HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12131983 - 1.21 CLAIM
BOARD OF SCIPBRVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COLKW, allMFO NIA BMRO ACTION
December. 13 , 1983
Claim Against the County, ) W= TO CLAunw,
Routing Didorsenents, and ) The copy of this docunent mailed to you is your
Board Action. (All Section ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the
references are to California ) Board of Supervisors (Paragraph III, below) ,
Government Code.) ) given pursuant to mvernment Code Sections 913
i 915.4. Please note the "Warning" below.
Claimant: Electronic Circuits , Inc.
Attorney: Law Offices of
Gilbert E . Maines
Address: GSI Building, Suite 2410
39465 Paseo Padre Pkwy
Amount: Fremont, CA 94538-2394
$500, 000. 00 By delivery to Clerk on
Date-:ReMiVqd: November 10, 1983 By mail, postmarked on 11/9 83
I. FRCM: Clerk of the Board of supervisors 70: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted Claim.
DATM: 11/10/83 J.R. C Wc=, Clerk, !_Kell
l� , Deputy
R CalhouA
II. FROM: County Counsel 70: Clerk of the Board of SCK-&nsel
(check one only) N O V 16 1983
( ) This Claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. Martinez. CA 94553
( �) This Claim FAIIS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we .
are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8) .
( ) Claim is not timely filed. Board should reject claim on grourxi that it was
filed late. (§911.2)
^ t : f _21,-O'3 J1OW Be aAUSET, County Counsel, By • yp
u i
III. BOARD OFUM By unanimous vote of supervisors present
( ) This claim is rejected in full.
( ) This claim is rejected in full because it was not presented within the time
allowed by law.
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered
in its minutes for this date.
DA=O: DEC 13 1983 J.R. CMSSCN, Clerk, Deputy
WATOIlJG (Wv't. C. 5913)
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from
the date this notice was persopally delivered or deposited in the mail to
file"a court action on this claim. See dovenment Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of any attorney of your choice in connection
with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so
Immediately.
IV. MM: Clerk o Rn: County Counsel. 2 County AdniniiUaitor
Attached are copies of the above Claim. We notified the claimant of the
Board's action on this Claim by mailing a copy of this docanent, and a
memo thereof has been filed and endorsed an the Board's copy of this
Claim in acoosdanoe with Sections 29703.
DE C I S 1983 J.. R. CQ SON, Clerk, by Deputy
• 106
u
.law, Offer-El A Ttofessional atpotah'on
Of,pp ,
able t �. vlQLI2ES
T•,:evemher fl , 1983
RECEIVEL a
Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors
/Q,
651 Pine Street ( mow I� 3
R.
Martinez , CA 94553 ousON "�'CiEA,o or SUPERVISO
Re: Electronic Circuits, Inc. `
'. '..` 0 i CO. -
l'-
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that I represent Electronic Circuits , Inc. ,
a California Corporation engaged in the manufacturing of printed
circuits. On or about May 6 , 1983 , the Contra Costa County
Sheriff' s Department in serving and enforcing a Writ of Execution
permitted or engaged certain conduct which caused the distruction
of certain property belonging to my client. It is our belief that
that conduct was negligent and that my client is therefore entitled
to compensation for damages. It is our contention that this
negligent conduct resulted in damages to Electronic Circuits, Inc. ,
in excess of $500 ,000. 00.
On May 19 , 1983 , my client was required to, and did seek
protection under Chapter XI of the United States Bankruptcy Act.
At that time any cause of action which then existed as against the
County of Contra Costa and/or the Contra Costa Sheriff' s Department
became the property of the bankrupt estate. As of this date, no
person has been authorized to represent the bankrupt in pursuing
that cause of action.
I am informed that the court is prepared to enter its order
authorizing me, on behalf of the bankrupt, Electronic Circuits,
Inc. , to proceed in State Court with the enforcement of its legal
rights. This letter is to inform you that at such time as the
court signs such an order, I will be filing a claim pursuant to
§§900 et seq. , of the California Government Code. If you would
like to discuss this matter prior to receiving such a claim, please
advise.
Very co ia`ily,
-''&L-BERT E. MAINES, ESQ.
GEM:prc
cc: Leeds Disston, Esq.
GM BUILDING, SUITE 2410 • 39465 PASEO PADRE PKWY • FREMONT, CA 94538-2394 • (415) 657-4830 -107
CLAIM
BOARD OF S[TPERVI9ORS OF C otn?A COSTA CXX7:117Y, GALE ORNIA BOAM ACTION
Claim Against the County, ) WXE TO CLAIM ANN December .13 , 1983
!muting Endorsements, and ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your
Board Action. (All Section ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the
references are to California ) Board of Supervisors (Paragraph III, below) ,
Government Code.) ) given pursuant to awer ment Code Sections 913
& 915.4. Please note the "Warning" below.
County Counsel
Claimant: Ferguson & Wollman, Inc NOV 7 683
Attorney: Moore, Clifford, Wolfe. Larson, & Trutner
201 - 19th street Martinet�CA 9553
Address: Oakland, CA 94612
Amount: Unspecified Vi County Addmmi istrator
Byelivery to Cleric on Unknown
Date'Received: By mail, postmarked on
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 70: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted
DATED: 11/7/83 J.R. OISSON, Clerk, By u Deputy
e y . i,a oun
II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
(Check one only)
(,XI This Claim amplies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2.
( ) This Claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we
are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8) .
( ) Claim is not timely filed. Board should reject claim on ground that it was
filed late. (§911.2)
LIATED: JOHN Be CLAUS N, County Counsel, By • Deputy
III. BOAFO ORDER By unanimous vote of Supervisors pre t
(,,-I< This claim is rejected in full.
( ) This claim is rejected in full because it was not presented within the time
allowed by law.
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Corder entered
in its minutes for this date.
DEC 13 1983 J.R. aLssoN, clerk, . Deputy,
191MIIJG (Gov't. C. 6913)
Subject to certain omeptions, you have only six (6) months from
the date this notice was persoDally delivered or deposited in the mail to
file-a court action an this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of any attorney of your choice in =v*ction
with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so
3mnedi ately.
IV. FRONT: Clerk of the Board T0: County Counsel, 2 Cmumty strator
Attached are copies of the above Claim. We notified the claimant of the
Board's action an this Claim by mailing a copy of this document, and a
mono thereof has been filed and erxbrsed on the Board's copy of this
Claim in accordance with Section 29703. 108
L1ATID: DEC 1 31983 J. R. Cl.SSON# .C1erk# by Deputy
I MOORE, CLIFFORD, WOLFE, LARSON & TRUTNER
A Professional Corporation
2 201 - 19th Street
Oakland, California 94612 ' L
3 (4 15) 444 6800 D
4 Attorneys for Ferguson & Wollman, Inc. h JV 7 1983
5 J. R. OLSSON
CLE OARD OF SUPERVISORS
T A C .
6 B +G �Yl..........De U
7
8 CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY
9 Ferguson & Wollman, Inc. hereby makes claim against
10 County of Contra Costa for indemnity in a sum yet to be deter-
11 mined.
12 Claimant' s post office address is 200 Gregory Lane,
13 Pleasant Hill, California 94523.
14 Notices concerning the claim should be sent to
15 Moore, Clifford, Wolfe, Larson & Trutner , 201 - 19th Street,
16 Oakland, California 94612.
17 Claimant was served with summons on a cross-complaint
18 in an action known as Cork Harbor Company v. J. Arthur White
19 Company and related cross-actions, Action No. 224 922 in the
20 County of Contra Costa. This claimant was served with the
21 summons on a cross-complaint on or about August 20 , 1983.
22 The circumstances giving rise to the claim are as yet unknown
23 by this claimant other than as set forth in the cross-complaint
24 referred to herein filed by Happy Valley Estates Homeowners '
25 Association on' August 12 , 1983.
26
LAW OFFICES OF
MOORE. CLIFFORD, WOLFE• LARSON & TRUTNER (�
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION t�
1 Claimant is uncertain as to the amount of damages
2 but contends that if claimant is found to be liable for any
3 damages claimed by any party in the lawsuit, that said damages
4 are the responsibility in total or in part of County of Contra
5 Costa, based on equitable indemnity and comparative
6 contribution.
7 The names of the public employees causing claimant' s
8 damages are unknown.
9 Dated: 2-� �
10 MOORE, CLIFFORD, WOLFE,
LARSON & RUT/'R
11
12 By ;i
i
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-2-
LAW OFFICES OF
MOORE. CLIFFORD. WOLFE. LARSON & TRUTNER 110
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1
{
• CLAIM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF C MaTiA COSTA CCy:TY, CALIFORNIA BOARD ACTION
Claim Against the county, TO CLAIF'MW December 6, 1983
Routing Endorsements, and ) The copy of this document maiM to you is your
Board Action. (All Section ) rotice of the action takes: on your claim by the
referenoes are to California ) Board of Supervisors (Paragraph in, below) ,
Gbverrment Oode.) ) given pursuant to Q nmmrent Code Sections 913
G 915.4. Please rote the "Warning" below.
Claimant: Mae Lee, 813 Liberty Street , E1 Cerrito, CA 9+530
Attorney:
Address: -
Amount: $451. 04
By delivery to Clerk on
Date'Received: November. 4, 1983 By mail, postmarked on
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted Claim.
DATED: 11/4/83 J.R. CI SSO N, Clerk, By �� IL Deputy
e 4ye y . Calftoun
II. FROM: County Cb To: Clerk of the Buard of Supervisors
(Check one only)
This Claim oomplies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2.
( ) This Claim FAnS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we
are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.6) .
( ) Claim is not timely filed. Board should reject claim on ground that it was
filed late. (5911.2)
DATED: JOW B. t LMM, County Counsel, By. , Deputy
II BOARD ORDER By unanimous, vote of Supervisors present
( This claim is rejected in full.
( ) This claim is rejected in full because it was not presented within the time
allowed by law.
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered
in its minutes for this date.
DATED:KC 1 1983 J.R. OWSON, Deputy
UNRNIM (Gov't. C. 5913)
Subject to certain e�ooeptions, you have only six (6) months from
the date this notice was personally delivered or deposited in the mail to
file-a court action on this claim. See Qaverr neat Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of any attorney of your choice in oonmection
with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so
immediately.
FROM: Clerk o county Counsel,, County Administrator
Attached are copies of the above Claim. We notified the claimant of the'
Board's action an this Claim by mailing a copy of this document, and a
mC no thereof has been filled and endorsed on the Board's of this .�
Claim in with Section 29703.
aAT�: DEC 131983 Jr. R. MSSON, ,
r
1 -
October 24, 1983
FILED
NOVA/,1983
TO: Contra Costa County - Martinez
FROM: Mae Lee RA'. . oLSSON
CLERK RD OF SU RV QRS
RE: Claim for reimbursement of auto repair c
By--
The accident occurred October 22, 1983, approximately 6:00 pm on San Pablo Dam Rd
in Orinda, in front of the East Bay Mud Plant.
I was driving, with 2 more passengers in the car, Northbound frcm Orinda towards
El Sorbante on San Pablo Dam Rd. The weather conditions were good. As we were
driving along, there is a part on the road were there is a curve. A little beyond
where that curve is, there was sane kind of construction work that someone was
apparently working on in the middle of the road, maybe earlier that day or the day
before. There were NO signs posted warning oncaning motorist that there was any
kind of work being done to the road or a barrier in front of the hole which a
a steel plate was carelessly dropped on top of the hole. We didn't see the steel
plate, which had fallen already half-way into the ground, until we were right up
to the plates and by then it was too late to go around or do anything except to
go right over it.
Apparently the plate was already wobbling loose as other cars went through it. The
point is that the construction work done by the construction workers was badly
done and it was a safety hazard for all motorist.
As I tried to avoid driving over the steel plate, but it was too late. It instantly
flattened my tires, wrecked my two runs and did alot more damage as I later found
out fran the auto shop. I have taken my car to the shop and attached is the
estimate of what it would cost to have my car repaired and I would like to have
this reimbursed.
Therefore I am claiming for the damages on my vehicle to have my car fix.
Many people could have gotten hurt or cars could have fallen in into the hole
due to the fact of carelessness and negligence of the construction workers hired
by either the county or the city and the safety of all motorists were jeopordized.
I do have witnesses if in any case they are needed to be questioned. We were not
the only car that got into this accident, the car that was behind us was also
damaged too.
By the way, after the accident one of the witness found a street barrier and placed
it up near where the work was being done. If this was done so before, this
accident and other accidents probably could have been avoided.
WITNESSES: Bob Fields (The car that was behind me who also damaged his car.)
415-237-3761
Esther Lavis
415-254-3318
Officer Chillew (The officer who was on the scene)
My address is 813 Liberty St. , El Cerrito, CA 94530. 415-527-3489.
112
srwrrE s*Is,EsTIQtATED 3tepair' -
' Automotive Service .
Q TUNE UP _ WHEL_ALIGNMENT
Union Ri T pam t Ornia
,t $RAKES AIR MN" TKWMG - (w„ "
• y of California
. ni -
LJ T-� ,•
-
;:n1bTO,.tER'S NAME
; E t ! DIVER - DATE DA:i R';;U4M=AND S.S.loo.
