Preview
1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
SHAWN A. TOLIVER, SB# 148349
2 Email: Shawn.Toliver@lewisbrisboiseom
JULIE M. AZEVEDO, SB# 151618 FILED
’
3 Email: Julie.Azevedo@1ewisbrisbois.com SAN M ATEO COUNTY
COLIN E. HOWARD, SB# 308924
M AY 2 5 2018
4 Email: Colin.Howard@lewisbrisbois.com .
333 Bush Street, Suite 1100 .
,
5 San Francisco, California 94104—28 72
Telephone: 415.362.2580
6 Facsimile: 415.434.0882
7 Attorneys for Defendants PAUL BONIFACIO
and MARGARET HYUN (erroneously sued as
, 8 MARGOTHYUN) , _ __ __ _
[ZED {1a—clv—o1696
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE'STATE OF CALIFORNIA 3::.:,,,..,,,
i)
1
5 1" WWATEO 1
’
1112596
W 11 BRICEIDA LOPEZ, an adult by and through CASE NO. 18CIV01696 K
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIll
_ . _, 7
her Guardian ad Litem, ELBA KARINA 1
$1131 12 LOPEZ GOMEZ, DECLARATION OF JULIE M. AZEVEDO
@ '
13 Plaintiff,
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS PAUL
BONIFACIO AND MARGARET HYUN’S
MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE
14 vs.
C3 Date: UUL‘IZ, 2018
15 PAUL BONIFACIO, MARGOT HYUN, and Time: 9:00 am.
SO .
DOES ONE thorough ONE-HUNDRED, Dept: Law & Motion
—“‘ 16 inclusive, Judge:
CT)
m“ 17 Defendants. Action Filed: April 6, 2018
7 18
Trial Date: None Set
:[>
i 19 1, Julie M. Azevedo, declare as follows:
20 1. 1 am an attorney duly admitted to practice in all Of the courts of the State of
21 California and I am a partner with Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, attorneys of record for
22 Defendants PAUL BONIFACIO and MARGARET HYUN (erroneously sued as MARGOT
23 HYUN) herein. The facts set forth herein are of my own personal knowledge, and if sworn I could
24 and would competently testify thereto.
25 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Complaint filed by
26 Plaintiff BRICEIDA LOPEZ, an adult by and through her Guardian ad Litem, ELBA KARINA
27 LOPEZ GOMEZ.
23
LEWBS
S'E’GSEgg 4838-0556—9891]
1
mm, up
AYICRNEYS A? LAW
DECLARATION OF JULIE M. AZEVEDO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS PAUL BONIFACIO AND
MARGARET HYUN’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the declaration Plaintiffs
counsel attached to the Application and Order for Appointment of a Guardian ad litem.
4. This lawsuit arises out of a fire that occurred at 1509 Christy Lane, Olympic
Valley, California.
of the Complaint, the majority of material
\DOOQQUIrBUJNi—t
5. Based on the allegations witnesses who
will testify at trial appear to reside in Placer County or north of Placer County.
6. Defendants PAUL BONIFACIO and MARGARET HYUN allegedly owned the
residence at 1509 Christy Lane, Olympic Valley, California, where Plaintiff was injured.
7. Upon information and belief, the witnesses who participated in the sale of the
property where Plaintiff was injured, and the witnesses who conducted an inspection of the
property before the sale, all reside in Placer County.
8. Upon information and belief, the wimesses who Defendants hired to clean,
I
maintain, and care for the property reside in Placer County.
9. The fire occurred in a residential neighborhood, and upon information and belief,
residents of several households witnessed the fire and its immediate aftermath.
10. Upon information and belief, the paramedics and first responders who responded to
the fire and treated Plaintiff at the scene reside in Placer County. They include, upon information
and belief, members and employees of the Squaw Valley Fire Department, North Tahoe Fire
oeqaxmtI-aexeoeqexmamNi—i:
NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH Protection District, the Placer County Sheriff’s Department, all of which are based in Placer
County.
11. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the Squaw Valley Fire
Department Report.
12. Members of the California Highway Patrol and the Truckee Fire Department, both
of which have bases north of Placer County, also assisted at the scene.
13. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the Truckee Fire
Protection District Report of Investigation.
14. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff and the person she was with when the fire
occurred reside in Placer County.
LEWIS
BRISBOIS 4838-0556—9893 . I
BISGAARD 2
& SMIIH up DECLARATION OF JULIE M. AZEVEDO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS PAUL BONIFACIO AND
A! LAW
ATDRNEYS
MARGARET HYUN’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE
15. Upon information and belief, afier the fire, Plaintiff was transported between
hospitals Via helicopter operated by Care Flight, which flew from its base in Truckee, California,
which is located north of Placer County.
16. Plaintiffs Complaint includes product liability and ultra—hazardous activity claims.
Upon information and belief, the witnesses who will have material information pertaining to those
\Owrxla‘xUl-JBDJNH
claims reside in Placer County. They include witnesses who installed products in Defendants’
property and who supplied gas to Defendants’ property.
