Source: http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9
Timestamp: 2017-09-25 00:16:05
Document Index: 281929499

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 651', '§ 25249', '§ 6972', '§ 6972', '§ 102', '§ 6972', '§ 2201', '§ 2202', '§ 525', '§ 6972', '§ 6972', '§6972', '§ 6972', '§ 25249', '§ 25249', '§6', '§ 636', '§ 636']

Complaint for damages & injunctive relief | Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Jesse M. Lange Distributor Co., Shell Oil Co. et al | Thomas H. Clarke, Jr. - JDSupra
The complaint addresses a situation in which a BTEX and MtBE plume is moving through groundwater from a site adjacent to the plaintiff's. The complaint alleges, among other items, that the defendants are not appropriately addressing the contamination nor obeying the orders of the applicable regulatory agency.
1 4 i A. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9AO 398 (Rev 12193) NOTICE OF LAWSUIT AND REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS TO: (A) Jeofrey W. Steele as (B) Counsel for (C) Center Land Company, inc. A lawsuit has been commenced against you (or the entity on whose behalf you are addressed.) A copy of the complaint is attached to this notice. It has been fled in the United States District Court for the (D) Eastern District of California and has been assigned docket number (E) 2:05-CV-011BO-DFt_-KJM This is not a formal summons or notification from the court. but rather my request that you sign and return the enclosed waiver of service in order to save the cost of serving you with a judicial summons and an additional copy of the complaint. The cost of service will be avoided if I receive a signed copy of the waiver within (F) 20 days after the date designated below as the date on which this Notice and Request is sent. I enclose a stamped and addressed envelope (or other means of cost-free return) for your use. An extra copy of the waiver is also attached for your records. If you comply with this request and return the signed waiver. it will be fled with the court and no summons will be served on you. The action will then proceed as if you had been served on the date the waiver is fled, except that you will not be obligated to answer the complaint before 60 days from the date designated below as the date on which this notice is sent (or before 90 days from that date your address is not in any judicial district of the United States. ) If you do not return the signed waiver within the time indicated, I will take appropriate steps to effect formal service in a manner authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and will then, to the extent authorized by those Rules, ask the court to require you (or the party on whose be half you are addressed) to pay the full costs of such service.. In that connection, please read the statement concerning the duty of parties to waive the service of the summons, which is set forth at the foot of the waiver form. I affirm that this request is being sent to you on behalf of the plaintiff, this 23rd day of June 2005 Signature of Plaintiffs Attorney or Unrepresented Plaintiff A -. Name of individual defendant (or name of ofcer or agent of corporate defendant) B -Title, or other relationship of individual to corporate defendant C -Name of corporate defendant, If any D -District E -Docket number of action SF/184412 I/N1EZ --Addressee must be given at least 30 days (60 days if located in foreign country) in which to return waiver 2002 O Amerian LegalNel Inc Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9• AO 399 (Rev 10/95) WAIVER OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS TO: Thomas H. Clarke, Jr. (NAME OF PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY OR UNREPRESENTED PLAINTIFF) I, Jeoffrey Steele, on behalf of Center Land Company , acknowledge receipt of your request (DEFENDANT NAME) that I waive service of summons in the action of Pacific Gas and Electric v. Jesse Lange Distributors, et al. (CAPTION OF ACTION) which is case number 2:05-CV-001180-DFL-KJM in the United States District Court (DOCKET NUMBER) for the Eastern District of California I have also received a copy of the complaint in the action, two copies of this instrument, and a means by which I can return the signed waiver to you without cost to me. I agree to save the cost of service of a summons and an additional copy of the complaint in this lawsuit by not requiring that I (or the entity on whose behalf I am acting) be served with ,judicial process in the manner provided by Rule 4. I (or the entity on whose behalf I am acting) will retain all defenses or objections to the lawsuit or to the --jurisdiction-,or-venue-of-the--court except-for.objections based on_a_.defect-in.-tbestuhme msuomnmsonosr._in,_the servi-Qf I understand that a judgment may be entered against me (or the party on whose behalf I am acting) if an answer or motion under Rule 12 is not served upon you within 60 days after or within 90 days afer that date if the request was sent outside the United States. June 23, 2005 (DATE REQUEST WAS SENT) (DATE) (SIGNATURE) Printed/Typed Name: Jeoffrey W. Steele As Counsel for Center Land Company, Inc. (TI TL E) (CORPORATE DEFENDANT) Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Costs of Service of Summons Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain parties to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the summons compalanindt A defendant located in the United States who, after being notifed of an action and asked by a plaintiff located in the United States to waive service of summons, fails to do so, will be required to bear the cost of such service unless good cause be shown for its failure to sign and return te It is not good cause for a failure to waive service that a party believes that the complaint is unfounded, or that the action has been brought in impropaenr place or in a court that lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action or over its person or property A party who waives service of the summons retains all defenses and objections (except any relating to the summons or to the service of the summons), and may later object to the jurisdiction of the court or to the place where the action has been brought A defendant who waives service must within the time specifed on the waiver form serve on the plaintiffs attorney (or unrepresented plaintiff) a response to the complaint and must also fle a signed copy of the response with the court If the answer or motion is not served, within this time, a jduedfgamulet nt may be taken against that defendant By waiving service, a defendant is allowed more time to answer than if the summons had been actually served when the request for waiver of service was SF/184373 rIeceived /NI-2 American LegalNet, Inc. www.USCouriForms.com Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9AO 398 (Rev 12/93) NOTICE OF LAWSUIT AND REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS TO: (A) Jeofrey W. Steele as (B) Counsel for (C) Center Land Company of Texas, Inc. A lawsuit has been commenced against you (or the entity on whose behalf you are addressed.) A copy of the complaint is attached to this notice. It has been fled in the United States District Court for the (D) Eastern District of California and has been assigned docket number (E) 2:05-CV-01 180-DFL-KJM This is not a formal summons or notifcation from the court, but rather my request that you sign and return the enclosed waiver of service in order to save the cost of serving you with a judicial summons and an additional copy of the complaint. The cost of service will be avoided if I receive a signed copy of the waiver within (F) 20 days after the date designated below as the date on which this Notice and Request is sent. I enclose a stamped and addressed envelope (or other means of cost-free return) for your use. An extra copy of the waiver is also attached for your records. If you comply with this request and return the signed waiver. it will be filed with the court and no summons will be served on you. The action will then proceed as if you had been served on the date the waiver is fled, except that you will not be obligated to answer the complaint before 60 days from the date designated below as the date on which this notice is sent (or before 90 days from that date your address is not in any judicial district of the United States.) If you do not return the signed waiver within the time indicated, 1 will take appropriate steps to efect formal service in a manner authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and will then, to the extent authorized by those Rules, ask the court to require you (or the party on whose be half you are addressed) to pay the full costs of such service. In that connection, please read the statement concerning the duty of parties to waive the service of the summons, which is set forth at the foot of the waiver form. I affirm that this request is being sent to you on behalf of the plaintiff, this 23rd day of June 2005 Signature of Plaintiffs Attorney or Unrepresented Plaintif A -Name of individual defendant (or name of offcer or agent of corporate defendant) B -Title, or other relationship of individual to corporate defendant C -Name of corporate defendant, If any D -District E -Docket number of action SF/184412 1/NR -Addressee must be given at least 30 days (60 days if located in foreign country) in which to return waiver 2002 0 American LegalNet Inc Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9• AO 399 (Rcv 10/95) WAIVER OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS TO, Thomas H. Clarke, Jr. (NAME OF PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY OR UNREPRESENTED PLAINTIFF) I, Jeoffrey Steele, on behalf'of Center Land Co., Inc. , acknowledge receipt of your request (DEFENDANT NAME) that I waive service of summons in the action of Pacifc Gas and Electric v. Jesse Lange Distributors, et al. (CAPTION OF ACTION) which is case number 2:05-CV-001180-DFL-KJM in the United States District Court (DOCKET NUMBER) for the Eastern District of California I have also received a copy of the complaint in the action, two copies of this instrument, and a means by which I can return the signed waiver to you without cost to me. I agree to save the cost of service of a summons and an additional copy of the complaint in this lawsuit by not requiring that I (or the entity on whose behalf I am acting) be served with judicial process in the manner provided by Rule 4. I (or the entity on whose behalf I am acting) will retain all defenses or objections to the lawsuit or to the -.jiinsdietion_or venue_of-the_courLexcepLfor_ objections_based_on-a_defect_in_the SummQns_orjn the service of the summons. I understand that a.judgment may be entered against me (or the party on whose behalf I am acting) if an answer or motion under Rule 12 is not served upon you within 60 days afer or within 90 days afer that date if'the request was sent outside the United States. June 23, 2005 (DATE REQUEST WAS SENT) (DATE) (SIGNATURE) Printed/Typed Name: Jeoffrey W. Steele As Counsel for Center Land Company of (TITLE) Texas, Inc.(CORPORATE DEFENDANT) Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Costs of Service of Summons Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain parties to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the compslauimnt mAo dnesf eannddant located in the United States who, afer being notified of an action and asked by a plaintiff located in the United States to swearivviece of summons, fails to do so, will be required to bear the cost of such service unless good cause be shown for its failure to sgn and return the It is not good cause for a failure to waive service that a party believes that the complaint is unfounded, or that the action has been brought in impropaner place or in a court that lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action or over its person or property A party who waives suemrvmiceo nosf rtheetains all defenses and objections (except any relating to the summons or to the service of the summons), and may later object jtuor itshdeiction of the court or to the place where the action has been broughtA defendant who waives service must withn the time specifed on the waiver form serve on the plaintifs attorney (or unrepresented plaintiff) responase to the complaint and must also fle a signed copy of the response wth the court If the answer or motion is not served, within jtuhdisg mtimenet, ma adye fbaeu tlat ken against that defendant By waiving service, a defendant is allowed more time to answer than if the summons had bseerevne da cwtuhaelnly the request for waiver of service was SF1184373r.2e1cNeiLved 2 American LegalNet, Inc www.USCourtForms.com Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, V, SUMMONS IN A CIVIL CASE JOHN P. CROWSTON, ET AL., CASE NUMBER: 2:05--CV-01180-DFL-KJM TO: Center Land Company of Texas, Inc., Center Land Company, Inc., Jesse M. Lange Distributor Inc., John P. Crowston, Rebecca Crowston, Michael R. Curry, Shell Oil Company Defendant's Address: YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve on Thomas H. Clarke Jr. Ropers Majeski Kohn and Bentley :333 Market Street Suite 3150 San Francisco, CA 94105 an answer to the complaint which is served on you with this summons, within 20 days after service of this summons on you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. Any answer that you serve on the parties to this action must be fled with the Clerk of this Court within a reasonable period of time after service. JACK L. WAGNER CLERK /s/-G. Servantes (By) DEPUTY CLERK ISSUED ON 2005-06-15 13:41:52.0, Clerk USDC EDCA Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY VOLUNTARY DISPUTE RESOLUTION Pursuant to the findings and directives of Congress in 28 U.S.C. §§ 651 et seq., and in recognition of the economic burdens and delay in the resolution of disputes that can be imposed by full formal litigation, Local Rule 16-271 governs the referral of certain actions to the Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program ("VDRP") at the election of parties. Plaintiff or removing party is to provide all other parties with copies of the notice at the time service is effected or, for parties already served, no more than fourteen (14) days after receiving notice from the Court.. Afer filing of the original complaint or removal action, any patty who causes a new party to be joined in the action shall promptly serve a copy of the notice tohne new party. It is the Court's intention that the VDRP shall allow the participants to take advantage of a wide variety of alternative dispute resolution methods. These methods may include, but are not limited to, mediation, negotiation, early neutral evaluation and settlement facilitation, The specific method or methods employed will be determined by the Neutral and the parties.. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Local Rule 16-27 1, this Local Rule applies to all civil actions pending before any District Judge or Magistrate Judge in the District except that actions in the following categories are exempt from presumptive inclusion: (i) prisoner petitions and actions, including habeas corpus petitions, (ii) actions in which one of the parties is appearing pro se, (iii) voting raigcthiotsns, (iv) social security actions, (v) deportation actions, (vi) Freedom of Information Act actions, (avniid) actions involving the constitutionality of federal, state or local statutes or ordinances. The fact that a case falls in a category that is exempt from the presumptive applicability of this Local Rule neither (1) precludes the parties to such a case from agreeing to participate in an Alternative Dispute R("eAsDoRlu"t)i opnrocess, nor (2) deprives the Court of authority to compel participation in an appropriate ADR proceeding. Parties may elect Voluntary Dispute Resolution with the Court indicating that all parties to the action agree to submit the action to VDRP pursuant to Local Rule 16-271.. Actions may not be assigned to VDRP over the objection of a party. (Copy of sample stipulation attached hereto.) At the time of filing, a copy of the stipulation shall be provided to the VDRP Administrator designated below: Sacramento Cases Fresno Cases Voluntary Dispute Resolution Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program Administrator Program Administrator United States District Court United States District Court 501 I Street, Suite 4-200 11.30 "0" Street, Room 5000 Sacramento, CA 95814 Fresno, CA 93721 (916) 930-4280 (559)498-748,3 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9I THOMAS H CLARICE, IR. (SBN 47592) DENNIS J. BYRNE (SBN 172618) 2 ROPERS, MATESICI, I.OI-IN & BENTLEY 333 Market Street, Suite 3150 3 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 543-4800 4 Facsimile: (415) 274-6301 5 JUAN JAYO (SBN 71337) MARGARET PIETRAS (SBN 124598) 6 PACIFIC GAS and ELECTRIC COMPANY P.O. Box 7442 7 San Francisco, CA 94120 Telephone: (415) 973-2193 8 Counsel for Plaintiff 9 PACIFIC GAS and ELECTRIC COMPANY 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT m I EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LO s ita 12 .o a o u i, PLC 13 PACIFIC GAS and ELECTRIC CASE NO 2' 057, C-%J.O l 1c0 D 1=L/fr zrM U. COMPANY, v 14 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND Plaintiff, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 15 v o RCRA 6972(a)(1)(A) 16 • Nuisance JESSE M LANGE DISTRIBUTOR, INC, o Trespass 17 JOHN P. CROWSTON, REBECCA o Breach of Contract CROWSTON, CENTER LAND CO., • Negligence 18 INC., CENTER LAND CO. OF TEXAS, INC., MICHAEL R. CURRY, SHELL OIL • Unfair Business Practices 19 COMPANY, and DOES 1 THROUGH 100 • Defective Product • Declaratory Relief 20 Defendants.. DEMAND FOR. A JURY TRIAL 21 22 2.3 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1331, in that this 24 25 case arises under the laws of the United States, 42 U.S.C. section 6972 and 2811 S.C. sections 26 2201 and 2202. 27 2. The court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S..C. section 1367(a) in that 28 Pacifc Gas and Electric Company's state law claiins are so related to the claims over which the COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND SF/166743 5/DJB -1-rNJUNCtI VE RELIEF Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9I Court exercises original ,jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under 2 Article III of the United States Constitution 3 3 Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S..C section 1391(b,c) 4 because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred within the District, 5 because a substantial part of the property which is the subject of the action is situated within the 6 District, and because one or more defendants resides within the District, conducts business within 7 the District, and has engaged in, and continues to engage in, acts of selling and promoting goods 8 and products to consumers in the District. a 9 PARTIES QJ 10 4. Plaintiff Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("PG and E") is a California C 11 corporation having its principle place of business in San Francisco, California.. 0 12 5. On information and belief, PG and E alleges that defendant Shell Oil Company Z 4 Q U 13 ("SHELL") is a Delaware corporation qualifed to conduct business in California with its 0C LCN 14 principle place of business in Texas. PG and E alleges further, on information and belief that at i t !G 0 15 all times relevant to PG and E's claims defendant LANGE, as described below, was an alter ego QJ 16 of SHELL and that SHELL was aware of and approved those actions of LANGE and the Other Q017 Defendants which form the basis of PG and E's claims r" 18 6. On information and belief, PG and E alleges that Jesse M. Lange Distributor, Inc 19 ("LAN(3E"), is a California corporation with its principle place of business in Chico, California, 20 and that LANGE operates what is commonly referred to as a tank farm and sells SHELL fuels 21 and solvents. On information and belief, PG and E alleges that the business entity known as 22 LANGE was operated as an unincorporated entity for several years prior to being incorporated.. 23 As used herein, the term "LANGE" means both the incorporated and the unincorporated form of 24 that business owned, operated, managed, or controlled by defendant John P Crowston or 25 individuals related to John P. Crowston by blood or by marriage.. Prior to the operation of the 26 tank farm by defendant John P.. Crowston or individuals related to John P Crowston by blood or 27 by marriage, the tank farm was operated by SHELL or by deceased individuals known as Jesse 28 M Lange, Cleo Lange, and Elizabeth Avery. On information and belief PG and E alleges that COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND SF/166743 5/DJB -2 .. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9I the original tank farm facility was constructed, operated, and maintained by SHELL 2 7 On information and belief, PG and E alleges that defendant LANGE currently 3 owns real property with improvements thereon commonly known as 11226 Midway, Chico, 4 California, and has owned said property and improvements during a period of time during which 5 SHELL and LANGE conducted operations which form the basis of PG and E's claims. 6 8.. On information and belief, PG and E alleges that defendant SHELL has owned 7 that real property with improvements thereon commonly known as 11226 Midway, Chico, 8 California, during a period of time during which SHELL and LANGE conducted operations 9 thereon which form the basis of PG and E's claims. 10 9-On information and belief, PG and E alleges that defendant Center Land II Company, Inc:, has owned that real property with improvements thereon commonly known as c 60 12 11226 Midway, Chico, California, or portions thereof, during a period of time during which y+ . a0 V o " 13 LANGE conducted operations thereon which form the basis of PG and E's claims.. On 14 information and belief, PG and E alleges that Center Land Company was a California corporation 15 at the time of its ownership of 11226 Midway, that this business entity subsequently dissolved, 16 and that this business entity's successor-in-interest to its relevant liabilities is defendant Center r" 17 Land Company of Texas, Inc. On information and belief, PG and E alleges that defendant 18 Michael R. Curry was the President and sole Director of Center Land Co., Inc., and is the 19 President and one of two Directors of Center Land Co. of Texas, Inc. PG and E further alleges on 20 information and belief that Center Land Co., Inc. and Center Land Co.. of'Texas, Inc, were and 21 are, respectively, wholly dominated and controlled by defendant Michael R. Curry such that 22 Center Land Co., Inc., and Center Land Co.. of Texas, Inc. were and are the alter ego of defendant 23 Michael R. Curry and that any individuality and separateness between defendant Curry and these 24 defendant corporations has or have ceased. Adherence to the fction of the separate existence of 25 the corporations as entities distinct from defendant Curry would permit an abuse of the corporate 26 privilege and would sanction fraud and promote injustice.. Further, on information and belief PG 27 and E alleges that each of the corporations was undercapitalized, failed to observe corporate 28 formalities, and commingled assets with defendant Curry, each being a separate and independent COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND SF/166743 5/DJB 3 -INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c91 basis for disregarding the fiction of the separate existence of the corporations as entities distinct 2 from defendant Curry 3 10. On information and belief, PG and E alleges that defendants DOES ONE to 4 THIRTY owned that real property with improvements thereon commonly known as 11226 5 Midway, Chico, California, during a period of time during which SHELL or LANGE conducted 6 operations which foram the basis of PG and E's claims. 7 11 On information and belief, PG and E alleges that defendant John P Crowston is a 8 present or former officer and/or a director and/or manager of LANGE with authority to exercise >, 9 control over the operations of LANGE which form the basis of PG and E's claims, including 10 authority and power to determine whether LANGE obeys orders of regulatory and governmental II authorities. 12 On information and belief, PG and E alleges that defendant Rebecca Crowston is a 13 present or former officer and/or, a director and/or manager of LANGE with authority to exercise 14 control over the operations of LANGE which form the basis of PG and E's claims, including 15 authority and power to determine whether LANGE obeys orders of regulatory and governmental 16 authorities 17 13. On information and belief, PG and E alleges that defendants DOES THIRTY-ONE 18 to SIXTY are a present or former officer, and/or a director and/or operator and/or manager of 19 LANGE with authority to exercise control over the operations of LANGE that form the basis of 20 PG and E's claims. 21 14. On information and belief, PG and E alleges that defendant SHELL is a current or 22 former owner and/or operator of the tank faun at 11226 Midway whose acts, operations, 23 omissions and decisions caused or resulted in releases or discharges which form the basis of PG 24 and E's claims. 25 15. On information and belief, PG and E alleges that defendants DOES SIXTY-ONE 26 to ONE HUNDRED did act or failed to act in a manner that contributed to the release or 27 discharge of the contaminants which form the basis of PG and E's claims, who acted or failed to 28 act in a manner that delayed the implementation of statutory and regulatory obligations to address COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND 5F/166743 5/DJB -4-IN.NNCTIVE RELIEF Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9I the release, discharge, characterization, or remediation of the contaminants which forth the basis 2 of PG and E's claims, or who acted or failed to act in a manner that was not in conformance with 3 the requirements of regulatory agency orders or directives as noted herein 4 16 The true names of Defendants DOES I through 100 are unknown to PG and E at 5 this time When their identities are ascertained, the complaint shall be amended to reflect their 6 true names 7 17. Defendants Jesse M.. Lange Distributor, Inc.., Joim P-Crowston, Rebecca 8 Crowston, Center Land Co., Inc., Center Land Co. of Texas, Inc.., Michael R. Curry, Shell Oil Co. 9 and DOES 1-100 shall herein be referred to as "The Defendants" or "Other Defendants", as the 10 context dictates tU M I I 18. On information and belief PG and E alleges that each of The Defendants was the agent of the Other Defendants, and that each of The Defendants ratifed the acts and omissions of 1.3 the Other Defendants as set forth herein. 14 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 15 19. On information and belief PG and E alleges that since approximately 1922 SHELL a) 16 and/or LANGE have operated a petroleum and Stoddard solvent bulk storage facility, commonly a017 known as a tank farm, at 11226 Midway, Chico, Califoria. LANGE and SHELL have used an 18 assortment of above-ground and underground storage tanks to store SHELL fuel products and 19 solvents and assorted above-ground and underground piping systems to transfer fuel and solvents 20 between storage containers and delivery vehicles. 21 20. PG and E owns real property with improvements thereon commonly known as .22 11239 Midway, Chico, California. PG and E's property is located across Midway from 23 SHELL's/LANGE's petroleum and Stoddard solvent bulk storage facility, 24 21.. In 1995, LANGE reported to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the 25 Central Valley Region (the "Board") that an unauthorized release of petroleum had occurred at its 26 Midway facility. On direction of the Board, LANGE engaged consultants to evaluate the nature 27 and extent of contamination associated with releases and discharges from SHELL's/LANGE's 28 Midway facility. On information and belief, given the extent of the contaminant plume and the COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND SF/166743 5/D3B -5 -INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9I quantity of free product found in the groundwater, PG and E avers that the releases and 2 discharges occurred and started many years preceding the report to the Board, and that said 3 releases and discharges continue to this day. 4 22 Investigations conducted by LANGE determined that as a result of the release and 5 discharge of SHELL petroleum from the facility considerable environmental contamination is 6 present in the soil and groundwater underlying SHELL's/LANGE's facility and the adjacent 7 properties. Free floating product ranging in depth fom one inch to seven feet has been measured 8 atop the groundwater underlying SHELL's/LANGE's Midway facility. In addition, total >1 9 petroleum hydrocarbons and MTBE has been measured in groundwater at concentrations as high vC10 as 4,000 parts per million. (U in I 1 23. All impacted groundwater noted herein is a potential source of drinking water ? o a 12 pursuant to California State Water Resources Control Board Resolution Number 88--63. .c u o 13 24. Environmental contaminants have migrated from SHELL'S/LANGE's facility to oCr. 14 beneath PG and E's property on Midway since the flow of groundwater is fom 11226 Midway Q) ` ' toward the PG and E property.. Petroleum hydrocarbon vapors at concentrations as high as 1,535 parts per million have been measured in the soil underlying PG and E's property. The source of the vapors is the release and discharge from the SHELL/LANGE facility. The presence of contaminated groundwater beneath PG and E's property and the presence of petroleum 19 hydrocarbon vapors in the soil underlying PG and E's property impair PG and E's use and 20 enjoyment of its property. 