2010.04.20 #0086 rathje 3rd amended cmpl

1 MARKF. SULLIVAN, State BarNo. 111011 DONN S. TAKETA, State BarNo. 132654

2 LAMDIENT. LE, S,.tateBarNo.185331

\f~N+Ul'!A SUPERIOR CQURTS

F1LED JOEL R. VILLASENOR, State Bar No. 224395

3 SULLIVANTAKETALLP 31351 Via Colinas, Suite 205

4 Westlake Village, California 91362 Telephone: (818) 889-2299

5 Facsllnile: (818) 889-4497

6 Attomeys for Plaintiffs, Vicky Rathje and Jesper Rathje

7

8

9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF VENTURA, MAIN COURTHOUSE 10

11 VlCKY RATHJE, an individual doing

12 business as AROMAS FOR LlVING; JESPER RATHJE and VICKY RATHJE

13 as Trustees of the RATHJE F AMIL Y TRUST (UA 08-07-03); and JESPER

14 RATHJE as an individual,

15 Plaintiffs,

16 vs.

17 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, a California corporation;

18 TIME WARNER NY CABLE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and

19 DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

20

21

22

Defendants.

23 Plaintiffs allege as follows:

Case No.: 56-2009-00360200-CU-EI-VTA

TffiRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:

(1) INVERSE CONDEMNATION; (2) VIOLATION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES

CODE § 2106; . (3) TRESPASS BY FIRE; (4) NEGLIGENCE; AND (5) NUISANCE

Request for Jury Trial

Compo Filed: Oct. 20, 2009

24 Introduction

25 1. This case involves an electrical fire that began on October 21,2007, and is

26 co=only mown as the "Nightsky Fire." The Nightsky Fire started from the electrical arcing

. 27 and sparks from utility mles that failed to meet the required safety standards, including power

28 1

THlRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 lines that sagged more than three times the amount pennitted by the public safety standard. As

2 a result, over 53 acres in the Santa Rosa Valley, County of Ventura, were burned and destroyed,

3 including over two acres of Plaintiffs' cultivated commercial lavender farm business situated

4 adjacent to Plaintiffs' home and family.

5

6 2.

Parties

Plaintiffs are VICKY RATHJE, an individual and business owner doing business

7 as AROMAS FOR LIVING; JESPER RATHJE and VICKY RATHJE as Trustees of the

8· RATHJE FAMILY TRUST (UA 08-07-03); and JESPER RATHJE as all individual

9 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Plaintiffs"). Plaintiffs are, and at all times relevant

10 hereto were, residents of the County of Ventura, State ofCalifomia.

11 3. Defendant SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY ("Edison") is

12 now, and at all times mentioned herein was, a public utility and California corporation

13 authorized to do business in the County of Ventura, State of California. Plaintiffs are informed

14 and believe that Edison at the time of the Nightsky Fire was operating its electrical power

15 facilities near 13545 Nightsky Drive in the Santa Rosa Valley, in the County of Ventura, State

16 of California.

17 4. Defendant TIME WARNER NY CABLE, LLC ("Time Warner") is now, and at

18 all times mentioned herein was, a public cable television provider and limited liability company

19 authorized to do business in the County of Ventura, State of California. Plaintiffs are infonlled

20 and believe that Time Warner at the time of the Nightsky Fire was operating its facilities near

21 13545 Nightsky Drive in the Santa Rosa Valley, in the County of Ventura, State of California.

22

23

5. Plaintiffs at this time do not lmow the true names or capacities, whether

individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 10,

24 inclusive, and Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to show such true names and capacities -

25 when ascertained. Plaintiffs are infonned and believe, and based thereon allege, that each of

26 those defendants was in some mamler wrongfully and proximately responsible for the events

27 and happenings alleged in this Complaint and for Plaintiffs' injuries and damages. All

28 2

TIURD AMENDED COMPLAINT

._----------------- --------------_ .. __ .- ---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

references in this Complaint to any named Defendant or to Defendants, unless otherwise

specified, shall include DOES 1 through 10.

6. At all times mentioned herein, each of the Defendants, except as otherwise

alleged, was the agent, servant, employee, or joint venturer, of the co-defendants and each of

them, and at all said times each Defendant was acting in the full course and scope of said

agency, service, employment or joint venture. Plaintiffs are infonned and believe, and allege,

that at all times mentioned, Defendant DOES 1 through 10 were, and are, conducting business

in the County of Ventura, State of California.

Common Allegations

7. Califomia courts and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) have

recognized the well-known dangerous character of electrical supply lines, and the need to safely

construct, inspect and maintain such utility lines.

8. Defendants in this case consciously and recklessly disregarded the public safety

standards and rules designed to protect against electrical fires. For example, in this case,

Defendants violated established safety standards. These safety standards and violations thereof

include, but are not limited to: (a) violation ofCPUC General Order 95 (GO 95), Rule 31.1, by

Defendants in allowing unsafe condition to occur by failing to maintain the minimum safety

clearance between their facilities, (b) violation by Defendants of GO 95, Rule 38,in failing to

maintain the minlinum safety separation between Defendants' facilities, (c) Defendant Edison's

failure to timely report the electrical fire and take proper corrective action in violation of CPUC

public safety Decision 06-04-055, Appendix B, (d) Defendant Time Warner's violation of GO

95, Rule 31.2, which requires timely inspection of its cOlrnnunication facilities and is designed

to ensure public safety, and ( e) Defendants' failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent

electrical fires, especially in light of prior warnings lIlid notice of the heightened fire risk.

9. Plaintiffs allege on info=ation and belief that Defendants were or should have

been aware that Plaintiffs' property is situated in the part of the Santa Rosa Valley designated

3

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone by the California Department of Forestry and Fire

2 Protection, and that it has been well-mown at the very least since 2003 that the Southern

3 California area experiences Santa Ana winds each year during the fall and winter months.

4 10. Plaintiffs moved into the property located at 13545 Nightsky Drive in the Santa

5 Rosa Valley, in the County of Ventura, State of California, in 2001. Plaintiffs built a wood

6 barn on their property, which consists of over 20 acres. Plaintiffs also cultivated the land and

7 developed a cOlmnerciallavender farm business. The property is developed for, and can be

8 used for, the raising oflivesto-ck, inc1udingthe raising of bees. Plaintiffs intend to keep beeson

9 the property, particularly in the context of the eventual replanting of their commercial lavender

10 crops, with a view to a commercial production oflavender honey as part of Plaintiffs ,

11 cOlmnerciallavender farm business. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that during

12 the entire time that Plaintiffs have owned their property on Nightsky Drive, the utility lines in

13 question have been sagging and have been maintained in the same marmer as they existed at the

14 time of the Nightsky Fire, and even now continue to sag well beyond what is pennitted by

15 safety standards.

16 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 are photographs taken by Plaintiffs that fairly and

17 accurately depict Plaintiffs' commercial lavender fann as it existed prior to the Nightslcy Fire.