17. Upon information and belief, all of the physical evidence pertaining to the accident
.
is located in Placer County.
18. The drive from Olympic Valley, where the accident occurred, to San Mateo County
is at least 230 miles.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on May 24, 2018, at San
Francisco, California.
Julie M/Kzevedo
NNNNNNNNNHHP—‘HHHHHF—H
ooqam-umNHckoooxlcI-h-MNHO
LEWIS
BRISBOIS 4838-0556-9893 .l
BISGAARD 3
ass/mm? DECLARATION OF JULIE M. AZEVEDO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS PAUL BONIFACIO AND
mamas A1 lAW
MARGARET HYUN’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE,
Exhibit 1 — Camplaint, filed April 6, 2018
‘1
LAW emu»: OF
WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY 5?. SCHOENPERGER
FELE
A PROFBSIONAL CORPORATION
550 CAUFORNIA STREEI', 26‘" FLOOR .
w
SAN FRANGSCO, CALIFORNIA 94108-2615 COUNTY
SAN MATEO
74415) 981-7210 - F: (415)391-6965
MATTHEW D. DAVIS (State Bar #141986)
’
wmqm‘mpmmw
mdavis@walkuplawoflice.com
SPENCER J. PAHLKE (State Bar #250914)
spahlke®walku§lawoflicenom
ATTORNEYS F0 PLAINTIFF
BRICEmA LOPEZ
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
‘
BRICEIZDA LOPEZ, an adult, by and Case No.
through her Guardian ad Litem,ELBA 13 C l V 0 15 .
9 5
KARINA LOPEZ GOMEZ, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
. [Product Liability ~ Strict Liability
Plaintiff, Design Defect; Product Liability — Strict
Liability Manufacturing Defect; Product
v. Liability — Strict Liability Failure to
Warn; Product Liability —- Negligence;
PAUL BONIFACIO, MARGOT HYUN, Negligence; Premises Liability ——
and DOES ONE through ONE- Negligence; Strict Liability — Ultra-
HUNDRED, inclusive, Hazardous Activities]
Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
-“ ‘ "' _,
— ' ‘ "' ‘
UNLIMITED JURISDECTION:
NNNMMNMNMHHHHHHHH'HH Damages sought exceed $25,090
.m-qcaoiuaoqowmqmmAWbOr—lo
Action Filed:
Trial. Date: Unassigned
MROD-UCTORY ALLEGATION S
Plaintiff Briceida Lopez, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, complains of
Defendants, and each of them, as follows:
1. Plaintiff is an individual who resides in the State of California.
2. Defendants Paul Bonifacio and Margot Hyun are natural persons, and
residents of the County of San Mateo, State of California.
1
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ~ CASE NO.
3. The true names or capacities, Whether individual, corporate,
governmental, or associate, of the Defendants named herein as Doe are unknown to
Plaintiff who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintifi prays
leave to amend this Complaint to show their true names and capacities when the
same have been finally determined. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such
{COOK‘IOEU‘sJAOp-d
information and belief alleges, that each of the Defendants designated herein as Doe
is negligently, strictly, recklessly, willfully, or otherwise legally responsible in some
manner for the events and happenings herein referred to, and negligently, recklessly,
willfully, or otherwise caused injury and damages proximately thereby to Plaintifi, as
is hereinafter alleged.
4. At all times herein mentioned, each and every of the Defendants herein
was the agent, servant, partner, co-conspirator, joint venturer, employee and/or
franchisee of each of the other Defendants, and each was at all times acting within
the course and scope of such agency, service, partnership, conspiracy, employment,
joint venture, and/or franchise.
5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all
times relevant to the allegations made in this Complaint, defendants Paul Bonifacio,
ammswwwommqmmemwo—lo
Margot Hyun, and DOES THIRTY through FORTY, and each of them, were the
NMMMNNNMHHHHHHHHHH
lawful oyvners, controllers, and managers of a residence located at 1509 Christy Lane,
Olympic Valley, California (the “Residence”).
6. On or about March 17, 2018, Plaintiif was lawfully present at the
Residence when an explosion and ensuing fire occurred (the “Incident”), resulting in
devastating, extensive, disfiguring, third-degree burns over the majority of Plaintiffs
body, including her face. At the time of the Incident, Plaintiff was acting in a lawful,
reasonable, and foreseeable manner.
7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that leaking
propane gas had collected in the Residence and was ignited, which caused the
LAW OFFICE or
28 Incident. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the source
Wm, MELODM. KELLY
Ammm
G. SCROEN'BERGER
ssn CAUFORNQA 51m? 2
1 FLOD
SAN mmcsco, CA was
H15} 981-7210
COL/[Pm FOR DAMAGES - CASE NO.
of the ignition for the explosion was an appliance (the “Appliance”), and that the
propane was stored at and supplied to the Residence via an outdoor tank and related
pipes, connectors, adapters, valves, couplers, adhesives, tubes, hoses, and fittings
(the “Propane Components”).
coooqoammcoww
8. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that DOES
TEN through TWENTY-NINE, and each of them, installed, designed, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, sold, installed, maintained, inspected, repaired, and serviced
the Appliance and the Propane Components.
