Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09091986 - 1.29 APPLICATION TO FILE LATE CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA BOARD ACTION Application to File Late Claim ) NOTICE Ta APPLICANT September 9 , 1986 Against the County, Routing ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your Endorsements, and Board Action.) notice of the action taken on your application by (All Section References are to the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph III, below), California Government Code.) ) given pursuant to Government Code Sections 911.8 and 915.4. Please note the KWARNING" below. Claimant: GLORIA ETZLER County counSel c/o Richard E. Brown, Esq. 3 196 Attorney: 722 Montgomery Street AUG 1 San Francisco, CA 94111 Address: MartjnBZ, CA 9A553 Amount: Unspecified By delivery to Clerk on August 11 , 1986 CC Date Received: August 11 , 1986 By mail, postmarked on August 7, 1986 Certified P194062889 I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above noted Application to File La Claim. DATED: August 12 , 1986PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy L. Hall II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (�) The Board should grant this Application to File Late Claim (Section 911.6). ( ) The Board should deny this Application to File Late Claim (Section 9 1.6). DATED:L /4 VICTOR WESTMAN, County Counsel, By� III. BOARD ORDER By unanimous vote of Supervisors present (Check one only) ( ) This Application is granted (Section 911.6). (�) This Application to File Late Claim is denied (Section 911.6). I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. DATE: �L r L' 9 15 �r PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By.a Deputy WARNING (Gov. Code 5911.8) If you wish to file a court action on this matter, you must first petition the appropriate court for an order relieving you from the provisions of Government Code Section 945.4 (claims presentation requirement). See Government Code Section 946.6. Such petition must be filed with the court within six (6) months from the date your application for leave to present a late claim was denied. You may seek the advise of any attorney of your choice in connection with this -ma tter_.._,if,.,. t to consult an .attorney,youu should do so immediatel . 9-9-86 This Board Order was incorrectly a� issued, Please see October 7 , 1986 Y, for the corrected Board Order. j :Y ' LAW OFFICES Melvin M.Belli, Sr. SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 CABLE "BFLEX' BEVERLY HILLS (LOS ANGELES)CA 90212 v (415) 981-1849 (213)277-3612 THE BELLI BUILDING THE BELLI BUILDING 722 MONTGOMERY STREET 9952 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD MELVIN MELVIN M,BELLI.SR, N M.BELLI,SR. DAVID S.BASIN MELVIN CACSAR BELLI,JR. - LOU ASHE(1908-1980) .DANIEL W.DUNBAR DAVID S.SABIH HOWARD HIRSCH RICHARD E.BROWN ARNOLD W.GROSS- --FELIX CAVO PAULM.MASNZIONE San Francisco - Au ust 4 1986 IALBO MA88ACHU8[T8 BAA) ">' / HA$KELL SHAPIRO ROBERT A.KIERNAN JOSEPH M.SINDELL (ALSO IDAHO BAR) (OHIO BAR) MAROLD SELAN RENEE D.WASSERMAN OF COUNSEL: DENNIS R.LOOS SAM YORTY DEBORAH BOB EL County Counsel PACIFIC GROVE,CA 93950 CAROL SHAW STEVEN M8BR0 Vicki J. Finucane, Esquire '/�' F„� Qy^� (408) 649-1849 PARALEGALS: County Counsel , AU6 U V �JV� THE BELLI BUILDING VALERIE D.BEALAM 651 Pine Street 408 FOREST AVENUE VALERIE J.LAMBf RTSON SHARON M.COHN MELVIN M.BELLI,SR. RANDY SCARLETT Martinez, CA 94553 l/� DAVID S.SABIH MICHAEL J.COCORAN Martinez, CA 945M DONALD N.HUBBARD OF COUNSEL: SANTA CRUZ,CA 95060 JOHN E.HILL Re: SUNVALLEY MALL AIR CRASH (408)486-0440 ALLEN P.WILKINSON GLORIA & HARRY ETZLER DANIEL A..STEN STENSON 708 MISSION STREET JETTIE P.SELVIG HERBERT RESNER MELVIN M.BELLI,SR. FERNANDO CHAVEZ DAVID S.SAO IN MARTH ARKS ROT E.HARPER A.GROZA ear MS. Finucane: ' MARK SHAW � � - �RALPH W.BOROFF CHARLES A.D[CUIR.JR. BETSY W.LEBBOS - STOCKTON.CA 95202 CHIEF INVESTIGATOR I am writing to you on behalf of Mr. and (209)466-0962 STAN HALLMARK THE BELLI BUILDING Mrs. Harry Etzler who, - through their first_ attorney•, 215 NORTH SAN JOAOUIN Mr. Fred F. Cooper, filed a claim against the County _ MELVIN M.BELLI,SR. arising out of the Sunvalley Mall Air Crash on LAURENCE E.DRIVON G.ARCHER 13AKERINK March 28, 1986 . STDALEEWAR I M.TABAK DALE DEAN F.S.BALCAO COOPER S.SCOTT VALID MAN Thereafter, Mr. Cooper received a Notice L^UREOF COUNSEL: IVON of Insufficiency and/or Non-Acceptance of the DIEGO, O 2101 / p SAN DIEGO,CA 92101 Claim for Mr. and Mrs. Etzler dated April 4, (619)231-4990 1986. Shortly after receiving this Notice, Mr. 317 ASH STREET _ MELVIN M.BELLI,SR. Cooper became critically ill and died. JOHN LCARNARD JOHN VANARELLI ANDY ZMURKIEWICZ Mr. Cooper, in his own handwriting, SACRAMENTO.CA 95614 authored a supplement to the claim; however, due (916)4°8-6800 926 SECOND STREET to his death, it was not typed or filed. MELVIN M.BELLI,SR. RODNEYJ.SHEPHERD DOUGLAS E.JAFFE Thereafter, upon learning of Mr. Cooper's death, Mr. and Mrs. Etzler retained our office and we filed a supplemental claim on the Etzler's behalf on July 2, 1986, which you denied as being untimely on July 10, 1986, which we received on July 14, 1986 . Therefore, based on the above facts, and specifically, the untimely death of Mr. Cooper, we are requesting that you file and approve the enclosed late claim on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Etzler. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF MELVIN M. BELLI, -SR. RICHARD E. BROWN, ESQ. REB/mb Enclosure LAW OFFICES Melvin M.Belli, Sr. SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94111 CABLE "BELEA' BEVERLY HILLS (LOS ANGELES) CA 90212 (4/S) 961-I849 - (213)277-3612 THE BELLI BUILDING THE BELLI BUILDING 722 MONTGOMERY STREET 9952 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD MELVIN M.BELLI,SR. _ SAN FRANC I SCO _ MELVIN M.BELLI,SR. MELVIN CAESAR BELLI,JR. DAVID S.SAWN LOU ASHE(1909-1980) DANIEL W.DUNBAR DAVID S.SABIH (�o HOWARD HIRSCH RICHARD E.BROWN August 7, 1986 8 6 ARNOLD W.GROSS PAUL M.MONZIONE _ -FELIX CAYO (ALSO MASSACHUSETTS BAR) 'MASKELL SH APIRO ROBERT A.KIERNAN - (ALSO IDAHO BAR) - _ JOSEPH M,$INDELL HAROLD SELAN - '(OHIO BAR) RENEE O.WASSERMAN OF COUNSEL: DENN15 R.LOOS SAM YORTV .DEBORAH SOBEL ._ STEVEN A.FA ORO PACIFIC GROVE,CA 93950 CAROL SHAW - (408) 649-1849 PARALEGALS: THE BELLI'BUILDING DAMIEN ORBEA • 405 FOREST AVENUE VALERIE J.LAMBERTSON S HARON M.COHN VICKI J. FINUCANE, - MELVIN M.BELLI,SR. RANDY SCARLETT 'M ICHAELJ.COCORAN Deputy County Counsel DAVI°$•SABIH DONALD N.HUBBARD OF COUNSEL! COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA SANTA CRUZ,CA 95060 .JOHN E.HILL ALLEN P.WILKINSON 651 Pine Street (408)458-0440 DANIEL A.STENSON - 709 MISSION STREET H ERBErTIERT RESNER Martinez, CA 94553 MELVIN M.BELLI,SR. FERNANDO CHAVEZ DAVID S.SABIH ARTHUR A.GROZA ROY E.HARPER MARK SHAW RE: SUPPLEMENTAL LATE CLAIM RALPH W.80ROFF 'CHARLES A.DECUIR,JR. BETSY W.LESBOS HARRY ETZLER and GLORIA ETZLER STOC KTON,CA 95202 CHIEF INVESTIGATOR - -(209)466-0982 STAN HALLMARK _ THE BELLI BUILDING 215 NORTH SAN JOAOUIN Dear Ms. Fi nllcane : _ MELVIN M.BELLI,SR. y LAURENCE E.DRIVON Enclosed please find the original and two G.ARCHER B AK ERINK STEWART M.TABAK (2) copies of the following: DALE S.BALCAO DEANON F,COOPER S.SCOTT VAUGHAN „ OF COUNSEL: LAURENCE OR'VON 1. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT LATE CLAIM SAN DIEGO,CA (619)231-4980 • Enclosed please find the original and three- (3) Mr317 T LVI3'7 ASS BELLI.SR.STREET copies of the following: JOHN LEARNARD JOHN VANARELLI ANDY ZMURKIEWICZ 1 . SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY OFACRAMENTO.CA 95614 CONTRA COSTA/Claimant GLORIA ETZLER• SECOND STREET� 928 SECOND STREET 2. SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY OF MELVIN M.BELLI,SR. CONTRA COSTA/Claimant HARRY ETZLER; RODNEY J.SHEPHERD � DOUGLAS E.JAFFE Our check number in the amount of Order for the Judge's signature ; X Please file the originals; X Please return endorse-filed copy in the enclosed self-addressed envelope. Thank you very much for your prompt cooperation and assistance in this.--matter.- -­ Regards, his•--matter:Regards, SHERRY COHN, "Legal Assistant ' smc/174D Encl . I LAW OFFICES OF MELVIN M. BELLI, SR. RICHARD E. BROWN, ESQ. 2 722 Montgomery Street San Francisco, California 94111 3 Telephone: (415) 981-1849 4 Attorneys for Plaintiffs X90'6 r 5 e� � 7 8 9 In the Matter of the Claims of ) HARRY ETZLER and GLORIA ELZLER ) APPLICATION FOR LEAVE. 10 against COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA ) TO PRESENT LATE CLAIM . [Govt . C §911 .41 11 ) v> �: 12 LL� a ow 9N 13 TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA: > a 14 1. Application is hereby made for leave to present a .late 15 claim unter Section 911 .4 of the Government Code. The claims are 16 founded on a cause of action for personal injury which accrued on 17 December 23, 1985, for which supplemental claims were not timely 18 presented. For additional circumstances relating to the cause of 19 action, reference is made to the proposed supplemental claims 20 attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof . 21 2 . The reason for the delay in presenting the 22 supplements to claims is that Fred F. Cooper, the attorney who 23 originally represented claimants, Harry and Gloria Elzler, became 24 critically ill and died during the period that supplements to 25 claim should have been presented as shown by the declaration of 26 Richard E. Brown, Esq. f 1 3 . This application is presented within a reasonable 2 time after the accrual of the cause of action as shown by the 3 declaration of Richard E. Brown, Esq. , 4 WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this 5 applicaton be granted and that the attached Supplemental Claims 6 Against the County of Contra Costa be received and acted upon in 7 accordance with Sections 912 . 4-912 . 8 of the Government Code. 8 9 DATED: August 1, 1986 10 a RICHARD E. BROWN, ESQ. 12 On Behalf of Claimant IL WA D LB ,",�/�� m,; V g W U{-J 13 1+1 1j.1 O p 14 DECLARATION OF RICHARD E. BROWN 15 I, RICHARD E. BROWN, declare as follows : 16 (1) I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice 17 -before all the Courts of the State of California and am an 18 associate with the Law Offices of Melvin M. Belli , Sr. , attorneys 19 of record for Claimant Plaintiffs . 20 (2) . That on March 28, 1986, Harry Eltzler and Gloria 21 Etzler, through their first attorney, Fred F. Cooper, filed a 22 claim for personal injuries arising out of the Sunvalley Mall Air 23 Crash. (Exhibit B) 24 (3) . That Mr. Cooper received a Notice of Insufficiency 25 and/or Non-Acceptance of said claims dated April 4 , 1986 . (Exhibit 26 C) 2 - 1 (4) . I am informed and therefore believe that shortly , 2 after receiving Notice of Insufficiency and/or Non-Acceptance of 3 Claim, Mr. Cooper became critically ill and subsequently died on 4 May 18, 1986 . 5 (5) . That it appeared from the documents in the file 6 that Mr . and Mrs . Etzler delivered to the Law Offices of Melvin M. 7 Belli , from Mr. Cooper ' s office that sometime prior to his 8 illness, Mr . Cooper authored supplements to the claims . in his own 9 handwriting; (Exhibit D) , however, I am informed and therefore 10 believe that due to his illness and subsequent death, the 11 supplements to the claims were not typed or filed. 12 (6) . That thereafter, upon learning of Mr . Cooper ' s w v'aW� ugaaeW 13 death, Mr. and Mrs . Etzler retained our office and we filed a 14 supplemental claim on the Etzler' s behalf on July 2 , 1986, 15 (Exhibit E) , which you denied as being untimely on July 10, 1986, 16 which we received on July 10, 1986 . (Exhibit F) 17 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing 18 statements are true and correct except as to those matters based 19 on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe 20 these to be true. . 21 EXECUTED on this first day of August, 1986, at San 22 Francisco, California. f 23 24 _ RICHARD E. BROWN 25 26 - 3 - HARRY & GLORIA ETZLER APPLICATION FOR LATE CLAIM 0149D SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA CLAIMANTS' NAME: HARRY M. ETZLER CLAIMANT' S ADDRESS: C/o LAW OFFICES OF MELVIN M. BELLI RICHARD E. BROWN, ESQ. 722 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 981-1849 AMOUNT OF CLAIM: $500, 000 . 00 ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICES ARE TO BE SENT: RICHARD BROWN, ESQ. LAW OFFICES OF MELVIN M. BELLI 722 Montgomery St . San Francisco, CA 94111 DATE OF INCIDENT: December 23, 1985 LOCATION OF INCIDENT: Sunvally Mall Shopping Center Concord, CA HOW DID IT OCCUR: The County of Contra Costa negligently approved the planning, design and construction of the Sunvalley Mall Shopping Center in the path of the landing and take-off corridor of nearby Buchanan Field airport, and knew, or should have known, said area would be subject to aircrash accident . A two-engine Beechcraft plane, piloted by James Graham, crashed into the Sunvalley Mall, which was packed with pre-Christmas shoppers . The crash caused flaming aviation fuel and tons of debris to shower over a crowded section of the mall, including claimant, HARRY M. ETZLER. DFSCRTRE DAMAGE OR INJURY: Claimant suffered injury to his stomach, head, neck and shoulders, loss of consortium, loss of wages and earning capacity. In addition, MR. ETZLER suffers from extreme emotional distress, fright, anxiety, and nightmares . NAME OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE(S) CAUSING INJURY OR DAMAGE, IF KNOWN: Unknown at the present time. ITEMIZATION OF DAMAGES: Hospital and medical expenses Unknown at the present time and continuing. Signed by or on behalf of Claimant RICHARD BROWN, ESQ. Dated: August 1, 1986 EXHIBIT �q SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA CLAIMANTS' NAME: HARRY M. ETZLER CLAIMANT' S ADDRESS: c/o LAW OFFICES OF MELVIN M. BELLI RICHARD E. BROWN, ESQ. 722 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 981-1849 AMOUNT OF CLAIM: $500, 000. 