HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02121985 - 1.2 (2) CLAIM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNW, CALIFORNIA
and as the Governing Body of the Contra Costa County Water Agen,y BOARD ACTION
Claim Against the County, or District ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT February 12, 1985
governed by the Board of Supervisors, ) The copy of this document mailed,to. you is your
Routing Endorsements, and Board ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the
Action. All Section references are ) Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV, below),
to California Government Codes ) given pursuant to Government Code Section 913
and 915.4. Please note all "Warnings".
Claimant: Michael Dorwart & Robert Klemmedson individually and
doing business as Dorwart & Klemmedson County Counsel
Attorney:. %, Thomas F. Castle ';JAN 16 1985
Kincaid, Gianunzio, Caudle & Hubert
Address: P.O. Box 1828
Oakland, CA 94604 Martinez, CA 94553
Amount: Unspecified By delivery to clerk on
Date Received: January 11, 1984 By mail, postmarked On January 10, 1985
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim.
Dated: January 11, 1985 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy
Jolene Edwards
II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
(� (Check only one)
) 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. Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed
late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late
claim (Section 911.3).
( ) Other:
Dated: By:, - .c Deputy County Counsel
III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: (1) County Counsel, (2) County Administrator
( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3).
IV. BOARD ORDER By unanimous vote of Supervisors present
( This claim is rejected in full.
( ) Other:
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its
minutes for this date.
Dated: 9.zi �, �f�S PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy Clerk
WARNING (Gov. Code Section 913)
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months fram the date of this
notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this
claim. See Government Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this
matter. If you Kant to consult an attorney, you should do so i®ediately.
.V. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: (1) County Counsel, (2) County 'Administrator
Attached are copies of the above claim. We notified the claimant of the Boards
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.
( ) A warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim was mailed
to claimant.
DATED: 02- 7- P 5— PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By �I�. , Deputy Clerk
cc: County Administrator (2) County Counsel (1)
CLAIM
r
• Vim/
VERIFIED CLAIM FOR DAMAGES RECEIVED
JAN " 1985
TO: COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
Clerk, Board of Supervisors PHIL BATCHELOR
K BOA
651 Pine Street, Rom106 CONTR ST PE OSO
Martinez, CA 94553 By • °
CLAIMANT: MICHAEL DORWART and ROBERT KLEMMEDSON, individually and
doing buisness as DORWART & KLEMMEDSON
Michael Dorwart and Robert Klemmedson, individually and doing
business as DORWART & KLEMMEDSON, hereby make a claim against the
above-stated public entity pursuant to Section 910 of the California
Government Code:
1. The name and post office address of claimants is
14 Orinda Way, Orinda, CA 94563
2. Notices concerning this claim should be sent to
THOMAS F. CASTLE, ESQ.
Kincaid, Gianunzio, Caudle & Hubert
200 Webster Street, Second Floor
P. 0. Box 1828
Oakland, CA 94604-0828
3. This claim is for indemnification with respect to the
damages and equitable relief claimed by cross-complainants '
DAVID and ANN HICKS in the following Contra Costa County Superior
Court Action entitled The Cork Harbour Company, a California
corporation vs. The J. Arthur White Corporation, et al . , David
Hicks and Ann Hicks vs. The Cork Harbour Company, a California
Corporation, et al. , Action No. 224922 , filed November 30, 1984
and served on Dorwart & Klemmedson on November 30 , 1984 .
4. The said suit is for damages and equitable relief as a
result of landslides on the property of David and Ann Hicks located
in Tract 4747 in the County of Contra Costa, City of Lafayette,
California.
5 . Claimants are informed and believe that the entity herein
has been named as a defendant or cross-defendant in said action and,
accordingly, has received a copy of the amended cross-complaint
:filed by David. and Ann Hicks.
6 . The circumstances giving rise to this claim are as
follows:
If cross-complainant Hicks or any other party in the
referenced lawsuit prevails against claimants for
damages arising out of the alleged landslides , it will
only be because of the above-stated public entities'
fault and neglect in having failed- to properly maintain,
construct, approve, inspect, design and certify the
drainage, foundation work, road work, gradina
and other construction on the real property known as
subdivision 4747 in the County of Contra Costa, City
of Lafayette, and the entities' failure to properly
perform its discretionary and mandatory duties in
reference to the above-listed work on subdivision
4747 .
7 . Claimants claim as of this date is for indemnification
with respect to any amounts or relief awarded to cross-complainants
or any other party in the said lawsuit, including claimants'
attorneys ' fees , expenses and costs in defending against this said
lawsuit. Said action by cross-complainant :licks asks for general
damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys ' fees and cost of suit
against claimant and other entities .
8 . The names of the public employees causing plaintiff and
cross-complainants ' damages are not.known at this time.
9 . A copy of said amended cross-complaint is attached hereto.
I am informed and believe and thereon allege under penalty
of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Oakland, California
this 9th day of January, 1985 .
THOMAS F. CASTLE
i
i 4
1 RICHARD G. BLAIR, ESQ.
NANCY L. BRAUN, ESQ. l
2 KASS, MORGAN, MILLER & WILSON
Professional Corporation ya
3 Ordway Building, Suite 1300 0
One Kaiser Plaza 4_1
4 Oakland, California 94612
Telephone: (415) 465-1093
5
Attorneys for Cross-Complainants
6 DAVID HICKS and ANN HICKS
7
8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA raAK'
10
11 THE CORK HARBOUR COMPANY, No. 22224982
a California corporation,
12 AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, FOR INDEMNITY AND
13 DAMAGES
v s.
14
THE J. ARTHUR WHITE
15 CORPORATION, et al. ,
16 Defendants. P
17
18
19
20
21
22
I
23
24 RECEI'VE D
25
DEC 6 1984
26 rf�' �ty�
KASS, MORGAN r I f0fiE i 3CO
MILLER &WILSON
;9OFESSIONAL CORPORAMN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
O BUILDING,
THIRTEENTH FLOOR
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA 94612
(415)465.1093
{
i
i
I DAVID HICKS and ANN HICKS,
i
2 Cross-Complainants,
' I
3 vs.
4 THE CORK HARBOUR COMPANY, a
California corporation, J. ARTHUR
5 WHITE CORPORATION, a California
corporation, HAPPY VALLEY ESTATES
6 HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, a non-profit
corporation, PURCELL, RHOADES &
7 ASSOCIATES, DORWART & KLEMMEDSON,
AI HAEL. DDRWARmROBERT KL_EM_MEDSON,
8 PARVIZ MEHRAN, MARIAN MEHRAN, CONRAD
YATES, FRANK LENCH, CITY OF LAFAYETTE,
9 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, CONTRA COSTA
WATER AGENCY, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
10 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, EAST
BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITIES DISTRICT,
11 CARL KINDT, BILL MAHER & SONS, INC. ,
INDEPENDENT CONSTRUCTION CO. , MELVIN _
12 LEE ASSOCIATES and ROES 104 through
150 , inclusive,
13
Cross-Defendants.
14 /
15 COME NOW cross-complainants DAVID HICKS and ANN HICKS and
16 allege as follows:
17
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
18 (Indemnity - Against All Cross-Defendants)
19 1 . Cross-defendants ROES 104 through 150, inclusive, are
20 the fictitious names of those cross-defendants whose true names
21 are unknown to cross-complainants, and whose true capacities,
22 whether as individuals, corporations , partnerships , joint ven-
23 tures and/or associations , are also unknown to cross-
24 complainants , and when such true names are ascertained, cross-
25 complainants will amend this cross-complaint by inserting said
26 true name's in the place of said fictitious names in accordance
KASS, MORGAN
MILLER &WILSON
ROFESSIONAL CORPORAno.-4 2 .
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ORDWAY BUILDING, j
THIRTEENTH FLOOR
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA 94612 I /
14151 465.1093
I
1 with the Code of Civil Procedure §474 . Cross-complainants are
2 informed and believe and therefore allege that whenever and
3 wherever in this cross-complaint any cross-defendants are the
4 subject of any charging allegations by cross-complainants , said
5 ROES are also responsible in some manner for the events and
I
6 happenings and it shall be deemed that said cross-defendants
7 ROES 104 through 150 , inclusive, and each of them, are likewise
8 the subject of said charging allegations herein by cross-
9 complainants .
10 2 . Cross-complainants are informed and believe and thereon
11 allege that at all times herein mentioned cross-defendants I
12 ROES 104 through 150 were the agents, servants and employees of
13 their co-cross-defendants and in doing the things hereinafter I
i
14 mentioned were acting in the scope of their authority as such
15 agents , servants, and employees with permission and consent from
their co-cross-defendants .
16 �
17 3 . Cross-complainants are informed and believe and thereon j
18 allege that at all times herein mentioned the cross-defendants
19 named in the caption were the agents , servants, and employees of
20 the co-cross-defendants and in doing the things hereinafter
21 mentioned were acting in the scope of their authority as such
I
22 agents, servants , and employees with permission and consent from
i
23 their co-cross-defendants.
24 4 . On or about September 13 , 1982 the First Amended
25 Complaint for Negligence, Breach of Contract, Breach of Warranty,
and Strict Liability was served by plaintiff, THE CORK 26
.HARBOUR
KASS. MORGAN
MILLER & WILSON
HtOf ESSIONAL CORPORAnON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3 . rj
O BUILDING.
THIRTEENTH FLOOR
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA 94612
(415)465-1093
i
1 COMPANY, in ;this matter. Said First Amended Complaint bore
2 Action No. 224922 for the Superior Court of California in and for
3 the County of Contra Costa. On June 14 , 1983 , HAPPY VALLEY
4 ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ' ASSOCIATION filed a Complaint in Intervention
5 in that action. Additionally, on July 27, 1983, J. ARTHUR WHITE
I
6 CORPORATION filed a Cross-Complaint for Indemnity in this matter
7 in the Superior Court of California in and for the County of
. I
g Contra Costa, bearing Action No. 224922, and on August 12, 1983,
9 the HAPPY VALLEY ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ' ASSOCIATION filed a Cross-
10 Complaint for Indemnity in the same court and bearing the same
i
11 action number. Without admitting the truth of the allegations j
12 contained in these pleadings, cross-complainants hereby incorpo-
i
13 rate by this reference all allegations of said First Amended
i
14 Complaint, Complaint in Intervention, and Cross-Complaints for
15 Indemnity.
i
16 5 . Cross-complainants are, and at all times herein men-
17
tioned were, the owners of certain real property located within
Subdivision 4747 in Contra Costa County, California, and all
(119
improvements thereon. Said real property, including all improve-
20 ments thereon, shall be referred to from time to time herein as
i
21 "the Hicks property. "
22 6 . At all times herein mentioned, cross-defendant
23 DORWART & KLEMMEDSON was a business organization, the exact form
24 and nature of which is unknown to cross-complainants, which was
25
at all times herein mentioned doing business within the State of
26 California. Cross-complainants are informed and believe and
KASS, MORGAN
MILLER& WILSON
,Y?PESSIONAL CORPORAMN 4.
ATTORNEYS AT LAWn
ORDWAY BUILDING, //I
THIRTEENTH FLOOR V'
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA 94612
14151 465.1093
c �
1 thereon allege that cross-defendants MICHAEL DORWART and ROBERT
2 KLEMMEDSON were the principals of DORWART & KLEMMEDSON.
3 7 . Cross-complainants are informed and believe and thereon I
4 allege that cross-defendants DORWART & KLEMMEDSON and MICHAEL
5 DORWART and ROBERT KLEMMEDSON acted as general contractor for the
6 construction of all improvements on the Hicks property and as
7 such, constructed, supervised, and installed all components of
8 said improvements. Cross-complainants are informed and believe
9' and thereon allege that said cross-defendants , and each of them,
10 and ROES 104 through 110, individually and collectively, care-
11 lessly and negligently performed said services and work so as to
12 cause and contribute to the property damage and losses alleged in
the complaints and cross-complaints on file herein.
13 p p �
14 8 • Cross-complainants are informed and believe and thereon
15 all ge that at all times herein mentioned, cross-defendants CITY
16 OF LAFAYETTE, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, CONTRA COSTA WATER AGENCY,
17 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, and EAST BAY
18 MUNICIPAL UTILITIES DISTRICT were and are public entities created
19 under the laws of the constitution of the State of California and
20 are chartered or incorporated or otherwise public entities
21 subject to the jurisdiction of this court. Cross-complainants
22 have filed claims against each of these _publj_c_entities, which
23 claims have been rejected or deemed rejected at the time this
24 cross-complaint is served upon said cross-defendants.
25 9 . Cross-complainants are informed and believe and thereon
I
26 allege that cross-defendants CITY OF LAFAYETTE, CONTRA COSTA
i
KASS. MORGAN I
MILLER & WILSON
•41 IFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS LAW I O
O THIRTEENTH
BUILDING.
THIRTEENTH FLOOR
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA 94612
4415!465-1093
I
I
1 WATER AGENCY, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, and
2 EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITIES DISTRICT, and each of them,
3 negligently and carelessly approved, certified, inspected, and
4 otherwise condoned the construction, design, soil tests,
i
5 installation of drainage materials, foundation work, and other
I
6 construction o the real ro ert of cross-complainants and the
I
7 whole of Subdivision 4747 and that as a result of said conduct,
-------------
8 caused and contributed to the property damage and losses alleged
9 in the complaints and cross-complaints on file herein.
