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

1

John Cox (Cal. State Bar No. 197687) john.cox@jcoxlawfirm.com LAW OFFICES OF JOHN COX, P.C. 70 Stony Point Road, Suite 70-A Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Office: 707.241.4567 Noreen Evans (Cal. State Bar No. 102385) nevans@sonic.net Mikal C. Watts (Pro Hac Vice application anticipated) mcwatts@wattsguerra.com Guy Watts (Pro Hac Vice application anticipated) gwatts@wattsguerra.com WATTS GUERRA LLP 70 Stony Point Road, Suite 70-A Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Office: 707.241.4567 Roy E. Miller (Cal. State Bar No. 174821) roy@hansenmiller.com HANSEN & MILLER LAW FIRM 415 Russell Ave. Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Office: 707.575.1040 Attorneys for Petitioners

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA CHAIR OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL

BONNIE CHRISTINE KOVEN, ROBERT HERBERT KOVEN, BRIAN HOYT, TODD AXBERG and APRIL DAWN AXBERG v

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, PG&E CORPORATION, et al, Sonoma County Superior Court, Case No. SCV-261556

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

PETITION FOR COORDINATION

1.0

INTRODUCTION

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

2

1.1 Petitioners Bonnie Christine Koven, Robert Herbert Koven, Brian Hoyt,

Todd Axberg and April Dawn Axberg (“Petitioners”), pursuant to California Code of

Civil Procedure §§ 404 and 404.1 and Rule 3.521 of the California Rules of Court, seek the

coordination of thirty-eight (38) actions arising out of the Tubbs Fire specifically,

pending against Pacific Gas & Electric Company and PG&E Corporation (“PG&E”)

(“Included Actions”) into one proceeding in Sonoma County Superior Court. The claims

in all Included Actions involving the Tubbs Fire specifically include substantially

overlapping facts and legal theories.

1.2 Coordination of the Included Actions involving the Tubbs Fire specifically

in one proceeding will advance the convenience of the parties, witnesses, and counsel

and will promote the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and manpower.

Coordination at this time is appropriate because all Included Actions are in a very early

stage of litigation, each having been filed within the last six weeks.

1.3 Petitioners also request that the Included Actions involving the Tubbs Fire

specifically be coordinated before the Superior Court of Sonoma County. Petitioners

understand that plaintiffs’ counsel in some Included Actions seek coordination of actions

involving the Tubbs Fire together with unrelated actions arising from four other fires—

the Redwood Fire, the Pocket Fire, the Nuns Fire and the Atlas Fire—in the Superior

Court of San Francisco County. Yet the Rule 3.530 factors support coordination of

proceedings involving the Tubbs Fire specifically in Sonoma County, where the damage

from the Tubbs Fire specifically occurred, rather than in San Francisco - hometown of

PG&E.

2.0 NATURE OF THE ACTIONS

2.1 Petitioning Counsel has filed thirteen (13) lawsuits on behalf of 139

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

3

Plaintiffs involving the Tubbs Fire specifically in Sonoma County Superior Court:

• Torrey Cortez Thomas, et al v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, et al; Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-261484, filed November 3, 2017;

• Brett Travis Burton v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, et al; Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-261489, filed on November 3, 2017;

• Summer June Hill v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, et al; Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-261490, filed on November 3, 2017;

• Leo Raymond Callagy, III, et al v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, et al; Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-261536, filed on November 15, 2017;

• Debra Anne Davenport, et al v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, et al; Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-261542, filed on November 16, 2017;

• Clifford Jack Hollenbeck and Inez Hollenbeck v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, et al; Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-261513, filed on November 9, 2017.

• Bonnie Christine Koven, et al v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, et al; Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-261556, filed on November 20, 2017;

• David Tom Clausen, et al v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, et al; Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-261558, filed on November 21, 2017;

• Joshua Carucci, et al v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, et al; Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-261564, filed on November 22, 2017;

• Maria Angelica Reynoso, et al v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, et al; Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-261587, filed on November 29, 2017;

• William Michael Andrews, et al v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, et al; Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-261599, filed on November 30, 2017;

• Paul David Appleton, et al v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, et al; Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-261602, filed on December 1, 2017; and

• Ross H. Bevier, et al v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, et al; Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. [pending], filed on December 1, 2017.

Petitioners seek to coordinate these actions involving the Tubbs Fire specifically with

twenty-five (25) other actions, see Exhibit A, which have only general allegations

concerning “the Wine Country fires,” pending in Sonoma County Superior Court, Napa

County Superior Court, and the Superior Court of San Francisco County, but only to the

extent that these other actions involve the Tubbs Fire specifically, rather than the other

unrelated fires.1 These twenty-five (25) actions are “Included Actions” for purposes of

this Petition only to the extent that they arise from the Tubbs Fire specifically. Petitioners

1 Petitioner notes that PG&E has moved to coordinate cases involving both the Pocket Fire and the Tubbs Fire in Sonoma County, a suggestion to which Petitioner has no objection.

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

4

are aware of additional actions to be filed involving the Tubbs Fire specifically that are

likely to share common questions of fact or law with the Included Actions. Such actions

may be joined via Add-On procedures when appropriate.