9. In the time since the Incident, Plaintiff has undergone three major
HO surgical procedures related to her injuries, and has been largely kept in a medically-
H I—‘
induced coma. Her care has therefore been guided and controlled by her half-sister,
Elba Karina Lopez Gomez.
mascots
10. Prior to the filing of this Complaint, the above~entitled Court, by its
Hl—‘P—IH
Order regularly made and entered, appointed Elba Karina Lopez Gomez as the
Guardian Ad Litem of Briceida Lopez, and said person at the commencement of this
H
0')
action was, and ever since has been, the regularly appointed, duly qualified and
H 41 acting Guardian ad Litem for Plaintiff Briceida Lopez.
H 00 FLUST CAUSE OF ACTION
[Product Liab Lity — Strict Liability Design Defect]
OcD
NH
Plaintiff complains of Defendants DOES TEN through TWENTY-NINE, and
MN: NI—I
each of them, and for a First Cause of Action alleges:
1 1. Plaintiff hereby refers to and incorporates by this reference each of the
N) 0.7
allegations set forth above and makes them part of this, the First Cause of Action, as
N as though fully set forth herein.
12. At all relevant times, Defendants DOES TEN through TWENTY-NINE,
0301
MN
and each of them, were and still are engaged in the business of designing, testing,
Mq manufacturing, marketing, advertising, and selling for consideration items like the
28 Appliance and the Propane Components.
A
“~m
m
65V
LAW OFFiCEEa OF
male Manon,
fiscl-lDENBERGER
WKSTREET
mum
8
, CA 54 ms
HIS) 931-1110 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - CASE NO.
13. Prior to and on or about March 17, 2018, Defendants DOES TEN
through TWENTY-N]NE, and each of them, designed, tested, manufactured,
marketed, advertised, and sold for consideration the Appliance.
14. Prior to and on or about March 17, 2018, Defendants DOES TEN
@mqmmewww
through TWENTY-NINE, and each of them, designed, tested, manufactured,
marketed, advertised, and sold for consideration the Propane Components.
15. At the time Defendants DOES TEN through TWENTY-NM, and each
of them, designed, tested, manufactured, marketed, advertised, and sold for
consideration the Appliance and the Propane Components, said Defendants, and each
HO of them, knew said products would be used without further inspection for defects by
HH end-users, and interested members of the California general public, including but not
limited to Plaintifi'.
l-‘I-IH
#0010
16. At all times herein mentioned, the condition of the Appliance and the
Propane Components was substantially the same as when it left Defendants’
H CT! possession, and any changes to said products were reasonably foreseeable to
l-‘ O}
Defendants, and each of them.
Hq 17. At all times herein mentioned, the Appliance and the Propane
H ('13 Components were being used for the purposes for which Defendants, and each of
H (.0 them, had designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised, distributed, sold, and
intended them to be used.
MM HQ
18. At all times herein mentioned, the Appliance and the Propane
N N) Components were being used in a manner reasonably foreseeable to Defendants, and
each of them.
#03
MN
19. At the time of the Incident, the design of the Appliance was deficient
N 01 and defective insofar as, when subjected to normal and foreseeable use, it was
N) 03
capable of igniting propane gas that had leaked and causing a major explosion, such
27 as that which occurred in the Incident.
28 l///
awummmm '
4
wsmzfi‘dsccogj was
[415) 951-7110 COWLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO.
—
20. At the time of the Incident, the design of the Propane Components was
deficient and defective insofar as, when subjected to normal and foreseeable use, it
was capable of leaking suficient quantities of Propane to provide the fuel for a major
explosion, such as that which occurred in the Incident.
At all times herein mentioned, the Appliance did not meet the
tom-qmmmwiop-a
21.
reasonable expectations of ordinary consumers, and did not perform as safely as an
ordinary consumer would have expected, when used or misused in an intended or
reasonably foreseeable way.
22. At all times herein mentioned, the Propane Components did not meet
the reasonable expectations of ordinary consumers, anddid not perform as safely as
HH HO
an ordinary consumer would have expected, when used or misused in an intended or
[—1 N)
reasonably foreseeable way.
|-‘ CD ~
23. At all times herein mentioned, the likelihood and severity of the
H d}. Appliance’s risks, which included a high risk of serious injury or death, outweighed
its benefits.
HH
Ohm
24. At all times herein mentioned, the likelihood and severity of the
Hq Propane Components’ risks, which included a high risk of serious injury or death,
outweighed its benefits.
HH coco
25. The deficient and defective design of the Appliance was a substantial
N)
Q factor in causing the Incident, which in turn caused Plaintis injuries as alleged
N)
H herein.
MN)
26. The deficient and defective design of the Propane Components Was a
00M
substantial factor in causing the Incident, which in turn caused Plaintiff s injuries as
NJ ,p.
alleged herein.