10 10 . Cross-complainants are informed and believe and thereon
11 allege that the CITY OF LAFAYETTE hired the COUNTY OF CONTRA j
- i
12 COSTA to perform services for it in inspecting, approving and
13 certifying the construction of Subdivision 4747 and as such the
14 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA was not acting in its governmental 1
15 capacity but was instead acting as a subcontractor and private
16 entity. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA was negligent in performing
i
17 duties for the CITY OF LAFAYETTE. Such negligence caused damage
18 to cross-complainants.
19
11 . At all times herein mentioned, cross-defendants
20 PURCELL, RHOADES & ASSOCIATES INDEPENDENT CONSTRUCTION CO. , BILL
21 MAHER & SONS , INC . and MELVIN LEE ASSOCIATES were business
22 organizations , the exact form and nature of which are unknown to i
23 cross-complainants , which were at all times mentioned doing
24 business within the State of California.
I
25 12 . Cross-complainants are informed and believe and thereon I
26 allege that at all times herein mentioned, cross-defendants
KASS. MORGAN
MILLER &WILSON
LgOFE1SIONAL CORPORAnO%
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 6 .
ORDWAY BUILDING.
THIRTEENTH FLOOR
ONEKAISER
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA 94612
(415)465-1093
i
1 PURCELL, RHOADES & ASSOCIATES, INDEPENDENT CONSTRUCTION CO. , BILL
i
2 MAHER & SONS, INC. , MEL VIN LEE ASSOCIATES and ROES 111 through
3 120 , collectively and individually, negligently designed,
4 constructed, sampled, tested, reported on, inspected,
5 investigated, graded, excavated and supervised construction on
i
6 the real property commonly known as Subdivision 4747, including
7 the Hicks property, and as a result of said negligence, caused
8 and contributed to the property losses and damages as alleged in
9 the complaints and cross-complaints herein.
10 13 . Cross-complainants are informed and believe and thereon
11 allege that at all times herein mentioned, cross-defendants
12 PARVIZ MEHRAN and MARIAN MEHRAN, CONRAD YATES, FRANK LENCH, CARL
13 KINDT and ROES 121 through 130 , collectively and individually,
14 were owners of certain real property located near and around
r
15 Subdivision 4747, and at all times herein mentioned, said
i
16 cross-defendants , and each of them, negligently and carelessly i
17 maintained, kept up, supervised, controlled, worked on and
18 engaged in other activities on said certain real property so as
19 to allow water to drain, and downspouts to flow, at and toward
20 said Subdivision 4747 and its component lots , including
21 cross-complainants ' , thereby causing and contributing to the
22 property damage and losses alleged in the complaints and
23 cross-complaints on file herein.
24 14 . Cross-complainants are informed and believe and thereon
25 allege that at all times herein mentioned, cross-defendant
26 J. ARTHUR WHITE CORPORATION was a California corporation licensed
KASS, MORGAN
MILLER &WILSON
itiOFESSIONAL CORPORAnO%
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 7 .
ORDWAY BUILDING.
THIRTEENTH FLOOR
ONE KAISER PLATA '
OAKLAND,CA 94612
14151 465-1093
. I
1 to do business and doing business in the State of California; and
i
2 that said cross-defendant contracted to perform installation of
3 an underground sanitary sewer system, storm drainage system and
4 water system on Subdivision 4747 , and that said contract services
1.
5 were performed in a negligent and careless manner so as to cause
6 damaging soil movement, and as a result thereof, said conduct
I
7 caused and contributed to the property damage and losses alleged f
8 in the complaints and cross-complaints on file herein.
9 15. Cross-complainants are informed and believe and thereon
i
10 allege that at all times herein mentioned, cross-defendant THE
11 CORK HARBOUR COMPANY was a California corporation licensed to do I
12 business and doing business in the State of California; and that
13 said cross-defendant carelessly and negligently constructed,
14 maintained, designed, inspected, tested , repaired and approved
15 plans , soils, improvements, and buildings , on and around Sub-
16 division 4747 and its component lots , and as a result of said
Ii
17 negligence and carelessness , caused and contributed to the I
18 property damage and losses alleged in the complaints and cross-
19 complaints on file herein.
20 16 . Cross-complainants are informed and believe and thereon
i
21 allege that cross-defendant HAPPY VALLEY ESTATES HOMEOWNERS '
22 ASSOCIATION is and at all times herein mentioned was a California
23 non-profit corporation doing business in California. Cross-
24
complainants are further informed and believe that HAPPY VALLEY
25
ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ' ASSOCIATION was at all times herein mentioned
26 the owner of Lot A of Subdivision 4747 and negligently and
KASS, MORGAN
MILLER & WILSON
;WWF G5510NAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 8 .
ORDWAY BUILDING.
THIRTEENTH FLOOR
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA 94612
(4151465-1093
1 carelessly maintained its property in a manner which caused and
I
2 contributed to the property damage and losses alleged in the
3 complaints and cross-complaints on file herein.
4 17. If plaintiff sustained damages as alleged in its
5 complaint, such damages were caused entirely or partly by the
6 active conduct of cross-defendants in committing the acts and/or
7 omissions alleged by plaintiff.
8 18 . An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between
9 cross-complainants and cross-defendants in that cross-
10 complainants contend, and cross-defendants deny, the following:
11 a. That as between cross-complainants and cross-
12 defendants, and each of them, any and all liability which this
13 cross-complainant may incur as a result of the allegations of the
14 complaint by plaintiffs on file herein, or any cross-complaint on
15 file herein, is the full responsibility and liability of cross-
16 defendants, and each of them; and
17 b. That as a result, cross-defendants are obligated
18 to partially indemnify or fully indemnify cross-complainants for
19 sums that cross-complainants may be compelled to pay ap the
20 result of any damages, judgment or other awards recovered by
21 plaintiff or other cross-complainants against these cross-
22 complainants.
23 19 . In the event of any finding of liability against
24 cross-complainants, which liability they expressly deny, cross-
25 complainants will be entitled to a declaration of indemnifications .
26 and indemnity from cross-defendants herein, and each of them.
KASS. MORGAN
MILLER &WILSON
:ROFESSIONAL CORPORA1101
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 9 .
ORDWAY BUILDING.
THIRTEENTH FLOOR
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA 94612
(415)4651093
i
1 20 . Cross-complainants intend this cross-complaint to be
2 notification1to cross-defendants that cross-complainants hereby
3 tender to cross-defendants the obligation of cross-defendants to
4 defend cross-complainants, pursuant to California Code of Civil
5 Procedure 51021 .6, in that as a result of the torts of cross-
6 defendants , and each of them, cross-complainants have been
7 required to defend against the cross-complaints on file herein
8 and hereby demand defense and indemnity from each of said cross-
9 defendants. Cross-complainants are informed and believe, and
10 thereon allege, that each of said cross-defendants refuses said
11 demands of tender of defense by cross-complainants.
12 21 . As a further direct and proximate result of the afore-
13 said primary and improper conduct of cross-defendants, and each
14 of them, cross-complainants have necessarily retained the law
15 offices of Kass , Morgan, Miller & Wilson to defend them against
16 the within action, at cross-complainants ' sole cost and expense,
17 and to prepare, file, and prosecute this cross-complaint.
18 Cross-complainants have incurred, and will continue to incur,
19 liabilities for attorneys ' fees and costs in the defense thereof,
20 and in the prosecution of this cross-complaint, in presently
21 unascertained sums , all according to proof at trial.
22 WHEREFORE, cross-complainants pray for judgment as herein-
23 after set forth.
I
24
25
i
26
KASS. MORGAN
MILLER&WILSON
;I—FE 5510tiAL CORPORAno.N
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 10 .
ORDWAY BUILDING.
KFLOOR
ONETHIRTEENTH
ONE KAISER
PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA 94612
1415)4651093
1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Comparative Indemnity)
2 I
3 22 . Cross-complainants incorporate by reference as though
4 fully set forth each and every allegation in the First Cause of
5 Action.
6 23 . Should it be determined that cross-complainants are, by
7 virtue of plaintiffs allegations or the allegations of any other
8 party in this action, liable to plaintiff and/or other parties
9 for any injuries alleged in said complaint or cross-complaint,
10 cross-complainant is entitled to comparative indemnity from
11 cross-defendants , and each of them, for the proportion of said
12 injuries and/or damages caused by the negligence, carelessness,
13 breach, fault and/or other wrongful conduct of cross-defendants,
14 and each of them; said comparative indemnity to be determined by
15 the proportionate degree or allocation of fault for such negli-
16 gence or other wrongful conduct of cross-defendants, and each of
17 them.
18 WHEREFORE, cross-complainants pray for judgment as herein-
19 after set forth.
20 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Inverse Condemnation)
21
22 24 . Cross-complainants incorporate by reference as though
23 fully set forth each and every allegation in the First Cause of
24 Action.
25 25 . Cross-complainants allege that prior to 1971 and
26 thereafter, cross-defendants CITY OF LAFAYETTE, COUNTY OF CONTRA
KASS. MORGAN
MILLER &WILSON
WOFLSSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 11 .
ORDWAY BUILDING.
THIRTEENTH FLOOR
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA 94612
14151 465-1093
• i
i
I COSTA, EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITIES DISTRICT, and ROES 104
2 through 150 ,1 and their agents, the developers and builders of
3 Subdivisions 3314 and 4747 in the County of Contra Costa,
4 negligently participated in, planned, inspected, built, required,
5 maintained, controlled, and accepted the construction and
6 maintenance of the sewer and storm drainage system in both
7 Subdivision 3314 and Subdivision 4747 in or near the City of
8 Lafayette, California.
9 26 . Cross-complainants are the owners of certain real
10 property located on or about Subdivision 4747.
11 27. As a result of the foregoing conduct on the part of THE
12 CITY OF LAFAYETTE, THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, EAST BAY MUNICIPAL
13 UTILITIES DISTRICT, and ROES 104 through 150, and each of them,
14 water from each of said sewage and drainage systems, singly, or
15 in combination, did cause cross-complainants ' land to slide,
16 subside and partially collapse, and to be removed, excavated, and
17 cut away before, on, and after April 7 , 1983 , causing damage to
18 said property, the trees, and vegetation thereon, and threatening'
19 the stability of the improvements thereon.
20 28 . That the conduct of the above cross-defendants is a
21 substantial interference with the rights of cross-complainants,
22 for which they have not been compensated.
23 29 . That as a proximate result of the above mentioned
24 conduct of the above defendants , cross-complainants have been
25 damaged in a sum presently unknown to cross-complainants.
26
KASS, MORGAN
MILLER& WILSON
{NOEESSiOYAL CURPORA11014
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 12.
O BUILDING,
THIRTEENTH FLOOR
ONE KAISER PLAZA l/
OAKLAND,CA 94612
(4151465-1093 i
'• i
(f'
I
i
1 30 . That as a further proximate result, cross-complainants
2 have been coipelled to employ legal counsel to defend against the
3 various cross-complainants and to maintain this action and
4 accordingly, is entitled to attorneys ' fees.
5 31. Cross-complainants have incurred and will incur attor-
6 neys' , appraisal, and engineering fees because of this proceed-
7 ing, in amounts that cannot yet be ascertained, which are
8 recoverable in this action under the provisions of §1036 of the
9 Code of Civil Procedure.
10 WHEREFORE, cross-complainants pray for judgment as herein-
11 after set forth.
12
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
13 (Comparative Negligence - Against All Cross-Defendants)
14 32 . Cross-complainants incorporate by reference as though
15 fully set forth each and every allegation in the First Cause of
16 Action.
17 33 . In the event of any finding of liability against
18 cross-complainants , which liability they expressly deny, cross-
19 complainants will be entitled to both a finding of the..negligence
20 of plaintiffs and cross-defendants and to a declaration reducing
21 or eliminating cross-complainants ' liability and awarding them
22 indemnification in proportion to that finding.
23 WHEREFORE, cross-complainants pray for judgment as herein-
24 after set forth.
25
26
KASS, MORGAN
MILLER&WILSON
?2OFESSIONAL CORPORAMN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 13 .
O BUILDING.
THIRTEENTH FLOOR /V\
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA 94612
(415)465-1093
1 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligence - Against All Cross-Defendants)
2
3 34 . Cross-complainants incorporate by reference as though
4 fully set forth each and every allegation in the First Cause of
5 Action.
6 35 . On or about April 7, 1983 , cross-complainants dis-
7 covered that the Hicks property sustained damage as a result of
8 earth slippage. Since that time, said property has sustained
9 continuing and increasing slippage and movement so as to cause
10 excessive settlement, separation and cracking inside and outside
11 of cross-complainants ' house and substantial damage to the entire
12 Hicks property.
13 36 . Cross-defendants, and each of them, had a duty to
14 cross-complainants to exercise due ,care in the development,
15 construction, sale, inspection, and design of the Hicks property,
16 or in the maintenance of their own property, so as not to expose
17 cross-complainants to an unreasonable risk of harm and personal
18 and property damage.
19 37 . Cross-complainants, and each of them, breached said
20 duty in that said development, construction, sale, inspection,
21 design and maintenance was done negligently and carelessly,
22 thereby failing to prevent damaging soils movement on the Hicks
23 property.
24 38 . Asa proximate result of said negligence, cross-
25 complainants have suffered damage including loss of use and
26 market value of their property, the cost of repairs to said
KASS, MORGAN
MILLER&WILSON
:NOFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 .
ORDWAY BUILDING.
THIRTEENTH FLOOR
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA 94612
(415)465-1093
I property, mental and emotional distress, and other damage, in an
2 amount which has not yet been ascertained by cross-complainants.
3 Cross-complainants will amend their complaint to set forth the
4 entire amount of said damages when they have been ascertained.
5 WHEREFORE, cross-complainants pray for judgment as herein-
,
6 after set forth.