2.2 Each of the Included Actions alleges facts arising from the Tubbs Fire

specifically.2 Plaintiffs in all Included Actions allege that the Tubbs Fire specifically was

started when electrical infrastructure and equipment owned, operated, and maintained

by PG&E came into contact with vegetation inspected and maintained by PG&E.3 The

Tubbs Fire began in Napa County, and proceeded south and west into Sonoma County,

burning more than 6,600 homes and business structures, killing 24 persons and injuring

many others in Sonoma County.4 The majority of this damage from the Tubbs Fire

occurred in Sonoma County.5

2.3 Plaintiffs in each Included Action assert causes of action arising from

PG&E’s acts and failures to act, which caused the Tubbs Fire specifically.6 All of the

actions involving the Tubbs Fire include causes of action for negligence and violations of

California’s Public Utilities Code.7 Actions brought by plaintiffs who suffered property

damage include causes of action for inverse condemnation, trespass, and private

nuisance.8 All of the causes of action asserted in all Included Actions arise from

substantially overlapping facts related to the Tubbs Fire specifically.9

2.4 On November 14, 2017, PG&E filed with the Judicial Council its own

Petition for Coordination and Corresponding Memorandum of Points and Authorities. 2 Exhibit C, Decl. of John Cox, ¶ 6. 3 Id. at ¶ 7(a)(ii). 4 Id. at ¶ 7(a)(i). 5 Id. at ¶ 7(a)(iii). 6 Id. at ¶ 7(a)(ii). 7 Id. at ¶ 6. 8 Id. 9 Id.

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

5

PG&E’s Petition also served as a response to the Petition for Coordination filed by certain

other plaintiffs’ counsel in the Included Actions above seeking coordination in San

Francisco.10 As discussed more fully below, PG&E agrees with Petitioners here that cases

involving the Tubbs Fire specifically should not be coordinated in San Francisco. Because

there are at least five different fires with potentially five different causes, PG&E asks this

Council to coordinate the cases in groups in the particular county where each fire

occurred. Petitioners here agree with PG&E. Most importantly, PG&E agrees with

Petitioners here that the Tubbs Fire cases should be coordinated in Sonoma County.

3.0 THE INCLUDED ACTIONS MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CALIFORNIA CODE

OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 404.111

3.1 As set forth above, all of the Included Actions relating to the Tubbs Fire

specifically contain common questions of fact and law. All Included Actions allege

substantially identical facts arising from PG&E’s acts and failures to act, which caused

the Tubbs Fire specifically.12 The causes of action alleged in each Included Action

involving the Tubbs fire specifically are also substantially identical.13 The only differences

arise from the specific damages suffered by individual plaintiffs.14

3.2 The convenience of the parties, witnesses, and counsel, and the need to

preserve scarce judicial resources justify coordination of all Tubbs Fire lawsuits.

3.3 Coordination is also appropriate given the early stage of the Included

Actions involving the Tubbs Fire specifically, with each having been filed within the last

10 PG&E Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Petition for Coordination, filed November 14, 2017 (the “PG&E Petition”). 11 Because all parties who have filed Petitions and/or responses related to these cases agree that they meet the requirements for coordination, Petitioners will not overly belabor the point in light of page limitations. To the extent the Council believes this issue is in dispute, Petitioners here reserve the right to file responses to the other pending Petitions to illustrate further that the requirements of coordination are met. 12 Decl. of John Cox at ¶ 6. 13 Id. at ¶ 7(a)(vi). 14 Id.

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

6

six weeks. Petitioners expect a significant number of similar causes of action involving

the Tubbs Fire specifically to be filed over the next several weeks and months.15

3.4 The burden of having separate litigations on the calendars of different

courts involving the Tubbs Fire specifically also favors coordination.

3.5 In its Petition, PG&E agrees that these cases, and the Tubbs Fire cases

specifically, meet the requirements for coordination.16

4.0 THE INCLUDED ACTIONS INVOLVING THE TUBBS FIRE SPECIFICALLY

ARE COMPLEX17

4.1 As defined by the Judicial Council, a “complex case” is “an action that

requires exceptional judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the

court or the litigants and to expedite the case, keep costs reasonable, and promote

effective judicial decision making by the court, the parties, and counsel.” See Cal. Rules of

Court, rule 3.400(a). In deciding whether actions are “complex,” the trial court must

consider the factors set forth in Rule 3.400(b). Id. at Rule 3.400(b); see also Thayer v. Wells

Fargo Bank, N.A., (1st DCA, 2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 819, 836.

4.2 To begin, the Included Actions involving the Tubbs Fire all flow from the

same mass tort—the Tubbs Fire specifically—and therefore are considered provisionally

complex. See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.400(c)(5).

4.3 The factors enumerated in Rule 3.400(b) also demonstrate the complexity of

the Included Actions involving the Tubbs Fire specifically. First, the case is likely to

include numerous pretrial motions raising difficult or novel legal issues that will be time-

15 Id. at ¶ 10. 16 PG&E Petition at Pgs. 13 – 17. 17 Because all parties who have filed Petitions and/or responses related to these cases agree that they meet the requirements for complexity, Petitioners here will not overly belabor the point in light of page limitations. To the extent the Council believes this issue is in dispute, Petitioners reserve the right to file responses to the other pending Petitions to illustrate further that the requirements for complexity are met.