‘
27. By reason of the defective and deficient designs of the Appliance and the
MN CDC“
Propane Components, Defendants, and each of them, are strictly liable to Plaintiff in
27 tort.
28 [Ill
W113”
“0 5
sum? («5: 931-5210
was COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - CASE NO.
®
28.. The Incident and Plaintifi’s injuries were directly and legally caused by
defects in the. designs of the Appliance and the Propane Components. Such defects
existed at the time Defendants, and each of them, designed, tested, manufactured,
marketed, advertised, and sold for consideration the Appliance and the Propane
wm—qmmswww Components.
29. As a direct and legal result of the aforesaid defects and of the Incident,
Plaintiff sustained catastrophic and. permanent injuries, including Without limitation
third-degree burns over the majority of her body, extreme physical and mental pain,
disfiguring scars, and other injuries presently undiagnosed. Plaintiff is informed and
believes and thereupon alleges that certain of said injuries will be permanent in
nature, the extent of said permanent injuries being at this time unknown to Plaintifi'.
30. As a further direct and legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and
each of them, it became necessary for Plaintifi' to incur expenses for medical care and
treatment, related costs and expenses required in the care and treatment of said
injuries, and extraordinary household and living costs. Plaintiffs damage in this
respect is presently unascertained as said services are still continuing. Plaintiff
prays leave to insert her elements of damage in this respect when the same are
finally determined.
MMMNMNMNHHHHHHHHHH
ammemMHamm-qmmamwwo
ii 31; As a further direct and legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and
each of them, Plaintiff has been unableat times to follow her regular employment
and has suffered a diminution of her earning capacity, to her special damage in a
presently unascertained sum as said loss is not yet finally determined. Plaintiff I
prays leave to insert her elements of damage in this respect when the sameare
V
finally determined.
V
32. As a result of the Incident, Plaintiff suffered special (economic) and
general (non—economic) damages each in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional
minimum of this Court.
28 / / I /
uwnFslcs OF
Wm.
a mum
more, mm
AMWALWTIDN
650 (‘AUFORNIASI'REET
2m FLOOR
6
CA N108
E415) Sal-72m COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - CASE NO.
Wherefore, Plaintifi' prays for judgment against Defendants DOES TEN
macaw
through TWENTY-NINE, and each of them, as hereinafter set forth.
[Product Liability— Strict Liability Manufacturing Defect]
(DOOQODUIACIDMH
.’
Plaintiff complains of Defendants DOES TEN through TWENTY-NINE, and
'
each of them, and for a Second Cause of Action alleges:
33. Plaintiff hereby refers to and incorporates by this reference each
allegation set forth above and makes it part of this, the Second Cause of Action, as
though set forth fully herein.
34. At all times herein mentioned, the Appliance and the Propane
Components contained manufacturing defects such that they difi‘ered from
Defendants’ designs and specifications, and differed from other typical units of
Defendants’ same lines of products.
35. The manufacturing defects of the Appliance and the Propane
Components were hidden and could not reasonably be detected by property owners
and end users.
36. At all times herein mentioned, the Appliance and the Propane
NNNNNNNHHl—‘HHHI—IHHH
mmowwwommqmmhwwh-o
Components were being used in manners reasonably foreseeable to Defendants, and
each of them.
37. The manufacturing defects in the Appliance and the Propane
Components directly and legally caused the Incident and caused Plaintiff’s resulting
injuries and damages set forth hereinahove.
Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for judgment against defendants DOES TEN
through TWENTY-NINE, and each of them, as hereinafter set forth.
/ll/
/l//
l//I
////
LAW OFFRCS OF
655 culrfoalrgléimm 7
SANFRANQ'SCO, GA 94!
(415) 981-7210 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - CASE NO.
{qmmtD-J
W
[Product Liability - Strict Liability Failure to Warn]
Plaintiff complains of Defendants DOES TEN through TWENTY-NW3}, and
each of them, and for a Third Cause of Action alleges:
Plaintifi' hereby refers to and incorporates by this reference each
38.
allegation set forth above and makes it part of this, the Third Cause of Action, as
though set forth fully herein.
39. At the time Defendants designed, tested, manufactured, marketed,
advertised, and sold for consideration the Appliance and the Propane Components,
said products were capable of producing explosions that could cause catastrophic
r—Ir—I
HO
burn injuries, such as those sufi'ered in the Incident. The risk of explosion was
known or knowahle to Defendants through the use of scientific knowledge then
available.
40. At all times herein mentioned, said risks presented a substantial danger
of burn injuries to property owners and other people lawfully present at the
Residence when the Appliance and the Propane Components were used or misused in
an intended or reasonably foreseeable way.
41. At all times herein mentioned, the potential risks presented by the
Appliance and the Propane Components were not recognizable to ordinary consumers
and users.
42. Defendants, and each of them, failed to provide suficient instructions
and warnings regarding the risks associated with use of the Appliance and the
Propane Components.
43. As a direct and legal result of the lack of sufficient instructions and
warnings, the Incident occurred and caused harm to Plaintiff as described
hereinabove.