7
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
8 (Strict Liability - Against THE CORK HARBOUR COMPANY)
9 39 . Cross-complainants incorporate by reference as though
10 fully set forth each and every allegation in the First Cause of
11 Action and Paragraphs 35 and 38 of the Fifth Cause of Action.
12 40 . Cross-defendant THE CORK HARBOUR COMPANY, at all times
13 mentioned herein, was in the business of mass production of
14 Subdivision lots for sale to members of the public. THE CORK
15 HARBOUR COMPANY knew and intended that the lots in Subdivi-
16 sion 4747 would be purchased and improved by single-family home
17 buyers such as cross-complainants.
18 41 . Cross-complainants purchased the Hicks property lot
19 from cross-defendant. Said purchase and sale was made.-pursuant
20 to a written contract between cross-complainant and cross-
21 defendants.
22 42 . The lot which cross-complainants purchased from cross-
23 defendant THE CORK HARBOUR COMPANY was defective in that it had
24 not been graded, excavated, drained and otherwise prepared so as
25 to prevent soils movement. By virtue of said defects , cross-
26 defendant THE CORK HARBOUR COMPANY is strictly liable to cross-
KASS, MORGAN
MILLER &WILSON
;ROFESSIONAL CORPORA710%
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 15 .
O BUILDING.
THIRTEENTH FLOOR
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA 94612
14151 465-1093
1 complainants for the damage to the Hicks property as alleged
2 above.
3 WHEREFORE, cross-complainants pray for judgment as herein-
4 after set forth.
5 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Imiolled Warranty - Against THE CORK HARBOUR
6 COMPANY, DORWART & KLEMMED$M MICHAEL DORWART,
ROBERT KLEM.MEDSON and PURCELL, RHOADES & ASSOCIATES)
7
8 43. Cross-complainants incorporate by reference as though
9 fully set forth each and every allegation in the First Cause of
10 Action, Paragraphs 35 and 38 of the Fifth Cause of Action, and
11 Paragraphs 40 and 42 of the Sixth Cause of Action.
12 44 . On or about October 2 , 1978 , cross-complainants and
13 cross-defendants DORWART & KLEMMEDSON, -MICHAEL DORWART and ROBERT
14 KLEMMEDSON executed a written contract under which cross-
15 complainants retained said cross-defendants , and each of them, to
16 perform general contracting services for all improvements to the
17 Hicks property. In that contract, said cross-defendants, and
18 each of them, impliedly warranted and represented to cross-
19 complainants that said improvements would be constructed in a
20 good and workmanlike manner.
21 45 . On or about August 31 , 1978 , cross-complainants
22 retained cross-defendant PURCELL, RHOADES & ASSOCIATES , by a
23 written contract, to perform certain inspection, supervision and
24 soils engineering services with regard to construction of the i
25 building foundation on the Hicks property. In their agreement to _
26 perform said services , said cross-defendant impliedly warranted
KASS, MORGAN
MILLER&WILSON
OROFESSIONAL CORPORAMN 1
ATTORNEYS AT LAW I
ORDWAY BUILDING,
THIRTEENTH FLOOR
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA 94612
(415)465-1093
1 and represented to cross-complainants that said services would be
2 performed in a good and workmanlike manner.
3 46. Cross-complainants have performed all conditions,
4 covenants and promises required by them on their part to be
5 performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of their
6 contracts with cross-defendants.
7 47. Cross-defendants have breached said implied warranties
8 in that the Hicks property is not built in accordance with the
9 plans and specifications , nor was the property constructed in a
10 good and workmanlike manner.
11 48. As a proximate result of said breach of warranty by
12 cross-defendants, and each of them, cross-complainants have been
13 damaged as alleged above.
14 WHEREFORE, cross-complainants pray for judgment as herein-
15 after set forth.
16 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Nuisance - Against PARVIZ MEHRAN, MARIAN MEHRAN,
17 CONRAD YATES, FRANK LENCH and CARL KINDT)
18 49 . Cross-complainants incorporate by reference as though
19 fully set forth each and every allegation in the First Cause of
20 Action and Paragraphs 35 and 38 of the Fifth Cause of Action.
21 50. Cross-complainants are informed and believe and thereon
22 allege that said cross-defendants and ROES 131 through 140 , and
23 each of them, are, and at all times herein mentioned were, the
24
owners of and in possession and control of certain real property
25 which is immediately adjoining to and uphill of Lot A of
26 Subdivision 4747 and the Hicks property.
KASS. MORGAN
MILLER&WILSON
:ROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1_
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ORDWAY BUILDING.
THIRTEENTH FLOOR /
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA 94612
(4 15)465-1093
C.
1 51 . Cross-complainants are informed and believe and thereon
I
2 allege that -at all times herein mentioned and since, said cross-
I
3 defendants , .and each of them, have controlled and maintained and
I
4 continue to maintain the drainage of water from their property,
5 including both natural. and man-made sources of water, in a manner
i
6 which has caused and continues to cause soils movement and
I
7 subsidence on the Hicks property.
8 52. Said control and maintenance of drainage from cross-
9 defendants' property constitutes a nuisance within the meaning of
10 Civil Code §3479 in that it is injurious to cross-complainants'
11 health and interferes with the enjoyment and use of their prop-
12 erty..
13 53. In or around July, 1983, cross-complainants , or their
14 agents, gave notice to cross-defendants , and each of them, of the
15 damage caused by the nuisance and requested its abatement, but i
16 cross-defendants, and each of them, have refused, and continue to
17 refuse, to abate the nuisance.
18 54 . Cross-defendants, and each of them, have threatened to
19 and will, unless restrained by this court, continue to maintain
20 the nuisance and continue the act complained of, and each and
21 every act has been, and will be , without the consent, against the
22 will, and in violation of the rights of cross-complainants.
23 55. As a proximate result of the nuisance created by
24 cross-defendants, and each of them, cross-complainants have
25 suffered personal and property damages alleged above. Unless the
26 nuisance is abated, cross-complainants ' property will be
KASS. MORGAN
MILLER&WILSON
:ROFESSIONAL CORPORA110N 1
ATTORNEYS AT LAW /
ORDWAY BUILDING.
THIRTEENTH FLOOR
ONE KAISER PLAZA �Jl
OAKLAND.CA 94612
14151 465-1093
I
1 progressively damaged and diminished in value, in that said soils
I
2 movement and subsidence threatens destruction of cross-
3 complainants' home.
I
4 56 . Unless cross-defendants, and each of them, are
I
5 restrained by order of this court, it will be necessary for
6 cross-complainants to commence many successive actions against
7 cross-defendants, and each of them, to secure compensation for
8 damages sustained, thus requiring a multiplicity of suits, and
9 cross-complainants will be daily threatened with the continued
10 unrestrained flow of water from cross-defendants ' property, which
I
I
11 threatens to cause further soils movement and damage to the Hicks
12 property.
13 57. Unless cross-defendants, and each of them, are enjoined
14 from continuing their course of conduct, cross-complainants will
i
15 suffer irreparable injury in that the usefulness and economic
I
16
value of their property will be substantially diminished and
I
17 perhaps destroyed.
18 58 . Cross-complainants have no plain, speedy, or adequate
19 remedy at law, and injunctive relief is expressly authorized by
20 California Code of Civil Procedure §526 and 5731.
21 WHEREFORE,. cross-complainants pray for judgment against
22
cross-defendants, and each of them, as follows:
I
23 1. For a determination of the rights of cross-complainants
24 in this action;
i
25 2 . For a declaration if Judgment is rendered against
26 cross-complainants in this action that cross-complainants have
KASS. MORGAN
MILLER& WILSON
;AOFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1^
9
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ORDWAY BUILDING. 999 I
THIRTEENTH FLOOR
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA 94612
14151 465.1093
1 judgment against cross-defendants, and each of them, in the
2 amount and in every other respect to the same extent as in the
3 judgment; or, in the alternative, that cross-complainants have
4 judgment against cross-defendants , and each of them, in the
5 amount of judgment, proportionate to cross-defendants ' wrongful
6 acts as determined by this court.
7 3 . For such amount as the court may deem reasonable as and
8 for attorneys ' fees , costs of suit and other expenses incurred by
9 cross-complainants in the defense of the complaints and cross-
10 complaints in this action;
11 4 . For general and special damages in an amount according
12 to proof; and
13 5 . For a preliminary and permanent injunction compelling
14 cross-defendants PARVIZ MEHRAN, MARIAN MEHRAN, CONRAD YATES,
15 FRANK LENCH and CARL KINDT to repair and maintain the drainage of
16 water from their property in a manner which will prevent any
17 further soils movement from occurring on cross-complainants'
18 property.
19 6 . For attorneys ' fees, appraisal costs and engineering
20 fees pursuant to Section 1036 of Code of Civil Procedure.
21
22
23
24
25
26
KASS, MORGAN
MILLER& WILSON
-W4ESSIONAL CURPORAMN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 20 .
ORDWAY BUILDING.
THIRTEENTH FLOOR 0 ,�
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND,CA 94612
(415)465-1093
1 7. For such other and further relief as the court deems i
2 just and proper.
3 Dated: y,og 29 1 9S A,
4 KASS, MORGAN, MILLER & WILSON
Profs'
nal Corporation
5
6 By:
w 2��
1 '
RICHARD G. BLAIR
7 j
Attorneys for Cross-Complainants
8 DAVID HICKS and ANN HICKS
9
10
11
i
12
13
14
15
16
17
i
18
19
i
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
KASS, MORGAN
MILLER & WILSON
;EOFEeSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 21 .
ORDWAY BUILDING.
THIRTEENTH FLOOR J /
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA 94612
14151 465-1093
RECEIVED
VERIFIED CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
RECEIVED
1985
10: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. WAnM AG a C'Y ►Mll t�cMELoR
!K ROA f SU.►ERYI
Clerk, Board of Supervisors s coNr sr co
RS
651 Pine Street, Roan 106 °' �'
Martinez, CA 94553
CLAIMANT: MICHAEL DORWART and ROBERT KLEMMEDSON, individually and
doing buisness as DORWART & KLEMMEDSON
Michael Dorwart and Robert Klemmedson, individually and doing
business as DORWART & KLEMMEDSON, hereby make a claim against the
above-stated public entity pursuant to Section 910 of the California
Government Code:
1. The name and post office address of claimants is
14 Orinda Way, Orinda, CA 94563
2. Notices concerning this claim should be sent to
THOMAS F. CASTLE, ESQ.
Kincaid, Gianunzio, Caudle & Hubert
200 Webster Street, Second Floor
P. 0. Box 1828
Oakland, CA 94604-0828
3. This claim is for indemnification with respect to the
damages and equitable relief claimed by cross-complainants
DAVID and ANN HICKS in the following Contra Costa County Superior
Court Action entitled The Cork Harbour Company, a California
corporation vs. The J. Arthur White Corporation, et al . , David
Hicks and Ann Hicks vs. The Cork Harbour Company, a California
Corporation, et al. , Action No. 224922 , filed November 30, 1984
and served on Dorwart & Klemmedson on November 30 , 1984.
4. The said suit is for damages and equitable relief as a
result of landslides on the property of David and Ann Hicks located
in Tract 4747 in the County of Contra Costa, City of Lafayette,
California.
5 . Claimants are informed and believe that the entity herein
has been named as a defendant or cross-defendant in said action and,
accordingly, has received a copy of the amended cross-complaint
filed by David and Ann Hicks.
6 . The circumstances giving rise to this claim are as
follows:
If cross-complainant Hicks or any other party in the
referenced lawsuit prevails against claimants for
damages arising out of the alleged landslides , it will
only be because of the above-stated public entities'
fault and neglect in having failed to properly maintain,
construct, approve, inspect, design and certify the
drainage, foundation work, road work, grading
and other construction on the real property known as
subdivision 4747 in the County of Contra Costa, City
of Lafayette, and the entities' failure to properly -
perform its discretionary and mandatory duties in
reference to the above-listed work on subdivision
4747.
7 . Claimants claim as of this date is for indemnification
with respect to any amounts or relief awarded to cross-complainants
or any other party in the said lawsuit, including claimants '
attorneys' fees, expenses and costs in defending against this said
lawsuit. Said action by cross-complainant Hicks asks for general
damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and cost of suit
against claimant and other entities .
8. The names of the public employees causing plaintiff and
cross-complainants' damages are not,known at this time.
9. A copy of said amended cross-complaint is attached hereto.
I am informed and believe and thereon allege under penalty
of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Oakland, California
this 9th day of January, 1985 .
THOMAS F. CASTLE
1 RICHARD G. BLAIR, ESQ.
c� � I
NANCY L. BRAUN, ESQ. --�
2 KASS , MORGAN, MILLER & WILSON
Professional Corporation
3 Ordway Building, Suite 1300
One Kaiser Plaza
4 Oakland, California 94612 s_
Telephone: (415) 465-1093
5
Attorneys for Cross-Complainants
6 DAVID HICKS and ANN HICKS
7
8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA _��A.
10 '!Pf.P c
11 THE CORK HARBOUR COMPANY, No. 2249¢2
a California corporation,
12 AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, FOR INDEMNITY AND
13 DAMAGES
Vs.
14
THE J. ARTHUR WHITE
15 CORPORATION, et al. ,
16 Defendants.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 RECEIVED
25
DEC 6 1984
26
KASS. MORGAN f GLV O
MILLER &WILSON
:''1VESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ORDWAY BUILDING.
THIRTEENTH FLOOR
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA 94612
14 151 am.i mi
1 DAVID HICKS and ANN HICKS,
2 Cross-Complainants,
3 vs.
