public. 

11 

12 64. 

vi. The 2014 Carmel Explosion 

In March 2014, a home in Carmel, California was destroyed due to a gas explosion 

13 caused by PG&E. Prior to the explosion, PG&E was attempting to replace a gas distribution line, 

14 but PG&E's records did not show that the steel pipe had a plastic inse1i. When crews dug into the 

15 steel pipe to perform the replacement, the unknown plastic inseti was pierced, allowing gas to leak 

16 through the pipe and into the residence. 

17 65. The CPUC once again required PG&E to pay a massive fine because of their 

18 wrongdoing. In August 2016, the CPUC imposed a $25.6 million fine on PG&E. With a $10.85 

19 million citation previously paid by PG&E in 2015 for the explosion, PG&E was require to pay a 

20 total of over $36 million in penalties for its shoddy recordkeeping and disregard of public safety. 

21 

22 66. 

Vll. The 2015 Butte Fire 

Tragedy struck yet again in September 2015, when PG&E's inadequate and 

23 ineffective vegetation management programs resulted in the "Butte Fire" in the Sierra foothills. 

24 The Butte Fire burned for 22 days across Amador and Calaveras Counties, killed two people, 

25 destroyed 921 homes and/or structures, and charred over 70,000 acres. 

26 67. Similar to the other disasters caused by PG&E's wrongdoing, the Butte Fire could 

27 have been prevented by PG&E. The Butte Fire was ignited by a gray pine tree that grew and came 

28 into contact with one of PG&E's power lines. PG&E knew that gray pines posed the highest risk 

LAW OFFICES COMPLAINT 30 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

l'v1CCARTIN, Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 15 LLP 

of 40
1 of catastrophic wildfires, but failed to identify and/or remove the dangerous tree pursuant to its 

2 vegetation management practices. Instead, PG&E removed the two trees surrounding the gray 

3 pine at issue, which exposed the gray pine to sunlight and allowed it to quickly come into contact 

4 with PG&E's power line. 

5 68. PG&E made several decisions leading up to the Butte Fire that illustrate its 

6 conscious disregard of public safety. First, PG&E's Risk & Compliance Management Committee 

7 chose to not confirm their assumption that properly qualified and trained inspectors were being 

8 used by its contractors to identify hazard trees. Similarly, PG&E chose not to verify that its quality 

9 assurance audits were properly conducted. Moreover, PG&E Vegetation Management managers 

10 directed its contractor to hire inspectors that they knew did not meet the minimum qualifications 

11 required by PG&E's own specifications. Furthermore, PG&E managing agents chose to not train 

12 inspectors on PG&E's hazardous tree rating system ("HTRS"), verify that its contractor trained 

13 inspectors on the HTRS, or require inspectors to use PG&E's HTRS. Finally, PG&E conducts 

14 annual quality assurance audits that identify a select number of hazardous trees from a small 

15 sample, but chose to not look for additional dangerous trees despite knowing that its statistical 

16 sample warned of the likelihood that thousands more hazardous trees existed in the larger 

17 population. 

18 69. Subsequent to the Butte Fire, in April 2017, the CPUC fined PG&E a total of $8.3 

19 million for "failing to maintain its l 2kV overhead conductors safely and properly" and failing to 

20 maintain a minimum distance between its power lines and vegetation. CalFire also sent PG&E a 

21 bill for $90 million to cover state firefighting costs. Despite these consequences, PG&E did not 

22 change, revise, or improve any of its vegetation management practices after the Butte Fire, paving 

23 the way for another massive wildfire. 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAW OFFICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

MCCARTHY, LLP 

I. THE CORPORATE CULTURE AT PG&E THAT PUTS PROFITS 

BEFORE SAFETY 

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

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

compensation. This pattern and practice of favoring profits over having a solid and wellCOMPLAINT 31 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 16

of 40
1 maintained infrastructure that would be safe and dependable for years to come left PG&E 

2 vulnerable to an increased risk of a catastrophic event such as the N01ih Bay Fires. 

3 71. For example, According to documents released by The Utility Reform Network 

4 ("TURN"), PG&E supposedly planned to replace a segment of the San Bruno pipeline in 2007 

5 that it identified as one of the riskiest pipelines in PG&E's system. PG&E collected $5 million 

6 from its customers to complete the project by 2009, but instead deferred the project until it was 

7 too late and repurposed the money to other priorities. That same year, PG&E spent nearly $5 

8 million on bonuses for six of its top executives. 