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

7

consuming to resolve. The fact that there are three pending petitions to coordinate the

Included Actions supports this factor. Second, these cases involving the Tubbs fire

specifically will require the management of a large number (likely thousands) of

witnesses, most, if not all, of whom likely reside in and close to Sonoma County.18 Third,

the Tubbs Fire cases will require the management of a large number of separately

represented parties. There are already 273 plaintiffs represented by twenty-one (21) law

firms in the Included Actions;19 both numbers will grow significantly in the coming

weeks and months. Finally, this case will require coordination with related actions

relating to the Tubbs Fire specifically currently pending and to be filed in Sonoma

County Superior Court, Napa County Superior Court, and the Superior Court of San

Francisco County.

4.4. In its Petition for Coordination, PG&E agrees that these cases, and the

Tubbs Fire cases, are complex pursuant to Section 404.20

5.0 SONOMA COUNTY IS THE APPROPRIATE VENUE

FOR THE COORDINATED PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING THE TUBBS FIRE SPECIFICALLY

5.1 Sonoma County Superior Court—not the County of San Francisco—is the

appropriate site for coordination of the Included Actions involving the Tubbs Fire.

California Rule of Court 3.530 sets forth the factors for the coordination motion judge to

consider when recommending a site for the coordinated proceeding:

• The number of included actions in particular locations; • Whether the litigation is at an advanced stage in a particular court; • The efficient use of court facilities and judicial resources; • The locations of witnesses and evidence; • The convenience of the parties and witnesses;

18 Decl. of John Cox at ¶ 7(a)(viii). 19 Id. 20 PG&E Petition at Pgs. 12 – 13.

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

8

• The parties’ principal places of business; • The office locations of counsel for the parties; and • The ease of travel to and availability of accommodations in particular locations.

5.2 Petitioners understand that plaintiffs’ counsel in some Included Actions—

specifically Robins Cloud LLP, Baron & Budd PC, Singleton Law Firm APC, Dixon Diab

& Chambers LLP, and Edgar Law Firm—seek coordination of these actions and other

unrelated actions concerning unrelated fires—perhaps including the Redwood Fire, the

Pocket Fire, the Nuns Fire and the Atlas Fire—in the Superior Court of San Francisco

County.21 However, the majority of Rule 3.530 factors support coordination of cases

involving the Tubbs Fire specifically in Sonoma County, rather than in San Francisco.

5.3 In fact, PG&E wholly agrees with Petitioners, arguing in its own Petition

that “coordination in counties in which the fires occurred serves the interests of justice.”22

5.4 Indeed, as recognized by PG&E in its own Petition, we are dealing with at

least five different fires with five different origins and potential causes. As PG&E notes, it

makes no sense to dump all cases, no matter the origin or cause, into a single coordinated

proceeding in San Francisco. The fact that at least five different fires are wholly distinct,

with different locations of origin, different ignition sources and different and wholly

distinct propagation footprints is supported by the attached declaration of Michael J.

Schulz, Petitioner’s nationally recognized fire cause and origin expert.23 Mr. Schulz

opines that there were at least five different fires in Northern California, including the

Tubbs Fire, the causes of which are distinct and must be determined individually.24 He

explains, “common questions of fact with respect to one fire have no bearing on common

questions of fact with respect to another of the fires. The factual issues that must be 21 Decl. of John Cox at ¶ 8. 22 PG&E Petition at Pg. 17. 23 Exhibit B, Declaration of Michael J. Schulz. 24 Id. at ¶ 19.

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

9

determined with respect to the cause of the Tubbs Fire, which burned parts of Santa Rosa

and the area north and west of it, for example, are wholly distinct from those factual

issues that must be determined with respect to the cause of the Atlas fire, which burned

areas many miles east of the Tubbs fire, way over in the Napa Valley.”25

1. More Related Actions Are Likely to Be Filed in Sonoma County than in the County of San Francisco.

5.5 To date, seventeen (17) of the Included Actions have been filed in Sonoma

County Superior Court, twenty (20) of the Included Actions have been filed in the

Superior Court of the County of San Francisco, and one (1) of the Included Actions has

been filed in the Superior Court Napa County.26 Notably, ten (10) of the Included Actions

filed in San Francisco have been filed by the same five law firms, which appear to be

working together to seek coordination of these proceedings in San Francisco.27

5.6 Although the number of actions filed in Sonoma County and San Francisco

are similar today, one cannot determine which cases filed in San Francisco relate to the

Tubbs Fire specifically, as opposed to the four other unrelated fires. Moreover,

Petitioners expect a significant number of related actions to be filed in Sonoma County

over the next several weeks and months,28 since there are estimated to be well over 20,000

victims of the Tubbs Fire specifically in Sonoma County alone.29 To its credit, PG&E

agrees the lawsuits of fire victims should be heard where their fire damage occurred.

5.7 In light of these facts, the number of lawsuits filed against PG&E in Sonoma

County involving the Tubbs Fire specifically is expected to grow significantly over the

25 Id. at ¶ 20. 26 Decl. of John Cox. Because it is not stated in Robins Cloud’s petitions which fire its Plaintiffs claim damages from, it is impossible at this time for the Petitioner to determine how many Tubbs fire cases have been filed by this law firm in San Francisco, as opposed to claims filed there with respect to the unrelated Redwood fire, Pocket fire, Nuns fire and Atlas fire. 27 Decl. of John Cox at ¶ 9. 28 Id. at ¶ 10. 29 Id. at ¶ 11.

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

10

next several weeks and months and will outnumber those filed in San Francisco with

respect to “the Northern California fires,” so coordination of the Included Actions with

these future actions involving the Tubbs Fire specifically in Sonoma County is warranted.