18 Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 are photographs taken by Plaintiffs that fairly and accurately

19 depicts the remains of the lavender farm after the Nightsky Fire.

20 12. Attached as Exhibit 3 is a photograph taken by Plaintiffs that fairly and accurately

21 depicts the sag in Edison's power lines, which exceeded 35 feet, and which, according to

22 Edison's own guidelines, was more than three times the pennissible sag in the power lines.

23 Defendants have pennitted the excessive sagging to remain unabated during at least the last

24 three years, and continuing to the present time, even after the Nightsky Fire.

25 13. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of Defendant Edison's

26 Distribution Construction Standards regarding pennissible sag on its power lines.

27 14. Plaintiffs allege upon information and belief that Defendants also mew or should

28 4


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

have known of at least five other electrical fires that occurred at or near Plaintiffs' property.

Indeed, earlier on the morning the Nightsky Fire took place, Defendant Edison was notified of

electrical arcing and sparking from its power lines near Plaintiffs' property.

15. Before the Nightsky Fire, on or about October 13, 2007, an electrical explosion

also occurred near Plaintiffs' property, and near Edison pole #21 1 5940E.

16. On or about the next day, October 14,2007, at aroIDld 2 to 3 a.m., another

electrical explosion occurred near Plaintiffs' property and near Edison poles.

·17. On or about October 14 through October 16, 2007, Defendant Edison'svehic1es

were near the location of the electrical explosions and had an opportnnity to inspect and repair

the utility lines.

11 18. Also, prior to the Nightsky Fire, during October 10, 2007, through October 20,

12 2007, Plaintiffs encountered significant ground-to-fault power surges at and near Plaintiffs'

13 property.

14 19. By the date the Nightsky Fire started, on October 21, 2007, Defendants knew or

15 should have known not only of the existence and location of the arcing utility lines as

16 hereinabove described but also of the risk of electrical fires to Plaintiffs' property and to

17 members of the public presented by Defendants' facilities. Despite such knowledge and despite

18 the availability of protective equipment and system designs that would have e1iminated or

19 significantly reduced the risk ofloss from an electrical fire, Defendants conducted "business as

20 usual," with the end result that the above-described arcing and sparking utility lines caused

21 significant, hazardous and damaging electrical fires on Plaintiffs' property, burning over two

22 acres of Plaintiffs , co=erciallavender fields and threatening to engulf Plaintiffs' home and

23 other real and personal property.

24

25 Nightsky Fire

26 20. On October 21, 2007, at approximately 7:00 a.m. in the morning, an electrical fire

27 started near Plaintiffs' property. The Ventura County Fire Department responded quickly and

28 5


1 worked diligently on containing that fire and determining the cause of the fire. Plaintiffs are

2 info=ed and believe that, at approximately 9:30 a.m., the Ventura County Fire Department

3 notified Defendant Edison of the arcing electrical lines, sparks coming from the utility lines,

4 and the electrical fire near Plaintiffs' property.

5 21. Later that same day, on October 21, 2007, at approximately 10:30 a.m.,

6 Defendants' excessively sagging utility lines caused an electrical explosion, which started the

7 raging electrical fire that ravaged over 53 acres in the Santa Rosa Valley.

8 22. Plaintiffs' son, Lars Rathje, and his brother witnessed more than one explosion

9 involving electrical power arcing and sparking between Edison pole nos. 21l594lE and

10 2ll5943E. Lars Rathje called 911 to report the electrical fire. Again, the Ventura County Fire

11 Deparhnent responded, but by the time the Fire Department alTived on the scene, the electrical

12 fire had already destroyed Plaintiffs' co=erciallavender farm and was threatening Plaintiffs'

13 home and family.

14 23. Plaintiffs allege upon info=ation and belief that the cause of the electrical arcing

15 and sparks, which resulted in the Nightsky Fire, was due to Defendants' utility lines, including,

16 but not limited to, one or more of the following reasons:

17 (a) excessive sagging by Defendants' utility lines, which greatly exceeded what is

18 pennitted by safety guidelines, disregarded compliance with the applicable regulations, industry

19 standards and, in the case of Edison, failed to comply with Edison's own safety guidelines;

20 (b) improper tension (load) between Edison's poles, not in compliance with

21 applicable regulations, industry standards or Edison's guidelines;

22 (c) improper slapping together of the utility lines, causing electrical arcing, sparks

23 and explosions on Defendants' facilities;

24 (d) improper maintenance and repair in allowing the utility lines to remain in a

25 manner that did not comply with the applicable safety requirements;

26 ( e) problems with the insulators or conductors on Edison's poles; and/or

27 (f) the occun·ences of "phase to ground faults," relay tripping and phase-to-phase

28 6


~-----.----.. -.~-

1 imbalances, indicating the existence of a chronic unfixed hazard

2 24. On or about October 29,2007, Plaintiffs submitted a written claim to Defendant

3 Edison, and requested that Edison take steps to mitigate the fire danger and compensate

4 Plaintiffs so as to allow for a quick replanting of the lavender crop in order to minimize the

5 business loss and reduce the erosion problem on the denuded and fire-ravaged portions of

6 Plaintiffs' property.

7 25. Pursuant to CPUC Decision 6-04-055, Defendant Edison was required to report

8 the fire within 60 days; but instead waited over a year and half to do so.

9 26. Plaintiffs allege upon infonnation and belief that Edison's delay in reporting was

10 not a simple clerical elTor, but rather reflects a conscious or reckless disregard of public safety

11 and a blatant attempt to cover up its liability while further risking the public safety and flouting

12 the rules designed to promote public safety. Moreover, Plaintiffs allege upon infonnation and

13 belief that Edison's delay in reporting the fire was part and parcel of a concerted pattern and

14 practice of deceit, cover-up and obfuscation by Edison and its managing agents, designed to

15 shield Edison from claims by Plaintiffs and other landowners and public entities, and to prevent

16 or delay a CPUC investigation into the causes of the fire that could lay blame on Edison for the

17 Nightsky Fire and potentially lead to regulatory sanctions or support Plaintiffs' potential claims

18 against Edison.

19 27; During the time that Edison improperly delayed reporting the fire and

20 discouraged the CPUC from commencing an investigation, Defendant Edison and its managing

21 agents were affInnatively infonning Plaintiffs and the CPUC that no investigation was

22 necessary because Time Warner had purpOltedly accepted responsibility for the fire. As a

23 result of Defendant Edison's misrepresentations and misleading comments, Plaintiffs did not

24 obtain compensation for the fire damage to allow for the replanting and prompt repair of the

25 lavender farm, the CPUC did not open its investigation of the October 21, 2007, Nightsky Fire

26 until April 21, 2009, and the utility lines near Plaintiffs' property continued to be maintained in

27 an unsafe manner in conscious disregard of the applicable public safety regulations.