9 72. Moreover, PG&E has implemented multiple programs that provide monetary 

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

11 Butte Fire, PG&E chose to provide a monetary incentive to its contractors to cut fewer trees, even 

12 though PG&E was required to have an inspection program in place that removed dangerous trees 

13 and reduced the risk of wildfires. Robert Urban, a regional officer for a PG&E contractor, stated 

14 that he had a concern that the bonus system incentivized his employees to not do their job, but 

15 PG&E chose to keep this program despite knowing this risk. Similarly, prior to the San Bruno 

16 explosion, PG&E had a program that provided financial incentives to employees to not report or 

17 fix gas leaks and keep repair costs down. This program resulted in the failure to detect a significant 

18 number of gas leaks, many of which were considered serious leaks. According to Richard 

19 Kuprewicz, an independent pipeline safety expert, PG&E's incentive system was "training and 

20 rewarding people to do the wrong thing," emblematic of "a seriously broken process," and 

21 "explains many of the systemic problems in this operation that contributed to the [San Bruno] 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAW OFFICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

i'v1CCARTI-IY, LLP 

tragedy."35 

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

MAINTAIN ITS ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS AND THE SURROUNDING 

VEGETATION 

73. At all times prior to October 8, 2017, PG&E had a duty to properly construct, 

inspect, repair, maintain, manage and/or operate its power lines and/or other electrical equipment 

35 http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/PG-E-incentive-system-blamed-for-leak-oversights2424430. hp. 

COMPLAINT 32 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 17

of 40
1 and to keep vegetation properly trimmed and maintained so as to prevent foreseeable contact with 

2 such electrical equipment. In the construction, inspection, repair, maintenance, management, 

3 ownership, and/or operation of its power lines and other electrical equipment, PG&E had an 

4 obligation to comply with a number of statutes, regulations, and standards, including the following. 

5 74. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code § 451, "Every public utility shall furnish and 

6 maintain such adequate, efficient, just, and reasonable service, instrumentalities, equipment, and 

7 facilities ... as are necessary to promote the safety, health, comfort, and convenience of its patrons, 

8 employees, and the public." 

9 75. To meet this safety mandate, PG&E is required to comply with a number of design 

10 standards for its electrical equipment, as stated in CPUC General Order 95. In extreme fire areas, 

11 PG&E also must ensure that its power lines can withstand winds of up to 92 miles per hour. 

12 76. Further, PG&E must follow several standards to protect the public from the 

13 consequences of vegetation and/or trees coming into contact with its power lines and other 

14 electrical equipment. Pursuant to Public Resources Code§ 4292, PG&E is required to "maintain 

15 around and adjacent to any pole or tower which supp01is a switch, fuse, transformer, lightning 

16 arrester, line junction, or dead end or corner pole, a firebreak which consists of a clearing of not 

17 less than 10 feet in each direction from the outer circumference of such pole or tower." Also, 

18 Public Resources Code § 4293 mandates PG&E to maintain clearances of four to l O feet for all 

19 of its power lines, depending of their voltage. In addition, "Dead trees, old decadent or rotten trees, 

20 trees weakened by decay or disease and trees or po1iions thereof that are leaning toward the line 

21 which may contact the line from the side or may fall on the line shall be felled, cut, or trimmed so 

22 as to remove such hazard." 

23 77. Pursuant to CPUC General Order 165, PG&E is also required to inspect its 

24 distribution facilities to maintain a safe and reliable electric system. In paiiicular, PG&E must 

25 conduct "detailed" inspections of all of its overhead transformers in urban areas at least every five 

26 years. PG&E is also required to conduct "intrusive" inspections of its wooden poles that have not 

27 already been inspected and are over 15 years old every 10 years. 