4 THE CORK HARBOUR COMPANY, a
California corporation, J. ARTHUR
5 WHITE CORPORATION, a California
corporation, HAPPY VALLEY ESTATES
6 HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, a non-profit
corporation, PURCELL, RHOADES &
7 ASSOCIATES, DORWART & KLEMMEDSON,
MICHAEL DORWART,_ROBERT_ KLEMMEDSON,
8 �PARVIZ MEHRAN, MARIAN MEHRAN, CONRAD
YATES, FRANK LENCH, CITY OF LAFAYETTE,
9 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, CONTRA COSTA ('
WATER AGENCY, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY I
10 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, EAST
BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITIES DISTRICT,
11 CARL KINDT, BILL MAHER & SONS, INC. ,
INDEPENDENT CONSTRUCTION CO. , MELVIN -
12 LEE ASSOCIATES and ROES 104 through
150 , inclusive, i
13
Cross-Defendants.
14 /
i
15 COME NOW cross-complainants DAVID HICKS and ANN HICKS and
16 allege as follows:
17
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
18 (Indemnity - Against All Cross-Defendants)
19 1 . Cross-defendants ROES 104 through 150, inclusive, are
20 the fictitious names of those cross-defendants whose true names
21 are unknown to cross-complainants, and whose true capacities,
22
whether as individuals, corporations, partnerships , joint ven-
23 tures and/or associations , are also unknown to cross-
24 complainants , and when such true names are ascertained, cross-
25 complainants will amend this cross-complaint by inserting said
26 true names in the place of said fictitious names in accordance
KASS. MORGAN
MILLER & WILSON
;HOFLSSiO\AL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS LAW 2
ORDWAY BUILDING.
THIRTEENTH FLOOR
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA 96612
1 with the Code of Civil Procedure §474. Cross-complainants are
2 informed and believe and therefore allege that whenever and
3 wherever in this cross-complaint any cross-defendants are the
4 subject of any charging allegations by cross-complainants, said
5 ROES are also responsible in some manner for the events and
6 happenings and it shall be deemed that said cross-defendants
7 ROES 104 through 150, inclusive, and each of them, are likewise
8 the subject of said charging allegations herein by cross-
9 complainants .
10 2 . Cross-complainants are informed and believe and thereon
I
11 allege that at all times herein mentioned cross-defendants
12 ROES 104 through 150 were the agents, servants and employees of
13 their co-cross-defendants and in doing the things hereinafter
14 mentioned were acting in the scope of their authority as such
15 agents, servants, and employees with permission and consent from
i
16 their co-cross-defendants.
17 3 . Cross-complainants are informed and believe and thereon
18 allege that at all times herein mentioned the cross-defendants
I
19 named in the caption were the agents , servants, and employees of i
20 the co-cross-defendants and in doing the things hereinafter
21
mentioned were acting in the scope of their authority as such
i
22 agents, servants, and employees with permission and consent from
i
23 their co-cross-defendants.
24 4 . On or about September 13 , 1982 the First Amended
25 Complaint for Negligence, Breach of Contract, Breach of Warranty,
26
and Strict Liability was served by plaintiff, THE CORK HARBOUR
KASS. MORGAN
MILLER&WILSON
wcnc�sroaAL coavoRAnow 3 .
I
ATTORNEYS LAW /
O BUILDING. /
THIRTEENTH FLOOR `
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA 94612
I COMPANY, in ,this matter. Said First Amended Complaint bore
2 Action No. 224922 for the Superior Court of California in and for
3 the County of Contra Costa. On June 14, 1983, HAPPY VALLEY
4 ESTATES HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION filed a Complaint in Intervention
5 in that action. Additionally, on July 27-, 1983, J. ARTHUR WHITE
6 CORPORATION filed a Cross-Complaint for Indemnity in this matter
7 in the Superior Court of California in and for the County of
g Contra Costa, bearing Action No. 224922, and on August 12, 1983,
9
the HAPPY VALLEY ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ' ASSOCIATION filed a Cross-
10 Complaint for Indemnity in the same court and bearing the same
11 action number. Without admitting the truth of the allegations
12 contained in these pleadings, cross-complainants hereby incorpo-
13 rate by this reference all allegations of said First Amended
14 Complaint, Complaint in Intervention, and Cross-Complaints for
15 Indemnity.
16 5 . Cross-complainants are, and at all times herein men-
17 tioned were, the owners of certain real property located within
ubdivision 4747 in Contra Costa County, California, and all
19 improvements thereon. Said real property, including all improve-
20 ments thereon, shall be referred to from time to time herein as
21 "the Nicks property. "
22 6 . At all times herein mentioned, cross-defendant
23 DORWART & KLE14MEDSON was a business organization, the exact form
24 and nature of which is unknown to cross-complainants, which was
25 at all times herein mentioned doing business within the State of
26 California. Cross-complainants are informed and believe and
KASS. MORGAN
MILLER& WILSON
-'- FMO\AL CORPORAmN 4
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ORDWAY BUILDING.
THIRTEENTH FLOOR
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND,CA 94612
1 thereon allege that cross-defendants MICHAEL DORWART and ROBERT
2 KLEMMEDSON were the principals of DORWART & KLEMMEDSON.
• i
3 7. Cross-complainants are informed and believe and thereon
4 allege that cross-defendants DORWART & KLEMMEDSON and MICHAEL
5 DORWART and ROBERT KLEMMEDSON acted as general contractor for the j
6 _construction of all improvements on the Hicks_roroperty and as j
7 such, constructed, supervised, and installed all components of I
8 said improvements. Cross-complainants are informed and believe
9 and thereon allege that said cross-defendants, and each of them,
10 and ROES 104 through 110, individually and collectively, care-
11 lessly and negligently performed said services and work so as to
12 cause and contribute to the property damage and losses alleged in
13 the complaints and cross-complaints on file herein. j
14 8 • Cross-complainants are informed and believe and thereon
15 all ge that at all times herein mentioned, cross-defendants CITY
16 OF LAFAYETTE, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, CONTRA COSTA WATER AGENCY,
17 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, and EAST BAY
18 MUNICIPAL UTILITIES DISTRICT were and are public entities created
19 under the laws of the constitution of the State of California and
20 are chartered or incorporated or otherwise public entities
21 subject to the jurisdiction of this court. Cross-complainants
22 have filed claims against each _of these pub-Up—.entities, which
i
23 claims have been rejected or deemed rejected at the time this
24 cross-complaint is served upon said cross-defendants.
25 9 . Cross-complainants are informed and believe and thereon
26 allege that cross-defendants CITY OF LAFAYETTE, CONTRA COSTA
KASS, MORGAN
MILLER &WILSON
'��J EWO.IAL CURPORA71ON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5.
ORDWAY BUILDING.
THIRTEENTH FLOOR
ONE KAISER PLAZA 53
OAKLAND.CA 90612
1151 665.1093
I
1 WATER AGENCY', CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, and
2 EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITIES DISTRICT, and each of them,
3 negligently And carelessly approved, certified, inspected, and
4 otherwise condoned the construction, design, soil tests,
5 installation of drainage materials, foundation work, and other
6 constructioi o the real ro ert of cross-complainants and the
7 whole of Subdivision 4747 and that as a result of said conduct,
8 caused and contributed to the property damage and losses alleged
9 in the complaints and cross-complaints on file herein.
10 10 . Cross-complainants are informed and believe and thereon
I
11 allege that the CITY OF LAFAYETTE hired the COUNTY OF CONTRA
12 COSTA to perform services for it in inspecting, approving and
13 certifying the construction of Subdivision 4747 and as such the
14 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA was not acting in its governmental i
15 capacity but was instead actino as a subcontractor and private
16 entity. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA was negligent in performing
17 duties for the CITY OF LAFAYETTE. Such negligence caused damage
18 to cross-complainants.
19 11 . At all times herein mentioned, cross-defendants
20
PURCELL, RHOADES & ASSOCIATES INDEPENDENT CONSTRUCTION CO. , BILL
21 MAHER & SONS, INC. and MELVIN LEE ASSOCIATES were business
i
22 organizations, the exact form and nature of which are unknown to
23 cross-complainants , which were at all times mentioned Going
24 business within the State of California.
25 12 . Cross-complainants are informed and believe and thereon
26 allege that at all times herein mentioned, cross-defendants
KASS. MORGAN
MILLER &WILSON
Vi*LI)IONAL CORPORATION '
ATTORNEYS L LAW C) . ///• //////
O THIRTEENTH
BUILDING. �I
THIRTEENTH FLOOR If
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA 94612
AIGdAS.iM'�
1
1 PURCELL, RHOADES & ASSOCIATES, INDEPENDENT CONSTRUCTION CO. , BILL
2 MAHER & SONS, INC. , MELVIN LEE ASSOCIATES and ROES 111 through
3 120 , collectively and individually, ' negligently designed,
4 constructed, sampled, tested, reported on, inspected,
5 investigated, graded, excavated and supervised construction on
i
6 the real property commonly known as Subdivision 4747, including
7 the Hicks property, and as a result of said negligence, caused
g and contributed to the property losses and damages as alleged in
9 the complaints and cross-complaints herein.
10 13 . Cross-complainants are informed and believe and thereon
11 allege that at all times herein mentioned, cross-defendants
12 PARVIZ MEHRAN and MARIAN MEHRAN, CONRAD YATES, FRANK LENCH, CARL
13 KINDT and ROES 121 through 130 , collectively and individually,
14 were owners of certain real property located near and around
15 Subdivision 4747 , and at all times herein mentioned, said
16 cross-defendants, and each of them, negligently and carelessly
i
i7 maintained, kept up, supervised, controlled, worked on and
18 engaged in other activities on said certain real property so as
19 to allow water to drain, and downspouts to flow, at and toward
20 said Subdivision 4747 and its component lots , including
21 cross-complainants ' , thereby causing and contributing to the i
I
22 property damage and losses alleged in the complaints and i
23 cross-complaints on file herein.
24 14 . Cross-complainants are informed and believe and thereon
25 allege that, at all times herein mentioned, cross-defendant
26 J. ARTHUR WHITE CORPORATION was a California corporation licensed
KASS, MORGAN
MILLER&WILSON
.vi,FE»iONAL IORPORA110%
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 7 • y�
O BUILDING. 51S THIRTEEIRTEE NTH FLOOR
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA 94612
14151 465.1093
1 to do business and doing business in the State of California; and
2 that said cross-defendant contracted to perform installation of
3 an underground sanitary sewer system, storm drainage system and
4 water system on Subdivision 4747 , and that said contract services
5 were performed in a negligent and careless manner so as to cause
6 damaging soil movement, and as a result thereof, said conduct
7 caused and contributed to the property damage and losses alleged
g in the complaints and cross-complaints on file herein.
I
9 15 . Cross-complainants are informed and believe and thereon
I
I
10 allege that at all times herein mentioned, cross-defendant THE
11 CORK HARBOUR COMPANY was a California corporation licensed to do I
12 business and doing business in the State of California; and that
13 said cross-defendant carelessly and negligently constructed,
14 maintained, designed, inspected, tested, repaired and approved
15 plans , soils, improvements, and buildings , on and around Sub-
16 division 4747 and its component lots , and as a result of said
i
17 negligence and carelessness, caused and contributed to the i
18 property damage and losses alleged in the complaints and cross- '
19 complaints on file herein.
20 16 . Cross-complainants are informed and believe and thereon
i
21 allege that cross-defendant HAPPY VALLEY ESTATES HOMEOWNERS '
22 ASSOCIATION is and at all times herein mentioned was a California
23 non-profit corporation doing business in California. Cross-
24 complainants are further informed and believe that HAPPY VALLEY
25 ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ' ASSOCIATION was at all times herein mentioned
26 the owner of Lot A of Subdivision 4747 and negligently and
KASS. MORGAN
MILLER &WILSON
v"J r.WONAL COAPORAno.v
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 8
O BUILDING.
THIRTEENTH FLOOR
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA 94612
,4151 465.1093
i
1 carelessly maintained its property in a manner which caused and
2 contributed to the property damage and losses alleged in the
3 complaints and cross-complaints on file herein.
4 17. If plaintiff sustained damages as alleged in its
5 complaint, such damages were caused entirely or partly by the
6 active conduct of cross-defendants in committing the acts and/or
7 omissions alleged by plaintiff.
8 18 . An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between
9 cross-complainants and cross-defendants in that cross-
10 complainants contend, and cross-defendants deny, the following:
11 a. That as between cross-complainants and cross-
12 defendants, and each of them, any and all liability which this
13 cross-complainant may incur as a result of the allegations of the
14 complaint by plaintiffs on file herein, or any cross-complaint on
15 file herein, is the full responsibility and liability of cross-
16 defendants, and each of them; and
17 b. That as a result, cross-defendants are obligated
18 to partially indemnify or fully indemnify cross-complainants for
19 sums that cross-complainants may be compelled to pay as the
20 result of any damages, judgment or other awards recovered by
21 plaintiff or other cross-complainants against these cross-
22 complainants.
23 19 . In the event of any finding of liability against
24 cross-complainants , which liability they expressly deny, cross-
25 complainants will be entitled to a declaration of indemnification
26 and indemnity from cross-defendants herein, and each of them.
KASS, MORGAN
MILLER&WILSON
.w iFF SSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 9 .
ORDWAY BUILDING.