C WILL CALL ('-� 3 �.+.5�_S4Y UNI-oh76IMS
DRESS MAKE q w0oEL TE" ttnAm An.
I �l� 1 I20 'PEW EY, CASF.S417-Ir
CITY P«DNE - .ENSE cDOMETER
.r,
0S 7 PAR S AND L.* R REQUIRED PART w o. • %UN'TS PAR-AM:,UK7. LABOr.AMC-JN'
-7 Cif 1�1
� I
I
I
R!Z4.w
j t
"1 t
I
ALL PARTS REIAOVE-C WILL BE D DIS-CARDED � SAVED j 1
rER=Bt' A7HD=UZE THE ?_;z=JRN.ANCf OFITHMAY VVE SUGGES'SNOT INCLUDE)IN ESTjY AM I
k3^•'E WDPK Da;?NE VEml:-'-E 1DENTIF10 TOTAL LABOR Z L
EEF-=._ANY A=D'IDN A L E X Z E N SE K IN S:;�REL•
R=HALF W N'RrEN OR. 'LhA: Z.OIrSEN' WI
0='AINED.
US'D•!_3'S SlGNA?URE TOTAL PARTS i I
SALES TAX
fW S OnM 1�
i ems'?=�:'A."}!,R: f�L�RTi�.x:5 D�Tii:J.SO✓t BE "_?R+�= Z:' O TKEM .OFF �iE SE-
�TRTi O•'i PRZ-v'!4—_.S. - _ Ta:A'I.Ea�TMATE'
i
Tyc Aa�Y=AU`�.?M;i?SL=��L•PY 1'Vn�'H=-
i•Er'F=^.?ME'U AC1`D.itML- :G b'ATE
AIR F3F w_TLalk
::;D�7•,4A. ��A7.R!CST rTEC-tAWS=4:.'TH7P.iZA", VN> INP J/+ 0 .0!'s41QNE p~
'P. ;,.N A.-.sc=.JNG - a'+4Tf J�E ._ a'7EA:xT.'S SIJNa.7UFrt
Dav�..r<c r=�.sr.•�errrEx aas.a. - - .. - � -�•.
- - r'
CLAIM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF C07M COSTA COU"TY, CALIFO OM BDAFO ACTION
Claim Against the County, ) WrE 70 CZ.Anwn December 13, 1983
lmutinq &dorsements, and ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your
Board Action. (All Section ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the
references are to California ) Board of Supervisors (Paragraph III, below) ,
Government Code.) ) given pursuant to Government Code Sections 913
& 915.4. Please note the "Warning" below.
Claimant: City of Lafayette
Attorney: George W. Pfeiffer
Stoddard Lepper & Falco -
Address: 1601 North California Blvd
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Arrant: Unspecified
By delivery to Clerk on
Date'Paoeived: November 9, 1983 By mail, postmarked on November 8 . 19 8 3
I. FROM: Clerk of the Ward of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attadzed is a copy of the above-noted Claim.
DATED: 11/9/83 J.R. QZ.SSON, Clerk, By , Deputy
Kell R. Calhoun
II. FROM: County Cb TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
(Check one only)
V) This Claim ==plies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2.
) This Claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we
are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8) .
( ) Claim is not timely filed. Board should reject claim on ground that it was
filed late. (5911.2)
DATED: U JOHN B. C LALq=, County Counsel# By • Deputy
II. BOAFO CF42 R By unanurous vote of Supervisors present
( ) This claim is rejected in full.
( ) This claim is rejected in full because it was not presented within the time
allowed by law.
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered
In its minutes for this date.
DATED: j 193 J.R. aLssaJ, clerk,
���/��Deputy
WARNING (Gov't. C. 5913)
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from
the date this notice was personally delivered or deposited in the mail to
file-a court action on this claim. See Gwenment Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of any attorney of your choice in connection
with this matter. If you went to consult an attorney, you should do so
immediately.
FROM: Clerk of U9 Board TO: County Counsel, 2 County st=ator
Attached are copies of the above Claim. We notified the claimant of the
Board's action on this Claim by mailing a copy of this document, and a
Ferro thereof has been filed and endorsed on the Board's copy of this
Claim in accordance with Section 29703.
DMED:AE J. R. C LS.SM, Clerk, 4
1�
FILEN
DATE: November 8 , 1983 NOV /' 1983
TO: Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa CountyR. o�550N
ACL .
UPERVISORS
A F
651 Pine Street B
Martinez , California 94553
SUBJECT: CLAIM FOR INDEMNITY AND CONTRIBUTION
Pursuant to §§ 900 et seq. of the California Government
Code,
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a claim for indemnity and contri-
bution is hereby made by the CITY OF LAFAYETTE against CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY.
CLAIMANT: CITY OF LAFAYETTE
NOTICES: Notices are to be sent to GEORGE W. PFEIFFER, Stoddard,
Lepper & Falco , 1601 North California Boulevard, Walnut Creek,
California 94596.
OCCURRENCE GIVING RISE TO CLAIM:
HARRY LOCKLIN, LYNN and SUSAN WORTHINGTON, AARON and CAROL
JOHNSON, HAL and FRAN MARSH, MAO and DORIS LIN, ED and EDE DONNELL,
STANLEY and CATHYANN SIZELER, and GEORGE LATTER are homeowners in
the CITY OF LAFAYETTE who reside at addresses listed in a Complaint
they filed on September 13 , 1983. (A copy of the Complaint is attached
to this claim. ) Plaintiffs allege that they have experienced
extensive landslide damage to their land within the last three
years . , The landslide damage to their land threatens to further
damage the structural integrity of plaintiffs ' property.
IDENTITY OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES:
At this time, the CITY OF LAFAYETTE does not know the name (s)
of the public employee (s) causing the damage.
115
ti
DAMAGES/INJURIES :
Plaintiffs allege in their Complaint that they have
experienced extensive landslide damage to their land. Furthermore ,
the structural integrity of the property has been damaged and is
subjected to further damage. In addition to the property damage,
Plaintiffs seek reasonable attorneys ' fees . Plaintiffs state in
their Complaint that compensatory damages at this time are unknown.
The CITY OF LAFAYETTE seeks indemnity and contribution from CONTRA
COSTA COUNTY.
DATED: Nov. STODDARD, LEPPER & FALCO
J
w. PFEIFFER
v_ s for Claimant
LAFAYETTE
-2-
116
1 - 068/32
1 PHILIP L. PILLSBURY, JR. LS D
PILLSBURY & WILSON
2 600 Montgomery St. , 44th Floor SEP 13 1983
San Francisco, CA 94111
3 Telephone: (415) 433-8000 ,!. 1�. OLSSON, County Clerk
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
4 Attorneys for Plaintiffs t`%' x1
j.
LOCKLIN, LYNN WORTHINGTON, 1.,
Coker, t_eouty
5 SUSAN WORTHINGTON, AARON JOHNSON,
CAROL JOHNSON, HAL MARSH, FRAN MARSH,
6 MAO LIN, DORIS LIN, ED DONNELL, EDE
DONNELL, STANLEY L. SIZELER, M. D. ,
7 CATHYANN L. SIZELER and GEORGE LATTER
8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFRONIA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
10 HARRY LOCKLIN, LYNN WORTHINGTON, SUSAN )
WORTHINGTON, AARON JOHNSON, CAROL )
11 JOHNSON, HAL MARSH, FRAN MARSH, ) 25135 9
MAO LIN, DORIS LIN, ED DONNELL, ) No.
12 EDE DONNELL, STANLEY L. SIZELER, M.D. , )
CATHYANN L. SIZELER and GEORGE LATTER, )
13 )
Plaintiffs , ) C014PLAINT FOR
14 ) INVERSE CONDEMNATION;
V. ) NUISANCE; NEGLIGENCE;
15 ) TRESPASS TO REAL
CITY OF LAFAYETTE, COUNTY OF CONTRA ) PROPERTY; AND FOR
16 COSTA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANS- ) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
PORTATION, BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT )
17 DISTRICT, CENTURY HOMES DEVELOPMENT )
CO. , THE HAROLD SMITH CO. , INC. , )
1S DOES 1-50 , )
19 Defendants . )
20
Plaintiffs allege:
21
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
9.) '
yJ Plaintiffs
23
1 . Plaintiffs are homeowners in the City of Lafayette,
24
County of Contra Costa , State of California , who reside at the I
25
following addresses : i
26
(A) HARRY LOCKLIN: 956 Reliez Station Lane '
27 Lafayette , CA 94549
2S // _ 117
I (B) LYNN & SUSAN 955 Kelley Court
WORTHINGTON: Lafayette , CA 94549
2 (C) AARON & CAROL 989 Kelley Court
JOHNSON: Lafayette , CA 94549
3 (D) HAL & FRAN 995 Kelley Court
MARSH: Lafayette , CA 94549
4 (E) MAO & DORIS 981 Kelley Court
LIN: Lafayette , CA 94549
5 (F) ED & EDE 975 Kelley Court
DONNELL: Lafayette , CA 94549
6 (G) STANLEY L.
SIZELER, M.D. 3172 Bradena Lane
7 and CATHYANN L. Lafayette , CA 94549
SIZELER:
8 (H) GEORGE LATTER: 943 Kelley Court
Lafayette , CA 94549
9
10 .-2. At all material times herein, said homeowners
11 owned certain real property, situated adjacent to Reliez Creek in
12 the City of Lafayette.
13 Defendants
14 3. At all material times herein, the Defendant, CITY
15 OF LAFAYETTE, and DOES 1-5 , were public entities within Contra
16 Costa County, State of California.
17 1' 4 . At all material times herein, Defendant, CALIFORNIA
18 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, an agent of the Defendant, STATE OF
19 CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, and DOES 6-10 , were the
20 developers , designers , builders , owners , and maintainers of State
I
21 Highway No. 24 , and Old Tunnel Road running in a generally
22 easterly and westerly direction through Contra Costa County, and
23 ! Pleasant Hill Road, running in a generally northerly and
24 , southerly direction in Countra Costa County. i
25 , 5 . At all material times herein , the COUNTY OF CONTRA
26 COSTA was and is a public entity which, Plaintiffs are informed
27 and believe, and thereon allege , was the predecessor in interest
2S to the CITY OF LAFAYETTE and DOES 1-5 with respect to the
118 ;
1 planning, development, construction, ownership, and maintenance
2 of that part of the CITY OF LAFAYETTE' S storm drainage system
3 known as Reliez Creek.
4 ` 6 . At all material times herein, Defendant, BAY AREA
5 RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, a governmental entity , and DOES 11-15 ,
6 owned, constructed, designed, developed, and maintained a rapid
7 transit right of way running in an easterly and westerly
8 direction through Contra Costa County, State of California.
9 ,7. At all material times herein, CENTURY HOMES
10 DEVELOPMENT CO. , THE HAROLD SMITH CO. , INC, and DOES 16-25, were
11 the designers, developers, builders, and maintainers of certain
12 lots upon which Plaintiffs ' homes are situated in . the City of
13 Lafayette.
14 --8. Plaintiffs have no knowledge of the true names of
15 DOES 1-50 and so make their claims against them using said
16 fictitious names. In the event that said identities are
17 discovered, Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to assert their
18 true names and identities, together with other appropriate
19 charging allegations.
20 . 9. At all material times herein , Plaintiffs are
21 informed and believe and thereon allege that all Defendants,
2? including DOE Defendants, were and are agents and employees of I
2J each and every other Defendant, including DOE Defendants , and
24 that each was acting in the course and scope of its employment �
25andagency with every other Defendant, with respect to each of
26 the allegations in this Complaint.
27 10. Within three years last past, Plaintiffs , and each
2S of them, have experienced extensive landslide damage to their
11
1. land, particularly those portions of their land adjacent to
2 Defendants ' storm drainage system, which includes portions of
3 Reliez Creek. Said extensive landslide damage has damaged their
4 real property, and has damaged, and threatens to further damage,
5 the structural integrity of their real property.
6 x.11 . At all material times herein, Defendants, and each
7 of them, have designed, developed, constructed and maintained a
8 storm drainage system in and about the City of Lafayette, which
9 system comprises pipelines , culverts , trenches, sewers, runouts,
10 and waterways, including those portions of Reliez Creek adjoining
11 Plaintiffs ' real property.
12 . 12. At all material times herein, Defendants, and each
13 of them, have failed to maintain their storm drain system so that
14 waters coursing through said drainage system have extensively
15 eroded Plaintiffs ' real property, triggering landslides which
16 have damaged Plaintiffs ' real property and which now threaten the
17 stability of the remaining portions of Plaintiffs ' real property.
18 - 13. At all material times herein, Defendants , and each
19 of them, designed said drainage system so as to use Reliez Creek l
20 as part of the overall storm drainage system for Defendants, and
21 those portions of Highway 24 , Pleasant Hill Road & Old Tunnel
22 Road and the Rapid Transit right of way within the Lafayette
23 watershed. The damage hereinabove set forth to Plaintiffs ' real
i
24 i property, by landslide, was proximately caused by the use of said !
i
25 I public improvement, namely, said storm drainage system.
26 14 . Said damages constituted actual physical injury to I
27 real property proximately caused by the improvement as
2S deliberately designed and constructed.