00 ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICES ARE TO BE SENT: RICHARD BROWN, ESQ. LAW OFFICES OF MELVIN M. BELLI 722 Montgomery St. San Francisco, CA 94111 DATE OF INCIDENT: December 23, 1985 LOCATION OF INCIDENT: Sunvally Mall Shopping Center Concord, CA HOW DID IT OCCUR: The County of Contra Costa negligently approved the planning, design and construction of the Sunvalley Mall Shopping Center in the path of the landing and take-off corridor of nearby Buchanan Field airport, and knew, or should have known, said area would be subject to aircrash accident . A two-engine Beechcraft plane, piloted by James Graham, crashed into the Sunvalley Mall, which was packed with pre-Christmas shoppers . The crash caused flaming aviation fuel and tons of debris to shower over a crowded section of the mall, including claimant, HARRY M. ETZLER. nFSCRIBE DAMAGE OR INJURY: Claimant suffered injury to his stomach, head, neck and shoulders, loss of consortium, loss of wages and earning capacity. In addition, MR. ETZLER suffers * from extreme emotional distress , fright, anxiety, and nightmares . NAME OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE(S) CAUSING INJURY OR DAMAGE, IF KNOWN: Unknown at the present time. ITEMIZATION OF DAMAGES: Hospital and medical expenses Unknown at the present time and continuing . Signed by or on behalf of Claimant RICHARD BROWN, ESQ. Dated: August 1, 1986 EXHIBIT R RECEIVED CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA hiAR F%1k SATCMELon 3. CLAI'WNVS NM (print): Gloria Etzler u 4KCLARe O:bdvflflv#3oas N COSTA CO Deputy 2. CLAI�LANVS ADDRESS: .1515-40th Avenue, Oakland, California 94601 (address) (City) (State) (Zip Code) 3. A�1��L�'I OF CLAIM ' 2 0 0,00000. PHONE No. 261-0116 A. ADDRESS TO UlilCH NOTICES ARE TO BE SENT, IF DIFFERE?%•I FROM LINES I and 2: (print) Fred F. Cooper, Attorney at Law (Name) Tribune Tower, 13th '-& Franklin - (Street or Y.O. Box Number) Oakland, California 94612 (City) (State) (Zip Code) S. DATE OF ACCIDENT/LOSS: December 23, 1985, approximately 8: 30 p.m. 6. LOCAT10K OF ACCIDENT,!LOSS: Sun Valley Mall in Concord, California and Buchanan Field Airport 7. HOW DID ACCIDEt1'TiLOSS OCCUR: The County of Contra Costa allowed, -permitted and ratified the -building of the Sun Valley Mall, a populated shopping mall in close proximity to Buchanan Field Airport. On December 23,, 1985, a Beechcraft plane crashed into the mall. The County was negligent in causing the crash; the County is liable under strict (continued) 8. DESCRIBE INJURY/DAXAGE/LOSS: Investigation under way presently. 9. NAME OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE(S) CAUSING INJURY/DAMAGE/LOSS, IF KNOWN: Investigation under way presently. 14.. ITEMIZATION OF CLAIM (list items totalling amount set forth above): Investigation under way presently. $ S S • s TOTAL s 11. Signed by or on behalf of Claimant: 12. Dated: ./' Claim to Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors - Gloria Etzler Continuation of No. 7: liability for the cause of the occurrence. Does 300 to 350 were employees and agents of the County of Contra Costa and were in their various capacities responsible in some manner for the placement of Sun Valley Mall in close proximity to the airport, for the inadequate and outdated landing and directional navigation systems, for the other actions which caused and contributed to the injury to plaintiff and others. The County of Contra Costa is liable for the acts, omissions and conduct of its employees and agents. Contra Costa County, Buchanan Field Airport and Does 300 to 350 acted with a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of the public in allowing the Mall to be built in such close proximity to Buchanan Field Airport and as such are liable for punitive and exemplary damages. CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY 'OF CONTRA COSTA 1. CLAIMANT'S Nkv1E (print): Harry M. Etzler 2. CLAItLANZVS ADDRESS• 1515 - 40th Avenue, Oakland, California_ 94601 (address) (City) (State) (zip Code) 3. A.*k 1'NT OF CLAIM $ 200 ,000.00 PHONE No. 261-0116 4. ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICES ARE TO BE SENT, IF LIF: FROM L NE an (print) Fred F. Cooper., Attorney at Law RECEEI IED • (Name) � ..... Tribune Tower, 13th &••Franklin LIAR �� �Jg� (Street or P.O. Box Number) Oakland, California 94612 P044 r.ATCti%071 (City) (State) (zip Code) L[ eo o:.:wr Vj!:0RS Js A OST S. DATE a tT DQ0`D ember .23, 1985, approximately 8:30 p.m. 6. LOCATION OF ACCIDENT,LOSS: Sun Valley Mall in Concord, California and Buchanan Field Airport 7. HOW DID ACCIDEN LOSS OCCUR: The County of Contra Costa aIlowed,Fermi ttPrl and ratified the building of the Sun Valley Mall , a populated shoppincr mall in close proximity to Buchanan Field Airport. On December 23. 1985, a Beechcraft plane crashed into the mall. The County was negligent in causing the crash; the County is liable under strict (continued) 8. DESCRIBE INJURY/DAMAGE/LOSS: Investigation under way presently. 9. NAME OF PUBLIC BMYLOYEE(S) CAUSING INJURY/DAMAGE/LOSS, IF KNOWN: Investigation under way presently, 10. ITEMIZATION OF CLAIM (list items totalling amount set forth above): Investigation under way presently. 5 i i TOTAL : 12. Signed by or on behalf of Claimant: U. Dated: �,- -a 7-/ Claim to Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors - Harry M. Etzler Continuation of No. 7: liability for the cause of the occurrence. Does 300 to 350 were employees and agents of the County of Contra Costa and were in .their various capacities responsible in some manner for the placement of Sun Valley Mall in close proximity to the airport, for the inadequate and outdated landing and directional navigation system, for the other actions which caused and contributed to the injury to plaintiff and others. The County of Contra Costa is liable for the acts, omissions and conduct-- of its employees and agents. Contra Costa County, Buchanan Field Airport and Does 300 to 350 acted with a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of the public in allowing the Mall to be built in such close proximity to Buchanan Field Airport and as such are liable for punitive and exemplary damages. NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY AND/OR NON-ACCEPTANCE OF CLAIM TO: Fred F. Cooper Tribune Tower 13th & Franklin < Oakland CA 94612 Re: Claim ,of HARRY M. ETZLER Please Take Notice as follows: The claim you presented against the County of Contra Costa or District governed by the Board of Supervisors fails to comply substantially with the requirements of California Government Code Section 910 and 910 . 2, or is otherwise insufficent for the reasons checked below: 1. The claim fails to state the name and post office address of the claimaint. 2. The claim .fails to state the post office address to , hick the person presenting the claim desires notices to ),e sent. 3. The claim fails to state the date, place or other circum- stances of the occurrence or transaction which crave :is^ to the claim asserted. r 4. The claim fails to state the name (s) of the public employee (s) causing the injury, damage, or loss, if known. x ..15. The claim fails to state t�3x3cx�t�txiraMxmcaa�x�csras�cxx5cxxt otic _ Xx$QxcxXMA��xx2ourivxx5cXX'XxxixXXAXXXkXXX cxx�c�:ec�xxQcxbUc�Ccxcx3x�o�ca�aa4xxx3cx the basis of computation of the amount claimed. (See #7) 6. The claim is not signed by the claimant or by some person on his behalf. X 7. Other: The claim fails to give a general description of the injury on which you based your amount claimed. VICTOR J. WrSTMAN, County Counsel Bv: OWJL,��� Deputy tbunty Counsel CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL_ (C.C.P. 5§1012, 1013a, 2015. 