Preview
1 Mark A. Hagopian (State Bar No. 124819)
mark.hagopian@manningkass.com
2 Richard D. McKie (State Bar No. 311978) DISCOVERY
ELECTRONICALLY
richard.mckie@manningkass.com
3 Mark R. Wilson (State Bar No. 293474) FILED
Superior Court of California,
mark.wilson@manningkass.com County of San Francisco
4 MANNING & KASS
ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 09/06/2023
Clerk of the Court
5 One California Street, Suite 900 BY: VERA MU
San Francisco, California 94111 Deputy Clerk
6 Telephone: (415) 217-6990
Facsimile: (415) 217-6999
7
Attorneys for Defendant RECOLOGY, INC.
8
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
12
13 RAYMOND VINCENT DIGIACOMO, JR., Case No. CGC-19-581651
[Consolidated w/Case Nos. CGC-20-584604;
14 Plaintiff, CGC-20-588592]
15 v. DECLARATION OF RICHARD D.
MCKIE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
16 RECOLOGY, INC.; GOLDEN GATE RECOLOGY, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO
DISPOSAL AND RECYCLING COMPANY; PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH
17 RECOLOGY WASTE SOLUTIONS, INC.; RECORDS-ONLY SUBPOENA 37
RECOLOGY SAN FRANCISCO, INC.; REGARDING THE TENDERLOIN
18 RECOLOGY SERVICE CENTER, INC.; HOUSING CLINIC
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
19 and DOES 1 through 3300, inclusive, Hearing Date: September 19, 2023
Time: 9:00 a.m.
20 Dept: 302 [DISCOVERY]
21
Action Filed: December 18, 2019
22 Trial Date: February 5, 2024
23
24 I, Richard D. McKie, declare as follows:
25 1. I am an attorney duly admitted to practice before this Court. I am an attorney with
26 Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, attorneys of record for Defendant, RECOLOGY,
27 INC. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and if called as a witness, I could and
28 would competently testify thereto. I make this declaration in support of Defendant Recology, Inc.'s
4888-3362-1881.1
DECLARATION OF RICHARD D. MCKIE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT RECOLOGY, INC.’S
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH
1 Opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to quash Recology’s updated record served on the Tenderloin
2 Housing Clinic.
3 2. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Verified Third Amended Complaint is attached
4 hereto as Exhibit A.
5 3. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s response to Recology’s Form Interrogatories,
6 Set One, is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
7 4. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s amended response to Recology’s Form
8 Interrogatories, Set One, is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
9 5. A true and correct copy of a December 17, 2020 Recology served business records
10 subpoena on the Tenderloin Housing Clinic (“THC”) is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
11 6. On January 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion to quash and for protective order as to
12 the subpoena served on THC. Recology opposed the motions. During the meet and confer process,
13 Plaintiff demanded that the subpoenas be completely withdrawn, and Plaintiff would not entertain
14 any proposed limitations. The Court then referred the parties to an Informal Discovery Conference
15 (IDC). During the conference, I agreed to various limitations proposed by IDC Referee James H.
16 Fleming. Plaintiff, however, refused to make any concessions and rejected Referee Fleming’s
17 proposed solutions.
18 7. A true and correct copy of the Court’s June 17, 2021 Order is attached hereto as
19 Exhibit E.
20 8. A true and correct copy of this Court’s June 9, 2023, is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
21 9. A true and correct copy of a July 27, 2023, updated subpoena served on THC is
22 attached hereto as Exhibit G.
23 10. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s July 31, 2023 meet and confer email is attached
24 hereto as Exhibit H.
25 11. A true and correct copy of my same day, July 31st, response to Plaintiff’s meet and
26 confer email is attached hereto as Exhibit I. Plaintiff did not provide a substantive response to my
27 meet and confer email and instead chose to file the instant motion.
