Preview
1 ROB BONTA
Attorney General of California
2 MYUNG J. PARK
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
3 BRADLEY SOLOMON
Deputy Attorney General
4 State Bar No. 140625
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
5 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
Telephone: (415) 510-3524
6 Fax: (415) 703-5480
E-mail: Bradley.Solomon@doj.ca.gov Exempt from filing fees
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff California Department of pursuant to Gov. Code, § 6103
Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE)
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
10
11
12
13 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF Case No.
FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION,
14
Plaintiff,
15 COMPLAINT FOR FIRE COST
v. RECOVERY
16
[Health & Safety Code, §§ 13009, 13009.1]
17 MARCO ANTONIO GARCIA, an
individual; JOSE GUADALUPE ALONSO-
18 SAUCEDO, an individual; and DOES 1
through 30, inclusive,
19
Defendants.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Complaint for Fire Suppression, Investigation, Administrative, Collection, and Litigation Fees and Costs
1 Plaintiff California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) complains
2 against Defendant Marco Antonio Garcia (GARCIA), Defendant Jose Guadalupe Alonso-
3 Saucedo (ALONSO-SAUCEDO), and Does 1 through 30 (collectively referred to as Defendants),
4 and alleges as follows:
5 INTRODUCTION
6 1. CAL FIRE brings this action pursuant to Health and Safety Code sections 13009 and
7 13009.1, and various other provisions of the Health and Safety Code and Public Resources Code,
8 to recover fire suppression, investigation, report-making, accounting, and collection costs of
9 $66,626.00 arising from a fire that started on or about May 24, 2020, on property located at 34120
10 Fabry Road and identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 417-161-005 and (APN) 417-
11 191-016 (Property), in Soledad, California (Monterey County) (the Metz Fire) due to
12 Defendants’ negligence and/or law violations. CAL FIRE also seeks pre-judgment interest
13 pursuant to Civil Code section 3287 and an award of all investigation and prosecution costs,
14 including attorney’s fees and expert fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.8.
15 PARTIES
16 2. CAL FIRE is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a state agency created within the
17 State of California, Natural Resources Agency. (Pub. Resources Code, § 701.) CAL FIRE is
18 responsible for providing fire protection, fire prevention, maintenance, and enhancement of the
19 state’s forest, range, and brushland resources, contract fire protection, associated emergency
20 services, assistance in civil disasters and other non-fire emergencies, and for enhancing and
21 enforcing forest and fire laws. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 713, 714.) CAL FIRE is authorized to
22 file suit pursuant to Government Code section 945.
23 3. Defendant GARCIA is an individual and a person as defined in Health and Safety
24 Code section 19 and Public Resources Code section 4101.
25 4. Defendant ALONSO-SAUCEDO is an individual and a person as defined in Health
26 and Safety Code section 19 and Public Resources Code section 4101.
27 5. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise,
28 of Defendants Does 1 through 30, inclusive, are unknown to CAL FIRE, which therefore sues
2
Complaint for Fire Suppression, Investigation, Administrative, Collection, and Litigation Fees and Costs
1 these Does by such fictitious names. CAL FIRE will amend this Complaint to show their true
2 names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. CAL FIRE is informed and believes,
3 and on that basis alleges, that each of these fictitiously named Does 1 through 30, inclusive, are
4 legally responsible in some manner—negligently, strictly, or otherwise—for the events,
5 occurrences, and circumstances that form the basis of this lawsuit, and are thereby liable for the
6 damages, costs, and other relief sought herein.
7 6. On information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants was
8 an agent, servant, employee, or contractor of each of the remaining Defendants and was at all
9 times acting within the course and scope of the authority as such an agent, servant, employee, or
10 contractor and with the permission and consent of their co-defendants.
11 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12 7. The amount in controversy is in excess of the minimal jurisdictional limits of this
13 Court.
14 8. Venue is appropriate in Monterey County under Code of Civil Procedure section 395
15 because the Metz Fire originated in Monterey County, which gave rise to the obligations and
16 liability herein alleged against Defendants, and because Defendants reside in, own property in, do
17 business within, and/or employ agents within Monterey County.
18 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
19 9. All allegations in this Complaint are made on information and belief. All allegations
20 are regarding events that occurred on May 24, 2020, unless otherwise noted.