5; Evid.C. §§641, 664) My business address is the County Counsel' s Office of Contra Costa County, . Co.Admin.Bldg. , P.O. Box 69, Martinez, California 94553, and I am a citizen of the United Sates, over 18 years of age, employed in Contra Costa County, and not a party to this action. I served a true copy of this Notice of Insufficiency and/or Non-Accep;:ance of Claim by placing it in an envelope (s) addressed as shown above (which is/are place (s) having delivery service by U.S. which envelope (s) was then seal?d and postage fully prepaid thereon, and thereafter was, on this day deposited in the U.S. Mail-"at Martinez/Concord, Contra Ccsta ,County, California. j I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: April 4, 1986 at Martinez, California. cc: Clerk of the Board of Superv� (original) Administrator (NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY OF CLAIM: GOVT. C. §5910, 910.2 , 910.4 , 910 . 8) EXHIBIT C -------- -------------------- --- - /r 44u,.2 d4ot. • cup ct.•.�/ -----_.... G� EX{ I.. �l SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY OF CONTRA OSTA FIN jT �D -------- lcZ- ; a 1986 CLAIMANTS' NAME: GLORIA FTZLER CLAIMANT'S ADDRESS: C/o LAW OFFICES OF MELVIN M. BELLI RICHARD E. BROWN, ESQ. 722 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 981-1849 AMOUNT OF CLAIM: $500, 000 .00 ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICES ARE TO BE SENT: RICHARD BROWN, ESQ. LAW OFFICES OF MELVIN M. BELLI 722 Montgomery St. San Francisco, CA 94111 DATE OF INCIDENT: December 23, 1985 LOCATION OF INCIDENT: Sunvally Mall Shopping Center.' Concord, CA HOW DID IT OCCUR: The County of Contra Costa negligently approved the planning, design and construction of the Sunvalley Mall Shopping Center in the path of the landing and take-off corridor of nearby Buchanan Field airport, and knew, or should have known, said area would be subject to aircrash accident. A two-engine Beechcraft plane, piloted by James Graham, crashed into the Sunvalley Mall, which was packed with - pre-Christmas shoppers . The crash caused flaming aviation fuel and tons of debris to shower over a crowded section of the mall, including claimant, GLORIA ETZLER. DESCRIBE DAMAGE OR INJURY: Claimant suffered injury to her head, neck, back, and both knees, and loss of consortium, loss of wages and earning capacity. In addition, MRS. ETZLER suffers from extreme emotional distress, fright, anxiety, and nightmares, NAME OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE(S) CAUSING INJURY OR DAMAGE, IF KNOWN: Unknown at the present time. ITEMIZATION OF DAMAGES: Hospital and medical expenses Unknown at the present time and continuing . Signed by or on behalf of Claimant RICHARD BROWN, ESQ. Dated: March 22, 1986 EXK I B IT �c SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY OF CONTRA OSTA/U` Ak Qap `O� _ X49 CLAIMANTS' NAME: HARRY M. ETZLER CLAIMANT'S ADDRESS: C/o LAW OFFICES OF MELVIN M. BELLI RICHARD E. BROWN, ESQ. 722 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 981-1849 AMOUNT OF CLAIM: $500, 000. 00 ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICES ARE TO BE SENT: RICHARD BROWN, ESQ. LAW OFFICES OF MELVIN M. BELLI 722 Montgomery St. San Francisco, CA 94111 DATE OF INCIDENT: December 23, 1985 LOCATION OF INCIDENT: Sunvally Mall Shopping Center Concord, CA HOW DID IT OCCUR: The County of Contra Costa negligently approved the planning, design and construction of the Sunvalley Mall Shopping Center in the path of the landing and take-off corridor of nearby Buchanan Field airport, and knew, or should have known, said area would be subject to aircrash accident . A two-engine Beechcraft plane, piloted by James Graham, crashed into the Sunvalley Mall, whichwas packed with pre-Christmas shoppers . The crash caused flaming aviation fuel and tons of debris to shower over a crowded section of the mall, including claimant, HARRY M. ETZLER. DESCRIBE D.�MAGE OR INJURY: Claimant suffered injury to his stomach, head, neck and shoulders, loss of consortium, loss of wages and earning capacity. In addition, MR. ETZLER suffers from extreme emotional distress, fright, anxiety, and nightmares . NAME OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE(S) CAUSING INJURY OR DAMAGE, IF KNOWN: Unknown at the present time. ITEMIZATION OF DAMAGES: Hospital and medical expenses Unknown at the present .time and continuing. Signed by or on behalf of Claimant RICHARD BROWN, ESQ. Dated: March 22, 1986 EXI " j5 R �;pfltl"d The Board of Supervisors "'"''�`0 dM d nr So n Costa �° ;ounty Administration Building N��m,:r, 1.0 Box 911 ,Aanine2, California 94553 Coifty ym POwA.1p De"Cl '�•� i•��..• t.—w 11^R C OOAtow Inc cminct W"M 1 schrodr.be 04tnct M 16o0rl.4"Dr/tnCt Wwn�•rq ,'�TM{M��n.fM pstntt TO: HARPY M. ETZLER c/o Law Offices of Melvin M. Belli Richard E. Brown, Esq. 722 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 NMCE TO C kTMV T (01 Late-Vil;a� as amended). (Goverment Oode Section 911.3) as amended W 7t* claim you presented to the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa Oounty, California, as governing body of the County of Contra oosta and/or District, on July 2 , 1986 is being. returned to you herewith because`it was not present thin 100 days after the event or occurrence as required by law. (See Sections 901 and 92.1.2 of the Goverment Oode.) Because the claim was not presented within the time allowed by law, no action was taken on the claim. Your only recourse at this time is to apply without delay to the Board of Supervisors (in its capacity noted above) for leave to present a late claim. (See Sections 911.6 to 912.2, inclusive, and Section 946.6 of the Goverment Code.) Under same circumstanoes, leave to present a late claim will be granted. (See Section 911.6 of the Goverment Oode.) You may seek the advice of an attorney of you choice in connection with this matter. If yvu desire to consult an attor- ney, you should do so immediately. YO BE FnAUW IN By Um CiEFtR Cir RE BOATtD 0my IF APP2.I=z: +( ) since a portion of your claim is not untimely, we are retaining a copy of your claim for Board action on that portian of ymc claim which is not untiaely. phi Bitche1w.CleA of ttm Board of &*Vviwn snd County Admirioa!u Dy: Deputy Clerk paw; July 1Q, 1936 EX 1-9 1 �' The Board of Supervisors COlra Cwt Of awd ;ounty Administration Building urta Cw* m nor �.0. Bo= 911 ,4artinez, California 94553 ym P""11.Ip DOthCt "V%CT C refto Id Chved tow 1 &OWIds r.3r0 a{tncct jwwry wmg%i Iktil.Ht+Q�{tllCt " �.