Preview
1 FRANK M. PITRE (SBN 100077)
fpitre@cpmlegal.com
2 JULIE L. FIEBER (SBN 202857)
jfieber@cpmlegal.com 8/11/2020
3 COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
San Francisco Airport Office Center
4 840 Malcolm Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
5 Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE
10
11 RICHARD VARGAS, an individual; CASE NO. 20CV01591
12 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
13 1) NEGLIGENCE
vs.
14 2) BREACH OF MANDATORY
CERES ENVIRONMENTAL DUTY (GOV’T CODE § 815.6)
15 SERVICES, INC., d/b/a Environmental
and Demolition Services Group, a
16 3) DANGEROUS CONDITION OF
Minnesota corporation; THE STATE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY (GOV’T
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CODE § 835)
17
RESOURCES, RECYCLING AND
18 RECOVERY, aka (“CALRECYCLE”); 4) INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, LIABILITY (GOV’T CODE §
19 815.4)
Defendants.
20
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
♼
LAW OFFICES
COTCHETT, PITRE &
COMPLAINT
MCCARTHY, LLP
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
2
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
3
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ....................................................................................... 2
4
III. PARTIES .......................................................................................................................... 2
5
A. Plaintiff ........................................................................................................................... 2
6
B. Defendants ...................................................................................................................... 2
7
C. Unnamed and Doe Defendants ....................................................................................... 3
8
D. Agency, Concert of Action, and Conspiracy .................................................................. 3
9
10 IV. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS......................................................................... 4
11 V. CAUSES OF ACTION .................................................................................................... 7
12 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligence ................................................................................................................................. 7
13
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
14 Breach of Mandatory Duty ........................................................................................................ 8
15 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
16 Dangerous Condition of Public Property ................................................................................ 10
17 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Independent Contractor Liability ............................................................................................ 12
18
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................. 14
19
II. JURY DEMAND ........................................................................................................... 14
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
♼
LAW OFFICES
COTCHETT, PITRE &
MCCARTHY, LLP
COMPLAINT i
1 Plaintiff Richard Vargas (“Richard”) brings this action based on his personal injuries and
2 damages. Plaintiff hereby complains of the Defendants named hereinabove, and each of them, as
3 follows:
4 I. INTRODUCTION
5 1. After the November 2018 Camp Fire, which destroyed the town of Paradise, the
6 State of California undertook the enormous task of cleaning up toxic debris from the fire. This
7 was considered the largest disaster cleanup in state history. The California Department of
8 Resources, Recycling, and Recovery (“CalRecycle”) lead that effort. CalRecycle chose three
9 companies, including defendant Ceres Environment Services, Inc. (“Ceres”), as primary
10 contractors for this effort. Ceres was tasked with removal of debris from the unincorporated area
11 outside of Paradise. Collectively, CalRecycle and its contractors removed more than 3.66 million
12 tons of ash, debris, metal, concrete, and contaminated soil, equivalent to twice the amount of
13 debris removed from the World Trade Center site post-9/11.
14 2. Ceres hired subcontractors for the project, including Garlow Transport (formerly
15 known as Allied Trucking), a trucking company. One of the truck drivers employed by Garlow
16 Transport was plaintiff Richard Vargas. During the summer of 2019, Richard transported
17 hundreds of truckloads of toxic debris from the site. Workers located on site wore protective
18 garments – i.e., Tyvek suits -- and respirators. In contrast, truckers like Richard, who only
19 periodically came onto the site, received no instruction or equipment for respiratory protection.
20 Each time Richard’s truck was loaded, dust from the debris entered into the cab. After loading
21 finished, Richard would leave the truck and step out into the dust to cover the load with a tarp. He
22 would repeat this process to unload the debris, which again exposed him to the debris dust. At no
23 time did CalRecycle or Ceres take steps to protect workers like Richard, who only periodically
24 came onto the site from the toxic dust stirred up by their operations.
25 3. Richard was 40-years old and in excellent health when he started work on the
26 project. However, over the course of the summer, his health deteriorated. In the fall of 2019 he
27 was unexpectedly diagnosed with sarcoidosis, a disabling immune disease linked to exposure to
28 environmental toxics. For example, many workers at the World Trade Center 9/11 cleanup site
♼
LAW OFFICES
COTCHETT, PITRE &
MCCARTHY, LLP
COMPLAINT 1
1 subsequently developed sarcoidosis as a result of their exposure to toxins during that cleanup.
2 Richard has become disabled and unable to work as a result of this disease.
3 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4 4. This court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Ceres because Ceres conducts
5 extensive business in California pursuant to contracts with the State of California, including
6 management of the cleanup project at the Camp Fire site in the County of Butte, State of
7 California. Ceres, doing business as Environmental & Demolition Services Group, was one of
8 three prime contractors for that cleanup.
9 5. This court is competent to adjudicate this action and the amount in controversy
10 exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this court.
11 6. Venue is proper in the County of Butte, State of California, pursuant to Code of
12 Civil Procedure § 395 and Government Code § 955.2, because substantially all of the events, acts,
13 omissions, and/or transactions complained of herein occurred in/or originated from County of
14 Butte, State of California.
15 III. PARTIES
16 A. Plaintiff
17 7. Plaintiff Richard Vargas is a natural person who is, and at all times relevant to this
18 Complaint was, a resident of Redding in Shasta County, California. Prior to the incidents at issue,
19 Richard was 40 years old and in good health. He played softball and worked out at a gym several
20 days each week. He jogged 4 to 5 miles regularly on the trail system near his home, and also
21 enjoyed hiking and mountain biking in the Shasta-Trinity recreational areas.
22 B. Defendants
23 8. Defendant Ceres was, and at all relevant times is, a Minnesota corporation
24 registered to do business in California as Environmental and Demolition Services Group, with
25 offices in Butte County. Ceres was a prime contractor to CalRecycle on the Camp Fire debris
26 removal project, in charge of debris removal for the unincorporated area outside of Paradise. To
27 carry out its duties under the contract, Ceres subcontracted with several trucking companies,
28
♼
LAW OFFICES
COTCHETT, PITRE &
MCCARTHY, LLP
COMPLAINT 2
1 including Richard’s employer, Garlow Transport. Upon information and belief, CalRecycle
2 required Ceres to be certified for hazardous substance removal in order to qualify for the project.
3 9. Defendant CalRecycle is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a public entity
4 doing business throughout the State of California, including having regional offices in the cities of
5 Oroville and Biggs, located within Butte County. CalRecycle, and/or its servants, agents,
6 representatives, employees and/or joint venturers implemented, managed, and/or oversaw the
7 debris removal program at the Camp Fire site. This included selecting, supervising, and managing
8 the prime contractors, including Ceres, and their debris removal crews. CalRecycle’s duties
9 included daily oversight of contractors, independent testing, direct review and analysis of results,
10 and documentation of every stage of the operations.