21 25. The presence of hydrocarbon vapors in the soil and hydrocarbon contaminants in 22 the groundwater beneath and about the PG and E property constitute both a public and private 23 nuisance, 24 26. By allowing hazardous wastes to accumulate within the soil and in the 25 groundwater underlying the Midway facility, LANGE, SHELL and the Other Defendants have 26 created an unlicensed, unpermitted hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facility that 27 constitutes a public nuisance 28 27. In October, 2003, PG and E and LANGE entered into a license agreement (the COMPL•ArNT FOR DAMAGES AND SF1166743 51DJB -6-INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9I "Agreement") whereby LANGE obtained access to PG and E's property for the purpose of 2 evaluating and remediating environmental contaminants that had migrated onto PG and E's 3 property. See Exhibit B Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement LANGE was to reimburse the 4 cost of PG and E employees who observed the actions of LANGE's consultants in conducting the 5 work contemplated under the Agreement. To date, LANGE has failed to reimburse PG and E for 6 any of these costs that PG and E has incurred.. Further, pursuant to Section 9 of the Agreement, 7 the statute of limitations was tolled until March 30, 2005, for any cause of action for which the 8 statute of limitations had not run as of December 20, 1999. 9 28. In 1999, the Board issued LANGE Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 99-709 )Q 10 Pursuant to the terms of this Order LANGE is required to determine the full extent of vmC 11 environmental contamination associated with its operations conducted at its Midway facility and 12 implement an appropriate remedial strategy for addressing the contamination so defned 13 LANGE has failed to fulfll the terms of this Order. Specifcally, neither LANGE nor the Other 14 Defendants have initiated or completed any of the following activities by the deadline set by the 15 Board, nor have they completed any of these activities as of the date of the filing of this Ln 16 complaint: Q) 0017 o Implemented a workplan for enhanced free product recovery within 90 days of Ql-18 January 20, 2003. 19 o Workplan for soil vapor extraction and vacuum enhanced groundwater pump-and-20 treat. 21 Obtain permits. Should have been completed within 25 days of August 13, 2003-22 • Well installation and trenching.. Should have been completed within 15 days of 23 September 17, 2003. 24 ¦ Treatment system installed. Should have been completed within 15 days of 25 October 8, 2003. 26 Pilot testing of system. Should have been completed within 60 days of October 27 29, 2003. 28 • Preparation of remedial action plan. Should have been completed within 20 days COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND SFl166743 5/DJB -7-1NJIJNCTIVE RELIEF Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9I of January 21, 2004. o Workplan for in-situ chemical oxidation and bioaugrnentation pilot studies, and 3 investigation of the intermediate zone aquifer 4 a Project set-up Should have been completed within '70 days of .July 16, 2003 5 Chemical oxidation pilot study. Should have been completed within 68 days of 6 June 6, 2003. 7 W Bioaugmentation pilot study. Should have been completed within 255 days of 8 July 16, 2003. a 9 ¦ Intermediate zone investigation Should have been completed within 150 days of v 10 .July 16, 2003. )a C3 C 11 ¦ Report of findings. Should have been completed within 28 days of July 7, 2004, 1S c?--+ o0 12 o Undertaken quarterly groundwater monitoring, as required, and made timely reports to Y CL 0 `-'" 13 the Board, as required, since January 30, 2004. ro r o `L Ln 14 o On or about November 11, 2004, affirmatively stated to Board staff that they will not vm Q 15 undertake or resume any corrective actions at the site even though there are moneys 16 available from a state fund to pay for the requisite activities 0 17 29 The Board has not initiated any enforcement action against LANGE or the Other 18 Defendants to compel compliance with Order No. 99-709 On May 17, 2005, the Board did send 19 to LANGE a notice of administrative civil liability complaint seeking a penalty, but has taken no 20 further steps since that date to enforce, administratively or judicially, the complaint, nor has the 21 Board sought to compel LANGE to complete the above noted activities related to the 22 contamination. 23 30. No agency of the State of California or the U.S Government has initiated any 24 enforcement action to require compliance with Order No. 99-709 or to require the remediation of 25 the contamination resulting from the releases and discharges from the LANGE facility_ 26 31, By mailed correspondence dated March 14, 2005, PG and E issued the requisite 27 RCRA notice to the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the 28 Attorney General of the United States, the Board, LANGE, SHELL, other relevant governmental COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND SF1166743 5IWJB -8 -INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c91 agencies, and the other defendants of its intent to fle this action Because PG and E also brings 2 this action in the public interest to enforce California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic 3 Enforcement Act of 1986 pursuant to Section 25249.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, 4 PG and E also provided a copy of this notice to the Offce of the California Attorney General and 5 the District Attorney for the County of Butte, California.. No public prosecutor or regulatory 6 agency has brought an action pursuant to Section 25249.5 following receipt of said notice. A 7 copy of this combined R.CRA notice and notice pursuant to § 25249.5 H. &S.C is attached to this 8 Complaint as Exhibit A. The notice was served by registered mail on SHELL., Center Land Co, a 9 and Center Land Co. of Texas on March 17, 2005, March 18, 2005, and March 17, 2005, C 10 respectively.. The notice was personally served on LANGE on March 18, 2005; on John P a) 11 Crowston, March 19, 2005; on Rebecca Crowston, March 19, 2005; and, on Michael Curry, pus C o 12 individually and as President of Center Land Co. and Center Land Co. of Texas, April 12, 2005. „? C v 0 ?0 C 13 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION C LL O C Q) 14 (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act: 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(A) Against The Defendants) tc . 15 32 PG and E incorporates herein as if stated in full Paragraphs I through 31 of this Q) 16 Complaint r0v 17 33. 42 U S.C. section 6972(a)(1)(A) provides that any person may commence a civil 18 action on his own behalf against any person alleged to be in violation of any permit, standard, 19 regulation, condition, requirement, prohibition or order which has become effective pursuant to 20 the Recourse Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), 42 U S.C. sections 6901 through 69921c 21 34 On information and belief PG and E alleges that Defendants LANGE, John P. 22 Crowston, Rebecca Crowston, and DOES THIRTY.-ONE TO SIXTY failed to satisfy their 23 obligations under Order No. 99-709 issued by the Board, or aided and abetted in that failure. 24 Order No. 99-709 is a "permit, standard, regulation, condition, requirement, prohibition or order" 25 under RCRA within the meaning of Section 6972(a)(1)(A),. 26 35. As a separate and independent basis for relief, on information and belief PG and E 27 alleges that The Defendants have failed to satisfy their mandatory obligations under 23 C C R. 28 Sections 2720 et seq. which holds that the following Responsible Party is required to address COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND SF/166743 5/DJB -9-INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9I discharges, releases, and spills such as those upon or about the SHELL/LANCE Midway facility: 2 "(1) Any person who owns or operates an underground storage tank used for the storage of any 3 hazardous substance; (2) In the case of any underground storage tank no longer in use, any person 4 who owned or operated the underground storage tank immediately before the discontinuation of 5 its use; (3) Any owner of property where an unauthorized release of a hazardous substance from 6 an underground storage tank has occurred; and (4) Any person who had or has control over a 7 underground storage tank at the time of or following an unauthorized release of a hazardous 8 substance." 23 C.C R.. Sections 2720 et seq. are a "permit, standard, regulation, condition, 9 requirement, prohibition or order" under RCRA within the meaning of Section 6972(a)(l)(A). 10 The chemicals at issues herein are hazardous substances within the meaning of 23 C-C,R. 11 Sections 2720 et seq 0 12 36. As a separate and independent basis for relief, on information and belief PG and E 0 Q, 6 v U 13 alleges that the disposal of petroleum products, including without limitation BTEX and MTBE, at 14 SHELL's/LANGE's facility constitutes the creation of an unlicensed hazardous waste treatment, 15 storage and disposal ("TSD") facility in violation of state and federal law. Defendants SHELL, 16 LANGE, John P-Crowston, Rebecca Crowston, and DOES THIRTY-ONE TO SIXTY currently 17 lack and have lacked in the past the requisite federal permits required by 42 US.C. Section 6925 18 and 40 C.F.R. Sections 270.1 et seq. Defendants SHELL, LANGE, John P. Crowston, Rebecca 19 Crowston, and DOES THIRTY-ONE TO SIXTY also lacked any state permit even though their 20 business was not exempt from having a state permit. Sections 25200 et seq. H.&S,C.; 22 C.C.R 21 Section 66270.1. 42 U.SC. Section 6925, 40 C.F.R. Sections 270.1 et seq.., Sections 25200 et 22 seq H.&S.C., and 22 C.C.R_ Section 66270.1 are a "permit, standard, regulation, condition, 23 requirement, prohibition or order" under RCRA within the meaning of Section 6972(a)(I)(A). 24 37. The release and discharge of the SHELL petroleum hydrocarbons stored at the 25 Midway facility constitutes a disposal of both a hazardous and a solid waste as contemplated by 26 R.CRA section 6903(3), (5)(B) and (27) 27 38. PG and E therefore seeks injunctive relief in the form of an order compelling the 28 full compliance with Board Order 99-709 and 23 C CR. Sections 2720 et seq, by ordering The COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND SF/166743 5/DJ13 -10-INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9I Defendants to take such measures as are necessary to remove the nuisance posed by the presence 2 of contaminants in the soil and groundwater underlying the Midway properties of LANGE and 3 PG and E and remediate forthwith the impacted groundwater beneath and about these properties. 4 Further, PG and E seeks injunctive relief in the form of an order compelling Defendants SHELL, 5 LANGE, John P. Crowston, Rebecca Ciowston, Jesse M. Lange, Cleo L. Lange, Elizabeth Avery 6 and DOES THIRTY-ONE TO SIXTY to take such measures as are necessary to remove the 7 nuisance posed by the presence of contaminants in the soil and groundwater underlying the 8 Midway properties of LANGE and PG and E and remediate forthwith the impacted soil of and groundwater beneath and about these properties that arise fom the illegal and unlicensed TSD facility which they have created. 39.. PG and E seeks an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in the pursuit of this action pursuant to 42 U S.C. § 6972(e). 13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Proposition 65 -Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 Against Defendants 14 LANGE, SHELL, Center Land Co., Inc., and Center Land Co. of Texas, Inc..) 15 40. PG and E incorporates herein as if stated in full Paragraphs 1 through 31 of this 16 Complaint. 17 41, On information and belief PG and E alleges that LANGE, SHELL, Center Land 18 Co., Inc., and Center Land Co. of Texas, Inc., are businesses that employ ten or more people.. 19 42.. Section 25249..5 of the California Health and Safety Code prohibits the knowing 20 discharge of any chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive 21 toxicity into water or onto or into land where such chemical passes or probably will pass into any 22 source of drinking water 23 43.. On information and belief PG and E alleges that on or before 1995, Defendants 24 LANGE, SHELL., Center Land Co , Inc., and Center Land Co of Texas, Inc. knowingly and 25 continuously have discharged and released petroleum products into the soil of the 26 SHELL/LANCE Midway facility where these products are migrating and have migrated through 27 the groundwater and into the soil underlying PG and E's Midway property. The discharged and 28 released petroleum products contain chemicals know to the State of California to cause cancer COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND SF/1t 6743 5/DJB ° 11 -INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9I and/or reproductive harm. These chemicals include, but are not limited to, benzene, toluene, and 2 ethylbenzene 3 44.. By the above described acts Defendants LANGE, SHELL, Center Land Co., Inc., 4 and Center Land Co. of Texas, Inc_ are liable pursuant to Section 25249.7(b) for a civil penalty of 5 $2,500 per day as a result of the discharge and release of said chemicals into the soil and 6 groundwater underlying the SHELL/LANGE Midway facility. PG and E requests an award of 7 25% of all such penalties pursuant to Section 25192 of the California Health & Safety Code 8 45. PG and E hereby seeks injunctive relief pursuant to Section 25249.7(a) of the 9 California Health and Safety Code in the form of an order that Defendants LANGE, SHELL, aU Center Land Co , Inc , and Center Land Co of Texas, Inc.. cease all discharges and releases of chemicals known by the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity, and undertake and affect the immediate characterization and remediation of all such past and present discharges and releases., 14 THM CAUSE OF ACTION 15 (Continuing Public Nuisance Against The Defendants) 16 46. PG and E incorporates herein as if stated in full Paragraphs I through 31 of this 17 Complaint. 