� t i 'M Tww"On•I"strip .1111 j 1 GLORIA ETZLER C/o Law Offices of Melvin M. Belli Richard E. Brown, Esq. 722 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 NMCE TO =II+I M PT Late-Y1 c&N- as amended) (Government Code Section 911.3) . as amended (� The claimlyou presented to the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa Oxrhty, California, as governing body of the xx County of Contra Cost& and/or District, On July 2 , 1986 is being returned to you herewith because it was riot present thin 100 days after the event or occurrence as required by law. (See Sections 901 and 911.3 of the Government Code.) Because 'the claim was not preaented within the time allowed by law, no action was taken on the claim. Your only recourse at this time is to apply without delay to the Board of Supervisors (in its capacity noted above) for leave to present a late claim. (pee Sections 911.6 to 912.2, Inclusive, and Section 946.6 of the Government Code.) Under mane circumstances, leave to present a late claim will be granted. (See Section 911.6 of the Government Code.) You may seek the advice of an attorney of Yam choice in connection with this matter. If you desire to consult an attor- ney, you should do so immediately. TG BE FILLED IN BY VM CLEW OF 7W BiOAPID MY IP APPLLTOJnZs Knoe a portion of your claim is not untimely, we are t9taining a copy of yalr claim for Board action on that portion of YMC claim which is rot untimely. phi Battheior, Clerk of tt* Board of Super,iun and county Administuatu Deputy Clerk Date: July 10•, 1986 EXHIBIT ' SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA CLAIMANTS' NAME: GLORIA ETZLER CLAIMANT' S ADDRESS: c/o LAW OFFICES OF MELVIN M. BELLI RICHARD E. BROWN, ESQ. 722 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 981-1849 AMOUNT OF CLAIM: $500, 000. 00 ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICES ARE TO BE SENT: RICHARD BROWN, ESQ. LAW OFFICES OF MELVIN M. BELLI 722 Montgomery St . San Francisco, CA 94111 DATE OF INCIDENT: December 23 , 1985 LOCATION OF INCIDENT: Sunvally Mall Shopping Center Concord, CA HOW DID IT OCCUR: The County of Contra Costa negligently approved the planning, design and construction of the Sunvalley Mall Shopping Center in the path of the landing and take-off corridor of nearby Buchanan Field airport, and knew, or should have known, said area would be subject to aircrash accident . A two-engine Beechcraft plane, piloted by James Graham, crashed into the Sunvalley Mall, which was packed with pre-Christmas shoppers . The crash caused flaming aviation fuel and tons of debris to shower over a crowded section of the mall, including claimant, HARRY M. ETZLER. DESCRIBE DAMAGE OR INJURY: Claimant suffered injury to her head, neck, back, and both knees, loss of consortium, loss of wages and earning capacity. In addition, MRS. ETZLER suffers from extreme emotional distress, fright, anxiety, and nightmares . NAME OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE(S) CAUSING INJURY OR DAMAGE, IF KNOWN: Unknown at the present time. ITEMIZATION OF DAMAGES: Hospital and medical expenses Unknown at the present time and continuing . Signed by or on behalf of Claimant RICHARD BROWN, ESQ. Dated: August 1, 1986 APPLICATION TO FILE, LATE CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA BOARD ACTION Application to File Late Claim ) NOTICE TO APPLICANT September 9, 1986 Against the County, Routing ) The copy of this document mailed to you isyouur. Endorsements, and Board Action.) notice of the action taken on your application by (All Section References are to Y the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph III, below), California Government Code.) ) given pursuant to Government Code Sections 911.8 and 915.4. Please note the "WARNING" below. Claimant: HARRY ETZLER County Coun", c/o Richard E. Brown, Esq. 1986 Attorney: 722 Montgomery Street AUG 13 Address: San Francisco, CA 94111 Martinet, CA 94553 Amount: Unspecified By delivery to Clerk on August 11 , 1986 CC Date Received: August 11, 1986 By mail, postmarked on August 7 , 1986 Certified P194062889 I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Ta: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above noted Application to File Late Claim. DATED: August 12 . 1986PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy L_ Hall II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 06 The Board should grant this Application to File Late Claim (Section 911.6). ( ) The Board should deny this Application to File LateClaim (Section 911.6). DATED: ext Ce--4 /� Uy3tICTOR WESTMAN, County Counsel, ByL�`-` III. BOARD ORDER By unanimous vote of Supervisors present (Check one only) ( ) This Application.is granted (Section 911.6). (�() This Application to File Late Claim is denied (Section 911.6). I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. DATE: SEP 0 9,1986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By. - � Deputy WARNING (Gov. Code 5911.8) If you Wish to file a court action on this matter, you must first petition the appropriate oourt for an order relieving you from the provisions of Government Code Section 945.4 (claims presentation requirement). See Government Code Section 946.6. Such petition must be filed With the oourt Within six (6) months from the date your application for leave to present a late claim Was denied. You may seek the advise of any attorney of your choice in connection With this �matter,,, want to annault an attorney..-vou.should do .so immediately. 9-9-86 '^5 This Board Order was incorrectly issued, Please see October 7 , 1986 for the corrected Board Order. � ti - LAW OFFICES I Melvin M.Belli, Sr. 1 SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94111 CABLE "B ELEA' V BEVERLY HILLS (LOS ANGELES) CA 90212 (415)961-1849 (213)277-3612 THE BELLI BUILDING ' THE BELL] BUILDING 722 MONTGOMERY STREET 99S2 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD MELVIN M.BELL',SR. . MELVIN M.BELLI,SR. MELVIN CAESAR BELLI,JR. J DAVID S.SABIN LOUASHE(1909-1980) DANIEL W.DUNBAR DAVID S.SABIN HOWARD HIRSCH ARNOLD W.GROSS RICHARD E.BROWN '-FELIX CAYO PAULM.MASSACHUSETTS San Francisco - August 4, 1986 HASKELL SHAPIRO (ALSO MA88ACHU8[TT8 BAR) ROBERT A.KIERNAN JOSEPH M.SINDELL (ALSO IDAHO BAR) - - (OHIO BAR) HAROLD SELAN RENEE D.WASSERMAN OF COUNSEL: DENNIS R.LODS SAM YORTY DEBORAH SOBEL STEVEN A.FABBRO, County Counsel PACIFIC GROVE,CA 93950 CAROL SHAW Vicki J. Finucane, Esquire (406)649-1649 PARALEGALS' County Counsel , ��� O w}V� ���� THE BELLI BUILDING DAMIQN ORSEA 408 FOREST AVENUE VALERIE J.LAMBERTSON 651 Pine Street SHARON M.COHN MELVIN M.BELLI,SR. RANDY SCARLETT Martinez, CA 94553B� �dC� DAVID S.SABIN MICHAEL J.COCORAN Martinez, Sit ez, CA 45M DONALD N.14UBBARD OF COUNSEL: SANTA CRUZ,CA 95060 JOHN E.HILL Re: SUNVALLEY MALL AIR CRASH ALLEN P.WILKINSON (406)488-0440 DANT QL A.STENSON GLORIA & HARRY ETZLER 709 MISSION STREET JETTIE P..SELVIG HERBERT RESNER MELVIN M.BELLI,SR. DAVID S.SABIH ' FER NANDO CHAVEZ qOY C.HARPER ARTHUR A.GROZA Dear M's. Finucane: MARK SHAW . RALPH W.BOROFF CHARLES A.DECUIR,JR. BETSY W.LEBBOS STOCKTON,CA 95202 CHIEF INVESTIGATOR I am writing to you on behalf of Mr. and (209)466-0982 STAN HALLMARK THE BELLI BUILDING Mrs. Harry Etzler who, through their first- attorney, 215 NORTH SAN JOAQUIN Mr. Fred F. Cooper, filed a claim against the Couny_ MELVIN M.BELLI,SR. LAUE.DRIVON arising out of the Sunvalley Mall Air Crash on .AR HCE9AKERINK G.ARCH ER BAKERINK March 28, 1986. BT DALEWAE S .TABAK DALE S.BALCAO • DEAN F.COOPER S. SCOTT VAUGHAN Thereafter, Mr. Cooper received a Notice .OF COUNSEL: IVON of Insufficiency and/or Non-Acceptance of the DIEGO, D 2101 / p SAN DIEGO,CA 92101 Claim for Mr. and Mrs. Etzler dated April 4, (619)231-4990 1986. Shortly after receiving this Notice, Mr. 317 ASH STREET Cooper became critically ill and died. MELVINM.LEARN SR. JOHN ERNARD JOHN VANARELLI ANDY ZMURK IEWICZ Mr. Cooper, in his own handwriting, SACRAMENTO,CA 95614 authored a supplement to the claim; however, due (916)4.6-6600 628 SECOND STREET to his death, it was not typed or filed. MELVIN M.BELLI,SR. RODNEYJ.SHEPHEAD DOUGLAS E.JAFFE Thereafter, upon learning of Mr. Cooper's death, Mr. and Mrs. Etzler retained our office and we filed a supplemental claim on the Etzler's behalf on July 2, 1986, which you denied as being untimely on July 10, 1986, which we received on July 14, 1986. Therefore, based on the above facts, and specifically, the untimely death of Mr. Cooper, we are requesting that you file and approve the enclosed late claim on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Etzler. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF MELVIN M. BELLI, . SR. RICHARD E. BROWN, ESQ. REB/mb Enclosure - LAW OFFICES Melvin M.Belli, Sr. SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94111 CABLE "BELEA' BEVERLY HILLS (LOS ANGELES)CA 90212 • (415)961-1849 (213)277-3612 THE BELLI BUILDING THE BELLI BUILDING 722 MONTGOMERY STREET 9952 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD MELVIN CM.BELLI,SR. SAN FRANCISCO MELVIN M.BELL],SR. MELVIN AESAR BELLI,JR. OAVID S.SABIH LOU ASHE(1909-1960) - DANIEL W.DUNBAR DAVID S.SABIH - HOWARD HIRSCH RICHARD E.,B ROWNn86 ARNOLD W.GROSS PAUL M.MONZIONE August 7, 19 -FELIX CAVO (ALSO MASSACHUSETTS BART ROBERT A.KIERNAN HASP ELL SANE O (ALSO IDAHO BAR) JOSEPH M. HAROLD SELAN (OHHIOIO DELL RENEE O.WASSERMAN OF COUNSEL: DENNIS R.LOOS SAM YORTY DEBORAH SOBEL STEVEN A.FABBRO - PACIFIC GROVE,CA 93950 CAROL SHAW ' (408)649-1849 PARALEGALS: THE BELLI BUILDING DAMIEN ORBEA 405 FOREST AVENUE VALERIE J.M COHN SON VICKI J. FINUCANE, SHARON M.COH MELVIN M.BELLI, RANDY SCARLETT BIH M IC HAEL J.COCORAN Deputy County Counsel DONADAVIDS.BAIH LD N.NUBBARD OF COUNSEL' COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA SANTA CRUZ,CA 95060 JOHN E.HILL ALLENP.WILKINSON 651 Pine Street (408)458-0440 OANI E L A.STENSON 94553 � C 709 MISSION STREET HERBERT RESNER Martinez, CA 9 4 J S MELVIN M.BELLI,SR. FERNANDO CHAVEZ DAVID S.SAO IH ARTHUR A.GROZA ROY E.HARPER MARK SHAW RE: SUPPLEMENTAL LATE CLAIM CHARLES A.OE CUIR,JR. RALPH W.BOROFF BETSY W.LEBSOS HARRY ETZLER and GLORIA ETZLER STOCKTON.CA 95202 CHIEF INVESTIGATOR (209)466-0962 STAN HALLMARK _. THE BELLI BUILDING 215 NORTH SAN JOAOUIN Dear Ms. Finucane : T s MELVIN M.BELLI,SR. -LAURENCE E.DRIVON Enclosed please find the original and two 0.ARCHER B AKERINK STEWART M.TABAK ( 2) copies of the following: DALE S.BALCAO DEAN F.COOPER S.SCOTT VAUGHAN OF COUNSEL: LAURENCE DRIVON 1 . APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT LATE CLAIM SAN DIEGO,CA 92101 (619)231-4990 Enclosed please find the original and three ( 3 ) MET LVIN 317 ASH BELLI. STREET copies of the following: JOHN LEARNARD JOHN VANARELLI ANDY ZMURKIEWICZ 1 . SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY OFACRAMENTO.CA 95814 .. CONTRA COSTA/Claimant GLORIA ETZLER; (916)448-8600 926 SECOND STREET 2. SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY OF MELVIN M.BELLI,SR. CONTRA COSTA/Claimant HARRY ETZLER; RODNEY J.LSNEPHEFE DOUGLAS E JAFF Our check number in the amount of Order for the Judge' s signature ; X Please file the originals ; X Please return endorse-filed copy in the enclosed self-addressed envelope. Thank you very much for your prompt cooperation and assistance in this.-matter . — Regards, SHERRY COHN, Legal Assistant . ' smc/174D Encl. I LAW OFFICES OF MELVIN M. BELLI , SR. RICHARD E. BROWN, ESQ. 2 722 Montgomery Street San Francisco, California 94111 3 Telephone: (415) 981-1849 4 Attorneys for Plaintiffs �D ` 84r 6 Cy . ,R 'UoOR qS 7 °ter 8 9 In the Matter of the Claims of ) HARRY ETZLER and GLORIA ELZLER ) APPLICATION FOR LEAVE 10 against COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA ) TO PRESENT LATE CLAIM [Govt . C §911 .41 11 ) v' ,= 12 IL W a o= 13 TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA: U � �Wo m 5 LL O � $" � _0 m 14 1 . Application is hereby made for leave to present a late 15 claim unter Section 911 .4 of the Government Code. The claims are 16 founded on a cause of action for personal injury which accrued on 17 December 23, 1985, for which supplemental claims were not timely 18 presented. For additional circumstances relating to the cause of 19 action, reference is made to the proposed supplemental claims 20 attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof . 21 2 . The reason for the delay in presenting the 22 supplements to claims is that Fred F. Cooper, the attorney who 23 originally represented claimants, Harry and Gloria Elzler, became 24 critically ill and died during the period that supplements to 25 claim should have been presented as shown by the declaration of 26 Richard E. Brown, Esq. i 1 3 . This application is presented within a reasonable 2 time after the accrual of the cause of action as shown by the 3 declaration of Richard E. Brown, Esq. 4 WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this 5 applicaton be granted and that the attached Supplemental Claims 6 Against the County of Contra Costa be received and acted upon in 7 accordance with Sections 912 . 4-912 . 8 of the Government Code. 8 9 DATED: August 1, 1986 10 , 11 /� w RICHARD E. BROWN, ESQ. On Behalf of Claimant o ZQa 12 RPQ ;W6 13 3 z moi =o� 14 DECLARATION OF RICHARD E. BROWN g , X M 15 I , RICHARD E. BROWN, declare as follows : 16 (1) I am an attorney at - law duly licensed to practice 17 before all the Courts of the State of California and am an 18 associate with the Law Offices of Melvin M. Belli , Sr . , attorneys 19 of record for Claimant Plaintiffs . 20 (2) . That on March 28, 1986, Harry Eltzler and Gloria 21 Etzler, through their first attorney, Fred F. Cooper, filed a 22 claim for personal injuries arising out of the Sunvalley Mall Air 23 Crash. (Exhibit B) 24 (3) . That Mr . Cooper received a Notice of Insufficiency 25 and/or Non-Acceptance of said claims dated April 4 , 1986 . (Exhibit 26 C) 2 - - --- - n o r r r e r r n M P A R LATE CLAIM 0 1 4 9 0 1 (4) . I am informed and therefore believe that shortly 2 after receiving Notice of Insufficiency and/or Non-Acceptance of 3 Claim, Mr. Cooper became critically ill and subsequently died on 4 May 18, 1986 . 5 (5) . That it appeared from the documents in the file 6 that Mr . and Mrs . Etzler delivered to the Law Offices of Melvin M. 7 Belli , from Mr . Cooper ' s office that sometime prior to his 8 illness, Mr . Cooper authored supplements to the claims in his own 9 handwriting; (Exhibit D) , however, I am informed and therefore 10 believe that due to his illness and subsequent death, the 11 supplements to the claims were not typed or filed. `n 12 (6) . That thereafter, upon learning of Mr . Cooper ' s OP LL wW 13 mW death, Mr , and Mrs . Etzler retained our office and we filed a ,off S a = � 14 supplemental claim on the Etzler ' s behalf on July 2 , 1986, Z. 15 (Exhibit E) , which you denied as being untimely on July 10, 1986 , 16 which we received on July 10 , 1986 . (Exhibit F) 17 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing 18 statements are true and correct except as to those matters based 19 on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe 20 these to be true. . 21 EXECUTED on this first day of August, 1986 , at San 22 Francisco, California . 