Wherefore, Plaintifi' prays for judgment against Defendants DOES TEN
through TWENTY-NINE, and each of them, as hereinafter set forth.
8
minus ,0
ms; ems-210
94
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - CASE NO.
FOURTH CA ‘E OF ACTION
v.4
[Product ’niah' htty — Negligence}
Plaintifi' complains of Defendants DOES TEN through TWENTY-NWE, and
each of them,- and for a Fourth Cause of Action alleges:
{Dmx'lmmvtI-d
44. Plaintiff hereby refers to and incorporates by this reference each
Preview
1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP SHAWN A. TOLIVER, SB# 148349 2 Email: Shawn.Toliver@lewisbrisboiseom JULIE M. AZEVEDO, SB# 151618 FILED ’ 3 Email: Julie.Azevedo@1ewisbrisbois.com SAN M ATEO COUNTY COLIN E. HOWARD, SB# 308924 M AY 2 5 2018 4 Email: Colin.Howard@lewisbrisbois.com . 333 Bush Street, Suite 1100 . , 5 San Francisco, California 94104—28 72 Telephone: 415.362.2580 6 Facsimile: 415.434.0882 7 Attorneys for Defendants PAUL BONIFACIO and MARGARET HYUN (erroneously sued as , 8 MARGOTHYUN) , _ __ __ _ [ZED {1a—clv—o1696 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE'STATE OF CALIFORNIA 3::.:,,,..,,, i) 1 5 1" WWATEO 1 ’ 1112596 W 11 BRICEIDA LOPEZ, an adult by and through CASE NO. 18CIV01696 K lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIll _ . _, 7 her Guardian ad Litem, ELBA KARINA 1 $1131 12 LOPEZ GOMEZ, DECLARATION OF JULIE M. AZEVEDO @ ' 13 Plaintiff, IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS PAUL BONIFACIO AND MARGARET HYUN’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE 14 vs. C3 Date: UUL‘IZ, 2018 15 PAUL BONIFACIO, MARGOT HYUN, and Time: 9:00 am. SO . DOES ONE thorough ONE-HUNDRED, Dept: Law & Motion —“‘ 16 inclusive, Judge: CT) m“ 17 Defendants. Action Filed: April 6, 2018 7 18 Trial Date: None Set :[> i 19 1, Julie M. Azevedo, declare as follows: 20 1. 1 am an attorney duly admitted to practice in all Of the courts of the State of 21 California and I am a partner with Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, attorneys of record for 22 Defendants PAUL BONIFACIO and MARGARET HYUN (erroneously sued as MARGOT 23 HYUN) herein. The facts set forth herein are of my own personal knowledge, and if sworn I could 24 and would competently testify thereto. 25 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Complaint filed by 26 Plaintiff BRICEIDA LOPEZ, an adult by and through her Guardian ad Litem, ELBA KARINA 27 LOPEZ GOMEZ. 23 LEWBS S'E’GSEgg 4838-0556—9891] 1 mm, up AYICRNEYS A? LAW DECLARATION OF JULIE M. AZEVEDO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS PAUL BONIFACIO AND MARGARET HYUN’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the declaration Plaintiffs counsel attached to the Application and Order for Appointment of a Guardian ad litem. 4. This lawsuit arises out of a fire that occurred at 1509 Christy Lane, Olympic Valley, California. of the Complaint, the majority of material \DOOQQUIrBUJNi—t 5. Based on the allegations witnesses who will testify at trial appear to reside in Placer County or north of Placer County. 6. Defendants PAUL BONIFACIO and MARGARET HYUN allegedly owned the residence at 1509 Christy Lane, Olympic Valley, California, where Plaintiff was injured. 7. Upon information and belief, the witnesses who participated in the sale of the property where Plaintiff was injured, and the witnesses who conducted an inspection of the property before the sale, all reside in Placer County. 8. Upon information and belief, the wimesses who Defendants hired to clean, I maintain, and care for the property reside in Placer County. 9. The fire occurred in a residential neighborhood, and upon information and belief, residents of several households witnessed the fire and its immediate aftermath. 10. Upon information and belief, the paramedics and first responders who responded to the fire and treated Plaintiff at the scene reside in Placer County. They include, upon information and belief, members and employees of the Squaw Valley Fire Department, North Tahoe Fire oeqaxmtI-aexeoeqexmamNi—i: NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH Protection District, the Placer County Sheriff’s Department, all of which are based in Placer County. 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the Squaw Valley Fire Department Report. 12. Members of the California Highway Patrol and the Truckee Fire Department, both of which have bases north of Placer County, also assisted at the scene. 13. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the Truckee Fire Protection District Report of Investigation. 14. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff and the person she was with when the fire occurred reside in Placer County. LEWIS BRISBOIS 4838-0556—9893 . I BISGAARD 2 & SMIIH up DECLARATION OF JULIE M. AZEVEDO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS PAUL BONIFACIO AND A! LAW ATDRNEYS MARGARET HYUN’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE 15. Upon information and belief, afier the fire, Plaintiff was transported between hospitals Via helicopter operated by Care Flight, which flew from its base in Truckee, California, which is located north of Placer County. 16. Plaintiffs Complaint includes product liability and ultra—hazardous activity claims. Upon information and belief, the witnesses who will have material information pertaining to those \Owrxla‘xUl-JBDJNH claims reside in Placer County. They include witnesses who installed products in Defendants’ property and who supplied gas to Defendants’ property. 