-y- 12,
1 15. At all material times herein, Plaintiffs have
2 suffered diminution in value in their real property in an amount
3 to be shown at trial .
4 •.16. At all material times herein, Defendants, CENTURY
5 HOMES DEVELOPMENT CO. , THE HAROLD SMITH CO. , INC. , and DOES
6 16-25, constructed, prepared, designed, filled, compacted, and
7 otherwise altered and formed Plaintiffs ' real property.
8 1-` 17. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon
9 allege, that at all material times herein, said Defendants,
10 CENTURY HOMES DEVELOPMENT CO. , THE HAROLD SMITH CO. , INC. , and
11 DOES 16-25 , failed to use reasonable care in the design,
12 construction, filling, compaction, alteration and forming of
13 Plaintiffs ' real property, proximately contributing to the
14 landslides which now have damaged Plaintiffs ' real property.
15 18 . At all material times herein, Plaintiffs are
16 informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants, CITY OF
17 LAFAYETTE, and DOES 1-5, accepted said improvements by
18 Defendants, CENTURY HOMES DEVELOPMENT CO. , THE HAROLD SMITH CO. ,
19 INC. , and DOES 16-25, notwithstanding that said improvements were
20 improperly and negligently done , and, further, THE CITY OF
21 LAFAYETTE, and DOES 1-5 , accepted Reliez Creek as an easement and
22 part of the City of Lafayette ' s storm drainage system.
i
21 19 . Plaintiffs have heretofore filed a claim against
24 the CITY OF LAFAYETTE and other Defendants for Inverse
25 Condemnation, for Negligence , for Nuisance , and for Trespass to
26 Real Property. Defendant, CITY OF LAFIAYETTE and the other !
27 Defendants hereinabove have failed and refused to honor those i
28 claims heretofore filed by Plaintiffs , all to Plaintiffs '
i
-5- 121
I continuing damage.
2 20. At all material times herein, Plaintiffs, and each
3 of them, have petitioned and requested the appropriate public
4 authorities , including the Defendants named hereinabove, for
5 appropriate relief from the storm drainage system, which
6 continues to cause erosion, and thereby landslides , on
7 Plaintiffs ' real property, thus causing them to be singled out to
8 carry the entire destructive burden of Defendants ' storm drainage
9 system.
10 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - INVERSE CONDEMNATION
AGAINST THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE; COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA; THE BAY
11 AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT; THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AND DOES 1-15 .
12
13 21 . Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 1-20 of the General
14 Allegations and incorporate them by reference as though here
15 fully set forth.
16 22 . At all material times herein, Plaintiffs , and each
17 of them, had a fee interest in their real property, as
18 hereinabove set forth.
19 23 . At all material times herein, the CITY OF
20 LAFAYETTE, and DOES 1-5 , the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, the
21 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, and DOES 6-10, and the
29 BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, and DOES 11-15 , planned,
93 designed, approved, constructed, owned, operated and maintained I
24 for public use , a storm drainage system adjoining Plaintiffs '
i
25 real property.
I
26 24 . Plaintiffs ' real property was taken or damaged,
27 thereby suffering diminution in value , by virtue of landslides
2j proximately caused by erosion , which resulted from said
_6_ 122
1 Defendants ' use of their storm drainage system.
2 25. Plaintiffs, and each of them, have suffered direct
3 and peculiar and substantial burden as a result of said
4 Defendants ' activities with respect to their storm drainage
5 system, and have, in effect, been singled out to suffer the
6 detrimental environmental effects of said Defendants ' said use of
7 its storm sewer and drainage system.
8 26 . Defendants ' use of their storm drainage system is
9 a "public use" within the meaning of Section 14 of the California
10 Constitution because it is a use which concerns the whole
11 community or promotes the general interest in its relation to any
12 legitimate object of government.
13 27 . At all material times herein, Plaintiffs, and each
14 of them, have suffered damage to their real property , including
15 diminution in value, in an amount to be shown at trial.
16 28. At all material times herein, Plaintiffs , and each
17 of them, have paid reasonable attorneys fees to various
18 attorneys , including those now prosecuting this action , and
19 Plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of reasonable attorneys fees
20 arising out of this action, in an amount to be shown at trial .
21 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, and each of them, pray damages
22 against Defendants , and each of them, as hereinafter set forth.
23 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION-NUISANCE
(AGAINST CITY OF LAFAYETTE, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, BAY AREA +
24 RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, AND THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTI-LENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, AND DOES 1-50)
25
26 29. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference Paragraphs
27 1-20 of the General Allegations and incorporate them by reference
2S as though here fully set forth. _ r
-7- 123,
i
, r '
1 30. At all material times herein, Defendants , CITY OF
2 LAFAYETTE, the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA; BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT
3 DISTRICT, and THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and DOES 1-15, maintained
4 a nuisance in the form of a storm drainage system which caused
5 such erosion to Plaintiffs ' real property as to trigger
6 landslides and otherwise destabilize Plaintiffs ' real property.
7 31 . Such construction, design, and maintenance of said
8 nuisance is ongoing and threatens to cause further landslides,
g and to further destabilize Plaintiffs ' real property.
10 32 . Plaintiffs herein request that a permanent
11 injunction issue against Defendants and each of them at trial,
12 prohibiting them from continuing the nuisance , as aforesaid,
13 together with an award of damages for Plaintiffs ' injury,
14 heretofore , as aforesaid.
15 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek damages against said
16 Defendants , and each of them, as hereinafter fully set forth.
17 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION - NEGLIGENCE
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
18
19 33 . Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 1-20 of the General
20 Allegations herein as though here fully set forth.
21 34 . At all material times herein, Defendants , and each ;
22 of them, were negligent in their construction, design, ownership, )
93 maintenance , filling, compaction, and other use of the storm
I
24 drainage system as aforesaid, which system included portions
25 adjacent to Plaintiffs ' real property. C
i
26 35 . At all material times herein, Defendants , and each )
27 of them, owed Plaintiffs a duty of care not to permit the said
2S storm drainage system to cause such erosion as to trigger
-8- 124
1 landslides on Plaintiffs ' land.
2 36 . At all material times herein, Defendants , and each
3 of them, breached their duty to Plaintiffs by so negligently
4 constructing, designing, maintaining, owning , and using, said
5 storm drainage system, that said storm drainage system
6 proximately caused severe erosion to Plaintiffs ' real property,
7 which triggered landslides and other damage on Plaintiffs' real
8 property, as aforesaid.
9 37 . Plaintiffs, and each of them, have been damaged by
10 landslides , destabilization of land, and damage to structures, as
11 hereinabove set forth.
12 38 . Plaintiffs, and each of them, have sustained
13 damage, including diminution in value , in an amount to be shown
14 at trial.
15 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, and each of them, pray damages
16 against Defendants , and each of them, as hereinafter set forth.
17 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION - NEGLIGENCE
(AGAINST DEFENDANT CENTURY HOMES DEVELOPMENT CO. , THE HAROLD
18 SMITH CO. , INC. AND DOES 16-25)
19 39. Plaintiffs , and each of them, reallege the
20 Paragraphs 1-20 of the General Allegations herein and incorporate
21 them by reference as though here fully set forth. i
22 40 . At all material times herein, Defendant, CENTURY
f
23 HOMES, INC. , and DOES 16-25 , were land developers and subdividers
i
24 who constructed, designed, planned, built, maintained, compacted,
25 . filled, altered, and formed Plaintiffs ' real property.
26 41 . At all material times herein, Defendants, and each (�
27 of them, were charged '.ith the constructing, designing, planning , I
28 building, maintaining, compacting, filling, and otherwise
-9- 125
l FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION- TRESPASS TO REAL PROPERTY
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
2
3 46. Plaintiffs , and each of them, reallege Paragraphs
4 1-20 of the General Allegations herein and incorporate them by
5 reference as though here fully set forth.
6 47 . At all material times herein, Defendants , and each
7 of them, interfered with Plaintiffs' possession of their real
8 property by intentionally and recklessly permitting and causing
g the storm drainage system to deteriorate , as aforesaid, causing
10 erosion resulting in landslides and land destabilization of
11 Plaintiffs ' real property, as aforesaid.
12 48 . By virtue of Defendants ' intentional conduct,
13 Plaintiffs, and each of them, are entitled to an award of
14 exemplary damages against each and every Defendant against whom
15 an award of exemplary damages may lie, for such intentional and
16 reckless conduct.
17 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs , and each of them, seek judgment
18 of Defendants, and each of them, as follows:
19 FOR THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
20 1 . For compensatory damages .according to proof at
21 trial; '
22 2 . For reasonable attorneys fees in an amount to be
20 shown at trial;
24 3 . For costs; and
25 4 . For such other and further relief as the Court may
26 find appropriate.
27 FOR THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
28 1 . For an Order permanently enjoining the continuation
-11-
1.26
1 of Defendants ' use of the storm drainage system in such a way as
2 to cause landslides, land destabilization , and other damages on
3 Plaintiffs ' real property;
4 2 . For compensatory damages according to proof at
5 trial;
6 3. For costs; and
7 4 . For such other and further relief as the Court may
8 find appropriate.
9 FOR THE TH1RD CAUSE OF ACTION
10 1 . For compensatory damages according to proof at
11 trial;
12 2 . For costs; and
13 3 . For such other and further relief as the Court may
.14 find appropriate.
15 FOR THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
16 1. For compensatory damages according to proof at
17 trial;
18 2. For costs; and
19 3 . For such other and further relief as the Court may
20 find appropriate.
21 FOR THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22 1 . For compensatory damages according to proof at
23 trial;
24 2 . For exemplary damages according to proof at trial ,
I
25 only as to those Defendants against whom an award of exemplary
26 damages will lie;
27 3 . For costs ; and
28
-12- 127
1 4 . For such other and further relief as the Court may
2 find appropriate.
3 Dated: September 8 , 1983
4 PILLSBURY & WILSON
5 r�
t
6
Phil Z �.,. Pillsbury, Jr.
7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 E
21
2-
24
i
25
26
27 f
28
I
128
-13-
019/30 r
1 VERIFICATION
(CCP § 446 , 2015 . 5)
2
3 I declare that:
4
5 I am the Plaintiff
6 in the above-
7 entitled action;
8 I have read the foregoing COMPLAINT FOR INVERSE
9 CONDEMNATION; NUISANCE; NEGLIGENCE; TRESPASS TO REAL PROPERTY;
AND FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
10 and know the contents thereof; the same is true of my own
11 knowledge , except as to those matters which are therein stated
12 upon my information or belief, and as to those matters I believe
13 it to be true.
14 I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of
15 the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.
-16
17 Executed on September 8 1983 , at
18 San Francisco California.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
23
129
1 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
3
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA )
4
5 I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the
6 County of Contra Costa. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years
and not a party to the within action. My business address is
7 1601 North California Boulevard, Walnut Creek, California 94596.
8 On the date set forth below, I served the within
9
CLAIM FOR INDEMNITY AND CONTRIBUTION
10
11
12 by placing a true copy therof, enclosed in a sealed envelope
13 with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States Post
Office, at Walnut Creek, California, addressed as follows:
14
15 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
16 651 Pine Street
Martinez , CA 94553
17
18
19
20
21
22 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
23 . true and correct.
24 Executed on November g , 1983, at Walnut Creek, California.
25
lie"
26
GRACE H. PASION
GIBBONS, STODDARD,
LEPPER & FALCO Q
A[I NNEYb Al IAW
1601 Nwin CAMMi1w Bird
MWNOT CNEU CA 71N1
111
51 110?AXW
CLAIM
BOAM OF SUvI90Rs OF CMERA COSTA COMM, CA1 FMWIA BOARD ACTION
December 13 , 1983
Claim Against the County, ) W= 70 CLAIMMT
Routing Fodorswents, and ) 7he copy of this document mailed to you is your
Board Action. (All Section ) ratioe of the action taken on your claim by the
references are to California ) Board of Supervisors (Paragraph III, below) ,
Government Code.) ) given pursuant to Dovernnent Code Sections 913
i 915.4. Please note the "Warning" below.
Claimant: John Louis Weber, Jr. , 13352 San Pablo Avenue Sp#l , San Pablo , CA
Attorney:
County Counsel 94806
Address: NOV 14 1983 —
Amount: $41. 99 Martinez, CA 94553
By delivery to Cleric on
Date':�i�: november lU, 1983 By mail, postmarked on
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 70: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-toted Claim.
DATED: 11/10/83 J.R. OLSSON, Clerk, , Deputy
e Calhoun
II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
(Check one only)
,C-<,, ) This Claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2.
( ) This Claim FAILS to eamply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we
are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8) .
( ) Claim is not timely filed. Board should reject claim on ground that it was
filed late. (§911.2)
DATED: `/--fL5 Y3 JOHN B. c,LAusm, County Q=sel, By Deputy
III BOAFO ORDIER By unanumus vote of Supervisors present
( This claim is rejected in full.