28 ///
4888-3362-1881.1 2
DECLARATION OF RICHARD D. MCKIE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT RECOLOGY, INC.’S
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH
1 12. Recology has incurred reasonable attorney's fees to oppose this Motion. I have spent
2 approximately 10.5 hours reviewing Plaintiff's motion, exhibits, researching controlling authority
3 and preparing this opposition, including the memorandum of points and authorities, and my
4 declaration, including the anticipated time it will take to appear for this matter (which will likely
5 include two hearings since Plaintiff rarely stipulates to allowing Judge Pro Tem’s authority to render
6 final rulings), at $225.00 per hour for a total of $2,250.00.
7 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
8 is true and correct.
9 Executed on this 6th day of September 2023, at San Francisco, California.
10
11
12
13
Richard McKie
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4888-3362-1881.1 3
DECLARATION OF RICHARD D. MCKIE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT RECOLOGY, INC.’S
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH
EXHIBITA
EXHIBIT A
1 Raymond V.
Raymond V. DiGiacomo,
DiGiacomo, Jr.
Jr.
2 66
66 Geary
Geary St.
St. #414
#414
[\]
3 San
San Francisco,
Francisco, CA
CA 94108
94108
4 raydigiacomojr@gmail.com
raydigiacomojr@gmail.com
415-595-4107
415-595-4107
5
Self-Represented
Self-Represented
6
7
8
SUPERIOR
SUPERIOR COURT
COURT OF
OF THE
THE STATE
STATE OF
OF CALIFORNIA,
CALIFORNIA,
9
FOR
FOR THE
THE COUNTY
COUNTY OF
OF SAN
SAN FRANCISCO
FRANCISCO
10 [CIVIL UNLIMITED]
[CIVIL UNLIMITED]
11
12 Raymond Vincent
Raymond Vincent DiGiacomo,
DiGiacomo, Jr.
Jr. )) Case No.
Case CGC-19-581651
No. CGC-19-581651
13
Plaintiff,
Plaintiff, ))
)) PLAINTIFF’S THIRD
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED
AMENDED
14
Vs.
vs. )) COMPLAINT FOR
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIONS
INJUNCTIONS AND
AND
15
)) DAMAGES:
DAMAGES:
16
Recology,
Recology, Inc.;
Inc.; ))
17
Golden
Golden Gate
Gate Disposal
Disposal and
and Recycling
Recycling )) 1.
1. Private
Private Nuisance
Nuisance
18 Company;
Company; )) 2.
2. Negligence
Negligence
19 Recology Waste
Recology Waste Solutions,
Solutions, Inc.;
Inc.; )) 3. Violation
3. Violation of
of Mandatory
Mandatory Duty
Duty
20 Recology
Recology San
San Francisco,
Francisco, Inc.;
Inc.; )) 4.
4. Dangerous
Dangerous Condition
Condition on
on Pub.
Pub. Prop.
Prop.
21 Recology
Recology Service
Service Center,
Center, Inc.;
Inc.; )) 5.
5. Constitutional
Constitutional Deprivation
Deprivation
22
City
City and
and County
County of
of San
San Francisco;
Francisco; and,
and, )) 6.
6. Relief
Relief from
from Illegal
Illegal Expenditure
Expenditure
DOES
DOES 11 through
through 3300,
3300, inclusive,
inclusive, ))
23
Defendants.
Defendants. )) [DEMAND FOR
[DEMAND FOR JURY
JURY TRIAL]
TRIAL]
24
))
25
26 Pursuant to
Pursuant to leave
leave of
of court,
court, following
following an
an order
order sustaining
sustaining Defendant
Defendant City
City and
and County
County of
of
27 San
San Francisco’s
Francisco’s demurrer
demurrer to
to the plaintiff’s second
the plaintiff’s second amended
amended complaint,
complaint, said plaintiff now
said plaintiff now files
files
28
this third
this third amended
amended complaint,
complaint, and
and alleges:
alleges:
--1-
1-
DiGiacomo
DiGiacomo v.
v. Recology,
Recology, Inc.