2. The Litigation Is at a Very Early Stage in Both Sonoma County and the County of San Francisco.

5.8 Because litigation is at a very early stage in all Included Actions, this factor

does not favor either Sonoma County or the County of San Francisco.

3. Coordination in Sonoma County Would Allow for the Most Efficient Use of Court Facilities and Judicial Resources.

5.9 The Judicial Council’s 2016 Superior Court Statistics show that the most

efficient use of court facilities and judicial resources would be accomplished by

coordinating this proceeding in Sonoma County Superior Court. In San Francisco, for the

fiscal year 2014-15, 4,036 cases were filed “per judicial position”—one of the highest

ratios in the state;30 in Sonoma County, only 3,218 cases were filed “per judicial

position.”31 Likewise, the total number of civil filings in San Francisco—15,577—is far

greater than that of Sonoma County—6,403,32 demonstrating an much higher caseload in

San Francisco than in Sonoma County. Therefore, it would be more efficient and a better

use of judicial resources for this proceeding to be coordinated in Sonoma County.

4. Virtually All of the Relevant Witnesses and Evidence involving the Tubbs fire specifically are Located in Sonoma County.

5.10 The Tubbs Fire specifically, while starting in Napa County, spread south

and west, devastating Sonoma County;33 so virtually all of the relevant victims, witnesses,

30 http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/2016-Court-Statistics-Report.pdf; Decl. of John Cox. 31 Decl. of John Cox at ¶ 14. 32 Id. 33 Id. at ¶ 15.

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

11

and evidence are located in or close to Sonoma County, rather than in San Francisco.34

Courts that have considered this factor have given particular weight to the location

where potential witnesses live and are to be deposed. See, e.g., Corinthian International

Wage and Hour Cases, 2016 WL 6822280 (Santa Clara Cty. Sup. Ct., Oct. 28, 2016). Because

virtually all of the victims of the Tubbs Fire specifically are located in or close to Sonoma

County, coordination of this proceeding in Sonoma County is warranted.

5.11 Further, the infrastructure and equipment owned, operated, and

maintained by PG&E in Napa and Sonoma counties will be key evidence in this litigation

involving the Tubbs Fire specifically. The PG&E employees and contractors who

operated and maintained the relevant infrastructure and equipment,35 eyewitnesses to the

failure of PG&E infrastructure and equipment on the night of the Tubbs Fire

specifically,36 and individuals who reported, and received reports of downed power lines,

exploding transformers, and other equipment failures on the night of the Tubbs Fire

specifically, are each located in and close to Sonoma County.37 Eyewitnesses to the Tubbs

Fire specifically, and to damage caused by the Tubbs Fire specifically, such as first

responders, adjusters, and contractors, will also be key witnesses in this litigation.

Virtually all of these witnesses are located in or close to Sonoma County.38

5.12 Because virtually all of the current plaintiffs, the fire victims, the physical

evidence, and the eyewitnesses involving the Tubbs Fire specifically are located in or

close to Sonoma County, and virtually none in San Francisco, this factor strongly favors

Sonoma County as the appropriate location for coordination of the Tubbs Fire

34 Id. 35 Id. at ¶ 16. 36 Id. 37 Id. 38 Id.

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

12

proceedings.

5. Sonoma County Is the Most Convenient Venue for the Vast Majority of Parties and Witnesses.

5.13 As discussed above, virtually all of the current plaintiffs, the fire victims,

the physical evidence, and the eyewitnesses involving the Tubbs fire specifically are

located in or close to Sonoma County; thus, Sonoma County is thus the most convenient

venue for virtually all them. Courts that have considered this issue have given particular

weight to the location of plaintiffs and potential plaintiffs. See Corinthian, 2016 WL

6822280 (recommending coordination of proceedings in county where the majority of

potential class members lived); Whittenburg v. Ross Stores, Inc., 2011 WL 5901191

(Alameda Cty. Sup. Ct., Aug. 10, 2011) (recommending coordination of proceedings in

county where three of four plaintiffs resided). PG&E agrees that coordinating these cases

in the counties where each particular fire occurred is more convenient for witnesses and

the parties, stating that “it would be prejudicial to plaintiffs . . . to have to travel to San

Francisco . . . to litigate their claims.”39 Petitioners agree with PG&E in this regard.

5.14 To the extent that other plaintiffs’ counsel contend that coordinated

proceedings are better suited for large urban counties such as San Francisco, Petitioners

would show that, since 2005, at least 41 coordinated proceedings have been assigned to

counties other than those four40--including one to Sonoma County in 2002.41 The increased

costs and inconveniences of litigating in a large urban county such as San Francisco may,

in fact, mediate against coordinating a proceeding there.42

5.15 This factor requires the Court to consider the convenience of the parties and the 39 PG&E Petition at Pg. 16. 40 http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/CivilCaseCoord_2005toPresent_JCCPLog.pdf 41 http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/CivilCaseCoordArchive_2004andOlder_JCCPLog.pdf 42 Decl. of John Cox. https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/morning_call/2015/07/san-francisco-most-expensive-hotel-rooms-tourism.html

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

13

witnesses—not the convenience of lawyers choosing to participate in the litigation while

traveling in from offices located out-of-town or out-of-state. This factor certainly does not

justify gerrymandering the venue of the parties’ cases from Sonoma County to a venue

far away from where the tragedy occurred, simply because San Francisco’s airport and

hotels are alleged to be more convenient for out-of-town and out-of-state lawyers.