21 10. Defendant GARCIA owns the property located at 34120 Fabry Road in Soledad,
22 California.
23 11. On May 24, 2020, Defendant ALONSO-SAUCEDO, at the direction of Defendant
24 GARCIA, was operating a tractor with a mower attachment to mow dry grass on the property.
25 12. ALONSO-SAUCEDO began mowing the grass in the pasture at approximately 12:00
26 p.m. that day. The temperature, as measured nearby at 1:30 p.m. that day, was approximately 90
27 degrees. Wind was measured nearby at the same time and location as approximately 10 miles per
28 hour with gusts up to 18 miles per hour.
3
Complaint for Fire Suppression, Investigation, Administrative, Collection, and Litigation Fees and Costs
1 13. After having mowed for approximately 15 minutes, ALONSO-SAUCEDO reached
2 back to adjust the height of the mower deck and saw a spot of grass on fire approximately five
3 feet behind him and the mower deck. ALONSO-SAUCEDO stopped the tractor, got off and
4 began kicking dirt on the flames in an attempt to put the fire out. However, due to the conditions
5 of that day including the wind, ALONSO-SAUCEDO was unable to contain the fire as it rapidly
6 spread out of control and went up the canyon, eventually burning 33.15 acres.
7 14. At approximately 12:58 p.m. on May 24, 2020, CAL FIRE was alerted and responded
8 to a wildland fire at 34120 Fabry Road, southeast of the City of Soledad. After arrival, CAL
9 FIRE personnel spoke with ALONSO-SAUCEDO.
10 15. ALONSO-SAUCEDO told CAL FIRE personnel where he thought the Metz Fire had
11 started.
12 16. After speaking with ALONSO-SAUCEDO, CAL FIRE conducted an investigation of
13 the area, including, without limitation, examining indicators of the progression of the fire. CAL
14 FIRE’S investigator located a partially buried rock, with a fresh “strike” mark on its surface.
15 17. Based on the totality of the evidence, CAL FIRE’S investigator reached an opinion
16 and conclusion as to the origin and cause of the fire. CAL FIRE’S investigator determined the
17 fire ignited in the area where the metal blade(s) from the mower struck the partially buried rock,
18 causing a spark or hot piece(s) of metal to land in the dry grass and brush, causing the fire.
19 18. In their respective interviews with CAL FIRE, neither ALONSO-SAUCEDO nor
20 GARCIA identified any facts regarding any other potential way the Metz Fire could have ignited,
21 besides the operation of the mower on that day.
22 19. CAL FIRE sent a Notice of Claim to GARCIA on January 19, 2021. Records
23 indicate the notice was received on February 4, 2021. CAL FIRE sent Letters of Demand to
24 GARCIA, and ALONSO-SAUCEDO, on June 30, 2021. Both letters were returned “Attempted,
25 Not Known.” CAL FIRE sent two additional Letters of Demand to GARCIA at two different
26 addresses on August 4, 2021. Both letters were received August 19, 2021. CAL FIRE’S legal
27 office sent a letter to GARCIA on January 25, 2022. The letter was received on February 26,
28 2022. Defendants have not responded to any of the letters or paid CAL FIRE any amount of the
4
Complaint for Fire Suppression, Investigation, Administrative, Collection, and Litigation Fees and Costs
1 money owed. Pursuant to Civil Code section 3287, CAL FIRE is entitled to pre-judgment
2 interest thirty (30) days from the date of the demand letters.
3 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Fire Suppression Cost Recovery Pursuant to Health and Safety Code
4 Sections 13009 and 13009.1, Against All Defendants)
5 20. CAL FIRE re-alleges and incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein all
6 allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 19, inclusive.
7 21. Health and Safety Code sections 13009 and 13009.1 allow public entities to recover
8 fire suppression costs from persons who negligently or in violation of the law, set or allow a fire
9 to be set or kindled, or allow a fire kindled or attended by them to escape onto public or private
10 property.
11 22. At all times relevant to this Complaint, each and every Defendant, owned, used,
12 maintained, controlled, were in possession of, or were operating the tractor and mower on the
13 Property where the Metz Fire originated.
14 23. Defendants were or should have been aware of the fire danger associated with
15 operating the tractor and mower in the afternoon on a 90-degree day with winds gusting up to 18
16 miles per hour.
17 24. Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care, including taking reasonable
18 precautions to prevent the starting and spreading of fire, while operating a tractor and mower in
19 Monterey County in an area covered in grass and brush in the afternoon on a 90-degree day with
20 winds gusting up to 18 miles per hour.
21 25. Defendants breached their duty when they operated a tractor and mower with the
22 mower’s blade close to the ground in the close proximity of rocks, grass and brush in the
23 afternoon on a 90-degree day, when fuels are most likely to be receptive to ignite a fire, in winds
24 sufficient to spread the fire, once ignited.
25 26. As a result, Defendants negligently or in violation of the law: (1) set or kindled the
26 Metz Fire; or (2) allowed the Metz Fire to be set or kindled; or (3) kindled or attended to the Metz
27 Fire and allowed it to escape from their control and burning 33.15 acres.
28 27. CAL FIRE is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that GARCIA’S
5
Complaint for Fire Suppression, Investigation, Administrative, Collection, and Litigation Fees and Costs
1 mower likely struck a rock as ALONSO-SAUCEDO was operating it. In addition, a tractor and
2 mower operating in a remote area covered in grass and brush on a hot day, with gusty winds, may
3 cause a fire in other commonly understood ways, including but not limited to through contact of
4 hot exhaust, engine parts with dry vegetation, emission of hot carbon particles from the exhaust,
5 emission of sparks, embers, or superheated metal fragments resulting from a blade strike, or from
6 the interior of the track assembly or exterior of the mower striking rocks.
7 28. On information and belief, Defendants carelessly and negligently owned, operated,
8 used, and/or maintained the tractor and mower, causing CAL FIRE to incur the costs alleged in
9 this complaint. Wildland fires such as the Metz Fire ordinarily do not happen unless someone
10 was negligent. Defendants had exclusive control and management of the tractor and mower and
11 the Property on which it was operated at the time the Metz Fire ignited. Because of their
12 exclusive control and management of the tractor and mower, Defendants have superior access to
13 information concerning the precise cause of the events leading to the Metz Fire, and Defendants’
14 negligence may be inferred from the general facts alleged in this complaint. CAL FIRE did not
15 cause or contribute to the events that created the harm alleged in this complaint. (See
16 Roddiscraft, Inc. v. Skelton Logging Co. (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 784, 796 (citing W. B. Camp &
17 Sons, Inc. v. Turner Steel etc. Co., 141 Cal.App.2d 569, 571-572).)
18 29. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 4435, Defendants’ use of the tractor and
19 mower, which is a device that may cause a fire, creates a prima facie, legal presumption of
20 negligence regarding its maintenance, operation, and use.
21 30. Defendants’ negligence alleged in the foregoing paragraphs was a direct and/or
22 legal/proximate cause and/or or substantial contributing factor of the costs totaling $66,626.00,
23 incurred by CAL FIRE which are sought by way of this complaint.
24 31. In addition to being negligent, the actions of Defendants, individually and each of
25 them, violated the law, including but not limited to: Health and Safety Code section 13001, and
26 Public Resources Code section 4422, subdivision (b).
27 32. Health and Safety Code section 13001 prohibits persons from using or operating a
28 “device which may cause a fire,” without first “clear[ing] the inflammable material surrounding
6
Complaint for Fire Suppression, Investigation, Administrative, Collection, and Litigation Fees and Costs
1 the operation or tak[ing] such other reasonable precautions necessary to insure against the starting
2 and spreading of fire.” Defendants’ operation of the tractor and mower, which are devices that
3 may cause a fire, placed a substance or thing that may cause a fire in a location where it could and
4 did cause a fire in violation of Health & Safety Code 13001. But for Defendants’ failure to
5 properly maintain, use, or operate the tractor or mower there would have been no sparks, embers,
6 or hot metal generated from the tractor and mower’s operations and/or no fuel for the sparks,
7 embers, or hot metal from the tractor and mower’s operations to ignite.
8 33. Public Resources Code section 4422, subdivision (b), prohibits persons from allowing
9 “any fire kindled or attended by him to escape from his control or to spread to the land of any
10 person other than from the land from which the fire originated.” Defendants operated a tractor
11 and mower, kindling the Metz Fire, then allowed it to escape the place where it originated and to
12 escape from Defendants’ control in violation of Public Resources Code section 4422, subdivision
13 (b).
14 34. As a result of the failure of Defendants, and each of them, to exercise ordinary care
15 and/or as a result of their violations of the laws described above, CAL FIRE incurred $66,626.00
16 (sixty-six thousand, six-hundred and twenty-six dollars) in (1) fire suppression costs; (2)
17 investigation and report-making costs; and (3) costs relating to accounting for the Metz Fire and
18 the collection of funds pursuant to Health and Safety Code sections 13009 and 13009.1, and other
19 costs authorized by law, including, but not limited to, the administrative costs of operating a fire
20 suppression cost recovery program. These costs were reasonably incurred as a result of the Metz
21 Fire and were incurred as a result of the wrongful conduct of defendants, as alleged in this
22 complaint.
23 35. Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.8 provides that whenever the Attorney General
24 prevails in an action to enforce Health and Safety Code sections 13009 and 13009.1, the Court
25 shall award to the Attorney General all costs of investigation and prosecuting the action,
26 including expert fees, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs.
27 ///
28 ///
7
Complaint for Fire Suppression, Investigation, Administrative, Collection, and Litigation Fees and Costs
1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
2 WHEREFORE, CAL FIRE prays for judgment to be taken against Defendants, and each of
3 them, as follows:
4 1. For costs in an amount according to proof at trial but believed to be no less than
5 $66,626.00 for fire suppression, investigation, administrative, accounting, and collection costs
6 associated with the Metz Fire;
7 2. For interest on the sum of $66,626.00 at the rate allowed by law since the thirty (30)
8 day period provided for in the demand letter expired;
9 3. For any additional costs of investigating and making reports with respect to the Metz
10 Fire as provided in Health and Safety Code section 13009.1, subdivision (a)(l );
11 4. For any additional administrative, accounting and collection costs attributable to the
12 Metz Fire as provided in Health and Safety Code section 13009.1, subdivision (a)(2);
13 5. For all costs of investigating and prosecuting this action, including expert fees,
14 reasonable attorney's fees, and costs as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.8;
15 6. · For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
16
17 Dated: May 10, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
18 RoBBONTA
Attorney General of California
19 MYUNG J. PARK
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
20
21
22
23 Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Plaintiff California
24 Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
(CAL FIRE)
25
SF2022400500
26 43158515.docx
27
28
8
Complaint for Fire Suppression, Investigation, Administrative, Collection, and Litigation Fees and Costs
Preview
1 ROB BONTA Attorney General of California 2 MYUNG J. PARK Supervising Deputy Attorney General 3 BRADLEY SOLOMON Deputy Attorney General 4 State Bar No. 140625 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 5 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 Telephone: (415) 510-3524 6 Fax: (415) 703-5480 E-mail: Bradley.Solomon@doj.ca.gov Exempt from filing fees 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff California Department of pursuant to Gov. Code, § 6103 Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF MONTEREY 10 11 12 13 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF Case No. FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION, 14 Plaintiff, 15 COMPLAINT FOR FIRE COST v. RECOVERY 16 [Health & Safety Code, §§ 13009, 13009.1] 17 MARCO ANTONIO GARCIA, an individual; JOSE GUADALUPE ALONSO- 18 SAUCEDO, an individual; and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Complaint for Fire Suppression, Investigation, Administrative, Collection, and Litigation Fees and Costs 1 Plaintiff California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) complains 2 against Defendant Marco Antonio Garcia (GARCIA), Defendant Jose Guadalupe Alonso- 3 Saucedo (ALONSO-SAUCEDO), and Does 1 through 30 (collectively referred to as Defendants), 4 and alleges as follows: 5 INTRODUCTION 6 1. CAL FIRE brings this action pursuant to Health and Safety Code sections 13009 and 7 13009.1, and various other provisions of the Health and Safety Code and Public Resources Code, 8 to recover fire suppression, investigation, report-making, accounting, and collection costs of 9 $66,626.00 arising from a fire that started on or about May 24, 2020, on property located at 34120 10 Fabry Road and identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 417-161-005 and (APN) 417- 11 191-016 (Property), in Soledad, California (Monterey County) (the Metz Fire) due to 12 Defendants’ negligence and/or law violations. CAL FIRE also seeks pre-judgment interest 13 pursuant to Civil Code section 3287 and an award of all investigation and prosecution costs, 14 including attorney’s fees and expert fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.8. 