CLARENCE, DYER & COHEN LLP
KATE DYER (SBN 171891)
3
4
[email protected]
899 Ellis Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
Telephone: (415) 749-1800
Facsimile: (415) 749-1694
PILR9
SAN MATEO COUN
guL g 0
LATHAM& WATKINS LLP
C9
6
7
8
ZOQ
JOHN J. LYONS (SBN 71758)
[email protected]
355 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
Telephone: (213) 891-8320
Facsimile: (213) 891-8763
SEDGWICK LLP
GAYLE L. GOUGH (SBN 154398)
10
12
13
14
[email protected]
333 Bush Street, 30'" Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 781-7900
Facsimile: (415) 781-2635
Attorneys for Defendants
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
and PG&E CORPORATION
15
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
16
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
Coordination Proceeding Special Title
(Rule 3.550)
PG&E "SAN BRUNO FIRE" CASES
20
21
22
JCCP No. 4648
TORT ACTIONS
DEFENDANT PACIFIC GAS AND
ELECTRIC COMPANY'S EVIDENCE IN
OPPOSITION TO
FOR SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION; DECLARATIONOF
GAYLE L. GOUGH IN SUPPORT
THEREOF
PLAINTIFFS'OTION
Date:
23
24
25
A
September 4, 2012
10:00 a.m.
Time:
Dept.:
7
Judge:
Hon. Steven L. Dylina
Referee: Honorable Ronald Sabraw
26
27
28
SF/2863 I Oov I
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS'OTION FOR SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION;DECLARATION OF GAYLE L. GOUGH IN SUPPORT THEREOF
1
Defendants Pacific Gas and Electric Company and PG&E Corporation (hereinafter
2
"PG&E") provide the following index evidence in support of its Opposition to Plaintiffs'otion
3
for Summary Adjudication:
INDEX OF EVIDENCE
1.
Master Complaint, filed on June 3, 2011, attached hereto as Exhibit A;
2.
Amended Master Answer, filed on July 12, 2011, attached as Exhibit A to
Plaintiffs'0
Index
3.
of Evidence In Support of Plaintiffs'otion for Summary Adjudication;
PG&E's Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs'orm Interrogatories, Set Two,
attached as Exhibit C to
Plaintiffs'ndex of Evidence In Support of Plaintiffs'otion
for Summary Adjudication; and
4.
Declarations and evidence submitted on pending summary adjudication motions,
12
including Declarations of Robert Caligiuri, Robert Fassett, Frank E. Hagan, M. Kirk
13
Johnson, Keith Leewis, John J. Lyons, Joseph W. Martinelli, Daniel Menegus, Eric
14
Montizambert, Michael Peterson, Keith Slibsager, Edward A. Stracke, John
15
Zurcher, previously submitted in support
16
Adjudication.
S.
of PG&E's Motions for Summary
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SF/2863100v I
I
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS'OTION FOR SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION;DECLARATIONOF GAYLE L; GOUGH IN SUPPORT THEREOF
1
2
I, Gayle L. Gough, do hereby declare:
1.
I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all courts
of the
State
of
3
California and a partner with the law firm of Sedgwick, LLP, attorneys of record for defendants
4
Pacific Gas and Electric Company and PG&E Corporation (hereinafter "PG&E"). I submit this
5
declaration in support
6
the ninth affirmative defense.
7
8
9
10
2.
of PG&E's Opposition to Plaintiffs'otion for Summary Adjudication on
Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy
of Plaintiffs'aster
Complaint, filed on June 3, 2011.
3.
A true and correct copy of Defendants'mended Master Answer, filed on July
12, 2011, is attached as
Exhibit A to Plaintiffs'ndex of Evidence In Support of
Plaintiffs'1
Motion for Summary Adjudication.
12
4.
A true and correct copy of PG&E's Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs'orm
13
Interrogatories, Set Two, is attached as Exhibit C to Plaintiffs'ndex
14
Plaintiffs'otion for Summary
15
5.
of Evidence In Support of
Adjudication.
Declarations and evidence submitted on pending summary adjudication motions,
16
including Declarations of Robert Caligiuri, Robert Fassett, Frank E. Hagan, M. Kirk Johnson,
17
Keith Leewis, John
18
Michael Peterson, Keith Slibsager, Edward A. Stracke, John
19
submitted in support
20
J.
Lyons, Joseph W. Martinelli, Daniel Menegus, Eric Montizambert,
S.
Zurcher, were previously
of PG&E's Motions for Summary Adjudication.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
21
foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on the 30'" day
22
in San Francisco, California.
of July,
2012,
23
Oaves
24
bayle L. GouglU
25
26
27
28
SF/2863 i
2
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS'OTION FOR SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION;DECLARATION OF GAYLE.L. GOUGH IN SUPPORT THEREOF
EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT
1
Frank M. Pitre (SBN 1000777)
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
4
Airport Of5ce Center
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
5
Jerry E. Nastari (SBN 151756)
2
3
6
San Francisco
coUNTy
COREY, LUZAICH,PLISKA, DE GHETALDI &
NASTARI, LLP
700 El Camino Real, P.O. Box 669
8
Millbrae, CA 94030-0699
Telephone: (650) 871-5666
Facsimile: (650) 871-4144
9
Plaintiffs Liaison Counsel
7
10
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
12
13
IN RE SAN BRUNO FIRE LITIGATION JCCP No. 4648, Tort Actions
COMPLAINT FOR:
14
PlaintNs,
I.
WRONGFUL DEATH
2.
SURVIVALCLAIM
3.
NEGLIGENCE
4.
INTENTIONALINFLICTION OF
EMOTIONALDISTRESS
5.
BATTERY
6.
STRICT LIABILITYULTRAHAZARDOUSACTIVITY
22
7.
PRIVATE NUISANCE (CONTINUING)
23
8.
PRIVATE NUISANCE (PERMANENT)
24
9.
PUBLIC NUISANCE (CONTINUING)
o5
10.
PUBLIC NUISANCE (PERMANENT)
26
11.
TRESPASS
27
I 2.
INVERSE CONDEMNATION
15
vs.
16
17
18
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
COMPANY, a corporation; PG&E
CORPORATION, a corporation; and
DOES I through 50, inclusive,
Defendants.
19
20
21
28
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAliVT
TABLE OIi CONTENTS
Page
3
I.
INTRODUCTION.
4
II.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE.
5
III.
PARTIES
6
A.
Plaintiff.
7
B.
Defendants
8
C.
Other Defendants.
9
D.
Agency and Concert
10
12
IV.
of Action
FACTUALBACKGROUND FOR THE CLAIMS ASSERTED.
of Line
A.
Overview
B.
PG&E's Record of Safety Violations and Disregard for Public We)fare.
132
l.
1981 San Francisco Gas Main Explosion
14
2.
I983
15
3.
I992 Santa Rosa Explosion Kills Two.
16
4.
17
5.
.
San Francisco House Explosion.
'illions ofDollars Diverted from Important Safety
Upgrades
PG&EAdmits That Installing Remotely Controlled Valves 8'ould
"Greatly Increase Safety, " but Never Makes Replacements............
8
18
6.
2003 Mission District Substation Fire
7.
2005 PG&EExplosions Destroy Home and Severely Injure
8'oman....
10
8..
2008 Rancho Cordova Explosion'Kills One and Inj ures Several Others.
10
C.
Audits Reveal Extensive Problems with PG&E's Pipeline Inspection Program..
11
D.
PG&E Raises Rates To Repair Line 132, but Never Makes Repairs; Meanwhile,
PG&E Executives Are Paid Exorbitant Compensation.
. 12
19
20
21
22
23
for Repairs It Never Makes- ...
12
8%ile It Does Not Spend Money on Repairing Line I32, PG&E Spends
Millions on Lobbying and Executive Compensation, and Turns Profits..
13
PG&E Collects Money from Ratepayers
24
2.
25
26
27
28
COM PLAINT
E.
Culmination of PG&E's Failure To Make Repairs and Continual Disregard
for Customer Safety: The San Bruno
Explosion.....................
14
I.
Failure ofEquipment at Milpitas Terminal.
..
17
2.
PGd'cE's Sluggish Response to the Disaster.
..
I'7
3.
PGdcE's Failure To Properly Train 8'orkers.
..
18
4.
The Defective Condition and Improper Operation
..
18
5.
Failure To Properly Maintain and Inspect the Pipe
6.
PG&E's Failure To Cooperate with Local Government and
of the Pipe...
19
Lawmakers.
7.
20
Only After The San Bruno Tragedy Does PGckE Begin To Take
Remedial Measures It Should Have Taken Years Ago...........
..21
10
CAUSES OF ACTION.
21
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Wrongful Death).
12
21
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Suwivai Claim)...
13
..22
14
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
]5
..24
(Negligencc)..
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(htentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)...
16
25
17
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Battery).
18
19
26
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTlON
(Strict Liability — Ultrahazardous Activity)
26
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Private Nuisance - Continuing).
'77
20
21
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Private Nuisance - Permanent)...
22
..
30
23
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
24
(Public Nuisance
25
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
-
Continuing).
(Public Nuisance - Permanent)
.
32
35
26
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
27
(Trespass).
28
COM PLAtNT
...37
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Inverse Condemnation)..
38
2
Vl.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF.
VII.
JURY DEMAND.
..
39
3
40
10
12
13
14
15
16
)7
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
COMPLAINT
nl
Plaintiffs bring this action for damages and injunctive relief against Defendants Pacific
1
& Electric
Co. and PG&E Corp. (co))ective)y "PG&E"). Plaintiffs make the following
2
Gas
3
allegations based upon information and belief.
4
I.
INTRODUCTION
This case arises from the terrifying and disastrous gas line explosion that occurred
I.
5
of San Bruno, California, setting
6
on September 9, 20l0, in the Crestmoor area
7
neighborhood ablaze. Just as families were sitting down at their dining room tables to have dinner
8
that evening, a gas line owned and maintained by PG&E ruptured violently, creating a giant fireball
9
that traveled over 85 fcct into the air and set dozens
of homes
serious physical, emotional. and/or economic injuries as a result
10
on fire. Plaintiffs have suffered
of the
explosion.
The cxp)osion that occurred that night, destroying the Crestmoor neighborhood and
2.
11
the entire suburban
12
surrounding area and bestowing inca)culab)e grief and agony upon count1ess individuals with ties
13
to the neighborhood and its residents, was not
14
.
inevitable. ln the aftermath
of the
freak accident or a chance occurrence.
explosion and the destruction
of the disaster
15
evidence regarding the causes
16
to one conclusion: it was only a matter
l7
PG&E knew it.
18
II.
of the
It was
Crestmoor area, copious
and PG&E's role in the events leading up to it all point
of time until thc pipeline below
San Bruno ruptured. And
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant PG&E because PG&E
3.