Inc. et
et al
al -- Plaintiff’s
Plaintiff’s Third
Third Amended
Amended Complaint
Complaint for
for Injunctions
Injunctions and
and Damages
1 PREFACE
PREFACE
2
[\]
3 This
This is
is aa sad
sad case
case of
of aa reckless
reckless disregard
disregard for
for human
human life,
life, by
by aa for-profit monopoly" 1 that
for-profit monopoly that
4 receives
receives approximately one-third” 2 of
approximately one-third of its
its annual
annual revenue
revenue stream
stream from
from the
the City
City and
and County
County of
of San
San
Francisco, in
Francisco, in exchange
exchange for
for the
the performance
performance of
of aa service
service intended
intended to
to maintain
maintain the
the general
general welfare
welfare
5
of the
of the greater
greater community.
community.
6
7
THE PARTIES
THE PARTIES
8
9
1. Plaintiff
1. Plaintiff Raymond
Raymond Vincent
Vincent DiGiacomo,
DiGiacomo, Jr.
Jr. (“Plaintiff”)
(“Plaintiff”) is
is an
an individual
individual currently
currently
10 lawfully
lawfully residing
residing as
as aa rent paying tenant
rent paying tenant at
at 66
66 Geary
Geary Street
Street #414,
#414, San
San Francisco,
Francisco, CA
CA 94108.
94108.
11 Plaintiff’s bedroom windows
Plaintiff’s bedroom windows overlook
overlook San
San Francisco’s
Francisco’s Maiden
Maiden Lane.
Lane.
12 2. Defendant
2. Defendant Recology,
Recology, Inc.
Inc. (“RECOLOGY-INC”)
(“RECOLOGY-INC”) is
is aa California
California Corporation
Corporation operating
operating
13
out
out of
of its
its principal place of
principal place of business
business at
at 50
50 California
California Street, 24™th Floor,
Street, 24 Floor, San
San Francisco,
Francisco, CA
CA
94111.
94111.
14
3.
3. Defendant
Defendant Golden
Golden Gate
Gate Disposal
Disposal and
and Recycling
Recycling Company
Company (“GGDRC”)
(“GGDRC”) is
is aa California
California
15
Corporation (and
Corporation (and RECOLOGY-INC
RECOLOGY-INC subsidiary)
subsidiary) operating
operating out
out of
of its
its principal place of
principal place of business
business
16
at
at 50
50 California
California Street, 24™th Floor,
Street, 24 Floor, San
San Francisco,
Francisco, CA
CA 94111.
94111.
17
4.
4. Defendant
Defendant Recology
Recology Waste
Waste Solutions,
Solutions, Inc.
Inc. (“RECOLOGY-WS”)
(“RECOLOGY-WS”) is
is aa California
California
18 Corporation
Corporation operating
operating out
out of
of its
its principal place of
principal place of business
business at
at 50
50 California
California Street, 24™th Floor,
Street, 24 Floor,
19 San
San Francisco,
Francisco, CA
CA 94111.
94111.
20 5.
5. Defendant
Defendant Recology
Recology San
San Francisco,
Francisco, Inc.
Inc. (“RECOLOGY-SF”)
(“RECOLOGY-SF”) is
is aa California
California Corporation
Corporation
21 operating
operating out
out of
of its
its principal place of
principal place business at
of business at 50
50 California
California Street, 24™th Floor,
Street, 24 Floor, San
San Francisco,
Francisco,
22
CA 94111.
CA 94111.
6. Defendant
6. Defendant Recology
Recology Service
Service Center,
Center, Inc.
Inc. (“RECOLOGY-SC”)
(“RECOLOGY-SC”) is aa California
is California
23
Corporation
Corporation operating
operating out
out of
of its
its principal place of
principal place of business
business at
at 50
50 California
California Street, 24™th Floor,
Street, 24 Floor,
24
San
San Francisco,
Francisco, CA
CA 94111.
94111.
25
7. Defendants
7. Defendants RECOLOGY-INC,
RECOLOGY-INC, GGDRC,
GGDRC, RECOLOGY-WS,
RECOLOGY-WS, RECOLOGY-SF,
RECOLOGY-SF,
26
RECOLOGY-SC
RECOLOGY-SC may
may be
be collectively
collectively referred
referred to
to herein
herein as
as “Recology.”
“Recology.”