11 C. Unnamed and Doe Defendants
12 10. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or
13 otherwise of the Defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff who
14 therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
15 section 474. Plaintiff further alleges that each fictitious Defendant is in some manner responsible
16 for the acts and occurrences set forth herein. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to show their
17 true names and capacities when the same are ascertained, as well as the manner in which each
18 fictitious Defendant is responsible.
19 D. Agency, Concert of Action, and Conspiracy
20 11. At all times herein mentioned, each of the defendants, inclusive, were the agent,
21 servant, employee, partner, aider and abettor, co-conspirator and/or joint venturer of each of the
22 remaining defendants named herein and were at all times operating and acting within the purpose
23 and scope of said agency, service, employment, partnership, conspiracy, alter ego and/or joint
24 venture, and each defendant has ratified and approved the acts of each of the remaining
25 defendants. Each of the defendants has aided and abetted, encouraged, and rendered substantial
26 assistance to the other defendants in breaching their obligations to Plaintiff as alleged herein. In
27 taking action to aid and abet and substantially assist the commission of these wrongful acts and
28 other wrongdoings complained of, as alleged herein, each of the defendants acted with an
♼
LAW OFFICES
COTCHETT, PITRE &
MCCARTHY, LLP
COMPLAINT 3
1 awareness of his or her primary wrongdoing and realized that his or her conduct would
2 substantially assist the accomplishment of the wrongful conduct, wrongful goals, and
3 wrongdoing.
4 IV. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
5 12. After the 2018 Camp Fire, CalRecycle took charge of the enormous task of
6 cleaning up toxic debris from the fire. This was considered the largest disaster cleanup in state
7 history. Collectively, CalRecycle and its contractors removed more than 3.66 million tons of ash,
8 debris, metal, concrete, and contaminated soil, equivalent to twice the amount of debris removed
9 from the World Trade Center site post-9/11.
10 13. Upon information and belief, CalRecycle’s duties included management of the
11 debris removal project, including management of the debris removal crews. CalRecycle directly
12 oversaw the appointment of the prime contractors and managed their operations throughout the
13 cleanup process.
14 14. CalRecycle selected three companies, including defendant Ceres, as primary
15 contractors for this effort. Ceres was tasked with removing debris from the unincorporated area
16 outside of Paradise.
17 15. Because the debris was known to be a health hazard, CalRecycle required that
18 Ceres and the other prime contractors be certified for hazardous substance removal. CalRecycle
19 recognized that the nature of the material being handled at the cleanup required added emphasis
20 on safety. Upon information and belief, it conducted daily oversight to make sure operations were
21 safe and compliant with industry standards. In public statements, it asserted that its overarching
22 principles were to establish the safety of its crews, the community, and the environment. Upon
23 information and belief, in doing this, CalRecycle took responsibility for a number of oversight
24 measures and conducted daily safety meetings. Upon information and belief, CalRecycle claims it
25 had an expectation that on-site crews would wear the proper safety equipment, and it required
26 decontamination zones at each site where on-site contractors suited up and suited off. Upon
27 information and belief, CalRecycle’s stated intent was that this would help prevent ash from
28 getting into on-site crewmembers’ trucks and going with them back home. Upon information and
♼
LAW OFFICES
COTCHETT, PITRE &
MCCARTHY, LLP
COMPLAINT 4
1 belief, CalRecycle also required regular truck inspections for the on-site crews conducted in
2 accordance with Department of Transportation standards.
3 16. Upon information and belief, recognizing the hazardous nature of the debris and
4 the potential that toxins could become airborne during debris removal, CalRecycle set up air
5 monitoring stations around the community to monitor for airborne toxins. Upon information and
6 belief, CalRecycle knew it was important to keep the debris watered down as a way to keep the
7 dust from flying around, and also understood that when debris were hauled away, measures
8 needed to be taken to prevent dust from flying out and further contaminating the area.
9 17. CalRecycle claims that its oversight processes are “meticulous” because it has
10 managed more than 20 debris removal operation since 2007. Upon information and belief,
11 CalRecycle understood that managing this size of cleanup project would require careful planning
12 and execution.
13 18. Upon information and belief, the prime contractors, including Ceres, as state
14 certified entities for hazardous substance removal, also understood these obligations to prevent
15 toxins from becoming airborne, and compliance with safety measures was further imposed
16 through the contracts with CalRecycle.
17 19. Each of the prime contractors, including Ceres, worked with a group of crews,
18 some of which managed the debris on site and some which were tasked with removing the debris.
19 Upon information and belief, CalRecycle instituted special oversight to ensure cleanup operations
20 went according to plan. Upon information and belief, Contractors were held not only accountable
21 to CalRecycle, but they checked each other’s work as well.
22 20. Ceres hired a number of trucking companies to haul debris away from the site to
23 various landfills. Upon information and belief, one of the trucking companies Ceres hired was
24 Garlow Transport. Upon information and belief, Garlow Transport had no authority or control
25 over conditions at the debris removal site. CalRecycle and/or Ceres retained full control over such
26 conditions.
27 21. Richard has been a trucker since approximately 2001, initially driving light duty
28 delivery trucks. In 2019, he obtained his class A license, which allows him to drive heavy-duty
♼
LAW OFFICES
COTCHETT, PITRE &
MCCARTHY, LLP
COMPLAINT 5
1 trucks. On June 1, 2019, he was hired by Garlow Transport as an hourly employee hauling debris
2 for the Camp Fire project.
3 22. Richard started work on the fire debris cleanup on June 3, 2019. The procedure
4 was that he would drive his truck to the site, where workers would direct him to the loading area.
5 The on-site workers who directed Richard were dressed in hazardous material suits, i.e., Tyvek
6 suits, and wore respirators. No similar protections were provided to Richard, nor was he told that
7 he needed any type of respiratory protection. As the on-site workers loaded debris into Richard’s
8 truck, they stirred up clouds of dust, which then came into the Richard’s truck through its
9 ventilation system.
10 23. Once the truck was loaded, Richard would have to step out into the dust to tarp the
11 load before he could leave the site. Richard would then get back into his truck and drive it to the
12 designated waste facility. He would then exit his truck, remove the tarp, and dump the load,
13 which again exposed him to dust.
14 24. Richard repeated this process for hundreds of loads throughout June and July 2019.
15 With each visit to the debris removal site and each load of debris he hauled, Richard was exposed
16 to toxic dust from the debris. Despite this, none of the on-site personnel from CalRecycle and/or
17 its contractor, Ceres, took steps to warn Richard or ensure that he had appropriate respiratory
18 protection when he was on site or while he was handling the toxic debris. Similarly, CalRecycle
19 and/or its contractor, Ceres, failed to take effective measures to suppress the dust clouds created
20 during the loading of Richard’s truck.