19
a
20
incorporated in California, and is therefore
21
significant business in California so
22
courts consistent with traditional notions
23
ofthe events that caused Plaintiffs'njuries occurred
as
a
resident
of California. Moreover, PG&E has
is
done
to render the exercise ofjurisdiction over it by the California
of fair play and
substantial justice, and a substantial part
in the County
ofSan
Mateo, State
of California.
of this
24
4.
The amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum
25
5.
Venue is proper in this County as Defendant PG&E is located and/or perforins
26
business in this County, and a substantia) part
27
complained
28
i //
of herein
COMPLAtNT
occurred in this County.
of the
Court.
events, acts, omissions and transactions
1
III.. PARTIES
2
A.
Plaintiff
3
6.
Plaintiffhas suffered physical, emotional, and/or economic injuries as a result of the
4
San Bruno pipeline explosion.
5
B.
Defendants
6
7.
Defendant PACIFIC GAS &, ELECTRIC COMPANY, a subsidiary corporation
7
of PG&E Corporation,
8
PG&E Company is a combination natural gas and electric utility which provides gas and clcctric
9
serv icc to millions of customers in northern and central California.
10
11
8.
is incorporated in
Defendant
California and is based in San Francisco, California.
PG&E CORPORATION
is an
energy-based
incorporated in California. PG&E Corporation is the parent company
holding company
of PG&E Company.
12
C.
Other Defendants
13
9.
Thc true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise
14
of Defendants DOE through DOE 50, inclusive,
15
Defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to Code
16
further allege each fictitious Defendants is in some manner responsible for the acts and occurrences
l7
set forth herein. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to show their true naines and capacities when
18
thc same arc ascertained, as well as the inanner in which each fictitious Defendant is responsible.
1
l9
D.
Asencv and Concert of Action
20
10.
At all times herein mentioned,
are unknown to Plaintiffs who therefore suc said
each
of Civil Procedure
of the
section 474; Plaintiffs
Defendants was the agent, servant,
of each of the
21
employee, partner, aider and abettor, coconspirator and/or joint venturer
22
Defendants named herein and were at all times operating and acting within the purpose and scope
23
of said
24
Defendant has rendered substantial assistance and encouragement to the other Defendants, knowing
25
that their conduct was wrongful and/or unlawful, and each Defendant has ratified and approved the
26
acts
27
28
agency, service, employment, partnership, conspiracy, alter cgo and/or
of each of the remaining
///
///
COMPLAINT
Defendants.
remaining
joint venture.
Each
I
IV.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND FOR THE CLAIMS ASSERTED
On September 9, 20) 0, tragedy struck the quiet community
11.
2
of San Bruno, California,
3
when a PG&E-owned and operated pipeline ruptured, kitling eight people and injuring over fiAy
4
more, and destroying or damaging over 100 homes.
In the aftermath
12.
5
of the
explosion, investigation has revealed that the pipeline that
6
exploded was a ticking timebomb, waiting ominously like a fuming volcano to erupt and wreak
7
havoc on the residential comtnunity
8
explosion was completely preventable. As detailed below, investigation into PG&E's safety record
9
and knowledge
of San
Bruno. Unlike a volcano, however, the San Bruno
of the defective condition of the pipe prior to the explosion
of the
has revealed that PG&E.
serious problems with the pipe and had the
10
at all times before the tragedy in San Bruno, knew
11
ability to remedy those problems and prevent thc disaster, and yet failed to do so time and time again.
12
A.
Overview of Line 132
13
13.
Thc pipeline that exploded in San Bruno was a natural gas transmission line, which
14
is a large pipeline that supplies gas to smaller lines that lead to homes and businesses.
15
below shows the transmission lines that run below the Bay Area, including Line 132, thc line that
16
encompassed
the segment
of pipe that exploded in San Bruno on'September
// I
20
///
///
///
21
// I
22
II I
18
19
23
24
25
26
///
///
///
///
27
28
'ource:
COMPLAINT
San Jose Mercury News
9.'7
The map
IIINhmmI—
~~
arirnMnlSSION IIIISS
Nhasllsisio&ddeh
—
SaiibreadiI dhAQNItlenplpalthr
+5apllsclae
l~s
hemestmd teltimsws.
laae.shah
e ttI
~ ae
Arpset
OL
sa
she
....':
cmr
10
SAN MATEO
COUNTY
Neeeat
Seel
Mead
12
Sa
13
I
E"
Cslem
+ee
14
hst
ÃA~
HH
Nae
eeee
tier
16
5
sea
cuba
0$ %fY
miles
I
17
18
+/
14.
Ranked as one
of the
most dangerous pipelines in thc country, the gas line that
19
exploded that fateful night in San Bruno was built in 1956, under what was then
20
inhabited land. The pipeline contains manual shut-off valves, which ineans that in order to stop the
21
flow of gas from the pipe in the event of a leak, a worker has to physically turn off the valve. In
22
contrast to automatic valves, which close automatically atter a system trigger, or remotely controlled
23
valves, which can be closed from remote locations, in order to shut
24
must gain access to the pipe by using a kcy to enter a secured area, attach
25
inanually crank it. During a serious fire, this is impossible, and thus the risk that
26
leak in such a pipe will become out
27
28
15.
a
rural and sparsely
manual valve, a worker
handle to the valve, and
a
fire caused by a
of control is extraordinarily high.
ln the l960s, within a few years of the building of the pipeline below the once-rural
San Bruno, residents
COMPLAINT
off a
a
of
San Francisco began to flock south to the suburbs, and San Bruno
1
experienced rapid and significant growth. New subdivisions, including Crestmoor, were built on the
2
land above the pipe. The dangerous pipeline, once resting beneath sparsely inhabited pastures and
3
fields, now snaked under a densely populated metropolis.
4
l6.
Despite the area's transformation from empty fields to bustling suburb, PG&E did
not move the pipeline to a more sparsely populated area.
PG&E did not refurbish or repair the
6
pipeline, or otherwise make any effor to adapt it to its newly urbanized setting. PG&E did not
7
explain to homeowners that a terrifying explosion would someday devastate their community. In
8
short, PG&E did nothing.
9
PG&E's failure to address thc danger of thc pipeline in thc 1960s, aAer San Bruno
17.
10
experienced
11
should have, and failed to address thc dangers posed by the pipeline. In fact, at every twist and turn
12
throughout thc history
13
and thc extreme danger it posed to human life, and yet has'ailed time and again to take any action
14
to protect the citizens imperiled by it. This is hardly surprising. As illustrated below, PG&E has a
15
significant record
16
while failing to spend money necessary to protect lives by conducting vital repairs on its aging
17
pipeline infrastructure.
a
population surge, marks the first, but sadly not the last, time that PG&E could have,
of the ill-fated pipeline, PG&E has
of safety
violations, and
had knowledge
a demonstrated
pattern
of its defective
condition
of bolstering corporate profits
18
B.
PG&K's Record of Safetv Violations and Disreitard for Public Welfare
19
18.
The San Bruno explosion and ensuing fire is only one example in a long list ofPG&E
20
incidents and safety lapses. For over 50 years, PG&E has had knowledge
21
of thc pipe that
22
line with PG&E's atrocious safety record and unfortunate practice ofputting corporate profits before
23
customer safety. Indeed, between 2004 and 2009, PG&E operated 42'/0
24
pipelines, but accounted for almost 60/o
25
include infractions such as worker errors and incomplete or inaccurate maintenance records. During
26
this time period, state regulators cited PG&E 411 times for safety violations in its gas operations
27
To put this number in perspective, all of the state's other utilities combined had
a
28
violations during the same time period. PG&E accrued approximately six times
as
CON PLA INT
of the defective condition
caused the San Bruno explosion, and yet has never bothered to remedy it. This is in
of California's
of the probable violations of safety
natural gas
standards, which
total
of287 such
many violations
1
2
as its San
Diego counterpart, Sempra Energy, which owns inore pipeline. The following graph
illustrates these numbers:
Safety Violations Between 2004 and
2009
~ Pi LE
10
~ Sempra
All Other Utilities Combined
12
13
14
15
16
19.
17
According to federal data, between 2004 and 2010, PG&E had 56 "reportable
18
incidents," more than anv other
19
more than $ 50,000
20
explosion, PG&E's reportable incidents include nine exnlosions that iniured or killed sixteen
21
people.
22
accidents, it has consistently failed to actually iinplenient important safety measures, ultimately
23
resulting in the devastating San 8runo explosion. Indeed, a lawsuit filed in August 2010 by a PG&E
24
employee, who was a Safety Leader in the Gas Transmission Department, alleges that the employee
25
was retaliated against for reporting safety concerns to PG&E management, including forged safety
26
reports and improper training and equipping
27
PG&E's safety record over the past thirty years paint a vivid and tragic picture of PG&E's consistent
28
disregard for the safety
of property
@as
coninanv in the country. A reportable incident is one that causes
damage, serious injury, or death.
Not includine the San Bruno
Yet, while PG&E has rcncwed its purported coinmitment to safety after each
COMPLAINT
of its customers.
of workers
of these
in the field. The following examples
of
1981 San Franct'seo 6'as 1lfain Exnlosion
In 19SI, almost thirtv vears before the San Bruno blast, the explosion
20.
2
ofa PG&E gas
3
main in downtown San Francisco underscored dangers posed by pipes without automatic or remotely
4
controlled valves running under densely populated areas. In that disaster, 30,000 people were
5
evacuated and it took workers nine hours to shut
In the wake
21.
6
of this
offthe main's
manual valves to stop the gas flow.
disaster, the National Transportation Safety Board ("NTSB-)
7
recommended that PG&E renlace its inanual valves with automatic or remotelv controlled valves.
8
Despite this dire warning, PG&E did not replace thc manual valves on its pipelines. Had PG&E
9
heeded this warning and made the replacements. the damage in the San Bruno explosion, where it
10
took workers almost two hours to close the manual valves on thc leaking pipes, and more than five
11
hours to stem the flow of gas froin thc ruptured gasline, could have been significantly mitigated.
198'3 San Francisco House Exnlosion
2.
12
In 1983, a PG&E pipe explosion on the corner
22.
13
of 25th
Street and Fountain Street in
14
San Francisco destroyed two homes and serious) y damaged
15
fire was estimated by firefighters at the time to be $ 360,000, which is equivalent to roughly $ $ 00,000
16
today.
17
culminated in a jury verdict in favor of the families. But pG&E does not seem to have learned
18
anything froin this devastating accident.
The families
3.
19
homes that were destroyed filed a lawsuit against PG&,E, which
1992 Santa Rosa Exulosion Kills Two
In 1992,
23.