28 

LAW OFFICES 

CO'fCHETT, PITRE & 

MCCARTI-IY, LLP 

COMPLAINT 33 

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

of 40
78. PG&E knew or should have known that such standards and regulations were 

2 minimum standards and that PG&E has a duty to identify vegetation which posed a foreseeable 

3 hazard to power lines and/or other electrical equipment, and manage the growth of vegetation near 

4 its power lines and equipment so as to prevent the foreseeable danger of contact between 

5 vegetation and power lines starting a fire. Further, PG&E has a duty to manage, maintain, repair, 

6 and/or replace its aging infrastructure to protect public safety. These objectives could and should 

7 have been accomplished in a number of ways, including, by not limited to, putting electrical 

8 equipment in wildfire-prone areas underground, increasing inspections, developing and 

9 implementing protocols to shut down electrical operations in emergency situations, modernizing 

10 infrastructure, and/or obtaining an independent audit of its risk management programs to ensure 

11 effectiveness. 

12 79. Finally, in June of 2014, the CPUC directed PG&E, by way of Resolution ESRB13 4, to take remedial measures to reduce fires since the Governor had declared a drought in January. 

14 In addition, the CPU C informed PG&E that it could seek recovery of incremental costs associated 

15 with these remedial measures outside of the standard funding process, i.e. the CPUC was agreeing 

16 to provide additional funding on top of vegetation management funding already authorized in order 

17 to make sure remedial measures would not go unperformed due to lack of funding. "Although the 

18 Governor issued an Executive Order in April 20 l 7 ending the Drought State of Emergency, the 

19 declaration directed state agencies 'to continue response activities that may be needed to manage 

20 the lingering drought impacts to people and wildlife.' The California Tree Mortality State of 

21 Emergency issued in October 2015 by Governor Brown regarding the bark beetle infestation and 

22 resulting tree motiality remains in effect. The CPUC has not rescinded ESRB-4, and work by the 

23 utilities to comply with it and the Tree Mortality Emergency continues."36 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAW OFFICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTI-IY, LLP 

36 http://cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUC _Public_ Website/Content/Safety/PGE%20Vegetation 

%20 Management%20S ending.pdf. 

COMPLAINT 34 

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

of 40
1 V. DETAILS OF PLAINTIFFS' LOSSES 

2 80. Plaintiffs GREGORY WILSON and CHRISTINA WILSON are husband and 

3 wife. In 2005, they purchased their dream property at 1420 Lorraine Way in Santa Rosa that 

4 included a home and an outdoor swimming pool. 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 81. 

Plaintiffs' Home Before the Tubbs Fire 

On the evening of October 8, 2017, PLAINTIFFS started to smell smoke and heard 

18 from their neighbors that there may be a fire in the distance. PLAINTIFFS decided to pack up 

19 their car with some belongings in case they needed to evacuate. However, the fire approached so 

20 rapidly that it prevented them from evacuating in their vehicle. 

21 82. Since PLAINTIFFS could not evacuate, they decided to try to save their lives by 

22 hiding from the Tubbs Fire in their pool. From approximately 12:30 a.m. to 3:30 a.m., 

23 PLAINTIFFS huddled in their pool and watched in hoiror as their home and everything 

24 surrounding them burned to the ground. During this time, PLAINTIFFS repeatedly put their 

25 heads underwater to escape the extremely hot air and burning embers. PLAINTIFFS would then 

26 resurface, quickly gasp for more smoke-filled air, and go back underwater. After several hours, 

27 PLAINTIFFS were finally rescued by emergency responders and taken to a hospital, where they 

28 were treated for burns and smoke inhalation injuries over the course of approximately 10 days. 

LAW OFFICES COMPLAINT 35 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

MCCARTIN, LLP Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 20

of 40
83. In addition to their injuries, PLAINTIFFS' property and all of their personal items 

2 in and around their home were completely destroyed in the Tubbs Fire and are no longer 

3 ascertainable due to the intensity of the fire. Therefore, PLAINTIFFS suffered major losses and 

4 injuries in an amount according to proof at trial. 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

L1\ W OPFICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

MCCARTHY, LLP 

Plaintiffs' Home After the Tubbs Fire 

COMPLAINT 36 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 21

of 40
1 VI. CAUSES OF ACTION 

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 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

NEGLIGENCE 

(Against All Defendants) 

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

though fully set forth herein. 

85. The fire herein alleged was a direct and legal result of the negligence, carelessness, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

with other metal wires placed on its poles and igniting fires; (9) failing to keep equipment in a safe 

condition and/or manage equipment to prevent fire at all times; (10) failing to de-energize power 

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

and/or (12) failing to properly train and to supervise employees and agents responsible for 

maintenance and inspection of the distribution lines and/or vegetation areas nearby these lines. 