21 25. At the end of July 2019, Richard began experiencing chest pains and eventually
22 was admitted to the hospital. A multitude of tests were performed, including a biopsy of his lungs.
23 It was later determined that he had developed sarcoidosis, a disease associated with workers at the
24 World Trade Center 9/11 site cleanup. Sarcoidosis is an inflammatory disease that can affect
25 multiple organs in the body. There is no cure for the disease. Richard had never previously had
26 any similar type of health problem.
27 26. Although Richard continued working for a time after his release from the hospital,
28 eventually he had to stop. His last day of work was in December 2019, and he has been
♼
LAW OFFICES
COTCHETT, PITRE &
MCCARTHY, LLP
COMPLAINT 6
1 effectively fully disabled since. He continues to suffer, among other things, severe chest pain,
2 difficulty breathing, fatigue and weakness, and emotional distress as a direct result of the
3 sarcoidosis. His doctors have told him he will not get better.
4 V. CAUSES OF ACTION
5 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligence
6 (Against Defendant Ceres and DOES 1–5)
7 27. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference each and every one of the
8 paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein.
9 28. Ceres was a general contractor retained by CalRecycle to conduct debris removal
10 at the Camp Fire site. Ceres carried out that effort by subcontracting with companies, including
11 Garlow Transport, Richard’s employer, to provide trucking services. During the time that Richard
12 was hauling loads of toxic debris from the site, Ceres and Does 1 through 5 maintained control of
13 the site, including the ability to require respiratory protection for workers coming onto the site,
14 and/or to suppress dust at the site.
15 29. Upon information and belief, Ceres was certified by the State of California for
16 hazardous substance removal, and that certification was required for it to undertake this project.
17 30. Upon information and belief, as a prime contractor on the site, Ceres was required
18 to comply with regulations to ensure appropriate worker protections, including but not limited to
19 developing respiratory protection plans. See, e.g., 8 CCR Title 8 § 5144.
20 31. In its role as prime contractor with responsibility for oversight and management at
21 the site and control over debris removal operations at the site, Ceres and Does 1 through 5 had a
22 duty to workers such as Richard who came on site to ensure that they were not exposed to
23 airborne toxins. This duty included, among other things, ensuring that workers coming onto the
24 site, including Richard, had adequate equipment for respiratory protection, and/or ensuring that
25 adequate dust suppression methods were used to avoid airborne toxins, and/or warning said
26 workers of the dangers of and need to avoid exposure to the airborne toxins.
27 32. Despite this duty, Ceres and Does 1 through 5, and each of them, negligently,
28 carelessly, recklessly, and/or unlawfully failed to protect workers, including Richard, who were
♼
LAW OFFICES
COTCHETT, PITRE &
MCCARTHY, LLP
COMPLAINT 7
1 hauling toxic debris from the site. This failure included, among other things, exposing Richard to
2 clouds of toxic dust during the loading and unloading of his truck without providing for any form
3 of respiratory protection, and/or taking steps to ensure adequate dust suppression, and/or
4 providing warning of the need to avoid such exposure, and/or developing adequate respiratory
5 protection plans for workers like Richard who came onto the site.
6 33. As a result of this breach of duty, Richard was exposed to harmful levels of toxins
7 as he hauled hundreds of loads of debris from the Camp Fire site. That exposure in turn caused
8 him to develop sarcoidosis, a medical condition which will be with him for the rest of his life and
9 which has left him disabled and in constant pain and suffering.
10 34. The wrongful conduct of Ceres and Does 1 through 5, hereinabove alleged, is the
11 direct and legal cause of the injuries to Richard’s health, strength, and activity, and continuing
12 injuries to Richard’s body and mind, all of which have caused Richard great physical, mental,
13 emotional, and nervous pain and suffering. These injuries have been debilitating to Richard to his
14 general damages in a sum according to proof.
15 35. By reason of the wrongful conduct of Ceres and Does 1 through 5, Richard has
16 been required to, and continues to, employ physicians and other health care providers to examine,
17 treat and care for his injuries, and has incurred, and will continue to incur, medical and incidental
18 expenses for such examination, treatment rehabilitation and care in an amount according to proof.
19 36. By further reason of the wrongful conduct of Ceres and Does 1 through 5, Richard
20 has suffered a loss of income and a loss of earning capacity in an amount according to proof.
21 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Breach of Mandatory Duty
22 (Against DEFENDANT CALRECYCLE and DOES 6-10)
23 37. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference each and every one of the
24 paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein.
25 38. CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10 had overall responsibility for management and
26 oversight of debris removal at the Camp Fire site, including oversight, management, selection,
27 and/or supervision of all contractors on the site, including Ceres. CalRecycle and Does 6 through
28 10 retained control of the site at all times relevant to this Complaint.
♼
LAW OFFICES
COTCHETT, PITRE &
MCCARTHY, LLP
COMPLAINT 8
1 39. As the entity in charge of and tasked with oversight of the debris removal effort,
2 CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10 had a mandatory duty to ensure compliance with Cal/OSHA
3 standards, including 8 CCR Title 8 § 5144 (providing guidance for respiratory protection).
4 CalRecycle was required to ensure there was a respiratory protection program in place for all
5 workers, including drivers like Richard, at the debris removal site.
6 40. At all relevant times, CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10 failed to carry out its
7 mandatory duty to protect workers such as Richard, by, among other things, failing to have in
8 place and/or failing to ensure enforcement of a respiratory protection program for workers coming
9 onto the site, including truckers such as Richard, and/or failing to ensure that workers coming
10 onto the site, including Richard, had adequate equipment for respiratory protection, and/or failing
11 to ensure that adequate dust suppression methods were used to avoid airborne toxins, and/or
12 failing to warn workers, including Richard, of the dangers of and need to avoid exposure to the
13 airborne toxins.
14 41. As a result of the breach of these mandatory duties by CalRecycle and Does 6
15 through 10, Richard was exposed to harmful levels of toxic dust as he hauled hundreds of loads of
16 debris away from the Camp Fire site. That exposure in turn caused him to develop sarcoidosis, a
17 medical condition which will be with him for the rest of his life and which has left him disabled
18 and in constant pain and suffering.
19 42. On January 25, 2020, Plaintiff filed a government claim against CalRecycle for the
20 subject incident, which was rejected on February 19, 2020.
21 43. The wrongful conduct of CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10, hereinabove alleged,
22 is the direct and legal cause of the injuries to Richard’s health, strength, and activity, and
23 continuing injuries to Richard’s body and mind, all of which have caused Richard great physical,
24 mental, emotional, and nervous pain and suffering. These injuries have been debilitating to
25 Richard to his general damages in a sum according to proof.
26 44. By reason of the wrongful conduct of CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10, Richard
27 has been required to, and continues to, employ physicians and other health care providers to
28 examine, treat and care for his injuries, and has incurred, and will continue to incur, medical and
♼
LAW OFFICES
COTCHETT, PITRE &
MCCARTHY, LLP
COMPLAINT 9
1 incidental expenses for such examination, treatment rehabilitation and care in an amount
2 according to proof.