20
of the
five others. The damage caused by the
a
PG&E gas line exploded in Santa Rosa, killing two neople and iniurina
21
three others. The pipeline, which was improperly marked, was damaged when a contractor hit the
22
line with a backhoe, causing the pipe to leak several months later. ARer investigating the incident,
23
the NTSB reconunendcd that PG&E install automatic shut-off valves on its pipes, irnplemcnt a
24
program to ensure that excavators and others working in the area are aware
25
PG&E pipclines, and conduct inspections
26
appear that
27
2S
a~n
///
///
COM PLAINT
of these
of pipes
of the proximity of
adjacent to excavation work. Yet it docs not
measures were in place when the San Bruno explosion occurred.
4.
PG&E has continually pledged to regulators that it will spend millions of dollars to
24.
2
Millions ofDollars Diverted from Imoortant Safetv Upgrades
3
repair or replace its aging gas pipeline infrastructure, and has consistently failed to do so. Indeed,
4
between the years
5
replace its gas pipclines. ln 1995, the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") accused
6
PG&E of collecting inore inoney &om ratepayers for the stated purpose of replacing its pipe)inc
7
infrastructure than it had spent in the five years prior.
8
9
.
of 1993 and
1995 alone, PG&E procured $ 80 million more than
it snent
to
In 1998, a CPUC report found that PG&E had taken $ 77.6 million that was supposed
25.
to bc used to trim trccs near powerlines, an integral part
of preventing wildfires, and
used it to
10
increase corporate profits instead. Yet even this public outing did not alter PG&E's philosophy
11
putting profit before safety.
5.
12
of
PG8E Admits Thatlnstalling Remotely Controlled Vulves 8'ould "Greatly
Increase Safetv." but Never Makes Reulacements
13
ln 1999. thc U.S. Department
26.
of Transportation
issued a rcport regarding the usc
of
14
reinotely controlled valves, noting that in the event
of a leak,
manual valves can take a long time to
15
close, while remotely controlled valves can be closed within ten minutes.
In written comments
16
submitted in connection with the study and report, PG&E expressly acknowledged that remotely
17
controlled valves arc superior to manual valves, presciently noting that by installing remotely
18
controlled valves, "1'slafetv would be enhanced by reducing thc volume of gas released" in the event
19
of a
leak.
PG&E also remarked that installing remote valves would result in major economic
20
advantages by reducing company liability. Yet PG&E did not replace the manual valves on the San
21
Bruno pipeline with automatic or remotely controlled valves.
22
6.
2003 Mission Disuict Substatlon Fire
23
27.
In 2003, a fire broke out at PG&E's Mission District Substation in San Francisco.
24
Despite signs
of trouble
appearing at control centers, the fire burned for nearly two hours before
25
PG&E operators showed up at the Substation, finding it full of smoke, and fmally called the Fire
26
Department. The source
ofthe fire was not located until five hours after it began, during which time
27
thc station filled with thick smoke. Nearly one-third
28
of the City's residents lost power, with some
1
waiting over 24 hours for their power to he restored. The CPUC report of the investigation, released
2
in 2004, is especially enlightening with respect to PG&E's lackadaisical approach to safety and
3
apparent inability to learn from history. illuminating excerpts from the report include the following:
Soon atter undertaking the investigation of the 2003 fire, CPSD [CPUC's Consumer
Protection and Safety Division] discovered that another fire had occurred at Mission
Substation in 1996. CPSD's investigation team conducted a thorough analysis of both fires
and found strikingly similar contributing factors and root causes. CPSD's team further
determined that PG&E had not implemented the recommendations resulting fiom its own
investigation ofthe 1996 fire. Key findings of the 2003/2004 investigationdraw heavily &om
the investigation of both events. CPSD's probing of the 1996 fire also caused PG&E to
re-evaluate its own investigation of that fire. As a result, PG&E concluded it had not
adequately followed through with recommendations froin that investigation. CPSD finds it
quite troubling that PG& E did not impleinent its own recommendations from its own
investigation of the 1996 fire.
10
12
13
PG &E failed to follow three recommendations made in its 1996 Root Cause Analysis Report
following its 1996 fire. At that time, PG&E did not have a formal rnanagcment review
process to track rccomrncndations &om root cause investigations. Had PG&E impleinentcd
its 1996 investigation recommendations, CPSD believes the cable failure on December 20,
2003 would not have resulted in loss of service to customers.
PG&E operators did not have user-friendly SCADA (supervisory control and data
acquisition screen displavs or knowledge ofoperating procedures that prioritize audible,
1
15
)6
17
18
l9
20
21
miscellaneous, and critical alarms that originated at Mission Substation. With over 1,800
alarms received a day at the GGCC [Golden Gate Control Center, from which the Mission
Substation is controlled]. PG& E operators overlooked some alarms. Furiher, the GGCC did
not have written operating procedures for addressing alarms, so operators had to rely
on personal knowledge and experience to respond.
PG&E had no written procedures for the loss of a network circuit. Although a similar
network circuit failure caused the fire in 1996 and network designers assumed such a
condition would be immediately investigated, PC& E operators did not have instructions
to respond immediatelv to this event.
PG& E had no written plan or procedures for coordinating emergency fire responses at indoor
substations. The SFFD did not know who the PG&E person-in-charge was until four
hours after the first SCADA alarm. Lack of coordination contributed to the delays in
locating the fire and caused additional damage to equipment and substantial delays in
restoring power to customers.
22
28.
These findings are especially interesting given that PG&E has been accused
of the
23
very same failure to learn from past cxpericnce in the aftermath
of the
San Bruno explosion.
24
Moreover, even though the equipment was different, many
of the
same issues that surfaced in the
25
Mission Substation Fire investigation have also come to light in the San Bruno investigation, for
26
example, the lack
of written
emergency procedures and communication with local emergency
27
response teams, the lack
28
COM PLA)NT
of user-friendly SCADA screens,
the volume
of daily alarms,
and the slow
1
response to signs
of trouble.
2
a wake-up call to
PG&E to revamp its operating procedures.
3
corporate profits, while safety was relegated to the backburner.
7.
29.
5
The findings related to the Mission Substation Fire should have been
Instead, PG&E's focus remained on
2005 PGckE Extplosions Destrov Home and Seperelv Iniure fVomen
In July 2005, a PG&E pipe that was almost sixtv vears old exploded in Los Altos,
6
destroying a home. Investigation revealed that the explosion had been caused by corrosion
7
ancient pipe. Yet this inciden't did not cata)yze PG&E to replace other aging pipes posing similar
8
risks.
9
30.
In August 2005,
a
of the
PG&E electrical transformer blew up beneath Kearny Street in San
10
Francisco, causinR severe second- and third-degree burns to a woman who had been walking down
11
ths street. Still, PG&E did not improve its safety measures.
S.
12
13
31.
2008 Rancho Cordovu Explosion Eills One and Iniures Severul Others
In 2008, a gas leak from a PG&F. pipe caused an exnlosion in Rancho Cordova,
14
California, leavinR one person dead and iniurinR several others and causing over $ 260.000 in
15
property damage.
16
32.
Investigation revealed that the leak was caused by incorrect repairs that took place
of pipe
17
in 2006, at which time PG&F. had installed a piece
18
investigative rcport
19
pipe werc too thin, allowing gas to leak from the pipe, and also that PG&E failed to timely send
20
properly trained personnel to check out the leak, despite the fact that PG&E had been told several
21
months earlier that its emerRencvplans fell below required standards. Specifically, the report noted,
22
"Contributing to the accident was the 2-hour 47-minute delav in the arrival at the job site of a
23
Pacific Gas and Electric Company crew that was properly trained and equipped to identify and
24
classify outdoor leaks and Io begin rcsponsc activities to ensure the safety
25
public." PG&E was ordered to implement
26
possessed the training and equipment necessary to handle gas leaks. Although this should have been
27
yet another wake-up call to PG&E, it did not take action to iinprove its safety measures and make
28
sure that all PG&E responders possessed the knowledge and ability necessary to stop a gas leak as
COMPLAINT
of the
to patch up an earlier leak..The NTSB
incident, released earlier this year, concluded that the walls
a
of the
of the
new
residents and
training program to ensure that all its responders
10
of an explosion.
1
quickly
2
PG&E's sluggish response to the
3
to the Rancho Cordova gas leak and resulting blast.
as
33.
4
possible in the event
San
Indeed, it has been noted that allegations
8runo explosion are reminiscent
of its incompetent
of
response
In November 2010, the state CPUC filed adininistrative charges against PG&E in
5
connection with the Rancho Cordova explosion, alleging that PG& E was at fault for the blast, and
6
that it should have discovered the improper repair job that caused the explosion, but failed to timely
7
do so.
8
C.
Audits Reveal Extensive Problems witb PCS.K's Pipeline Inspection Program
9
34.
Internal audits conducted by PG&E, as well as CPUC audits, have revealed extensive
10
and disturbing problems with thc way PG&E assesscs
11
accidents associated with its pipes. As William Marcus. an economist, testified before the CPUC,
12
PG&E's leak detection and repair program simply "fell apart."
35.
13
risks, inspects its pipelines, and reports
As documented in filings with the CPUC, an internal audit conducted by PG&E in
of its Sonoma
County gas lines revealed serious problems with PG&E's reporting procedures
14
2007
15
for pipeline ruptures. Such problems included poorly trained inspectors and falsifie records. In
16
fact, according to PG&E's 2009 10-K stateinent, the 2007 inspections were so riddled with mistakes
17
that it had io spend $ 100 miQon last year to redo inspections for nearly 4 million customers,
1S
although it appears that this rcrnedial work has not yet been completed.
36.
19
In May of 2008, regulators audited PG&E's operations in Holiister and Milpitas, and
20
found that PG&E was not tracking corrosion problems on its pipes, and was not training workers
21
charged with repairing damaged pipes so that they were qualified to do so.
37.
22
In August
of 2008, regulators audited PG&E's Fresno division and again concluded
23
that PG&E had not bothered to train or equip its workers to effectively deal with hazardous pipeline
24
leaks. In fact, the audit revealed that PG&E had failed to even define what qualified as a "hazardous
25
leak."
26
38.
Also in 200$ , regulators audited PG&E's Sacramento division and found that, over
27
two years, PG&E had not met deadlines to inspect or repair pipes, or fix leaks, in 23 separate
28
instances. The audit concluded that PG&E was not completing thc requisite number
of inspections
1
of its pipes
in Sacrainento. PG&E claimed it had in fact done the inspections, but because
of its poor
2
record-keeping practices, could not substantiate this claim. PG&E was also unable to prove that it
3
was conducting practice drills to prepare workers for emergencies, as required by law.
4
Dennis Lee,
39.
a
CPUC engineer, indicated in the 2008 audits that PG&E had systemic
5
problems with properly logging pressure problems in its system. PG&E responded in January 2009
6
but refused to address Mr. Lee's concerns, claiming it was addressing them in a separate )ettcr to his
7
superior. The CPUC has not released this letter.