17. Upon information and belief, all of the physical evidence pertaining to the accident . is located in Placer County. 18. The drive from Olympic Valley, where the accident occurred, to San Mateo County is at least 230 miles. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on May 24, 2018, at San Francisco, California. Julie M/Kzevedo NNNNNNNNNHHP—‘HHHHHF—H ooqam-umNHckoooxlcI-h-MNHO LEWIS BRISBOIS 4838-0556-9893 .l BISGAARD 3 ass/mm? DECLARATION OF JULIE M. AZEVEDO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS PAUL BONIFACIO AND mamas A1 lAW MARGARET HYUN’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE, Exhibit 1 — Camplaint, filed April 6, 2018 ‘1 LAW emu»: OF WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY 5?. SCHOENPERGER FELE A PROFBSIONAL CORPORATION 550 CAUFORNIA STREEI', 26‘" FLOOR . w SAN FRANGSCO, CALIFORNIA 94108-2615 COUNTY SAN MATEO 74415) 981-7210 - F: (415)391-6965 MATTHEW D. DAVIS (State Bar #141986) ’ wmqm‘mpmmw mdavis@walkuplawoflice.com SPENCER J. PAHLKE (State Bar #250914) spahlke®walku§lawoflicenom ATTORNEYS F0 PLAINTIFF BRICEmA LOPEZ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ‘ BRICEIZDA LOPEZ, an adult, by and Case No. through her Guardian ad Litem,ELBA 13 C l V 0 15 . 9 5 KARINA LOPEZ GOMEZ, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES . [Product Liability ~ Strict Liability Plaintiff, Design Defect; Product Liability — Strict Liability Manufacturing Defect; Product v. Liability — Strict Liability Failure to Warn; Product Liability —- Negligence; PAUL BONIFACIO, MARGOT HYUN, Negligence; Premises Liability —— and DOES ONE through ONE- Negligence; Strict Liability — Ultra- HUNDRED, inclusive, Hazardous Activities] Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED -“ ‘ "' _, — ' ‘ "' ‘ UNLIMITED JURISDECTION: NNNMMNMNMHHHHHHHH'HH Damages sought exceed $25,090 .m-qcaoiuaoqowmqmmAWbOr—lo Action Filed: Trial. Date: Unassigned MROD-UCTORY ALLEGATION S Plaintiff Briceida Lopez, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, complains of Defendants, and each of them, as follows: 1. Plaintiff is an individual who resides in the State of California. 2. Defendants Paul Bonifacio and Margot Hyun are natural persons, and residents of the County of San Mateo, State of California. 1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ~ CASE NO. 3. The true names or capacities, Whether individual, corporate, governmental, or associate, of the Defendants named herein as Doe are unknown to Plaintiff who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintifi prays leave to amend this Complaint to show their true names and capacities when the same have been finally determined. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such {COOK‘IOEU‘sJAOp-d information and belief alleges, that each of the Defendants designated herein as Doe is negligently, strictly, recklessly, willfully, or otherwise legally responsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein referred to, and negligently, recklessly, willfully, or otherwise caused injury and damages proximately thereby to Plaintifi, as is hereinafter alleged. 4. At all times herein mentioned, each and every of the Defendants herein was the agent, servant, partner, co-conspirator, joint venturer, employee and/or franchisee of each of the other Defendants, and each was at all times acting within the course and scope of such agency, service, partnership, conspiracy, employment, joint venture, and/or franchise. 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times relevant to the allegations made in this Complaint, defendants Paul Bonifacio, ammswwwommqmmemwo—lo Margot Hyun, and DOES THIRTY through FORTY, and each of them, were the NMMMNNNMHHHHHHHHHH lawful oyvners, controllers, and managers of a residence located at 1509 Christy Lane, Olympic Valley, California (the “Residence”). 6. On or about March 17, 2018, Plaintiif was lawfully present at the Residence when an explosion and ensuing fire occurred (the “Incident”), resulting in devastating, extensive, disfiguring, third-degree burns over the majority of Plaintiffs body, including her face. At the time of the Incident, Plaintiff was acting in a lawful, reasonable, and foreseeable manner. 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that leaking propane gas had collected in the Residence and was ignited, which caused the LAW OFFICE or 28 Incident. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the source Wm, MELODM. KELLY Ammm G. SCROEN'BERGER ssn CAUFORNQA 51m? 2 1 FLOD SAN mmcsco, CA was H15} 981-7210 COL/[Pm FOR DAMAGES - CASE NO. of the ignition for the explosion was an appliance (the “Appliance”), and that the propane was stored at and supplied to the Residence via an outdoor tank and related pipes, connectors, adapters, valves, couplers, adhesives, tubes, hoses, and fittings (the “Propane Components”). coooqoammcoww 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that DOES TEN through TWENTY-NINE, and each of them, installed, designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold, installed, maintained, inspected, repaired, and serviced the Appliance and the Propane Components. 