3 45. By further reason of the wrongful conduct of CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10,
4 Richard has suffered a loss of income and a loss of earning capacity in an amount according to
5 proof.
6 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Dangerous Condition of Public Property
7
(Against DEFENDANT CALRECYCLE and DOES 6-10)
8
46. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference each and every one of the
9
paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein.
10
47. CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10 had overall responsibility for management and
11
oversight of debris removal at the Camp Fire site, including oversight, management, selection,
12
and/or supervision of all contractors on the site, including Ceres. CalRecycle and Does 6 through
13
10 were responsible for planning, designing, conducting, maintaining, controlling, and/or
14
directing debris removal at the Camp Fire site and retained control of the site at all times relevant
15
to this Complaint.
16
48. As the entity in charge of and tasked with oversight of the debris removal effort,
17
CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10 had a mandatory duty to ensure compliance with Cal/OSHA
18
standards, including 8 CCR Title 8 § 5144 (providing guidance for respiratory protection).
19
CalRecycle was required to ensure there was a respiratory protection program in place for all
20
workers, including drivers like Richard, at the Camp Fire debris removal site.
21
49. At all relevant times, CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10 maintained a dangerous
22
condition of public property as herein described based upon their planning, designing, conducting,
23
maintaining, controlling, and/or directing the debris removal at the Camp Fire site.
24
50. The failure of CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10 to have in place and/or ensure
25
enforcement of a respiratory protection program for workers coming onto the site, including
26
truckers such as Richard, and/or to ensure that workers coming onto the site, including Richard,
27
had adequate equipment for respiratory protection, and/or to ensure that adequate dust
28
♼
suppression methods were used to avoid airborne toxins, and/or to warn workers of the dangers of
LAW OFFICES
COTCHETT, PITRE &
MCCARTHY, LLP
COMPLAINT 10
1 and need avoid exposure to the airborne toxins, contributed separately and/or in combination to
2 create a dangerous condition at the site, and a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury and
3 damage that occurred.
4 51. Pursuant to Government Code sections 835.2 and 840.4, CalRecycle and Does 6
5 through 10 had actual knowledge and/or constructive notice of the dangerous condition, including
6 that exposure to airborne toxins could be injurious to workers coming on site absent proper use of
7 respiratory protection equipment and/or proper dust suppression methods. Despite this,
8 CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10 did nothing to abate the foreseeable risks and concealed
9 dangers to workers like Richard.
10 52. The failure of CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10 to abate these foreseeable risks,
11 individually and/or collectively, and to warn workers of the concealed hazard posed by airborne
12 toxins at the site, caused workers like Richard to have a false sense of safety in the area, creating
13 the further hazards and impending danger that existed there.
14 53. As a result of this dangerous condition, Richard was exposed to harmful levels of
15 toxic dust as he hauled hundreds of loads of debris away from the Camp Fire site. That exposure
16 in turn caused him to develop sarcoidosis, a medical condition which will be with him for the rest
17 of his life and which has left him disabled and in constant pain and suffering.
18 54. On January 25, 2020, Plaintiff filed a government claim against CalRecycle for the
19 subject incident, which was rejected on February 19, 2020.
20 55. The wrongful conduct of CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10, hereinabove alleged,
21 is the direct and legal cause of the injuries to Richard’s health, strength, and activity, and
22 continuing injuries to Richard’s body and mind, all of which have caused Richard great physical,
23 mental, emotional, and nervous pain and suffering. These injuries have been debilitating to
24 Richard to his general damages in a sum according to proof.
25 56. By reason of the wrongful conduct of CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10, Richard
26 has been required to, and continues to, employ physicians and other health care providers to
27 examine, treat and care for his injuries, and has incurred, and will continue to incur, medical and
28
♼
LAW OFFICES
COTCHETT, PITRE &
MCCARTHY, LLP
COMPLAINT 11
1 incidental expenses for such examination, treatment rehabilitation and care in an amount
2 according to proof.
3 57. By further reason of the wrongful conduct of CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10,
4 Richard has suffered a loss of income and a loss of earning capacity in an amount according to
5 proof.
6 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Independent Contractor Liability
7
(Against DEFENDANT CALRECYCLE and DOES 6-10)
8
58. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference each and every of the
9
paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein.
10
59. CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10 had overall responsibility for management and
11
oversight of debris removal at the Camp Fire site, including oversight, management, selection,
12
and/or supervision of all contractors on the site, including Ceres. CalRecycle and Does 6 through
13
10 retained control of the site at all times relevant to this Complaint.
14
60. CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10 selected Ceres as a general contractor to
15
conduct debris removal at the Camp Fire site. Ceres carried out that effort by subcontracting with
16
companies, including Garlow Transport, Richard’s employer, to provide trucking services. During
17
the time that Richard was hauling loads of toxic debris from the site, CalRecycle, acting with its
18
independent contractor Ceres and Does 1 through 10, maintained control of the site, including the
19
ability to require respiratory protection for workers coming onto the site, and/or to suppress dust
20
at the site.
21
61. Upon information and belief, Ceres was certified by the State of California for
22
hazardous substance removal, and that certification was required for it to undertake this project.
23
62. Upon information and belief, as a prime contractor on the site, CalRecycle, acting
24
with its independent contractor Ceres and Does 1 to 10, was required to comply with regulations
25
to ensure appropriate worker protections, including but not limited to developing respiratory
26
protection plans. See, e.g., 8 CCR Title 8 § 5144.
27
63. In its role as prime contractor with responsibility for oversight and management at
28
♼
the site and control over debris removal operations at the site, Ceres and Does 1 through 5 had a
LAW OFFICES
COTCHETT, PITRE &
MCCARTHY, LLP
COMPLAINT 12
1 duty to workers such as Richard who came on site to ensure that they were not exposed to
2 airborne toxins. This duty included, among other things, ensuring that workers coming onto the
3 site, including Richard, had adequate equipment for respiratory protection, and/or ensuring that
4 adequate dust suppression methods were used to avoid airborne toxins, and/or warning workers of
5 the dangers of and need to avoid exposure to the airborne toxins. CalRecycle and Does 6 through
6 10, having overall management responsibility and control for the debris removal project, was
7 responsible for ensuring Ceres and Does 1 through 5 fulfilled all such duties.