18 47. In discharging petroleum products into the soil and groundwater underlying the 19 SHELL/LANGE Midway facility The Defendants have created a condition that is harmful to 20 health, offensive to the senses, and an obstruction to the free use and enjoyment of property.. The 21 Defendants' conduct was unreasonable. 22 48. The pollution created or abetted by The Defendants not only adversely impacts PG 23 and E but also the People of the State of California who own all groundwater, including that 24 underlying SHELL's/LANGE's Midway facility and PG and E's Midway property, pursuant to 25 §§ 102 and 104 Water Code. 26 49.. The seriousness of the resulting harm outweighs the social utility of The 27 Defendants' conduct 28 50. PG and E's injury is separate and distinct from that of the public because COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND SF1166743 5/D!B -12 -. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9I contaminants migrating in groundwater have both migrated to the groundwater beneath PG and 2 E's property and have escaped and volatized into the soil of PG and E's property, and separately 3 and independently because PG and E has expended monies to characterize the contamination and 4 oversee the investigative work undertaken by LANGE_ 5 51 The pollution causing the continuing nuisance can be abated at a reasonable cost 6 52. PG and E has not consented to the discharge of contaminants into the soil and 7 groundwater underlying SHELL's/LANGE's facility, nor to the migration of'said contaminants to 8 the groundwater or soil beneath its property. a 9 53. As a proximate cause of the continuing nuisance created by The Defendants, PG 10 and E has incurred costs and suffered damages, and will continue to incur costs and suffer I1 damages until the soil and groundwater underlying SHELL's/LANGE's Midway facility and PG 12 and E's Midway property are remediated. 13 54. PG and E seeks injunctive relief requiring The Defendants to immediately cease 14 all releases and discharges and forthwith remediate the contamination. The continued 15 commission and omissions of the alleged acts by The Defendants will irreparably harm PG and E.. 16 PG and E has no speedy or adequate remedy at law for this irreparable harm. 17 55. Because PG and E is in part benefiting the People of the State of California by 18 seeking remediation of groundwater owned by the People, PG and E requests its attorney's fees 19 pursuant to Section 1021,5 C C? 20 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 21 (Continuing Public Nuisance Per Se Against The Defendants) 22 56, PG and E incorporates herein as if stated in full Paragraphs I through 31 of this 23 Complaint. 24 57. On information and belief, PG and E alleges that as a result of the acts and 25 omissions of The Defendants the soil and groundwater underlying PG and E's Midway property 26 and SHELL's/LANGE's Midway facility are contaminated. 27 58.. The presence of environmental contaminants in the soil and groundwater 28 underlying PG and E's Midway property and SHELL's/LANGE's Midway facility constitutes a COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND SF/166143 5IDJB -13 -INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c91 continuing public nuisance, as noted in the Third Cause of Action, above 2 59.. PG and E's injury is separate and distinct fom that of the public because 3 contaminants migrating in groundwater have both moved to the groundwater beneath PG and E's 4 property and have escaped and volatized into the soil of PG and E's property, and separately and 5 independently because PG and E has expended monies to characterize the contamination and 6 oversee the investigative work undertaken by LANGE.. 7 60. The failure of Defendants LANGE, John P Crowston, and Rebecca Crowston to 8 comply with the terms of Order No. 99-709, or to aid and abet in the failure to comply therewith, '> 9 constitutes a violation of the California Water Code and renders the resulting contamination of vc 10 the groundwater underlying PG and E's Midway property and SHELL's/LANGE's Midway v ro C 11 facility a continuing public nuisance per se. coQo 12 61. As a separate and independent basis for this cause of action, the failure of The O ° C 13 Defendants to comply with their mandatory obligations pursuant to 23 CC.R Sections 2720 et -C U. 14 seq., as noted herein, constitutes a violation of the California Water Code and the California Qj a, Q 15 Health & Safety Code and renders the resulting contamination of the groundwater underlying and V) 0) 16 about PG and E's Midway property and SHELL's/LANGE's Midway facility a continuing public Q017 nuisance per se. rV 18 62. As a separate and independent basis for this cause of action, the creation of an 19 unlicensed TSD facility in violation of state and federal law by Defendants SHELL, LANGE, 20 John P. Crowston, Rebecca Crowston, and DOES THIRTY-ONE TO SIXTY renders the 21 resulting contamination of the soil at SHELL's/LANGE's Midway facility and the groundwater 22 underlying and about PG and E's Midway property and SHELL's/LANGE's Midway facility a 23 continuing public nuisance per se. 24 6.3 The public nuisance condition created by The Defendants can be abated at a 25 reasonable cost. 26 64, As a proximate cause of the continuing public nuisance created by The 27 Defendants, PG and E has incurred costs and suffered damages, and will continue to incur costs 28 and suffer damages until the soil and groundwater underlying SHELL's/LANGE's Midway COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND sF/166743 5r0JB -14-INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9I facility and PG and E's Midway property are remediated. 2 65.. PG and E seeks injunctive relief requiring The Defendants to immediately cease 3 all discharges and releases and forthwith remediate the contamination. The continued 4 commission and omissions of the alleged acts by The Defendants will irreparably harm PG and E. 5 PG and E has no speedy or adequate remedy at law for this irreparable harm. 6 66. Because PG and E is in part benefting the People of the State of California by 7 seeking remediation of groundwater owned by the People, PG and E requests its attorney's fees 8 pursuant to Section 1021 5 C C P. 9 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 10 (Continuing Private Nuisance Against The Defendants) vCo 11 67-PG and E incorporates herein as if stated in full Paragraphs 1 through 31 of this L P0 0 12 Complaint = E 0 13 68. On information and belief, PG and E alleges that as a result of the acts and iCU. .SG1 v ^ TN 14 omissions of The Defendants the soil and groundwater underlying PG and E's Midway property ? -0 15 and SHELL's/LANGE's Midway facility is now contaminated. 69. The presence of environmental contaminants in the soil and groundwater underlying PG and E's Midway property and SHELL'S/LANGE's Midway facility constitutes a 18 continuing nuisance in that it is injurious to health, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an 19 obstruction to the free use of property so as to interfere with te comfortable enjoyment of life or 20 property. 21 70 The nuisance created by The Defendants is substantial and unreasonably interferes 22 with PG and E's use and enjoyment of its Midway property, 23 71, PG and E's injury is separate and distinct from that of the public because 24 contaminants migrating in groundwater have both moved to the groundwater beneath PG and E's 25 property and have escaped into the soil of PG and E's property, and separately and independently 26 because PG and E has expended monies to characterize the contamination and oversee the 27 investigative work undertaken by LANGE. 28 72.. The nuisance condition created by The Defendants can be abated at a reasonable COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND SFl166743 5lDlE3 -15 -IN3'C.INCTIVE RELIEF Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9I cost. 2 73.. As a proximate cause of the continuing nuisance created by The Defendants, PG 3 and E has incurred costs and suffered damages, and will continue to incur costs and suffer 4 damages until the soil and groundwater underlying SHELL's/LANGE's Midway facility and PG 5 and E's Midway property ate. remediated, 6 74. PG and E seeks injunctive relief requiring The Defendants to immediately cease 7 all discharges and releases and forthwith remediate the contamination. The continued 8 commission and omissions of the alleged acts by The Defendants will irreparably harm PG and E.. a 9 PG and E has no speedy or adequate remedy at law for this irreparable harm. v 10 75. Because PG and E is in part benefiting the People of the State of California by VMC 11 seeking remediation of groundwater owned by the People, PG and E requests its attorney's fees C a o 12 pursuant to Section 1021.5 C..C.P. ..C 4 u OV 13 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION -CcL LA°NC 14 (Continuing Trespass Against The Defendants) 15 76. PG and E incorporates herein as if stated in full Paragraphs 1 through 31 of this 16 Complaint. a0 -17 77 The Defendants have no lawful right, authority or consent to dispose or cause the 18 disposal of petroleum products into the soil and groundwater underlying SHELL's/LANGE's 19 Midway facility and into the soil of and groundwater beneath PG and E's Midway property.. 20 78.. The Defendants, by their wrongful disposal of pollutants into the soil and 21 groundwater underlying SHELL's/LANGE's facility and PG and E's Midway property, and their 22 subsequent continued refusal to promptly and timely remove the pollutants, have unlawfully 23 interfered and continue to interfere with PG and E's exercise of its lawful property rights. 24 79. The pollution caused by the continuing trespass can be abated at a reasonable cost. 25 80. As a proximate cause of The Defendants' trespass, PG and E has incurred costs 26 and suffered damages, and will continue to incur costs and suffer damages until the pollution 27 discharged and released into the soil and groundwater underlying SHELL's/LANGE's facility 28 and PG and E's Midway property is remediated, COMPLAINT FOR. DAMAGES AND SF/166743 5/DJB 16-INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9i 81. PG and E seeks injunctive relief requiring The Defendants to immediately cease 2 all discharges and forthwith remediate the contamination.. The continued commission and 3 omissions of the alleged acts by The Defendants will irreparably harm PG and E. PG and E has 4 no speedy or adequate Remedy at law for this irreparable harm 5 82.. Because PG and E is in part benefiting the People of the State of California by 6 seeking rernediation of groundwater owned by the People, PG and E requests its attorney's fees 7 pursuant to Section 1021.5 C..C P. 8 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 9 (Negligence Per Se Against The Defendants) c 10 83.. PG and E incorporates herein as if stated in full Paragraphs 1 through 31, 34, 35 a) co C 11 and 36 of this Complaint-Lv Oo Z ra p 12 84. At all times The Defendants had a duty to conduct the operations of o u " 13 ti9 SHELL's/LANGE's facility or to oversee the activities of their tenants in such a manner so as to C u. aj C-14 avoid the disposal or release of petroleum products into the soil and groundwater. M, 2 Q 15 85.. The Defendants knew or should have known that petroleum products were being 4 16 released, discharged and disposed of in the soil and groundwater underlying LANGE's Midway Q) facility i8 86. The Defendants also had a duty to respond to the resulting contamination and a 19 duty to prevent the further spread or migration of the discharged petroleum products. 20 87. The Defendants failed to satisfy their duties, including without limitation those 21 duties required of them as set forth in Paragraphs Number 28, 34, 35 and 36 above. 22 88. By their acts and omissions, The Defendants also violated California Health and 23 Safety Code Section 5411 which states: "[n]o person shall discharge sewage or other waste, or 24 the effluent of treated sewage or other waste, in any manner which would result in contamination, 25 pollution or a nuisance." 26 89. By their acts and omissions, The Defendants have also violated California Water 27 Code Sections 13:304 and 13350 which prohibited LANGE, SHELL and the Other Defendants 28 from causing pollution to the groundwater underlying SHELL's/LANGE's Midway facility and COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND SF/1G5743 5103B -17 -INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c91 requires them to take timely action to respond to the pollution they have caused-2 90. PG and E is among the class of entities for whom the statutes The Defendants 3 violated were intended to protect. 4 91. The damages suffered by PG and E are a result of the statutory violations of The 5 Defendants and the statutes in question were intended to protect against the type of harm that PG 6 and E has suffered 7 92.. As a proximate cause of The Defendants' statutory and regulator, violations, PG 8 and E has incurred costs and suffered damages, and will continue to incur costs and suffer >, 9 damages until the contaminants discharged into the soil and groundwater underlying aU 10 SHELL's/LANGE's facility and PG and E's Midway property are remediated. aJ °?C 11 93.. PG and E seeks injunctive relief requiring The Defendants to immediately cease L o Cap 12 all discharges and releases and forthwith remediate the contamination.. The continued C Ep u 0 Up 13 commission and omissions of the alleged acts by The Defendants will irreparably harm PG and E. -Cro Ue. 0 C 14 PG and E has no speedy or adequate remedy at law for this irreparable harm. W 15 94.. Because PG and E is in part benefiting the People of the State of California by QJ 16 seeking remediation of groundwater owned by the People, PG and E requests its attorney's fees Qc° 17 pursuant to Section 1021.5 C.C..P. 18 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 19 (Breach of Contract Against LANGE) 20 95. PG and E incorporates herein as if stated in full Paragraphs 1 through 31 of this 21 Complaint. 