THIRTEENTH FLOOR
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA 94612
4151465-1093
i
1 20 . Cross-complainants intend this cross-complaint to be t
2 notification to cross-defendants that cross-complainants hereby
3 tender to cross-defendants the obligation of cross-defendants to
i
4 defend cross-complainants, pursuant to California Code of Civil ,
i
5 Procedure §1021 . 6, in that as a result of the torts of cross- �.
6 defendants , and each of them, cross-complainants have been
7 required to defend against the cross-complaints on file herein
8 and hereby demand defense and indemnity from each of said cross-
9 defendants. . Cross-complainants are informed and believe, and
10 thereon allege, that each of said cross-defendants refuses said
11 demands of tender of defense by cross-complainants.
12 21 . As a further direct and proximate result of the afore-
13 said primary and improper conduct of cross-defendants, and each
14 , of them, cross-complainants have necessarily retained the law
i
15 offices of Kass , Morgan, Miller & Wilson to defend them against
16 the within action, at cross-complainants ' sole cost and expense,
i7 and to prepare, file, and prosecute this cross-complaint.
i8 Cross-complainants have incurred, and will continue to incur,
19 liabilities for attorneys ' fees and costs in the defense thereof,
20 and in the prosecution of this cross-complaint, in presently
21 unascertained sums , all according to proof at trial.
22 WHEREFORE, cross-complainants pray for judgment as herein-
23 after set forth.
24
25
26
KASS. MORGAN
MILLER& WILSON
.0 .r�40%AL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 10 .
///'''���
O BUILDING,
THIRTEENTH FLOOR
O%E KAISER PLAZA
8
OAKLAND.CA 94612
4151 465.1093
i
1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION I
(Comparative Indemnity)
2
3 22 . Cross-complainants incorporate by reference as though
4 fully set forth each and every allegation in the First Cause of
I
5 Action.
6 23 . Should it be determined that cross-complainants are b
P Y I
7 virtue of plaintiffs allegations or the allegations of any other
8 party in this action, liable to plaintiff and/or other parties
i
9 for any injuries alleged in said complaint or cross-complaint,
10 cross-complainant. is entitled to comparative indemnity from
11 cross-defendants, and each of them, for the proportion of said
12 injuries and/or damages caused by the negligence, carelessness,
13 breach, fault and/or other wrongful conduct of cross-defendants,
I
14 and each of them; said comparative indemnity to be determined by
i
15 the proportionate degree or allocation of fault for such negli-
16 gence or other wrongful conduct of cross-defendants , and each of
17 them.
18 WHEREFORE, cross-complainants pray for judgment as herein-
19 after set forth. _
20 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Inverse Condemnation)
21
i
22 24 . Cross-complainants incorporate by reference as though
i
23 fully set forth each and every allegation in the First Cause of
24 Action.
25 25 . Cross-complainants allege that prior to 1971 and
26 thereafter, cross-defendants CITY OF LAFAYETTE, COUNTY OF CONTRA
KASS, MORGAN
MILLER& WILSON
-OFL»IONAL CURPO RAMN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
O BUILDING.
THIRTEENTH FLOOR J
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA 94612
r4"o"S.InQ1 Ii
I COSTA, EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITIES DISTRICT, and ROES 104
2 through 150 , and their agents, the developers and builders of
3 Subdivisions 3314 and 4747 in the County of Contra Costa,
4 negligently participated in, planned, inspected, built, required,
5 maintained, controlled., and accepted the construction and
6 maintenance of the sewer and storm drainage system in both
7 Subdivision 3314 and Subdivision 4747 in or near the City of
8 Lafayette, California.
i
9 26. Cross-complainants are the owners of certain real
10 property located on or about Subdivision 4747 .
f
I
11 27. As a result of the foregoing conduct on the part of THE
12 CITY OF LAFAYETTE, THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, EAST BAY MUNICIPAL
I
13 UTILITIES DISTRICT, and ROES 104 through 150 , and each of them,
I
14 water from each of said sewage and drainage systems, singly, or
15 in combination, did cause cross-complainants ' land to slide,
i
16 subside and partially collapse, and to be removed, excavated, and
17 cut away before, on, and after April 7, 1983 , causing damage to
18 said property, the trees, and vegetation thereon, and threatening
19 the stability of the improvements thereon. _
20 28 . That the conduct of the above cross-defendants is a
21 substantial interference with the rights of cross-complainants ,
22 for which they have not been compensated.
23 29 . That as a proximate result of the above mentioned
24 conduct of the above defendants, cross-complainants have been
25 damaged in a sum presently unknown to cross-complainants.
26
KASS. MORGAN
MILLER& WILSON
;W)FESSIONAL CORPORAMN 'n
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 12 .
ORDWAY BUILDING.
THIRTEENTH FLOOR
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA 94612
1 30 . That as a further proximate result, cross-complainants
2 have been compelled to employ legal counsel to defend against the
3 various cross-complainants and to maintain this action and
I
4 accordingly, is entitled to attorneys' fees. j
5 31 . Cross-complainants have incurred and will incur attor- f
6 neys' , appraisal, and engineering fees because of this proceed-
7 ing, in amounts that cannot yet be ascertained, which are
8 recoverable in this action under the provisions of §1036 of the
9 Code of Civil Procedure.
10 WHEREFORE, cross-complainants pray for judgment as herein-
11 after set forth.
12
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
13 (Comparative Negligence - Against All Cross-Defendants)
14 32. Cross-complainants incorporate by reference as though
15 fully set forth each and every allegation in the First Cause of
I
16 Action.
17 33 . In the event of any finding of liability against
18 cross-complainants , which liability they expressly deny, cross-
19 complainants will be entitled to both a finding of the.. negligence
20 of plaintiffs and cross-defendants and to a declaration reducing
I
21 or eliminating cross-complainants ' liability and awarding them
22 indemnification in proportion to that finding. '
23 WHEREFORE, cross-complainants pray for judgment as herein-
24 after set forth.
25
I
26
KASS. MORGAN
MILLER&WILSON
:MRJNCORPORA
ATTORNEYS
YS AT LAW
13 .
ORDWAY BUILDING.
THIRTEENTH FLOOR
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA 94612
14151 4&5.1093
1 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligence - Against All Cross-Defendants)
2
3 34 . Cross-complainants incorporate by reference as though
4 fully set forth each and every allegation in the First Cause of
5 Action.
6 35 . On or about April 7, 1983 , cross-complainants dis-
I
7 covered that the Hicks property sustained damage as a result of
8 earth slippage. Since that time, said property has sustained
9 continuing and increasing slippage and movement so as to cause
10 excessive settlement, separation and cracking inside and outside
11 of cross-complainants ' house and substantial damage to the entire
12 Hicks property. i
13 36 . Cross-defendants, and each of them, had a duty to
° 14 cross-complainants to exercise due care in the development,
15 construction, sale, inspection, and design of the Hicks property,
16 or in the maintenance of their own property, so as not to expose
17 cross-complainants to an unreasonable risk of harm and personal
18 and property damage.
19 37 . Cross-complainants, and each of them, breached said
20 duty in that said development, construction, sale, inspection,
21 design and maintenance was done negligently and carelessly,
22 thereby failing to prevent damaging soils movement on the Hicks
23 property.
24 38 . Asa proximate result of said negligence, cross-
25 complainants have suffered damage including loss of use and
26 market value of their property, the cost of repairs to said
KASS. MORGAN
MILLER&WILSON
:V01FL�i1U%AL CURPORAMN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 14 .
'nJ
ORDWAY BUILDING. /
THIRTEENTH FLOOR
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA 94612
X4151 465-1093
1 property, mental and emotional distress, and other damage, in an
2 amount which has not yet been ascertained by cross-complainants.
3 Cross-complainants will amend their complaint to set forth the
4 entire amount of said damages when they have been ascertained.
5 WHEREFORE, cross-complainants pray for judgment as herein-
6 after set forth.
7
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
8 (Strict Liability - Against THE CORK HARBOUR COMPANY)
9 39 . Cross-complainants incorporate by reference as though
10 fully set forth each and every allegation in the First Cause of
11 Action and Paragraphs 35 and 38 of the Fifth Cause of Action.
12 40 . Cross-defendant THE CORK HARBOUR COMPANY, at all times
13 mentioned herein, was in the business of mass production of
14 Subdivision lots for sale to members of the public. THE CORK
15 HARBOUR COMPANY knew and intended that the lots in Subdivi-
16 sion 4747 would be purchased and improved by single-family home
17 buyers such as cross-complainants.
18 41 . Cross-complainants purchased the Hicks property lot
19 from cross-defendant. Said purchase and sale was made..pursuant
20 to a written contract between cross-complainant and cross-
21 defendants.
22 42 . The lot which cross-complainants purchased from cross-
23 defendant THE CORK HARBOUR COMPANY was defective in that it had
24 not been graded, excavated, drained and otherwise prepared so as
25 to prevent soils movement. By virtue of said defects , cross-
26 defendant THE CORK HARBOUR COMPANY is strictly liable to cross-
KASS, MORGAN
MILLER&WILSON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 15 .
ORDWAY BUILDING.
THIRTEENTH FLOOR
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA 94612
14151 465.1093
1 complainants for the damage to the Hicks property as alleged
2 above.
3 WHEREFORE cross-complainants pray for judgment as herein-
4 after set forth.
5 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Implied Warranty - Against THE CORK HARBOUR
6 COMPANY, DORWART & KTEMMEDUN, MICHAEL DORWART,
ROBERT KLEMMEDSON and PURCELL, RHOADES & ASSOCIATES)
7
8 43. Cross-complainants incorporate by reference as though
9 fully set forth each and every allegation in the First Cause of
10 Action, Paragraphs 35 and 38 of the Fifth Cause of Action, and
11 Paragraphs 40 and 42 of the Sixth Cause of Action.
12 44 . On or about October 2, 1978 , cross-complainants and
13 cross-defendants DORWART & KLEMMEDSON, MICHAEL DORWART and ROBERT
14 KLEM.MEDSON executed a written contract under which cross-
15 complainants retained said cross-defendants , and each of them, to
16 perform general contracting services for all improvements to the
17 Hicks property. In that contract, said cross-defendants, and
18 each of them, impliedly warranted and represented to cross-
19 complainants that said improvements would be constructed in a
20 good and workmanlike manner.
21 45 . On or about August 31 , 1978 , cross-complainants
22 retained cross-defendant PURCELL, RHOADES & ASSOCIATES, by a
i
23 written contract, to perform certain inspection, supervision and
24
soils engineering services with regard to construction of the
25 building foundation on the Hicks property. In their agreement to
I
26 perform said services , said cross-defendant impliedly warranted
i
KASS. MORGAN
MILLER&WILSON
-v('FFSSIOML COWORAMN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 16 .
1
ORDWAY BUILDING.
THIRTEENTH FLOOR
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA 99612
MIS)665.1093
1 and represented to cross-complainants that said services would be
2 performed in a good and workmanlike manner.
3 46. Cross-complainants have performed all conditions,
4 covenants and promises required by them on their part to be
5 performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of their
i
6 contracts with cross-defendants.
7 47. Cross-defendants have breached said implied warranties
8 in that the Hicks property is not built in accordance with the
9 plans and specifications , nor was the property constructed in a
10 good and workmanlike manner.
11 48. As a proximate result of said breach of warranty by
12 cross-defendants, and each of them, cross-complainants have been
13 damaged as alleged above.
14 WHEREFORE, cross-complainants pray for judgment as herein-
15 after set forth.
16 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Nuisance - Against PARVIZ MEHRAN, MARIAN MEHRAN,
17 CONRAD YATES, FRANK LENCH and CARL KINDT)
18 49 . Cross-complainants incorporate by reference as though
19 fully set forth each and every allegation in the First Cause of
20 Action and Paragraphs 35 and 38 of the Fifth Cause of Action.
21 50. Cross-complainants are informed and believe and thereon
22 allege that said cross-defendants and ROES 131 through 140, and
23 each of them, are, and at all times herein mentioned were, the
i
24 owners of and in possession and control of certain real property
25 which is immediately adjoining to and uphill of Lot A of
26 Subdivision 4747 and the Hicks property.
KASS. MORGAN
MILLER&WILSON
wuressroNAL CORPORAno% 1,�
ATTORNEYS LAW
ORDWAY BUILDING.
THIRTEENTH FLOOR
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA 94612
1415)465.1093
1 51. Cross-complainants are informed and believe and thereon
2 allege that 'at all times herein mentioned and since, said cross-
3 defendants, and each of them, have controlled and maintained and
4 continue to maintain the drainage of water from their property,
5 including both natural and man-made sources of water, in a manner
6 which has caused and continues to cause soils movement and
7 subsidence on the Hicks property.
8 52. Said control and maintenance of drainage from cross-
9 defendants' property constitutes a nuisance within the meaning of
10 Civil Code §3479 in that it is injurious to cross-complainants'
11 health and interferes with the enjoyment and use of their prop-
12 erty.
13 53 . In or around July, 1983, cross-complainants, or their
14 agents, gave notice to cross-defendants, and each of them, of the
15 damage caused by the nuisance and requested its abatement, but
16 cross-defendants, and each of them, have refused, and continue to
17 refuse, to abate the nuisance.
18 54. Cross-defendants, and each of them, have threatened to
19 and will, unless restrained by this court, continue to maintain
20 the nuisance and continue the act complained of, and each and
21 every act has been, and will be, without the consent, against the
22 will, and in violation of the rights of cross-complainants.
23 55. As a proximate result of the nuisance created by
24
cross-defendants, and each of them, cross-complainants have
25
suffered personal and property damages alleged above. Unless the
26 nuisance is abated, cross-complainants ' property will be
KASS. MORGAN
MILLER&WILSON
;1ROFES110SAL CORPORATION 18 .