8 64. Despite this duty, CalRecycle allowed Ceres and Does 1 through 5, and each of
9 them, to negligently, carelessly, recklessly, and/or unlawfully fail to protect workers such as
10 Richard who were coming onto the site. This failure included, among other things, exposing
11 Richard to clouds of toxic dust during the loading and unloading of his truck without providing
12 for any form of respiratory protection, and/or without taking any steps to ensure adequate dust
13 suppression, and/or without providing any warning of the need to avoid such exposure, and/or
14 without developing adequate respiratory protection plans for workers, including Richard, who
15 came onto the site.
16 65. As a result of this breach of duty, Richard was exposed to harmful levels of toxins
17 as he haule
Preview
1 FRANK M. PITRE (SBN 100077) fpitre@cpmlegal.com 2 JULIE L. FIEBER (SBN 202857) jfieber@cpmlegal.com 8/11/2020 3 COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP San Francisco Airport Office Center 4 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 5 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE 10 11 RICHARD VARGAS, an individual; CASE NO. 20CV01591 12 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 13 1) NEGLIGENCE vs. 14 2) BREACH OF MANDATORY CERES ENVIRONMENTAL DUTY (GOV’T CODE § 815.6) 15 SERVICES, INC., d/b/a Environmental and Demolition Services Group, a 16 3) DANGEROUS CONDITION OF Minnesota corporation; THE STATE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY (GOV’T CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CODE § 835) 17 RESOURCES, RECYCLING AND 18 RECOVERY, aka (“CALRECYCLE”); 4) INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, LIABILITY (GOV’T CODE § 19 815.4) Defendants. 20 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ♼ LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & COMPLAINT MCCARTHY, LLP 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. 2 I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 3 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ....................................................................................... 2 4 III. PARTIES .......................................................................................................................... 2 5 A. Plaintiff ........................................................................................................................... 2 6 B. Defendants ...................................................................................................................... 2 7 C. Unnamed and Doe Defendants ....................................................................................... 3 8 D. Agency, Concert of Action, and Conspiracy .................................................................. 3 9 10 IV. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS......................................................................... 4 11 V. CAUSES OF ACTION .................................................................................................... 7 12 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence ................................................................................................................................. 7 13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 14 Breach of Mandatory Duty ........................................................................................................ 8 15 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 16 Dangerous Condition of Public Property ................................................................................ 10 17 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Independent Contractor Liability ............................................................................................ 12 18 VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................. 14 19 II. JURY DEMAND ........................................................................................................... 14 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ♼ LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP COMPLAINT i 1 Plaintiff Richard Vargas (“Richard”) brings this action based on his personal injuries and 2 damages. Plaintiff hereby complains of the Defendants named hereinabove, and each of them, as 3 follows: 4 I. INTRODUCTION 5 1. After the November 2018 Camp Fire, which destroyed the town of Paradise, the 6 State of California undertook the enormous task of cleaning up toxic debris from the fire. This 7 was considered the largest disaster cleanup in state history. The California Department of 8 Resources, Recycling, and Recovery (“CalRecycle”) lead that effort. CalRecycle chose three 9 companies, including defendant Ceres Environment Services, Inc. (“Ceres”), as primary 10 contractors for this effort. Ceres was tasked with removal of debris from the unincorporated area 11 outside of Paradise. Collectively, CalRecycle and its contractors removed more than 3.66 million 12 tons of ash, debris, metal, concrete, and contaminated soil, equivalent to twice the amount of 13 debris removed from the World Trade Center site post-9/11. 14 2. Ceres hired subcontractors for the project, including Garlow Transport (formerly 15 known as Allied Trucking), a trucking company. One of the truck drivers employed by Garlow 16 Transport was plaintiff Richard Vargas. During the summer of 2019, Richard transported 17 hundreds of truckloads of toxic debris from the site. Workers located on site wore protective 18 garments – i.e., Tyvek suits -- and respirators. In contrast, truckers like Richard, who only 19 periodically came onto the site, received no instruction or equipment for respiratory protection. 20 Each time Richard’s truck was loaded, dust from the debris entered into the cab. After loading 21 finished, Richard would leave the truck and step out into the dust to cover the load with a tarp. He 22 would repeat this process to unload the debris, which again exposed him to the debris dust. At no 23 time did CalRecycle or Ceres take steps to protect workers like Richard, who only periodically 24 came onto the site from the toxic dust stirred up by their operations. 25 3. Richard was 40-years old and in excellent health when he started work on the 26 project. However, over the course of the summer, his health deteriorated. In the fall of 2019 he 27 was unexpectedly diagnosed with sarcoidosis, a disabling immune disease linked to exposure to 28 environmental toxics. For example, many workers at the World Trade Center 9/11 cleanup site ♼ LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP COMPLAINT 1 1 subsequently developed sarcoidosis as a result of their exposure to toxins during that cleanup. 2 Richard has become disabled and unable to work as a result of this disease. 3 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4 4. This court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Ceres because Ceres conducts 5 extensive business in California pursuant to contracts with the State of California, including 6 management of the cleanup project at the Camp Fire site in the County of Butte, State of 7 California. Ceres, doing business as Environmental & Demolition Services Group, was one of 8 three prime contractors for that cleanup. 9 5. This court is competent to adjudicate this action and the amount in controversy 10 exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this court. 11 6. Venue is proper in the County of Butte, State of California, pursuant to Code of 12 Civil Procedure § 395 and Government Code § 955.2, because substantially all of the events, acts, 13 omissions, and/or transactions complained of herein occurred in/or originated from County of 14 Butte, State of California. 15 III. PARTIES 16 A. Plaintiff 17 7. Plaintiff Richard Vargas is a natural person who is, and at all times relevant to this 18 Complaint was, a resident of Redding in Shasta County, California. Prior to the incidents at issue, 19 Richard was 40 years old and in good health. He played softball and worked out at a gym several 20 days each week. He jogged 4 to 5 miles regularly on the trail system near his home, and also 21 enjoyed hiking and mountain biking in the Shasta-Trinity recreational areas. 22 B. Defendants 23 8. Defendant Ceres was, and at all relevant times is, a Minnesota corporation 24 registered to do business in California as Environmental and Demolition Services Group, with 25 offices in Butte County. Ceres was a prime contractor to CalRecycle on the Camp Fire debris 26 removal project, in charge of debris removal for the unincorporated area outside of Paradise. To 27 carry out its duties under the contract, Ceres subcontracted with several trucking companies, 28 ♼ LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP COMPLAINT 2 1 including Richard’s employer, Garlow Transport. Upon information and belief, CalRecycle 2 required Ceres to be certified for hazardous substance removal in order to qualify for the project. 