COMPLAINT 37 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 22

of 40
1 86. As a direct and legal result of DEFENDANTS' actions and/or omissions, and/or 

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

3 according to proof at trial. 

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

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

6 for their injuries. PLAINTIFFS have incurred, and will continue to incur, medical and incidental 

7 expenses in an amount according to proof at trial. 

8 88. As a further direct and legal result of the premises, PLAINTIFFS have suffered 

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

10 humiliation, embarrassment, anguish, anxiety, and nervousness. PLAINTIFFS are informed and 

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

12 injuries in an amount according to proof at trial. 

13 89. As a further direct and legal result of the premises, PLAINTIFFS have suffered a 

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

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

16 90. As a fmiher direct and legal result of the premises, PLAINTIFFS have suffered 

17 damage to real property, including the loss of vegetation, trees, and structures, the creation of 

18 hydrophobic soil conditions, and a loss of use, benefit, goodwill, diminution in value, and/or 

19 enjoyment of such prope1iy in an amount according to proof at trial. 

20 91. As a fu1iher direct and legal result of the premises, PLAINTIFFS have suffered 

21 damage to and/or a loss of personal property, including but not limited to items of peculiar value 

22 to PLAINTIFFS in an amount according to proof at trial. 

23 92. As a further direct and legal result of the premises, PLAINTIFFS have incurred 

24 and will continue to incur expenses and other economic damages related to the damage to their 

25 prope1iy, including costs relating to storage, clean-up, disposal, repair, depreciation, and/or 

26 replacement of their prope1iy, and/or other related consequential damages in an amount according 

2 7 to proof at trial. 

28 

LAW OFFICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

COMPLAINT 38 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 23

of 40
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 

COTCHETf, PITRE & 

McCARTIIY, LLP 

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

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

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

sound discretion, award PLAINTIFFS additional damages for the sake of example and sufficient 

to punish the DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, for their despicable conduct, in an amount 

reasonably related to PLAINTIFFS' actual damages and DEFENDANTS' financial condition, 

yet sufficiently large enough to be an example to others and to deter DEFENDANTS and others 

from engaging in similar conduct in the future. 

94. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

INVERSE CONDEMNATION 

(Against All Defendants) 

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

though fully set forth herein. 

95. On or about October 8, 2017, PLAINTIFFS were owners of real property and/or 

personal property located within Sonoma County in the area of the Tubbs Fire. 

96. Prior to and on October 8, 2017, DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, installed, 

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

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

Fire. 

97. On October 8, 2017, as a direct, necessary, and legal result of DEFENDANTS' 

installation, ownership, operation, use, control, management, and/or maintenance for a public use 

the power lines and/or other electrical equipment, the power lines and/or other electrical equipment 

came in contact with vegetation and/or broke, failed, fell down, sparked, and/or exploded, causing 

a wildfire that burned thousands of acres, including prope1ty owned or occupied by PLAINTIFFS. 

The fire damaged and/or destroyed PLAINTIFFS' real and/or personal property. 

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

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

COMPLAINT 39 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 24

of 40
1 ownership, operation, use, control, management, and/or maintenance of the power lines and other 

2 electrical equipment for a public use. 

3 99. PLAINTIFFS have not received adequate compensation for the damage to and/or 

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

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

6 100. As a direct and legal result of the actions and/or omissions of the DEFENDANTS, 

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

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

9 to proof at trial. 

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 

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

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

including reasonable attorney, appraisal, engineering, and/or other expert fees due to the conduct 

of the DEFENDANTS in amounts that cannot yet be ascertained, but which are recoverable 

pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1036. 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 

PUBLIC NUISANCE 

(Against All Defendants) 

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

set fotih as though fully set fotih herein. 

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

the subject of this action. At all relevant times herein, PLAINTIFFS had a right to occupy, enjoy, 

and/or use their propetiy without interference by DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them. 

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

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

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

proximity to their power lines in Napa and/or Sonoma Counties in a manner that did not threaten 

harm or injury to the public welfare from operation of those power lines. 