9. In the time since the Incident, Plaintiff has undergone three major HO surgical procedures related to her injuries, and has been largely kept in a medically- H I—‘ induced coma. Her care has therefore been guided and controlled by her half-sister, Elba Karina Lopez Gomez. mascots 10. Prior to the filing of this Complaint, the above~entitled Court, by its Hl—‘P—IH Order regularly made and entered, appointed Elba Karina Lopez Gomez as the Guardian Ad Litem of Briceida Lopez, and said person at the commencement of this H 0') action was, and ever since has been, the regularly appointed, duly qualified and H 41 acting Guardian ad Litem for Plaintiff Briceida Lopez. H 00 FLUST CAUSE OF ACTION [Product Liab Lity — Strict Liability Design Defect] OcD NH Plaintiff complains of Defendants DOES TEN through TWENTY-NINE, and MN: NI—I each of them, and for a First Cause of Action alleges: 1 1. Plaintiff hereby refers to and incorporates by this reference each of the N) 0.7 allegations set forth above and makes them part of this, the First Cause of Action, as N as though fully set forth herein. 12. At all relevant times, Defendants DOES TEN through TWENTY-NINE, 0301 MN and each of them, were and still are engaged in the business of designing, testing, Mq manufacturing, marketing, advertising, and selling for consideration items like the 28 Appliance and the Propane Components. A “~m m 65V LAW OFFiCEEa OF male Manon, fiscl-lDENBERGER WKSTREET mum 8 , CA 54 ms HIS) 931-1110 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - CASE NO. 13. Prior to and on or about March 17, 2018, Defendants DOES TEN through TWENTY-N]NE, and each of them, designed, tested, manufactured, marketed, advertised, and sold for consideration the Appliance. 14. Prior to and on or about March 17, 2018, Defendants DOES TEN @mqmmewww through TWENTY-NINE, and each of them, designed, tested, manufactured, marketed, advertised, and sold for consideration the Propane Components. 15. At the time Defendants DOES TEN through TWENTY-NM, and each of them, designed, tested, manufactured, marketed, advertised, and sold for consideration the Appliance and the Propane Components, said Defendants, and each HO of them, knew said products would be used without further inspection for defects by HH end-users, and interested members of the California general public, including but not limited to Plaintifi'. l-‘I-IH #0010 16. At all times herein mentioned, the condition of the Appliance and the Propane Components was substantially the same as when it left Defendants’ H CT! possession, and any changes to said products were reasonably foreseeable to l-‘ O} Defendants, and each of them. Hq 17. At all times herein mentioned, the Appliance and the Propane H ('13 Components were being used for the purposes for which Defendants, and each of H (.0 them, had designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised, distributed, sold, and intended them to be used. MM HQ 18. At all times herein mentioned, the Appliance and the Propane N N) Components were being used in a manner reasonably foreseeable to Defendants, and each of them. #03 MN 19. At the time of the Incident, the design of the Appliance was deficient N 01 and defective insofar as, when subjected to normal and foreseeable use, it was N) 03 capable of igniting propane gas that had leaked and causing a major explosion, such 27 as that which occurred in the Incident. 28 l/// awummmm ' 4 wsmzfi‘dsccogj was [415) 951-7110 COWLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO. — 20. At the time of the Incident, the design of the Propane Components was deficient and defective insofar as, when subjected to normal and foreseeable use, it was capable of leaking suficient quantities of Propane to provide the fuel for a major explosion, such as that which occurred in the Incident. At all times herein mentioned, the Appliance did not meet the tom-qmmmwiop-a 21. reasonable expectations of ordinary consumers, and did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected, when used or misused in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way. 22. At all times herein mentioned, the Propane Components did not meet the reasonable expectations of ordinary consumers, anddid not perform as safely as HH HO an ordinary consumer would have expected, when used or misused in an intended or [—1 N) reasonably foreseeable way. |-‘ CD ~ 23. At all times herein mentioned, the likelihood and severity of the H d}. Appliance’s risks, which included a high risk of serious injury or death, outweighed its benefits. HH Ohm 24. At all times herein mentioned, the likelihood and severity of the Hq Propane Components’ risks, which included a high risk of serious injury or death, outweighed its benefits. HH coco 25. The deficient and defective design of the Appliance was a substantial N) Q factor in causing the Incident, which in turn caused Plaintis injuries as alleged N) H herein. MN) 26. The deficient and defective design of the Propane Components Was a 00M substantial factor in causing the Incident, which in turn caused Plaintiff s injuries as NJ ,p. alleged herein. ‘ 27. By reason of the defective and deficient designs of the Appliance and the MN CDC“ Propane Components, Defendants, and each of them, are strictly liable to Plaintiff in 27 tort. 28 [Ill W113” “0 5 sum? («5: 931-5210 was COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - CASE NO. ® 28.. The Incident and Plaintifi’s injuries were directly and legally caused by defects in the. designs of the Appliance and the Propane Components. Such defects existed at the time Defendants, and each of them, designed, tested, manufactured, marketed, advertised, and sold for consideration the Appliance and the Propane wm—qmmswww Components. 