( ) This claim is rejected in full because it was not presented within the time
allowed by law.
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered
In its minutes for this date.
DATED: DEC 131983 J.R. OQ.SSON, Clerk,
MNRNIM (GDv't. C. 5913)
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from
the date this rctice was personally delivered or deposited in the mail to
file'a court action an this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of any attorney of your choice in oo-inaction
with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so
immediately.
IV. PROM: C erk of the Board T0: County Counsele 2 County M=Uaitor
Attached are copies of the above Claim. We ratified the claimant of the
Board's action an this Claim by mailing a copy of this document, and a
mem thereof has been filed and endorsed on the Board's copy of this
Claim in aoaard.Vrm with Section 29703.
DATED: DEC J. R. CIi.S.g0t8, Clerk, by � ty
131
L,ytill'r 1 V• �✓raa►✓ ✓i. a 60 i1♦►• A_ ✓. ► Wl. . V v.:MTbrK6r# M awieetion to,
L nstruc tions to Claimant Clerk of the Boarc
as y r. 0.cox 911
Wwrtinez,Caiiiorft 94553
A. Claims :elatinc to causes of action for death or _or in3ury to
"► person or to personal property or growing crops must be presented
not later t:,ar. the 100th da_v. after the accrual of the cause of
action. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be
presented not later than one vear after the accrual of the cause
of action. (Sec. 911. 2, Govt. .Code)
B. Claims must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
at its of Room 106, County Administration. Budding, 651 Pine
Street, Martinez , California 94553.
C. If ciairr. is a^ai_^rst a district gcverned by he Board of Supe--visors ,
rather than the County, the name of the District should be filled in.
D. '.f the c_air. is acainst more than one public eI•it_ty, separate c l aims
nust be filed against each public entity.
E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims , Penal Code Sec. 72 at end
of this form.
RE: C-ai.rr. by ) Reserved for Clerk' s fi stark_ s
JOHN LOUIS WEBER, JR.., )
F L E D
an Individual 1
NOV 10 1983
Against the COUNTY OF CONTP_ COSTA) S! '''�7
Not applicable ) J. a. Fsso�
or D:STRICT) CLE
O
RU OAF suPWisoRs
(Fill in name) ) A c .........�:
g ..De u
The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim acainst the County of Conte
Costa or the -=bove-named District in the sure. of $ 11.99
and in sucoort of this claim, re-resents as. follows :
—— ••———————————————rr
--------------------------------------------—————————————--————————--——--——————————
1.——FIhen cid -he da ,aae or ir.3ury occur? (Give exact date and hour)
Damage occurred on August 26, 1983 at or about the hour of 2 :00 p.m.
-------------- ------------
2. Knere dic the damage or---in-j--ury----occur?--------(I--nclude cit)• and county)
Damage occurred at the Calif ornia. Medical Facility of the California
Department of Corrections, in the City of Vacaville, County of Solano,
__ State of California _
-----------------------------------------
3. �iow d'zd--he damage or injury occur? (Give full details, use extra
sheets if required)
Please see attached explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. -What particular act or omission on the part of county or district
officers , servants or employees caused the injury or damage?
The Sheriff of Contra Costa County and/or his agents, servants and
employees failed to deliver to the claimant upon his transfer to the
Department of Corrections all of the personal property lawfully entrusted
to their care and supervision pursuant to the claimant 's incarceration
on July 27, 1983 at Martinez, California (Main Detention Facility) torero
132
5: What are . -he names of county or district officers, servants or
employees: causing the damage or in-ury?
Richard K. 'Rainey, Sheriff of Contra Costa County,
°'' and'.gll"of his agents, servants and employees who may at one time
or another_have been entrusted with claimant's_p_ersonal property
6 K aat damage or injuries-dO you -claim. resulted? (Give-full extent
of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto
da.-nage) As a proximate result of the Sheriff 's breach of duty, claimant
is deprived of the possession and use of 4 articles of personalty,: and
must replace said articles at an estimated cost of $41.99
- --------------------------------------------------------
i. Acw was the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimated
amount of any prospective injury or damage. )
Please see attached schedule of losses
E7- Rrame---nd addresses cr wit.nesses, doctors and hcs-ctals.------------
Contra Costa County Sheriff 's Deputies and California Department
of Corrections personnel whose signatures and initials appear
on the 2 attached property receipts (copies)
, - .rst i e e�:per,c_tures-you retie c accour- od thcs ac
��
*--=-1- - -
=�•
Or:TE 7TEN AMOUNT -
None As of Date of Claim
*•ic*#****t#x*#**#**ic**rr*****##*xlcart*#*#**a#****rr**tt**###tt#*tir�c***ir#****#x1
Govt. Code Sec. 914 .2 providei
"The claim signed by the Clair
ENi NOITTCES TO: k"ttcrnev} v some _so- or ,.s beha_J
Name and Address of •Attorney
0?ainant ' s Signature
In Propria Persona 13352 San Pablo Avenue, Sp #1
Address
San Pablo, CA 94606
Telephone No. Not applicable Telephone No. (415) 237-3764
NOTICE
Secticn 72 of the Penal Code provides:
"Every person who , with intent to :defraud, presents for allowance c
for payment to any state board or officer, or to any county, town, city
district, ward or village board or officer, authorized to allow or pay
the same if genuine, any false or fraudulent claim, bill , account, vouci -
or writing, is guilty of a felony. "
133
John Louis Weber, Jr.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
IN
SUPPORT OF CLAIM
How damage occurred:
On July 27, 1983 at the hour of 8:00 a.m.. claimant surrendered
himself to the Sheriff of Contra Costa County pursuant to an order
made by the Superior Court. Surrender took place at the Contra Costa
County Detention Facility located at 1000 Ward Street in the City of
Martinez, County of Contra Costa, State of California. At the time
of his surrender, claimant had in his possession certain articles of
personal property which are listed and described on the attached
"Property Receipt". Among the items listed thereon are:
(1) a knife (red)
(2) a pen
(3) a handkerchief
(4) a comb
The aforementioned articles, together with the rest of the personal
property in claimant 's possession were duly surrendered to the
Deputies on duty at the aforesaid facility, and were entrusted to
the care and supervision of said Deputies pending the claimant 's
release or transfer to another facility.
On August 26, 1983 at or about the hour of 2 :00 p.m.. claimant
was transferred to the custody of the California Department of
Corrections, in Vacaville, California. The transporting Deputy was
obligated at that time to deliver all of the claimant 's personal
property to the Department of Corrections as well. The attached
"Property and Cash Receipts -- Arrival" lists the property belonging
to the Claimant which was actually delivered to the Department of
Corrections at that time. The inventory made by Department of
Corrections personnel clearly shows that the aforementioned knife,
pen, handkerchief, and comb were not among the other items delivered
to the Department of Corrections by the transporting Deputy.
As a direct and proximate result of a breach of duty by one or
more persons in the Sheriff 's Office, the aforementioned 4 items
belonging to the defendant were lost, destroyed or misappropriated
by a person or persons unknown, and the claimant must replace said
items at his own expense. Wherefore claimant stands damaged in the
amount of $41.99 as set forth in the following loss schedule:
Item Cost Data Price Taxed Cost
Swiss Army Knife REI Co-op fdB35_110 $ 11 .95 $ 15.92
Parker "Classic" Pen Mfr. Retail Price 22.50 23.96
Handkerchief Sears #33G25035 1.50 1..59
Plastic Comb Payless Drug Store .49 052
$ 41.99
134
;or �� COSTA COUNTY DETENTION FA
PROPERTY RECEIPT MJ:M
REC-ISO: 016637, BJ: O
DATE: 0 '?7/83 WF: 0 J
TIME: 17D9
NAME (L,F,M): WEBER JOHN .LOUIS JR
I
80OKING NN: .. . 83013593J DOB: 08/Z8/43
VALIJAKES
CASH: P '139.40
JEWELRY: N DESC:
WATCH: Y DESC: BLK CAS I 0
WALLET: Y B R N
j KEYS: 0
GLASSES: N
LIGHTER: N i•
i KNIFE: Y RED
OTHER: COHMBy EMELT, PEN , HANDKERCHIEF
, CONTACT LENSECASE 6 SOLUTION
INTAKE
BKG OFC INMATE X-A
J ADMINISTRATION VERIFICATION: - NO ❑
PROPERTY BOX ASSIGNED: Y ,
i RELEASE
RELOFC• DATE:
RECEIVED ALL PROPER INMATE
(SIGNATURE)
135
EPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DISTRIBUTION STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ORIG: l rnits (Wfiiu) -
RROPERTY AND CASH RECEIPTS s ARRIVALcc: P<o .►w file (C.nery)
*' Trust Office (Pink)
-Control FII• (Green)
7MATE'S NAME /UMBER CASH PLA E T U N T
DISPOSITION CODE: OKEPT IN POSSESSION (WATCHES,RINGS,AND METALS VALUED LESS THAN$301
M=MAIL D=DONATED S--HELD IN SAFE V=VAULT
QUANTITY ARTICLES DISP. QUANTITY ARTICLES OIBP. QUANTITY ARTICLES DISP.
BELT SUIT DENTURES
BLOUSE SWEATERDRIVER'S LICENSE `
CAP TANK TOP EYEGLASSES (1.417&
COAT UNDERWEAR j � L
DRESS
HANDKERCHIEF IIL1 A H
HATLEGAL PAPERS MEDICAL
JACKET LETTERS M18e� Nto 7,4V
NECKTIE/SCARF PHOTOS MARR.CERT.
OVERCOAT PURSE BIRTH CERT.
PAJAMAS BILLFOLD SEL.SER'.CARD
PANTS/SLACKS BOOKS SOC. SEC. CARD
SHIRT BIBLE RELIGIOUS MEDALS
SHOES DICTIQNARY RING
SHORTS SUNGLASSES
SKIRT WATCH /qS iG
SLIPPERS COIN
SOCKS CURRENCY
STOCKINGS CANTEENDUCAT
ACRIPTION OF ITEMS ALLEGED BY INMATE TO HAVE A VALU OVER$30
SCRIPTION OF ITEMS "TO BE DESTR ED"
rICLES LISTED AS"MAIL` ABOVE ARE TO Of FOR"RDED TO: ADDRESS
IE 77 L• -3 e. Sd • r
Y `j STATE AND ZIP CODE
SR C /.. w....
CLAIM XND RELEASE
I relinquish all claim to the articles listed above as "Donated". and hereby acknowledge receipt of
cies listed'as"Kept in Possession';kThe above is a correct inventory of personal property in my
session at the time of admission.
IA TU MA 01
DATE WITNES G FFI '
I hereby authorize destruction of articles listed above as "To be Destro d'. r"
iATURE OF INMATE DATE WITNESSING OFF1C 1
i
/hereby acknowledge receipt of the articles listed above as "Hold in Sefe" which was given to n1P3
upon my release from the institution. i �.�
ATURE OF INMATE DATE WITNESSING OFFICER
-101 (REV.4/77)
• CLAIM
BCIARD OF S[JPF.RVI90RS OF COWTA COSTA CQMVY, OUXFCRM BOARD ACTION
Claim Against the County, ) NxE 70 CLAIrW December 13 , 1983
Routing Endorsements, and ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your
Board Action. (All Section ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the
references are to California ) Board of Supervisors (Paragraph III, below) ,
Government Code.) ) given pursuant to Government Code Sections 913
i 915.4. Please note the "Warning" below.
Claimant: Jan Lynn Walch & Janet 0 . Walch
Attorney: c/o Martin, Ryan & Andrada
Ordway Building, Suite 785 -
Address: One Kaiser Plaze
Oakland, CA 94612
Amount: Unspecified Ha d deliv red
By delivery o Berk on 11/14/8 3
Date`Reoeived: November 14, 1983 By mail, postmarked on
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted Claim.
DATED: 11/14/83 J.R. OQSSCN, Clerk, By , Deputy
e Gaihoun
II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
(Check one only)
Q ) This Claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2.
( ) This Claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we
are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8) .
( ) Claim is not timely filed. Board should reject claim on ground that it was
filed late. (§911.2)
DATED: ,f,�- 1 3 J1 Be CtAUs�1, County Counsel, By "�4%�,el� Deputy
III. BOARD CFXM By unanimous vote of Supervisors present
( ) This claim is rejected in full.
( ) This claim is rejected in full because it was not presented within the time
allowed by law.
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered
in its minutes for this date.
DATED:pEC 131983 J.R. OLSSW, Clerk, . Deputy
WAYOiIlaG (Gov't. C. 6913)
Subject to certain exceptions,, you have only six (6) months frau
the date this notice was persorsally delivered or deposited in the mail to
file-a court action on this claim. See Goverzment Code section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of any attorney of your choice in r, action
with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so
immediately.
IV. FROM: MR of the Board TO: County Counsel, 2 County AdminiiUaitor
Attached are copies of the above Claim. We notified the claimant of the
Board's action on this Claim by mailing a copy of this document, and a
memo thereof has been filed and endorsed on the Board's copy of this
Claim in accordance with Section 29703. �Q . 1- 37
_ til sae�l J. R. OS.S.90N, Clerk, /tJ Deputy
CLAIM AGAINST THE
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA AND
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
JAN LYNN WALCH and JANET 0. WALCH present a claim for
indemnity against the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA and CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT.