COMPLAINT 40 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 25

of 40
105. DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, by acting and/or failing to act, as alleged 

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

3 PLAINTIFFS, and which interfered with the comf01table occupancy, use, and/or enjoyment of 

4 PLAINTIFFS' property. PLAINTIFFS did not consent, expressly or impliedly, to the wrongful 

5 conduct of DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, in acting in the manner set f01th above. 

6 106. The hazardous condition which was created by and/or permitted to exist by 

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

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

9 34 79 and 3480 and Public Resources Code § 4171. Further, the ensuing uncontrolled wildfire 

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

11 107. The damaging effects of DEFENDANTS' maintenance of a fire hazard and the 

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

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

14 fire's perimeter. This fmther caused significant post fire runoff hazards to occur, including hillside 

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

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

17 108. As a direct and legal result of the conduct of DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, 

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

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

20 land, real and/or personal prope1ty, including, but not limited to: a reasonable and rational fear that 

21 the area is still dangerous; a diminution in the fair market value of their property; an impairment 

22 of the salability of their property; soils that have become hydrophobic; exposure to an array of 

23 toxic substances on their land; the presence of "special waste" on their property that requires 

24 special management and disposal; and a lingering smell of smoke, and/or constant soot, ash, and/or 

25 dust in the air. 

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

27 of them, PLAINTIFFS have suffered, and will continue to suffer, discomfo1t, anxiety, fear, 

28 

LAW OFFICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

COMPLAINT 41 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 26

of 40
1 worries, annoyance, and/or stress attendant to the interference with PLAINTIFFS' occupancy, 

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

3 110. A reasonable, ordinary person would be reasonably annoyed or disturbed by the 

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

5 111. The conduct of DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, is unreasonable and the 

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

7 of DEFENDANTS' conduct. 

8 112. The individual and/or collective conduct of DEFENDANTS set fo1ih above, and/or 

9 each of them, resulting in the Tubbs Fire is not an isolated incident, but is ongoing and/or a 

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

11 other fires and damage to the public. 

12 113. The unreasonable conduct of DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, is a direct and 

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

14 114. DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, have individually and/or collectively, failed 

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

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

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

18 member of the public, including those residing in Napa and/or Sonoma Counties, to a foreseeable 

19 danger of personal injury, death, and/or a loss of or destruction real and personal property. 

20 115. The conduct of DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, set fo1ih above constitutes a 

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

22 4104 and 4170, and Code of Civil Procedure § 731. Under Civil Code § 3493, PLAINTIFFS 

23 have standing to maintain an action for public nuisance because the nuisance is specially injurious 

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

25 the senses of the PLAINTIFFS, unreasonably interferes with the comf01iable enjoyment of their 

26 prope1iies, and/or unlawfully obstructs the free use, in the customary manner, of PLAINTIFFS' 

27 properties, and have suffered harm, injury, and damages. 

28 

LAW OFFICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTI-IY, LLP 

COMPLAINT 42 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 27

of 40
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 

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

DEFENDANTS, and each of them, stop continued violation of Public Resource Code §§ 4292 

and 4293 and Public Utilities Commission General Order 95, Rule 35. PLAINTIFFS also seek 

an order directing DEFENDANTS to abate the existing and continuing nuisance described above. 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

PRIVATE NUISANCE 

(Against All Defendants) 

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

set forth as though fully set forth herein. 

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

above, directly and legally caused an obstruction to the free use of PLAINTIFFS' prope1ty, an 

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

of PLAINTIFFS' propetty, resulting in PLAINTIFFS suffering umeasonable harm and 

substantial actual damages constituting a nuisance pursuant to Civil Code§§ 3479 and 3481. 

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

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

and damages as set fotth above. 

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

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

damages against DEFENDANTS as set fotth above. 

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

PREMISES LIABILITY 

(Against All Defendants) 

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

set f01th as though fully set f01th herein. 

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

propetty in the area of origin of the Tubbs Fire and/or near Highway 128 and Bennett Lane, 

Calistoga, California, and/or were the owners of the power lines upon said easement and/or right 

ofway. 

COMPLAINT 43 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 28

of 40
1 123. DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, acted wantonly, unlawfully, carelessly, 

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

3 vegetation near its power lines along the real prope1iy and easement, allowing an unsafe condition 

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

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

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

7 and damages as set f01ih above. 