3 9. Defendant CalRecycle is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a public entity 4 doing business throughout the State of California, including having regional offices in the cities of 5 Oroville and Biggs, located within Butte County. CalRecycle, and/or its servants, agents, 6 representatives, employees and/or joint venturers implemented, managed, and/or oversaw the 7 debris removal program at the Camp Fire site. This included selecting, supervising, and managing 8 the prime contractors, including Ceres, and their debris removal crews. CalRecycle’s duties 9 included daily oversight of contractors, independent testing, direct review and analysis of results, 10 and documentation of every stage of the operations. 11 C. Unnamed and Doe Defendants 12 10. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or 13 otherwise of the Defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff who 14 therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 15 section 474. Plaintiff further alleges that each fictitious Defendant is in some manner responsible 16 for the acts and occurrences set forth herein. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to show their 17 true names and capacities when the same are ascertained, as well as the manner in which each 18 fictitious Defendant is responsible. 19 D. Agency, Concert of Action, and Conspiracy 20 11. At all times herein mentioned, each of the defendants, inclusive, were the agent, 21 servant, employee, partner, aider and abettor, co-conspirator and/or joint venturer of each of the 22 remaining defendants named herein and were at all times operating and acting within the purpose 23 and scope of said agency, service, employment, partnership, conspiracy, alter ego and/or joint 24 venture, and each defendant has ratified and approved the acts of each of the remaining 25 defendants. Each of the defendants has aided and abetted, encouraged, and rendered substantial 26 assistance to the other defendants in breaching their obligations to Plaintiff as alleged herein. In 27 taking action to aid and abet and substantially assist the commission of these wrongful acts and 28 other wrongdoings complained of, as alleged herein, each of the defendants acted with an ♼ LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP COMPLAINT 3 1 awareness of his or her primary wrongdoing and realized that his or her conduct would 2 substantially assist the accomplishment of the wrongful conduct, wrongful goals, and 3 wrongdoing. 4 IV. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS 5 12. After the 2018 Camp Fire, CalRecycle took charge of the enormous task of 6 cleaning up toxic debris from the fire. This was considered the largest disaster cleanup in state 7 history. Collectively, CalRecycle and its contractors removed more than 3.66 million tons of ash, 8 debris, metal, concrete, and contaminated soil, equivalent to twice the amount of debris removed 9 from the World Trade Center site post-9/11. 10 13. Upon information and belief, CalRecycle’s duties included management of the 11 debris removal project, including management of the debris removal crews. CalRecycle directly 12 oversaw the appointment of the prime contractors and managed their operations throughout the 13 cleanup process. 14 14. CalRecycle selected three companies, including defendant Ceres, as primary 15 contractors for this effort. Ceres was tasked with removing debris from the unincorporated area 16 outside of Paradise. 17 15. Because the debris was known to be a health hazard, CalRecycle required that 18 Ceres and the other prime contractors be certified for hazardous substance removal. CalRecycle 19 recognized that the nature of the material being handled at the cleanup required added emphasis 20 on safety. Upon information and belief, it conducted daily oversight to make sure operations were 21 safe and compliant with industry standards. In public statements, it asserted that its overarching 22 principles were to establish the safety of its crews, the community, and the environment. Upon 23 information and belief, in doing this, CalRecycle took responsibility for a number of oversight 24 measures and conducted daily safety meetings. Upon information and belief, CalRecycle claims it 25 had an expectation that on-site crews would wear the proper safety equipment, and it required 26 decontamination zones at each site where on-site contractors suited up and suited off. Upon 27 information and belief, CalRecycle’s stated intent was that this would help prevent ash from 28 getting into on-site crewmembers’ trucks and going with them back home. Upon information and ♼ LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP COMPLAINT 4 1 belief, CalRecycle also required regular truck inspections for the on-site crews conducted in 2 accordance with Department of Transportation standards. 3 16. Upon information and belief, recognizing the hazardous nature of the debris and 4 the potential that toxins could become airborne during debris removal, CalRecycle set up air 5 monitoring stations around the community to monitor for airborne toxins. Upon information and 6 belief, CalRecycle knew it was important to keep the debris watered down as a way to keep the 7 dust from flying around, and also understood that when debris were hauled away, measures 8 needed to be taken to prevent dust from flying out and further contaminating the area. 9 17. CalRecycle claims that its oversight processes are “meticulous” because it has 10 managed more than 20 debris removal operation since 2007. Upon information and belief, 11 CalRecycle understood that managing this size of cleanup project would require careful planning 12 and execution. 13 18. Upon information and belief, the prime contractors, including Ceres, as state 14 certified entities for hazardous substance removal, also understood these obligations to prevent 15 toxins from becoming airborne, and compliance with safety measures was further imposed 16 through the contracts with CalRecycle. 17 19. Each of the prime contractors, including Ceres, worked with a group of crews, 18 some of which managed the debris on site and some which were tasked with removing the debris. 19 Upon information and belief, CalRecycle instituted special oversight to ensure cleanup operations 20 went according to plan. Upon information and belief, Contractors were held not only accountable 21 to CalRecycle, but they checked each other’s work as well. 22 20. Ceres hired a number of trucking companies to haul debris away from the site to 23 various landfills. Upon information and belief, one of the trucking companies Ceres hired was 24 Garlow Transport. Upon information and belief, Garlow Transport had no authority or control 25 over conditions at the debris removal site. CalRecycle and/or Ceres retained full control over such 26 conditions. 27 21. Richard has been a trucker since approximately 2001, initially driving light duty 28 delivery trucks. In 2019, he obtained his class A license, which allows him to drive heavy-duty ♼ LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP COMPLAINT 5 1 trucks. On June 1, 2019, he was hired by Garlow Transport as an hourly employee hauling debris 2 for the Camp Fire project. 3 22. Richard started work on the fire debris cleanup on June 3, 2019. The procedure 4 was that he would drive his truck to the site, where workers would direct him to the loading area. 5 The on-site workers who directed Richard were dressed in hazardous material suits, i.e., Tyvek 6 suits, and wore respirators. No similar protections were provided to Richard, nor was he told that 7 he needed any type of respiratory protection. As the on-site workers loaded debris into Richard’s 8 truck, they stirred up clouds of dust, which then came into the Richard’s truck through its 9 ventilation system. 10 23. Once the truck was loaded, Richard would have to step out into the dust to tarp the 11 load before he could leave the site. Richard would then get back into his truck and drive it to the 12 designated waste facility. He would then exit his truck, remove the tarp, and dump the load, 13 which again exposed him to dust. 14 24. Richard repeated this process for hundreds of loads throughout June and July 2019. 