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