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 

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

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

damages against DEFENDANTS as set fo1ih above. 

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

TRESPASS 

(Against All Defendants) 

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

set forth as though fully set forth herein. 

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

occupants of prope1iy damaged by the Tubbs Fire. 

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

the manner set f01ih above, caused the Tubbs Fire to ignite and/or spread out of control, causing 

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

property interests. 

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

a manner so as to cause the Tubbs Fire, and thereby produce a wildland fire which spread and 

wrongfully entered upon their prope1iy, resulting in the harm, injury, and/or damage alleged above. 

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

each of them, which led to the trespass, PLAINTIFFS have suffered and will continue to suffer 

damages as set forth above, in an amount according to proof at trial. 

COMPLAINT 44 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 29

of 40
1 131. As a further direct and legal result of the wrongful conduct of DEFENDANTS, 

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

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

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

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

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

7 PLAINTIFFS seek double and/or treble damages for the negligent, willful, and wrongful injuries 

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

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

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

11 and damages as set forth above. 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAW OFFICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

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

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

damages against DEFENDANTS as set forth above. 

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

VIOLATION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE § 2106 

(Against All Defendants) 

135. PLAINTIFFS incorporate and re-allege each of the paragraphs set fmih above as 

though fully set forth herein. 

136. As a Public Utility, DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, are legally required to 

comply with the rules and orders promulgated by the Public Utilities Commission pursuant to 

Public Utilities Code § 702. 

13 7. Public Utilities that fail to comply with duties required by the California 

Constitution, a law of the State, a regulation, or order of the Public Utilities Commission, which 

thereby leads to loss or injury, are liable for that loss or injury pursuant to Public Utilities Code § 

2106. 

COMPLAINT 45 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 30

of 40
1 138. As a Public Utility, DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, are required to provide 

2 and maintain service, equipment and facilities in a manner adequate to maintain the safety, health, 

3 and convenience of their customers and the public, pursuant to Public Utilities Code § 451. 

4 139. DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, are required to design, engineer, construct, 

5 operate, manage, and maintain electrical supply lines in a manner consistent with their use, taking 

6 into consideration local conditions and other circumstances, so as to provide safe and adequate 

7 electric service, pursuant to Public Utility Commission General Orders 95 and 165, and Rule 33.1. 

8 140. DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, are required to maintain vegetation in 

9 compliance with Public Resources Code §§ 4293, 4294, and 4435, and Health & Safety Code § 

10 13001. 

11 141. By their conduct alleged above, DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, violated 

12 Public Utilities Code §§ 702 and 451 and/or Public Utilities Commission General Order 95, 

13 thereby imposing liability on DEFENDANTS for losses, damages, and/or injury sustained by 

14 PLAINTIFFS pursuant to Public Utilities Code§ 2106. 

15 142. By further reason of the premises set forth above DEFENDANTS, and/or each of 

16 them, acted in a manner which violated the laws of this State and/or the orders or decisions of the 

17 Public Utilities Commission, as referenced herein. 

18 143. As a direct and legal result of the wrongful acts and/or om1ss1ons of 

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

20 and damages as set forth above. 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAW OFFICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

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

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

damages against DEFENDANTS as set f01ih above. 

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

VIOLATION OF HEALTH & SAFETY CODE§ 13007 

(Against All Defendants) 

145. PLAINTIFFS incorporate and re-allege each of the paragraphs set fo1ih above as 

though fully set f01ih herein. 

COMPLAINT 46 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 31

of 40
146. By engaging m the acts and/or omissions alleged in this Complaint, 

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

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

4 Health & Safety Code§ 13007. 

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

6 § 13007, PLAINTIFFS suffered recoverable damages to prope1ty under Health & Safety Code§ 

7 13007.21. 

8 148. As a fmther direct and legal result of the DEFENDANTS, and/or each of them, 

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

10 under Code of Civil Procedure§ 1021.9. 

11 149. As a direct and legal result of the wrongful acts and/or om1ss10ns of 

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

13 and damages as set forth above. 

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

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

16 damages against DEFENDANTS as set fo1th above. 

17 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS pray for relief as set fmth below. 

18 VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

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

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

21 each of them as follows: 

22 From All DEFENDANTS for Inverse Condemnation: 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAW OFFICES 

COTCHETT, PITRE & 

McCARTHY, LLP 

1. 