8
9
40.
In response to the serious problems uncovered in these audits, PG&E pledged to
conduct a "special survey" to locate gas leaks.
PG&E promised to expedite completion of
10
mandatory surveys due in 20I
11
2010. But it is now clear that PG&E
12
Moreover, Line 132, the line that ruptured in the San Bruno explosion, will not be subject to testing
13
using up-to-date technology until at least 2013, and possibly even later
14
I
and 2012, so that they would be finished no later than the end
will not complete the special survey by the end of the
of
year.
D.
PG& E Raises Rates To Repair Line 132. but Never Mates Repairs; Meanwhile,
PG&K Executives Are Paid Exorbitant Compensation
4 I.
Notwithstanding multi-million dollar rate increases, PG&E never made necessary
15
16
repairs to thc pipeline that exploded below San Bruno, all the while paying its executives lavish
17
compensation packages.
18
PGckE Collecrs Monev horn Ratepavers
for Repairs It Never MaRes
19
The 30-inch gas line that exploded in San Bruno on the evening
42.
20
of September
9 was
deemed by PG&E to bc in a "high consequence area," requiring more stringent inspections called
21
"integrity assessments."
As revealed in papers submitted to the CPUC with a rate-hike request,
as
22
early as 2007, PG& E characterized the risk
23
of thc blast
as
24
of failure for a portion of the pipe just north of the
site
"unacceptably high," including it within PG&E's "top 100 highest risk sections" in
its service territory. Yet PG&E did nothing.
25
43.
26
27
In 2007, 2008, and again in 2009, PG&E applied for rate increases, claiining it needed
to spend $ 5 million of ratepayer money to replace the pipe. The rate-hike request was approved by
the CPUC, and the cost
28
COM PLAINT
of thc repair of a high-risk section of thc pipe just a few miles from the
site
12
1
of the
2
millions on lobbying and executive compensation, and managed to earn over
3
profits last year in a recession economy, PG&E never made the repairs. Instead, it has simply
4
requested another $ 5
San Bruno blast was included in rates charged to customers as
But, while it spent
billion dollars in
a
million this year to do thc same job.
S'bile It Does Not Spend Monev on Repairinz Line 132. PG&E Spends
Millions on Lobbvintt and Executive Conipensation. and Turns Profits
2.
6
While PG&E has not been able to find the money to fund critical repairs to its aging
44.
7
8
of 2009:
pipeline infrastructure, it has been able to locate substantial funds for other profligat spending,
including exorbitant executive compensation and massive lobbying efforts. For example, according
9
to its 2009 Proxy Statement, between 2007 and 2009, in addition to his base salary
of $ 3.276,466,
10
PG&E Corp. Chairman, CEO, and President Peter A. Darbec was paid $ 26,057,744 in executive
perks such as stock options and beneFits, for a total
of nearly $ 30 million over the
last three yeats.
12
PG& E has been similarly generous to other executives. For example, between 2007
45.
13
and 2009, PG&E President Christopher P. Johns earned $ 5.851.780 in executive perks in addition
14
to his salary
of$ 1,658,963, for a total of$ 7.510.747
over the last three years. Senior Vice President
15
and General Counsel
of PG&E Corp.,
Hyun Park. earned $ 6,595,776 in executive perks over and
16
above his base salary between 2007 and 2009, for a total
of $ 8.093.360 over the
past three years.
17
46.
In total. in 2009 alone, during which time PG&E could not bc bothered to spend the
18
money it had collected from ratepavers to make critical, repairs to Line 132, it paid its top six
19
executives a total
of $ 20.480.772
\
in executive perks over and above their combined base salaries
20
$ 3,811,145, for a total
of
of over twentv-four million dollars in total executive compensation for six
21
executives in one vear.
22
47.
PG&E also managed to find the funds to squander over $ 40 million on its failed effort
23
to defeat Proposition 16.
lt has
spent over $ 240,000 this legislative session lobbying the CPUC and
24
over $ 40 million on lobbying in Washington, D.C.
25
48.
Even with all
of this
extravagant spending and failed lobbyi'ng efforts, PG&E
26
managed to turn a solid $ 1.23
27
billion profit last year in a recession economy.
///
28
COMPLAINT
13
E.
Culmination of PG8r E's Failure To Make Repairs and Continual Disregard
for Customer Safetv: The San Bruno Explosion
49.
On September 9, 2010, at around 6: l 5 p.m., in the Crcstmoor district of suburban San
2
3
Bruno, California, a gas line suddenly exploded. rocking Plaintiffs'ome as though a ten-ton bomb
4
had been dropped outside their door. The explosion sent
flame
85 feet into the air,
killing or
5
injuring over 50 people, and destroying or damaging over 100 homes. The area was instantly
6
transformed into a veritable war zone, as terrified residents grabbed their children, elderly relatives,
7
and pets, and ran for their lives. The following pictures illustrate the terrifying blaze.
8
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COM PLAIN7
l4
L~
r
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CON PLA lNT
10
12
13
14
50.
Thc fire left eight dead and many injured. The blaze, which spread across l 5 acres,
of residents.
15
destroyed almost 40 homes, damaged inany more, and displaced hundreds
16
of customers
werc left without electricity in the hours that followed the fire. The explosion blew
7
28-foot piece
of pipe out ofthe ground,
I
l8
Thousands
a
landing l00 feet away and creating a crater I 67-feet long and
26-feet wide in the street.
The fire also left significant debris in the neighborhood, posing serious environmental
19
51.
20
and health hazards.
21
contains dangerous materials such as incited batteries, asbestos
22
pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from burned rubber and plastics, and polychlorinated
23
byphenyls (PCBs) from items like fluorescent light bulbs. Such hazardous substances may also have
24
saturated the soil, and'could leak into a groundwater aquifer that provides San Bruno and
25
neighboring cities with drinking water. Dangerous chemicals from the rubble have the potential to
26
release toxic fumes into houses in the area for years to come, even after they are rebuilt.
27
28
52.
The air is now filled with toxic ash and dust, and the wreckage froin the fire
In the-wake
of the
from roofing and insulation,
disaster, investigation has revealed a multitude
of causes or
probablc causes that contributed to the explosion in San Bruno, as detailed below. While these
COM PLAINT
16
1
causes are varied, all share a few common characteristics: all were directly attributable to PG&E's
of its customers,
2
consistent disregard for the safety
3
different junctures and by many different means, prevented the San Bruno disaster.
1.
Failure ofEauiyment at Nilnitas Terminal
Investigation has revealed that an equipment failure at the Milpitas terminal, where
53.
5
and all show that PG&E could have, at many
6
Line 132 originated, caused operators to lose control of the line just before the blast. On thc ev ening
7
of the explosion, PG&E was replacing
8
at the
9
transmission lines; without power at the Milpitas terminal, PG&E operators there could not monitor
10
Milpitas terminal. Such power systems are extremely important to the operation of gas
pressure in the gas line. According to the NTSB Preliminary Report
of the
San Bruno explosion,
Just before the accident, PG&E was working on their uninterruptable power supply
system at Milpitas Terminal, which is located about 39.33 miles southeast of
the accident site. During the course of this work, the power supply from the UPS
system to the supervisory control and data, acquisition (SCADA) system
malfunctioned so that instead of supplying a predetermined output of 24 volts of
direct current (VDC), the UPS system supplied approximately 7 VDC or less to the
SCADA system. Because of this anomaly, the electronic sisnal to the remlatine
valve for Line 132 was lost. Th'e loss of the electrical signal resulted in the
regulating valve moving from partially open to thc full open nosition as designed.
The pressure then increased to 386 usia. The over-protection valve, which was
pneumatically activated and did not require electronic input. maintained the prcssure
at 386 psig. At about 5:45 p.m., the SCADA system indicated that the pressure at
Martin Station, which is downstream of the rupture location, exceeded 375 psig. The
SCADA system indicated that the uressure at. Martin Station continued to
increase until it reached about 390 psig at about 6:00 p.m.
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
its uninterruptiblepower supply system, i.e., backupsystem,
'UPS)
At 6:11 p.m., the pipeline below the Crestmoor area exploded.
2.
20
Inexplicably, although the explosion occurred at 6:11 p.m., PG&E did not dispatch
54.
21
PG&E 's Sluzzish Resuonse to the Disaster
crew to isolate the ruptured pipe section by closing the manual valves until 6:45 n.m., or more
22
a
23
than 30 minutes after the initial exp)osion. In a life-or-death situation like the one created by the
24
San Bruno explosion, every second counts.
25
even greater death and destruction than would otherwise have occurred.
26
Contributing to PG&E's slow response to the disaster was likely the defective
55.
of its SCADA system.
27
condition
28
bc hundreds
PG&E's sluggish response to thc disaster resulted in
of warnings
COMPLAINT
a day,
When pipeline pressure spikes, a warning sounds. But there can
which overwhelm workers and make it difficultto determine which
17
1
Moreover, PG&E's SCADA screens, which apprise
problems are serious and which are not.
of problems in the
lines, are difficultto read, and workers are not properly trained in their
2
workers
3
operation.
4
quickly to the disaster. PG&E has indicated that it planned to upgrade its SCADA systems by 201 l,
5
but has not provided details
lfthe
SCADA system had worked better, PG&E workers could have responded more
plans.
lt is unknown when those upgrades w'ill bc completed.
PG8E's Failure To Prouerlv Train JYorkers
3.
7
of those
PG&E's failure to properly train its own workers in effective emergency response
56.
8
techniques or valve operation further aggravated the pr'oblem. While PG&E has publicly admitted
9
that some
of its
workers were not properly trained, and that others had been caught falsifying
of
10
documents, PG&E failed to irnplemcnt an effective training program to ensure that in the event
11
an emergency, workers would know how to immediately respond to, and gain control of, the
12
situation. Worse, PG&,E failed to provide these admittedly poorly trained workers with accurate or
13
readable maps
14
fueled the raging inferno in San Bruno
ofthe shut-offvalves,
resulting in furtherserious delays in stemming the gas leak that
shut-off
15
Thc sum
57.
of these failings by PG&E was that,
once its crews finally did arrive on the
ofth valves until 7:40 p.m., and could not stein
16
scene, they were notable to complete the
17
thc flow of gas from the ruptured pipeline until l 1:30 Ii.m., more than five hours after thc initial
18
explosion. The fires from escaping natural gas at damaged homes went out within one minute
19
the stopping
20
fire would have been significantly mitigated.
21
of this
58.
gas
of
flow. Had PG&E timely responded to the explosion, the damage from thc
Moreover, it has been reported that just three weeks before the San Bruno explosion,
22
residents in the area began reporting to PG&,E that they smelled gas coining from thc street and
23
sewers in the area.
24
complaints, the San Bruno explosion could have been prevented. Yet PG&E failed to take proper
25
corrective action in response to these complaints.
26
27
28
Had PG&E workers been properly trained to investigate and respond to such
4,
59.
ofthe Pine
Thc defective condition of the pipe and its lack of automatic or remotely controlled
valves exacerbated the
COMPLAINT
The Defective Condition and Ininroner Oueration
effect of the already devastating explosion. When the pipe ruptured
on the
18
of September
9, 2010, the explosion knocked out thc water main that fcd thc hydrants in the
1
evening
2
Crestrnoor neighborhood, making it extremely difficult for firefighters to battle the blaze, and
3
rendering imnediate stoppage
4
manually shut, they remained open for almost two hours, during which time the fire spread rapidly
5
from building to building, leaving a trail of destruction in its wake.
60.
6
of the
gas leak especially
critical. But because the valves had to be
PG&E also failed to properly operate Line 132, by overpressurizing it. Although the
7
maxiinum pressure at which PG&E allowed for the line was 375 pounds per square inch (psi). at the
8
time
9
dangerous in older pipes like the one that ruptured beneath the Crestmoor neighborhood, especially
of the explosion
the gas pressure was at least 390 nsi.
Overpressurization is extremely
10
ifthe
11
September and November
12
serious and ongoing risk for intcmal corrosion, because certain oils and contaminants had been found
13
inside portions
14
pipe, jeopardizing thc lives of those who lived above it. Of course, by operating at a higher capacity
15
PG&E could reap more profits. and thus safety once again took a backseat to corporate greed.
pipe has flaws such as corrosion or cracked welds. In documents filed with the CPUC in
6l.
16
of the
of last
year, PG&E expressly acknowledged that the pipeline was at
pipe. Yet despite this knowledge, PG&E persisted in ovcrpressurizing the
Examination
of a 28-foot portion of the
severed pipe revealed that it was made
of
17
several smaller sections that had been welded together, with a seam running the'length. Rather than
18
replacing a defective and/or corroded male-female joint, PG&E had welded the pieces together,
19
which posed a dangerous risk to the individuals and property located in the pipe's vicinity, especially
20
given the overprcssurization
5.
21
62.
22
of the
pipeline.
Fuilure To Prouerlv Nuintuin und lnsueet the Pipe
Utilities like PG&E are responsible for conducting regular inspections. maintaining
of their pipelines,
and making sure any repairs comply with industry standards.
PG&E
23
the safety
24
utterly failed to comply with this duty. Prior to the explosion, PG&E knew and/or should have
25
known that thc pipeline was in a dangerous condition, including, but not limited to, the fact that the
26
pipeline had been welded together in numerous places instead
27
pipe was at serious risk for corrosion, and that operating an old, corroded, and improperly repaired
28
///
CO%1
PLAlNT
of being properly replaced,
that the
19
I
pipe at a very high prcssure rate was extremely dangerous, and knew that such defective condition
2
of the pipe would
3
63.
and did cause severe and serious injuries
PG&E also failed to properly inspect the pipeline, despite knowing that the area was
4
highly populated and that an older pipeline is prone to fail and result in serious injury, death, and
5
damage to property. hstead
6
significantly less expensive, old and outmoded methods of pipe testing, resulting in critical
7
oversights in thc safety
6.
of
of the
up-to@ate and reliable methods
San Bruno pipeline while maximizing
I'GkE's Faaure
of pipe
testing, PG&E used
PG&E's profits.
To Cooperate with Local Government and Lawmakers
PG&E's consistent lack of interest in working with local government to protect the
64.
9
of using
its customers also contributed to the problem.
PG&E is required to maintain an
10
safety
II
"emergency response plan" for dealing with disasters like thc San Bruno explosion. But PG&E
12
keeps this "plan" shrouded in secrecy; indeed, prior to the explosion, PG&E inexplicably did not
13
share its emergency plan for the Crestmoor pipeline with emergency response agencies in San Bruno
14
and San Mateo County. Thus, when the pipe exploded, instead ofhaving a plan in place to efficiently
15
utilize thc combined response efforts of PG&E and government emergency response crews, local
16
response teams struggled to comprehend the disaster as it unfolded. scrambling to contain a fire that
17
kept growing stronger, fueled by gas leaking &om a pipeline they didn't even know existed.
In the aftermath
65.
IS
of the
devastating explosion, PG&E has attempted to thwart the
19
investigation into thc cause
ofthe
blast, by refusing to provide information requested by lawmakers
20
or by making misrepresentations.
For example, several PG&E officials stated publicly that the
21
maximum pressure at which PG&E operated the pipeline below San Bruno was 375 pounds per
22
square inch. But the NTSB's Preliminary Report found that at the time
23
computers showed that the gas'pressure was at least 390 psi, which PG&E must have known.
Moreover, investigators are having difficultydetermining exactly what went on the
66.
of the
of the explosion, PG&E's
explosion; and why PG&E did not respond more quickly to thc disaster, because two
25
night
26
PG&E workers on dutv that evening are refusine to soeak with investhators.
27
lawmakers have requested repeatedly that PG&E provide information about who was responsible
28
///
COMPLAINT
Although
20
1
2
for the pipeline the night of the explosion, PG&E refuses to provide the identities, backgrounds,
or experience levels of these employees, claiming that personnel rules prohibit such disclosure.
7.
Onlv Afier The San Bruno Tragedv Does PGdkE Begin To Take Retnedial
It Should Have Taken Years Ago
Measures
4
In thc wake of mounting criticism of PG&E's lax attitude toward safety and failure
67.
5
6
to rigorously inspect its aging pipeline infrastructure, PG&E has finally started to inspect its pipes
and make repairs it should have made years ago. For example, in 6,700 miles
7
of pipeline surveyed
after thc explosion, PG&E found 38 leaks, four of which required immediate attention and had to
8
be replaced.
It is unfortunate that it took the deaths
9
10
of eight people
and the injury of so many others
to finally galvanize PG&E into beginning thc repairs it should have been conducting regularly for
the past thirty years.
V.
CAUSES OF ACTION
12
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Wrongful Death)
13
l4
15
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION against all Defendants and/or DOES
through 50, Plaintiffs, as statutory heir to the Decedent, allege as follows:
16
17
20
21
69.
26
27
fully
Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at the time of the
subject accident, PG&E owned, operated, controlled, managed, leased, loaned, borrowed, bailed,
and/or maintained the 30-inch gas line that traveled under and near the Crestmoor neighborhood
and exploded on September 9, 2010, as described above
70.
PG&E had
a
legal duty to Plaintiffs, as foreseeable victims, to exercise the utmost
care and diligence in maintaining and operating said gas line.
24
25
as though
set forth herein.
22
23
Plaintiffs incorporate and rc-allege each of the paragraphs above
68.
18
19
1
71.
Defendant PG&E breached that duty by failing to exercise care in its operation
and maintenance
of said
gas line, including, but not limited to, failing to move the gas line to a
morc sparsely populated area, failing to properly inspect the gas line. failing to properly repair the
gas line, and
failing to comply with applicable safety standards.
///
COM PLAINT
21
2
PG&E's breach was the legal and proximate cause of the injuries and damages
72.
I
suffered by Plaintiffs, as set forth above and below.
direct and legal result of PG&E's negligence, the Deccdcnt died.
3
73.
As
4
74.
By reason
5
to suffer the loss
of love,
of the wrongful death of the
Decedent, Plaintiff suffered and continues
companionship, comfort, affection, and moral support of the Decedent.
By reason of PG&E's negligence, resulting in thc wrongful death of thc Decedent,
75.
6
a
7
Plaintiffs have incurred and will incur funeral and burial expenses, and related medical expenses,
8
in an amount to be determined at trial.
By reason of PG&E's negligence, resulting in the wrongful death of the Decedent,
76.
9
10
Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer economic damages, including, but not limited to, the
11
loss
12
bc determined at trial.
13
of household
services, financial support, and/or the loss
of gifts or benefits in an amount
to
By reason of PG&E's negligencc, resulting in thc wrongful death of the
77.
14
Decedents, Plaintiffs, as statutory heir to the Decedent, hereby seek recovery
l5
as may be
of other
such
relief
just and provided for under California Code of Civil Procedure section 377.6l.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTlON
(Survival Claim)
16
17
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION against all Defendants and/or DOES
1
9
20
through 50, Plainti ff, as reprcscntative of thc Estate
78.
of the
PlaintifFs incorporate and re-allege each
1
deceased, alleges as follows:
of the
paragraphs above as though fully
set forth herein.
22
23
79.
On or about September 9, 2010, and prior to death, the foregoing cause
arose in the Decedent's favor. Since the Decedent's death,
representative for thc Estate
of thc
Plaintiffhas served
of action
as the
Decedent, and is authorized as successor in interest with
respect to the Decedent's interest in any property which was damaged, lost or destroyed in this
accident, to pursue any and all legal claims for damages related thereto, and to recover damages.
27
and expenses incurred related to medica) and/or emergency services related to this accident.
COMPLAINT
22
80.
1
By reason of the aforesaid premises, oh or about September 9, 2010, and prior to
2
death, Decedent's home and/or personal property was damaged or destroyed for a discernible
3
period
4
direct and legal result
of time prior to Decedent's
81.
5
death. Said property and/or economic losses occurred as a
of Defendant's wrongful conduct
hereinabove set forth.
By reason of the foregoing, the Decedent was physically injured and experienced
of time before
6
pain and suffering for a discernible period
7
and pain and suffering occurred as a direct and legal result
8
hereinabove set forth.
82.
9
Decedent's ultimate death. Said injury
of Defendant's wrongful conduct
At all times prior to this incident. PG&E, by act or omission, demonstrated
10
wanton and/or reckless indifference for the required maintenance, operation, and repair
11
Crcstrnoor pipeline, and for the required safety and emergency preparedness training
12
employees, so as to create a foreseeable risk
13
of San Bruno,
83.
14
of serious injury and
a
of thc
of its
death to unsuspecting residents
as detailed above.
The wrongful conduct
of PG&E involved more
than just inadvertence, error
of
15
judgment or negligence. Rather, PG&E's conduct was despicable and was done with a willful
16
and knowing disregard for the safety
17
the serious dcfccts and dangers
18
safety
19
avoid those consequences and permitted the dangerous pipe to remain below the Crestmoor
20
neighborhood in
21
PG&E's conduct was so vile, base or contemptible that it would be looked down on and despised
22
by reasonable people.
of San Bruno residents
84.
23
a
of others
such as Decedcnts.
of the faulty pipeline,
Despite prior knowledge
and thc extreme danger
such as Decedents and the consequences
of
it posed to the
thereof, PG&E failed to
dangerous and unsafe condition, legally causing the death
of Decedents.
