SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF CALAVERAS CIVIL DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Transcription

1 GERALD SINGLETON, State Bar No. 0 ERIKA L. VASQUEZ, State Bar No. 0 BRODY A. McBRIDE, State Bar No. 0 SINGLETON LAW FIRM, APC West Plaza Street Solana Beach, CA 0 Tel: (0-0 Fax: (0 - gerald@geraldsingleton.com erika@geraldsingleton.com brody@geraldsingleton.com DEMETRIOS A. SPARACINO, State Bar No. SPARACINO LAW CORPORATION B Street, Suite 00 San Diego, CA 1 Tel: (1 - Fax: (1 - dsparacino@sparacinolaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF CALAVERAS CIVIL DIVISION BRIAN MOELLER and JOLENE STEWART, v. Plaintiffs, PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California Corporation; TREES, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1-00, inclusive. Defendants. Case No. cv COMPLAINT FOR INJURIES AND DAMAGES 1. INVERSE CONDEMNATION. NEGLIGENCE. TRESPASS. NUISANCE. NEGLIGENCE PER SE. VIOLATION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE. VIOLATION OF HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 00 UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Plaintiffs hereby bring the following Complaint for injuries and damages against PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY ( PG&E, TREES, INC., and other as of yet 1

2 unknown entities and individuals as a result of the injuries and damages that Plaintiff sustained in the Butte Fire that began on September, 0. I. INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiffs are individuals that were damaged by what was officially termed the Butte Fire. The Butte Fire began on September, 0, and lasted for several days, causing extensive damages within the general areas of Amador and Calaveras Counties, in the State of California. Each Plaintiff individually seeks just compensation and damages as more particularly described below.. The Butte Fire originated in Amador County when electrical infrastructure owned, operated and maintained by PG&E came into contact with vegetation inspected and maintained by PG&E and TREES, INC. The Butte Fire burned more than 0,000 acres, destroyed homes, countless outbuildings, and has significantly impacted and burdened the lives of thousands of residents.. The Butte Fire was caused by: (1 the negligent and improper operation of the power lines and related equipment by PG&E, TREES, INC., and other Defendants; and/or ( the failure of power lines, and/or electrical infrastructure, and/or equipment that was designed, constructed, operated and maintained by the PG&E and Defendants as alleged herein; and/or ( the Defendants negligent failure to maintain vegetation with prescribed California regulations and law concerning vegetation clearance from power lines and electrical infrastructure. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE. The Plaintiffs are individuals, residents, citizens, and domiciled persons who, at all relevant times, resided in Calaveras County, California. All of the damages, losses, and injuries suffered by each Plaintiff occurred in Calaveras County, California.. Defendant PG&E is a privately owned utility corporation. Its principal place of business is Beale Street, nd Floor, in San Francisco, California.

3 Defendant TREES, INC., is a privately owned corporation conducting business in California as a tree maintenance corporation for utility companies.. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Sections, and. of the California Code of Civil Procedure because the Plaintiffs reside in Calaveras County, Plaintiffs property is or was located in Calaveras County, and the liability arose in Calaveras County where Defendants regularly conduct business operations, including a network of electrical power lines and/or tree maintenance operations. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section. of the California Code of Civil Procedure. III. THE PLAINTIFFS. The Plaintiffs, BRIAN MOELLER and JOLENE STEWART, are individuals who suffered varying types of injuries, damages, losses, and/or harm as a result of the Butte Fire.. Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names of DOES 1 through 00 and, therefore, sue them as defendants under these fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend their Complaint to add the true names of such defendants when ascertained.. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that on September, 0, the Butte Fire started at or near Butte Mountain, in Amador County, California, when a tree that had been negligently maintained by PG&E and/or TREES, INC., struck an overhead power line owned by PG&E. The Butte Fire then burned through a number of small rural communities, including Mountain Ranch, Silver Pine, West Point, and Glencoe, California. The Butte Fire continued to burn for days thereafter.. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs include, but are not limited to, the following: damage to, or destruction of, real and personal property; damage to, or loss of, cherished possessions; out-of-pocket expenses; alternative living expenses; evacuation expenses; and various types of emotional distress, annoyance, inconvenience, disturbance, mental anguish and loss of quiet enjoyment of property. The damages caused by the Defendants are extensive and ongoing.

4 IV. THE DEFENDANTS. PG&E is a utility company pursuant to sections 1(a and (1 of the California Public Utilities Code. PG&E is in the business of providing electricity to the residents of Amador and Calaveras Counties through a network of electrical transmission and distribution lines, and infrastructure.. At all times material, TREES, INC., and DOES 1-00, were the agents of PG&E and acting within the course and scope of their agency.. The true names of DOES 1 through 00, whether individual, corporate, associate, agency or otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiffs who, under California Code of Civil Procedure, sue these Defendants under fictitious names. Each of the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the conduct alleged herein, including, without limitation, by way of conspiracy, aiding, abetting, acting with actual or ostensible authority, furnishing the means and/or acting in capacities that create agency, respondeat superior, and/or predecessor or successor-in-interest relationships with the Defendant. The DOE Defendants are private individuals, associations, partnerships, corporations, subcontractors, or otherwise that actively assisted and participated in the negligent and wrongful conduct alleged herein in ways that are currently unknown to Plaintiffs. Some or all of the DOE Defendants may be residents or conduct business in the State of California. Plaintiffs may amend or seek to amend this Complaint to allege the true names, capacities and responsibility of these DOE Defendants once they are ascertained, and to add additional facts and/or legal theories.. DOES 1-0 are and/or were employees of the PG&E and were acting within the course and scope of their employment with PG&E when they committed the acts and omissions set forth herein. V. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants, inclusive of DOES 1-0 as employees and/or agents of PG&E, are and were aware of the danger from fires in Amador and

5 Calaveras Counties. Before 0, increasingly severe wildfires put PG&E, TREES, INC., and DOES 1-00 on notice of the level of care required to prevent high voltage transmission and distribution lines from causing wildfires in foreseeable California weather conditions. However, PG&E, TREES, INC., and Does 1-00 did not take heed. As a result, residents of Amador and Calaveras Counties were stricken in September 0 by the devastating Butte Fire, which was entirely preventable. This fire was not an Act of God but was caused by the intentional, negligent, and wrongful conduct of PG&E, TREES, INC., and other Defendants. The Fire was started by sparks from high voltage distribution lines, appurtenances, and electrical equipment which was the direct result of failures in design, construction, inspection, operation, maintenance, and vegetation control by PG&E, TREES, INC., and the DOE Defendants.. Wires carrying electricity and electrical infrastructure are dangerous instruments. The transmission and distribution of electricity through power line constitutes a hazardous and dangerous activity requiring the exercise of increased care commensurate with -- and proportionate to -- that increased danger so as to make the transport of electricity through wires safe under all circumstances and exigencies offered by the surrounding environment (including, but not limited to, the weather conditions and the risk of fire. 1. Defendants, inclusive of DOES 1-0 as employees and/or agents of PG&E, failed in their duty to exercise care commensurate with, and proportionate to, the combined danger of an area susceptible to fire and the dangerous activity of wires carrying electricity and electrical infrastructure, thereby creating a substantial factor in the cause of the Butte Fire, as more fully set forth herein. 1. The conditions and circumstances at the time of the ignition in the fire origin area, including the condition of electrical infrastructure, instruments, drought, low humidity, and tinder-like dry vegetation were foreseeable (and could reasonably have been expected by a reasonably prudent person and, therefore, were reasonably foreseeable to, and should have been expected by, Defendants, particularly with their special knowledge and expertise as a public utility company (and/or employees and/or agents, thereof. 0. This action seeks damages for each Plaintiff named in this case, according to their

6 individual proof and not as a part of a class action, for any and all harm they suffered as a result of the Butte Fire. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and hereon allege that PG&E, TREES, INC., and DOES 1-00 knew of the dangerous condition of the property that eventually resulted in the Butte Fire, but recklessly and with careless and conscious disregard to human life and safety, decided to ignore the fire risk, inclusive of warning regarding the specific tree and power line that resulted in the Butte Fire. To make sure that the necessary precautions are taken in the future, this action seeks punitive and exemplary damages against PG&E, and TREES, INC. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Inverse Condemnation (Against PG&E and DOES 1 through Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained above as though the same were set forth herein in full.. Defendants operation of its electrical equipment, lines, and infrastructure were a substantial cause of Plaintiffs damages, are a public improvement for a public use, and constitute an Electrical Plant pursuant to California Public Utilities Code.. Defendants facilities, wires, lines, equipment, infrastructure and other public improvements, as deliberately designed and constructed, present an inherent danger and risk of fire to private property. In acting in furtherance of the public objective of supplying electricity, Defendants took and did take on September, 0, a known, calculated risk that private property would be damaged and destroyed by fire.. On September, 0, the inherent risk of fire became a reality, which directly and legally resulted in the taking of Plaintiffs private property.. The conduct as described herein was a substantial factor in causing damage to a property interest protected by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 1, of the California Constitution, which entitles Plaintiffs to just compensation according to proof at trial for all damages incurred.. That further, under and pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure,

7 Plaintiffs are entitled to recover all litigation costs and expense with regard to the compensation of damage to properties, including attorney s fees, expert fees, consulting fees and litigation costs. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence and Respondeat Superior (Against PG&E, TREES, INC., and DOES 1 through 00. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained above as though the same were set forth herein in full.. Defendants, inclusive of the PG&E and TREES, INC., employee/agents DOES 1-0, have a non-delegable duty to apply a level of care commensurate with and proportionate to the danger of designing, engineering, constructing, operating and maintaining electrical transmission and distribution systems, inclusive of vegetation clearance.. Defendants, inclusive of the PG&E and TREES, INC., employee/agents DOES 1-0, have a non-delegable duty of vigilant oversight in the maintenance, use, operation, repair and inspection appropriate to the changing conditions and circumstances of their electrical transmission and distribution systems. 0. Prior to the subject fire, Defendant PG&E hired, retained, contracted, allowed, and/or otherwise collaborated with TREES, INC., and the DOE Defendants and/or other parties, to perform work along and maintain the network of distribution lines, infrastructure, and vegetation. The work for which the TREES INC., and DOE Defendants were hired involved a risk of fire that was peculiar to the nature of the agency relationship. A reasonable property/easement owner and/or lessee, in the position of the PG&E, knew, or should have recognized, the necessity of taking special precautions to protect adjoining property owners against the risk of harm created by work performed, work to be performed and/or work otherwise not performed. 1. Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known that the activities of DOE Defendants, and/or other parties, involved a risk that was peculiar to the operation of Defendants business that was foreseeable and arose from the nature and/or location of the work.

8 Notwithstanding the above, Defendants, and each of them, failed to take reasonable precautions to protect adjoining property owners against the foreseeable risk of harm created by their activities.. Defendants, and each of them, have special knowledge and expertise far above that of a layperson that they were required to apply to the design, engineering, construction, use, operation, inspection, repair and maintenance of electrical lines, infrastructure, equipment and vegetation in order to assure safety under all the local conditions in their service area, including but not limited to, those conditions identified herein.. Defendants negligently breached those duties by, among other things: a. Failing to conduct reasonably prompt, proper and frequent inspections of the electrical transmission lines, wires and associated equipment; b. Failing to design, construct, monitor, and maintain high voltage transmission and distribution lines in a manner that avoids igniting fire during long, dry seasons by allowing those lines to withstand foreseeable conditions to avoid igniting fires; c. Failing to design, construct, operate and maintain high voltage transmission and distribution lines and equipment to withstand foreseeable conditions to avoid igniting fires; d. Failing to maintain and monitor high voltage transmission and distribution lines in fire prone areas to avoid igniting fire and spreading fires; e. Failing to install the equipment necessary, and/or to inspect and repair the equipment installed, to prevent electrical transmission and distribution lines from improperly sagging, operating or making contact with other metal wires placed on its poles igniting fires; f. Failing to keep equipment in a safe condition at all times to prevent fires; g. Failing to inspect fixtures vegetation within proximity to energized transmission and distribution lines; h. Failing to de-energize power lines during fire prone conditions;

9 damages. to Plaintiffs. i. Failing to de-energize power lines after the fire s ignition; j. Failing to properly train and supervise employees and agents responsible for maintenance and inspection of the distribution lines; k. Failing to implement and follow regulations and reasonably prudent practices to avoid fire ignition; l. Failing to properly investigate, monitor, and maintain vegetation sufficient to mitigate the risk of fire.. The negligence of Defendants was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs. Defendants failure to comply with their duty of care proximately caused damage. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants negligence, Plaintiffs suffered damages including, but not limited to property damage, loss of cherished possessions, emotional distress, annoyance, disturbance, inconvenience, and mental anguish, loss of quiet enjoyment of the their property, and costs related to Plaintiffs evacuation.. Further, the conduct alleged against Defendant in this complaint was despicable and subjected Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of their rights, constituting oppression, for which Defendants must be punished by punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof. Defendants conduct was carried on with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiffs, constituting malice, for which Defendant must be punished by punitive and exemplary damages according to proof. An officer, director, or managing agent of PG&E personally committed, authorized and/or ratified the despicable and wrongful conduct alleged in this complaint. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Trespass (Against PG&E and DOES 1 through 00. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained above as though the same were set forth herein in full.

10 At all times relevant herein, Plaintiffs were the owners, tenants, and/or lawful occupiers of property damaged by the Butte Fire. 0. Defendants, inclusive of PG&E agents and/or employees DOES 1-0, negligently allowed the Butte Fire to ignite and/or spread out of control, which caused damage to Plaintiffs. 1. Plaintiffs did not grant permission to Defendants to cause the Butte Fire to enter their properties.. As a direct, proximate and substantial cause of the trespass, Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages including, but not limited to, damage to personal property, discomfort, annoyance, inconvenience, and mental anguish, nuisance, loss of quiet enjoyment, and emotional distress in an amount to be proven at trial.. Those Plaintiffs whose land was under cultivation or used for the raising of livestock have hired and retained counsel to recover compensation for their losses and damages and are entitled to recover all attorneys fees, expert fees, consultant fees, and litigation costs and expense, as allowed under California Code of Civil Procedure 1... Those Plaintiffs who suffered damage to timber, trees, or underwood as a result of Defendants trespass seek treble or double damages for wrongful injuries to their property inclusive of timber, trees, or underwood on their property, as permitted by California Civil Code.. Further, the conduct alleged against Defendant in this complaint was despicable and subjected Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of their rights, constituting oppression, for which Defendants must be punished by punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof. Defendants conduct was carried on with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiffs, constituting malice, for which Defendant must be punished by punitive and exemplary damages according to proof. An officer, director, or managing agent of PG&E personally committed, authorized and/or ratified the despicable and wrongful conduct alleged in this complaint.

11 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Nuisance (Against PG&E and DOES 1 through 00. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained above as though the same were set forth herein in full.. Defendants actions, conduct, omissions, negligence, trespass, and failure to act resulted in a fire hazard and a foreseeable obstruction to the free use of Plaintiffs property, invaded the right to use the Plaintiffs property and interfered with the enjoyment of Plaintiffs property, causing Plaintiffs to suffer unreasonable harm and substantial actual damages constituting a nuisance, pursuant to California Civil Code.. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffs sustained loss and damage including but not limited to damage to property, discomfort, annoyance, inconvenience, loss of quiet enjoyment, mental anguish and emotional distress, the amount of which will be proven at trial.. Further, the conduct alleged against Defendant in this complaint was despicable and subjected Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of their rights, constituting oppression, for which Defendants must be punished by punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof. Defendants conduct was carried on with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiffs, constituting malice, for which Defendant must be punished by punitive and exemplary damages according to proof. An officer, director, or managing agent of PG&E personally committed, authorized and/or ratified the despicable and wrongful conduct alleged in this complaint. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence Per Se (Against PG&E and DOES 1 through Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained above as though the same were set forth herein in full. 1. Defendants at all times herein had a duty to properly design, construct, operate,

12 maintain, inspect, and manage its electrical infrastructure as well as trim trees and vegetation in compliance with all relevant provisions of applicable orders, decisions, directions, rules or statutes, including those delineated by, but not limited to, Public Utilities Commission General Order, including but not limited to Rules 1. and, Public Resources Code Section, and Public Utilities Commission General Order.. The violation of a legislative enactment or administrative regulation which defines a minimum standard of conduct is unreasonable per se.. Defendants violated the above by, but not limited to: a. Failing to service, inspect or maintain electrical infrastructure, structures and vegetation affixed to and in close proximity to high voltage electrical lines; b. Failing to provide electrical supply systems of suitable design; c. Failing to construct and to maintain such systems for their intended use of safe transmission of electricity considering the known condition of the combination of the dry season and vegetation of the area, resulting in Plaintiff(s being susceptible to the ignition and spread of fire and the fire hazard and danger of electricity and electrical transmission and distribution; d. Failing to properly design, construct, operate, maintain, inspect and manage its electrical supply systems and the surrounding arid vegetation resulting in said vegetation igniting and accelerating the spread of the fire; e. Failing to properly safeguard against the ignition of fire during the course and scope of employee work on behalf of PG&E. f. By failing to comply with the enumerated legislative enactments and administrative regulations.. The violation of General Order, including, but not limited to, Rules 1. and, Public Resources Code Section, and Public Utilities Commission General Order by the Defendants proximately and substantially caused the destruction, damage an injury to

13 Plaintiffs.. Plaintiffs were and are within the class of persons for whose protection General Order, including but not limited to Rules 1. and, Public Resources Code Section, and Public Utilities Commission General Order were adopted.. Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for all loss, damages and injury caused by and resulting from Defendants violation of General Order, including, but not limited to Rules 1. and, Public Resources Code Section, and Public Utilities Commission General Order as alleged herein according to proof.. Further, the conduct alleged against Defendant in this complaint was despicable and subjected Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of their rights, constituting oppression, for which Defendants must be punished by punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof. Defendants conduct was carried on with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiffs, constituting malice, for which Defendant must be punished by punitive and exemplary damages according to proof. An officer, director, or managing agent of PG&E personally committed, authorized and/or ratified the despicable and wrongful conduct alleged in this complaint. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of Public Utilities Code (Against PG&E and DOES 1 through 00. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained above as though the same were set forth herein in full.. As a Utility and employees of a Utility, Defendants are legally required to comply with the rules and orders promulgated by the California Public Utilities Commission pursuant to California Public Utilities Code A Utility that performs or fails to perform something required to be done by the California Constitution, a law of the State, or a regulation or order of the Public Utilities Commission, which leads to the loss or injury, is liable for that loss or injury, pursuant to Public Utilities Code.

14 As Utilities, Defendants are required to provide, maintain, and service equipment and facilities in a manner adequate to maintain the safety, health and convenience of their customers and the public, pursuant to Public Utilities Code 1.. Defendants are required to design, engineer, construct, operate and maintain electrical supply lines in a manner consonant with their use, taking into consideration local conditions and other circumstances, so as to provide safe and adequate electric service, pursuant to Public Utility Commission General Order, Rule.1 and General Order.. Through their omissions, commissions, and conduct alleged herein, Defendants violated Public Utilities Code sections 0 and 1, and/or Public Utilities Commission General Order, thereby making them liable for losses, damages and injury sustained by Plaintiffs pursuant to Public Utilities Code.. Further, the conduct alleged against Defendant in this complaint was despicable and subjected Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of their rights, constituting oppression, for which Defendants must be punished by punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof. Defendants conduct was carried on with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiffs, constituting malice, for which Defendant must be punished by punitive and exemplary damages according to proof. An officer, director, or managing agent of PG&E personally committed, authorized and/or ratified the despicable and wrongful conduct alleged in this complaint. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Health & Safety Code 00 (Against PG&E and DOES 1 through 00. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained above as though the same were set forth herein in full.. By engaging in the acts and omissions alleged in this Complaint, Defendants, and each of them, wilfully, negligently, and in violation of law, set fire to and/or allowed fire to be set to the property of another in violation of California Health & Safety Code 00.. As a legal result of Defendants violation of California Health & Safety Code

15 , Plaintiffs suffered recoverable damages to property under California Health & Safety Code 00.. As a further legal result of the violation of California Health & Safety Code 00 by Defendants, some Plaintiffs suffered damages that are entitled to reasonable attorney s fees under California Code of Civil Procedure 1. for the prosecution of this cause of action.. Further, the conduct alleged against Defendant in this complaint was despicable and subjected Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of their rights, constituting oppression, for which Defendants must be punished by punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof. Defendants conduct was carried on with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiffs, constituting malice, for which Defendant must be punished by punitive and exemplary damages according to proof. An officer, director, or managing agent of PG&E personally committed, authorized and/or ratified the despicable and wrongful conduct alleged in this complaint. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiffs seek the following damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial: (1 Repair, depreciation, and/or replacement of damaged, destroyed, and/or lost personal and/or real property; For Inverse Condemnation ( Loss of the use, benefit, goodwill, and enjoyment of Plaintiffs real and/or personal property; ( Loss of wages, earning capacity and/or business profits and/or any related displacement expenses; ( All costs of suit, including attorneys fees, expert fees and related costs; ( Any and all relief, compensation, or measure of damages available to Plaintiffs by law based on the injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs; ( Prejudgment interest from September, 0, according to proof; and ( For such other and further relief as the Court shall deem proper, all according to proof.

16 For Negligence, Trespass, Nuisance, Negligence Per Se, Violation of Public Utilities Code and Violation of Health & Safety Code 00 (1 General and/or special damages for all damages to property according to proof; ( Loss of the use, benefit, goodwill, and enjoyment of Plaintiffs real and/or personal property; ( Loss of wages, earning capacity, goodwill, and/or business profits or proceeds and/or any related displacement expenses; ( Evacuation expenses and alternate living expenses; ( Erosion damage to real property; ( Past and future medical expenses and incidental expenses; ( General damages for personal injury, emotional distress, fear, annoyance, disturbance, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of quiet enjoyment of property; ( Attorneys fees, expert fees, consultant fees and litigation costs and expense, as allowed under California Code of Civil Procedure 1. and/or any other statute; ( Treble or double damages for wrongful injuries to timber, trees, or underwood on their property, as allowed under California Civil Code ; ( For punitive and exemplary damages against PG&E in an amount according to proof under California basis that may apply; ( Costs of suit; ( Prejudgment interest; and Public Utilities Code and any and all other statutory or legal ( Any and all other and further such relief as the Court shall deem proper, all according to proof.

17 JURY TRIAL DEMAND Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial on all causes of action for which a jury is available under the law. SINGLETON LAW FIRM, APC SPARACINO LAW CORPORATION Dated: September, 0 By: GERALD SINGLETON ERIKA L. VASQUEZ BRODY A. McBRIDE DEMETRIOS A. SPARACINO Attorneys for Plaintiffs