29. As a direct and legal result of the aforesaid defects and of the Incident, Plaintiff sustained catastrophic and. permanent injuries, including Without limitation third-degree burns over the majority of her body, extreme physical and mental pain, disfiguring scars, and other injuries presently undiagnosed. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that certain of said injuries will be permanent in nature, the extent of said permanent injuries being at this time unknown to Plaintifi'. 30. As a further direct and legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, it became necessary for Plaintifi' to incur expenses for medical care and treatment, related costs and expenses required in the care and treatment of said injuries, and extraordinary household and living costs. Plaintiffs damage in this respect is presently unascertained as said services are still continuing. Plaintiff prays leave to insert her elements of damage in this respect when the same are finally determined. MMMNMNMNHHHHHHHHHH ammemMHamm-qmmamwwo ii 31; As a further direct and legal result of the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has been unableat times to follow her regular employment and has suffered a diminution of her earning capacity, to her special damage in a presently unascertained sum as said loss is not yet finally determined. Plaintiff I prays leave to insert her elements of damage in this respect when the sameare V finally determined. V 32. As a result of the Incident, Plaintiff suffered special (economic) and general (non—economic) damages each in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. 28 / / I / uwnFslcs OF Wm. a mum more, mm AMWALWTIDN 650 (‘AUFORNIASI'REET 2m FLOOR 6 CA N108 E415) Sal-72m COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - CASE NO. Wherefore, Plaintifi' prays for judgment against Defendants DOES TEN macaw through TWENTY-NINE, and each of them, as hereinafter set forth. [Product Liability— Strict Liability Manufacturing Defect] (DOOQODUIACIDMH .’ Plaintiff complains of Defendants DOES TEN through TWENTY-NINE, and ' each of them, and for a Second Cause of Action alleges: 33. Plaintiff hereby refers to and incorporates by this reference each allegation set forth above and makes it part of this, the Second Cause of Action, as though set forth fully herein. 34. At all times herein mentioned, the Appliance and the Propane Components contained manufacturing defects such that they difi‘ered from Defendants’ designs and specifications, and differed from other typical units of Defendants’ same lines of products. 35. The manufacturing defects of the Appliance and the Propane Components were hidden and could not reasonably be detected by property owners and end users. 36. At all times herein mentioned, the Appliance and the Propane NNNNNNNHHl—‘HHHI—IHHH mmowwwommqmmhwwh-o Components were being used in manners reasonably foreseeable to Defendants, and each of them. 37. The manufacturing defects in the Appliance and the Propane Components directly and legally caused the Incident and caused Plaintiff’s resulting injuries and damages set forth hereinahove. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for judgment against defendants DOES TEN through TWENTY-NINE, and each of them, as hereinafter set forth. /ll/ /l// l//I //// LAW OFFRCS OF 655 culrfoalrgléimm 7 SANFRANQ'SCO, GA 94! (415) 981-7210 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - CASE NO. {qmmtD-J W [Product Liability - Strict Liability Failure to Warn] Plaintiff complains of Defendants DOES TEN through TWENTY-NW3}, and each of them, and for a Third Cause of Action alleges: Plaintifi' hereby refers to and incorporates by this reference each 38. allegation set forth above and makes it part of this, the Third Cause of Action, as though set forth fully herein. 39. At the time Defendants designed, tested, manufactured, marketed, advertised, and sold for consideration the Appliance and the Propane Components, said products were capable of producing explosions that could cause catastrophic r—Ir—I HO burn injuries, such as those sufi'ered in the Incident. The risk of explosion was known or knowahle to Defendants through the use of scientific knowledge then available. 40. At all times herein mentioned, said risks presented a substantial danger of burn injuries to property owners and other people lawfully present at the Residence when the Appliance and the Propane Components were used or misused in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way. 41. At all times herein mentioned, the potential risks presented by the Appliance and the Propane Components were not recognizable to ordinary consumers and users. 42. Defendants, and each of them, failed to provide suficient instructions and warnings regarding the risks associated with use of the Appliance and the Propane Components. 43. As a direct and legal result of the lack of sufficient instructions and warnings, the Incident occurred and caused harm to Plaintiff as described hereinabove. Wherefore, Plaintifi' prays for judgment against Defendants DOES TEN through TWENTY-NINE, and each of them, as hereinafter set forth. 8 minus ,0 ms; ems-210 94 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - CASE NO. FOURTH CA ‘E OF ACTION v.4 [Product ’niah' htty — Negligence} Plaintifi' complains of Defendants DOES TEN through TWENTY-NWE, and each of them,- and for a Fourth Cause of Action alleges: {Dmx'lmmvtI-d 44. Plaintiff hereby refers to and incorporates by this reference each