CLAIMANTS' ADDRESS: c/o MARTIN, RYAN & P_NDRADA
A Professional Corporation
Ordway Building, Suite 785
One Kaiser Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
DATE OF OCCURRENCE: January 4 , 1982
DATE OF SERVICE OF COMPLAINT
ON PARTIES MAKING CLAIM: August 7, 1983
PLACE OF OCCURRENCE: 1039 Westridge Avenue, Danville, CA
SAID CLAIM ARISES FROM FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES: See attached copy
of Complaint, Answer and Cross-complaint in Contra Costa County
Superior Court Action No. 249840 entitled Del Gado, et al. , v.
Walch, et al.
ITEMS, NATURE AND EXTENT OF DAMAGES OR INJURIES: Indemnity
as more particularly set forth in attached documents.
MARTIN, RYAN & ANDRADA
A Professional, Corporatio
By
J/O�PH D. RYAN
6r
At neys for JAN LYNN WALCH
aYid JANET 0. WALCH
FILE ® '
Nl9V 114 1983
�. O�ssor,
80 of SUPERVISORS
C
8
138
r ,
SCHNETDER AND SNUKEN'
2 Attorneys
3645 Grand Avenue - Penthouse u
3 Oakland, CA 94610
Telenhone: 415-832-3411 OCT 4 1983
BY: ,1CHN A. SCHNEIDER
4 , j �. R.,OMNI, County Clerk I
CON[RA CosTA COUNTY
�Attcrn?y for
Vy
5 i PLAIN i IFF, ROBERT L. DEL GADO and $E � oe;"t
ISUSAN F. DEL GADO
8 I
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
PLAINTIFF: ROBERT L. DEL GADO and No.
10 i SUSAN F. DEL GADO, individuals ,
husband and wife AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
11 !1 V5.
I
12 DEFENDANT: LYNN WALCH, JANET 0. WALCH,
DOES 1 through 3
13
14 Plaintiff a+ lends tho complaint in t :s
his action , fol V„ ;:
15 1. On page 3, line 9 January 4, 1983 to January 4, 1952;
16 J 2. Plaintiff has learned that the correct name of defendant designa�
17 ted in the complaint as LYNN WALCH is JAN LYNN WALCH, and he-reby substitutes
the correct name JAN LYNN WALCH for the name LYNN WALCH whereverit appears
18 . PP
19 in the complaint.
i
20 Dated: September 19, 1983..
I
21 JOHN A..M,M0O ER
22 Attorney for Plaintiff
23
24
25 .
i
26
SCHNEIDER AND SHUKEN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
.VENTMOUSE
SNS DRAND AVENUE 1 lJ•[9
OAKLAND,CALIF.0{{10 l.I
0]1.).11
AREA CODE 415
1 1' SCHNEIDER AND SHUKEN D111
is Attorneys
2 I; 3645 Grand Avenue - Penthouse
Oakland, CA 94610
3 i Telephone: 415-832-3411 �� �_' ` �"_'
By: JOHN A. SCHNEIDER
4 !
Attorney for
ROBERT L,. DEL GADO and SUSAN F. DEL GADO
6 (�
7
' I
g i SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,'COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
9
i, PLAINTIFF: ROBERT L. DEL GADO and No. � ��
10 !' SUSAN F. DEL GADO, individuals ,
husband and wife
11 vs.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGE FOR FRAUD '.
1 AND DECEIT Ih THE SALE OF REAL
12 DEFENDANT: LYNN WALCH, JANET 0. WALCH, DOES ESTATE
1 through 3 /
13
Plaintiffs allege:
14 I
!; 1 . Plaintiffs, ROBERT L. DEL GADO and SUSAN F. DEL GADO, are
15 I i
husband and wife, individuals residing in the City of Danville , County
16
IJ of Contra Costa , State of California in the above-entitled jurisdiction.
2. Defendants LYNN WALCH and JANET 0, WALCH, are individuals,
lg i! husband and wife, residing in the City of Danville, County of Contra Costa,
19 Ij
State of California.
20 !`
3. The true names.or capacities , whether individual , corporate, i
21 i associate or othprwise of defendant DOES 1 through 3, are unknown to plaintiffs`,
22
who therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious name, and will ask
23 I �
leave to amend its complaint to show its true names and capacity when same
24 I
have been ascertained.
25 _ '
4. On and prior to November 19, 1975, defendants, hereinafter f r
26 referred to collectively as "WALCH" , sold to plaintiffs hereinafter referred ,
i
+DER AND SHUKEN
•D1 Y!V!Al LAi'
o •V
" C l MUf
�\ �LIi SNI•
m..n
"a'COD!415 1
to collectively as "DEL GADO". The real property located at 1039 Westridge
2 Avenue, Danville, CA, consisting of a single, family dwelling through written
3 i real estate 'contract, a portion of which is attached hereto, marked Exhibit d
4 A, and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth. Defend ants , os
5 falsely and fraudulently in selling the property located at 1039 Westridge ,
6 . Avenue, Danville, CA, hereinafter referred to simply as "THE -PROPERTY"., intended
7 I to deceive and defraud DEL GADO by failing to inform DEL GADO that the subject
8 ! property ,had had a serious flood some time im the two or three years just
9 �' prior to WALCH selling the property to DEL GADO. At no time throughout the
10 negotiations , regarding the purchase of the property by DEL' GADO from WALCH
i
11 was any mention made of the serious flooding which took place within approximat 1y
12 three years prior to the date of the sale.
13 I 5. WALCH had a duty to disclose to DEL GADO the serious nature
14 1 of the flooding which had occurred within three years prior to November, i
15 1975, as the serious flooding which had occurred presented a known defect
16 to the residence in question of which WALCH were fully aware but DEL GADO
17 or-anyone else looking at the property for sale, would not be put on notice
18 to inquire as regards any possible potential for flooding. WALCH had a
19 duty to disclose the full extent of .the prior flood to the property and by
20 failing to disclose misrepresented the ,true conditions of the. property
21 to plaintiff DEL GADO. , The residence in question had a serious hidden defect ,
22 and WALCH failure' to disclose said hidden defect was at the least negligent
23 misrepresentation and most probablyfraudu eithh9ld or concealment
24 of known defects in the resident proper
25 6. DEL GADO heard and saw al I/ representations made by WALCH
26 and WALCH'S AGENTS, and not being informed of a serious latent defect, were j"-----
1
ER AND SUVKZN
,.■{ts AT NW �•
•.'700-J"
•...s•varus
,.n.CAIN wN
an 1411
i
I induced by and did purchase the property in question based upon all representa-.
2 tions made and visuals observations of the residence.
3 7. WALCH had a duty to disclose to DEL GADO the seriousness
4 of the latent or hidden defect in the property in question in that they were
5 aware that their property had had serious flooding, which inundated the residence
6 and swimming pool within three years prior to the sale to the DEL GADOS.
I i
7 8. DEL GADO purchased from WALCH the real property in question
8 on or about November 19, 1975, or thereafter, upon close of escrow.
9 i 9. On January 4, 1983, during an unusual rainstorm DEL GADOS
10. 1 property had serious flooding when the drainage ditch behind and running i
11 adjacent to their property owned and operated by the Contra Costa County
,,►� 12 Flood Control District, clogged, overflowed inundating DEL GADO'S property
13 � and filling their swimming pool with Feud which rendered same inoperable. _T
14 j 10. Within three years prior to the filing of this action DEL j
15 I!I GADOS found through one Mr. Feltrip, who lives across the street from the
16 DEL GADOS, they found that the same flooding problem had occurred some time
17 prior to their purchasing the residence in 1975, approximately 1972 or 1973,
18 because Mr. Feltrip stated to them "I've seen this flooding before, I've
19 I helped to dig your pool out before, the same problem occurred in 1972 or
i
20 1 1973 when the WALCHS• lived there." At no time prior togduring or after j
21 the DEL GADOS purchase of the residence in question from WALCH did WALCH 1
22 reveal to DEL GADOS the seriousness of the latent defect which the property
v
�3 in question had.
24 11. As a proximate result of the wrongful withholding of informatipn
25 by WALCH when they had a duty to disclose the latent defect to DEL GADOS,
26 the DEL GADOS have been damaged in an out-of-pocket expense of approximately
SCHNEIDER AND SNUKEN
AhO[M[rt A7 LAW 3. �
'06:9
[O 7MOYf[
SMI OAAMO AV[MY[
OA[►AMC.CALIF.wM 1
U"64�� 1
MOA COOO 410
i
1 j $50,000.00, as well as they are now under a duty to disclose to any future
2 i potential purchaser the serious latent defect with their residence, which
I
3 j reduces the value of the 'residence by more than $150,000.00, in addition
4 to the out-of-pocket damages suffered by DEL GADOS.
S + 12. WALCH'S intentional concealment of a latent known defect
I
6 when they had a duty to disclose is fraud, and exemplary damages should be
7 j awarded in the sum of $300,006.00. _-
g ; 13. The written contract under which DEL GADOS purchased said
9 !' property from WALCH contains an attorney's fee provision, and as such DEL
10 i GADOS should be entitled to attorney's fees, in this action.
11I WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for damages against defendants, and
i
12 each of them, as follows:
13 Ij 1. For damages as a result of the intentional withholding of
14 I� information concerning a latent defect, the sum of $50,000.00, out-of-pocket
15 j expenses , and $150,000.00 lost value; i
16 2. Punitive damages in the sum of $300,000.00;
17, 1 Attorney's fees according to proof; and i
18 4. Costs of suit.
19 Dated: July 21., .1983.
i
20
0 N SCHNEIDER, Attorney for Plaintiffs
21
22
23
24 I
25
26
KUNEIDEB AND BBUKEN I 4'
Arrrrrir{•r LAs
poor US,
-
an"" •, U:
wars.u�A wu
YY ca" is
3
I MARTIN, RYAN & ANDRADA
A Professional Corporation ,
2 Ordway Building, Suite 785
One Kaiser Plaza
3 Oakland, CA 94612
(415) 763-6510
4
Attorneys for Defendants
5 JAN LYNN WALCH and JANET 0.
WALCH
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
9 ROBERT L. DEL GADO and SUSAN F.
DEL GADO, individuals, husband NO. 249840
10 and wife,
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR
11 Plaintiffs, DAMAGE FOR FRAUD AND
DECEIT IN THE SALE OF
12 v. REAL ESTATE, AS AMENDED
13 JAN LYNN WALCH, JANET 0. WALCH,
DOES 1 through 3,
14
Defendants.
15
16 COMES NOW the defendants, JAN LYNN WALCH and JANFT 0.
17 WALCH, and by way of answer to the unverified complaint as
18 amended by the Amendment to Complaint on file herein, these
19 defendants deny, generally and specifically, each and every
20 allegation contained therein, and further deny that plaintiffs
21 have been damaged in a sum within the jurisdiction of this court
22 or in any sum or sums whatsoever.
�3 BY WAY OF A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO PLAINTIFFS'
24 COMPLAINT, DEFENDANTS ALLEGE:
25 That said Complaint is barred by reason of the statute
26 of limitations, and specifically C.C.P. §338 .
' LAW OFFICES OF '
MARTIN. RYAN
6 ANDRADA
A PROFE$SX)NAL CORPORATION
ORDWAY BUILDING.SUITE M
ONE KAISER PLAZA 144
'-IAKLAND.CALIFORNIA 9"12
AREA CODE 14 15)M-85/0
I
1 BY WAY OF A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO PLAINTIFFS'
2 COMPLAINT, DEFENDANTS ALLEGE:
3 That said Complaint fails to state facts sufficient
4 to entitle plaintiffs to attorney' s - fees.
5 BY WAY OF A THIRD AFFIRASATIVE DEFENSE TO PLAINTIFFS '
6 COMPLAINT, DEFENDANTS ALLEGE:
7 That said Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to
8 constitute a cause of action against these defendants.
9 BY WAY OF A FOURTH AFFIR11ATIVE DEFENSE TO PLAINTIFFS'
10 COMPLAINT, DEFENDANTS ALLEGE:
11 That plaintiffs themselves were negligent and their
12 negligence bars or diminishes their right of recovery.
13 WHEREFORE, defendants pray judgment that plaintiffs
14 take nothing by reason of the complaint, as amended, on file
15 herein, that these defendants be hence dismissed with their
16 costs of suit herein incurred, and for such other and further
17 relief as may seem just and proper in the premises.