ATTORNEYS AT LAW ( y
ORDWAY BUILDING, (lVn IIC�/
THIRTEE.14TH FLOOR
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND,CA 94612
1 progressively damaged and diminished in value, in that said soils
2 movement and subsidence threatens destruction of cross-
3 complainants' home.
4 56 . Unless cross-defendants, and each of them, are
5 restrained by order of this court, it will be necessary for
6 cross-complainants to commence many successive actions against
7 cross-defendants, and each of them, to secure compensation for
I
8 damages sustained, thus requiring a multiplicity of suits, and
9 cross-complainants will be daily threatened with the continued
10 unrestrained flow of water from cross-defendants ' property, which
11 threatens to cause further soils movement and damage to the Hicks
12 property.
13 57. Unless cross-defendants, and each of them, are enjoined
14 from continuing their course of conduct, cross-complainants will
15 suffer irreparable injury in that the usefulness and economic
16 value of their property will be substantially diminished and
17 perhaps destroyed.
i
18 58 . Cross-complainants have no plain, speedy, or adequate
i
19 remedy at law, and injunctive relief is expressly authorized by j
20 California Code of Civil Procedure §526 and 5731 .
21 WHEREFORE, cross-complainants pray for judgment against
22 cross-defendants, and each of them, as follows:
23 1. For a determination of the rights of cross-complainants
24 in this action;
25 2 . For a declaration if Judgment is rendered against
26 cross-complainants in this action that cross-complainants have
KASS, MORGAN
MILLER &WILSON
•R(){ESiIONAL CORPORAMN 1(]
ATTORNEYS LAW
ORDWAY BUILDING.
THIRTEENTH FLOOR
ONE KAISER PLATA
OAKLAND.CA 94612
.w(m wce rb
1 judgment against cross-defendants, and each of them, in the
2 amount and in every other respect to the same extent as in the
3 judgment; or, in the alternative, that cross-complainants have
4 judgment against cross-defendants, and each of them, in the
5 amount of judgment, proportionate to cross-defendants' wrongful
6 acts as determined by this court.
i
7 3 . For such amount as the court may deem reasonable as and j
8 for attorneys' fees, costs of suit and other expenses incurred by
9 cross-complainants in the defense of the complaints and cross-
10 complaints in this action;
i'
11 4 . For general and special damages in an amount according
12 to proof; and
13 5 . For a preliminary and permanent injunction compelling
14 cross-defendants PARVIZ MEHRAN, MARIAN MEHRAN, CONRAD YATES,
15 FRANK LENCH and CARL KINDT to repair and maintain the drainage of
16 water from their property in a manner which will prevent any
17 further soils movement from occurring on cross-complainants'
I
18 property.
19 6 . For attorneys' fees, appraisal costs and engineering
20 fees pursuant to Section 1036 of Code of Civil Procedure.
I
21
22
I
23
24
25
26
KASS. MORGAN
MILLER& WILSON
NOP ESSIONAL CURPORAflO>1 0
ATTORNEYS AT LAW ^
O BUILDING- r lUX%
THIRTEENTH FLOOR
ONE KAISER PLAZA
OAKLAND.CA 94612
(415),%5-1093
C �
L
1 7. For such other and further relief as the court deems
2 just and proper.
3 Dated:
4 KASS, MORGAN, MILLER & WILSON
Profess, nal Corporation
5
6 By:
Id RICHARD G. BLAIR
7 i
Attorneys for Cross-Complainants
8 DAVID HICKS and ANN HICKS
9
10
i
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 f
21
22
23
24
25
26
KASS, MORGAN
MILLER&WILSON
•9UFE�510NAL CORPORAflON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 21 .
ORDWAY BUILDING. i
THIRTEENTH FLOOR
ONE KAISER PLAZA I b �
OAKLAND.CA 94612 j
(415)465.1093
/zv
CLAIM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA CO(NTY, CALIFORNIA
BOARD ACTION
Claim Against the County, or District ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT February 12, 1985
governed by the Board of Supervisors, ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your
Routing Endorsements, and Board ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the
Action. All Section references are ) Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV, below),
to California Government Codes ) given pursuant to Government Code Section 913
and 915.4. Please note all "Warnings".
Claimant: John P. Phillips
P.O. Box 433 County Counsel
Attorney; Orinda, CA 94563_ JAN 16 1985
Address: Martinet, CP. 94553
Amount: Unspecified By delivery to clerk on
Date Received: January 11, 1984 By mail, postmarked On January 10, 1985
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors I TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. t�
Dated: January 11, 1985 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By b Deputy
Jolene Edwards
II FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
(Check only one)
( ) 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. Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed
late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late
claim (Section 911.3).
( ) Other:
I
Dated: By: ' " uty County Counsel
III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO:
(1� unty Counsel, (2) Countyl4dministrator
( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3).
IV. BOARD ORDER By unanimous vote of Supervisors present
(' This claim .is rejected in full.
( ) Other:
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its
minutes for this date.
Dated: ,�� /2,lir t PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Qt �_ `'�.z ,� , Deputy Clerk
WARNING (Gov. Code Section 913)
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date of this
notice was personally served 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 an attorney of your choice in connection with this
matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.
V. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: (1) County Counsel, (2) County Administrator
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.
( ) A warning of claimants right to apply for leave to present a late claim was mailed
tolaimant..
DATED: V_ff-"-? L�PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By - (� -y'� , Deputy Clerk
cc: County Administrator (2) County Counsel (1)
CLAIM D
CLAIM TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
' I
Instructions •.:o Claimant
A. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to
person or to personal property or growing crops must be presented
not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of
action. Claims ,relating to any other cause of action must be
presented not later than one year 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 office in Room 106, County Administration Building, 651 Pine
Street, Martinez , CA 94553 (or mail to P.O. Box 911, Martinez, _CA) ,
C. If claim is against a district governed by the Board of Supervisors ,
rather than the County, the name of the District should be filled in.
D. If the claim is against more than one public entity, separate claims
must be filed against each public entity.
E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims , Penal Code Sec. 72 at end
of this form.
RE: Claim by ) Reser ' 'ng stamps
RECEIVED
Against the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA) JAN 11 1985
PHIL 3ATCMELOR
or DISTRICT) CL iK BOARD OF SUPERVISOR$
NTR CSTA CO.
(Fill in name) ) By . omuty
The undersigned claimant hereby r.iakes claim against the County of Contra
Costa or the above-named District in the sum of $
and in support of this claim represents as follows:
1. -When did the damage or injury occur? (Give exact date and our
L��� =�-,-_.,� -�z�-�: ;;z'--�' - �-.�• ice•'� '.�1�'n •
2. Where did the damage or injury occur? (Include city and county)
/U t CXit �1Y C�-..ti���< r'l �4��'Zc f'►:�(f�,,.t�L;- L�>e .
..� -----------------------------
3. -How did the damage or injury occur? (Give full details, use extra
sheets if required)
4--.---What.------------particular------act--or--omission-----------on---the----part-----of-------county--or--------district-----
officers , servants or employees caused the injury or damage?
n-� _opt. Gz�'-v'� � /�-�' -sr•sfl �y�•y.�.. ; 17�iti-. ..e„�/�G-e �.e.l� CF`/� /
J
�..�„u-� Cwt- ��_i.�-•G�
(over)
5. ' What are the names of county or district officers , servants or
employebs causing the damage or injury?
-j- - - 7/-_ ------------
6. What damage or injuries do you claim resulted? (Give full extent
of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto
damage)
,�.
----------------------'---------------------------------------------------
7. How was the amount' claimed above computed? (Include the estimated
amount; of any prospective injury or damage. ) _
l y / _ •
----------------------------------------------------------------
8. Names and addresses of witnesses, doctors and hospitals.
VV
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. L ' -� you made on account of this accident or injury:
�!Tp
I`�D-1
tI � ITEM AMOUNT
f,l�
19 j{n� ctiJ�y � •rut:� !.6' G' +� � ' �� �! � �j�-f' T `��1lr�c' "J�j '(i. .tL�
Govt. �`deSec. 910. 2 provides :
V �
"The claim signed by the claimant
SEND NOTICES TO: (Attorney) or by some person on his behalf, "
Name and Address of Attorney
Claimant s/ Signature
Address
Telephone No. , Telephone No. -s - J-fl7dP
NOTICE
Section 72 of the Penal- Code provides:
"Every person who, with intent to defraud, presents for allowance or
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, voucher,
or writing, is guilty of a felony. "
I
1800 Mit. Diablo 5ivd.
` Walnut Creek, CA 94596
NAME 934-9300 DATE
ADDR SSFP' tee PHONE
IN JR D BY ADJUSTER PHONE
SYM FRONT LABOR UBO PARTS SYM LEFT LABOR LABOR PARTS SYM RIGHT LABOR LABOR PARTS
AMT. MRS. AMT. AMT. HRS. AMT. AMT. MRS. AMT.
Bumper r:v
Bumper Brkt. Fender, Front Fender, Front
Bumper Gd. Fender Shield Fender Shield
Frt. System Fender Mldg. Fender Mld .
Frame Headlamp Headlamp
Cross Member Headlamp Door Headlomp Door
Stabilizer Sealed Beam Sealed Beam
Wheel Cowl Cowl
Hub Cap Windshield Windshield
Hub & Drum Door Front Door Front
Knuckle
Knuckle Sup. Door Hinge Door Hinge
Lr.Cont.'Arm-Shaft Door Glass Door Glass
Vent Glass Vent Glass
U .Cont.Arm-Shaf Door Mldgs. Door Mldg.
Shock Door Handle Door Handle
Spring Center Post Center Post
Tie Rod Door Rear Door Rear
Steering Gear Door Gla Door Gloss
Steering Wheel Door Mldg. Door Mldg.
Horn Ring Rocker Panel Rocker Panel
Gravel Shield Rocker Mldg. Rocker Mldg.
Park. Light Floor Floor
Frame Frame
Rad. Grille Dog Leg Dog Leg
Qtr. Panel Qtr. Panel
Qtr. Mldg. Qtr. Mldg.
Qtr. Glass Qtr. Glass
Fender, Rear Fender, Rear
Name Plate Fender Mldg. Fender Mldg.
"MA& � Fender Pad Fender Pod
Baffle, Side REAR MISC.
Baffle, Lower Bumper D Inst. Panel
Baffle, Upper Bumper Brkt. Front Seat
Lock Plate, L►- -_ Bumper Gd. Front Seat Adj.
Lock Plafe, Up. Gravel Shield Trim
Hood Top Loweri'irwl Headlining
Hood Hinge F.},00r rilleRTo
Hood Mid Trunk Lid Tire % Worn
Ornament Trunk. Tube
Rad. A Trunk Wen44e- Battery
Rad. Core Tail'+Light Paint
Anti Freeze Tail Pipe „F -1J�►�ereEef
Rad. Hoses G,Qs Tank ev"'
Fan Blade Frame - AUTHORIZATION FOR-REPAIRS
Fan Belt Wheel You ore hereby authorized to make the above
Water Pump Hub 8 Drum
specified repairs.
Motor Mts. Axle Signed
Clutch Linkage Spring GRO PARTS��ryt ¢",
..Ir
L
NET PARTS
/� /��, ` PAINT MATERIAL
MAKE a E r STYLE MILEAGE9PS SALES TAX a
SER. NO � TR. NO. LIC. N0. TOTAL LABOR ! i
A - Align N-New OH - Overhaul S - Straighten or repair GRAND TOTAL
FORM SA-88 eev. 1-e3
�� Moterial.5ubjed;to-Price Change '
E'STIMA'TE .
PAT.PATTERS N CADILLACF -:
♦ ,REPAIRS
27th & Her on Streets y
Ftal P:O. Box 137 45.1-2400 :Date
,. OAKLAND, CA ORNIA 94612 ;
'R.O. No.
Name , Phone No.
k .
AddressJ Citi . State
Insurance Co.
Phone No. ...ys
•Address
f
City ;# tate Zip Adjuster,
MODEL LICENSE NO. OR NO. SERIAL NO. -MILEA`A
_Q9LNT __.._.,_ ESTIMATE OF REPAIR C r _; M,,, LABOR t apARTS. 'LABOR
$ ----- --'--- ._._�.: ... _.. _ - '�,T.: $.,.NRS. Fv 's3+r •-,, x.x.#':a:"a..w--._....
r,�PL6 } f dv j:
v
141 L
5
;F1
H
y+ ( 4 1-5 �q Sd eZ-2 A./A 7 171A-
.10
Po 3; .x.�-�."•� w+T.r—.--.•+-•—i—--^-`.-r-'"'_�.,-....-__.-_-F.._...�...- -..�....�+ _,.-.al!++'ai..•..•+wE - -.. -.�.. >:4 7 .di.,r Y 9'l: ._X�2hn. ,
,Z }
7 -
f.
F Y
# icv
1 d _
c ' t� TOTALS �; t
r.