In doing thc acts herein alleged, PG&E acted willfully,wantonly, with oppression,
of thc
of others,
24
fraud, and/or malice, and with a conscious disregard
25
Plaintiffs request that the trier of fact, in the exercise of its sound discretion, award Plaintiffs
26
additional damages for the sake
27
despicable conduct, in an amount reasonably related to
28
///
COMPLAINT
of example
rights and safety
and sufficient to punish said Defendant
Plaintiffs'ctual
such that
for its
damages and
23
1
2
Defendant's wealth, yet sufficiently large enough to be an example to others and to deter
Defendant and others from engaging in similar conduct in the future.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
3
(Negligence)
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION against all Defendants and/or DOES l
through 50, Plaintiffs allege as follows:
85.
Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege each of the paragraphs above as though fully
set forth herein.
86.
Plaintiffs arc informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at the time of the
subject accident, PG&E owned, operated, controlled, managed, leased, loaned, borrowed, bailed,
and/or maintained the 30-inch gas line that traveled under and near the Crestmoor neighborhood
and exploded on September 9, 2010, as described above.
13
87.
PG&E had
a
legal duty to Plaintiffs. as foreseeable victims, to exercise the utmost
care and diligence in maintaining and operating said gas linc.
15
88.
Defendant PG&E breached that duty by tailing to exercise care in its operation
and maintenance
7
89.
21
gas line, including, but not limited to, failing to move the gas line to a
more sparsely populated area, failing to properly inspect the gas linc, failing to properly repair the
gas line. and
2p
of said
failing to comply with applicable safety standards.
PG&E's breach was the legal and proximate cause of the injuries and damages
suffered by Plaintiffs, as sct forth above and below.
90.
As
a
direct and legal result
of PG&E's
negligence, Plaintiffs were injured
physically, emotionally, and/or economically, and/or were in the zone
of danger of the
fire, and
23
reasonably feared for their lives as they attempted to escap'e the raging inferno, and/or witnessed
24
close family members sustain serious inj ury as they attempted to escape the raging inferno. As a
result, Plaintiff suffered damages as alleged herein.
9 I.
27
The wrongful acts
of Defendant PG&E were
done maliciously, oppressively,
fraudulently, and in conscious disregard of thc safety and health of the community. Plainti ffis
entitled to punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be ascertained according to proof,
COMPL.41NT
24
1
2
which is appropriate to punish or set an example of Defendant and deter such behavior by
Defendant and others in the future.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTlON against all Defendants and/or DOES
I
through 50, Plaintiffs allege as follows:
92.
'laintiffs incorporate
and re-allege each
of the
paragraphs above as though fully
set forth herein.
In maintaining an extremely dangerous, old, and defective gas line below a
93.
densely populated area, PG&E engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct. Specific exainples
of PG&E's
outrageous conduct include, but are not limited to: its failure to move the pipeline
after San Bruno became heavily populated, its failure to comply with applicable safety standards,
of its dangerous
I3
its failure to properly inspect the gas line even though it had knowledge
14
defective condition, its failure to repair the gas line even though it had knowledge
and
of its
dangerous and defective condition, and its failure to replace the manual valves on the pipeline
with automatic or remotely controlled valves even though it knew manual valves were not safe
17
18
on such a pipe.
94.
PG&E knew that Plaintiffs and/or their families lived above or near the faulty
pipeline, and engaged in the aforementioned outrageous conduct with reckless disregard
20
of the
probability that such conduct would result in an explosion or similar disaster that would result in
severe emotional distress to Plaintiffs.
22
23
24
95.
Plaintiffs did in fact suffer severe emotional distress
caused by PG&E
96.
' outrageous conduct,
27
97.
result
of the
explosion
as alleged herein.
PG&E's outrageous conduct, which led to the devastating explosion and fire
described herein, was the actual and proximate cause
26
as a
The wrongful acts
of Plaintiffs'motional
of Defendant PG&E were
fraudul ently, and in conscious disregard
of the
distress.
done maliciously, oppressively.
safety and health
of the community. Plaintiff is
entitled to punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be ascertained according to proof,
CON PLAlNT
25
1
2
which is appropriate to punish or sct an example
of Defendant
and deter such behavior by
Defendant and others in the future.
FI$TH CAUSE OF ACTION
3
(Battery)
AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION against all Defendants and/or DOES
1
through 50, Plaintiffs allege as follows:
98.
Plaintiffs incorporate and rc-allege each of the paragraphs above
as
though fully
sct forth herein.
99.
lp
Prior to and on September 9, 2010, PG&E installed, owned, operated, used,
controlled and/or maintained the highly explosive pipeline in a manner that caused the pipeline to
explode and catch on fire, with thc resulting extreme heat, fire, and smoke harmfully and
offensivel touching Plaintiff.
13
14
100.
In doing the above-mentioned acts, PG&E knew with substantial certainty that its
actions would cause the pipeline to explode, thereby resulting in the massive fire that ripped
through San Bruno and harmfully and offensively touched Plaintiff.
101.
As a proximate result
of the
battery committed by PG&E, Plaintiff suffered
damages as alleged herein.
102.
9
2p
The wrongful acts
of Defendant PG&E were done maliciously, oppressively,
fraud u 1cntly, and in conscious d i srcgard o f the safety and health
of the community.
Pl a inti ffis
entitled to punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be ascertained according to proof,
which is appropriate to punish or set an example of Defendant and deter such behavior by
Defendant and others in the future.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Strict Liability - Ultrahazardous Activity)
23
24
AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION against all Defendants and/or DOES
1
25
through 50, Plaintiffs allege as follows:
26
103.
Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege each of thc paragraphs above as though fully
27
set forth herein.
28
COM PLAINT
26
PG&E's activities in operating, controlling, managing, and/or maintaining the
104.
1
2
highly explosive 30-inch gas line that traveled under the Crestmoor neighborhood constitute an
3
ultrahazardous and abnormally dangerous activity, as maintenance
4
manual valves in
5
of care
6
a
densely populated area poses a serious risk
of harm,
outdated gas line with
regardless
of the amount
exercised.
As alleged herein, Plaintiffs were seriously harmed, physically and/or emotionally
105.
7
and/or economically, by thc San Bruno fire, which was
8
activities in operating and maintaining the 30-inch gas line
Plaintiffs'arm
106.
9
of an
was the kind
of harm
a
direct result
of PG&E's
ultrahazardous
that would bc anticipated as a result
of a
10
risk created by PG&E's abnormallydangerous activities, i.e., maintenance
11
especial)y an old, dangerous, and shoddy gas line, in a densely populated residential area.
13
Bruno area, and was therefore
108.
14
gas line
PG&E's ultrahazardous activity resulted in a deadly fire that tore through the San
107.
12
of the
a
substantial factor in causing
The wrongful acts
of Defendant PG&E were
of the
Plaintiffs'arm.
done maliciously, oppressively,
of the community. Plaintiff is
15
fraudulently, and in conscious disregard
16
entitled to punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be ascertained according to proof,
17
which is appropriate to punish or sct an example
18
Defendant and others in the future.
safety and health
of Defendant
and deter such behavior by
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Private Nuisance - Continuing)
19
20
AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION against all Defendants and/or DOES
1
through 50, Plaintiffs allege as follows:
109.
23
24
Plaintiffs incorporate and rc-allege each of the paragraphs above as though fully
set forth herein.
110.
25
Plainti ffs own and/or occupy property at or near the site of the explosion in San
Bruno, California 94066..Plaintiffs have the inalienable right to own, enjoy, and use their
27
property without interference by Defendant.
///
COM PLA[HT
27
of its failure to exercise
Defendant PG&E, by reason
care in its operation and
1
111.
2
maintenance
3
sparsely populated area, failing to properly inspect the gas line, failing to properly repair the gas
4
line, and failing to comply with applicable safety standards, created a condition that is harmful to
5
Plaintiffs'ealth
6
comfortable enjoyment
of the
and their free use
of their property,
of their life and
failing to move the gas line to a more
so as to seriously interfere
with their
property.
Plaintiffs did not consent to Defendant's conduct. To the extent Plaintiffs gave
112.
7
gas line, including, but not limited to,
of a gas
8
any implied permission for the maintenance
9
permission extended only to a properly maintained, up-to-date, and safe pipeline, and PG&E
of any
l0
exceeded the scope
11
pipeline below or near Plaintiffs'roperty.
12
such consent by operating a shoddy, dangerous. aging, and faulty
The dangerous condition created by Defendant PG&E caused a deadly explosion
3.
I )
line beneath or near their property, such
13
that did in fact harm Plaintiffs and interfere with Plaintiffs'ree use and enjoyment
14
as
15
enjoyment
16
the value
17
and/or exposure to an array
18
and/or constant soot, ash. and dust in the air.
Plaintiffs, along with numerous other neighbors, have suffered the loss
of their property,
of the
114.
19
of the
of their land,
use and
in the form of damage to their home and/or a significant decrease in
property, and/or a constant fear
of toxic substances
As a further legal result
of another explosion froin the faulty pipeline,
on their land, and/or a lingering smell
of PG&E's
of smoke,,
conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered, and will
20
continue to suffer, discomfort, anxiety, fear, worries, and stress attendant to the interference with
21
Plaintiffs'se
115.
22
23
and enjoyment
of their property,
as alleged herein.
An ordinary person of reasonable sensibilities would reasonably be annoyed
and/or disturbed by the condition created by Defendant.
24
116.
Thc aforementioned conduct
of section
of Defendant
constitutes a nuisance within the
of thc Civil Code in that it is injurious and/or
25
meaning
26
the
27
and/or unlawfully obstructs the free usc, in the customary manner,
28
including, but not limited to, all residential uses.
3479
offensive to the senses of
plaintiffs and/or unreasonably interferes with their comfortab}e enjoyment
CON PLAlNT
of their property
of Plaintiffs'roperty,
28
1
2
1
Defendant's conduct, which created the devastating explosion and fire described
)7.
Plaintiffs'arm.
herein, was a substantial factor in causing
of the pipeline below or near P)aintiffs'omes continues to damage
The presence
118.
3
4
Plaintiffs'se
5
Said fear is reasonable and not speculative, given that as a result
6
by Defendant,
7
revealed that thc condition
8
and nonspeculative risk
119.
9
and enjoyment
a
of their
land, as they live in constant fear
of another
explosion.
of the harmful condition
created
deadly explosion did in fact occur on September 9, 2010, and investigation has
of thc pipe)ine
of another
is dangerous and defective, therefore posing a serious
explosion.
The nuisance can be abated in a number
of ways, for example,
by moving the
10
pipe, by repairing the pipe, by replacing the pipe, by replacing the manua) valves on the pipe with
11
automatic valves, or by replacing the manual valves on the pipe with remotely controlled valves.