18 DATED: November 8, 1983.
19
20 MARTIN, RYAN & AN'DRADA
A Professional Corporation
21 --
22
By
23
JQSEP,H D. RYAN
24
25
26
LAW OFFICES OF -2-
MARTIN,
2-MARTIN, RYAN
& ANDRADA
AFRAY PROFESSIONAL CORN(3.SUITE
14 5
ORDWAY 9UILDINO,SUITE 785
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND,CALIFORNIA 91612
AREA CODE 14
15)763-6510
I I, GEORGIA LEE, certify that I am over the age of
2 18 years and not a party to the within action ; that my business
3 address*,is : One- Kaiser Plaza, Suite 7.85, Oakland , California
4 94612; that on November 14, 1983 I placed a
5 true copy of the foregoing document (s) entitled :
6 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGE FOR FRAUD AND .DECIT IN THE
7 SALE OF REAL ESTATE, AS AMENDED,
8 ,
9
10 in an envelope, and caused it to be sealed and deposited in the
11 United States mail at Oakland, California, with postage fully
12 prepaid thereon, addressed in the manner set forth below:
13 SCHNEIDER AND SHUKEN
3645 Grand Avenue - Penthouse
14 Oakland, CA 94610
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 I •declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
23 is true and correct.
24 Executed on November 14 1983 at
25 Oakland, California.
26 � - •--
t3E6RGIA L
I Aw OrrICE or
+ARTIN, RYAN
& ANDRADA
•or ns.o»• to•ro•• ow
-V BUILDING.SUIT[ FOS
,NC MAISCA CCNIE
ANO,CAIIFOANIA 9��12 �-
..r.Cont fA v.w•0%-o
' I
I MARTIN, RYAN & ANDRADA
A Professional Corporation
2 Ordway Building, Suite 785
One Kaiser Plaza
3 Oakland, CA 94612
(415) 763-6510
4
Attorneys for Defendants and
5 Cross-complainants JAN LYNN
WALCH and JANET 0. WALCH
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
9 ROBERT L. DEL GADO and SUSAN F.
DEL GADO, individuals, husband
10 and wife,
11 Plaintiffs, NO. 249840
12 V.
CROSS-COMPLAINT
13 JAN LYNN WALCH, JANET 0. WALCH, FOR INDEMNITY
14 DOES 1 through 3,
Defendants.
15 /
16 JAN LYNN WALCH and JANET 0.
WALCH,
17
Cross-complainants,
18
V.
19
THOMAS JACKSON, VALLEY REALTY,
20 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CONTRA
COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
21 WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, DOE 1
VAN AUKEN, •DOE 2 VAN AUKEN, and
22 DOES 3 through 20,
�3 Cross-defendants. /
24 COMES NOW Cross-complainants JAN LYNN WALCH and
25 JANET 0. WALCH and cross-complain against cross-defendants, and
26 each of them, and for a cause of action allege as follows:
LAW OFFICES OF
MARTIN, RYAN
& ANDRADA
.FROFESSONAL CORPORATION 1
ORDWAY BUILDING.SUITE 765 14 7
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CALIFORNIA 94612
AREA CODE 14151 163-6510 ,
1 I
2 Cross-complainants incorporate by reference complaint '
3 as against them, without admitting the truth of any of the
4 allegations therein. Cross-complainants allege that if despite
5 their denial of same, they are held liable to plaintiffs, it will
6 be by reason of the acts or omissions of cross-defendants and each
7 of them for reasons as hereinafter set forth. Cross-complainants
8 are entitled to full equitable indemnity for their derivative
9 or vicarious liability or alternatively to partial equitable
10 indemnity as against cross-defendants. Cross-complainants intend
11 this complaint to act as a demand to be indemnified and held
12 harmless by cross-defendants and each of them and therefore prays
13 that all attorneys' fees incurred hereinafter are, pursuant to
14 C.C.P. §1021. 6 an item of their damages.
15 II
16 DOE 1 VAN AUKEN and DOE 2 VAN AUKEN and DOES 3 through
. 17 10 are owners of property adjoining the plaintiffs ' property
18 and by their acts or omissions have altered the watercourse
19 running past plaintiffs' property with the result that they
20 caused the flooding of which plaintiffs complain.
21 III
22 Cross-defendants THOMAS JACKSON and VALLEY REALTY were
23 realtors engaged by cross-complainants in connection with the
24 sale of the property to plaintiffs. Cross-defendants JACKSON, .
25 VALLEY and DOES 11 through 15 failed to properly advise
26 Cross-complainants of their duties with respect to the sale.
LAW OFFICES OF -2-
MARTIN,
2-MARTIN, RYAN
S ANDRADA - 148
4
A PROFESSIONAL COMMATION
ORDWAY BUILDING.SUITE 705
ONE KAISER?LAZA
OAKLAND.CALIFORNIA 84812
AREA CODE(4 15)763-65 10
I of their property or alternatively failed to accurately
2 communicate information with respect to the property imparted to
3 them by Cross-complainants to prospective purchasers.
4 IV
5 Cross-defendants CONTRA COSTA COUNTY and CONTRA COSTA
6 COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT and DOES 16
7 through 20 are public entities who either own or have easements
8 over property including a watercourse which runs adjacent to.
9 plaintiffs ' property. Cross-defendants CONTRA COSTA COUNTY and
10 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND ['DATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
11 and DOES 16 through 20 have alternatively either failed to
12 properly maintain their property, with the - result that at all
13 times relevant it constituted a dangerous condition of public
14 property, or have designed, maintained and operated. their
15 property in such a way as to constitute a taking of plaintiffs '
16 property. Simultaneous with the filing of the Cross-complaint ,
17 a claim is being filed with the aforesaid public entities, and
18 Cross-complainants pray leave of court to append the claim and
19 the denial thereof_ , if any, hereto for purposes of satisfying
20 the claims requirement provisions of the Governrent Code.
21 WHEREFORE, Cross-complainants pray judgment against
22 Cross-defendants and each of them for:
23 1. Full equitable in(lerlinit Y and att-Irneys ' fees; and/or
24 2 . Partial equitable indemnity; and/or
25
26
LAW OFFICES OF 3
MARTIN, RYAN
& ANDRADA
A MOFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ORDWAY BUILDING.SURE 785 LTA V7
ONE KAISER PLAZA
'1AKLAND.CALIFORNIA 941612
AREA CODE(4151763-6510
r 1 �
1 3. Such further relief as the court may deem proper.
2 DATED: November 8, 1983.
3
4 MARTIN, RYAN & ANDRADA
A Professional Corporation
5
6 _By
7 JOSEPH D. RYAN
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
LAW OFFICES OF - 4
MARTIN. RYAN
& ANDRADA
A PROFESVONAI CORPORATION
7RDWAY BUILDING.SUITE 785 f>
ONE KAISER PLAZA U
1 1AKLAND.CALIFORNIA 94612
AREA CODE I<151 76.16510
1 I , GEORGIA LEE, certify. that J am ovc-r the age of
2 18 years and not a party to the within action ; that my business
3 address ,is : One- Kaiser Plaza , Suite 785, Oakland, California
4 94612 , that on November 14, 1983 I p]-aced a
5 true copy of the foregoing document (s ) entitled :
6 CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR INDEMNITY
7
8
9
10 in an envelope, and caused it to be sealed and deposited in the
11 United States mail at Oakland , California, with postage fully
12 prepaid thereon, addressed in the manner set forth below:
13 SCHNEIDER AND SHUKEN
3645 Grand Avenue - Penthouse
14 Oakland, CA 94610
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 I declare under penalty of perjury that- 0W foi.'ccJoin�J
�3 is true and correct.
24 Executed on. November 14 1 3 rit
25 Oakland, California .
26
GEORGIA� LEE� 'z
.w OrrC 1.5 Pt
ARTIN, RYAN
ANDRADA
no•o•. co+ro•..•o+
eWt01.G.SWIE .es
,c sti.rt—ca
•NO.CALWORNIA 9.612 151
•..cont(..t1....sip
• CLAIM
December 13, 1983
BOARD OF SUP'ERVI9C►RS OF OMMA 006TH C OLE=1 , CUXF O1WIA BOAPD ACTION
as ex��f ic_ iQ ogain
f����ei ming Board of the ContraCosta�,Co�unty Flood Control
Wr
Routing Endorsements, and )) & Rhe copy of this document mailed to you is your
Board Action. (All Section ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the
references are to California ) Board of Supervisors (Paragraph III, below) ,
Government Code.) ) given pursuant to Government Code Sections 913
a 915.4. Please note the "Washing" below.
Claimant: Jan Lynn Walch and Janet 0 . Walch
Attorney: Martin, Ryan & Andrada
. Ordway Building, Suite 785
Address: One Kaiser Plaza
.. Oakland, CA 94612
Amount: Unspecified
Hand 4elivered 11/14/33
November 14, 19 3 3 B' delivery to Clerk on
Date�Reoeived. By mail, postmarked on
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors T0: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted Claim
DATED: 11/14/83 J.R. C.SSON, Clerk, J , Deputy
'el RCa h
R.
oun
II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
(ick one may) County Counsel
( � ) This Claim om plies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. NOV 16 1983
Martinez. CA 94553
( ) This Claim FAIIS to amply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we
are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8) .
( ) Claim is not timely filed. Board should reject claim on ground that it was
filed late. (5911.2)
DATED: JOHN B. CtX)M, County Counsel, By
OAdloof,Deputy
III. BOATO ORDER By unanimous vote of Supervisors present
(/x This claim is rejected in full.
( ) This claim is rejected in full because it was not presented within the time
allowed by law.
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered
in its minutes for this date.
VATED.. DEC 131993 J.R. OZZSCN, Clerk• . Deputy
WARN= (Gov't. C. 5913)
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from
the date this notice was personally delivered or deposited in the mail to
file-a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6.
You may meek the advice of any attorney of your choice in =mection
with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so
3madiately.
FFCm: Clerk o 70: County Counsel,, 2 County AdminiiEaitor
Attached are copies of the above Claim. We notified the claimant of the
Board's action on this Claim by mailing a copy of this document, and a
caro thereof has been filed and endorsed an the Board's copy of this 152
Claim in aceardanoe with Section 29703.
-U t C 1 J. R. OQ.SS0t1, Clerk,lt5 Deputy
S
CLAIM AGAINST THE
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA AND
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
JAN LYNN WALCH and JANET 0. WALCH present a claim for
indemnity against the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA and CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT.
CLAIMANTS' ADDRESS: c/o MARTIN, RYAN & ANDRADA
A Professional Corporation
Ordway Building, Suite 785
One Kaiser Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
DATE OF OCCURRENCE: January 4 , 1982
DATE OF SERVICE OF COMPLAINT
ON PARTIES MAKING CLAIM: August 7, 1983
PLACE OF OCCURRENCE: 1039 Westridge Avenue, Danville, CA
SAID CLAIM ARISES FROM FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES: See attached copy
of Complaint, Answer and Cross-complaint in Contra Costa County
Superior Court Action No. 249840 entitled Del Gado, et al. , v.
Walch, et al.
ITEMS, NATURE AND EXTENT OF DAMAGES OR INJURIES: Indemnity
as more particularly set forth in attached documents.
MARTIN, RYAN & ANDRADA
A Professiona.1, Corporation
By ;
J,DSPH D. RYAN
Att6rneys for JAN LYNN WALCH
arfd JANET 0. WALCH
IF I LE ®
NOV i,� 1983
�. ops Soar
CI eo OF SUPERVISORS
C
s
153
ISC14NFIDER AND SIIUKtN
2 ,Attorneys
3645 Grand Avenue - Penthouse
3 Oakland, CA 94610
Telephone: 41-5-832-3411 OCT 41983 i
By: 11CHN ,%. SCHNCIDER
4 R. OLSSbN, County Clerk
A!t-rn:?y for CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
By
5 1PLAINIfiff, ROBERT L. DEL GADO and
6 (SUSAN F. DEL GADO S• �E
7
8 + SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
9
PLAINTIFF: ROBERT L. DEL GADO and No.
10 SUSAN F. DEL GADO, individuals ,
husband and wife AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT �
11 'I vs-
12 DEFENDANT: LYNN WALCH, JANET 0. WALCH,
DOES 1 through 3
13
14 I Plaintiff a,-.ends the complaint in this action as fol 1�1-!-.: �
15 I 1. On page 3, line 9 January 4, 1983 to January 4, 1982; j
16 2• Plaintiff has learned that the correct name of defendant designs;
17 ted in the complaint as LYNN WALCH is JAN LYNN WALCH, and hereby substitutes
18 the correct name, JAN LYNN WALCH for the name LYNN WALCH wherever - it appears
19 in the complaint.
20 Dated: September 19, 1983.
21
JOHN A.s VE-IFI R _
22 Attorney for Plaintiff-
23
laintiff23
24
25
26
SCHNEIDER AND SHUKEN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ENT SE
)NS GSIANDAVENUE 154 V4
OAKLAND.CALIF.01610
AREA CODE 415
All
,I r ii
1 Ii SCHNEIDER AND SHUKEN l�
Attorneys JU1. `>
2 I; 3645 Grand Avenue - Penthouse
Oakland , CA 94610
3 ;; Telephone: 415-332-3411
By: JOHN A. SCHNEIDER
4 !