15 With each visit to the debris removal site and each load of debris he hauled, Richard was exposed 16 to toxic dust from the debris. Despite this, none of the on-site personnel from CalRecycle and/or 17 its contractor, Ceres, took steps to warn Richard or ensure that he had appropriate respiratory 18 protection when he was on site or while he was handling the toxic debris. Similarly, CalRecycle 19 and/or its contractor, Ceres, failed to take effective measures to suppress the dust clouds created 20 during the loading of Richard’s truck. 21 25. At the end of July 2019, Richard began experiencing chest pains and eventually 22 was admitted to the hospital. A multitude of tests were performed, including a biopsy of his lungs. 23 It was later determined that he had developed sarcoidosis, a disease associated with workers at the 24 World Trade Center 9/11 site cleanup. Sarcoidosis is an inflammatory disease that can affect 25 multiple organs in the body. There is no cure for the disease. Richard had never previously had 26 any similar type of health problem. 27 26. Although Richard continued working for a time after his release from the hospital, 28 eventually he had to stop. His last day of work was in December 2019, and he has been ♼ LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP COMPLAINT 6 1 effectively fully disabled since. He continues to suffer, among other things, severe chest pain, 2 difficulty breathing, fatigue and weakness, and emotional distress as a direct result of the 3 sarcoidosis. His doctors have told him he will not get better. 4 V. CAUSES OF ACTION 5 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence 6 (Against Defendant Ceres and DOES 1–5) 7 27. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference each and every one of the 8 paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein. 9 28. Ceres was a general contractor retained by CalRecycle to conduct debris removal 10 at the Camp Fire site. Ceres carried out that effort by subcontracting with companies, including 11 Garlow Transport, Richard’s employer, to provide trucking services. During the time that Richard 12 was hauling loads of toxic debris from the site, Ceres and Does 1 through 5 maintained control of 13 the site, including the ability to require respiratory protection for workers coming onto the site, 14 and/or to suppress dust at the site. 15 29. Upon information and belief, Ceres was certified by the State of California for 16 hazardous substance removal, and that certification was required for it to undertake this project. 17 30. Upon information and belief, as a prime contractor on the site, Ceres was required 18 to comply with regulations to ensure appropriate worker protections, including but not limited to 19 developing respiratory protection plans. See, e.g., 8 CCR Title 8 § 5144. 20 31. In its role as prime contractor with responsibility for oversight and management at 21 the site and control over debris removal operations at the site, Ceres and Does 1 through 5 had a 22 duty to workers such as Richard who came on site to ensure that they were not exposed to 23 airborne toxins. This duty included, among other things, ensuring that workers coming onto the 24 site, including Richard, had adequate equipment for respiratory protection, and/or ensuring that 25 adequate dust suppression methods were used to avoid airborne toxins, and/or warning said 26 workers of the dangers of and need to avoid exposure to the airborne toxins. 27 32. Despite this duty, Ceres and Does 1 through 5, and each of them, negligently, 28 carelessly, recklessly, and/or unlawfully failed to protect workers, including Richard, who were ♼ LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP COMPLAINT 7 1 hauling toxic debris from the site. This failure included, among other things, exposing Richard to 2 clouds of toxic dust during the loading and unloading of his truck without providing for any form 3 of respiratory protection, and/or taking steps to ensure adequate dust suppression, and/or 4 providing warning of the need to avoid such exposure, and/or developing adequate respiratory 5 protection plans for workers like Richard who came onto the site. 6 33. As a result of this breach of duty, Richard was exposed to harmful levels of toxins 7 as he hauled hundreds of loads of debris from the Camp Fire site. That exposure in turn caused 8 him to develop sarcoidosis, a medical condition which will be with him for the rest of his life and 9 which has left him disabled and in constant pain and suffering. 10 34. The wrongful conduct of Ceres and Does 1 through 5, hereinabove alleged, is the 11 direct and legal cause of the injuries to Richard’s health, strength, and activity, and continuing 12 injuries to Richard’s body and mind, all of which have caused Richard great physical, mental, 13 emotional, and nervous pain and suffering. These injuries have been debilitating to Richard to his 14 general damages in a sum according to proof. 15 35. By reason of the wrongful conduct of Ceres and Does 1 through 5, Richard has 16 been required to, and continues to, employ physicians and other health care providers to examine, 17 treat and care for his injuries, and has incurred, and will continue to incur, medical and incidental 18 expenses for such examination, treatment rehabilitation and care in an amount according to proof. 19 36. By further reason of the wrongful conduct of Ceres and Does 1 through 5, Richard 20 has suffered a loss of income and a loss of earning capacity in an amount according to proof. 21 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Breach of Mandatory Duty 22 (Against DEFENDANT CALRECYCLE and DOES 6-10) 23 37. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference each and every one of the 24 paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein. 25 38. CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10 had overall responsibility for management and 26 oversight of debris removal at the Camp Fire site, including oversight, management, selection, 27 and/or supervision of all contractors on the site, including Ceres. CalRecycle and Does 6 through 28 10 retained control of the site at all times relevant to this Complaint. ♼ LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP COMPLAINT 8 1 39. As the entity in charge of and tasked with oversight of the debris removal effort, 2 CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10 had a mandatory duty to ensure compliance with Cal/OSHA 3 standards, including 8 CCR Title 8 § 5144 (providing guidance for respiratory protection). 4 CalRecycle was required to ensure there was a respiratory protection program in place for all 5 workers, including drivers like Richard, at the debris removal site. 6 40. At all relevant times, CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10 failed to carry out its 7 mandatory duty to protect workers such as Richard, by, among other things, failing to have in 8 place and/or failing to ensure enforcement of a respiratory protection program for workers coming 9 onto the site, including truckers such as Richard, and/or failing to ensure that workers coming 10 onto the site, including Richard, had adequate equipment for respiratory protection, and/or failing 11 to ensure that adequate dust suppression methods were used to avoid airborne toxins, and/or 12 failing to warn workers, including Richard, of the dangers of and need to avoid exposure to the 13 airborne toxins. 14 41. As a result of the breach of these mandatory duties by CalRecycle and Does 6 15 through 10, Richard was exposed to harmful levels of toxic dust as he hauled hundreds of loads of 16 debris away from the Camp Fire site. That exposure in turn caused him to develop sarcoidosis, a 17 medical condition which will be with him for the rest of his life and which has left him disabled 18 and in constant pain and suffering. 19 42. On January 25, 2020, Plaintiff filed a government claim against CalRecycle for the 20 subject incident, which was rejected on February 19, 2020. 21 43. The wrongful conduct of CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10, hereinabove alleged, 22 is the direct and legal cause of the injuries to Richard’s health, strength, and activity, and 23 continuing injuries to Richard’s body and mind, all of which have caused Richard great physical, 24 mental, emotional, and nervous pain and suffering. These injuries have been debilitating to 25 Richard to his general damages in a sum according to proof. 26 44. By reason of the wrongful conduct of CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10, Richard 27 has been required to, and continues to, employ physicians and other health care providers to 28 examine, treat and care for his injuries, and has incurred, and will continue to incur, medical and ♼ LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP COMPLAINT 9 1 incidental expenses for such examination, treatment rehabilitation and care in an amount 2 according to proof. 