Representing victims of Sonoma County victimized by the Tubbs Fire specifically

requires selflessness, not selfishness, and the undersigned respectfully submits that the

indulgences of the lawyers is the last factor this Court should consider in deciding

whether to coordinate the Tubbs Fire cases in Sonoma County—where the devastation

occurred—versus San Francisco—where it most decidedly did not.

6. Sonoma County is the Principal Place of Business for Most Parties.

5.16 Plaintiffs in the Included Actions involving the Tubbs Fire specifically, as

well as future plaintiffs in related actions, live and work in or close to Sonoma County.43

Businesses destroyed or forced to close by the Tubbs Fire specifically have their principal

place of business in or close to Sonoma County.44 Likewise, by information and belief,

those entities with which PG&E contracted for tree trimming and equipment

maintenance, which may be related to the cause of the Tubbs Fire, are based in and

around Sonoma County. Accordingly, this factor also weighs in favor of coordination in

Sonoma County.

7. Most Counsel for Plaintiffs in the Included Actions Involving the Tubbs Fire Specifically Are Located in Sonoma County.

5.17 Plaintiffs in the Included Actions involving the Tubbs Fire specifically are

represented by twenty-one (21) law firms.45 Four of these firms have offices in Sonoma

43 Decl. of John Cox at ¶ 20. 44 Id. 45 Id. at ¶ 23.

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

14

County.46 Petitioning Counsel here are located in Santa Rosa.47 The Hansen & Miller Law

Firm and attorney Noreen Evans, both of whom are referring their fire-victim clients to

Petitioning Counsel Cox, are located in Santa Rosa. The Law Offices of John Cox and

Watts Guerra LLP are located in Santa Rosa.48 By contrast, only one of the law firms

representing any of the plaintiffs in the Included Actions has an office in Santa Rosa.49 In

both Whittenburg and Corinthian, the courts considered the location of counsel’s offices as

a key factor in determining where to locate the coordinated proceedings. Whittenburg,

2011 WL 5901191; Corinthian, 2016 WL 6822280. Given the location of all law firms

involved in the Included Actions, there is ample reason to coordinate these proceedings

in Sonoma County and no reason to coordinate these proceedings in San Francisco. This

factor, therefore, likewise weighs in favor of coordination in Sonoma County.

8. Sonoma County Is a Tourist Destination with Ample Options for Travel and Accommodations

5.18 Sonoma County is a tourist destination, with ample options for travel to

and from the area and sufficient accommodations for counsel, parties, and witnesses.50

Because the vast majority of counsel, parties, and witnesses involving the Tubbs Fire

specifically are already located in or close to Sonoma County, the need for travel and

accommodations would be significantly less were the proceedings involving the Tubbs

Fire specifically to be coordinated in Sonoma County rather than in San Francisco. This

factor likewise weighs in favor of coordination in Sonoma County.

9. Additional Factors Mitigate in Favor of Coordinating These Proceedings Involving the Tubbs fire Specifically in Sonoma County

46 Id. 47 Id. 48 Id. 49 Id. 50 Id. at ¶ 22.

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

15

5.19 Sonoma County was just devastated by the Tubbs Fire specifically. In light

of this devastation, coordination of these proceedings involving the Tubbs Fire in

Sonoma County would be valuable to the community.51 These factors, in addition to the

Rule 3.530 factors support coordination of these proceedings involving the Tubbs Fire

specifically in Sonoma County, rather than in San Francisco. As previously discussed,

PG&E agrees with Petitioner that all litigation arising from the Tubbs Fire specifically

should be coordinated in Sonoma County.52

6.0 CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

6.1 WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray that this proceeding and the Included

Actions involving only the Tubbs Fire specifically be coordinated pursuant to California

Code of Civil Procedure § 400, and that the coordinated proceeding be assigned to the

Superior Court of Sonoma County. Petitioners pray for such other and further relief to

which they may be justly entitled.

51 Id. at ¶ 27. 52 PG&E Petition at Pg. 18 (“the cases should be coordinated as follows . . . 2) Northern Sonoma/Napa Fire cases in Sonoma; (3) Central Sonoma/Napa Fire cases in Sonoma.”).

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

16

Dated: December 1, 2017 Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF JOHN COX, P.C. ___________________________ John Cox (Cal. State Bar No. 197687) 70 Stony Point Road, Suite A Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Office: 707.241.4567 Noreen Evans (Cal. State Bar No. 102385) Mikal C. Watts (Pro Hac Vice application anticipated) Guy Watts, II (Pro Hac Vice application anticipated) WATTS GUERRA LLP 70 Stony Point Road, Suite 70-A Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Office: 707.241.4567 Roy E. Miller (Cal. State Bar No. 174821) HANSEN & MILLER LAW FIRM 415 Russell Ave. Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Office: 707.575.1040 Attorneys for Petitioners

EXHIBIT A

  1  

EXHIBIT A INCLUDED ACTIONS

1. Roger Bubel d/b/a Ben & Jerry’s v. PG&E Corp., et al., County of San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CGC-17-562668, filed November 22, 2017; William A. Levin, Laurel L. Simes, Rachel B. Abrams, Megahan E. McCormick, Levin Simes, LLP, 44 Montgomery St., 32nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104; (415) 426-3000; facsimile (415) 426-3001;