Attorney for
S ROBERT L. DEL GADO and SUSAN F. DEL GADO
6
�I •
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,'COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
9
PLAINTIFF: ROBERT L. DEL GADO and No. 24
t0 SUSAN F. DEL GADO, individuals ,
husband and wife
11 vs. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGE FOR FRAUD '
AND DECEIT IN THE SALE OF REAL
12 1 DEFENDANT: LYNN WALCH, JANET 0. WALCH, DOES ESTATE
I 1 through 3
13 /
Plaintiffs allege:
14
JJ; 1 . Plaintiffs , ROBERT L. DEL GADO and SUSAN F. DEL GADO, are
15 I
husband and wife, individuals residing in the City of Danville , County
16
i of Contra Costa , State of California in the above-entitled jurisdiction.
I
17
2. Defendants LYNN WALCH and JANET 0. WALCH, are individuals,
18 Ij
1 husband and wife, residing in the City of Danville, County of Contra Costa,
19 �+ '
�i State of California.
20
3. The true names .or capacities , whether individual , corporate, i
21
(associate or otherwise of defendant DOES 1 through 3, are unknown to plaintiffs',
22
who therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious name, and will ask
23
leave to amend its complaint to show its true names and capacity when same
24
have been ascertained. i
25
! 4. On and prior to November 19, 1975, defendants, hereinafter f
26 I
referred to collectively as "WALCH" , sold to plaintiffs hereinafter referred ,
IDER AND SHUKEN
•O■■s V%AT LAW
' 60'■0•Vf MYE 1
155
uo,crus .un
anaai
uu coos."
I
r r II
1 to collectively as "DEL GADO". The real property located at 1039 Westridge
4.
2 Avenue, Danville, CA, consisting of a single, family dwelling through written
3 real estate contract , a portion of which is attached hereto, marked Exhibit d
i
4 A, and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth. Defendants , 'e°
5 falsely and fraudulently in selling the property located at 1039 Westridge
6 . Avenue, Danville, CA, hereinafter referred to simply as "THE -PROPERTY"., intended
7 I to deceive and defraud DEL GADO by failing to inform DEL GADO that the subject
8 ! property had had a serious flood some time it) the two or three years just
9 �� prior to WALCH selling the property to DEL GADO. At no time throughout the
I
10 negotiations , regarding the purchase of the property by DEL' GADO from WALCH
i
11 was any mention made of the serious flooding which took place within approximat ly
12 three years prior to the date of the sale.
13 5. WALCH had a duty to disclose to DEL GADO the serious nature
14 I of the flooding which had occurred within three years prior to November,
15 1975, as the serious flooding which had occurred presented a known defect
16 to the residence in question of which WALCH were fully aware but DEL GADO
17 or -anyone else looking at the property for sale, would not be put on notice
18 to inquire as regards any possible potential for flooding. WALCH had a
19 duty to disclose the full extent of the prior flood to the property and by
20 failing to disclose misrepresented the '-,true conditions of the. property
21 to plaintiff DEL GADO. The residence in question had a serious hidden defect ,
22 and WALCH failure to disclose said hidden defect was at the least negligent
23 misrepresentation and most probably fraudulent_ 'thh�ldina or concealment
24 of known defects in the resident property—.-----
25
roper25 6. DEL GADO heard and saw a1L representations made by WALCH
26 and WALCH'S AGENTS, and not being informed of a serious latent defect , were
i
!ER AND NIUKZN
'.-ra♦t AT LAW �.
:•artrovaa
1
euro warua
.wo.CALIF.M,n .
.a.cew•u
I
.,r i
I
1 induced by and did purchase the property in question based upon all representa
2 tions -made and visuals observations of the residence.
3 7. WALCH had a duty to disclose to DEL GADO the seriousness
4 ; of the latent or hidden defect in the property in question in that they were
5 aware that their property had had serious flooding, which inundated the residence
6 and swimming pool within three years prior to the sale to the DEL GADOS.
t
7 8. DEL GADO purchased from WALCH the real property in question
g on or about November 19, 1975, or thereafter, upon close of escrow.
�1 I
9 9. On January 4, 1983, during an unusual rainstorm DEL GADOS
10 I property had serious flooding when the drainage ditch behind and running
11 i adjacent to their property owned and operated by' the Contra Costa County j
i h
12 Flood Control District, clogged, overflowed inundating DEL GADO'S property
` 13 I and filling their swimming pool with mud which rendered same inoperable.
1410. Within three years prior to the filing of this action DEL
,I
i
15 (I GADOS found through one Mr.. Feltrip, who lives across the street from the
I
16 DEL GADOS, they found that the same flooding problem had occurred some time
i
17 prior to their purchasing the residence in 1975, approximately 1972 or 1973, i
IS because Mr. Feltrip stated to them "I 've seen this flooding before, I 've
19 helped to dig your pool out before, the same problem occurred in 1972 or
I
20 11973 when the WALCHS' lived there." At no time prior to, during or after
21 the DEL GADOS purchase of the residence in question from WALCH did WALCH
22 reveal to DEL GADOS the seriousness of the latent defect which the property !
i
?3 in question had.
24 11. As a proximate result of the wrongful withholding of informatir
j 25 by WALCH when they had a duty to disclose the latent defect to DEL GADOS,
i
26 the DEL GADOS have been damaged in an out-of-pocket expense of approximately
iSCHNEIDER ANDSHUKEN 1
AttOONtr,At LAW
U45* AND AVINU9
157
OA[►AN0.0111.9u19
pLM1i i
UOOO COOS u,
I
�( $50,000.00, as well as they are now under a duty to disclose to any future
2 potential purchaser the serious latent defect with their residence, which
i
3 I reduces the value of the 'residence by more than $150,000.00, in addition
I
4 i to the out-of-pocket damages suffered by DEL GADOS.
S i 12. WALCH'S intentional concealment .of a latent known defect
I
6 when they had a duty to disclose is fraud, and exemplary damages should be
- j awarded in the sum of $300,000.00. --
8 ; 13. The written contract under which DEL GADOS purchased said
9 property from WALCH contains an attorney's fee provision, and as such DEL
f
10 i GADOS should be entitled to attorney's fees , in this action.
11WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for damages against defendants , and
i
12 j each of them, as follows:
13 i 1. For damages as a result of the intentional withholding of
14 �! information concerning a latent defect, the sum of $50,000.00, out-of-pocket
15 expenses , and $150,000.00 lost value;
` I
16 2. Punitive damages in the sum of $300,000.00;
17 3. Attorney's fees according to proof; and
18 ! 4. Costs of suit.
19 + Dated: July 21., 1963ANO
I
20 1'
.. ...
I . SCHN EIDER, Attomey for Plaintiffs
21
22
23
24
25
26
UMNEIDER AMD SMUKEN
�TTO�Q ra R ui.
caI
rtrrreus� - - t
aw sero wne y 5 g
�aurn. alr wn 1
Yr/1 COOS•1, 1
I
i w ,
I MARTIN, RYAN & ANDRADA
A Professional Corporation ;
2 Ordway Building, Suite 785
One Kaiser Plaza
3 Oakland, CA 94612
(415) 763-6510
4
Attorneys for Defendants
5 JAN LYNN WALCH and JANET 0.
WALCH
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
9 ROBERT L. DEL GADO and SUSAN F.
DEL GADO, individuals, husband NO. 249840
10 and wife,
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR
11 Plaintiffs, DAMAGE FOR FRAUD AND
DECEIT IN THE SALE OF
12 v. REAL ESTATE, AS AMENDED
13 JAN LYNN WALCH, JANET 0. WALCH,
DOES 1 through 3,
14
Defendants.
15
16 COMES NOW the defendants, JAN LYNN WALCH and JANET 0.
17 WALCH, and by way of answer to the unverified complaint as
18 amended by the Amendment to Complaint on file herein, these
19 defendants deny, generally and specifically, each and every
20 : allegation contained therein, and further deny that plaintiffs
21 have been damaged ' in a sum within the jurisdiction of this court
22 or in any sum or sums whatsoever.
�3 BY WAY OF A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO PLAINTIFFS'
24 COMPLAINT, DEFENDANTS ALLEGE:
25 That said Complaint is barred by reason of the statute
26 of limitations, and specifically C.C.P. §338.
LAW OFFICES OF
MARTIN, RYAN
6 ANDRADA 1
A PROFESS10yAl IO
CORPORATN 1
ORDWAY BUILDING,SUITE 70.5
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CALIFORNIA 9.814
AREA COOS(415)70.1-8510 .
1 '
I BY WAY OF A SECOND AFFIW1ATIVE DEFENSE TO PLAINTIFFS'
2 COMPLAINT, DEFENDANTS ALLEGE:
3 That said Complaint fails to state facts sufficient
4 to entitle plaintiffs to attorney' s -
fees.-5 BY WAY OF A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO PLAINTIFFS '
6 COMPLAINT, DEFENDANTS ALLEGE:
7 That said Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to
8 constitute a cause of action against these defendants.
9 BY WAY OF P_ FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO PLAINTIFFS'
10 COMPLAINT, DEFENDANTS ALLEGE:
11 That plaintiffs themselves were negligent and their
12 negligence bars or diminishes their right of recovery.
13 WHEREFORE, defendants pray judgment that plaintiffs
14 take nothing by reason of the complaint, as amended, on file
15 herein, that these defendants be hence dismissed with their
16 costs of suit herein incurred, and for such other and further
17 relief as may seem just and proper in the premises.
18 DATED: November 3 , 1983.
19
20 MARTIN, RYAN & ANDRADA
21 A Professional Corporation
i
22
By
23
JQSEPH D. RYAN
24
25
26
LAW OFFICES OF -2-
MARTIN,
2-MARTIN, RYAN
& ANDRADA
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ORDWAv BUILDING.SUITE 785 O
ONE KAISER PLAZA '
OAKLAND.CALIFORNIA 84812
AREA CODE(415)7634510
1 t
1 I , GEORGIA LEE, certify that I am over the age of
2 18 years and not a party to the within action ; that my business
3
address�,is : One- Kaiser Plaza, Suite•/7.85, Oakland , California
4 94612; that on November 14, 1983 I placed a
5 true copy of the foregoing document (s.) entitled:
6 ANSWER TO C014PLAINT FOR DAMAGE FOR FRAUD AND DECIT IN THE
7 SALE OF REAL ESTATE, AS AMENDED,
8
9
10 in an envelope, and caused it to be sealed and deposited in the
11 United States mail at Oakland, California, with postage fully
12 prepaid thereon, addressed in the manner set forth below:
13 SCHNEIDER AND SHUKEN
3645 Grand Avenue - Penthouse
14 Oakland, CA 94610
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 I*declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
�3 is true and correct.
24 Executed on November 14 1983 at
25 Oakland, California .
26 --��_ _
/GEORGIA L
LAw OrnCDS or
+ARTIN RYAN
& ANDRADA
+nris•o+• co+ro...o+
+..eURO1NG.sU.0re s 1
CENIEP
AND.CA[ICOANIA 04612
•.f+Coot 1.•11I.w.Pvo
1 MARTIN, RYAN & ANDRADA
A Professional Corporation
2 Ordway Building, Suite 785
One Kaiser Plaza
3 Oakland, CA_ 94612
(415) 763-6510
4
Attorneys for Defendants and
5 Cross-complainants JAN LYNN
WALCH and JANET 0. WALCH
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
9 ROBERT L. DEL GADO and SUSAN F.
DEL GADO, individuals, husband
10 and wife,
11 Plaintiffs, NO. 249840
12 V.
CROSS-COMPLAINT
13 JAN LYNN WALCH, JANET 0. WALCH, FOR INDEMNITY
DOES 1 through 3,
14
Defendants.
15 /
16 JAN LYNN WALCH and JANET 0.
WALCH,
17
Cross-complainants,
18
V.
19
THOMAS JACKSON, VALLEY REALTY,
20 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CONTRA
COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
21 WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, DOE 1
VAN AUKEN, •DOE 2 VAN AUKEN, and
22 DOES 3 through 20,
23 Cross-defendants. /
24 COMES NOW Cross-complainants JAN LYNN WALCH and
25 JANET O. WALCH and cross-complain against cross-defendants, and
26 each of them, and for a cause of action allege as follows:
LAW OFFICES OF
MARTIN, RYAN
S ANDRADA
,.ROFE551ONAl conroa�rrov
ORDWAY BUILOING.SUITE 785 162
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CALIFORNIA 94612
AREA CODE 1415)763-6510
J
1 I
2 Cross-complainants incorporate by reference complaint
3 as against them, without admitting the truth of any of the
4 allegations therein. Cross-complainants allege that if despite
5 their denial of same, they are held liable to plaintiffs, it will
6 be by reason of the acts or omissions of cross-defendants and each
7 of them for reasons as hereinafter set forth. Cross-complainants
8 are entitled to full equitable indemnity for their derivative
9 or vicarious liability or alternatively to partial equitable
10 indemnity as against cross-defendants. Cross-complainants intend
11 this complaint to act as a demand to be indemnified and held
12 harmless by cross-defendants and each of them and therefore prays
13 that all attorneys' fees incurred hereinafter are, pursuant to
14 C.C.P. §1021. 6 an item of their damages.
15 II
16 DOE 1 VAN AUKEN and DOE 2 VAN P_UKEN and DOES 3 through
. 17 10 are owners of property adjoining the plaintiffs ' property
18 and by their acts or omissions have altered the watercourse
19 running past plaintiffs' property with the result that they
20 caused the flooding of which plaintiffs complain.