3 45. By further reason of the wrongful conduct of CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10, 4 Richard has suffered a loss of income and a loss of earning capacity in an amount according to 5 proof. 6 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Dangerous Condition of Public Property 7 (Against DEFENDANT CALRECYCLE and DOES 6-10) 8 46. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference each and every one of the 9 paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein. 10 47. CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10 had overall responsibility for management and 11 oversight of debris removal at the Camp Fire site, including oversight, management, selection, 12 and/or supervision of all contractors on the site, including Ceres. CalRecycle and Does 6 through 13 10 were responsible for planning, designing, conducting, maintaining, controlling, and/or 14 directing debris removal at the Camp Fire site and retained control of the site at all times relevant 15 to this Complaint. 16 48. As the entity in charge of and tasked with oversight of the debris removal effort, 17 CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10 had a mandatory duty to ensure compliance with Cal/OSHA 18 standards, including 8 CCR Title 8 § 5144 (providing guidance for respiratory protection). 19 CalRecycle was required to ensure there was a respiratory protection program in place for all 20 workers, including drivers like Richard, at the Camp Fire debris removal site. 21 49. At all relevant times, CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10 maintained a dangerous 22 condition of public property as herein described based upon their planning, designing, conducting, 23 maintaining, controlling, and/or directing the debris removal at the Camp Fire site. 24 50. The failure of CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10 to have in place and/or ensure 25 enforcement of a respiratory protection program for workers coming onto the site, including 26 truckers such as Richard, and/or to ensure that workers coming onto the site, including Richard, 27 had adequate equipment for respiratory protection, and/or to ensure that adequate dust 28 ♼ suppression methods were used to avoid airborne toxins, and/or to warn workers of the dangers of LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP COMPLAINT 10 1 and need avoid exposure to the airborne toxins, contributed separately and/or in combination to 2 create a dangerous condition at the site, and a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury and 3 damage that occurred. 4 51. Pursuant to Government Code sections 835.2 and 840.4, CalRecycle and Does 6 5 through 10 had actual knowledge and/or constructive notice of the dangerous condition, including 6 that exposure to airborne toxins could be injurious to workers coming on site absent proper use of 7 respiratory protection equipment and/or proper dust suppression methods. Despite this, 8 CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10 did nothing to abate the foreseeable risks and concealed 9 dangers to workers like Richard. 10 52. The failure of CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10 to abate these foreseeable risks, 11 individually and/or collectively, and to warn workers of the concealed hazard posed by airborne 12 toxins at the site, caused workers like Richard to have a false sense of safety in the area, creating 13 the further hazards and impending danger that existed there. 14 53. As a result of this dangerous condition, Richard was exposed to harmful levels of 15 toxic dust as he hauled hundreds of loads of debris away from the Camp Fire site. That exposure 16 in turn caused him to develop sarcoidosis, a medical condition which will be with him for the rest 17 of his life and which has left him disabled and in constant pain and suffering. 18 54. On January 25, 2020, Plaintiff filed a government claim against CalRecycle for the 19 subject incident, which was rejected on February 19, 2020. 20 55. The wrongful conduct of CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10, hereinabove alleged, 21 is the direct and legal cause of the injuries to Richard’s health, strength, and activity, and 22 continuing injuries to Richard’s body and mind, all of which have caused Richard great physical, 23 mental, emotional, and nervous pain and suffering. These injuries have been debilitating to 24 Richard to his general damages in a sum according to proof. 25 56. By reason of the wrongful conduct of CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10, Richard 26 has been required to, and continues to, employ physicians and other health care providers to 27 examine, treat and care for his injuries, and has incurred, and will continue to incur, medical and 28 ♼ LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP COMPLAINT 11 1 incidental expenses for such examination, treatment rehabilitation and care in an amount 2 according to proof. 3 57. By further reason of the wrongful conduct of CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10, 4 Richard has suffered a loss of income and a loss of earning capacity in an amount according to 5 proof. 6 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Independent Contractor Liability 7 (Against DEFENDANT CALRECYCLE and DOES 6-10) 8 58. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference each and every of the 9 paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein. 10 59. CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10 had overall responsibility for management and 11 oversight of debris removal at the Camp Fire site, including oversight, management, selection, 12 and/or supervision of all contractors on the site, including Ceres. CalRecycle and Does 6 through 13 10 retained control of the site at all times relevant to this Complaint. 14 60. CalRecycle and Does 6 through 10 selected Ceres as a general contractor to 15 conduct debris removal at the Camp Fire site. Ceres carried out that effort by subcontracting with 16 companies, including Garlow Transport, Richard’s employer, to provide trucking services. During 17 the time that Richard was hauling loads of toxic debris from the site, CalRecycle, acting with its 18 independent contractor Ceres and Does 1 through 10, maintained control of the site, including the 19 ability to require respiratory protection for workers coming onto the site, and/or to suppress dust 20 at the site. 21 61. Upon information and belief, Ceres was certified by the State of California for 22 hazardous substance removal, and that certification was required for it to undertake this project. 23 62. Upon information and belief, as a prime contractor on the site, CalRecycle, acting 24 with its independent contractor Ceres and Does 1 to 10, was required to comply with regulations 25 to ensure appropriate worker protections, including but not limited to developing respiratory 26 protection plans. See, e.g., 8 CCR Title 8 § 5144. 27 63. In its role as prime contractor with responsibility for oversight and management at 28 ♼ the site and control over debris removal operations at the site, Ceres and Does 1 through 5 had a LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP COMPLAINT 12 1 duty to workers such as Richard who came on site to ensure that they were not exposed to 2 airborne toxins. This duty included, among other things, ensuring that workers coming onto the 3 site, including Richard, had adequate equipment for respiratory protection, and/or ensuring that 4 adequate dust suppression methods were used to avoid airborne toxins, and/or warning workers of 5 the dangers of and need to avoid exposure to the airborne toxins. CalRecycle and Does 6 through 6 10, having overall management responsibility and control for the debris removal project, was 7 responsible for ensuring Ceres and Does 1 through 5 fulfilled all such duties. 8 64. Despite this duty, CalRecycle allowed Ceres and Does 1 through 5, and each of 9 them, to negligently, carelessly, recklessly, and/or unlawfully fail to protect workers such as 10 Richard who were coming onto the site. This failure included, among other things, exposing 11 Richard to clouds of toxic dust during the loading and unloading of his truck without providing 12 for any form of respiratory protection, and/or without taking any steps to ensure adequate dust 13 suppression, and/or without providing any warning of the need to avoid such exposure, and/or 14 without developing adequate respiratory protection plans for workers, including Richard, who 15 came onto the site. 16 65. As a result of this breach of duty, Richard was exposed to harmful levels of toxins 17 as he haule