2. Charlotte Wood v. PG&E Corp., et al., County of San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CGC-17-562667, filed November 22, 2017; William A. Levin, Laurel L. Simes, Rachel B. Abrams, Megahan E. McCormick, Levin Simes, LLP, 44 Montgomery St., 32nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104; (415) 426-3000; facsimile (415) 426-3001;

3. Monica Udell d/b/a Seasons of Skin Day Spa v. PG&E Corp., et al., County of San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CGC-17-562666, filed November 22, 2017; William A. Levin, Laurel L. Simes, Rachel B. Abrams, Megahan E. McCormick, Levin Simes, LLP, 44 Montgomery St., 32nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104; (415) 426-3000; facsimile (415) 426-3001;

4. Quyen Tran d/b/a Queen Nail Spa v. PG&E Corp., et al., County of San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CGC-17-562665, filed November 22, 2017; William A. Levin, Laurel L. Simes, Rachel B. Abrams, Megahan E. McCormick, Levin Simes, LLP, 44 Montgomery St., 32nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104; (415) 426-3000; facsimile (415) 426-3001;

5. Kristina Olson d/b/a Apples N Carrots Tack v. PG&E Corp., et al., County of San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CGC-17-562664, filed November 22, 2017; William A. Levin, Laurel L. Simes, Rachel B. Abrams, Megahan E. McCormick, Levin Simes, LLP, 44 Montgomery St., 32nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104; (415) 426-3000; facsimile (415) 426-3001;

6. Periliss Estate Vineyards, LLC v. PG&E Corp., et al., County of San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CGC-17-562648, filed November 2, 2017; William A. Levin, Laurel L. Simes, Rachel B. Abrams, Megahan E. McCormick, Levin Simes, LLP, 44 Montgomery St., 32nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104; (415) 426-3000; facsimile (415) 426-3001; William F. Merlin, Jr., Denise Hsu Sze, Stephanie Poli, Merlin Law Group, P.A., 505 Montgomery St., 11th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111; (415) 874-3370; facsimile (310) 229-5763;

7 Perry Butler d/b/a Juslyn Vineyards v. PG&E Corp., et al., County of San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CGC-17-562647, filed November 22, 2017; William A. Levin, Laurel L. Simes, Rachel B. Abrams, Megahan E. McCormick, Levin Simes, LLP, 44 Montgomery St., 32nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104; (415) 426-3000; facsimile (415) 426-3001; William F. Merlin, Jr., Denise Hsu Sze, Stephanie Poli, Merlin Law Group, P.A., 505 Montgomery St., 11th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111; (415) 874-3370; facsimile (310) 229-5763;

8. Gregory Wilson and Christina Wilson v. PG&E Corp., et al., County of San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CGC-17-562458, filed November 14, 2017; Frank M. Pitre, Joseph W. Cotchett, Alisono E. Cordova, Abigail D. Blodgett, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200, Burlingame, CA 94010; (650) 697-6000; facsimile (650) 697-0577; Steven M. Campora, Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood Campora, LLP, 20 Bicentennial Circle, Sacramento, CA 95826; (916) 379-3500; facsimile (916)

  2  

379-3599; Brian J. Panish, Panish Shea & Boyle, LLP, 11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90025; (310) 477-1700; facsimile (310) 477-1699; Michael A. Kelly, Walkup Melodia Kelly & Schoenberger, 650 California St., San Francisco, CA 94108; (415) 981-7210; facsimile (415) 391-6965; Michael D. Green, Abbey, Weitzenberg, Warren & Emery, PC, 100 Stony Point Rd, Suite 200, Santa Rosa, CA 95401; (707) 542-5050; facsimile (707) 542-2589;

9. Frank Jordan and Wendy Paskin-Jordan, et al v. PG&E Corp., et al., County of San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CGC-17-562457, filed November 14, 2017; Frank M. Pitre, Joseph W. Cotchett, Alisono E. Cordova, Abigail D. Blodgett, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200, Burlingame, CA 94010; (650) 697-6000; facsimile (650) 697-0577; Steven M. Campora, Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood Campora, LLP, 20 Bicentennial Circle, Sacramento, CA 95826; (916) 379-3500; facsimile (916) 379-3599; Brian J. Panish, Panish Shea & Boyle, LLP, 11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90025; (310) 477-1700; facsimile (310) 477-1699; Michael A. Kelly, Walkup Melodia Kelly & Schoenberger, 650 California St., San Francisco, CA 94108; (415) 981-7210; facsimile (415) 391-6965; Michael D. Green, Abbey, Weitzenberg, Warren & Emery, PC, 100 Stony Point Rd, Suite 200, Santa Rosa, CA 95401; (707) 542-5050; facsimile (707) 542-2589;

10. Willard Hay and Lyn Anne Hay, et al v. PG&E Corp., et al., County of San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CGC-17-562456, filed November 14, 2017; Frank M. Pitre, Joseph W. Cotchett, Alisono E. Cordova, Abigail D. Blodgett, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200, Burlingame, CA 94010; (650) 697-6000; facsimile (650) 697-0577; Steven M. Campora, Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood Campora, LLP, 20 Bicentennial Circle, Sacramento, CA 95826; (916) 379-3500; facsimile (916) 379-3599; Brian J. Panish, Panish Shea & Boyle, LLP, 11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90025; (310) 477-1700; facsimile (310) 477-1699; Michael A. Kelly, Walkup Melodia Kelly & Schoenberger, 650 California St., San Francisco, CA 94108; (415) 981-7210; facsimile (415) 391-6965; Michael D. Green, Abbey, Weitzenberg, Warren & Emery, PC, 100 Stony Point Rd, Suite 200, Santa Rosa, CA 95401; (707) 542-5050; facsimile (707) 542-2589;