2. 

3. 

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

personal and/or real property; 

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

personal prope1ty; 

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

related displacement expenses; 

COMPLAINT 47 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 32

of 40
1 

2 

3 

4 

4. 

5. 

6. 

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

engineering fees, and related costs; 

Prejudgment interest according to proof; 

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

5 proof. 

6 From All DEFENDANTS for Negligence, Public Nuisance, Private Nuisance, 

7 Premises Liability, Trespass, Violation of Public Utilities Code § 2106, and Violation of 

8 Health & Safety Code§ 13007: 

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 

Ill 

II I 

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

personal and/or real property; 

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

personal property; 

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

related displacement expenses; 

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

5. Attorney's fees, expe1i fees, consultant fees, and litigation costs and expense as 

allowed under Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.9; 

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

property as allowed under Civil Code § 3346; 

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

anguish, emotional distress, loss of quiet enjoyment of prope1iy, personal injury, 

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

to proof; 

8. Punitive damages as allowed by the law; 

9. For all costs of suit incurred; 

COMPLAINT 48 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 33

of 40
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 II 

26 II 

27 II 

28 II 

LAW OFFICES 

CoTCI IETr, l'JTRE & 

i\lcCARTI IY, LLP 

10. Prejudgment interest according to proof; and 

11. Any other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 

Dated: ,;f)r 

COMPLAINT 

COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 

STEVEN M. CAMPORA (SBN 110909) 

DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD 

CAMPORA, LLP 

20 Bicentennial Circle 

Sacramento, CA 95826 

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

BRIAN J. PANISH (SBN 116060) 

PANISH SHEA & BOYLE, LLP 

11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 700 

Los Angeles, CA 90025 

Tele: (310)477-1700 Fax: (310)477-1699 

MICHAEL A. KELLY (SBN 71460) 

WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER 

650 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Tele: (415) 981-7210 Fax: (415) 391-6965 

MICHAEL D. GREEN (SBN 214142) 

ABBEY, WEITZENBERG, WARREN & EMERY, PC 

100 Stony Point Rd, Suite 200 

Santa Rosa, CA 95401 

Tele: (707) 542-5050 Fax: (707) 542-2589 

49 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 34

of 40
1 VIII. JURY DEMAND 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

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

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LAWOFFICl•:S 

COTCI lETr, l'ITRE & 

MCCARTIIY,Ll,I' 

Dated: J1k-;-

COMPLAINT 

COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 

STEVEN M. CAMPORA (SBN 110909) 

DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD 

CAMPORA, LLP 

20 Bicentennial Circle 

Sacramento, CA 95826 

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

BRIAN J. P ANISH (SBN 116060) 

PANISH SHEA & BOYLE, LLP 

11111 Santa,Monica Blvd., Suite 700 

Los Angeles, CA 90025 

Tele: (310)477-1700 Fax: (310)477-1699 

MICHAEL A. KELLY (SBN 71460) 

WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER 

650 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Tele: (415) 981-7210 Fax: (415) 391-6965 

MICHAEL D. GREEN (SBN 214142) 

ABBEY, WEITZENBERG, WARREN & EMERY, PC 

l 00 Stony Point Rd, Suite 200 

Santa Rosa, CA 95401 

Tele: (707) 542-5050 Fax: (707) 542-2589 

50 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 35

of 40
1 FRANK M. PITRE (SBN 100077) 

fpitre@cpmlegal.com 2 JOSEPH W. COTCHETI (SBN 36324) 

3 jcotchett@cpmlegal.com 

ALISON E. CORDOVA (SBN 284942) 

4 acordova@cpmlegal.com 

COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 

5 San Francisco Airport Office Center 

6 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 

Burlingame, CA 94010 

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

8 STEVEN M. CAMPORA (SBN 110909) 

scampora@dbbwlaw.com 

9 DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD CAMPORA, LLP 

10 20 Bicentennial Circle 

Sacramento, CA 95826 

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

12 Attorneysfor Plaintiffs 

13 [Additional co-counsel listed on the signature 

page] 

14 

15 

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 

22 GREGORY WILSON, an individual; and 

CHRISTINA WILSON, an individual; 

23 

24 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

25 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMP ANY, 

PG&E CORPORATION, AND DOES 1 

26 THROUGH 20, 

27 

28 

Defendants. 