28 7


1 28. On or about April 22, 2008, the Ventura County Fire Department issued a repmi,

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

which concluded that the cause of the fire was the power lines slapping together. Plaintiffs

allege upon infonnation and belief that after receiving this report implicating Edison, Edison

requested that the Fire Department change or amend the repmi to implicate Time Wamer.

29. Plaintiff Vicky Rathje made numerous calls to Defendant Edison's Claims

Investigator Gregory Greene, who Plaintiffs allege on infonnation and belief to be a managing

agent of Edison, in order to obtain infonnation regarding Time Wamer's involvement in the

Nightsky Fire and the contact nmnber for Time WalTIer's representative. Plaintiff Vicky Rathje·

also tried to contact others at Edison. However, DefendaJlt Edison disregarded and refused to

respond to Plaintiff Vicky Rathje's calls during the period between June 18 and September 12,

2008. As a result, Plaintiff Vicky Rathje sent a letter, dated September 12, 2008, to Defendant

Edison, addressed to Gregory Greene, Edison's Claims Investigator, and to Robert Ralnos,

Edison's Claims Manager, in which Plaintiffs requested, alnong other things, that Edison fix the

safety danger caused by the utility lines.

30. Defendant Edison fmally sent a letter, dated September 19, 2008, to Plaintiffs,

claiming falsely alld in bad faith that Time WalTIer had admitted liability for the fire. In or

about the middle of December 2008, the CPUC investigator Kan Wai Tong infonned Plaintiffs

that, based on Edison's representations that Time Warner had accepted responsibility for the

fire, the CPUC would be treating the situation merely as a customer complaint and a site

investigation would not be necessary. Mr. Tong also infonned Plaintiffs that Edison was

claiming that a wind damper on the Time Wamer cable had caused the fire, and that this wind

damper had fallen to the ground and was in Edison's possession. This Edison claim was

entirely untrue, because this wind daJnper was still on the Time Wamer cable. Again, Plaintiffs

are infonned and believe that Edison acted with the intent to deceive in its reports to the CPUC

and disclosures to Plaintiffs, and that Edison's actions were pm of a concerted pattern and

practice of deceit, cover-up alld obfuscation by Edison and its managing agents, designed to

shield Edison from claims by Plaintiffs and other landowners and public entities, alld to prevent

8


1 or delay a CPUC investigation into the causes of the fire that could lay blame on Edison for the

2 Nightsky Fire.

3 31. On or about April 21, 2009, Defendant Edison fmally and fonnally provided the

4 CPUC with some of the required infonnation in a report regarding the October 21, 2007,

5 electrical fire and resulting damage. On or about April 22, 2009, the CPUC informed Plaintiffs

6 that the case had been upgraded from a customer complaint to an irregular incident.

7 32. Plaintiffs contend that: (1) Edison and Time Wamer were in violation of GO 95,

8 Rule 31.1, for allowing an unsafe condition to occur by failing to maintain the required

9 clearance between their facilities; (2) Edison and Time Wamer were in violation of GO 95,

10 Rule 38, for failing to maintain the minimmn separation between their facilities; (3) Edison was

11 in violation of CPUC Decision 06-04-055, Appendix B, for failing to report this incident, which

12 resulted in property damage exceeding $20,000, to the CPUC within 60 days of its occurrence;

13 and (4) Time Wamer was in violation of GO 95, Rule 31.2, for failing to inspect its

14 cOlnmmncation facilities frequently and thoroughly for the pm-pose of ensuring that the utility

15 facilities are in good condition.

16 33. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that the CPUC investigation would

17 not have occurred but for Plaintiff Vicky Rathje's willingness to invest the time and effort to

18 bring the facts to light, and but for her refusal to accept Edison's misrepresentations, delay and

19 fraudulent conduct that caused Plaintiffs direct hann, and that were part of a concerted pattern

20 of conduct designed to prevent or impede the bringing of a claim for damages by Plaintiffs

21 against Edison.

22 34. In addition to the misconduct described above, Defendant Edison has denied

23 responsibility for the Nightsky Fire and has to date not taken the necessary steps to prevent the

24 risk of similar future fires in the Nightsky Drive area.

25 35. On or about July 8, 2009, Defendant Edison's crews inspected and removed

26 Edison's poles and evidence near pole #2115940E. Defendant Edison also removed and

27 replaced poles that had extensive bmn damage, and were involved in the prior fire explosions

28 9

TIIIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-------- ------- ------------ ---------- -- -- ---~-----

1 on October 13,2007, near pole #2115940E, and the explosion on October 14,2007, near pole

2 #2115944E-45E.

3 36. On July 13, 2009, Plaintiff Vicky Rathje spoke with Mr. Tong of the CPUC.

4 37. By failing to comply with the CPUC safety requirements and file a timely report,

5 Defendant Edison intended to, and did, cover up and mislead Plaintiffs and others, including

6 the CPUC, and Fire Department, and cause substantial delay in the fire investigation. This

7 conduct on the part of Edison and its managing agents was part of a concerted pattern and

- 8 practice of deceit, cover-up and obfuscation designed to shield Edison from claims by Plaintiffs

9 and other landowners and public entities, and to prevent or delay a CPUC investigation into the

10 causes of the fire that could lay blame on Edison for the Nightsky Fire and potentially lead to

11 regulatory sanctions.

12

13 Plaintiffs' Damages

14 38. As a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiffs suffered damages well in excess of

15 $400,000, and in an amount that will be proven at trial. Plaintiffs' damages include, but not are

16 not limited to, the following:

17 (i) loss of over two acres of flourishing lavender plants, the core of Plaintiffs '

18 co=ercia1lavender farm operation,

19 (ii) loss of revenue, lost profits, and damage to business reputation and

20 goodwill, which would have been gained from the harvesting and sales of Plaintiffs' lavender

21 crop that was burned in the Nightsky Fire,

22 (iii) loss of use, lost crops, increased labor and costs for the replanting and care

23 of the lavender crops, and the loss of the future flourishing lavender crops that require

24 approximately four years to grow, most of which lavender plants have still not been replanted

25 because of the Nightsky Fire and the continuing threat of fire from Defendants' facilities,

26 (iv) cost of destroyed landscaping, and cost of irrigation system repair and

27 replacements,

28 10


1 (v) clean-up costs, including cost of cleaning soot and ash throughout and

2 around Plaintiffs home,

3 (vi) additional costs and lost time resulting from Defendants' refusal to

4 promptly repair, and refusal to promptly pay just compensation for, the damage to Plaintiffs'

5 property,

6 (vii) loss of business opportunities, and valuable leads and connections in the

7 commercial lavender business due to the Nightsky Fire,

8 (viii) personal property losses,

9 (ix) delay costs and consequential damages,

10 (x) emotional distress, discomfort and annoyance caused by the NightskyFire,

11 and ongoing emotional distress caused by the continuing threat of electrical fires, as permitted

12 by law,

13 (xi) increased and continuing erosion problems as a result of the loss of

14 vegetation on the hills surrounding Plaintiffs' property,

15 (xii) increased risk of further property damage and potential personal injuries,

16 as well as increased insurance rates, and

17 (xiii) reduction in tlle value of the Plaintiffs' property and business as a result of

18 the Nightsky Fire.