11. Wayne L. Harvell and Jennifer J. Harvell; Del J. Whitehead and Salana M Whitehead; Michael A. Osborn and Cindy R. Osborn; Michael R. Gutierrez; Amalia Ramirez and Antonio Ramirez; Katherine R. Delzell and Skyler H. Delzell; Michael S. Hannis and Terry L. Hannis vs. PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas & Electric Company; and Does I through JOO, inclusive, San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-17-561937. Bill Robbins III, Robert T. Bryson and Kevin M. Pollack of Robins Cloud LLP, 808 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 450, Santa Monica, CA 90401, telephone (310) 929-4200, and Donald S. Edgar of Edgar Law Firm, 408 College Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95401, telephone (707) 799-4090;

12. Pamela Schrock, an individual v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company; PG&E Corporation; and Does 2 through 200, inclusive, San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-17-561983; E. Elliot Adler, Brittany S. Zummer, Adler Law Group, APLC, 402 W. Broadway, Suite 860, San Diego, CA 92101; (619) 531-8700; Dave A. Fox, Courtney Vasquez, Fox Law, APC, 225 W. Plaza Street, Suite 102, Solana Beach, CA 92075; (858) 256-7616; Christopher C. Sieglock, Sieglock Law, APC, 2715 W. Kettleman Lane, Suite 203 #266, Lodi , CA 95242; (209) 712-8814;

  3  

13. Bernard Krause; Katherine Krause; Maria Ballesteros; Maria Sherman; Jose

Ballesteros; Iris Bernal; Patricia Bruno; Alicia Duenas; Elizabeth Hardesty; Kunio Hasebe; Michael Hayes; Mataka Yamada; Lois Smith; Joni Severson; Cindy Magana; Kenneth Simas; Damian Martinez; Jose Martinez; Cameron Wayland; Julain Martinez; James Zalwsky; Marina Martinez; Stephanie Martinez; Linnea Zalwsky; Vanessa Martinez; Shelby Mendonca; Jaime Pena Herrera; Aliyah Rautenberg; Navuah Rautenberg; Sue Remick; William Remick; Anahi Rodriguez; Sophia Rodriguez; Elizabeth Rodriguez-Magana; Marta Rodriguez-Magana; Anastacia Pounds; Christopher Pounds; Graciela Pounds; Lloyd Gross; Irene Mitchell; Jason Mitchell; Loeup Nop; James Rosetti; John Samson; Dominique Samson; Aneal Shah; Lomesh Shah; Ursula Tieber; Daniel Nielson; Lisa Tieber Nielson; Vivien Nielson; James Finn; and Inger Simonsen; Anthony W. Sarto and Terry Lynn Sarto; Pamala Dorsey; Tawni Nard; Clyde Duncan and Christine Duncan; Mark Greene and Francesca Greene; John A. Manolian and Tara K. Manolian; Josephine A. Flemming; Mark Murillo and Oralee Murillo; Robert J Morgan; Robert J Moyes and Gloria C. Neduchal; Shirlene Gilman; Joan Kircher; William St. Pierre and Kimberly St. Pierre vs. PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas & Electric Company; and Does 1 through 250, inclusive, San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-17-562192. Gerald Singleton, Erika L. Vasquez, Amanda LoCurto, Singleton Law Firm, APC, 115 West Plaza Street, Solana Beach, CA 92075; (760) 697-1330; Scott Snmmy (pro hace vice pending), John P. Fiske, Baron & Budd, P.C., 603 N. Coast Highway, Solana Beach, CA 92075; (619) 261-4090, Ahmed S. Diab, Deborah S. Dixon, Robert J. Chalmers II, Dixon Diab & Chalmers LLP, 501 W. Broadway, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101; (619) 354-2662, Terry Singleton, Terry Singleton, A.P.C., 1950 Fifth Avenue, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92101; (619) 239-3225, and John F. McGuire, Jr., Ian C. Fusselman, Brett J. Schreiber, Thorsnes Bartolotta McGuire LLP, 2550 Fifth Avenue, 11th Floor, San Diego, CA 92103; (619) 236-9363;

14. Jack Daniels and Gayle Daniels vs. PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas & Electric Company; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-17-562175. Bill Robbins III, Robert T. Bryson, Kevin M. Pollack, Robins Cloud LLP, 808 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 450, Santa Monica, CA 90401 (310) 929-4200;

15. Evie Marie Green, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Christa Ann-Marie vs. PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas & Electric Company; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-17-562173; Bill Robbins III, Robert T. Bryson, Kevin M. Pollack, Robins Cloud LLP, 808 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 450, Santa Monica, CA 90401 (310) 929-4200;

16. Ulla A. Tandrup; and Lars C. Tandrup vs. PG&E Corporation; Pacific Gas & Electric Company; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, San FranciscoCounty Superior Court, Case No. CGC-17-562246; Bill Robbins III, Robert T. Bryson, Kevin M. Pollack, Robins Cloud LLP, 808 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 450, Santa Monica, CA 90401 (310) 929-4200; Donald S. Edgar, Edgar Law Firm, 408 College Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95401; (707) 799-4090;