THE ABOVE IS.AiN ESTIMATE BASED ON.OU R,INSPECTIONµANWD'D `E,$ NOT LSBbOI L' ,Haat$
" COVER"ANY')fDC11 IIJXLARTS OR LABOR WHICH MY BE REQU Fie"E AFTER a Std ff
¢ THE WORK.''HAS BEEN OPENED UP.-OCCASIONALLY-AFTER THE_-HIQRK HAS Parts Gross i
' STARTED DAMAGED OR BROKEN"PARTS-ARE DISCOVERED'WHICH'ARE`NOT y'
EVIDENT ON THE FIRST INSPECTION. Sig Less %'on $ Net
F �1
PRICES'SUBJECT}�`TO CHANGE TO-CORRECT PRICE AT 'TIME OF.,'I'VOICE. pr
PARTS PRICES�rhBASED ON STANDARD CATALOGUE :PROCU�EMENT' Tax Orl r$ l7wh ^:
Y ;PRICE LISTS SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE. PROCUREMENT AND
c
1Z DELIVERY,CHARGEMAY4BE`ADDED FOR SPECIAL SERVICE ON 1T: MS NOT.. Sublet 3,Ila,A(�VBRCe';Ct1aLeS $; g
AVAILABLE LOCALLY. u
m^`✓ s �, •rt+t_yt _ 9 `.e'a4a t � �£ t $ �_V =it b,
'�� tis +^s -�+. .x 5 - •-- ` $a
.�,, k r°• � :�• • � '�� `S_ub total s� �� � � � �Y�.
`t �(�QLess Deductible
v r { h r� Q�
t AUTHORIZED ', TOTAt ``. Q�� x ya
BY �P..
20.34717,NOFIICK OKLAHOMA CITY r ' "
P
Lafayette Body & Paint Works
3291 MT.DIMO BLVD. .
�.LAFA)!ETTE,CAUFMIA C
Phope:'(415.1283-3421 Bureau of Automotive Repair Certificate No.m328
/Jn
OWNE�T/ , /-'�L G APPRAISER_��-c� � DAT`
C �
ADDRESS MAKE / ) YEAR747 STYLE
CITY STATE LIC.Np%/_Z ''7:=PfMILEAGE CONDITION
Symbol FRONT Labor $ labor Mrs. Parts Symbol LEFT labor $ labor Hrs. Parts ISymbol RIGHT 'labor $ Labor Hre. Parts
Bumper(U) Fender,Fri. Fender,Fri.
Bumper(L) Fender Shieid Fender Shield
Bumper Brkt. Fender Mldg. Fender Mldg.
Bumper Gd. Headlamp Headlamp
Fri.System Headlamp Door Headlamp Door
Frame Sealed Beam Sealed Beam ,
Cross Member, Cowl Cowl
Stabilizer Windshield Windshield
Wheel Door,Front Doer, Front
Hub Cap Door Hinge Door Hinge
Huh 6 Drum Door Glass Door Glass
Knuckle Vent Glass Vent Glass
Knuckle Sup. Door Mldg. Door Mldg.
Lr.Cont.Arm Door Handle Door Handle
Lr.Cont Shaft Center Post Center Post
Up.Cont.Arm Door Rear Door Rear
Shock Door Class Door Glass
Spring Door Mldg. Door Mldg.
Tie Rod Rocker Panel Rocker Panel
Steering Gear Rocker Mldg. Rocker Mldg.
Steering Wheel Floor Floor
Horn Ring Frame Frame
Gravel Shield Dog leg Dog Leg
Park.Light Quer.Panel Quar.Panel
Rad.Grille,Ctr. Quar.Mldg. Quar.Mldg.
Rad.Grille,Side Quar.Glass Quer.Glass
Grill Midg. Stone Shield Stone Shield
REAR MISC.
Bumper Inst.Panel
Name Plate T!Eer Brkt. Front Seat
Horn Front Seat Adj.
Baffle,Side RhL* Trim
Baffle,Lower I Headlining
Baffle,Uppar Floor jo ofj Top T1
Lock Plate,Lr. Trunk Lidng,�W-7 Aijewig,.1/�t
Lock Plate,Up. Trunk Tube
Hood Top
Trunk Battery
Hood Hinge Tail Light Paint . • •
Hood Mldg. i IOUe Undercoat
Ornament Gas Tank
Rad.Sup. Frame
Rad.Core Wheel
Anti Freeze j Hub b Drum
Red.Hoses Axle ESTIMATE VOID 30 DAYS AFTER
Fan Blade Spring DATE
Fan Belt
— L 1 9
Water Pump PITULATION
Motor Mts. .SO.
Clutch Linkage Labor Hours._..�� .at.......................................
i.... .. t
Parts&Material.........................._Less Disc. %...........t ., ....r.,.
"THIS ESTIMATE. BASED ON OUR INSPECTION, DOES NOT Tax .
INCLUDE ANY ADDITIONAL PARTS OR LABOR THAT MAY BE Sublet 8t Nei Items......................... �...... rl...
REQUIRED AFTER THE WORK HAS BEEN STARTED, OCCA—
SIONALLY,.AFTER WORK HAS BEEN STARTED, DAMAGED OR / '7
BROKEN PARTS ARE FOUND WHICHWERE NOT EVIDENT ON :Total = `..... :::..:.....
THE FIRST INSPECTION. BECAUSE OF THIS, THE PRICES
HEREWITH ARE NOT GUARANTEED." (NOTE—WE NEVER AUTHORIZE REPAIRS) )OZ,
Z�
_ CLAIM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
BOARD ACTION
Claim Against the County, or District ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT February 12, 1985
governed by the Board of Supervisors, ) The copy oft s document led to you is your'
Routing Endorsements, and Board ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the
Action. All Section references are ) Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV, below),
to California Goverrment Codes ) given pursuant to Government Code Section 913
and 915.4. Please note all "Warnings".
Claimant: Sharon Louise Johnson & Jen'e Johnson (Minor).
County Counse;
Attorney: Paul M. Schwartz
2004 Cedar street JAN 0 9 1985
Address: Berkeley, CA 94709
Marttnez, CA 94553
Amount: $5,000,000.00 By delivery to clerk on
Date Received: January_ 8, 1985 By mail, postmarked on January 3. 19sI;
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim.
Dated: January 8, 1985 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By OUDeputy
Jolene Edwards
II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
(Check only one)
(r1 ) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2.
( 1 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. Clerk should return claim on ground that it was Piled
late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late
claim (Section 911.3).
( ) Other:
Dated: By: w;g,�a Deputy County Counsel
III. .FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: (1) County Counsel, (2) County Administrator
( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3).
IV. BOARD ORDER By unanimous vote of Supervisors present
(q This claim is rejected in full.
( ) Other:
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its
minutes for this date.
Dated: �W,, /-z /7&1IL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By 02? , Deputy Clerk
WARNING (Gov. Code Section 913)
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6)-months from the date of this
notice Was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this
claim. See Government Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this
matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so i®ediately.
V. FROM: Clerk of the Board T0: (1) County Counsel, (2) County Administrator
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.
( ) A warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim was mailed
tq plaimant.
DATED: f'Ji- PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By 9-� `�i�r-s L,��.-- , Deputy Clerk
cc: County Administrator (2) County Counsel (1)
CLAIM
r '
I �✓
I PAUL M. SCHWARTZ RECEIVED
ATTORNEY AT LAW
2 2004 CEDAR STREET
BERKELEY. CALIFORNIA 94709 JAN k, 1985
3 -_ (415) 548-9800
PHIL BATCHELOR
C CRK BOARD OF 5161PERMOAS
4 CONTR STA CO.
5 ATTORNEY FOR Claimants
6
7
8 CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY SHERIFF' S DEPARTMENT AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HOSPITAL
9
10 In the Matter of the Claim of :
11 SHARON LOUISE JOHNSON, her minor daughter
JEN'E JOHNSON, and all other heirs of the
12 deceased CLINTON SCOTT JOHNSON
13 against Contra Costa County ,
Contra Costa County Sheriff 's Department , Claim No . :
14 and Contra Costa County Hospital
15
16 TO: Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County :
17 SHARON LOUISE JOHNSON, her minor daughter JEN ' E JOHNSON, and
18 all other heirs of the deceased CLINTON SCOTT JOHNSON hereby make
19 claim against the County of Contra Costa , the Contra Costa County
20 Sheriff ' s Department and Contra Co�:ta County Hosnital pursuant to
21 Government Code Section 0'10, loo, the sum of five million dollars
22 ($5, 000, 000) and make the following statements in support of the
23 claim:
24 1 . Claimants vost office address is 5503 Huntington Avenue,
25 Richmond, California, 94804 .
26 2. Notices concerning this claim should be sent to
r
i
1 Paul M. Schwartz, Attorney at Law, 2004 Cedar Street , Berkeley,
2 California, 94709, telephone no. (415) 548-9800.
3 3,. The dates and place of the accident giving rise to this
4 claim are September 29, 1984 through October 2, 1934 at the Contra
5 Costa County jail in Martinez, California.
6 4. The circumstances giving rise to this claim are as follows :
7 At the above times and place, claimant ' s deceased husband, CLINTON
8 SCOTT JOHNSON, was in the custody of the Contra Costa County
9 Sheriff ' s Department . He was incarcerated at the Contra Costa
10 County jail in Martinez, California. He was in need of medical and
11 psychiatric attention. Proper medical and psychiatric services
12 were not provided him. He was negligently cared for and found de-
13 ceased in an isolation cell of the Contra Costa County jail on
14 October 2, 1984 at approximately 7 : 53 PM.
15 5. Claimants are the wife , minor daughter and other heirs of
16 the deceased. Their injuries include, but are not limited to their
17 emotional well being and health. They have lost the love, support ,
18 maintenance, affection, guidance and companionship of their loved
19 one, CLINTON SCOTT JOHNSON.
20 6 . The claim as of this date is five million dollars
21 ($5,000,000) .
22 7. The basis of computation of the above amount is as
23 follows :
24 a. Loss of Support : unknown at this time but estimated
25 to be two million dollars ($2, 000,000) .
26 b. Medical Expenses Incurred to Date : unknown at this
I
1 I
i
1 time. Amount will be provided when same is available to claimants.
2 c. Estimated Future Medical Expenses : unknown at this
3 time. Amount will be provided when same is available to claimants.
4 d. General Damages : Three million dollars ($3, 000, 000)
5 Total : Five million dollars ($5,000,000)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 ,
14 Dated: January 3, 1985
ul hvjkrtj
15 Att , ney for Claiman
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
CCP 1013a, 2015. 5
I declare that I am employed in the county of Alameda,
California. I am over the age of eighteen years, and
not a party to the within entitled cause ; my business
address is 2004 Cedar Street , Berkeley, CA 94709. On
January 3, 1985 , I served the attached :
CLAIM OF JOHNSON AND OTHER HEIRS AGAINST THE COUNTY
OF CONTRA COSTA on the County of Contra Costa, by placing
a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with
postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States
mail at Berkeley, California, addressed as follows :
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street , Rm 106
Martinez, CA 94553
I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing
is true and correct , and that this declaration was executed
on January 3, 1985 at Berkeley , California.
MYRA MAYESH
PAUL M. SCHWARTZ
INCORPORATED
ATTORNEY AT LAW
2004 CEDAR STREET
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94709 '
(415) 548-9800
January 2, 1985
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street
Room 106
Martinez, CA 94553
Re : In the Matter of the Claim of Sharon Louise Johnson, her
minor daughter Jen ' e Johnson, and all other heirs of the
deceased Clinton Scott Johnson against the County of
Contra Costa, Contra Costa County Sheriff ' s Department
and Contra Costa County Hospital.
Dear Madam or Sir:
Enclosed please find an original and two copies of a claim
against the County of Contra Costa, the Contra Costa County
Sheriff ' s Department , and Contra Costa County Hospital , which
I am today filing on behalf of my clients Sharon Louise Johnson,
her minor daughter Jen'e Johnson and all the heirs of the
deceased Clinton Scott Johnson. Attached to it is a Proof of
Service by Mail showing service of this claim on the Clerk of
the Board of Supervisors.
I have enclosed a self-addressed, stamped envelope. Please re-
turn to me a filing receipt , and an endorsed filed copy of the
claim.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Si *'SCWARTZ
P L
EncPMSl . m RECEIVED -
Encl .
JAN �', 198.5
PPL BATC"ELOR
tL BOMro OF suvEAWWft
Oti7 sT�co.
eW- lG dosny
O
� T
CLAIM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA CO(NTY, CALIFORNIA
BOARD ACTION
Claim Against the County, or District ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT February 12, 1985
governed by the Board of Supervisors, ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your
Routing Endorsements, and Board ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the
Action. All Section references are ) Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV, below),
to California Government Codes ) given pursuant to Government Code Section 913
and 915.4. Please note all "Warnings".
Claimant: Linda Hicks
124 Highway Avenue County Counsel
Attorney: W. Pittsburg, CA 94565
- 0 9 1985
Address:
Martinet, CA 94553
Amount: $335.00 By delivery to clerk on
Date Received: January 7, 1985 By mail, postmarked on January 4, 1985
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim.
Dated: January 7, 1985 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, Byod_ j_� Deputy
Jo ene E war s
II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
(Check only one)
, ) 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. Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed
late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late
claim (Section 911.3).
(� Other: / S A he
Dated: By: / . Deputy County Counsel
III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: (1) County Counsel, (2) County Administrator
( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3).
IV. BOARD ORDER By unanimous vote of Supervisors present
(YQ This claim is rejected in full.
( ) Other:
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in A is
minutes for this date.
Dated: a '�- PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By g,g , Deputy Clerk
WARNING (Gov. Code Section 913)
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6)-months Pram the date of this
notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this
claim. See Government Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this
matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.
. V. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: (1) County Counsel, (2) County Administrator
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.
( ) A warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim was mailed
to claimant.
DATED: ,. !3 /YdS'- PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Q� , Deputy Clerk
cc: County Administrator (2) County Counsel (1)
CLAIM
CLAIM TO:- BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
'Instructions -.:o Claimant
A. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to
person or to personal property or growing crops must be presented
not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of
action. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be
presented not later than one year 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 office in Room 106, County Administration Building, 651 Pine
Street, Martinez , CA 94553 (or mail to P.O. Box 911, Martinez, CA)
C. If claim is against a district governed by the Board of Supervisors ,
rather than the County, the name of the District should be filled in.