19 39. AB a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants' conduct as set forth above,

20 Plaintiffs have also incurred and continue to incur legal expenses, costs, and attomeys' fees.

21 Upon a finding ofliability, Plaintiffs are entitled to a statutory award ofattomeys' fees and

22 costs according to proof and pursuant to statute, including but not limited to Code of Civil

23 Procedure sections 1021.5 and 1021.9.

24 40. Unless and until Defendants are enjoined and restrained by order of this Court to

25 maintain, control, inspect, repair and operate the utility facilities in compliance willi the

26 existing and applicable safety guidelines, rules, regulations, and Defendants' own safety

27 constrnction standards, Plaintiffs will continue to suffer grave and irreparable injury. Any

28 11


1 delay in bringing Defendants' facilities in compliance with said safety guidelines will continue

2 to undennine Plaintiffs' commercial lavender business, threaten Plaintiffs' home, diminish the

3 value of Plaintiffs' property, and cause Plaintiffs to suffer further losses. Moreover,

4 Defendants' ongoing conduct will continue to present a safety hazard and danger to Plaintiffs,

5 Plaintiffs' family, and the neighboring property owuers.

6 41. Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief to require Defendants to repair the damage

7 caused by the Nightsky Fire, and to require that Defendants reduce the danger of future

8 electrical fires by bringing Defendants' facilities into compliance with the existing and

9 applicable safety guidelines, including Defendants' own safety construction guidelines.

10 42. Defendants knew or should have known not only of the existence and location of

11 the arcing and sparking power lines as hereinabove described, but also of the risk of electrical

12 fires presented by Defendants' facilities to Plaintiffs' property, to Plaintiffs' neighbors' homes

13 and to other members of the public. Despite such knowledge and despite the availability of

14 protective equipment and system designs that would have eliminated or significantly reduced

15 the risk of loss fi:om an electrical fire, Defendants failed to talce all necessary steps to prevent

16 and avert the risk of electrical arcing, with the end result that the above-described arcing power

17 lines and sparks caused significant, hazardous and damaging electrical fires on and around

18 Plaintiffs' property, bnmiug over two acres of Plaintiffs' connnerciallavender fields and

19 threatening to engulf Plaintiffs , home.

20 43. Defendants had actual or constructive lmowledge of the peril to be apprehended-

21 electrical fires and power surges in and around the high-voltage facilities - and had actual or

22 constructive knowledge that injury to property and persons was probable due to Defendants'

23 conscious failure and disregard to act to avert that peril.

24

25 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

26 (Inverse Condemnation Against Defendant Edison and DOES 1 tll1'ough 5)

27 44. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by this reference paragraphs 1 through

28 12


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

43 of this Complaint.

45. Plaintiffs own a 20-acre property located at 13545 Nightsky Drive in the Santa

Rosa Valley, County of Ventura, California, which included a beautiful and flourishing

commercial lavender farm that prior to the Nightsky Fire covered more than two acres.

46. Plaintiffs are infonned and believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendant

Edison and DOES 1 through 5 are, and at all times mentioned herein have been, authorized to

exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire property for public use pursuant to Public

Utilities Code section 612, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1230.010 et seq., and 1240.010, et

seq., and the California Constitution, Article I, Section 19.

47. Article I, section 19, of the California Constitution provides in part that: "Private

property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation, ascertained by

a jury unless waived, has fIrst been paid to, or into court for, the owner."

48. Plaintiffs suffered actual injury to real property proximately caused by

Defendants' utility facilities as deliberately designed and constructed. Defendants furthermore

pennitted the excessive sag and dangerous condition to remain through inspections. The

design, construction, and maintenance of the sagging utility lines pennitted intercable contact

during windy conditions, which resulted in the disastr·ous 53-acre fIre described hereinabove.

49. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a result of Defendants' conduct constitute

a "taking" for the public good, and as such constitute a "taking" cognizable under the inverse

condenmation law.

50. Even though Defendants are a privately owned public utility, Defendants are

considered a "public agency" for purposes of inverse condenmation law, and transmission of

electrical power and co=unication facilities through Defendants' utility lines constitutes a

"public use" for purposes of inverse condemnation law. See, e.g., Barham v. Southern

California Edison Company (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 744.

51. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants' taking and damaging Plaintiffs'

property for public use, Plaintiffs have suffered loss, emotional distress, and damages in an

13


1 amount to be proven at trial.

2 52. Plaintiffs have requested just compensation from Defendants. However,

3 Defendants to date have neither paid just compensation nor instituted formal eminent domain

4 proceedings regarding the power lines that caused the Nightsky Fire and that pose a continuing

5 risk and threat of further damage and himn. Plaintiffs are entitled to just compensation, and

6 also to prejudgment interest accruing from the date of the taking or danlaging of Plaintiffs'

7 property.

8 53. In addition to recovery of just compensation for Plaintiffs' property wrongfully·

9 taken or damaged, Plaintiffs are entitled to their reasonable costs and attorueys' fees incurred as

lOa result of having to bring this inverse conde1111lation proceeding, pursuant to California Civil

11 Procedure Code section 1036.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violatiolf of Public Utilities Code section 2106 Against All Defendants)

54. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by this reference paragraphs 1 through

43,45 through 48, and 50 through 53, of this Complaint.

55. Public Utilities Code section 2106 provides in part:

"Any public utility which does, causes to be done, or permits any act, matter, or thing prohibited or declared unlawful, or which omits to do any act, matter or thing required to be done, either by the Constitution, any law of this State, or any order or decision of the commission, shall be liable to the persons or corporations affected thereby for a1110ss, damages, or injury caused thereby or resulting therefrom. If the court finds that the act or omission was willful, it may, in addition to the actual damages, award

. exemplary damages. An action to recover for such loss, damage, or injury may be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction by any corporation or person."

56. Defendants and DOES 1 through 5 are public utilities governed by the Public

Utilities Code, as well as by the orders and decisions of the California Public Utilities

Commission (CPUC).