27
11 See
See http://www.tinyurl.com/recologyfraud
http://www. tinyurl.com/recologyfraud (at
(at ¶¶
9 20
20 and
and 28)
28) or,
or, in
in the
the alternative,
alternative, via
via its
its long
long URL
URL link
link at
at
28 https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/press-release/file/1338416/download
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/press-release/file/1338416/download (also (also at
at §¶¶ 20
20 and
and 28.)
28.)
22 Based
Based on
on 2018
2018 financial
financial figures
figures from
from dnb.com
dnb.com -- and
and 9¶ 24
24 of
of the
the affidavit
affidavit referenced
referenced inin above
above footnote
footnote #1.
#1.
-_2-
2-
DiGiacomo
DiGiacomo v.
v. Recology,
Recology, Inc.
Inc. et
et al
al -- Plaintiff’s
Plaintiff’s Third
Third Amended
Amended Complaint
Complaint for
for Injunctions
Injunctions and
and Damages
1 8.
8. Defendant
Defendant City
City and
and County
County of
of San
San Francisco
Francisco (“CCSF”)
(“CCSF”) is
is aa municipal
municipal entity
entity existing
existing
2 under
under the
the laws
laws of
of the
the State
State of
of California,
California, with
with the
the capacity
capacity to
to sue
sue and
and be
be sued,
sued, with
with its
its City
City
[\]
th
3 Attorney’s
Attorney’s office
office situated
situated at
at 1390
1390 Market
Market Street,
Street, 7
7" Floor,
Floor, San
San Francisco,
Francisco, CA
CA 94102.
94102.
4 9. Defendants
9. Defendants RECOLOGY-INC,
RECOLOGY-INC, GGDRC,
GGDRC, RECOLOGY-WS,
RECOLOGY-WS, RECOLOGY-SF,
RECOLOGY-SF,
RECOLOGY-SC, and
RECOLOGY-SC, and CCSF
CCSF may
may be
be collectively
collectively referred
referred to
to herein
herein as
as “defendants.”
“defendants.”
5
10.
10. The
The true
true names,
names, identities,
identities, and
and capacities,
capacities, whether
whether individual,
individual, corporate,
corporate, associate
associate or
or
6
otherwise
otherwise of
of Defendants
Defendants DOES
DOES 11 through
through 3300
3300 are unknown to
are unknown to Plaintiff;
Plaintiff; who,
who, therefore,
therefore, sues
sues
7
said
said defendants
defendants by
by such
such fictitious
fictitious names.
names. When
When the
the true
true names,
names, identities,
identities, and
and capacities
capacities of
of said
said
8
defendants are
defendants are ascertained,
ascertained, Plaintiff
Plaintiff will
will seek
seek leave
leave to
to amend
amend this
this complaint
complaint accordingly.
accordingly. Each
Each
9
of
of the
the defendants
defendants designated
designated herein
herein as
as aa DOE
DOE is
is responsible
responsible negligently,
negligently, intentionally,
intentionally, tortuously
tortuously
10 or
or in
in some
some other
other actionable
actionable manner
manner including, but not
including, but not limited
limited to,
to, the
the causes
causes of
of action
action alleged
alleged
11 herein,
herein, for
for the
the events
events referred
referred to
to herein,
herein, and
and caused
caused damages
damages to
to Plaintiff
Plaintiff as
as herein
herein alleged.
alleged.
12
13
JURISDICTION
JURISDICTION AND
AND VENUE
VENUE ARE
ARE PROPER
PROPER
14
11. This
11. This Court
Court has
has jurisdiction over the
jurisdiction over the subject
subject matter
matter of
of this
this action
action pursuant
pursuant to
to Code
Code of
of
15
Civil
Civil Procedure
Procedure (“CCP”)
(“CCP”) §§ 410.10.
410.10.
16
12. Venue
12. Venue in
in this
this judicial district is
judicial district is appropriate
appropriate pursuant to CCP
pursuant to CCP §§ 395(a).
395(a).