21 III
22 Cross-defendants THOMAS JACKSON and VALLEY REALTY were
�3 realtors engaged by cross-complainants in connection with the
24 sale of the property to plaintiffs. Cross-defendants JACKSON,
25 VALLEY and DOES 11 through 15 failed to properly advise
26 Cross-complainants of their duties with respect to the sale.
LAW OFFICES OF -2-
MARTIN,
2-
MARTIN, RYAN
$ ANDRADA 163
A PROFESSIONAL CORPCRATON
ORDWAY BUILDING.SUITE 705
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CALIFORNIA 94012
AREA CODE(415)707-0510
I of their property or alternatively failed to accurately
2 communicate information with respect to the property imparted to
3 them by Cross-complainants to prospective purchasers.
4 IV
5 Cross-defendants CONTRA COSTA COUNTY and CONTRA COST?
6 COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT and DOES 16
7 through 20 are public entities who either own or have easements
8 over property including a watercourse which runs adjacent to.
9 plaintiffs ' property. Cross-defendants CON'T'RA COSTA. COUNTY and
10 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRIC7T'
11 and DOES 16 through 20 have alternatively either failed to
12 properly maintain their property, with the result that at all
13 times relevant it constituted a dangerous coedit=on of public
14 property, or have designed, :maintained and operated. their
15 property in such a way as to constitute ? taking of plaintiffs '
16 property. Simultaneous with the filing of the Cross-complaint ,
17 a claim is being filed with the aforesaid' public entities , and
18 Cross-complainants pray leave of court to append the claim and
19 the denial thereof_ , if any, hereto for purposes of satisfying
20 the claims requirement provisions of the Governrent Code .
21 WHEREFORE, Cross-complainants pray judgment against
22 Cross-defendants and each of them for:
23 1. Full equitable inOe-,,nit i and att_trneys ' fees; and/or
24 2. Partial equitable indemnity; and/or
25
26
LAW OFFICES OF 3
MARTIN, RYAN !l
& ANDRADA h
A MOFESSIONAL CORPORATION V
ORDWAY BUILDING.SUITE 785
ONE KAISER PLAZA
!OAKLAND.CALIFORNIA 94612 '
AREA CODE(415)763-65tO
I • 1 � � '
1 3. Such further relief as the court may deem proper.
2 DATED: November 8 , 1983'
3
4 MARTIN, RYAN & ANDRADA
A Professional Corporation
5
6 By _
7 JOSEPH D. RYAN
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
LAW OFFICES OF _
MARTIN. RYAN
& ANDRADA
A MCIFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ORDWAY BUILDING.SUITE 185
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CALIFORNIA 94812
1 I , GEORGIA LEE, certi- fy, that T am over the true of
2 18 years and not a party to the within action ; that my business
3 address Js : One- Kaiser Plaza , Suite 785 , Oakland , California
4 94612 , that on November 14 , 1983 1 placed a
5 true copy of the foregoing docwnent (s ) entitled :
6 CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR INDEMNITY .
7
8
9
10 in an envelope, and caused it to be sealed and deposited in the
11 United States mail at Oakland , California, with postage fully
12 prepaid thereon, addressed in the manner set forth below:
13 SCHNEIDER AND SHUKEN
3645 Grand Avenue - Penthouse
14 Oakland, CA 94610
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 I declare under penalty of p(_rjul-y th{lt the fo rr(
�3 is, true and correct.
24 Executed on. November 14 1 3 at
25 Oakland, California .
26
GEORGIA I;EE�� �—
IAW OFFICES OF
ARTIN, RYAN
ANDRAOA
+ .ofoul co+round+ 1
Nf. Mt15Cp CCNt[p
-NO.CALIFORNIA 94912
AMENDED •CLAIM
BC» OF OF COMA C WTA OOU:TY, QVZF FOTIA BDAIM ACTION
December 13 , 1983
Claim Against the County, ) NO►II; TO CZAa'AM
Routing Endorsements, and ) Rte copy of this document mailed to you is your
Board Action. (All Section ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the
references are to California ) Board of Supervisors (Paragraph III, below) ,
Gwernmmt Code.) ) given pursuant to Gmmnment Code Sections 913
915.4. Please note the "Warning" below.
Claimant: Dame ' Construction Company County Counsel
Attorney: Law Offices of
NOV 21 1983
Boornazian, Jensen & Garthe Martinez, CA 94553-
Address: 1504 Franklin Street
Oakland, CA 94604
Amount: Undetermined
By delivery to Clerk on
Date'Received: November 21 , 1983 By mail, postmarked on 1 1 /1 R(R,4,
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted
DATM: 11/21/83 J.R. LESSON, Clerk, By , Deputy
el R Calhoun
II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
(Check one only)
(,Y\) This Claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2.
( ) This Claims, FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we
are so notifying claimant. The Board carnet act for 15 days (Section 910.8) .
( ) Claim is not timely filed. Board should reject claim on ground that it was
filed late. (5911.2)
MM: ,��/-��' JOHN Be CLAUSM, County Counsel. By n % Deputy
III. BOARD OM ER By unanimous vote of Supervisors present
( This claim is rejected in full.
( ) This claim is rejected in full because it was not presented within the time
allowed by law.
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Corder entered
in its minutes for this date. oe
DATED: UC 131983f
J.R. MS90D], tY
iARffiJG (Gov't. C. 5913)
Subject to certain mss, you have only six (6) months frau
the date this notice was personally delivered or deposited in the mail to
file-a court action on this claim. See Gbver ment Code Section 945.6.
You may eeek the advice of any attorney of your choice in connection
with this matter. If you want to coa><sult an attorney, you should do so
immediately.
IV. FROM: o TO: County Counsel, 2 County AdminiiUaitor
Attached are copies of the above Claim. We notified the claimant of the
Board's action on this Claim by mailing a copy of this document, and a
memo thereof has been filed and endorsed an the Board Is copy of this
Claim in accordance with Section 29703. 167
DAM: .DEC 1 s 1983 J. R. C LSSON, Clerk, (bi--y' �Vyo��,_ ,JDeputy
LE
T
�
AMENDED CLAIM AGAINST THE .
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRIC -NOV-Z/ .5 JD
!. R. OLSSONCUCK ARD OF SUPEW
NT ��
TO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRI
DAME' CONSTRUCTION COMPANY , INC. hereby makes claim against the
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT for the sum of money DAME '
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY , INC . may have to pay as the result of the action ,
Action No . 232 266 , filed against claimant in the Superior Court of
California , County of Contra Costa , and makes the following statements
in support of the claim:
1 . Claimant' s post office address is : P . O. Box 100, San Ramon ,
California 94583.
2. Notices concerning the claim should be sent to the law offices
of Boornazian, Jensen & Garthe , 1504 Franklin Street, P . O. Box 12925 ,
Oakland , California 94604.
3. The place of the occurrences or omissions giving rise to this
claim is that area of real property at the San Cantonio and San Ramon
Creeks , and their confluence , to the rear of those residential lots at
223, 229 , 233 Canyon Creek Court and 2544 and 2558 Kilpatrick Court in
San Ramon, California , where the Contra Costa County Flood Control
District has a drainage easement. It has recently been discovered that
such occurrences or omissions have taken place there for approximately
the past 10 (ten) years .
4. The circumstances giving rise to the claim are as follows :
At the above times and places, due to the dangerous condition of the
real property, which is controlled by the CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD
CONTROL DISTRICT by means of a drainage easement, and due to the
omission of maintenance work in that area, or negligent maintenance
work, certain homeowners , residing at those lots identified above ,
experienced erosion and earth movement problems in the rear Dortions
of their yards , so that such homeowners filed a civil suit against
DAME ' CONSTRUCTION COMPANY , INC . on or about February 26, 1982. DAME '
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY , INC. was served with the First Amended Complaint
on or about May 20, 1982.
5. Claimant' s injuries are that the civil suit, described above ,
was filed against DAME ' CONSTRUCTION COMPANY , INC . , and, as a result
thereof, claimant may have to pay money to plaintiff should judgment
be entered into against claimant. Should claimant be held liable to
plaintiffs , such liability will be, at least in part, because the
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT was negligent in its main-
tenance of the easement area and caused a dangerous condition to exist ,
so that the CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT should then
wholly or partially indemnify DAME ' CONSTRUCTION COMPANY , INC .
6 . The names of the public employees causing the claimant ' s
injuries are unknown .
7 . DAME ' CONSTRUCTION COMPANY , INC . ' s claim as of the date of
this claim is unknown, as no judgment has been entered ; however, plain-
tiffs have each asserted approximately $60, 000. 00 (Sixth Thousand
Dollars ) in repair costs , $20,000. 00 (Twenty Thousand Dollars) to
$44 ,000. 00 ( Fofty-four Thousand Dollars ) in diminution in market value ,
and not-yet-determined damages for loss of use and emotional 'distress
as well as a punitive damages claim.
8. The basis of computation of the above amounts comes out of
Interrogatory responses made by plaintiffs in the Superior Court action.
DATED: November 18, 1983 BOORNAZIAN , JENSEN & GARTHE
A Professional Corporation
BY .:
KEVIN T. KERR
On behalf of Claimant
2 - 169
AMENDED CLAIM
BOARD OF S'[JPB MISMS OF COMA CDM 00 TY, CALIFORNIA BOARD ACTION
Claim Against the County, ) NOTE TO CLAMAIJT December .13 , 1983
Routing Endorsements, and ) The dopy of this document mailed to you is your
Board Action. (All Section ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the
references are to California ) Board of Supervisors (Paragraph III, below) ,
Goverment Code.) ) given pursuant to Government Code Sections 913
a 915.4. Please note the "Warning" below.
Claimant: Geraldine R. Rosine and Bernelle Johnson
Attorney: Whiting, Rubenstein, Swager & Levy
Hilltop Office Park
Address: 3220 Blume Drive, Suite 260
Richmond, CA 94806
AnxMt: Unspecified
By delivery to Clerk on
Date'Received:November 7 , 1983 By mail, postmarked onNovember 2 . 1983
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 70: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-notedClaim.
DATED: 11/7/83 J.R. M SSCN, Clerk, By .� Deputy
e a oun
II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of tT9 Board of Supervisors
(Check one only)
(x ) This Claim omplies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2.
/( ) This Claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we
are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8) .
( ) Claim is not timely filed. Board should reject claim on ground that it was
filed late. (§911.2)
DATED: JOHN Be c VYM, County Counsel, By . Deputy
II BOARD ORDER By unanumus vote of Supervisors present
This claim is rejected in full.
( ) This claim is rejected in full because it was not presented within the time
allowed by law.
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered
in its minutes for this date.
DATED: DEC 13 1983 J.R. CLSSM, Clerk,*-56
MATOUM (Gov't. C. 6913)
Subject to certain oweptions, you have only six (6) months from
the date this notice was personally delivered or deposited in the mail to
file'a court action on this claim. See Goverment Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of any attorney of your choice in connection
with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so
immediately.
IV. FFCM: Merk of the Board 70: County Counsel, 2 County Adninistrator
Attached are copies of the above Claim. We notified the claimant of the
Board's action an this Claim by mailing a copy of this docutment, and a
veno thereof has been filed and endorsed an the Board's copy of this '` 1 ,�
Claim in aco wdance with Section 29703.
DAM: DEC 13 1983=. R. M8SM, clerk, ���
.' F { LED ,
NOV .5/ 1913
J. R. OISSON
CLER 60ARD OF SUIERVM50R5
�Y rtPuty
CLAIM OF GERALDINE R. ROSINE AND BERNELL
FOR INJURIES TO REAL PROPERTY
AGAINST
THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
1 . The time and place of injury and damage: I
March 9 , 1983
2. The location of damage or injury:
Real property located at 4133 Barranca, E1 Sobrante,
California 94803
3. The damage occurred as follows:
A new drainage culvert was built, approved,and/or
constructed by CONTRA COSTA COUNTY where San Pablo Creek flows
under El Portal Drive. As a result of the construction, the
natural flow of the water through the creek was diverted directly
into the bank below claimants' property resulting in severe
erosion and ultimately in the collapse of the bank and soil
supporting claimants' single family residence at the above
address.
4. When the COUNTY approved, constructed or built a new-drainage
culvert under El Portal Drive, the flow of the water was diverted
from its natural course and directed directly into the bank
supporting claimants' property.
-1- 171
f)
5. The name and addresses of the officers or employees of the
COUNTY responsible for the damage are unknown to claimant at this
time.
6 . The nature and extent of the damages to claimants at this
time are unknown, but a portion of the claimants' backyard has
collapsed into the creek and the single family residence located
on the property is also in danger of collapsing into the creek.
All notices or other communications with regard to this
claim should be sent to claimant at WHITING, RUBENSTEIN, SWAGER &
LEVY, Attorneys at Law, Hilltop Office Park, 3220 Blume Drive,
Suite 260 , Richmond, California 94806 .
Dated: November 1 , 1983
WHITING, RUBENSTEIN, SWAGER & LEVY
A
By
D UGL.YS E. SWAGER, A orney
for Claimants
-2- 172