15 PARTIES 16 2. CAL FIRE is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a state agency created within the 17 State of California, Natural Resources Agency. (Pub. Resources Code, § 701.) CAL FIRE is 18 responsible for providing fire protection, fire prevention, maintenance, and enhancement of the 19 state’s forest, range, and brushland resources, contract fire protection, associated emergency 20 services, assistance in civil disasters and other non-fire emergencies, and for enhancing and 21 enforcing forest and fire laws. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 713, 714.) CAL FIRE is authorized to 22 file suit pursuant to Government Code section 945. 23 3. Defendant GARCIA is an individual and a person as defined in Health and Safety 24 Code section 19 and Public Resources Code section 4101. 25 4. Defendant ALONSO-SAUCEDO is an individual and a person as defined in Health 26 and Safety Code section 19 and Public Resources Code section 4101. 27 5. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, 28 of Defendants Does 1 through 30, inclusive, are unknown to CAL FIRE, which therefore sues 2 Complaint for Fire Suppression, Investigation, Administrative, Collection, and Litigation Fees and Costs 1 these Does by such fictitious names. CAL FIRE will amend this Complaint to show their true 2 names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. CAL FIRE is informed and believes, 3 and on that basis alleges, that each of these fictitiously named Does 1 through 30, inclusive, are 4 legally responsible in some manner—negligently, strictly, or otherwise—for the events, 5 occurrences, and circumstances that form the basis of this lawsuit, and are thereby liable for the 6 damages, costs, and other relief sought herein. 7 6. On information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants was 8 an agent, servant, employee, or contractor of each of the remaining Defendants and was at all 9 times acting within the course and scope of the authority as such an agent, servant, employee, or 10 contractor and with the permission and consent of their co-defendants. 11 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 12 7. The amount in controversy is in excess of the minimal jurisdictional limits of this 13 Court. 14 8. Venue is appropriate in Monterey County under Code of Civil Procedure section 395 15 because the Metz Fire originated in Monterey County, which gave rise to the obligations and 16 liability herein alleged against Defendants, and because Defendants reside in, own property in, do 17 business within, and/or employ agents within Monterey County. 18 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 19 9. All allegations in this Complaint are made on information and belief. All allegations 20 are regarding events that occurred on May 24, 2020, unless otherwise noted. 21 10. Defendant GARCIA owns the property located at 34120 Fabry Road in Soledad, 22 California. 23 11. On May 24, 2020, Defendant ALONSO-SAUCEDO, at the direction of Defendant 24 GARCIA, was operating a tractor with a mower attachment to mow dry grass on the property. 25 12. ALONSO-SAUCEDO began mowing the grass in the pasture at approximately 12:00 26 p.m. that day. The temperature, as measured nearby at 1:30 p.m. that day, was approximately 90 27 degrees. Wind was measured nearby at the same time and location as approximately 10 miles per 28 hour with gusts up to 18 miles per hour. 3 Complaint for Fire Suppression, Investigation, Administrative, Collection, and Litigation Fees and Costs 1 13. After having mowed for approximately 15 minutes, ALONSO-SAUCEDO reached 2 back to adjust the height of the mower deck and saw a spot of grass on fire approximately five 3 feet behind him and the mower deck. ALONSO-SAUCEDO stopped the tractor, got off and 4 began kicking dirt on the flames in an attempt to put the fire out. However, due to the conditions 5 of that day including the wind, ALONSO-SAUCEDO was unable to contain the fire as it rapidly 6 spread out of control and went up the canyon, eventually burning 33.15 acres. 7 14. At approximately 12:58 p.m. on May 24, 2020, CAL FIRE was alerted and responded 8 to a wildland fire at 34120 Fabry Road, southeast of the City of Soledad. After arrival, CAL 9 FIRE personnel spoke with ALONSO-SAUCEDO. 10 15. ALONSO-SAUCEDO told CAL FIRE personnel where he thought the Metz Fire had 11 started. 12 16. After speaking with ALONSO-SAUCEDO, CAL FIRE conducted an investigation of 13 the area, including, without limitation, examining indicators of the progression of the fire. CAL 14 FIRE’S investigator located a partially buried rock, with a fresh “strike” mark on its surface. 