17
18 ALLEGATIONS COMMON
ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO
TO ALL
ALL CAUSES
CAUSES OF
OF ACTION
ACTION
19
20 13. Defendants
13. Defendants have
have aa unique
unique and
and special
special relationship
relationship with
with Plaintiff
Plaintiff in
in that
that the
the defendants
defendants
21 have
have entered
entered into
into aa “no-bid”
“no-bid” waste
waste management
management contract
contract with
with each
each other,
other, and
and thus
thus Plaintiff
Plaintiff has
has
22
no
no choice but to
choice but to place
place all
all of
of his
his trust
trust in
in defendants.
defendants.
14. On
14. On or
or about
about August
August 31
31 2018,
2018, Plaintiff
Plaintiff contacted
contacted Recology
Recology via
via email,
email, informing
informing
23
Recology of
Recology of the
the distress
distress that
that Plaintiff
Plaintiff suffered
suffered due
due to
to Recology’s
Recology’s actions.
actions. On
On or
or about
about
24
September
S
Preview
1 Mark A. Hagopian (State Bar No. 124819) mark.hagopian@manningkass.com 2 Richard D. McKie (State Bar No. 311978) DISCOVERY ELECTRONICALLY richard.mckie@manningkass.com 3 Mark R. Wilson (State Bar No. 293474) FILED Superior Court of California, mark.wilson@manningkass.com County of San Francisco 4 MANNING & KASS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP 09/06/2023 Clerk of the Court 5 One California Street, Suite 900 BY: VERA MU San Francisco, California 94111 Deputy Clerk 6 Telephone: (415) 217-6990 Facsimile: (415) 217-6999 7 Attorneys for Defendant RECOLOGY, INC. 8 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 12 13 RAYMOND VINCENT DIGIACOMO, JR., Case No. CGC-19-581651 [Consolidated w/Case Nos. CGC-20-584604; 14 Plaintiff, CGC-20-588592] 15 v. DECLARATION OF RICHARD D. MCKIE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT 16 RECOLOGY, INC.; GOLDEN GATE RECOLOGY, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO DISPOSAL AND RECYCLING COMPANY; PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH 17 RECOLOGY WASTE SOLUTIONS, INC.; RECORDS-ONLY SUBPOENA 37 RECOLOGY SAN FRANCISCO, INC.; REGARDING THE TENDERLOIN 18 RECOLOGY SERVICE CENTER, INC.; HOUSING CLINIC CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 19 and DOES 1 through 3300, inclusive, Hearing Date: September 19, 2023 Time: 9:00 a.m. 20 Dept: 302 [DISCOVERY] 21 Action Filed: December 18, 2019 22 Trial Date: February 5, 2024 23 24 I, Richard D. McKie, declare as follows: 25 1. I am an attorney duly admitted to practice before this Court. I am an attorney with 26 Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, attorneys of record for Defendant, RECOLOGY, 27 INC. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and if called as a witness, I could and 28 would competently testify thereto. I make this declaration in support of Defendant Recology, Inc.'s 4888-3362-1881.1 DECLARATION OF RICHARD D. MCKIE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT RECOLOGY, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH 1 Opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to quash Recology’s updated record served on the Tenderloin 2 Housing Clinic. 3 2. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Verified Third Amended Complaint is attached 4 hereto as Exhibit A. 5 3. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s response to Recology’s Form Interrogatories, 6 Set One, is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 7 4. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s amended response to Recology’s Form 8 Interrogatories, Set One, is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 9 5. A true and correct copy of a December 17, 2020 Recology served business records 10 subpoena on the Tenderloin Housing Clinic (“THC”) is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 11 6. On January 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion to quash and for protective order as to 12 the subpoena served on THC. Recology opposed the motions. During the meet and confer process, 13 Plaintiff demanded that the subpoenas be completely withdrawn, and Plaintiff would not entertain 14 any proposed limitations. The Court then referred the parties to an Informal Discovery Conference 15 (IDC). During the conference, I agreed to various limitations proposed by IDC Referee James H. 16 Fleming. Plaintiff, however, refused to make any concessions and rejected Referee Fleming’s 17 proposed solutions. 