22 96.. On or about October 6, 2003, LANGE and PG and E entered into a Licensing 23 Agreement (the "Agreement") to facilitate LANGE's investigation and remediation of the 24 environmental contamination of the soil and groundwater resulting from SHELL's and LANGE's 25 discharge of petroleum hydrocarbons at their Midway facility. The Agreement is set forth as 26 Exhibit B. 27 97. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, in exchange for access to PG and E's 28 Midway property for the purpose of installing monitoring wells and obtaining environmental COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND SF/166743 5/DJB -18-INNNCTIVE REL IEF Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9I samples of soil and groundwater, LANGE agreed to reimburse PG and E for the costs incurred by 2 PG and E to have its employees assigned to observe the on-site actions of LANGE's consultants 3 98. To date, LANGE has failed to reimburse any of the costs incurred by PG and E as 4 contemplated by the Agreement. 5 99. LANGE's conduct constitutes a breach of the Agreement. 6 100, Asa proximate result of LANGE's breach of the Agreement, PG and F. has 7 suffered damages in the form of costs incurred that have not been reimbursed.. 8 101, Therefore, PG and E seeks an order that LANGE perform its obligations under the a 9 Agreement and reimburse PG and E for the costs incurred by PG and E employees observing the Q) C 10 on-site activities of LANGE'S consultants. a) rn iI NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION X23 (Violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seg. Against The O 0 12 Defendants) .C a u °U0" 13 102 PG and E incorporates herein as if stated in full Paragraphs I through 101 of this C u. v p C CU ?.? 14 Complaint. ' o 15 103. By their release and disposal of SHELL petroleum products into the soil and a, 16 groundwater underlying SHELL's/LANGE's facility and contamination of PG and E's Midway cr. r° 17 property, and their failure to timely and properly respond to this contamination, The Defendants 18 have violated California Health and Safety Code Section 5411, Water Code Sections 13304 and 19 13350, Civil Code Section .3479, Health & Safety Code Section 25249.5, and 23 C.C.R. Sections 20 2720 et seq. By their failure to carry out Order No. 99-709 and the requirements of 23 C-C.R. 21 Sections 2720 et seq., The Defendants have violated 42 U.S.C § 6972(a)(1)(A). By their failure 22 to license the TSD facility which they have created, Defendants SHELL, LANGE, John P. 23 Crowston, Rebecca Crowston, and DOES THIRTY-ONE TO SIXTY have violated state and 24 federal law, as noted herein. 25 104.. An action for injunctive relief and restitution under the Unfair Competition Act is 26 specifcally authorized by Sections 17203 and 17204 of the California Business and Professions 27 Code. PG and E seeks injunctive relief requiring The Defendants to immediately cease all 28 discharges and releases and forthwith remediate the contamination. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND SF1166743 5/Dl8 _19-nh7UNCTIVE RELIEF Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9I 105, In addition, PG and E, in bringing this action, acts within the public interest for the 2 protection of the citizens of California by seeking injunctive relief for the purpose of preventing 3 The Defendants from discharging and releasing contaminants, polluting soil and groundwater, 4 and failing to remediate their contamination. As such PG and E requests its attorney's fees 5 pursuant to Section 1021.5 C C.P.. 6 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 7 (Defective Product Against Defendant SHELL Oil Co) 8 106.. PG and E incorporates herein as if stated in full Paragraphs I through 94 of this 9 Complaint. 10 107.. On information and belief PG and E alleges that SHELL manufactured the Q) ca 11 petroleum hydrocarbon products sold to, stored at, and distributed from the Midway facility 1-6 o co 12 108. Said petroleum hydrocarbon products were defective at the time of manufacture 4¢ O 3 V t 13 because they contained Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("MTBE"). C U -D H " r 14 109. The presence of MTBE rendered SHELL's petroleum hydrocarbon products Q) ?C o 15 defective at the time they left SHELL's possession L-16 110. LANGE and the Other Defendants used SHELL's defective products in a manner 17 that was reasonably foreseeable by SHELL. 111. As a result of the foreseeable use of'SHELL's defective product by LANGE and the Other Defendants, MTBE entered the soil and groundwater underlying the 11226 Midway property and the groundwater underlying the 11239 Midway property. 112. MTBE is an environmental contaminant of great concern to environmental regulatory agencies because of its toxic properties and its ability to move rapidly through groundwater.. 24 113 As a proximate result of SHELL having provided its defective products to the 25 LANGE's facility, PG and E has suffered harm in the form of the presence of hazardous 26 environmental contaminants, including MTBE, within the soil of and groundwater underlying PG 27 and E's Midway property. Further, the public has suffered in that groundwater which is the 28 property of the People of the State of California has been adversely impacted.. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND SF/166743 S/DIB -20-INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9I 114. . The presence of MTBE in SHELL'S petroleum hydrocarbon products sold to, 2 stored at, and distributed from the 11226 Midway facility have been a substantial factor in 3 causing the harm suffered by PG and E and the People of the State of California. 4 115. Because PG and E is in part benefting the People of the State of California by 5 seeking remediation of groundwater owned by the People, PG and E requests its attorney's fees 6 pursuant to Section 1021.5 C.C.P. 7 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Relief Against The Defendants Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and California Code of 8 Civil Procedure Section 1060) a 9 116. PG and E incorporates herein as if stated in full Paragraphs I through 115 of this aJ 10 Complaint.. a) °D C 11 117. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between PG and E and The C 00 Q 12 Defendants concerning their respective rights and duties in that PG and E contends that The "UCru 13 Defendants are responsible for obeying orders of the Board, halting all discharges and releases of C 4 ' 14 contaminants, immediately engaging in remedial activities to clean-up the soil and groundwater 15 contamination which PG and E contends they have created, reimbursing PG and E for its past 16 costs, compensating PG and E for its damages and losses; and paying any and all costs, fnes, and penalties imposed on PG and E or any other third party as a result of the contamination, In 18 contrast The Defendants dispute these contentions and contend that they have no duty to obey the 19 orders of the Board, halt discharges and releases, remediate the contamination, reimburse PG and 20 L for its past costs, compensate PG and E for its damages and losses, or pay any costs, fines, and 21 penalties imposed on PG and E or any other third party as a result of the contamination.. 22 118. PG and E desires a judicial determination of its rights and duties, and a declaration 23 as to the liability of The Defendants to obey the orders of the Board, halt discharges and releases, 24 remediate the contamination, reimburse PG and E for its past costs, compensate PG and E for its 25 damages and losses, and pay any and all costs, fines, and penalties imposed on PG and E or any 26 other third party as a result of the contamination.. 27 119. . A judicial determination is appropriate and necessary at this time under the 28 circumstances in order that PG and E may ascertain its rights and duties, be relieved of the COMPL.ArNT FOR DAMAGES AND SF/166743 5/DJB -21 -INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9financial and other burdens as set forth herein, and receive compensation for the detriment and damages noted.. 120.. Further, PG and E seeks injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S,C. § 2202 and §§ 525 4 et seq. CC.P PG and E seeks injunctive relief requiring The Defendants to immediately obey the 5 Board's order, and to further cease all discharges and releases and forthwith characterize and 6 remediate the contamination. 7 121. In addition, PG and E, in bringing this action, acts within the public interest for the 8 protection of the citizens of California by seeking injunctive relief for the purpose of preventing 9 The Defendants from discharging contaminants, polluting soil and groundwater, and failing to 10 characterize and rerediate their contamination. As such PG and E requests its attorney's fees II pursuant to Section 1021.5 C.C.P and 42 U S.C, § 6972(e).. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 13 Wherefore, PG and E prays for relief against The Defendant as follows: 14 I.. With respect to the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth 15 and Eleventh Causes of Action PG and E seeks an Order compelling The Defendants' full v 16 compliance with Board Order 99=709 and their obligations under 2.3 C..C.R. Sections 2720 et seq., n017 and an order that The Defendants immediately take such measures as are necessary to 18 immediately remove the nuisance posed by the presence of hazardous and solid wastes in the soil 19 and groundwater underlying and about the SHELL/LANGE Midway facility and PG and E 20 property-21 2. With respect to the Second and Ninth Causes of Action PG and E seeks an order 22 prohibiting all further discharges and releases of chemicals known to the State of California to 23 cause cancer and/or reproductive toxicity, and requiring LANGE, SHELL, Center Land Co, Inc.. 24 and Center Land Co. of Texas, Inc. to immediately remediate the contamination that has been 25 caused by their acts and omissions. Further PG and E seeks the imposition of a civil penalty in 26 the amount of $2,500 per day for each day of discharge and/or release of chemicals for a period of 27 four years. Finally, PG and E seeks an order requiring disgorgement of all monies saved by 28 LANCE, SHELL, Center Land Co., Inc, and Center Land Co. of Texas, Inc.. by using PG and E's COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND SH166743 5/DJB -22-INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9I Midway property and the groundwater of the State of California as a disposal site for their wastes. 2 3. With respect to the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eleventh Causes of 3 Action PG and E seeks a determination that The Defendants are responsible and liable for all 4 necessary costs incurred and to be incurred in cleaning up the soil of and groundwater underlying 5 SHELL's/LANGE's Midway facility, the soil and groundwater of PG and E's Midway property, 6 and the groundwater about these properties as a result of the presence of substances released as a 7 result of operations at the SHELL/LANGE facility, and for compensation for all damages 8 suffered by PG and E according to proof.. 9 4 With respect to the Eighth Cause of Action PG and E seeks an order compelling 10 LANGE's full compliance with the terms of the License Agreement and the reimbursement of all II PG and E employee time consumed in observing the on-site activities of LANGE's consultants 12 conducted pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. 13 5. With respect to the Tenth and Eleventh Causes of Action PG and E seeks a 14 determination that SHELL is responsible and liable for all necessary costs to be incurred in 15 cleaning up the soil and groundwater underlying SHELL's/LANGE's Midway facility, the soil 16 and groundwater underlying PG and E's Midway property, and the groundwater about Q the 17 properties as a result of the presence of SHELL's defective product, for compensation for all 18 damages suffered by PG and E according to proof, and for an Order requiring SHELL to 19 immediately remediate all contaminants that have impacted groundwater and soil. 20 6.. With respect to the Eleventh Cause of Action, PG and E seeks a declaration that 21 The Defendants are both liable and obligated to immediately characterize and remediate the 22 contamination, and are responsible for any and all costs, fines, and penalties imposed on PG and 23 E or any other third party as a result of the contamination. 24 7. With respect to the First and Eleventh Causes of Action, PG and E seeks an award 25 of its attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 6972(e).. 26 8 With respect to the Third through Seventh and Ninth through Eleventh Causes of 27 Action, PG and E seeks an award of its attorney's fees pursuant to Section 1021.5 C C.P. for 28 providing a public benefit in causing groundwater of the State of California to be remediated. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND SFI166743 5IDIB -23-INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c91 9-With respect to the Second Cause of Action, pursuant to Section 25192 of the 2 California Health & Safety Code PG and E seeks an award of 25% of any penalty unposed.. 3 10, For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. 