12
These would all abate the nuisance by greatly reducing the chance
120.
13
Thc seriousness
of the injury to plaintiffs outweighs
of another
deadly explosion.
the social
utility of Defendant
14
PG&E's conduct,
15
while still providing gas and electricity to residents of San Bruno. Specifically, the measures
16
PG&E could have taken inc)udc, but are not )imited to, moving the pipeline to a more sparsely
17
populated area, conducting regular testing
18
pipeline, repairing the faulty portion
19
valves. and replacing the manual valves with remotely controlled valves.
20
121.
of the
as
PG&E could have taken several Incasures to prevent the harm that occurred
lfa mandatory
of the
of the
pipeline, replacing the faulty portion
of the
pipeline, replacing the manual valves with automatic
injunction is not issued requiring Defendant to abate the nuisance
21
in any
22
inter alia, (1) the continuing adverse consequences of the pipeline under and near the Crestmoor
23
neighborhood
24
enjoyment
25
neighborhood and surrounding area as a dangerous and terrifying place to live will be cemented
26
permanently in the public's mind, destroying its appeal as an ideal family neighborhood.
27
28
manners described.above, Plaintifts will suffer great and irreparable injury, in that,
will continue
and worsen, (2) the damage to
of their property will continue
122.
Plaintiffs'ight to the
and worsen, and (3) the reputation
of the
Crestmoor
Plaintiffs have no speedy, plain, or adequate reiltedy at )aw for thc injuries
presently being suffered and for the aggravation of such injuries
COM PLAINT
use and
ifa mandatory
injunction is not
of the
I
issued requiring Defendant to abate the nuisance in any
2
extension, the threat
3
and around where thc explosion occurred cannot be adequately compensated with money
4
damages and therefore Plaintiffs seek irijunctive relief. Injunctive relief, as authorized by Code
5
of Civil Procedure section
123.
6
of injury to Plaintiffs and
manners described above. By
the damage to the value
of the
properties at, near,
526, is appropriate under the above-stated facts.
The wrongful acts of Defendant PG&E were done maliciously, oppressively,
of the
of the community. Plaintiffs are
7
fraudulently, and in conscious disregard
8
entitled to punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be ascertained according to proof,
9
which is appropriate to punish or set an exatnple
safety and health
of Defendant.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
10
(Private Nuisance - Permanent)
AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION against all Defendants and/or DOES
3
1
through 50, Plaintiffs allege as follows:
124.
14
Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege each
of the
paragraphs above as though fully
set forth herein.
125.
16
I7
Plaintiffs own and/or occupy property at or near the site
of the
explosion in San
Bruno, Cali fomia 94066. Plaintiffs have the inalienable right to own, enjoy, and use their
property without interference by Defendant.
126.
2p
maintenance
Defendant PG&E, by reason
of the
of its failure to exercise
care in its operation and
gas line, including, but not limited to, failing to move the gas line to a more
sparsely populated area, failing to properly inspect the gas line, failing to properly repair thc gas
line, and failing to comply with applicable safety standards, created a condition that is harmful to
23
Plain ti fFs
'ealth
and their free use
of their property,
so as to seriously interfere with their
comfortable enjoyment of their life and property.
12'7.
25
Plaintiffs did not consent to Defendant's conduct. To the extent Plaintiffs gave
any implied permission for the maintenance
of a gas line beneath or near their property,
such
permission extended only to a properly maintained, up-to-date, and safe pipeline, and PG&E
///
CON PLAINT
30
of any
such consent by operating a shoddy, dangerous, aging, and faulty
1
exceeded the scope
2
pipeline below or near Plaintiffs'roperty.
128.
3
Thc dangerous condition created by Defendant PG&E caused a deadly explosion
4
that did in fact harm Plaintiffs and interfere with Plaintiffs'ee use and enjoyment
5
as
6
enjoyment
7
thc value
8
and/or exposure to an array
9
and/or constant soot, ash, and dust in the air.
of their
land,
Plaintiffs, along with numerous other ricighbors, have suffered the loss of the use and
of their property,
of the property, and/or
129.
10
in the form
of damage
a constant fear
of toxic substances
As a further legal result
to their home and/or a significant decrease in
of another
explosion from the faulty pipeline,
on their )and, and/or a lingering smell
of PG&E's
of smoke,
conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered, and will
11
continue to suffer, discomfort. anxiety, fear. wornes, and stress attendant to thc interference with
12
Plaintiffs'se
13
14
15
130.
and enjoyment
of their property,
as a)leged herein
An ordinary person of reasonab)e sensibilities would reasonably be annoyed
and/or disturbed by thc condition created by Defendant.
131.
The aforementioned conduct
of section
3479
of thc Civil Code
of Defendant
constitutes a nuisance within the
in that it is injurious and/or offensive to the senses
16
meaning
17
the plaintiffs and/or unreasonably interferes with their comfortable enjoyment
18
and/or un)awfully obstructs the free use, in the customary manner,
19
including, but not limited to, all residential uses.
20
21
)32.
of their property
of Plaintiffs'roperty,
Defendant's conduct, which created the devastating cxplosio'n and fire described
herein, was a substantial factor in causing
133.
of
The seriousness
P!aintiffs'arm.
of the injury to P)aintiffs outweighs
the social utility of Defendant
23
PG&E's conduct,
24
herc while still providing gas and electricity to residents
25
measures PG&E could have taken include, but are not limited to, moving the pipeline to a more
26
sparsely populated area, conducting regular testing
27
thc pipeline, repairing the fau)ty portion
28
automatic valves, and replacing the manual valves with remotely controlled valves.
COMPLAINT
as
PG&E could have taken several measures to prevent the harm that occurred
of San
Bruno. Specifically, the
of the pipeline, replacing
of the pipeline, replacing
the faulty portion
of
the manual valves with
31
1
134.
The wrongful acts
of Defendant PG&E were
done maliciously, oppressively,
of the community. Plaintiffs are
2
fraudulently, and in conscious disregard of the safety and health
3
entitled to punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be ascertained according to proof,
4
which is appropriate to punish or sct an example of Defendant.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Public Nuisance - Continuing)
AS AND FOR A NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION against all Defendants and/or DOES
1
through 50, Plaintiffs allege as follows:
135.
1
p
Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege each of the paragraphs above
as though
fully
set forth herein.
136.
Plaintiffs own and/or occupy property at or near the site of the explosion in San
Bruno, California 94066. Plaintiffs have the inalienable right to own, enjoy, and use their
1
3
14
property without interferencc by Defendant.
137.
maintenance
Defendant PG&E had a public duty to conduct its business, in particular the
of the
gas pipeline underneath the Crestmoor and surrounding neighborhoods, in a
manner that did not damage the public welfare and safety.
17
138.
maintenance
9
Defendant PG&E, by reason
of the
of its failure to exercise
gas line. including, but not limited to,
care in its operation and
failing to move the gas line to a morc
sparsely populated area, failing to properly inspect the gas line, failing to properly repair the gas
line, and failing to comply with applicable safety standards, created a condition that is harmful to
Plaintiffs'ealth
and their free use
comfortable enjoyment
139.
24
2
of their life and
so as to seriously interfere with their
property.
Plaintiffs did not consent to Defendant's conduct. To the extent Plaintiffs gave
any implied permission for the maintenance
of a gas line beneath or near their property,
such
permission extended only to a properly maintained, up-to-date, and safe.pipeline. and PG&E
exceeded the scope
27
of their property,
of any
such consent by operating a shoddy. dangerous, aging, and faulty
pipeline below or near Plaintiffs 'roperty.
zs
CON PLAIN T
32
The harmful condition created by Defendant affected the residents
140.
1
2
and thc greater San Bruno area, a substantial number
3
same time.
4
As a result
141.
of Defendant's
of pcopte,
of Crestmoor
in a similar fashion and at the
conduct, Plaintiffs suffered a type
of harm
that is
5
different from the type
of harm
suffered by the general public. Specifically, Plaintiffs have lost
6
the usc and enjoyment
of their
land, including, but not limited to, a legitimate and rational fear
7
that the area is still dangerous, and/or diminution in the fair market value
8
impairment
9
their land, and/or
of the salability of their property, and/or
142.
10
a
lingering smell
of smoke,
As a further legal result
exposure to an array
of their property,
and/or
of toxic substances
on
and/or constant soot, ash, and dust in the air.
of PG8cE's
conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered, and will
11
continue to suffer, discomfort, anxiety, fear, worries, and stress attendant to the interference with
12
Plaintiffs'se
143.
13
14
and enjoyment
of their property,
as alleged herein.
An ordinary person of reasonable sensibilities would reasonably bc annoyed
and/or disturbed by the condition created by Defendant.
144.
15
The aforementioned conduct
of section
3479
of the Civil Code
of Defendant
constitutes a nuisance within thc
in that it is injurious and/or offensive to the senses
16
meaning
17
the Plaintiffs and/or unreasonably interferes with their comfortable enjoyment
18
and/or unlawfully obstructs thc free usc, in the customary manner,
'l9
including, but not limited to, all residential uses.
145.
20
21
146.
of their property
of Plaintiffs'roperty,
Defendant's conduct, which created the devastating explosion and fire described
herein, was a substantial factor in causing
22
of
Plaintiffs'arm.
The presence
of the pipeline
and enjoyment
of their land,
below or near Plaintiffs'omes continues to damage
23
Plaintiffs'se
24
Said fear is reasonable and not speculative, given that as a result
25
by Defendant, a deadly explosion did in fact occur on September 9, 2010, and investigation has
26
revealed that the condition
27
and nonspeculative risk
28
///
COMPLAINT
of the pipeline
of another
as they
live in constant fear of another explosion.
of the harmful condition
created
is dangerous attd defective, therefore posing a serious
explosion.
33
147.
1
The nuisance can bc abated in a number
of ways, for example,
by moving the
2
pipe, by repairing the pipe, by replacing the manual valves on the pipe with automatic valves, or
3
by replacing the manual valves on the pipe with remotely controlled valves. These would all
4
abate the nuisance by greatly reducing the chance
l48.
5
The seriousness
of another deadly explosion.
of the injury to Plaintiffs outweighs
the social utility of Defendant
6
PG&E's conduct, as PG&E could have taken several measures to prevent the harm that occurred
7
here while still providing gas and electricity to residents
8
measures PG& F. could have taken include, but are not limited to, moving the pipeline to a more
9
sparsely populated area, conducting regular testing
of San
Bruno. Specifically, the
of the pipeline, replacing
of the pipeline, replacing
10
the pipeline, repairing the faulty portion
11
automatic valves, and replacing the manual valves with remotely controlled valves.
149.