18 7. A true and correct copy of the Court’s June 17, 2021 Order is attached hereto as 19 Exhibit E. 20 8. A true and correct copy of this Court’s June 9, 2023, is attached hereto as Exhibit F. 21 9. A true and correct copy of a July 27, 2023, updated subpoena served on THC is 22 attached hereto as Exhibit G. 23 10. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s July 31, 2023 meet and confer email is attached 24 hereto as Exhibit H. 25 11. A true and correct copy of my same day, July 31st, response to Plaintiff’s meet and 26 confer email is attached hereto as Exhibit I. Plaintiff did not provide a substantive response to my 27 meet and confer email and instead chose to file the instant motion. 28 /// 4888-3362-1881.1 2 DECLARATION OF RICHARD D. MCKIE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT RECOLOGY, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH 1 12. Recology has incurred reasonable attorney's fees to oppose this Motion. I have spent 2 approximately 10.5 hours reviewing Plaintiff's motion, exhibits, researching controlling authority 3 and preparing this opposition, including the memorandum of points and authorities, and my 4 declaration, including the anticipated time it will take to appear for this matter (which will likely 5 include two hearings since Plaintiff rarely stipulates to allowing Judge Pro Tem’s authority to render 6 final rulings), at $225.00 per hour for a total of $2,250.00. 7 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing 8 is true and correct. 9 Executed on this 6th day of September 2023, at San Francisco, California. 10 11 12 13 Richard McKie 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4888-3362-1881.1 3 DECLARATION OF RICHARD D. MCKIE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT RECOLOGY, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH EXHIBITA EXHIBIT A 1 Raymond V. Raymond V. DiGiacomo, DiGiacomo, Jr. Jr. 2 66 66 Geary Geary St. St. #414 #414 [\] 3 San San Francisco, Francisco, CA CA 94108 94108 4 raydigiacomojr@gmail.com raydigiacomojr@gmail.com 415-595-4107 415-595-4107 5 Self-Represented Self-Represented 6 7 8 SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF OF THE THE STATE STATE OF OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA, 9 FOR FOR THE THE COUNTY COUNTY OF OF SAN SAN FRANCISCO FRANCISCO 10 [CIVIL UNLIMITED] [CIVIL UNLIMITED] 11 12 Raymond Vincent Raymond Vincent DiGiacomo, DiGiacomo, Jr. Jr. )) Case No. Case CGC-19-581651 No. CGC-19-581651 13 Plaintiff, Plaintiff, )) )) PLAINTIFF’S THIRD PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED AMENDED 14 Vs. vs. )) COMPLAINT FOR COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIONS INJUNCTIONS AND AND 15 )) DAMAGES: DAMAGES: 16 Recology, Recology, Inc.; Inc.; )) 17 Golden Golden Gate Gate Disposal Disposal and and Recycling Recycling )) 1. 1. Private Private Nuisance Nuisance 18 Company; Company; )) 2. 2. Negligence Negligence 19 Recology Waste Recology Waste Solutions, Solutions, Inc.; Inc.; )) 3. Violation 3. Violation of of Mandatory Mandatory Duty Duty 20 Recology Recology San San Francisco, Francisco, Inc.; Inc.; )) 4. 4. Dangerous Dangerous Condition Condition on on Pub. Pub. Prop. Prop. 21 Recology Recology Service Service Center, Center, Inc.; Inc.; )) 5. 5. Constitutional Constitutional Deprivation Deprivation 22 City City and and County County of of San San Francisco; Francisco; and, and, )) 6. 