45 Dated: June 13, 2005 ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY 67 By: A-THOMAS H. CLARICE, JR.. 8 DENNIS I. BYRNE Attorneys for Plaintiff 9 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 10 COMPANY co C I1 0 0 12 J 4 v Ov 13 CU. O C ^, W 14 1T O 15 L '16 nX0 17 f 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPL-ArNT FOR DAMAGES AND SF1166743 51DJa -24-INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9I EXHIBIT A: 2 NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANTS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 3456789 Q) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND SF/166743 SIDJB -25-INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9SAN FRANCISCO 333 Market Street A W Y E R I Los Angeles Suite 3150 New York San Francisco CA 94105 kt\AKB Redwood City Telephone (415) 543-4800 I O7I II M.II III -011 I, I [ 11 11I 7 San Jose Facsimile {415) 274-6301 www ropers com THOMAS H, CLARKE, JR TCLARKE@ROPERS COIA (415) 274.6387 VIA REGISTERED MAIL (RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED) OR. VIA PERSONAL SERVICE NOTICE OF INTENT PURSUANT TO RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (42 U.S.C. SECTION 6972(a)(1)(A)) AND SECTIONS 25249.5 & 25249.7(d) CALIFORNIA HEALTH & SAFETY CODE March 14, 2005 John P. Crowston, President Catherine A. Lamboley Jesse M. Lange Distributor, Inc. Sr. V.P. & General Counsel 11226 Midway Shell Oil Co. Chico, CA 95928 1Shell Plaza, 910 Louisana St. Houston, TX 77002 John P.. Crowston Rebecca L, Crowston 988 Palmetto Ave. 988 Palmetto Ave. Chico,.CA 95926-4029 Chico, CA 95926-4029 Jesse M Lange Cleo L. Lange 830 Toyon Way 8.30 Toyon Way Chico, CA 95926-4035 Chico, CA 95926-4035 Elizabeth N. Avery Michael R. Curry 114 Terrace Dr. 113 S.E. Citadel Dr. Chico, CA 95926-1509 Lees Summit, MO 64063-3630 President President Center Land Co., Inc. Center Land Co. of Texas, Inc. 5100 Underwood Rd_ 113 S.E. Citadel Dr. Pasadena, TX 77507 Lees Summit, MO 64063-3630 President President Center Land Co. of Texas, Inc. Center Land Co , Inc.. 5100 Underwood Rd. 113 S.E, Citadel Dr-Pasadena, TX 77507 Lees Summit, MO 64063-3630 SF/179739 I/THC Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9kL .t\/n\KBw r r A I ' O t 1 t i -L i t , 9 0 " . . t t P t!( Page 2 Notice Pursuant to RCRA & Proposition 65 Cleo L. Lange, JTerussstee eMarlin Lange T83ru0s Ttsoyon Way Chico, CA 95926-4035 With copies to: Administrator Regional Administrator U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AGENCY, Region 9 401 M Street, S.W. 75 Hawthorne Washington, D. Street C. 20460 San Francisco, CA 94105 Secretary U.S. Attorney General CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL 10 Constitution Boulevard, N, W, PROTECTION AGENCY Washington, D,C. 20530 10011 SSat.cramento, CA 95814 Executive Director Chair CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC CALIFORNIA STATE WATER SUBSTANCES CONTROL RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD 10011 St. 901 P Sacramento, CA Street 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 Executive Offcer Chairman and Executive REGIONAL WATER QUALITY Director CONTROL CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE BOARD MANAGEMENT BOARD 11020 Sun Center Dr., Suite 200 10011 St. Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-6114 Sacramento, CA 95814 Attorney General Duty Officer CALIFORNIA STATE ATTORNEY Department of Toxic Substances GENERAL'S OFFICE CSaocnrtaroml ento Regional 1300 1 Office St. 8800 Cal Center Sacramento, CA Drive 95814 Sacramento, CA 95826-3268 Michael L. Ramsey Principal WRCE Butte County District Attorney Regional Water Quality Control 655 Oleander Board Avenue 415 Knollcrest Dr., Suite Chico, CA. 100 95926 Redding, CA 96002 SFJ179739 lrrHC Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9I?MKB ? O I I I I U I I I R I IONM III.1 1fr Notice Pursuant to RCRA & Proposition 65 Page 3 Ms. Karen CIementsen Mr. Eric Rapport Regional Water Quality Control Board Regional Water Quality Control Board 415 Knollcrest Dr., Suite 100 415 Knollcrest Dr., Suite 1 00 Redding, CA 96002 Redding, CA 96002 Re: Jesse M. Lange Distributor Inc. 11226 Midway, Chico, California 95928-8219 42 U S.C. §6972(a)(I)(A) and Proposition 65 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that 60 afer the date of this notice, PACIFIC GAS and ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California corporation (hereinafer "PG and E"), owner of real property commonly known as 11239 Midway, Chico, California, intends to fle suit under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act ("RCRA"), 42 U S.C. Section 6972(a)(1)(A), against Jesse M. Lange Distributor, Inc.., John P., Crowston, Rebecca Crowston, Jesse M. Lange, LCalenog eL,. Elizabeth Avery, Jesse Marlin Lange Trusts, Center Land Co., Inc., Center Land Co. of Texas, Inc., Michael R, Curry, and Shell Oil Co. (hereinafter collectively referred to as "The Owner/Operator"). This matter arises from the release of gasoline, including MTBE and BTEX, which have been found in the soil and groundwater on and about the tank farm of Jesse M. Lange Distributor at 11226 Midway, Chico, California ("The Contamination"). The Contamination at 11226 Midway, Chico, California ("The Site") has impacted soil at and groundwater beneath The Site, and groundwater beneath and about the property of PG and E. The Contamination also threatens the benefcial uses of the groundwater and the natural resources beneath and about The Site PG and E is informed and believes that The Owner/Operator has owned and operated, at all times relevant, either a tank farm located at The Site or held title to the real property upon which the tank farm is located, or both. The operation of the business has caused releases into the environment that have migrated through the soil profle and into the groundwater on and about The Site; these releases are continuing as of the date of this notice.. PG and E is informed and believes that The Owner/Operator engaged in improper storage, use and disposal activities at The Site that allowed the release to occur Further, PG and E is informed and believes that The Owner/Operator failed to properly construct and maintain its facilities such that releases could occur without being prevented from impacting the environment.. Additionally, PG and E is informed and believes that The Owner/Operator has undertaken neither timely nor appropriate site characterization and closure activities, nor has The Owner/Operator characterized or remedied any contaminant releases or discharges which may have occurred and adversely impacted the soil and groundwater of The Site, or the soil or groundwater of its neighbors, or the groundwater of the State of California (which under state SF/179739 RING Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9kL /\AAKBW Y E R S t 0 , I t I ..,1 $, t O n 11 04. 1 1 1 1 Notice Pursuant to RCRA & Proposition 65 Page 4 law is owned by the People of the State of California) These failures are in violation of the mandatory duties of The Owner/Operator under 23 C.C.R. Sections 2720 et seq,; 23 C C.R. Sections 2720 et seq_ are a "permit, standard, regulation, condition, requirement, prohibition or order" under RCRA within the meaning of Section 6972(a)(1)(A). The full and complete extent of these releases and discharges has not yet been determined because of The Owner/Operator's unreasonable and invalid refusal to undertake appropriate characterization activities. Additionally, in 1999, the Regional Water Quality Control Board ("Board") issued to Jesse M. Lange Distributor, Inc. ("LANGE") Cleanup and Abatement Order No.. 99-709. Pursuant to the terms of this Order LANGE is required to determine the full extent of environmental contamination associated with operations conducted at The Site and implement an raepmpreodpiraial tsetrategy for addressing the contamination so defned-LANGE has failed to fulfll the terms of this Order. Specifically, neither LANGE nor any of the other entities noted in this Notice have initiated or completed any of the following activities by the deadline set by the Board, nor have they completed any of these activities as of the date of this Notice: o Workplan for soil vapor extraction and vacuum enhanced groundwater pump-andtreat. ¦ Obtain permits. Should have been completed within 25 days of August 13, 2003.. ¦ Well installation and trenching. Should have been completed within 15 days of September 17, 2003. ¦ Treatment system installed Should have been completed within 15 days of October 8, 2003, ¦ Pilot testing of system. Should have been completed within 60 days of October 29, 2003. ¦ Preparation of remedial action plan Should have been completed within 20 days of January 21, 2004. o Workplan for in-situ chemical oxidation and bioaugmentation pilot studies, and investigation of the intermediate zone aquifer ¦ Project set-up. Should have been completed within 70 days of July 16, 2003 ¦ Chemical oxidation pilot study-Should have been completed within 68 days of ..June 6, 2003. SF/179739 1/THC Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9n W Y E a $I.MKB t b l l t l -1 11 , , I O M . t l. t" I, Notice Pursuant to RCRA & Proposition 65 Page 5 Y Bioaugmentation pilot study. Should have been completed within 255 days of July 16, 2003, a Intermediate zone investigation. Should have been completed within 150 days of July 16, 2003. C Report of findings. Should have been completed within 28 days of July 7, 2004. Order No. 99709 is a "permit, standard, regulation, condition, requirement, prohibition or order" under RCRA within the meaning of Section 6972(a)(1)(A)-On information and belief PG AND E avers that John and Rebecca Crowston, Jesse and Cleo Lange, Elizabeth Avery, the Jesse Marlin Lange Trusts, Center Land Co.., Inc., Center Land Co. of Texas, Inc,, Michael R.. Curry, and Shell Oil Co.. have aided and abetted in the refusal of Jesse M. Lange Distributor Inc. to obey Board Order 99-709. Accordingly, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(A), PG and E will seek judgment requiring The Owner/Operator to undertake all characterization and remedial activities required by Board Order 99-709 and 23 C.C R. Sections 2720 et seq. In addition, PG and E will seek an injunction pursuant to state and Federal law ordering The Owner/Operator to undertake all further characterization and remediation activities necessary concerning any soil or groundwater contamination at, on, beneath and about The Site. The Owner/Operator and the federal, state and local governmental entities noticed above are hereby placed on written notice of PG and E's intention to commence suit upon this matter. PG and E's action will seek all statutory, equitable and common law remedies available against The Owner/Operator, including but not limited to those available pursuant to RCRA. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that 60 days after the date of this notice, PG and E intends to file suit under California Health & Safety Code §§ 25249.5 & 25249.7(d), against The Owner/Operator. The Contamination at The Site has already impacted groundwater, thereby threatening public sources of drinking water. The following Proposition 65 listed substances have been released from The Site: o Benzene (CAS# 714.32) o Toluene (CAS# 108883) o Ethylbenzene (CAS # 100414) The impacted groundwater is located immediately beneath and about The Site. Pursuant to State Water Resource Control Board Resolution 88-63, this aquifer is a presumptive source of drinking SF/179739 1/T14C Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9hMKE? r e , r , s h a+ r r r r r o -, -i r i sr r r l r Notice Pursuant to RCRA & Proposition 65 Page 6 water. Without justification or valid reason, the characterization of The Site and vicinity has not been completed by The Owner/Operator, as noted herein. Accordingly, pursuant to Health & Safety Code, § 25249.7(b) PG AND E will seek judgment requiring The Owner/Operator to pay civil penalties in the amount of $2,500 per day for each violation. In addition, PG and E will seek an injunction ordering The Owner/Operator to undertake all further characterization and remediation activities necessary concerning any soil or groundwater contamination at, on, beneath and about The Site. The Owner/Operator and the state and local governmental entities noticed above are hereby placed on written notice of PG and E's intention to commence suit upon this matter. PG and E's action will seek all statutory, equitable and common law remedies available against The Owner/Operator. PG and E may be contacted through its counsel, Thomas H. Clarke, Jr., Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley, 333 Market Street, Suite 3150, San Francisco, California 94105; (415) 543-4800. Very truly yours, Thomas H. Clarke, Jr. SF/179739 1frHC Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9I EXHIBIT B 2 LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN PG and E AND LANGE 345678 14 15 aJ 16 0-0 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND S r/166743.5/DJ B -26-rNMCTIVERELIEF Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9Z I Z Z. _ 0 1--Z-I> 7-'ZLICENSE AGREEMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES AT PG&E's CHICO SERVICE CENTER THIS License Agreement is made this ISE-daY of 2002, hereinafter called "the effective date", by and between PACIFIC GAS AND EL TRIC COMPANY, a California corporation, hereinafer referred to. as "PG&E," and, HANOVER INC. and JESSE M. LANGE, INC., hereinafter collectively referred to as "Licensee." RECITALS: PG&E owns the real property known as PG&E Chico Service Center, 11239 Midway, Chico, SBE 133-4-46, Parcel No. 2, hereinafter referred to as "the premises", situated in the City of Chico, County of Butte, State of California. Ibis License Agreement supersedes the License Agreement for Environmental Investigation Activities at PG&E's Chico Service Center, efective December 30, 1999, and the 1S' Amendment to License Agreement dated January 24, 2001, both entered into by Hanover Environmental Services,: Inc. and PG&E. t° HANOVER INC., an environmental consulting company, is the agent for JESSE M. LANGE, INC. JESSE M. LANGE, INC. owns property near the premises identifed as 11226 Midway, APN 040-320-007, hereinafter referred to as "the Site". Licensee wishes to continue to conduct environmental activities at the premises for the purpose of investigating, monitoring and rernediating subsurface petroleum hydrocarbon contamination which is emanating from the Site. Licensee has requested `permission for Licensee, its agents or contractors to conduct certain environmental investigation, monitoring, and remedial activities on the premises as described hereinafter, and PG&E is willing to give such permission subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein. PG&E and Licensee agree as follows: 1. ALLOWED USE OF PREMISES: PG&E hereby gives permission to Licensee, its agents or contractors to enter the premises for the sole purpose of 1) installing two additional groundwater monitoring wells, in the locations and using the procedures described in the Revised Workplan for Additional Field Studies and=interim Remedial Measures, dated February 19, 2002, addendum letter dated March 26, 2002 and ground water sampling letter dated April 12, 1993, attach hereto as Exhibit A: 2) collecting groundwater