14


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

57. Defendants have caused or permitted or omitted to do certain acts, including but

not limited to the following, that were required to be done by the California Constitution, the

laws of the State of California, and! or the orders or decisions of the CPUC:

(i) excessive sagging by Defendants' utility lines, which greatly exceeded

what is pennitted by safety guidelines, disregarded compliance with the applicable regulations,

industry standards and, in the case of Edison, failed to comply with Edison's own safety

guidelines;

(ii) improper tension (load) between Edison's poles, not in compliance with

applicable regulations, industry standards or Edison's guidelines;

(iii) improper slapping together of the utility lines, causing electrical arcing,

sparks and explosions on Defendants' facilities;

(iv) improper installation, maintenance and repair in allowing the utility lines

to remain in a manner that did not comply with the applicable safety requirements;

( v) improper maintenance and repair of the electrical power insulators or

conductors on Edison's poles;

(vi) the occurrences of "phase to ground faults," relay tripping and phase-to

phase imbalances, indicating the existence of a chronic unfixed hazard;

(vii) [olllitted];

(viii) Defendants pennitted explosions to occur, which ignited a fire that caused

major damage to Plaintiffs' personal and real property and which originated between or near

Edison poles #2ll594lE and #21 1 5943E;

(ix) Defendants failed to take all necessary steps to prevent the Nightsky Fire

despite having prior warnings of the risk of electrical fire due to arcing of Edison's power lines,

24 including wanton disregard of the excessively sagging power lines and at least five other fires

25 in the vicinity of Plaintiffs , property. During the weeks prior to the Nightsky Fire, and even

26 earlier the same day on October 21,2007, Defendants were on notice of electrical fire,

27 electrical arcing, and power surge problems due to electrical explosions on and near other

28 15


1 Edison poles (#2115940E, 2115944E, and 2115945E).

2 (x) Defendants failed to comply with General Order 165 regarding

3 inspection of electrical facilities. Defendants failed to keep the proper brush clearance near and

4 around their utility poles.

5 (xi) Defendant Edison and its managing agents attempted to cover up and

6 provide misinformation regarding the cause of the Nightsky Fire, and refused to pay for the

7 damage and injuries that resulted from the Nightsky Fire.

8 58. Defendants and their managing agents also have done, caused to be done, and

9 permitted the following acts in violation of California law and CPUC orders, including but not

10 limited to: (I) Edison and Time Wamer were in violation of GO 95, Rule 31.1, for allowing an

11 unsafe condition to occur by failing to maintain the required clearance between their facilities;

12 (2) Edison and Time Warner were in violation of GO 95, Rule 38, for failing to maintain the

13 minimum separation between their facilities; (3) Edison was in violation of CPUC Decision 06-

14 04-055, Appendix B, for failing to report this incident, which resulted in property damage

15 exceeding $20,000, to the CPUC within 60 days of its occurrence; and (4) Time Warner was in

16 violation of GO 95, Rule 31.2, for failing to inspect its communication facilities frequently and

17 thoroughly for the purpose of insuring that the utility facilities are in good condition.

18 59. Defendant Edison also improperly delayed reporting the fire and Defendant

19 Edison discouraged the CPUC from COIl11nencing an investigation by providing false

20 info=ation and attempting to cover up Defendant Edison's responsibility for the fire. During

21 the improper delay in incident reporting, Defendant Edison and its managing agents were

22 affinnatively info=ing Plaintiffs and the CPUC that no investigation was necessary because

23 Time Warner had purpOIiedly accepted responsibility for the fire. Defendant Edison and its

24 managing agent, Gregory Greene, attempted to change or tamper with the eyewitness testimony

25 of Lars Rathje regarding the cause of the Nightsky Fire, and provided false infonnation to the

26 CPUC regarding the investigation and comments purportedly made by Plaintiffs, including

27 consciously disregarding Plaintiffs' COImnents to, and regarding, Defendant Edison's prior

28 16


1 explosions and prior notice of electrical fires in the area. This conduct on the part of Edison

2 and its managing agents was willful and part of a concerted pattern and practice of deceit,

3 cover-up and obfuscation designed to shield Edison from claims by Plaintiffs and other

4 landowners and public entities, and to prevent, impede, or delay a CPUC investigation into the

5 causes of the fire that could lay blame on Edison for the Nightsky Fire and potentially lead to

6 regulatory sanctions.

7 60. As a result of Defendant Edison's misrepresentations and misleading

8 comments, Plaintiffs did not obtain compensation for the fire damage to allow for the re-

9 planting and prompt repair of the lavender farm; the CPUC did not open its investigation of the

10 October 21, 2007, Nightsky Fire until April 21, 2009; Plaintiffs had to invest more fmancial

11 and emotional resources to deal with Defendant Edison's efforts to cover-up and deny

12 responsibility for the damage caused by the Nightsky Fire; and the utility lines continue to be

13 maintained in an unsafe m81mer in conscious disregard of the applicable public safety

14 regulations.

15 61. Edison and its m811aging agents acting within the scope of their employment were

16 well aware of the inherent safety risks concerning electrical power lines that are not operated

17 and maintained in accordance with the governing safety stands, including specifically Edison's

18 own safety standards regarding the maximum permitted power-line sag. Edison and its

19 m811aging agents have not only consciously disregarded the safety standards, but also have

20 engaged in a concerted pattern of deceit and cover-up in this case, which has directly caused

21 Plaintiffs damage and hann.

22 62. Plaintiffs seek exemplary d81nages against Defendant Edison and DOES 1

23 through 5, under the express statutory authorization of Public Utilities Code section 2106.

24 63. Plaintiffs also allege that the officers, directors, and/or managing agents of

25 Defendant Edison and DOES 1 through 5, 811d each of them, authorized, expressly or impliedly

26 ratified, participated in, lrnew or should have known, 811d/or were otherwise responsible for, the

27 foregoing willful, wanton, malicious, oppressive and fraudulent acts or omissions by Defendant

28 17

TIIIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 Edison and DOES 1 through 5 as described above in this complaint. Defendant Edison and its

2 managing agents wrongfully and intentionally pelmitted the excessive sagging and continued to

3 provide false infonnation regarding the installation, maintenance and repair of its power lines

4 and the safety hazard created by Defendant Edison, and were guilty of oppression, fraud, and

5 malice in the repeated and conscious disregard of Plaintiffs' rights, health and safety.

6 64. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct described in this

7 Complaint, Plaintiffs suffered loss, damage, and injuries in an amount to be proven at trial.

8

9 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

10 (Trespass by Fire Against All Defendants)

11 65. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by this reference paragraphs 1 through

12 43,45 through 48,50 through 53, and 55 through 64 of this Complaint.

13 66. Plaintiffs moved into the property located at 13545 Nightsky Drive in the Santa

14 Rosa Valley, in the County of Ventura, State of California, in 2001.

15 67. During the time that Plaintiffs owned their property on Nightsky Drive, Plaintiffs

16 plauned, desigued and constructed a large wooden bam on their property. Plaintiffs have also

17 cultivated the land and developed a commercial wooded lavender farm business, including a

18 beautiful and flourishing planting of lavender crops that covered more than two acres of hillside

19 near Plaintiffs' home and bam. The property is also developed for, and intended to be used for,

20 the raising of livestock, including the raising of bees.

21 68. Upon infonnation and belief, Plaintiffs allege that during the entire time that

22 Plaintiffs have owned their property on Nightsky Drive, Defendants have consciously and

23 recklessly disregarded the fact that the utility lines in question have been excessively sagging

24 and have been maintained in the same mauner as they existed at the time of the Nightsky Fire,

25 and even now continue to sag well beyond what is pennitted by the safety standards, thus

26 creating a public safety hazard.

27 69. Defendants' arcing and sparking utility lines resulted in igniting a fire on

28 18


1 Plaintiffs' propeliy, and in the burning and des1ruction of Plaintiffs' property without Plaintiffs'

2 consent and without due regard for Plaintiffs' property.

3 70. Defendants caused the recldess "invasion of fire" onto Plaintiffs' property, which

4 damaged and destroyed Plaintiffs' property.

5 71. Defendants' conduct constituted an unlawful interference with Plaintiffs'

6 property.

7 72. [omitted].

8 73. [omitted].

9 74. Plaintiffs have been harmed by the fire and the continuing threat offire.

10 75. As a result of Defendant Edison's misrepresentations and misleading comments,

11 Plaintiffs did not obtain compensation for the fire damage to allow for the re-planting and

12 prompt repair of the lavender farm; the CPUC did not open its investigation of the October 21,

13 2007, Nightsky Fire until April 21, 2009; Plaintiffs had to invest more financial and emotional

14 resources to deal with Defendant Edison's efforts to cover up and deny responsibility for the

15 damage caused by the Nightsky Fire; and the utility lines continue to be maintained in an

16 unsafe mmmer in conscious disregard of the applicable public safety regulations.

17 76. Edison and its managing agents acting within the scope of their employment were

18 well aware of the inherent safety risks concerning electrical power lines that are not operated

19 and maintained in accordance with the governing safety stands, including specifically Edison's

20 own safety standards regarding the maximUlll pennitted power-line sag. Edison and its

21 mmiaging agents have not only consciously disregarded the safety standards, but also have

22 engaged in a concerted pattem of deceit and cover-up in this case, which has directly caused

23 Plaintiffs dmnage andhann. The conduct of Edison mId its managing agents in the operation,

24 maintenance, failure to properly inspect, and failure to comply with existing safety standards

25 and existing reporting and repair requirements constitutes a conscious or reckless disregard of

26 the high probability of damage and injury to Plaintiffs and the neighboring property owners.

27

28

77. As a direct and proximate resnlt of the Nightsl<y Fire, Plaintiffs have suffered

19


1 loss, damage to Plaintiffs' property, as well as emotional distress, mental anguish, discomfort,

2 and annoyance, all in an amount to be proven at trial.

3 78. [omitted].

4 79. [omitted].

5 80. California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.9 provides that: "In any action to

6 recover damages to personal or real property resulting from trespassing on lands either IDlder

7 cultivation or intended or used for the raising oflivestock, the prevailing plaintiff shall be

8 entitled to reasonable attorney's fees in addition to other costs, and in addition to any liability

9 for damages imposed by law."

10 81. Plaintiffs' property consists of over 20 acres in the rural Santa Rosa Valley, and

11 . in an area zoned with lots designated as open space - 40 acres minimmn. Plaintiffs' property

12 that was damaged did not constitute an urban backyard but rather had a commercial lavender

13 farm of over two acres and associated facilities. Because Plaintiffs' land was under cultivation

14 or was intended or used for the raising of livestock, Plaintiffs are entitled to statutory attorneys'

15 fees and costs under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.9.

16

17 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

18 (Negligence Against All Defendants)

19 82. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by this reference paragraphs 1 tlrrough

20 43,45 tlrrough 48,50 through 53,55 tlrrough 64, and 66 through 77 of this Complaint.

21 83. Defendants had a duty to own, operate, maintain, inspect, repair, and control

22 their facilities and to exercise due care so as to avoid causing h81ID and damage to Plaintiffs and

23 the public. Defendants had a duty to inspect, operate, and maintain their facilities with due care

24 to minilnize the risk of damage to members of the public, such as Plaintiffs, whose property an

25 persons would be in danger from electrical fires resulting from arcing or sparking power lines.

26 84. Plaintiffs are infonned and believe that Defendants were negligent in one or more

27 of the following particulars:

28 20


1 a. In failing to properly inspect and maintain their utility lines to prevent

2 them from sagging and swaying beyond what is permitted by the applicable laws and

3 regulations, including Defendant Edison's own construction guidelines and industry standards.

4 b. In failing to properly inspect and maintain the utility lines to prevent them

5 from slapping together, thereby resulting in arcing and sparks.

6 c. In failing to timely inspect and maintain the utility lines to prevent

7 explosions from occmTing on or near their poles, thereby resulting in fires.

8 d. In failing to respond, including failing to temporarily shut down power on

9 the poles around Plaintiffs' property, after being notified by the Ventura County Fire

10 Department that Edison's lines were arcing and causing fires.

11 e. In failing to protect the public from electrical surges and loss of power by

12 preventing a "phase to ground fault" - i.e., high-voltage CUD'ent (power surge) flowing from

13 Defendant Edison's lines to and down the poles to the earth, which was an electric ground.

14 f. In continuing to use electrical transmission facilities of an outdated design

15 that do not provide the public with the superior protection from the damage of phase-to-ground-

16 faults that is afforded by more modem design systems, e.g., by so-called "multi-grounded

17 neutral" systems.

18 g. In failing to facilitate a prompt and accurate investigation of the Nightsky

19 Fire.

20 h. In failing to take all necessary steps to mitigate and reduce the risk of

21 future fire danger to the Plaintiffs and the public.

22

23 85. Defendants breached their duty to the Plaintiffs and the public by creating a

24 safety hazard and failing to comply with California law and all applicable regulations, industry

25 standards, and Defendants' own guidelines. For example, Defendants have caused or permitted

26 or omitted to do certain acts, including but not limited to the following, that were required to be

27 done by the California Constitution, the laws of the State of California, and/or the orders or

28 21


1

2

3

4

decisions ofthe CPUC:

(i) excessive sagging by Defendants' utility lines, which greatly exceeded

what is pennitted by safety guidelines, disregarded compliance with the applicable regulations,

industry standards and, in the case of Edison, failed to comply with Edison's own safety

5 guidelines;

6 (ii) improper tension (load) between Edison's poles, not in compliance with

7 applicable regulations, indus1:Iy standards or Edison's guidelines;

8 (iii) improper slapping together of the utility lines, causing electrical arcing,

9 sparks and explosions on Defendants' facilities;

10 (iv) improper installation, maintenance and repair in allowing the utility lines

11 to remain in a manner that did not comply with the applicable safety requirements;

12 (v) improper maintenance and repair of the electrical power insulators or

13 conductors on Edison's poles;

14 (vi) the occurrences of "phase to ground faults," relay tripping and phase-to-

15 phase imbalances, indicating the existence of a cln'onic unfixed hazard;

16 (vii) Defendant Edison provided false and misleading infonnation to the CPUC

17 and improperly caused the delay of over a year and half concerning the CPUC safety

18 investigation into the Nightslcy Fire;

19 (viii) Defendants pennitted explosions to occur, which ignited a fire that caused

20 major damage to Plaintiffs' personal and real property and which originated between or near

21 Edison poles #2115941E and #2115943E;

22 (ix) Defendants failed to take all necessary steps to prevent the Nightsky Fire

23 despite having prior warnings of the risk of electrical fire due to arcing of Edison's power lines,

24 including wanton disregard of the excessively sagging power lines and at least five other fires

25 in the vicinity of Plaintiffs' property. During the weeks prior to the Nightsky Fire, and even

26 earlier the same day on October 21, 2007, Defendants were on notice of electrical fire,

27 electrical arcing, and power surge problems due to electrical explosions on and near other

28 22


1 Edison poles (#21 1 5940E, 21 1 5944E, and 2ll5945E).

2 (x) Defendants failed to comply with General Order 165 regarding inspection

3 of electrical facilities. Defendants failed to keep the proper brush clearance near and around

4 their utility poles.

5 (xi) Defendant Edison and its managing agents attempted to cover up and

6 provide misinformation regarding the cause of the Nightsky Fire.

7

8 86. In addition, Defendants also had the duty to comply, and failed to comply, with

9 Califomia law and the following additional statutory rules, regulations and guidelines:

10 (a) California Health & Safety Code sections 13007 and 13008 (despite the prior

11 knowledge of electrical arcing problems in the area, Defendants failed to prevent, and have

12 continued to refuse to take responsibility and pay Plaintiffs for, the damage caused by the

13 electrical fire); and

14 (b) Califomia Public Resources Code sections 4292 (brush clearance around

15 power poles), 4293 (required maintenance of brush and debris clearance for power-line owners

16 or operators), 4421 (prevent causing a fire on Plaintiffs' property absent Plaintiffs' pennission);

17 and 4435 (prima facie negligence for fires originating ii-om machine or device that may kindle

18 fire).

19

20 87. Defendants failed to exercise such due care, and thus negligently owned,

21 operated, maintained, inspected, repaired, and controlled their utility facilities on or near

22 Plaintiffs' property in such a mauner as to directly and proximately cause damage and injury to

23 Plaintiffs. Defendants' failure to comply with the applicable laws and regulations was

24 negligent, and such negligence was the proximate cause of damage to Plaintiffs' and Plaintiffs'

25 property.

26 88. Defendants' negligence in pennitting a hazardous condition to exist, in failing to

27 implement adequate safety precautions to prevent the power surges and electrical fires, and in

28 23


1 failing to take all measures to reduce the risk and prevent the occunence and spread of the

2 electrical power surge and fire damage constitutes negligence per se, and as a direct and

3 proximate result of such negligence on the paJi of Defendants, Plaintiffs suffered daJnage and

4 injury. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiffs were damaged in an

5 aJllount in excess of $400,000, and in an amount that will be proven at trial.

6 89. As a direct and proximate result of the Nightsky Fire, Plaintiffs have suffered

7 damage to Plaintiffs' property, as well as frustration, mental aJlguish, and emotional distress.

8 90. After the Nightsky Fire, Defendants have refused to accept responsibility and

9 refused to make any changes to reduce the public safety hazard regarding the construction,

10 inspection and maintenance of the utility lines.

11 91. Unless aJld until Defendants are enj oined and restrained by order of this Court to

12 maintain, operate, control, repair and inspect their facilities in cOlnpliaJlce with the applicable

13 safety guidelines, rules, regulations, and Defendants' own safety construction standards,

14 Plaintiffs will continue to suffer grave and ineparable injury. Any delay in bringing

15 Defendants' facilities in compliance with said safety guidelines will continue to undermine

16 Plaintiffs' conmlerciallavender business, threaten Plaintiffs' home, diminish the value of

17 Plaintiffs' property, aJ1d cause Plaintiffs to suffer further losses. Moreover, DefendaJ1ts'

18 ongoing conduct will continue to present a safety hazard and daJ1ger to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs'

19 family, aJ1d the neighboring property owners.

20 92. Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief to require Defendants to repair the damage

21 caused by the Nightsky Fire, and to require that Defendants reduce the danger of future

22 electrical fires by bringing Defendants' facilities into compliance with the existing and

23 applicable safety guidelines, including Defendants' own safety construction guidelines.

24

25

26

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Nuisance Against Defendant Edison and DOES 1 through 10)

27 93. Plaintiffs hereby reallege aJ1d incorporate by this reference paragraphs 1 through

28 24

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAJNT

1 43,45 through 48,50 through 53,55 through 64, 66 through 77, and 83 through 92 of this

2 Complaint.

3 94. At all times relevant to this case, Plaintiffs owned, occupied, and operated the

4 above-described property that was damaged by the Nightsky Fire.

5 95. Defendants' conduct-in particular the sagging power lines, continuing problems

6 of electrical arcing and sparks, and providing false infonnation after the fIre--has interfered

7 with Plaintiffs' once comfortable enj oytnent of life and property so as to constitute a continuing

8 nuisance under California law.

9 96. Plaintiffs and the general public have been harmed by the nuisance created by

10 Defendants. Such nuisance was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs' injuries and damages

11 as alleged herein. Defendants are liable for said injuries and damages in an amount to be

12 established at trial.

13

14 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants as follows:

15

16 As to the First Cause of Action for Inverse Condemnation:

17 1. Just compensation in accordance with Title 7, Chapter 9, of the California Code of Civil

18 Procedure section 1263.010 et seq., including but not limited to the fair market value

19 under Code of Civil Procedure section 1263.320 for the real property, personal property,

20 loss of inventory, and interests taken by inverse condemnation;

21 2. Just compensation in the amoIDlt of the reduction in property value as a result of the

22 Nightsky Fire, and the reduced value of the untaken remainder of the property;

23 3. Reimbursement of Plaintiffs' reasonable costs, disbursements, and expenses, including

24 reasonable attorneys' fees, appraisal, and engineering fees, and other permissible costs

25 incurred in connection with Plaintiffs' inverse condemnation action pursuant to

26 applicable law, and California Civil Procedure Code section 1036;

27

28 25


1

2 As to the Third Cause of Action for Trespass by Fire:

3 4. Attorneys' fees and costs incurred as a result of Defendants' trespass and destruction of

4 Plaintiffs' cultivated commercial lavender fann pmsuant to California Civil Procedme

5 Code sections 1021.5, and 1021.9;

6

7 As to the Second (Pub. Util. Code § 2106) Cause of Action:

8 5. Subject to a finding of willful misconduct by Defendant Edison or its managing agents,

9 for exemplary damages as against Defendant Edison and DOES 1 through 5 to the

10 maximum extent permitted by law; and

11

12 As to All Causes of Action:

13 6. For compensatory damages, including economic and emotional distress, discomfort, and

14 annoyance damages to the extent pennitted by law, in an amount in excess of $400,000,

15 to be established at trial;

16 7. For additional damages for Defendants' delay in compensating Plaintiffs, and

17 Defendants' refusal to take responsibility and pay for the cost of repair and damages for

18 the electrical fire and power smges;

19 8. For future economic loss damages and lost revenue in an amount to be proved at trial,

20 including the revenue that Plaintiffs would have gained from harvesting the lavender

21 crop that was bmned in the Nightsky Fire, and the loss ofbusiness due to the Nightsky

22 Fire, and for the continuing threat of fire from Defendants' facilities;

23 9. For statutory damages, penalties, fees, and/or costs recovery under California law,

24 including under California Civil Code section 3346, Code of Civil Procedme section

25 1021.5, and Health & Safety Code sections 13007, 13008, and 13009.1;

26 10. For the interest at the maxirnumlegal rate from October 21, 2007, including but not

27 lilnited to under California Civil Code sections 3287 and 3288, and Plaintiffs' litigation

28 26


1 costs;

2 11. For injunctive relief to require Defendants to repair the damage caused by the Nightsky

3 Fire, and to require Defendants to bring the utility facilities into compliance with the

4 applicable safety guidelines, rules and regulations, including Defendants' own safety

5 construction guidelines; and

6 12. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper, together with

7 interest, costs and disbursements in this action.

8

9 DATED: April 15, 2010

10

11

12

13

14

SULLIVAN TAKETA LLP

Bc:£2~z.~~",-------Donn S. Taketa Attorneys for Plaintiffs

REQUEST FOR JURy TRIAL 15

16 Plaintiffs further request a trial by jury on all issues properly belonging before a jury.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DATED: April 15, 2010 SULLIVAN TAKETA LLP

~~,z.7Z~_ Donn S. Taketa Attorneys for Plaintiffs

27


--------- --- ------- ~~~ -~--- ------

Exhibit 1 to

Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint

Exhibit 2 to


Exhibit 3 to


Exhibit 4 to


"

SPAN

liN. FEET I INITIAL

;;0' 70'

100 0' _ 2H 0' _ 1j If

120 0' _ ~fl 0' - 5"

14-0 0' .... 511 0' ... 611

160 0' _ 611 0' - 7"

180 0' ... ]ll 0' - 10"

200 10 ' - 811 1 ' .. 011

220 1 0 ' - 11" I' - 211

24.0 II' ... 111 I' - 5"

260 1 ' - ~II I' ... 7'1

280 I' - Glf 1 ' - 11"

300 I' ... 811 2' - 211

320 1 ' - II" 2' .. 611

340 2' .. 211 2 ' - 10"

360 2' .. f}1 3' - I"

380 2' - lOU 3' ... 611

, I .. 00 13' ... 21t 3' - 1111

420 3' - 6" I 4' - ~"

440 3' - 1111 ~, ... au 4-50 1 4 '

_ ~1I

5' - 2"

;'BO ~, - 10" 5' - B"

,00 3' - 5" I 6' - ~" GUY "~G

CONDUCTOR TENSIONS fOR GUYING FOR #~ 601, l85. fOR I/O - 1~12 LBS, FOR 3~6.4 - 2846 LBS.

jRev.3-1-78

I I

I

LIGHT LOADING AREAS

STR! NG I NG SAGS liN FEn b

STR IlvG"J NG SAG

90 0 I J D°

0' - 5" 0' .. 711

I 0' - 6" 0' - 10"

0' - 8" I' _ 011

0' - 1111 1 ' - ~II

I' - I" I' " 6"

1 ' - 4" I' - lOU

I 1 ' - 711 2' - 1"

1 ' - I 0" 2' .. 5u

2' - I " 2' " 1011

2' ... 611 " " I" -2' - 1011 3' - bJ1

3' - I" I s' - 1111

3' - 6" 4' - 4"

3' - 1111 I 4' .. 811

~, ... ~II I 5' ... 211

4' - B" :;' ... ]11

5' .. III 6' - I" 1

5' _ .8 11

1 6' - 71!

6' - 2tl 7' - I" 6' _ 811 7' - an

7' _ ~11 B' - 21t

OH SAG CHARTS #L1 - 336 ACS R

iUCHE.S I

FINAL SAG

70' 1:;0"

0' ... 51) 1 ' - 5"

0' .. 7" I' _ 811

0' .. lOt! 2' - a"

I' .. 011 2 ' .. ~II

I' ... 2" 2' _ 811

I' .. 5" 3 ' - 1"

1 ' .. 811 3' .. 511

2' - 0" 3' - 1011

I 2' - .4 II 4' - ZJ1

l' - 7" 4' - 8"

3' .... all 5' - 1"

I 3 j - ~II 5' - 7"

3' - 8" ! 6' - I" I , 4' - I" 16' - 6" , 4' " 6" 17' - 1"

1 5' - QJr 171 - 7"

1 5' .... 511 8' - 1"

1 5 ' - 1FI .B' - 8"

£' .... ,Ii .9' - 2"

7' ..... OJ! 1.9' - 10"

7' - 8J~ 10' - 511

GROUND CLfARAfI(;E

USE 130·F SAGS wtlcN CALCULATI NG CONDUCTOR TO GROUIW CLEARANCES

T\VC058

CO 140 D!SnIBllT10~ CO~Srr.UCTlON ST~ND.l.P.D5 - SOLJthErr. ColHornia !:disonComtJ~nr

1

2

3

(

PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and 4 not a party to the within action; my business address is 31351 Via Colinas, Suite 205, Westlake

Village, California 91362. 5

On April 19, 2010, I caused the foregoing document(s) described as THIRD AMENDED 6 COMPLAINT FOR: (1) INVERSE CONDEMNATION; (2) VIOLATION OF PUBLIC

UTILITIES CODE § 2106; (3) TRESPASS BY FIRE; (4) NEGLIGENCE; AND (5) NUISANCE 7 to be served on the interested parties in. this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a 8 sealed envelope addressed as follows:

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

o

o

o

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

BY MAIL AS FOLLOWS: I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Westlake Village, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am "readily familiar" with the Finn's practice of collecting and processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. It is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of business. .

BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the offices of the addressee(s).

BY OVERNIGHT COURIER: I caused the above-referenced document to be delivered to CALIFORNIA OVERNIGHT for delivery to the above address.

BY EMAIL: I am "readily familiar" with the Firm's practice of collecting and processing correspondence which is sent by email. It is transmitted to the recipient on the same day in the ordinary course of business.

20 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

21

22 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made.

;: ~_Villag"C'lifO_

Doreen Odehnal """" 26

27

28

1

2

( \

3

4

5 Douglas P. Ditonto, Esq.

6 Michael Gonzales, Esq. Brian A. Cardoza, Esq.

7 Richard D. Arko, Esq. 8 Southern California Edison Company

2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Quad B 9 Rosemead, California 91770

SERVICE LIST

10 Attorneysfor Plaintiff Southern California Edison Company

11

12 Ashley R. Leach, Esq. 13 Wilson Elsor Moskowitz

Edehnan & Dicker 14 555 S. Flower Street 15 Suite 2900

Los Angeles, California 90071 16

Attorney for Defendant Time Warner NY Cable LLC 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2010.04.20 #0086 rathje 3rd amended cmpl

Documents