6. Relief Relief from from Illegal Illegal Expenditure Expenditure DOES DOES 11 through through 3300, 3300, inclusive, inclusive, )) 23 Defendants. Defendants. )) [DEMAND FOR [DEMAND FOR JURY JURY TRIAL] TRIAL] 24 )) 25 26 Pursuant to Pursuant to leave leave of of court, court, following following an an order order sustaining sustaining Defendant Defendant City City and and County County of of 27 San San Francisco’s Francisco’s demurrer demurrer to to the plaintiff’s second the plaintiff’s second amended amended complaint, complaint, said plaintiff now said plaintiff now files files 28 this third this third amended amended complaint, complaint, and and alleges: alleges: --1- 1- DiGiacomo DiGiacomo v. v. Recology, Recology, Inc. Inc. et et al al -- Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s Third Third Amended Amended Complaint Complaint for for Injunctions Injunctions and and Damages 1 PREFACE PREFACE 2 [\] 3 This This is is aa sad sad case case of of aa reckless reckless disregard disregard for for human human life, life, by by aa for-profit monopoly" 1 that for-profit monopoly that 4 receives receives approximately one-third” 2 of approximately one-third of its its annual annual revenue revenue stream stream from from the the City City and and County County of of San San Francisco, in Francisco, in exchange exchange for for the the performance performance of of aa service service intended intended to to maintain maintain the the general general welfare welfare 5 of the of the greater greater community. community. 6 7 THE PARTIES THE PARTIES 8 9 1. Plaintiff 1. Plaintiff Raymond Raymond Vincent Vincent DiGiacomo, DiGiacomo, Jr. Jr. (“Plaintiff”) (“Plaintiff”) is is an an individual individual currently currently 10 lawfully lawfully residing residing as as aa rent paying tenant rent paying tenant at at 66 66 Geary Geary Street Street #414, #414, San San Francisco, Francisco, CA CA 94108. 94108. 11 Plaintiff’s bedroom windows Plaintiff’s bedroom windows overlook overlook San San Francisco’s Francisco’s Maiden Maiden Lane. Lane. 12 2. Defendant 2. Defendant Recology, Recology, Inc. Inc. (“RECOLOGY-INC”) (“RECOLOGY-INC”) is is aa California California Corporation Corporation operating operating 13 out out of of its its principal place of principal place of business business at at 50 50 California California Street, 24™th Floor, Street, 24 Floor, San San Francisco, Francisco, CA CA 94111. 94111. 14 3. 3. Defendant Defendant Golden Golden Gate Gate Disposal Disposal and and Recycling Recycling Company Company (“GGDRC”) (“GGDRC”) is is aa California California 15 Corporation (and Corporation (and RECOLOGY-INC RECOLOGY-INC subsidiary) subsidiary) operating operating out out of of its its principal place of principal place of business business 16 at at 50 50 California California Street, 24™th Floor, Street, 24 Floor, San San Francisco, Francisco, CA CA 94111. 94111. 17 4. 4. Defendant Defendant Recology Recology Waste Waste Solutions, Solutions, Inc. Inc. (“RECOLOGY-WS”) (“RECOLOGY-WS”) is is aa California California 18 Corporation Corporation operating operating out out of of its its principal place of principal place of business business at at 50 50 California California Street, 24™th Floor, Street, 24 Floor, 19 San San Francisco, Francisco, CA CA 94111. 94111. 20 5. 5. Defendant Defendant Recology Recology San San Francisco, Francisco, Inc. Inc. (“RECOLOGY-SF”) (“RECOLOGY-SF”) is is aa California California Corporation Corporation 21 operating operating out out of of its its principal place of principal place business at of business at 50 50 California California Street, 24™th Floor, Street, 24 Floor, San San Francisco, Francisco, 22 CA 94111. CA 94111. 6. Defendant 6. Defendant Recology Recology Service Service Center, Center, Inc. Inc. (“RECOLOGY-SC”) (“RECOLOGY-SC”) is aa California is California 23 Corporation Corporation operating operating out out of of its its principal place of principal place of business business at at 50 50 California California Street, 24™th Floor, Street, 24 Floor, 24 San San Francisco, Francisco, CA CA 94111. 94111. 25 7. Defendants 7. Defendants RECOLOGY-INC, RECOLOGY-INC, GGDRC, GGDRC, RECOLOGY-WS, RECOLOGY-WS, RECOLOGY-SF, RECOLOGY-SF, 26 RECOLOGY-SC RECOLOGY-SC may may be be collectively collectively referred referred to to herein herein as as “Recology.” “Recology.” 27 11 See See http://www.tinyurl.com/recologyfraud http://www. tinyurl.com/recologyfraud (at (at ¶¶ 9 20 20 and and 28) 28) or, or, in in the the alternative, alternative, via via its its long long URL URL link link at at 28 https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/press-release/file/1338416/download https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/press-release/file/1338416/download (also (also at at §¶¶ 20 20 and and 28.) 