23 24 RICHARD E. BROWN 25 26 - 3 - HARRY & GLORIA ETZLER APPLICATION FOR LATE CLAIM 0149D SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA CLAIMANTS' NAME: HARRY M. ETZLER CLAIMANT' S ADDRESS: c/o LAW OFFICES OF MELVIN M. BELLI RICHARD E. BROWN, ESQ. 722 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 981-1849 AMOUNT OF CLAIM: $500, 000 . 00 ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICES ARE TO BE SENT: RICHARD BROWN, ESQ. LAW OFFICES OF MELVIN M. BELLI 722 Montgomery St . San Francisco, CA 94111 DATE OF INCIDENT: December 23 , 1985 LOCATION OF INCIDENT: Sunvally Mall Shopping Center Concord, CA HOW DID IT OCCUR: The County of Contra Costa negligently approved the planning, , design and construction of the Sunvalley Mall Shopping Center in the path of the landing and take-off corridor of nearby Buchanan Field airport, and knew, or should have known, said area would be subject to aircrash accident . A two-engine Beechcraft plane, piloted by James Graham, crashed into the Sunvalley Mall, which was packed with pre-Christmas shoppers . The crash caused flaming aviation fuel and tons of debris to shower over a crowded section of the mall, including claimant, HARRY M. ETZLER. DESCRIBE DAMAGE OR INJURY: Claimant suffered injury to his stomach, head, neck and shoulders, loss of consortium, loss of wages and earning capacity. In addition, MR. ETZLER suffers from extreme emotional distress, fright, anxiety, and nightmares . NAME OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE(S) CAUSING INJURY OR DAMAGE, IF KNOWN: Unknown at the present time. ITEMIZATION OF DAMAGES: Hospital and medical expenses Unknown at the present time and continuing . . , Signed by or on behalf of Claimant RICHARD BROWN, ESQ. Dated: August 1, 1986 EXHIBIT R SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA CLAIMANTS' NAME: GLORIA ETZLER CLAIMANT' S ADDRESS: C/o LAW OFFICES OF MELVIN M. BELLI RICHARD E . BROWN, ESQ. 722 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) .981-1849 AMOUNT OF CLAIM: $500, 000 . 00 ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICES ARE TO BE SENT: RICHARD BROWN, ESQ. LAW OFFICES OF MELVIN M. BELLI 722 Montgomery St . .San Francisco, CA 94111 DATE OF INCIDENT: December 23 , 1985 LOCATION OF INCIDENT: Sunvally Mall Shopping Center Concord, CA HOW DID IT OCCUR: The County of Contra Costa negligently approved the planning, design and construction of the Sunvalley Mall Shopping Center in the path of the landing and take=off corridor of nearby Buchanan Field airport, and knew, or should have known, said area would be subject to aircrash accident . A two-engine Beechcraft plane, piloted by James Graham, crashed into the Sunvalley Mall, which was packed with pre-Christmas shoppers . The crash caused flaming aviation fuel and tons of debris to shower over a crowded section of the mall, including claimant, HARRY M. ETZLER. DESCRIBE DAMAGE OR INJURY: Claimant suffered injury to her head, neck, back, and both knees, loss of consortium, loss of wages and earning capacity. In addition, MRS. ETZLER suffers from extreme emotional distress, fright, anxiety, and nightmares . NAME OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE(S) CAUSING INJURY OR DAMAGE, IF KNOWN: Unknown at the present time. ITEMIZATION OF DAMAGES: Hospital and medical expenses Unknown at the present time and continuing . 1 Signed by or on behalf of Claimant �xj RICHARD BROWN, ESQ. Dated: August 1, 1986 EXHIBIT RECEIVED CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTAj - IIAR 1A 1z�d5 PNIL BRTCMELon 1. CLAIHk\''T'S MI-M (print): . Gloria Etzler Ct RKiOAR'--'-'cFVGoR$ • Deputy 2. CLAI�LANT'S ADDRESS: 15.15-40th Avenue, Oakland, California 94601 (address) (City) (State) (Zip Code) 3. A.`13 \? OF CLAIAj $200, 000.00 PHONE la0. 261-0116 4. ADDUSS TO WHICH NOTICES ARE TO BE SEh?, IF DIFFERENI FROM LINES 1 and 2: (print) Fred F. Cooper, Attorney at Law (Name) _ Tribune Tower, 13th •'& Franklin (Street or P.O. Box Number) Oakland, California 94612 (City) (State) (Zip Code) S. . DATE OF ACCIDENT/LOSS: December 23, 1985,• approximately 8: 30 p.m. 6. LOCATION OF ACCIDEh?;'LOSS: Sun Valley Mall in Concord, California and Buchanan Field Airport 7. HOW DID ACCIDENTiLOSS OCCUR: The County of Contra Costa allowed, permitted and ratified the building of the Sun Valley Mall, a populated shopping mall in close proximity to Buchanan Field Airport. On December 23, 1985, a Beechcraft plane crashed into the mall. The County was negligent in causing the crash; the County is liable under strict (continued) S. DESCRIBE INJURY/DAMAGE/LOSS: Investigation under way presently. 9. NAME OF PUBLIC MLOYEE(S) CAUSING INJURY/DAMAGE/LOSS, IF KNOWN: Investigation under way presently. 10. ITEMIZATION OF CLAIM (list items totalling amount set forth above): Investigation under way presently. a S S S TOTAL S 11. Signed by or on behalf of Claimant: 12. Dated: _ __ CAtai Claim to Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors - Gloria Etzler Continuation of No. 7: liability for the cause of the occurrence. Does 300 to 350 were employees and agents of the County of Contra Costa and were in their various capacities responsible in some manner for the placement of Sun Valley Mall in close proximity to the airport, for the inadequate and outdated landing and directional navigation systems, for the other actions which caused and contributed to the injury to plaintiff and others. The County of Contra Costa is liable for the acts, omissions and conduct of its employees and agents. Contra Costa County, Buchanan Field Airport and Does 300 to 350 acted with a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of the public in allowing the Mall to be built in such close proximity to Buchanan Field Airport and as such are liable for punitive and exemplary damages. CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY 'OF CONTRA COSTA 1. CLAI"lA_N7'S NAME (print): Harry M. Etzler ' 2. CLAInksWS ADDRESS• 1515 - 40th Avenue, Oakland, California_ 94601 (address) (City) (State) (Zip Code) 3. A.10t'NT OF CLAIM $ 200,000.00 PHONE 140. 261-0116 4. ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICES ARE TO BE SENT, IF Fred F. Coo er, Attorney at Law `: L hE an (print) P _ . Y C� J �y1 (Name) — �., _E Tribune Tower, 13th &••Franklin ���� (Street or P.O. Box Number) Oakland, California 94612 'Hil rATc-�=L0% (City) (State) (Zip Code) LC Co CR C. Lp�'wtORS ON A 057- 5. DATE a Dep ember .23, 1985, approximately 8:30 p.m. 6. LOCATION OF ACCIDEh-r LOSS: Sun Valley Mall in Concord, California .and Buchanan Field Airport 7. HOS.' DID ACCIDENTiLOSS OCCUR: The County of Contra Costa al lowed,Fermi ttAA and ratified the building of the Sun Valley Mall, a populated shopping mall in close proximity to Buchanan Field Airport. On December 23_. 1985, a Beechcraft plane crashed into the mall . The County -was negligent in causing the crash; the County is liable under strict (continued) $. DESCRIBE INJURY/DAMAGE/LOSS: Investigation under way presently. 9. NAME OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE(S) CAUSING INJURY/DAMAGE/LOSS, IF KNOWN: Investigation - under way presently. 10. ITEMIZATION OF CLAIM (list items totalling amount set forth above): Investigation under way presently. 