samples 4-1 four times per year, from the six wells installed on the premises by Licensee; and 3) maintaining the six groundwater monitoring wells. These activities are hereinafter referred to as "Licensee's activities," Licensee's activities shall be approved by and performed under the oversight '6f the Regional Water Quality Control Board. -1-Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9Any other activities by Licensee may not be performed on the premises without a written taom theinsd Lmiceenntse Agreement 2. TERM OF USE: A.. Commencement: Licensee's activities may commence on the premises after it has complied with the following: At least five days prior to each entry upon the premises, Licensee shall notify Fred Flint, PG&E's Senior Environmental Engineer, at 925-866-5808 in order that a representative of PG&E may be present to observe Licensee's activities to insure safety and protection of PG&E's. property or facilities and compliance with the terms and conditions of this License Agreement. PG&E reserves the right to request-Licensee to provide additional information, reports, studies or other documents not included in the work-plan. B. Period of Use: Licensee's use hereunder shall be for a period of three years from and after the efective date and shall automatically and without further notice or action by PG&E terminate on April 30"', 2005 or upon completion of Licensee's activities, whichever occurs first. As provided under General Order No. 69-C of the California Public Utilities Commission, PG&E may revoke the permission given herein at will when it determines it is in the best interest of its several patrons or consumers to do so. 3. FEES: Prior to the installation of the ground monitoring wells designated MW-16B and MW-17, Licensee shall deposit with PG&E at the address set forth herein, the sum of $2,000.00 which shall be returned to Licensee by PG&E within 30 days of written notification of the proper closure of these groundwater monitoring wells, pursuant to Paragraph 4 described below. In the event Licensee fails to properly close or cap these monitoring wells or fails to restore the premises to its original condition, PG&E may elect to efect such closure and restoration as deemed necessary and utilize the deposit to cover the costs and expenses incurred for such removal or restoration. In addition, Licensee shall pay to PG&E at the address set forth herein, or at such other place as PG&E shall designate in writing, the sum of $650.00 due and payable upon delivery. In addition, Licensee shall pay the cost of a PG&E representative, as may be required by PG&E to insure safety and protection of PG&E property as set forth hereinafter, and the cost of any repairs to any of PG&E's facilities or protection measures required therefor, within thirty (30) days after receipt of PG&E's invoice. -2-Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c94. TERIIMINATION: Upon the termination of this permission, at its sole expense Licensee shall remove all of Licensee's personal property, remove any remaining debris and waste material resulting from Licensee's activities, and restore the premises as nearly as possible to the condition that existed prior to its entry hereunder, including removal of all groundwater monitoring wells in accordance with applicable regulations. Licensee shall bear the entire cost of such removal and restoration, and PG&E shall bear no liability for any costs caused or related to any termination of this license agreement. In the event Licensee fails to remove its personal property or fails to restore the premises, PG&E may elect to remove Licensee's personal property and effect such removal or restoration as necessary and recover such costs and expenses therefor from Licensee. 5. CONDITION OF PREMISES: Licensee acknowledges that there may be a presence of solid or hazardous wastes, hazardous substances, asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), special nuclear or byproduct material, radon gas, formaldehyde, lead based paint, other lead contamination, fuel or chemical storage tanks, electric and magnetic felds or other potentially hazardous substances, materials, products or conditions on the premises, hereinafter referred to as "potential environmental hazards." Licensee shall take reasonable precautions to protect its employees, agents and contractors from any risk of harm from potential environmental hazards. 6. LICENSEE'S CONDUCT ON PRENUSES: A. Licensee shall use the premises at its sole risk and expense. B. Licensee shall comply with all local, state, and federal laws, regulations, rules and orders which pertain or are applicable to the activities of Licensee hereunder including, but not limited to, those laws whether existing or new which relate to the use, storage, handling, treatment, or disposal of hazardous substances, materials or wastes, and those which relate to health, safety, noise, environmental protection, or air and water quality. Licensee shall furish satisfactory evidence of such compliance upon request by P(-T&E. C. Licensee shall notify PG&E in writing within three (3) business days of any investigation, order or enforcement proceeding against Licensee which in any way relates to the premises, the site, or to any suspected contamination on any other land near or adjacent to the premises owned or operated by Licensee. Such notice shall include a complete copy of any order, complaint, agreement, or other document which may have been issued, executed or proposed, whether draft or final. D. Licensee shall not in any way interfere or permit any interference with the use by PG&E of its property. Interference shall include, but not be limited to, any activity by Licensee that places any of PG&E's gas or electric facilities in violation of any of the provisions of General Order Nos. 95 (Overhead Electric), 112 (Gas), and 128 (Underground Electric) of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California or to any other applicable provisions of the laws and regulations of the State of California or other governmental agencies under which the operations of utility facilities are controlled or regulated. -3-Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9E. Licensee shall not erect, handle, or operate any tools, machinery, apparatus, equipment. or materials closer to any of PG&E's high-voltage electric conductors than the minimum clearances set forth in the High-Voltage Electrical Safety Orders of the California Division of Industrial Safety; which minimum clearances are incorporated herein by reference; but in no event closer than ten (10) feet to any energized electric conductors or appliances. F. Licensee shall not drill, bore, or excavate within ten (10) feet of any PG&E underground facility, including, but not limited to, gas pipelines, valves, regulators or electric conduits. G. In the event PG&E's on-site representative determines that Licensee's activities in any way endanger any of PG&E's property, utility facilities, the environment, or the health and safety of any person or persons, PG&E's representative may, at his/her sole discretion, temporarily halt Licensee's activities until proper and appropriate protective measures may be taken to eliminate such endangerment. Licensee shall bold PG&E harmless from any claims in any way resulting from any delay under this paragraph. PG&E's right to halt activities under this paragraph shall not in any way affect or alter Licensee's obligations under the section designated 8. INDEMNITY, hereinafer, nor shall it relieve Licensee fom any of its obligations hereunder that pertain to health, safety, or the protection of the environment. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL REQUFREMNTS: A, At its sole expense, Licensee shall provide PG&E with copies of the results of all analytical tests, photos, geological logs, and reports generated as the result of Licensee's entry onto the premises as soon as they are available. License shall not share the results of any such tests, photos, logs or reports to any other party or agency unless and until it has frst provided PG&E a minimum of five days to review and comment on such information. At PG&E's sole discretion, failure to comply with ths provision may result in immediate termination of this License Agreement B. Licensee shall replace any contaminated material with clean material meeting PG&E's specifcations in the event Licensee excavates or removes any contaminated material while conducting its activities hereunder. Licensee shall be solely responsible for all costs related to the disposal of any soil or other materal it excavates or removes hereunder whether or not such soil or other material is contaminated. Licensee shall cover, and store any contaminated material it encounters so as to isolate such contamination from exposure to land, the atmosphere and persons, and Licensee shall properly store and dispose of such contaminated material as required by Law.. Licensee shall be responsible for the clean up of any releases of contamnated material and shall immediately report the details of any such releases to PG&E and to the appropriate regulatory agencies as required by Law. C. PG&E shall have access to the premises and to the specifc site locations of Licensee at all times. PG&E may take split samples of any air, soil or groundwater at its sole discretion but at its own expense. -4-Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c98. 11 DEMNITY: Licensee shall release, defend, and indemnify PG&E, its officers, agents and employees against all loss, damage, expense and liability resulting from injury to or death of persons, including, but not limited to, employees of PG&E or Licensee, or injury to property, including, but not limited to, property of PG&E or Licensee, or downtime for the loss of space or equipment, costs for replacement, and any other costs for consequential damages that are in any way related to the work performed by Licensee under this agreement, arising out of or in any way connected with Licensee's use of PG&E's property including any loss, damage, expense or liability caused or contributed to by the negligence, whether active or passive, of PG&E, excepting only such loss, damage, expense or liability as may be caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of PG&E. Furthermore, Licensee, its agents and contractors shall defend any suit brought by a third person against PG&E asserting a claim covered by this indemnity. Licensee, its agents and contractors shall pay any costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, that may be incurred by PG&E in enforcing this indemnity. In the event this indemnity is not enforceable, Licensee shall indemnify PG&E to the maximum extent allowed by law. The obligations under this Indemnity provision shall survive the termination or expiration of this License Agreement. 9. TOLLING OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS: Licensee agrees that whatever periods of limitation may be applicable for the fling of any claim, complaint or other proceeding by PG&E against Licensee, for any liability, expense, costs, loss of or damage, injury or death to any person or property, past or future, arising out of or related. to contamination of any nature emanating from the Site, which have not already run by December 20th 1999, shall be tolled and shall remain tolled and shall not commence to run again until March 30, 2005. 10. INSURANCE: Licensee shall maintain in effect during the term of this license insurance as set forth on Exhibit "B," attached hereto and made a part hereof 11. NOTICES: Except as otherwise stated in paragraph 2.A., hereinabove, all notices required herein shall be given in writing and delivered personally, or sent by facsimile transmission, certified mail (return receipt requested) of the United States Postal Service, or nationally recognized overnight courier service and addressed as follows: To PG&E: Mr. Fred Flint Mr. Jim Clawson Pacifc Gas and Electric Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company 3400 Crow Canyon R.d_ 460 Rio Lindo Avenue San Ramon, CA 94516 Chico, CA 95926 Tel No, 925-866-5808 Tel No. 530--894.4756 Fax No. 925-866.5681 Fax No. 530-894-4737 -5-Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9To LICENSEE: Mr. Dana Brown Mr_.1ohn Crowston Hanover Inc, Jesse M. Lange, Inc. 56 Hanover Lane, Suite 100 11226 Midway Chico, CA 95973 Chico, CA 95928 Tel No. 530-342-1333 Tel No. 530-342-8269 12. NO ASSIGNMENT: This agreement is personal to Licensee, its agents, contractors or sub-contractors and is not ains swighnoaleb loer in part THIS AGREEMENT is executed by the parties hereto the day and year first hereinabove set forth. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY By: ohh Crowston Lu de Silva Jessee M. Lange, Inc. Manager, Land Services Date: S--' Z1-PZ Date: William Bono Hanover Inc. Date: ?-nI T22N, R.1 E Section 36, S2 T21N, R1E Section 1, N2 MDB&M SBE 135-04-46, Parcel 2 Aff: 2122-01-2298 & 2306 -6-Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9EDIT "B" Licensee, shall maintain the following insurance coverage Licensee is also responsible for its agents and contractors' maintaining sufficient limits of the same insurance coverage. 1. Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability A_ Workers' Compensation insurance or self-insurance indicating compliance with all applicable labor codes, acts, laws or statutes, state or federal, where Licensee performs work. B. Employers' Liability insurance shall not be less than $1,000,000 each accident for injury or death. 11. Commercial General Liability A. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the Insurance Services Offce (ISO) Commercial General Liability Coverage "occurrence" form, with no coverage deletions. Work that involves chemical spaying shall include coverage for pesticide and herbicide application. B. The limit shall not be less than $2,000,000 each occurrence for bodily injury, property damage and personal injury. C. Coverage shall: a) By "Additional Insured" endorsement add as insureds PG&E, its directors, officers, agents and employees with respect to any liability arising out of work performed by or for the Licensee hereunder; b) Be endorsed to specify that the Licensee's insurance is primary and that any insurance or self-insurance maintained by PG&E shall not contribute with it.. II. Business Auto A. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the Insurance Services Office (ISO) Business Auto Coverage form covering Automobile Liability, code 1 "any auto," B. The limit shall not be less than $2,000,000 each accident for bodily injury and property damage. C. Coverage shall be endorsed in accordance with Section 30 of the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 (Category 2). IV. POLLUTION LIABILITY A. Pollution Liability shall include coverage for sudden and accidental losses. B, The limit shall not be less than $5,000,000 each occurrence for bodily injury and property damage. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9V. Additional Insurance Provisions A. Before commencing performance hereof, Licensee's shall furnish PG&E with certifcates of insurance and endorsements of all required insurance for Licensee, B. The documentation shall state that coverage shall not be cancelled except afer thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to PG&E. C. The documentation must be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf and shall be submitted to: Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Insurance Department . B24H, Post Office Box 770000, San Francisco, CA 94177. A copy of all such insurance documents shall be sent to PG&E's Land Department, Attn. Land Agent, 460 Rio Lindo Avenue, Chico, CA 95926. D. PG&E may inspect the original policies or require complete certified copies, at any time. E. Upon request, Licensee shall furish PG&E the same evidence of insurance for its agents or contractors as PG&E requires of Licensee. -8-Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9Attorney Identifcation (include State Bar number) Attorney(s) for: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, NO. 2:05-CV-01180-DFL-KJM Plaintiff(s) V, STIPULATION TO ELECT REFERRAL OF ACTION TO VOLUNTARY DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROGRAM (VDRP) JOHN P. CROWSTON, ET AL., PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 16-271 Defendant(s) Pursuant to Local Rule 16-271, the parties hereby agree to submit the above-entitled action to the Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program, DATED: Name: Attorney(s) for Plaintiff(s) Name: Attorney(s) for Defendant(s) Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9Page 1 of 1 Clarke, Thomas H. From: caed_cmecf helpdesk@caed uscourts gov Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 1:30 PM To: caed_cmecf nef@caed.uscourts gov Subject: Activity in Case 2:05-cv-01180-DFL-KJM PG&E Company v Jesse M. Lange Distributor Inc , et al "Receipt" ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of California -Live System Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was received from Servantes, G entered on 6/15/2005 at 1:29 PM PDT and filed on 6/15/2005 Case Name: PG&E Company v. Jesse M. Lange Distributor Inc., et al Case Number: 2:05-cv-1 180 Filer: Document Number: Docket Text: RECEIPT number 203 6288 for $250 for New Case from Ropers Majeski Kohn and Bentley. (Servantes, G) The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: 2:05-cv-1180 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Thomas H Clarke, Jr tclarke@ropers.com, nlee@ropers.com,jdigiacomo@ropers..com,dbyrne@ropers.com,tanastassiou@ropers. com,mmcpherson( 2:05-cv-1180 Notice will be delivered by other means to: 6/15/2005 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9Clarke, Thomas H. From: caed_cmecf helpdesk@caed uscourts gov Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 1:46 PM To: caed_cmecf nef@caed. uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 2:05-cv-01 180-DFL-KJM PG&E Company v Jesse M. Lange Distributor Inc,, et al 1" Civil New Case Documents for DFL1" ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the fled documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this frst viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of California -Live System Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was received from Servantes, G entered on 6/15/2005 at 1:44 PM PDT and filed on 6/15/2005 Case Name: PG&E Company v. Jesse M. Lange Distributor Inc., et al Case Number: 2:05-cv-1 180 Filer: Document Number: 5 Docket Text: CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED; (Attachments: # (1) Consent Forms # (2) VDRP Forms) (Servantes, G) The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: 2:05-cv-1180 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Thomas H Clarke tclarke@ropers.com, nlee@ropers.com,jdigiacomo@roper-s.com,dbyrne@ropers,com,tanastassiou@ropers.com,mmcphersonC 2:05-cv-1180 Notice will be delivered by other means to: 6/15/2005 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9Page I of 1 Clarke, Thomas H. From: caed_cmecf heipdesk@caed uscourts gov Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 1:44 PM To: caed-cmecf-nef@caed Subject: Aucstcivoituyr tins .Cgoavse 2:05-cv-01180-DFL-KJM PG&E Company v Jesse M Lange Distributor Inc., et al 1"Summonsl" ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the fled documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this frst viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of California -Live System Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was received from Servantes, G entered on 6/15/2005 at 1:41 PM PDT and filed on 6/15/2005 Case Name: PG&E Company v. Jesse M. Lange Distributor Inc., et al Case Number: 2:05-cv-1180 Filer: Document Number: 4 Docket Text: SUMMONS ISSUED as to *Center Land Company of Texas, Inc., Center Land Company, Inc., Jesse M, Lange Distributor Inc., John P. Crowston, Rebecca Crowston, Michael R. Curry, Shell Oil Company* with answer to complaint due within *20* days. Attorney *Thomas H. Clarke Jr,* *Ropers Majeski Kohn and Bentley* *333 Market Street Suite 3150* *San Francisco, CA 94105*. (Servantes, G) The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: 2:05-cv-1180 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Thomas H Clarke tclarke@ropers.com, nlee@ropers,com; jdigiacomo@ropers..com,dbyrne@ropers.com,tanastassiou@ropers.com,mmcpherson( 2:05-ev-1180 Notice will be delivered by other means to: 6/15/2005 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9r' t ORDER RED JIRING JOINT STATUS R,x.a ORT Case No.: 205-CV-01 180-I)Fl,-KJM PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, Case Name: JOHN P. CROWSTON, ET AL., This action has been assigned to Judge David F. Levi. Pursuant to the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and 26.. IT IS ORDERED THAT` 1. Plaintiff(s) shall complete service of process on all parties within one hundred twenty (120) days of the date of filing of the complaint. 2. Concurrently with the service of process, or as soon thereafter as possible, plaintiff(s) shall serve upon each of the parties named herein, and upon all parties subsequently. joined, a copy of this Order, and shall file with the Clerk a certificate reflecting such service; 3. In the event this action was originally fled in a state court and was thereafter removed to this court, the removing party or parties shall, immediately following such removal serve upon each of the other parties named herein, and upon all parties subsequently joined, a copy of this Order, and shall file with the Clerk a certificate reflecting such service; 4. Within sixty (60) days of service of the complaint on any party, or from the date of removal, the parties shall confer as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and shall prepare and submit to the court a joint status report that includes the Rule 26(f) discovery plan. The status report shall address the following matters: a) The nature of the case; b) Progress in the service of process; c) Possible joinder of additional parties; d) Any expected or desired amendment of pleadings; e).Jurisdiction and venue; (CONTINUED) Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9ORDER REQUIRING JOINT S I"US REPORT -Continued f) Anticipated motions and the scheduling of motions; g) Anticipated discovery and the scheduling of discovery, including: (1) what changes, if any, should be made in the timing, form, or requirement for disclosures under Rule 26(a), including a statement as to when disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1) were made or will be made; (2) the subjects on which discovery may be needed, when discovery should be completed, and whether discovery should be conducted in phases or be limited to or focused upon particular issues; (3) what changes, if any, should be made in the limitations on discovery imposed under the Civil Rules and what other limitations, if any, should be imposed; (4) the timing of the disclosure of expert witnesses and information required by Rule 26(a)(2); h) Future proceedings, including setting appropriate cut-off dates for discovery, law and motion, and the scheduling of pretrial and trial; i) Appropriateness of special procedures; j) Estimate of trial time; k) Modification of standard pretrial procedures specifed by the rules due to the relative simplicity or complexity of the action or proceedings; 1) Whether, the case is related to any other casinec,luding any matters in bankruptcy; m) Whether a settlement conference should be scheduled; n) Any other matters that may add to the just and expeditious disposition of this matter. 5. The Court, upon review of the joint status report may: a) Issue a scheduling order incorporating the suggestions of counsel as contained in the joint status report; or b) By minute order, set a status conference to be held either by telephone or in chambers. (CONTINUED) Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9ORDER REQUIRING JOINT S I! US REPORT -Continued 6. In cases involving public traded companies, the parties shall request Judge Levi's recusal list by contacting Harry Vine at (916) 930-4091 In addition, any nongovernmental corporate party to an action assigned to Judge Levi shall file with the Joint status report a statement identifying all its parent corporations and listing any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party's stock A party shall supplement the statement within a reasonable time of any change in the information. DATE:__1lrne 15, 2005 DAVID F, LEVI UNITED STATES DISTRICT.TUDGE by:._ G, Servantes Deputy Clerk Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION AND APPEAL INSTRUCTIONS You are hereby notifed in accordance with 28 U.S.C §6.36(c), F R..Civ..P.73 and Local Rule 73-305, the United States Magistrate Judges sitting in Sacramento and Fresno are available to exercise the court's case dispositive jurisdiction and to conduct any or all case despositive proceedings in this action, including motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, a jury or nonjury trial, and entry of a final judgment.. Exercise of this jurisdiction by a Magistrate Judge is however, permitted only if all parties voluntarily consent.. You may, without adverse substantive consequences, withhold your consent, but this will prevent the court's case dispositive jurisdiction from being exercised by a Magistrate Judge. Any appeal from a judgment entered by a Magistrate Judge is taken directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit or, where appropriate, for the Federal Circuit in the same manner as an appeal from any other.judgment of a District Court. Whether or not the parties consent to pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) the assigned Magistrate Judge will hear all motions except those case dispositive motions set forth in 28 U.S.C.. § 636(b)(l)(A). A copy of the Form for "Consent to /Decline of Jurisdiction of United States Magistrate Judge" is attached hereto for pro per use and attorney information.. This form is available in fillable.pdf format on the court's web site at www.caed,uscourts.gov for all attorney ECF filers. This form may be fled through CM/ECF or by pro se litigants at the appropriate Clerk's Office location. Office of the Clerk Office of the Clerk 501 J Street, Room 4-200 1130 "0" Street, Room 5000 Sacramento, CA 95814 Fresno, CA 93721 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PACIFIC GAS AND ELE .TRIO COMPANY, Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s), vs. CASE NO,105 CV-01180-DF1-KJM JOHN P.CROWSTON, ETAIDefendant(s)/Respondents(s). IMPORTANT IF YOU CHOOSE TO CONSENT OR DECLINE TO CONSENT TO JURISDICTION OF A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, CHECK AND SIGN THE APPROPRIATE SECTION OF THIS FORM AND RETURN IT TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE. CONSENT TO JURISDICTION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE In accordance with the provisions of Title 28, US -C Sec. 636(c)(1), the undersigned hereby voluntarily consents to have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct all further proceedings in this case, including trial and entry of final judgment, with direct review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in the event an appeal is filed. Date: Signature: Print Name: ( ) Plaintiff/Petitioner O De fendant/Respondent {) Counsel for * DECLINE OF JURISDICTION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Pursuant to Title 28, U.S.C. Sec 636(c)(2), the undersigned acknowledges the availability of a United States Magistrate Judge but hereby declines to consent. Date: Signature: Print Name: () Plaintiff/Petitioner ( ) Defen ant/Respon ent () Counsel for *If representing more than one party, counsel must indicate name of each patty responding Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9RETURN OF SERVICE Service of the Summons and complaint was NmAaMdEe O bF yS EmRVeE (Rt )(DPRAINTTE) TITLE Check one box below to indicate appropriate tnetltod of service Served personally upon the defendant Place where served: Left copies thereof at the defendant's dwelling house or usual place of bode with a person of suitable age and discretion (lien residing therein, Name of person with whom the summons and complaint were left: Returned unexecuted: Other (specify) STATEMENT OF SERVICE FEES TRAVEL SERVICES TOTAL. DECLARATION OF SERVER I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing information contained in the Return of Service and Statement of Service Fees is true and correct Executed on Date Signature of Server Address of Server Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=f2390375-2bbe-4cff-a8fd-72bdb90730c9
Download PDF [3321KB]
At Writ's End
© Thomas H. Clarke, Jr., Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley | Attorney Advertising