12
of the
Ifa mandatory
the manual valves with
injunction is not issued requiring Defendant to abate the nuisance
manners described above, Plaintiffs will suffer great and irreparable injury, in that,
13
in any
14
inter alia, (I ) the continuing adverse consequences
15
neighborhood will continue and worsen, (2) the damage to Plaintiffs'ight to the usc and
16
enjoyment
17
neighborhood and surrounding area as a dangerous and terrifying place to live will be cemented
18
permanently in the public's mind, destroying its appeal as an ideal family neighborhood.
of their property will continue
150.
19
of the
pipeline under and near the Crestmoor
and worsen, and (3) the reputation
of the
Crestmoor
Plaintiffs have no speedy, plain, or adequate rcrnedy at law for thc injuries
of such injuries ifa
20
presently being suffered and for thc aggravation
21
issued requiring Defendant to abate the nuisance in any
22
extension, the threat
23
and around where the explosion occurred cannot be adequately compensated with money
24
damages and therefore Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief. Injunctive relief, as authorized by Code
25
of Civil Procedure
26
151.
of
the faulty portion
of injury to plaintiffs and
of the
mandatory injunction is not
manners described above. By
the damage to the value
of the properties
at, near,
section 526, is appropriate under the above-stated facts.
The wrongful acts
of Defendant PG&E were done maliciously,
oppressively,
27
fraudulently, and in conscious disregard of the safety and health of the community. Plaintiffs are
28
///
COMPLAINT
34
1
2
entitled to punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be ascertained according to proof,
which is appropriate to punish or set an example of Defendant.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
3
(Public Nuisance - Permanent)
AS AND FOR A TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION against all Defendants and/or DOES
1
through 50, Plaintiffs allege as follows:
152.
Plaintiffs incorporate and rc-allege each of the paragraphs above
as though
fully
set forth herein.
153.
Plaintiffs own and/or occupy property at or near thc site of thc explosion in San
Bruno, California 94066. Plaintiffs have the inalienable right to own. enjoy, and use their
property without interference by Defendant.
154.
12
3
14
maintenance
Defendant PG&E had a public duty to conduct its business, in particular the
of the
gas pipeline underneath the Crcstmoor and surrounding neighborhoods, in a
manner that did not damage the public welfare and safety.
155.
15
maintenance
Defendant PG&E, by reason
of the gas
of its failure to exercise
care in its operation and
linc, including, but not limited to, failing to move the gas line to
a
more
sparsely populated area, failing to properly inspect the gas line, failing to properly repair thc gas
1
8
1
9
line, and fail ing to comply with applicable safety standards, created a condition that is harm fu to
1
Plaintiffs'ealth
and their free use
comfortable enjoyment
156.
2I
of their property,
of their life and
property.
Plaintiffs did not consent to Defendant's conduct. To the extent Plaintiffs gave
any implied permission for the maintenance
23
24
so as to seriously interfere with their
of a gas line beneath or near their property,
such
permission extended only to a properly maintained, up-to-date, and safe pipeline. and PG&E
exceeded the scope
of any such
consent by operating a shoddy, dangerous, aging, and faulty
pipeline below or near Plaintiffs'roperty.
157.
26
27
28
The harmful condition created by Defendant affected the residents
and the greater San Bruno area, a substantial number
of Cresttnoor
of people, in a similar fashion
and at the
am
COM PLAINT
35
158.
1
As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiffs suffered
a type
of harm
that is
2
different from the type
of harm
3
the use and enjoyment
of their land, including, but not limited to, a legitimate
4
that the area is still dangerous, and/or diminution in the fair market value
5
iinpairment of the salability of their property, and/or exposure to an array of toxic substances on
6
their land, and/or
159.
7
a
As
suffered by thc geiieral public. Specifically, Plaintiffs have lost
and rational fear
of their property,
and/or
lingering smell of smoke, and/or constant soot, ash, and dust in the air.
further legal result
a
of PG&E's
conduct, Plaintiffs have suffere, and will
8
continue to suffer, discomfort, anxiety, fear. womcs, and stress attendant to the interference with
9
Plaintiffs'se
160.
10
11
and enjoyment
of their property,
as
alleged herein.
An ordinary person of reasonable sensibilities would reasonably be annoyed
and/or disturbed by the condition created by Defendant.
161.'he
12
aforementioned conduct
of section
3479
of Defendant
constitutes a nuisance within the
of the Civil Code in that it is injurious and/or offensive to the
13
meaning
14
the Plaintiffs and/or unreasonably interferes with their comfortable enjoyment
15
and/or unlawfully obstructs the free use, in the customary manner,
16
including, but not limited to, all residential uses.
162.
17
18
163.
of
of their properties
of Plaintiffs'roperties,
Defendant's conduct, which created the devastating explosion and fire described
herein, was a substantial factor in causing
19
senses
The seriousness
Plaintiffs'arm.
of the injury to Plaintiffs outweighs
the social utility of Defendant
20
PG&E's conduct,
21
here while still providing gas and electricity to residents
22
measures PG&E could have taken include, but are not limited to, moving the pipeline to a more
23
sparsely populated area, conducting regular testing
24
the pipeline, repairing the faulty portion
25
automatic valves, and replacing the manual valves with remotely controlled valves.
26
164.
as
PG&E could have taken several measures to prevent the harm that occurred
The wrongful acts
fraudulently, and in conscious disregard
28
///
Bruno. Specifically, the
of the pipeline, replacing
of the pipeline, replacing
of Defendant PG&E were
27
COMPLAtNT
of San
of the
the faulty portion
of
the manual valves with
done maliciously, oppressively,
safety and health
of the community. Plaintiffs are
36
1
2
entitled to punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be ascertained according to proof,
which
is
appropriate to punish or sct an example
of Defendant.
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
3
(Trespass)
AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION against all Defendants and/or
DOES
1
through 50, Plaintiffs allege as follows:
165.
Plainti ffs incorporate and re-allege each
of the
paragraphs above as though fully
set forth herein.
166.
Ip
Plaintiffs own and/or occupy property at or near the site of the explosion in San
Bruno, California 94066.
167.
Defendant PG&E intentionally. recklessly, and/or negligently caused fire, soot,
and ash to enter
Plaintiffs'roperty.
168.
Plaintiffs did not give permission for this entry.
169.
Plaintiffs werc harmed by Defendant's conduct,
enjoyment
of their land,
including, but not limited to,
property. and/or a constant fear
7
an array
of toxic substances
of another
a
as
Plaintiffs have lost the use and
significant decrease in thc value
of the
explosion from the faulty pipeline, and/or exposure to
on their land, and/or a lingering smell
of smoke,
and/or constant
soot, ash, and dust in the air.
170.
20
Defendant's conduct, which created the devastating explosion and fjrc described
herein, was a substantial factor in causing
171.
The wrongful acts
Plaintiffs'arm.
of Defendant PG&E were
done maliciously, oppressively,
fraudulently, and in conscious disregard of the safety and health
of the community. Plaintiffis
entitled to punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be ascertained according to proof,
24
which is appropriate to punish or set an example
of Defendant
and deter such behavior by
Defendant and others in the future.
///
///
CO M P LAI IV T
37
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Inverse Condemnation)
AS AND FOR A TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION against all Defendants and/or
4
DOES l.through 50, Plaintiffs allege as follows:
Plainti ffs incorporate and re-allege each
172.
of the
paragraphs above as though fully
set forth herein.
On September 9, 2010, Plaintiffs were owners
173.
property located within or near the Crestrnoor neighborhood
p
property and/or personal
of San Bruno, California.
Prior to and on September 9, 2010, Defendant installed, owned, operated, used,
174.
1
of real
controlled. and/or maintained for a public use the pipeline which was located in Plainti
ffs'eighborhood.
1
3
14
in stal
1
ati on,
of PG&E's
On September 9, 2010, as a direct, necessary, and legal result
175.
)2
ownership, operation, use, control and/or
ma
intenancc for a pub ic use
1
of the
pipeline, the pipeline violently exploded into a massive fireball, which ran rampant-through
Plaintiffs'eighborhood and damaged and/or destroyed Plaintiffs'eal and/or personal property.
l6
7
The above described damage to Plaintiffs'roperty was proximately and
176.
substantially caused by PG&E's actions in that PG&E's installation, ownership, operation, use,
control, and/or maintenance for a public use of the pipeline was faulty and caused the pipeline to
]9
2P
explode and catch on fire.
Plaintiffs have not received adcquatc compensation for the damag'c to and/or
177.
destruction
of their property,
thus constituting a taking or damaging
of Plaintiffs'roperty
by
PG&E without just compensation.
178.
24
including loss
As a direct and legal result of the above-described damages to Plaintiffs'roperty
of use,
interferencc with access, enjoyment and marketability, and injury to
personal property, Plaintiffs have been datnaged in an amount according to proof at trial.
26
27
1
79.
Plaintiffs have incurred and will continue to incur attorney's, appraisal, and
engineering fees because
of Defendant's
conduct, in amounts that cannot yet be asccrtaincd, but
which are recoverable in this action under Code of Civil Procedure
COMPLAINT
f 1036.
38
1
2
3
VI.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment against Defendants, and each
of them,
as
hereinafter set forth below.
1.
For compensatory and general damages according to proof;
5
2.
For past and future medical, incidental, and services expenses according to proof;
6
3.
For past and future loss
7
4.
For funeral and burial ex penses;
8
5.
For past and future loss
9
6.
For pre- and post-judgment interest on all damages as allowed by the law;
10
7.
For attorneys, appraisal, engineering, consultant and expert'ees and costs under
11
]2
13
14
15
of earnings
and earning capacity according to proof;
of consortium,
according to proof;
existing law;
8.
For a preliminary and permanent injunction directing PG&E to move, repair,
and/or replace the dangerous and defective pipeline under the Crestmoor neighborhood;
9.
For punitive damages in an amount according to proof or taking some measure to
ensure that an example is made
of Defendant
of suit incurred
to deter similar future conduct;
16
10.
For costs
17
11.
For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
herein; and
18
19
Dated: June 3, 2011
COTCHETT PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
20
By:
21
22
FRANK M. PIMP
Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs
23
24
Dated: June 3, 2011
COREY, LUZAICH,PLISKA, DE GHETALDI&
NASTARI LLP
25
26
RP.Y E. NASTARI
27
Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs
28
COMPLAINT
39
1
2
4
VII. JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs demand trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Dated: June 3,201
1
COTCHKTT PITRK A McCARTHY, LLP
By:
9
Dated: June 3, 2011
(
FRANK M.1~E
Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs
COREY, LUZAICH,PLISKA, DE GHKTALDI4
NASTARI LLP
10
12
ia
,13
Y E. NASTARI
on Counsel for Plaintiffs
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
15
26
27
28
COMPLAINT
40