28.) 22 Based Based on on 2018 2018 financial financial figures figures from from dnb.com dnb.com -- and and 9¶ 24 24 of of the the affidavit affidavit referenced referenced inin above above footnote footnote #1. #1. -_2- 2- DiGiacomo DiGiacomo v. v. Recology, Recology, Inc. Inc. et et al al -- Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s Third Third Amended Amended Complaint Complaint for for Injunctions Injunctions and and Damages 1 8. 8. Defendant Defendant City City and and County County of of San San Francisco Francisco (“CCSF”) (“CCSF”) is is aa municipal municipal entity entity existing existing 2 under under the the laws laws of of the the State State of of California, California, with with the the capacity capacity to to sue sue and and be be sued, sued, with with its its City City [\] th 3 Attorney’s Attorney’s office office situated situated at at 1390 1390 Market Market Street, Street, 7 7" Floor, Floor, San San Francisco, Francisco, CA CA 94102. 94102. 4 9. Defendants 9. Defendants RECOLOGY-INC, RECOLOGY-INC, GGDRC, GGDRC, RECOLOGY-WS, RECOLOGY-WS, RECOLOGY-SF, RECOLOGY-SF, RECOLOGY-SC, and RECOLOGY-SC, and CCSF CCSF may may be be collectively collectively referred referred to to herein herein as as “defendants.” “defendants.” 5 10. 10. The The true true names, names, identities, identities, and and capacities, capacities, whether whether individual, individual, corporate, corporate, associate associate or or 6 otherwise otherwise of of Defendants Defendants DOES DOES 11 through through 3300 3300 are unknown to are unknown to Plaintiff; Plaintiff; who, who, therefore, therefore, sues sues 7 said said defendants defendants by by such such fictitious fictitious names. names. When When the the true true names, names, identities, identities, and and capacities capacities of of said said 8 defendants are defendants are ascertained, ascertained, Plaintiff Plaintiff will will seek seek leave leave to to amend amend this this complaint complaint accordingly. accordingly. Each Each 9 of of the the defendants defendants designated designated herein herein as as aa DOE DOE is is responsible responsible negligently, negligently, intentionally, intentionally, tortuously tortuously 10 or or in in some some other other actionable actionable manner manner including, but not including, but not limited limited to, to, the the causes causes of of action action alleged alleged 11 herein, herein, for for the the events events referred referred to to herein, herein, and and caused caused damages damages to to Plaintiff Plaintiff as as herein herein alleged. alleged. 12 13 JURISDICTION JURISDICTION AND AND VENUE VENUE ARE ARE PROPER PROPER 14 11. This 11. This Court Court has has jurisdiction over the jurisdiction over the subject subject matter matter of of this this action action pursuant pursuant to to Code Code of of 15 Civil Civil Procedure Procedure (“CCP”) (“CCP”) §§ 410.10. 410.10. 16 12. Venue 12. Venue in in this this judicial district is judicial district is appropriate appropriate pursuant to CCP pursuant to CCP §§ 395(a). 395(a). 17 18 ALLEGATIONS COMMON ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO TO ALL ALL CAUSES CAUSES OF OF ACTION ACTION 19 20 13. Defendants 13. Defendants have have aa unique unique and and special special relationship relationship with with Plaintiff Plaintiff in in that that the the defendants defendants 21 have have entered entered into into aa “no-bid” “no-bid” waste waste management management contract contract with with each each other, other, and and thus thus Plaintiff Plaintiff has has 22 no no choice but to choice but to place place all all of of his his trust trust in in defendants. defendants. 14. On 14. On or or about about August August 31 31 2018, 2018, Plaintiff Plaintiff contacted contacted Recology Recology via via email, email, informing informing 23 Recology of Recology of the the distress distress that that Plaintiff Plaintiff suffered suffered due due to to Recology’s Recology’s actions. actions. On On or or about about 24 September S