D. If the claim is against more than one public entity, sdparate claims
must be filed against each public entity.
E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims , Penal Code Sec. 72 at end
of this form.
RE: Claim by ) Reserved for ' stamps
)
..."CEIVED
Against the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA) JAN 7
or DISTRICT) PHIL BATCHELOR
(Fill in name) ) .q CO STACK M
B
The undersigned claimant hereby r.iakes claim agains the County of Contra
Costa or the above-named District in the sum of $
and in support of this claim represents as follows :
1. When did the damage r injur occur? (Give exact date and hour)
2. Where did the `d'amage or injury occur? (Include city and county)
\�W)
3. How did the damage or injury occur? (Give full details, use extra
sheets if required) � � c.) �� cxO� � A�E
�
----------- - -�� - � �'�_ra_�__ - le------------
-
4. What part-icu--lar---ac-t-or omission on the part of cou or district
officers , servants or employees caused the injury or damage?
C)�� GSC :25bWNSUL 0 ��
k3
. 5. What are the names of county or district officers , servants or
, employees causing the damage or injury?
6. What damage or injuries do you claim resulted? (Give full extent
of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto
damage) V axnaa,t, L.l•�•-t-� � °C.. .�l•�
7. How was the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimated
amount of any prospective in 'ur or damage. )
� �c�c�2-tom-` a c�r•��.. -- C� ��4..� 1:� �v�`C� C�
8. Names and addresses of witnesses, doctors and hgspitals.
9. List the expenditures you made on account Of this accident or injury
DATE ITEM AMOUNT
l
E
` 1
Govt. Code Sec. 910.2 provides :
"T . claim signed by the claimant
SEND NOTICES TO: (Attorney) or some person on his behalf. "
r
Name and Address of Attorney
Claimant' s Signature
T
AddtQ4 .s i
Telephone No. Telephone No. CJS�j Q Q.
NOTICE
Section 72 of the Penal Code provides:
"Every person who, with intent to defraud, presents for allowance or
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, voucher,
or writing, is guilty of a felony. "
� y
ESTIMATE OF REPAIRS
MAZZEI PONTIAC-CADILLAC CO.
R].
1530 West 10th St. P. O. Box 519 Phone 757.5600
A/NTIOCH, CALIF. 94509
<<--
NAME ' �" DATE2 ,6
ADDRESS___,Z C! �—�/' .'�� Gt�. , L�I ! �J NE / .
INSURED BY ADJUSTER PHONE
STM.7BumperBrkt.
Labor $ Hbs. Parts SYM. Labor$ Hbs. Parts SYM. Labor S Hbs! Parts
Fender, Frt. Fender, FrtFender Shield Fender Shield
Frt. System Fender Mldg. Fender Mldg.
Frame I jHeadlamp Headlamp
Cross Member Headlamp Door Headlamp Door
Stabilizer Sealed Beam Sealed Beam
Wheel Cowl Cowl
Hub Cap Windshield Windshield
Hub& Drum Door, Front Door, Front
Knuckle
Knuckle Sup. Door Hinge Door Hinge
Lr.Cont.Arm-Shaft Door Glass Door Glass
Vent Glass Vent Glass
Up.Cont.Arm-Shaft Door Mldgs. Door Midg.
Shock Door Handle Door Handle
Spring Center Post Center Post
Tie Rod Door Rear Door Rear
Steering Gear Door Glass Door Glass
Steering Wheel Door Midg. Door Mldg.
Horn Ring Rocker Panel Rocker Panel
Gravel Shield Rocker Midg. Rocker Midg.
Parking Light Floor Floor
Frame Frame
Rad. Grille Dog Leg Dog Leg
Quar. Panel Quar. Panel
Quar. Mld Quar. Midg.
/ Quar. 6ils Quar. Glass
Fender; Rea r• Fender, Rear
Name Plate Fender Mldg. Fender Mldg.
Horn Fender Pad Fender Pad
Baffle, Side
Baffle, Lower Bumper OL f ;j ^r Inst. Panel
Baffle, Upper Bumper Brkt. Front Seat
Lock Plate, Lr. Bumper Gd: 0 lFront Seat Adj.
Lock Plate, Up. Gravel Shield Trim
Hood Top Lower Panel Headlining
Hood Hinge Floor Top
Hood Midg. Trunk Lid Tire % Worn
Ornament Trunk Light Tube
Rad. Sup. Trunk Handle ipattery
Rad. Core Tail Light aint ♦ t C-7
Anti Freeze Tail Pipe Undercoat
Rad. Hoses Gas Tank AUTHORIZATION FOR REPAIRS
Fan Blade Frame You are hereby authorized to make the above specified repairs.
Fan Belt Hub& Drum Signed
Water Pump Axle GROSS PARTS
Motor Mts. Spring /
Clutch Linkage 460/0 DISCOUNT
NET PARTS Z/
WRECKER SERVICE
SALES TAX
YEAR , ] MAKE OL ` OT 1• ABOR'�
SERIAL NO. _LIC. Nr "� V rf/ MILEAGE -RAND TOT'' - r
A-Align N-New OH-Oveniaul S-Straighten or repair Ma ial Subject to Price Change
FORM ER-9155 (4-79( NORiCK OKL—Or. C1, .LOS A:-GELES 5A:;FRA;-IISCO .CHICAGO .K$NGS NIT—N.0 ('� �
WINTER ,CHEVROLET COMPANY, INC.
2101 -Aailraad'Ave. - P.O. Box 31 - Pittsburg, CA 94565
If your car needs body repair, we can restore it
Phones: 439-8222 - G85-7910 to factory specifications with our Nicator laser
ESTIMATE OF APAIRS measuring systems, accurate to one millimeter. Make
sure your car is repaired the safe way,the NICATOR
way.
Name
Address Phone —_
Make Model License
Serial No. Mileage p
Insured By Estimator Y1�� Dat
Symbol FRONT Labor Mrs. Parts Symbol LEFT labor Mrs. Parts Symbol RIGHT Labor Mrs. Parts
Bumper Fender Fender
Bumper Rail Fender Ornament Fender Ornament
Bumper Bracket Fender Shield Fender Shield
Fender Mldg. Fender Mldg.
Bumper Guard Headlamp Headlamp
Frt. System Headlamp Door Headlamp Door
Frame Sealed Beam Sealed Beam
Cross Member Cowl Cowl
Door-Post Door Post
Wheel Door, Front Door, Front
Hub Cap Door Lock Door Lock
Hub and Drum Door Hinge I Door Hinge
Knuckle Door Glass, Clear Tint Door Glass, Clear Tint
Knuckle Sup. Vent Glass, Clear Tint Vent Glass, Clear Tint
Upper Cont. Arm-Shaft Door Mld s. Door Mldg,
Lower Cont. Arm-Shaft Door Handle Aocker
oo'r .andle
Shock Center Post nter Post
Windshield Glass-Tint Door, Rear oor, ear
Back Glass Door Glass, Clear Tint ass, Clear Tint
Door Mid MId .
Tie Rod Rocker Panel Panel
Steering Gear Rocker Midg. Rocker Mld .
Steering Wheel Sill Plate Sill Plate
Horn Ring Floor Floor
Gravel Shield Dog Leg Dog Le
Parking Light Quar. Inner Quar. Inner
Grille Quar. Panel Quar. Panel
Qudr. Midg. Quar. Mldg.
Quar. Glass, Clear Tint Quar. Glass, Clear Tint
Fender, Rear Fender Rear
Fender Mldg. Fender Midg.
Fender Pad Fender Pad
Mirror REAR misc.
Horn Bumper if I Instrument Panel
Baffle, Side Bumper Rail Front Seat
Baffle, Lower Bumper Bracket Front Seat Adj.
Baffle, Upper Bumper Guard Trim
Lock Plate, Lower Gravel Shield Headlining
Lock Plate, Upper Lowei Panel Top
Hood Top Floor Tire /32 WW-Bw
Hood Hinge Trunk Lid Battery
Hood Midg. Trunk lock Paint
Hood Letters Trunk Mldg. alof Undercoa
Ornament I Tail Light Polish
Radiator Sup. Tail Pipe — Muffler
Radiator Core Gas Tank labor HrslE-�1]J
Radio Antenna Frame Sublet__ E
Radiator Hoses License Light
Fan Blade Hub and Drum Tow--$
Fan Belt Back-Up Light Parts S
Water Pump Wheel Shield
Motor Axle Net Items 3
Trans.—Linkage Spring Tax
Miller Printing® Pittsburg,CA
This estimate does not cover any concealed damage. ''e TOTAL E y
av
Couity Counsel
CLAIM.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA�,,,,C,ALIF�ORNIA
! z - BOARD ACTION
Martinez, CA NOT9g5LLAIMANT February 12, 1985
Claim Against the County, or District ) ICE
governed by the Board of Supervisors, ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your
Routing Endorsements, and Board ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the
Action. All Section references are ) Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV, below),
to California Government Codes ) given pursuant to Government Code Section 913
and 915.4. Please note all "Warnings".
Claimant: Brian Hansen DeLoache
Attorney: - Randal W. Hooper_
449 - lth St. , Suite 404
Address: Oakland, CA 94612
Amount: $350,000.00 By delivery to clerk on
Date Received: January 1.1, 1985 By mail, postmarked On January 10, 1985
I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel
Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim.
Dated: January 11, 1985 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By �� Deputy
Jolene Edwards
II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
(Check only one)
No� 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. Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed
late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late
claim (Section 911.3).
( ) Other:
Dated: / By: Deputy County Counsel
III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: (1) County ounsel, (2) County Administrator
( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3).
IV. BOARD ORDER By unanimous vote of Supervisors present
( This claim is rejected in full.
( ) Other:
I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its
minutes for this date.
Dated: �/,� /�, iq�� PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Q .�r.� ,� - , Deputy Clerk
WARNING (Gov. Code Section 913)
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six. (6) -months from the date of this
notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this
claim. See Government Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this
matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.
V. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: (1) County Counsel, (2) County Administrator
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.
( ) A warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim was mailed
to claimant.
DATED:, �.t,�: 1.�,19,',5' PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By `2;Ac! , Deputy Clerk
cc: County Administrator (2) County Counsel (1)
CLAIM (�
HoopEB, KENDALL 8C KUBANCIH
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
449-15T. STREET, SUITE 404
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612
WAYNE M.HOOPER TELEPHONE
LLOYD W. KENDALL,JR.,INC. (((000
(415) 451-5656
JOSEPH J.KUBANCIK
RANDAL W. HOOPER
[RECEIVED
Board of Supervisors JAN 11, 1985
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street c,)MOOF SUN
41140R;
�e«3aMot�Su�fauc,CR3
Martinez, CA. 94553 c,►„ osJ•co.
8r..,� ct,L ��+c�oew+►r
In accordance with Section 910 of the California Government
Code, this is to formally place you on notice of a claim for
damages due to a dangerous condition of public property, to
wit:
Negligence of the State of California, County of Contra Costa,
City of Lafayette and City of Walnut Creek in the design and
construction of Pleasant Hill Road and failure to post signs
to warn of such dangerous condition.
1. The claimant ' s name and home address are as follows:
Brian Hansen DeLoache
2041 Miramonte Street, #2
San Leandro, CA. 94578
2. I desire notices to be sent to the following address:
Randal W. Hooper
449 - 15th Street, Suite 404
Oakland, CA. 94612
3. The date, place and other circumstances giving rise to
this claim are as follows:
On October 16, 1984 , claimant Brian Hansen DeLoache, drove
his 1981 Datsun 280 ZX vehicle from a private driveway at
1530 Pleasant Hill Road, Lafayette, southbound into the north-
bound lanes of Pleasant Hill Road at Holland Drive, Walnut
Creek. Claimant drove his vehicle southbound in the north-
bound lane closest to the center divider of Pleasant Hill
Road, until it collided head on with a vehicle driven by
Anisa Gailani , who was travelling northbound on Pleasant Hill
Road. Claimant, Anisa Gailani and a passenger in Gailani 's
vehicle, Fauzia Ahmed, all suffered injuries as a result of
the collision. The point of impact was in an unincorporated
area of Contra Costa County just north of Purson Lane on
h
Y 1 r i.y Ir
Pleasant Hill Road. In the area of the collision, Pleasant
Hill Road is a divided highway with two (2 ) northbound and
two ( 2) southbound lanes, separated by a strip approximately
forty ( 40) feet in width and heavily planted with mature
shrubs and trees. At the time of the collision there were no
traffic or warning signs visible from the private driveway at
1530 Pleasant Hill Road, Lafayette, to indicate the one ( 1)
way direction of traffic for both northbound lanes of Pleasant
Hill Road. Damages are hereinafter set forth.
4 . The names of the public employees causing the damage are
unknown.
5. The amount of damages claimed as of the date of presentation
of this claim is $350,000.
The basis of the amount claimed is as follows:
(a) General damages for injuries $ 70,000
(b) Wage loss resulting from injuries 5,000
(c) Medical bills 10,000
(d) Property damage (claimant' s vehicle) 15,000
(e) Equitable indemnity for any judgment
entered against claimant by Anisa
Gailani and/or Fauzi Ahmed 2501000
TOTAL: $350,000
6. I, Randal W. Hooper, the undersigned am presenting this
claim on behalf of the above-named claimant.
DATED: /lC���_� �fGv' i�'i'•
NDAL W. HOOPER
2 -