  4  

17. Nemesio Ruiz; Sandra Ruiz; Ulysses Ruiz, by and through his Guardian ad Litem,

Nemesio Ruiz; Victoria Ruiz, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Nemesio Ruiz; Diandra Pardo; Adrian Garcia; Armando Ruiz; Carmen Ruiz; Elena Ruiz; Dalia Ruiz; Ciro Ruiz; and Cesareo Ruiz vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company; PG&E Corporation; and Does I through I 00, inclusive, San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-17-562251; Mary E. Alexander, Jennifer L. Fiore, Sophia M. Aslami, Mary Alexander & Associates, P.C., 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1303, San Francisco, CA 94104; (415) 433-4440;

18. Kenny Omlin. an individual; Paula Belden, an individual; and Jordan Heath, an individual vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company; PG&E Corporation; and Does 2 through 200, inclusive, San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No.CGC-17-562320; E. Elliot Adler, Brittany S. Zummer, Amanda J. Wiesner, Adler Law Group APLC, 402 W. Broadway, Suite 860, San Diego, CA 92101; (619) 531-8700; Dave A. Fox, Courtney Vasquez, Fox Law, APC, 225 W.Plaza Street, Suite 102, Solana Beach, CA 92075; (858) 256-7616; Christopher C. Sieglock, Sieglock Law, APC, 1221 Camino Del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 (209) 712-8814;

19. James J. O’Neal and Theresa L. O’Neal v. PG&E Corp., et al., County of San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CGC-17-561997, filed October 19, 2017; Bill Robbins III, Robert T. Bryson, Kevin M. Pollack, Robbins Cloud, LLP, 808 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 450, Santa Monica, CA 90401; (310) 929-4200; Donald S. Edgar, Edgar Law Firm, 408 College Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95401; (707) 799-4090;

20. Robert W. Heidingsfelder and Ann Marie Heidingsfelde; Gene Smith, Sr. and Mary L. Smith; Steven M. Aragon and Kathy L. Aragon v. PG&E Corp., et al., Sonoma County Superior Court Case, Case No. SCV-261436, filed October 24, 2017; Bill Robbins III, Robert T. Bryson, Kevin M. Pollack, Robbins Cloud, LLP, 808 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 450, Santa Monica, CA 90401; (310) 929-4200; Donald S. Edgar, Edgar Law Firm, 408 College Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95401; (707) 799-4090;

21. Valerie Evans, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PG&E Corp., et al., Napa County Superior Court, Case No. 17CV001224, filed October 25, 2017; Michael A. Caddell, Cythnia B. Chapman, Amy E. Tabor, Caddell & Chapman, 628 East 9th Street, Houston, TX 77007; (713) 751-0400; James A. Francis (pro hac vice forthcoming), Francis & Mailman, P.C., Land Title Building, 19th Floor, 100 South Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA 19110; (215) 735-8600;

22. Kevin Berry and Maureen Baumgartner; Laura Graham and Kennedy Graham; Michael Becker and Cheryl Becker; Stephanie Becker; Stephen Becker; Pamela Marie Thompson v. PG&E Corp., et al., San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-17-562172, filed October 27, 2017; Bill Robbins III, Robert T. Bryson, Kevin M. Pollack, Robbins Cloud, LLP, 808 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 450, Santa Monica, CA 90401; (310) 929-4200;

23. Wilson, et al v. PG&E Corp., et al; Sonoma County Superior Court, Case No. SCV-261535; filed November 14, 2017;

  5  

24. Meyer, individually and d/b/a Ravenswood Bernese Mountain Dogs v. PG&E Corp., et

al; Sonoma County Superior Court, Case No. SCV-261534, filed November 14, 2017; Michael A. Kelly, Khaldoun A. Baghdadi, Andrew P. McDevitt, Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenbeger, 650 California Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94408; (415) 981-7210; Frank M. Pitre, Joseph W. Cotchett, Alison E. Cordova, Abigail D. Blodgett, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, San Francisco Airport Office Center, 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200, Burlingame, CA 94010; (650) 697-6000.

25. Taylor Waldon v. v. PG&E Corp., et al; Sonoma County Superior Court, Case No. SCV-261591; Alexander M. Schack, Natasha N. Serino, Law offices of Alexander M. Schack, 16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92127; (858) 485-6535; Stephen B. Murray, Jessica W. Hayes, Murray Law Firm, 650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150, New Orleans, LA 70130; (540) 525-8100.

EXHIBIT B

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

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. SCHULZ IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR COORDINATION

John Cox (Cal. State Bar No. 197687) john.cox@jcoxlawfirm.com LAW OFFICES OF JOHN COX, P.C. 70 Stony Point Road, Suite 70-A Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Office: 707.241.4567 Noreen Evans (Cal. State Bar No. 102385) nevans@sonic.net Mikal C. Watts (Pro Hac Vice application anticipated) mcwatts@wattsguerra.com Guy Watts (Pro Hac Vice application anticipated) gwatts@wattsguerra.com WATTS GUERRA LLP 70 Stony Point Road, Suite 70-A Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Office: 707.241.4567 Roy E. Miller (Cal. State Bar No. 174821) roy@hansenmiller.com HANSEN & MILLER LAW FIRM 415 Russell Ave. Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Office: 707.575.1040 Attorneys for Petitioners

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA CHAIR OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL