arrow left
arrow right
  • SEVGI CURTIS ET AL VS. PG&E CORPORATION ET AL PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - NON-VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • SEVGI CURTIS ET AL VS. PG&E CORPORATION ET AL PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - NON-VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • SEVGI CURTIS ET AL VS. PG&E CORPORATION ET AL PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - NON-VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • SEVGI CURTIS ET AL VS. PG&E CORPORATION ET AL PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - NON-VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • SEVGI CURTIS ET AL VS. PG&E CORPORATION ET AL PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - NON-VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • SEVGI CURTIS ET AL VS. PG&E CORPORATION ET AL PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - NON-VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • SEVGI CURTIS ET AL VS. PG&E CORPORATION ET AL PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - NON-VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • SEVGI CURTIS ET AL VS. PG&E CORPORATION ET AL PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - NON-VEHICLE RELATED document preview
						
                                

Preview

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LP TORIES AAW LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP JEFFERY G, BAIRE 111271 ELECTRONICALLY E-Mail: Jeffery. Bair wisbrisbois.com FILED CHERIE J. EDSON, SB# 208598 Superior Court of Catifornia, E-Mail: Cherie.Edson@lewisbrisbois.com Poueey (of aan prancece 333 Bush Street, Suite 1100 04/08/2019 San Francisco, California 94104-2872 Clerk of the Court Telephone: 415.362.2580 Bee Facsimile: 415.434.0882 Seer Attorneys for Defendant TEICHERT PIPELINES, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO JANOS LIBOR as successor in interest of CASE NO. CGC-18-565468 SEVGI CURTIS and on his own behalf, DECLARATION OF CHERIE J. EDSON Plaintiffs, IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO STAY vs. ACTION AND VACATE TRIAL DATE PURSUANT TO STIPULATION PG&E CORPORATION, PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, TEICHERT Date: April 9, 2019 PIPELINES, INC., and DOES 2-10, Time: 11:00 a.m. Dept.: 206 Defendants. Action Filed: April 3, 2018 Trial Date: September 3. 2019 DECLARATION OF CHERIE J. EDSON I, Cherie J. Edson, declare as follows: 1. J am attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all the courts of the State of California and am an associate with Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, counsel of record for defendant TEICHERT PIPELINES, INC. (“TEICHERT”). I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and if called to testify concerning the matters set forth herein, I could and would do so competently. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ Complaint filed on or about April 3, 2018. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ Second 4811-0684-3538.1 DECLARATION OF CHERIE J. EDSON IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO STAY ACTION AND VACATE TRIAL DATE PURSUANT TO STIPULATIONLEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD &SVITH UP ATTORNEY ATLA Amended Complaint filed on or about January 28, 2019. 4, TECHERT first appeared in the action with the filing of its answer on December 21,2018. 5. TEICHERT disputes liability and Plaintiffs’ contentions. TEICHERT’s work was limited to installing the new pipe line and riser connecting the PG&E service main in the street to the regulator valve at Plaintiffs’ residence. TEICHERT air tested the new assembly up to the riser valve in accordance with PG&E standards. TEICHERT did not turn the gas back on or relight the gas supply to Plaintiffs’ residence. A lock was placed on the regulator valve to keep the valve closed, and prevent the gas supply from being turned on to Plaintiffs’ house by anyone other than PG&E. TEICHERT notified PG&E and lefi the site. The gas supply for Plaintiffs’ residence was then turned back on by PG&E after TEICHERT completed its work. 6. TEICHERT contends that PG&E is an indispensable party to this action. If the entire action is not stayed, it will likely result in multiple subsequent actions involving the same parties and issues after PG&E’s bankruptcy proceeding is concluded. 7. Discovery directed to PG&E including, but not limited to, depositions of PG&E representatives and employees concerning the facts and circumstances surrounding the event is essential to TEICHERT’s defense of this action. PG&E’s filing for bankruptcy and automatic stay of this action as to PG&E only precludes TEICHERT’s ability to obtain this critical discovery from PG&E while PG&E's bankruptcy is pending. 8. TEICHERT will be severely prejudiced if the case to proceeds to trial in September 2019 and it is precluded from conducting discovery to PG&E essential to the preparation of its defense in this action. 9. Should the litigation and trial proceed to conclusion, TEICHERT would be severely prejudiced as it would be forced to retry the very claims tried in a further action against PG&E after PG&E’s bankruptcy is concluded. 10. This application was made as soon as reasonably practicable following the parties’ meet and confer efforts to enter into a stipulation to stay the action and vacate the trial date. 11. On April 8, 2019, in compliance with Local Court Rules and California Rules of 4811-0684-3538.1 2 DECLARATION OF CHERIE J. EDSON IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO STAY _ ACTION AND VACATE TRIAL DATE PURSUANT TO STIPULATIONLEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH UP ATOR AT Wan Court, Rule 3, 1203, | emailed plaintiffs’ counsel providing notice of this Ex Parte Application and the intent to appear ex parte on April 9, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 206 (See Exhibit C attached), and copies of the ex parte papers were served via email pursuant to the parties’ electronic service agreement as soon as reasonably practicable to counsel of record as follows: Lori Andrus, Esq. Paul Laprairie, Esq. Andrus Anderson LLP 155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 T: 415.986.1400 F: 415.986.1474 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 8th day of April 2019, at San Francisco, California. 4811-0684-3538.1 3 DECLARATION OF CHERIE J. EDSON IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO STAY ACTION AND VACATE TRIAL DATE PURSUANT TO STIPULATIONCOMPLAINT EXH IB IT AS ° Lori E. Andrus (SBN 205816) Jennie Lee Anderson (SBN 203586) ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP 155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900 Telephone (415) 986-1400 FIL ED Facsimile: (415) 986-1474 San Francleco County Superior Court lori@andrusanderson.com jennie@andrusanderson.com APR 0 3 2018 Attorneys for Plaintiffs CLE! F TI URT ep Oak SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO SEVGI CURTIS and JANOS LIBOR, Civil Case nDGC - 18-565 468 Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND v. PG&E CORPORATION, PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, and DOES 1-10; Defendants. Plaintiffs Sevgi Christina Curtis (“Plaintiff Curtis”) and Janos Libor (“Plaintiff Libor”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”), by and through their counsel, bring this action against Defendants PG&E Corporation, Pacific Gas & Electric Company (collectively “PG&E” or “PG&E Defendants”), and Does 1-10 (collectively “Defendants”) and, upon information and belief, allege: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1 Plaintiffs Curtis and Libor suffered toxic poisoning when dangerous levels of natural gas leaked into their home over a 3-day period due to the negligent and wrongful actions and omissions of PG&E. 2. PG&E’s actions have caused Plaintiffs to suffer personal injury, economic losses, loss of consortium, and disruption to their lives and livelihoods. Me -1e COMPLAINTUb BW ON © ° 3. Plaintiffs seek fair compensation, but also hope that, through this litigation, they can reform PG&E’s cavalier business practices and prevent PG&E from harming others. Too often, PG&E has forsaken public safety in pursuit of its bottom line. It’s time for that to end. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 395(a) because, at all times relevant, Defendants have resided in, been incorporated in, or done significant business in the State of California, so as to render the = | exercise of jurisdiction over Defendants by California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. 5. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 395.5 because, at all times relevant, Defendants each have had their principal place of business in the County of San Francisco. PARTIES A. Plaintiffs 6. Plaintiff Sevgi Curtis is a competent natural person over the age of 18, and a resident of Sausalito, California. 7. Plaintiff Janos Libor is a competent natural person over the age of 18, anda resident of Sausalito, California. B. PG&E Defendants 8. Defendant PG&E Corporation is a publicly-traded energy-based holding company headquartered in San Francisco. It is the parent company of Defendant Pacific Gas & Electric Company. 9 The PG&E Defendants are “Public Utilities” pursuant to section 216(a) of the California Public Utilities Code and are in the business of providing natural gas to the residents and businesses of Northern California. Hl Mioe IR A HW Bw nN He nb = oS 13 10. © 9 The PG&E Defendants installed, constructed, built, maintained, and operated natural gas pipelines for the purpose of delivery of natural gas to residences, including to Plaintiffs’ home. i, The PG&E Defendants are jointly and severally liable for each other’s negligence, misconduct and wrongdoing as alleged herein, in that: a, The PG&E Defendants operate as a single business enterprise operating out of the same building located at 77 Beale Street, San Francisco, California, for the purpose of effectuating and carrying out PG&E Corporation’s business operations and/or for the benefit of PG&E Corporation; b. The PG&E Defendants do not operate as completely separate entities, but rather, integrate their resources to achieve a common business purpose; c. Pacific Gas & Electric Company is so organized and controlled, and its decisions, affairs, and business so conducted as to make it a mere instrumentality, agent, conduit, or adjunct of PG&E Corporation; d. Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s income results from functional integration, centralization or management, and economies of scale with PG&E Corporation; e. The PG&E Defendants’ officers and management are intertwined and do not act completely independently of one another; f. The PG&E Defendants’ officers and managers act in the interest of PG&E Corporation as a single enterprise; g. PG&E Corporation has control and authority to choose to appoint Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s board members as well as its other top officers and managers; h. Despite the fact that they are both Public Utilities, the PG&E Defendants do not compete with one another, but have been structured and organized and their business effectuated so as to create a synergistic, integrated single enterprise where various components operate in concert with one another; i. The PG&E Defendants are insured by the same carriers; -3- COMPLAINToC eo RH Hm Bw & 8 j. PG&E Corporation files consolidated earnings statements factoring in all revenue and losses from Pacific Gas & Electric Company, as well as consolidated tax returns; and, without limitation; k. PG&E Corporation generally directs and controls Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s relationship with, requests to, and response to inquiries from, the California Public Utilities Commission, and uses such direction and control for the benefit of PG&E Corporation. 12. The PG&E Defendants, and each of them, were agents and/or employees of the other and in acting and/or failing to act as alleged herein were acting in the course and scope of said agency and/or employment relationship. Cc. Doe Defendants 13. The true names of Defendants sued as Does 1-10 are unknown to Plaintiffs and are sued pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 474. 14. Each of the fictitiously-named Doe Defendants is responsible in some manner for the conduct alleged herein, including, without limitation, by way of conspiracy, aiding, abetting, furnishing the means for, and/or acting in capacities that create agency, respondeat superior, and/or predecessor- or successor-in-interest relationships with the other Defendants. 15. Plaintiffs may seek to amend these pleadings as the identities of the Doe defendants are discovered, and to add additional facts and/or legal theories. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 16. Plaintiffs Curtis and Libor, a married couple, live in a single-family home in Sausalito, California, 17, Prior to the events set forth herein, Plaintiffs led vibrant, active lives. Until he was forced to stop working in order to care for his wife, Plaintiff Libor was the Chief Investment Officer at a private investment firm, Plaintiff Curtis recently completed her degree to become a nutrition consultant. Plaintiffs enjoyed golfing, tennis, hiking, and other outdoor activities. Plaintiff Curtis took great pleasure from cooking healthy meals for herself and her husband, Plaintiff Libor. The couple travelled frequently and lived their lives to the fullest. ~4- COMPLAINTwe © 3° 18. The last several months have changed their lives dramatically, and permanently. A timeline of the pertinent events follows: 19. On Thursday, September 14, 2017, PG&E repairs the natural gas line on Plaintiffs’ street. As part of that work, PG&E installs a new gas line and meter at Plaintiffs’ home. 20. The workers are delayed when they find a gas leak at the street level. Work finishes four hours later than planned, around 9:00 p.m. 21. At the conclusion of the job, the workers rush off due to the late hour. They did not even wait until the gas was turned back on, but advised the Plaintiff Curtis that it will come back on shortly and if not, to call PG&E. 22. Plaintiffs, unaware of any danger, go to sleep in their bedroom, around 9:30 or 10 p.m. The bedroom is located approximately 50 feet away from the clothes dryer, one of three entry points for gas in the house. The other two entry points, the stove, and the fireplace are on the floor above the bedroom, on the other side of the house. 23. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, overnight, gas is pumping into their home at pressures that are too high for the valves to control, causing gas to leak into the home. 24. On Friday, September 15, 2017, Plaintiffs work at home all day. Plaintiff Libor works in the home office, near the master bedroom and away from the source of the gas leaks, Plaintiff Curtis spends the day on the upper level of the house, in the kitchen (near the stove), and the living room (near the fireplace) and in the guest room (above the laundry room). Neither notice any odor from the gas leak, but both feel queasy. Over the course of the day, Plaintiff Curtis becomes more and more nauseous. 25, That evening, Plaintiff Curtis, thinking she might have a stomach virus, decides to sleep in the guest bedroom, which is situated on the top level of the home, directly above the laundry room. 26, All day Saturday, September 16, 2017, gas is flowing into Plaintiffs’ home. 27. By this point, having slept directly above the laundry room overnight, Plaintiff Curtis is suffering from a complete loss of appetite and a strong aversion to food. Mt ~5- COMPLAINTwR Bw Ny eo co 1D 10 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 @ 3° 28. Plaintiffs leave the house for two to four hours. Both are experiencing headache and nausea; Plaintiff Curtis is severely nauseous. Plaintiff Libor experiences dizziness and problems with hand-to-eye coordination. 29, When Plaintiffs return home around 2:00 p.m., they notice an unfamiliar smell. Assuming the smell could be related to the utility work done two days prior, they immediately call PG&E, 30. As instructed by PG&E, they leave the house immediately and wait in their car for the service technician to arrive. 31. APG&E a service technician comes to the house and confirms a major gas leak caused by improper adjustment of the newly-installed gas meter. The PG&E service technician explains: a) the gauge that controls pressure from the pipeline at street-level had not been properly adjusted, which forced the gas into the house through Plaintiffs’ gas appliances; and b) the installation of the gas meter was not completed properly as the workers had failed to remove dirt from the gas line’s connection to the home. 32. The PG&E service technician leaves, and Plaintiffs vacate the house again for an hour or two, leaving window on each floor and two balcony doors open as per the instruction of the service technician, 33. Upon their return, the house smells of rotten eggs. Plaintiffs open all windows and doors, hoping that the smell will dissipate, but when it does not, Plaintiffs again call PG&E. The same service technician returns to Plaintiffs’ house, where he explains that he had not checked the gas valve connected to the dryer earlier in the day because he was sent to perform the inspection by himself and could not move the large dryer. Plaintiff Libor helps the service technician move Plaintiffs’ dryer, at which time the service technician discovers that the pressure from the gas leak has broken the gas valve to the dryer. 34. | The PG&E service technician fixes the valve at the dryer and leaves again. 35, On Sunday, September 17, 2017, Plaintiffs continue to suffer headaches, lack of appetite, and other digestive issues including nausea. Mi -6+ COMPLAINT© 8 36. On Monday, September 18, 2017, Plaintiff Curtis’ health deteriorates significantly. Plaintiffs call a healthcare provider, who recommends she contact poison control. 37. Poison Control tells Plaintiff Curtis to go to an urgent care center. 38. At the urgent care center, Plaintiff Curtis is treated with oxygen and hydrating IV fluids. Plaintiff still cannot take in food and her digestive issues remain serious (causing her to lose 5 pounds over the course of just a few days), She spends the day in bed. 39. Plaintiffs call PG&E back out to the house on September 18, 2017. No more leaks are detected. 40. On September 20, 2017, Plaintiffs leave for a long-planned trip to Europe (paid for with non-refundable tickets). Their trip is marred by Plaintiff Curtis’ dire medical condition, including: severe nausea, dizziness, breathlessness, heart palpitations, weakness, pain in joints of fingers, feet and knees, “buzzing” all over her body, including extremities and nose, trouble sleeping, and the development of a sharp sound in her head.’ 41. Plaintiff Curtis’ health has not improved by the time they return from Europe. On October 12, 2017, the sound in her head has developed into Hyperacusis—an extreme sensitivity to normal environmental sound. Plaintiff Curtis cannot even tolerate conversation in hushed tones; only complete silence quells her pain. 42. For Plaintiff Curtis, the negative health effects of the gas leak exposure persist over the next two months. She has regular visits with healthcare professionals but continues to suffer terrible nausea, weakness, and tingling throughout her body. 43. Plaintiffs cancel their joint holiday travel plans and Plaintiff Libor ceases work to provide for his wife, who needs encouragement and assistance feeding herself. Plaintiff Curtis visits a healthcare clinic for two weeks, with no improvement. 44, On January 16, 2018, the PG&E service technician returns to the house and confirms that there is no carbon monoxide leak at the house. it ! Plaintiff Curtis’ healthcare providers later determine that she developed a Eustacian tube infection, likely contracted during the flight and as a result of her suppressed immune system due to her exposure to toxic gas. -7- COMPLAINT© ° 45. By this point, the constant sound Plaintiff Curtis hears has intensified. She is diagnosed with Tinnitus and hearing loss. The Tinnitus is present 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and severely disrupts Plaintiff Curtis’ sleep. Many nights, Plaintiff Curtis gets no sleep at all. Some nights, she can fall asleep, but only for an hour or two at a time. 46. Plaintiff Curtis’ sleep deprivation brings on bouts of depression and hopelessness. Anti-depressants and other prescription medication do not seem to help. 47. At this stage, Plaintiff Curtis’ digestive problems and constant nausea have caused her to suffer severe weight loss. She is extremely weak. 48. On January 30, 2018, growing more and more concerned about Plaintiff Curtis’ worsening medical condition, Plaintiffs try a different wellness center. But Plaintiff Curtis has to return home after four days because she is too sick for the center to care for her. 49. Between February 5th and 20th, Plaintiff Curtis’ mental and physical states decline rapidly, becoming ever more precarious. She cannot get out of bed, has no energy, and has trouble focusing on conversations. She has developed major anxiety, depression and hopelessness, which she experiences daily. She has panic attacks and fears that she will not survive this ordeal. She concludes that there is no way out of this predicament. 50. Not wanting to be a burden on her husband, family and friends any longer, Plaintiff Curtis tries to take her own life on February 20, 2018 by overdosing on prescription medication. Plaintiff Curtis is found, unconscious, on the side of the road about a half a mile from Plaintiffs’ home. She is brought to the emergency room. Plaintiff Libor spends the night with her in the emergency room, where he watches her body convulse and shake all night long. She survives, but the toll that sleep deprivation has taken on her psyche is significant. 51. Three days later, on February 23, 2018, Plaintiff Curtis is transferred to University of California San Francisco’s Langley Porter, a psychiatric ward. A new combination of sedatives and anti-psychotics finally allows her to sleep for the first time in seven weeks. 52. Plaintiff Curtis is released home on March 2, 2018, where her husband takes care of her around the clock. Plaintiff Curtis is unable to cook, feed herself, exercise, or take care of her own daily hygiene. -8- COMPLAINTCUD wm UD HW Rw HN © 3 53. Plaintiff Curtis’ insomnia is currently being treated by a sleep specialist from Stanford. 54. To this day, Plaintiff Curtis remains tired, weak and depressed. Her gastro- intestinal issues continue and anxiety issues prevent her from travelling. Many of Plaintiff Curtis’ other medical symptoms also persist, including the Tinnitus and hearing loss, which may be permanent. EIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence Brought by Plaintiffs Curtis and Libor Against All Defendants 55. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as if fully set forth herein, each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs and further allege as follows. 56. Defendants have a non-transferable, non-delegable duty to apply a level of care commensurate with and proportionate to the danger of designing, engineering, constructing, operating and maintaining natural gas distribution/delivery systems. 57. Defendants have special knowledge and expertise far above that of a layperson that they were required to apply to the design, engineering, construction, operation, inspection, repair and maintenance of natural gas distribution systems in order to assure safety under all the local conditions in their service area. 58. Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the installation, maintenance, and operation of Plaintiffs’ gas meter and the delivery of gas to Plaintiffs’ home, but failed to exercise such reasonable care in that Defendants knew or should have known that the gas pressure at the house was too high, and that dirt was left in the gas meter connection. 59, Defendants knew or should have known that increased gas pressure and the pressure of dirt in the gas meter would foresceably harm Plaintiffs. 60. Defendants further knew or should have known that increased gas pressure could lead to the rupture of gas valves inside the house, and that failure to send a sufficient number of service technicians to inspect the premises would prevent a thorough inspection. Ml WtCem RD DA HW FY ND 6 o 61. Plaintiffs’ inhalation of natural gas at the unsafe levels being pumped into their home was a substantial factor in causing, prolonging or aggravating Plaintiffs’ medical conditions. : 62. As adirect and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiffs suffered personal injury, economic and non-economic damages, and will continue to suffer such harm, damages and economic loss in the future, 63. The conduct alleged against Defendants was willful, and was undertaken in conscious and/or reckless disregard of the safety of others. This constitutes malice as defined by Civil Code section 3294. Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge that there was a potential peril and that injury was a probable result of the peril presented by their actions, and PG&E consciously failed to act to avoid the peril. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of punitive/exemplary damages. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Trespass Brought by Plaintiffs Curtis and Libor Against All Defendants 64. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as if fully set forth herein, each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs and further allege as follows. 65. At all times relevant, Plaintiffs were the owners and lawful occupiers of real property damaged by the gas leak. 66. Defendants had a duty to use reasonable care not to enter, intrude on, or invade Plaintiffs’ real property. Due to their failure to use reasonable care, Defendants allowed a gas leak to contaminate Plaintiffs’ home, causing serious injury to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs did not grant Defendants permission to invade their home with poisonous gas. This constitutes trespass. 67, As a direct, proximate and substantial cause of the trespass, Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages including but not limited to damage to property, discomfort, annoyance and emotional distress in an amount to be proven at trial. Hl Ml Ml -10- COMPLAINTe ° 68, Asa further direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffs have retained counsel to recover compensation for loss and damage and are entitled to recover all attorneys’ fees, expert fees, consultant fees, and litigation.costs and expenses, as allowed under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.9. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Public Utilities Code § 2106 Brought by Plaintiffs Curtis and Libor Against All Defendants 69. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as if fully set forth herein, each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs and further allege as follows. 70, Public Utilities whose failure to perform, or inadequate performance of, duties required by the California Constitution, a law of the State, or a regulation or order of the Public Utilities Commission, leading to loss or injury, are liable for that loss or injury, pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 2016. 71. As Public Utilities, Defendants are legally required to comply with the rules and orders promulgated by the California Public Utilities Commission pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 702, 72. As Public Utilities, Defendants are required to provide and maintain service, equipment and facilities in a manner adequate to maintain the safety, health and convenience of their customers and the public, pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 451. 73. Through their conduct alleged herein, Defendants violated Public Utilities Code sections 451, 702, and/or General Orders 58A (including, without limitation, sections 8, 9, 12, and 22) and 112-F, thereby making Defendants liable for losses, damages, and injuries sustained by Plaintiffs. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence Per Se Brought by Plaintiffs Curtis and Libor Against All Defendants 74, Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as if fully set forth herein, each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs and further allege as follows. 78. Public Utilities whose failure to perform or inadequate performance of duties required by the California Constitution, a law of the State, or a regulation or order of the Public «lle COMPLAINTeo oY DH NH FB © 3° Utilities Commission, leading to loss or injury, are liable for that loss or injury, pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 2016. 76. As Public Utilities, Defendants are legally required to comply with the rules and orders promulgated by the California Public Utilities Commission pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 702. 77. As Public Utilities, Defendants are required to provide and maintain service, equipment and facilities in a manner adequate to maintain the safety, health and convenience of their customers and the public, pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 451, 78. Through their conduct alleged herein, Defendants violated Public Utilities Code sections 451 and 702, and/or General Orders 58A (including, without limitation, sections 8, 9, 12, and 22) and 112-F, thereby making Defendants liable for losses, damages, and injuries sustained by Plaintiffs. 79. The injuries suffered by Plaintiffs are of the kind that the aforementioned statutes, regulations and/or rules were designed to prevent, and Plaintiffs belong to the class of persons for whose protection the statutes, regulations and/or rules were adopted. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Strict Liability in Tort Brought by Plaintiffs Curtis and Libor Against All Defendants 80. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as if fully set forth herein, each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs and further allege as follows. 81. Defendants installed, constructed, built, maintained, and operated natural gas pipelines for the purpose of delivery of natural gas to residences, including to Plaintiffs’ home. 82. Defendants, as Public Utilities, are subject to strict liability in tort for personal injuries caused by delivery of public utilities. 83. Defendants are obligated to prevent gas leaks like the one presented herein, even through no fault of their own. 84. As a direct and proximate result of PG&E’s delivery of natural gas—and specifically as a result of the overabundance of natural gas delivered, and its defective nature— Plaintiffs have suffered foreseeable personal injury, economic and non-economic damages, and -12- COMPLAINT© 9 will continue to suffer harm, damages and economic loss in the future, for which Defendants are held strictly liable. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTIO! Absolute Liability - Ultrahazardous Activity Brought by Plaintiffs Curtis and Libor Against All Defendants 85. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as if fully set forth herein, each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs and further allege as follows, 86. In undertaking the conduct alleged herein, Defendants were engaged in ultrahazardous activities, subjecting them to absolute liability, regardless of the amount of care they may have used to prevent the gas leak. 87. As a direct and proximate result of PG&E’s ultrahazardous activities, Plaintiffs have suffered personal injury, economic and non-economic damages, and will continue to suffer harm, damages and economic loss in the future, for which the Defendants are held absolutely liable. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Brought by Plaintiffs Curtis and Libor Against All Defendants 88. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as if fully set forth herein, each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs and further allege as follows, 89. Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the installation of Plaintiffs’ gas meter and the delivery of gas to Plaintiffs’ home, but PG&E failed to exercise such reasonable care in that Defendants knew or should have known that the gas pressure at the house was too high, and that dirt was left in the gas meter connection. 90. Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiffs would foreseeably suffer injury as a result of Defendants’ failure to exercise reasonable care. 91. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff were in the zone of physical danger and suffered physical injury, and severe emotional distress and will continue to suffer such emotional harm in the future. M Mi -13- “COMPLAINTNAN Uw BB BN | © 9 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Loss of Consortium Brought by Plaintiff Libor Against All Defendants 92. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as if fully set forth herein, each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs and further allege as follows. 93, Atall relevant times, Plaintiff Libor was the lawful spouse of Plaintiff Curtis. 94, As a direct and proximate result of the injuries sustained by Plaintiff Curtis, and caused by Defendants, Plaintiff Libor suffered, and will continue to suffer, the loss of wife’s consortium, companionship, society, affection, services and support. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 95, WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows: 96, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant PG&E Corporation, Defendant Pacific Gas & Electric Company, and the Doe Defendants, each of them, individually, jointly and severally, and requests the following relief: a. Damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including, but not limited to, past and future medical expenses, past and future lost wages, income and benefits, and other past and future economic damages, past and future general damages, including but not limited to, pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of consortium, and other non-economic damages; b. Attorneys’ fees, expert fees, consultant fees, and litigation costs and expense, as allowed under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.9; ce. Punitive/exemplary damages; d. Interest; e, The expense and costs of these proceedings; and f. Any and all further relief as this Court deems just and proper. i Mh Ui Mt -14- COMPLAINTCm IN A WA Fk WwW 10 | © DATE: April 2, 2018 Lori E. Andrus (SBN 205816) Jennie Lee Anderson (SBN 203586) ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP 155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 986-1400 Facsimile: (415) 986-1474 lori@andrusanderson.com jennie@andrusanderson.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs© ° JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable. DATE: April 2, 2018 Lori E. Andrus (SBN 205816) Jennie Lee Anderson (SBN 203586) ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP 155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 986-1400 Facsimile: (415) 986-1474 lori@andrusanderson.com jennie@andrusanderson.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs -16- COMPLAINT 20SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT EXHIBIT B 21 4R40-6190-7736 1Lo 8, Aswivus (SEN 205816) i | Jennie Lee Anderson (SBN 2635868) Pra) Laprairie (SSN 312956) ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP 155 Monigomery Sweei, Suite 900 aa Francisco, CA 64104 Telephone: (418) 986-1400 | Beositle: (415) 906-1474 lovigiandrasandsreon.com | jennietcandrusanderson. com Attorneys for Plaiatigs SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO JANOS LIBOR es successor in ivterast of Civil Case No.: CGC-18-565458 SEVGL CURTIS end on bis own behalf, SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND PURY DEMAND i | Mandi, ! i vy t | i i | POSE CORPORATION, PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, TEICHERT PIPELINES, INC., an¢ DOSS 2-10; Defendants, t Plainti® Janos Libor (“Plaintiff Libor”) as successor in interest of Sevgi Curtis (Plaintiff | | Curtis”) and on his own behalf (collectively “Plaintiffs"), by and throngh their counsel, bring this | action agatust Defendants PO&H Corporation, Pacific Gas & Blectric Company (collectively i “POER” or “PG Defendants”), Teicher Pipelines, inc., and Does 2-10 (collectively : 2) “PDefendents”) and, upon inforraation and belief, allege: BATURE OF THE ACTION i Pieintifs Curtis end Libor suffered toale poisoning when dangeroes levels of gas, inchadiag naiural gas, jeckad into taelr home over a 3-day period due to the negligend and i ' wrougtal actions and omissions of PG&E. 2. Defendanis’ actions have caused Plaintiffs to suffer personal injury, ecanoraic | losses, loss of consortium, loss of life, and disruption to their lives and livelihoods. 22a i 3. Plaintitfs seek fair compensation, bui also hope that, through this Hugation, they 2 i van reform PG&E's cavalisr business practices end prevent POSE fiom hesmmning others. Too 3 4 offen, PG&E has forsaken public safety in parsuit of tts bottom: line. It’s time for that to end. 4 SURISMICTION AND VENDE 3 4. The Court has subject matter juris ion over this lawsuit pursuant to Califoraia & | Cade of Civil Procedure section 395(a) because, at ail times velevani, Defendants have resided in, 7} Geen incorporated in, or done significant business in the State of Califorgiz, ec as to render the & } exercise of jurisdiction over Defendants by Califomtia courts consistent with traditional notions of © ll fhir play ond substaniiel justice. ‘The amount in conicaversy exceeds the jurisdictional ininimum 10 | of thie Court. li 5. Verne is prover in fils Cow pursuant to Cellomia Code of Civil Procedure a i2 | section 395.5 becanse, at all times relevant, the POLE Defendants cach heve had their principal 13 |) place ofbwsiness in the County of Sau Francisco. 14 PARTIES 15 | A, — Bishuttffs iG tl 6. Plaintiff Sovgi Curiis wan a competent natural person over the age of 18, and was 6 17 | resident of Ssusslito, Califorsia while she was living and ducing the time of the oveurvences 18 | bevein desoribed. ig 7 Plaintiff Janes Libor is a competent natural person over the age of 18, and a 26 | resident of Sausalito, Celifornia. B PERE Deleudants 3 Detondant PGA Corporation is « publiciy-traded energy-based holding company udguartered in San Francisco. If is the parent company of Defendant Pacific Gas & Elesiric | Company. 9. The PGCE Defendants ave “Public Utilities” pursuant to section 215{4) of the Califomia Public Utiities Code and ace in the business of providing natural ges io the residenis | and businesses of Northern California. 16. The PG&E Defendants instelied, constructed, built, maintained, and operated SECOND AME 23| | 1 i satural gas pipelines for the purpose of delivery of natural gas to residences, including to 2 | Plainifis’ home. 34 Vi. The PG&E Defendants bewen diecinsing te the public that their natura) gas 4 | products contain benzene, The PO&E Defendants are regirved to monitor the purity of their | 2] natural gas pracuicts. i $ 12. The PG&E Defendanis are jointly and severally liable for cach other's negligence, 7 } riiscorduct and wrongdoing av alloged herein, in thai: x a. The PORE Defendants operate as 2 single business snisrprise opereting out of 9 i the same building located af 77 Beale Sirest, San Francisco, California, for the id porpose of effectuating and conrying cut PG&E Corporation’s business ik operations and/or for the beactit of POLE Corporation; 2 &. The PGAH Defendants do sot operate ee corapletely separate entities, bai rather, 13 integrate their resdurces te achieve a commen business purpose; | ta | gs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company is so ocgauized and controlled, aud its is | decisions, affairs, and business so conducted es to make ii a mero 16 lnvirereniality, agent, conduit, or adjunet or POSH Coxporation; V7 | G, Pacific Oss & Elecitis Conpany’s Incores resuits ftom functional integration, 8 | centralization or management, ond economies of scale with PG&E Corsoration; 19 ¢@. The PG&E Gefendants’ officers and management axe intertwined and do not act 20 compleicly independently of one another; 2a £ The POLE Defendants’ officers and maagers ect in the interest of POSE 22 Corporation as 4 single entarriss; 23 g. PG23 Corporation has control and authority tc choose to appoint Pacific Gas & 24 Electric Company’s board members es weil as ils other top officers and 25 Managers; | 26 AL Despite the fact that they are soth Public Utilities, the PGB Defendans do not | 27 compeis with one another, bui have been structured and organized and their 28 business eftectuaied so .as to create a synergistic, integrated single enterprise | SEE Eee eee eee i SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 24rat UN te ene me in in eran bang meee ree where various components operate in concer! with one another; i, The POSE Defendants are ineured by the same carriers; j. 9O82 Conjoration Giles consolidated earnings statements factoring in all revenue aud leeses from Pacific Gas & Electric Company, as well as consolidated tax retumns; and, without Haiitation; k. POSE Corporation. generally directs and controls Pacific Gas & Electric Company's relationship with, requests to, aad response fo inquiries from, the Califomia Public Utilities Conuxission, aud uses such divection and contro! for the benefit of PG&E Corporation. 13. The PGa&sH Defendants, and cech of (hem, were agente and/or employees of the otner and in acting and/or falling to aei ag alleged hereia were acting in the course and scope of aaid agency and/or emapleyment relationship. ©. Doe Defendants i4. "The true nemes of Defendants sued as Does 2-10 are unknown to Plaintiffs and are sued pursuant io California Code of Civil Procedure sectioa 474, 13. Bach of the fictitionsly.cemed Soe Defendants is responsible in some manner for the condac! wed herein, inchiding, withont Uonitetion, by way of conspiracy, aiding, abetling, furni ig tne means for, aud/or acting in capacilies that create agency, respondeat superior, and/or predecesser- or successor in-inierest relationships with the other Defoadanis, 16. Plaintiffs may seek io amend these pleadings us ihe identities of the Doe defeadanis ace discovered. and te add additional facts cni/or lege! theories. D, Teichert Defendant 7, Teichert Pinclines, Jne. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California with lis principal place of business in Sacramento, California. 18. Plaintifis Curtis and Libor, a married couple, lived in a single-family home ic Sausalito, California, 19, Prior to the events set forth herein, Plaintiffs ied vibrant, active lives. Until he was aia a EGOS S518, SECOND Al 25foreed to stop working in order to care for his wife, Plaintiff Libor was ihe Chief investment Officer at a private investment firm, Piaiwtifl Curtis recently completed her degree to become a nutrition consultant. PMaintif's esjoyed golfing, tennis, hiking, end other suidoos antivities, Plaintii Coctis fook erest piewsure frota cooking healthy meals for herself and bor husband, Plaintiff Libor. The couple travelled frequenily and lived their lives to the fullesi. 20. The eveats described hereia have changed their lives draractically, and pecmanmily. A imeline of the pertinent evenis follows: O. Cn Thursday, September 14, 2017, PG&E and Teichert Pipelines, Ine, repair the natural gas line on Pleintifis’ street. As pari of that werk, PGE end Teichert Pipelines, inc. instal! a new gas line and meter at Plainiffs’ home. 22. The workers are delayed vier they find @ gas leak at the street level. Work Ainishes four house later than planed, around 9:00 pan. 33. Atibe conchision of the jok, the workers rush off dus to the late hour. They did not even wait undil the ges was turned buck on, but advised the Plaintiff Curtis that if will come back ou shorily and if not, to call PORE. 24, aintifis, umawars of any danger, go to sleep in their bedroom, sround 9:30 or 10 p.m. The bedroot is located approximately 50 feet away from the clothes dryer, one of three entry points for gas in tie house, The other two eatry coints, the stove, and the fireplace are on the floor above the bedroom, on the other side of the hovse. 25, Unbeknownst to Plaintifls, overnight, gas is pumping into their home et pressures that are too high for the velves to control, causing ges to leak into the home. 6. On Friday, Sestestber 15, 2017, Plaintiffs work at home all day. Plaintiff Libor works in the home office, neer the master bedrcom and away from the source of the gas leaks. Mlainiif’ Curtis spends the day on the wpper level of the house, ia the kitchen (neax the stove), and the living coom (near the fireplace) and in the guest room (above the laundry room). Neither nots any odor from the gas leak, but both feel queasy. Over ihe course of the day, Plaintiff Curtis Becomes more and more nanscous, 27. Thet evening, Plaintiff Curtis, thinking she might have a stommace virus, decides to Ntsisep in the gues! bedroom, which is situated on the top level of the home, direcily above the laundry room. 28. Ail day Saiurday, September 16, 2017, gas is flowing into Plaintiffs’ home. 29, By thie point, heving slept directly above the laundry room overnight, with gas being pumped into Ge nome dough the gas appliances, including the ges dryer in the laundry room, Plaintiff Curtis is suffezing frorn a complete loss of appetite and a sixong aversion io food. 30. Plainti@s leave the house fer two io four hours. Both art experiencing headache asd nausse; Plaintiff Curtis ie severely nauseous, Plaintiff Libor experiences dizziness and problems with bend-ic-sys coordination, St. "When Plainaiffs return home around 2:00 p.m., they notice aa unfamiliar smell. Assuming the smelt could be related to the utility work done two days prisy, they immediately emll POAH, 32. As instracied by PORE, they leeve the house immediately and wait in their cer for ihe service technician to arcive. 33. APG&E service technician comes to the house and confirms a major gas leak eased by improper adjustment of the newly-insialled gas meter. The PG&d sorvice tecimician axplains: a) the geuge that controls (reduves) pressure fiom the pipeline at street-level had not been property adjusied, which forced the gas info the house through Plaintiffs” gas appliances; sad b) the insielation of the gas meter was not completed properly as the workers had failed to pemove dirt from the gas lins’s comneciion to the home, 34, ‘The PC&E service technician leaves, and Plaintiffs vacate the house again tor an hour or two, leaving a window on each Hoor and two balcony doors open as per the instruction of the service technician. 35. Open their return, the house sinelis of rotten eggs, Plaintifls open all windows and doors, hoving that the smel? will dissipate, out when if does not, Plaintiffs again call PG&E. The gabe service technician reruns to Plaintiffs’ house, where be explains that he had not cheoked the gas velve connected to the dryer earlier in the day because he was sent to perform the inspection vy himself and conid not move the large dryer. Plaintiff Libor helps the service iechnician move - = GEo18-$654581 2 | im = | . laintiffs’ Gryer, at which trce the service technician discovers that the pressure from the gas teak has broken the gaa valve to the dryer. 36. ‘The POLE service technician fixes the valve at the dryer and leaves again. 37. Ou Sunday, Sememiber 17, 2017, Pleintifis contime to onffer headaches, lack of appetite, and other digestive issues including aausea. 38. On Mongay, September 18, 2017, Plaialiff Curtis’ health deteriorates significantly. aintilts cali a healthcare provider, who recommends she coriact poison control. 38, — Poison Coxiiol telis Plaintuif Curtis to go io an urgent care center. 40. At ihe urgent care center, Plainiiff Custis is treated wita oxygen and hydrating IV Geids. Plabxit still canaoi take in food and her cigestive issues remain serious (causing her fo jose 5 pounds over the course of jest a few days). She spends the day in bed. 41, Plsiatiffls call SG&c8 back ow te the house on September 18, 2917. Wo more leeks are davecied. 22. On September 20, 2017, Plaitifis leave tor a long-planned tip io Europes (paid for with non-refundable tickets). Their trip is marred by Plaintiff Curtis’ dire medical condition, inciuding: severe nausea, dizziness, breaihlessness, heart palpitutions, woaimess, pain in joints of gors, fet ond knees, “buzzing” all over her body, including extremities and nose, trouble slooning, and the development of a sharp sound in her lead 43. Pletatiff Curtis’ healih has not improved by the time they return from Kurope, On OQovober 12, 2017, the sound in ber head has developed inte Hyperacusis—an extreme sensilivity io nonmal eaviccareenial sound. Plaintiff Custis cannot even tolerate conversation in hushed tones; coly complete silence quells her ain. 44. Foy Plaintiff Curtis, the negative health offecis of the gas leak exposure persist over the aext iwomonins. She has regular visits with healthcare professionals but continues to suffer terrible nausea, weakness, and tingling throughout her body, #3, Plaiatiffs cancel their joint holidey wavel glans and Plaintiff Libor ceases work to 1 Blaindtf Curtis’ healthoare providers later determine that sne developed a Eustécian tube infection, likely contracied during the flight and as a result of her evppressed imtaunc system due to her exposure to toxic ges. SECOND AMEND: 28oe provide ior his wife, who needs encouregement and assistance feeding herself, Plaintiff Curtis visiis a hesitheare cliaic for two weeks, with no unprevement. 45, On Janvery i6, 2018, ike POSE services technician returns to ine house and saniirms thet there ie no carvon monoxide leak et the house, 4), By ihis point, tse constant sound Plainii!? Curtis hears has intensified. She is diagnose with Tinnitus aad hearing loss. ‘The Tinaites is prosent 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and sovereiy disrupis Plaintiff Curtis’ sleep. Many nights, PlaintiiY Curtis geis no sivep at ail, Some nights, she can fail asleep, wut only vor an hour or two at a time. 48. Plaintiff Curtis’ extreme sleep deprivation brings on bouts of depression and hopelessness. Anii-deoressants end other prescription medication de not seem to help. 49, At ihis stage, Plaintiff Curtis’ digestive problems and consiant nausea have caused mcly wok, ber to suffer severe weight losa, She is ox 56, Oe Januscy 30, 2018, growing more and more concemied aboui Plaintiff Cutis’ worseaing medical condition, Pisintiffs iry a different wellness center, But Plaintiff Curtis has to veturn home after four days because she is too sick for ine center to care for her. 31. Between February Sth aad 20th, Plaintiff Curtis’ mental and plyysiva! siates decline ily, becoming over more prevarious. She cannot get outof bed, has no energy, and bas teoubic focusing cn conversations. She has developed major anxiety, depression and hopelesenass, which she sxperiences daily, She has panic attacks and fears that she witl not survive this ordeal. She concludes that there is no w