JCCP4955 

San Francisco Superior Court 

Case No.: CGC-17-562458 

INDMDUAL PLAINTIFFS' 

NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF THE 

MASTER COMPLAINT 

TUBBS-CPMC-0002 

NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF THE MASTER COMPLAINT; Case No.: CGC-17-562458 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 36

of 40
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 GREGORY WILSON, an individual, was damaged by the North Bay Fires 

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

7 PLAINTIFF CHRISTINA WILSON, an individual, was damaged by the North Bay Fires 

8 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. Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate 

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

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

14 4955, as though fully set forth herein. Plaintiffs hereby adopt the Master Complaint and agree to 

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

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

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

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

19 Complaint checked below against those Defendl;Ults named in that cause of action: 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

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 

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

NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF THE MASTER COMPLAINT; Case No.: CGC-17-562458 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 37

of 40
1 

2 

3 

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

181 Eleventh Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 

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

4 the following individuals as Nominal Defendants: Not applicable. 

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

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

7 

8 

ADDRESSES OF ALL AFFECTED PROPERTIES 

Plaintiffs allege the following properties have been impacted by the CALIFORNIA 

9 NORTH BAY FIRES for which Plaintiffs seek recovery: 1420 Lorraine Way, Santa Rosa, CA 

10 95404. 

11 SPECIFY WHETHER PLAINTIFF(S) ARE: 

12 181 Insured by Liberty Mutual. 

13 D Uninsured 

14 181 Owner of real property 

15 D Renter of real property 

16 D Business owner 

17 181 Employee 

18 D Other [Please indicate] 

19 CALIFORNIA NORTH BAY FIRE THAT IMPACTED PLAINTIFF(S): 

20 D Atlas Fire (Master Complaint 11 80-86) 

21 D Cascade/LaPorte Fire (Master Complaint 1187-91) 

22 D Cherokee Fire (Master Complaint 1192-93) 

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

24 D Lobo Fire (Master Complaint 11 96-97) 

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

26 D Mccourtney Fire (Master Complaint 11100-101) 

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

28 D Pocket Fire (Master Complaint 11 110-111) 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 38 NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF THE MASTER COMPLAINT; Case No.: CGC-17-562458 

of 40
1 0 Point Fire (Master Complaint ,r,r 112-113) 

2 0 Redwood Valley/ Potter Fires (Master Complaint ,r,r 114-116) 

3 0 Sullivan Fire (Master Complaint ,r,r 117-119) 

4 0 Sulphur Fire (Master Complaint ,r,r 120-122) 

5 121 Tubbs Fire (Master Complaint ,r,r 123-127) 

6 0 Highway 37 Fire (Master Complaint ,r,r 128-129) 

7 0 Other Ignition Point [Describe in Additional Allegations Section below, p. 7] 

8 

9 PLAINTIFFS SUFFERED DAMAGE IN THE FOLLOWING WAY: 

10 0 Wrongful death and survival 

11 121 Personal injury 

12 121 Emotional distress (including but not limited to presence in zone of danger) and/or 

bystander claims) 

13 Mental anguish (including but not limited to loss of use and enjoyment of property 121 

14 under nuisance) 

15 121 Residence destroyed 

16 121 Residence damaged 

17 121 Other structures destroyed 

18 121 Other structures damaged 

19 121 Real property improvements (fences, roads, well, septic system, etc.) destroyed 

20 121 Real property improvements (fences, roads, well, septic system, etc.) damaged 

21 121 Personal property damage 

22 121 Damage to trees 

23 121 Diminution in value of real property 

24 D Damage to crops 

25 D Damage to business equipment 

26 D Damage to business goodwill or brand 

27 D Loss of use of business property 

28 D Loss of future profits 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 39 NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF THE MASTER COMPLAINT; Case No.: CGC-17-562458 

of 40
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 

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 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

Loss of love, 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§ 

3 77 .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 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. 

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: 

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

personal and/or real property; 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2904-5 Filed: 07/09/19 Entered: 07/09/19 12:59:18 Page 40 NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF THE MASTER COMPLAINT; Case No.: CGC-17-562458 

of 40