15 17. Based on the totality of the evidence, CAL FIRE’S investigator reached an opinion 16 and conclusion as to the origin and cause of the fire. CAL FIRE’S investigator determined the 17 fire ignited in the area where the metal blade(s) from the mower struck the partially buried rock, 18 causing a spark or hot piece(s) of metal to land in the dry grass and brush, causing the fire. 19 18. In their respective interviews with CAL FIRE, neither ALONSO-SAUCEDO nor 20 GARCIA identified any facts regarding any other potential way the Metz Fire could have ignited, 21 besides the operation of the mower on that day. 22 19. CAL FIRE sent a Notice of Claim to GARCIA on January 19, 2021. Records 23 indicate the notice was received on February 4, 2021. CAL FIRE sent Letters of Demand to 24 GARCIA, and ALONSO-SAUCEDO, on June 30, 2021. Both letters were returned “Attempted, 25 Not Known.” CAL FIRE sent two additional Letters of Demand to GARCIA at two different 26 addresses on August 4, 2021. Both letters were received August 19, 2021. CAL FIRE’S legal 27 office sent a letter to GARCIA on January 25, 2022. The letter was received on February 26, 28 2022. Defendants have not responded to any of the letters or paid CAL FIRE any amount of the 4 Complaint for Fire Suppression, Investigation, Administrative, Collection, and Litigation Fees and Costs 1 money owed. Pursuant to Civil Code section 3287, CAL FIRE is entitled to pre-judgment 2 interest thirty (30) days from the date of the demand letters. 3 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Fire Suppression Cost Recovery Pursuant to Health and Safety Code 4 Sections 13009 and 13009.1, Against All Defendants) 5 20. CAL FIRE re-alleges and incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein all 6 allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 19, inclusive. 7 21. Health and Safety Code sections 13009 and 13009.1 allow public entities to recover 8 fire suppression costs from persons who negligently or in violation of the law, set or allow a fire 9 to be set or kindled, or allow a fire kindled or attended by them to escape onto public or private 10 property. 11 22. At all times relevant to this Complaint, each and every Defendant, owned, used, 12 maintained, controlled, were in possession of, or were operating the tractor and mower on the 13 Property where the Metz Fire originated. 14 23. Defendants were or should have been aware of the fire danger associated with 15 operating the tractor and mower in the afternoon on a 90-degree day with winds gusting up to 18 16 miles per hour. 17 24. Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care, including taking reasonable 18 precautions to prevent the starting and spreading of fire, while operating a tractor and mower in 19 Monterey County in an area covered in grass and brush in the afternoon on a 90-degree day with 20 winds gusting up to 18 miles per hour. 21 25. Defendants breached their duty when they operated a tractor and mower with the 22 mower’s blade close to the ground in the close proximity of rocks, grass and brush in the 23 afternoon on a 90-degree day, when fuels are most likely to be receptive to ignite a fire, in winds 24 sufficient to spread the fire, once ignited. 25 26. As a result, Defendants negligently or in violation of the law: (1) set or kindled the 26 Metz Fire; or (2) allowed the Metz Fire to be set or kindled; or (3) kindled or attended to the Metz 27 Fire and allowed it to escape from their control and burning 33.15 acres. 28 27. CAL FIRE is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that GARCIA’S 5 Complaint for Fire Suppression, Investigation, Administrative, Collection, and Litigation Fees and Costs 1 mower likely struck a rock as ALONSO-SAUCEDO was operating it. In addition, a tractor and 2 mower operating in a remote area covered in grass and brush on a hot day, with gusty winds, may 3 cause a fire in other commonly understood ways, including but not limited to through contact of 4 hot exhaust, engine parts with dry vegetation, emission of hot carbon particles from the exhaust, 5 emission of sparks, embers, or superheated metal fragments resulting from a blade strike, or from 6 the interior of the track assembly or exterior of the mower striking rocks. 7 28. On information and belief, Defendants carelessly and negligently owned, operated, 8 used, and/or maintained the tractor and mower, causing CAL FIRE to incur the costs alleged in 9 this complaint. Wildland fires such as the Metz Fire ordinarily do not happen unless someone 10 was negligent. Defendants had exclusive control and management of the tractor and mower and 11 the Property on which it was operated at the time the Metz Fire ignited. Because of their 12 exclusive control and management of the tractor and mower, Defendants have superior access to 13 information concerning the precise cause of the events leading to the Metz Fire, and Defendants’ 14 negligence may be inferred from the general facts alleged in this complaint. CAL FIRE did not 15 cause or contribute to the events that created the harm alleged in this complaint. (See 16 Roddiscraft, Inc. v. Skelton Logging Co. (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 784, 796 (citing W. B. Camp & 17 Sons, Inc. v. Turner Steel etc. Co., 141 Cal.App.2d 569, 571-572).) 18 29. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 4435, Defendants’ use of the tractor and 19 mower, which is a device that may cause a fire, creates a prima facie, legal presumption of 20 negligence regarding its maintenance, operation, and use. 21 30. Defendants’ negligence alleged in the foregoing paragraphs was a direct and/or 22 legal/proximate cause and/or or substantial contributing factor of the costs totaling $66,626.00, 23 incurred by CAL FIRE which are sought by way of this complaint. 24 31. In addition to being negligent, the actions of Defendants, individually and each of 25 them, violated the law, including but not limited to: Health and Safety Code section 13001, and 26 Public Resources Code section 4422, subdivision (b). 27 32. Health and Safety Code section 13001 prohibits persons from using or operating a 28 “device which may cause a fire,” without first “clear[ing] the inflammable material surrounding 6 Complaint for Fire Suppression, Investigation, Administrative, Collection, and Litigation Fees and Costs 1 the operation or tak[ing] such other reasonable precautions necessary to insure against the starting 2 and spreading of fire.” Defendants’ operation of the tractor and mower, which are devices that 3 may cause a fire, placed a substance or thing that may cause a fire in a location where it could and 4 did cause a fire in violation of Health & Safety Code 13001. But for Defendants’ failure to 5 properly maintain, use, or operate the tractor or mower there would have been no sparks, embers, 6 or hot metal generated from the tractor and mower’s operations and/or no fuel for the sparks, 7 embers, or hot metal from the tractor and mower’s operations to ignite. 8 33. Public Resources Code section 4422, subdivision (b), prohibits persons from allowing 9 “any fire kindled or attended by him to escape from his control or to spread to the land of any 10 person other than from the land from which the fire originated.” Defendants operated a tractor 11 and mower, kindling the Metz Fire, then allowed it to escape the place where it originated and to 12 escape from Defendants’ control in violation of Public Resources Code section 4422, subdivision 13 (b). 14 34. As a result of the failure of Defendants, and each of them, to exercise ordinary care 15 and/or as a result of their violations of the laws described above, CAL FIRE incurred $66,626.00 16 (sixty-six thousand, six-hundred and twenty-six dollars) in (1) fire suppression costs; (2) 17 investigation and report-making costs; and (3) costs relating to accounting for the Metz Fire and 18 the collection of funds pursuant to Health and Safety Code sections 13009 and 13009.1, and other 19 costs authorized by law, including, but not limited to, the administrative costs of operating a fire 20 suppression cost recovery program. These costs were reasonably incurred as a result of the Metz 21 Fire and were incurred as a result of the wrongful conduct of defendants, as alleged in this 22 complaint. 23 35. Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.8 provides that whenever the Attorney General 24 prevails in an action to enforce Health and Safety Code sections 13009 and 13009.1, the Court 25 shall award to the Attorney General all costs of investigation and prosecuting the action, 26 including expert fees, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs. 27 /// 28 /// 7 Complaint for Fire Suppression, Investigation, Administrative, Collection, and Litigation Fees and Costs 1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 2 WHEREFORE, CAL FIRE prays for judgment to be taken against Defendants, and each of 3 them, as follows: 4 1. For costs in an amount according to proof at trial but believed to be no less than 5 $66,626.00 for fire suppression, investigation, administrative, accounting, and collection costs 6 associated with the Metz Fire; 7 2. For interest on the sum of $66,626.00 at the rate allowed by law since the thirty (30) 8 day period provided for in the demand letter expired; 9 3. For any additional costs of investigating and making reports with respect to the Metz 10 Fire as provided in Health and Safety Code section 13009.1, subdivision (a)(l ); 11 4. For any additional administrative, accounting and collection costs attributable to the 12 Metz Fire as provided in Health and Safety Code section 13009.1, subdivision (a)(2); 13 5. For all costs of investigating and prosecuting this action, including expert fees, 14 reasonable attorney's fees, and costs as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.8; 15 6. · For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 16 17 Dated: May 10, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 18 RoBBONTA Attorney General of California 19 MYUNG J. PARK Supervising Deputy Attorney General 20 21 22 23 Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Plaintiff California 24 Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) 25 SF2022400500 26 43158515.docx 27 28 8 Complaint for Fire Suppression, Investigation, Administrative, Collection, and Litigation Fees and Costs