5 S s TOTAL 21. Signed by or on behalf of Claimant: PA : 12. Dated: /07 7/ ( ,�,.. Claim to Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors - Harry M. Etzler Continuation of No. 7: liability for the cause of the occurrence. Does 300 to 350 were employees and agents of the County of Contra Costa and were in their various capacities responsible in some manner for the placement of Sun Valley Mall in close proximity to the airport, for the inadequate and outdated landing and directional navigation system, for the other actions which caused and contributed to the injury to plaintiff and others. _ The County of Contra Costa is liable for the acts, omissions and conduct of its employees and agents. Contra Costa County, Buchanan Field Airport and Does 300 to 350 acted with a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of the public in allowing the Mall to be built in such close proximity to Buchanan Field Airport and as such are liable for punitive and exemplary damages. ' i NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY ll.VD/OR NON-ACCEPTANCE OF CLAIM TO: Fred F. Cooper. Tribune Tower — �- 13th & Franklin < Oakland CA 94612 Re: Claim of HARRY M. ETZLER . Please Take Notice .as follows: The claim you presented against the County of Contra Costa or District governed by the Board of Supervisors fails to comply substantially with the requirements of California Government Code Section 910 and 910.2 , or is otherwise insufficent for the reasons checked below: 1. The claim fails to state the name and post office address of the claimaint. 2 . The claim .fails to state the post office address to ,which the person presenting the claim desires notices to },e sent. 3. The claim fails to state the date, place or other circum- stances of the occurrence or transaction which crave rise to the claim asserted. 4. The claim fails to state the name (s) of the public employee (s) causing the injury, damage, or loss, if known.. x ..5. The claim fails to state bbmxxmurAxxxludnedcxacxxxrxxbhcKx3abm oft �c�Q�ca�atxx��cxxxfxxacxycxiimo��Q�tx�x�t �axaca�xx� xgc3c�ccxxxZscx3a�ax�c�ax the basis of computation of the amount claimed. (See #7) 6. The claim is not signed by the claimant or by some person on his behalf. x 7. Other: The claim fails to give a general description of the injury ori which you based your amount claimed. VICTOR J. WrSTMAN, County Counsel By: Deputy unty Counsel CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL (C.C.P. 5§1012, 1013a, 2015. 5; Evid.C. §§641 , 664) My business address is the County Counsel' s Office of Contra Costa County, Co.Admin.Bldg. , P.O. Box 69, Martinez, California 94553, and I am a citizen of the United States, over 18 years of age, employed in Contra Costa County, and not a party to this action. I served a true copy of this Notice of Insufficiency and/or Non-Acceptance of Claim by placing it in an envelope (s) addressed as shown above (which is/are place (s) having delivery service by U.S. r1a:. 1) , which envelope (s) was then seal?d. and postage fully prep-_:tid thereon, and thereafter was, on this day deposited in the U.S. Mail "at Martinez/Concord, Contra Ccsta County, California. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: April 4, 1986 at Martinez, California. I CC! Clerk of the Board of Superviso s (original) Administrator (NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY OF CLAIM: GOVT. C. S!;910, 910.2, 910. 4, 910. 8) IBIT EXHC t- Grua �. Ufa.-w,-�-----------------------------.... eon...----- --...--------' - _--------- ------'-------- --- .. � ---_ ------------------------ ------'----- - --- - -. -- -' _. - . . . -. �1ac SUS 000� ��ealc••� �o CPO d��y�C • r SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY OF CONTRA OSTA 1�10�6 a CLAIMANTS' NAME: GLORIA FTZLER CLAIMANT'S ADDRESS: c/o LAW OFFICES OF MELVIN M. BELLI RICHARD E. BROWN, ESQ.. 722 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 981-1849 AMOUNT OF CLAIM: $500, 000 . 00 ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICES ARE TO BE SENT: RICHARD BROWN, ESQ. LAW OFFICES OF MELVIN M. BELLI 722 Montgomery St. San Francisco, CA 94111 DATE OF INCIDENT: December 23 , 1985 LOCATION OF INCIDENT: Sunvally Mall Shopping Center .' Concord, CA HOW DID IT OCCUR: The County of Contra Costa negligently approved the planning, design and construction of the Sunvalley Mall Shopping Center in the path of the landing and take-off corridor of nearby Buchanan Field airport, and knew, or should have known, said area would be subject to aircrash accident . A two-engine Beechcraft plane, piloted by James Graham, crashed into the Sunvalley Mall, which was packed with pre-Christmas shoppers . The crash caused flaming aviation fuel and tons of debris to shower over a crowded section of the mall, including claimant, GLORIA ETZLER. DESCRIBE DAMAGE OR INJURY: Claimant suffered injury to her head, neck, back, and both knees, and loss of consortium, loss of wages and earning capacity. In addition, MRS. ETZLER suffers from extreme emotional distress, fright, anxiety, and nightmares . NAME OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE(S) CAUSING INJURY OR DAMAGE, IF KNOWN: Unknown at the present time. ITEMIZATION OF DAMAGES: Hospital and medical expenses Unknown at the present time and continuing . Signed by or on behalf of Claimant RICHARD BROWN, ESQ. Dated: March 22, 1986 EXHIBIT �c �Iv SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY OF CONTRA OSTA✓v` AK 4eq ak._ 9F� CLAIMANTS' NAME: HARRY M. ETZLER CLAIMANT'S ADDRESS: C/o LAW OFFICES OF MELVIN M. BELLI RICHARD E. BROWN, ESQ. 722 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 981-1849 AMOUNT OF CLAIM: $500, 000 . 00 ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICES ARE TO BE SENT: RICHARD BROWN, ESQ. LAW OFFICES OF MELVIN M. BELLI 722 Montgomery St . San Francisco, CA 94111 DATE OF INCIDENT: December 23 , 1985 LOCATION OF INCIDENT: Sunvally Mall Shopping Center Concord, CA HOW DID IT OCCUR: The County of Contra Costa negligently approved the planning, design and construction of the Sunvalley Mall Shopping Center in the path of the landing and take-off corridor of nearby Buchanan Field airport, and knew, or should have known, said area would be subject to aircrash accident . A two-engine Beechcraft plane, piloted by James Graham, crashed into the Sunvalley Mall, which was packed with pre-Christmas shoppers . The crash caused flaming aviation fuel and tons of debris to shower over a crowded section of the mall, including claimant, HARRY M. ETZLER. DESCRIBE DAMAGE OR INJURY: Claimant suffered injury to his stomach, head, neck and shoulders, loss of consortium, loss of wages and earning capacity. In addition, MR. ETZLER suffers . from extreme emotional distress, fright, anxiety, and nightmares . NAME OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE(S) CAUSING INJURY OR DAMAGE, IF KNOWN: Unknown at the present time. ITEMIZATION OF DAMAGES: Hospital and medical expenses Unknown at the present time and continuing . Signed by or on behalf of Claimant RICHARD BROWN, ESQ. Dated: March 22, 1986 EXHIBIT �c The Board of Supervisors Cprltrd a� wd County Administration Building Costa °oN;a�mA°"nW*;,f1Dr P.O. Box 911WJ* Maninez, California 84553 Trr+Down.In DR►Kt �--- Iln+t 1 C graham A+e Datr,ct r' - J NOW ictvtlM+.3re Dut►oct Too ToAotbat.6"Dstnct TO: HARPY M. ETZLER c/o Law Offices of Melvin M. Belli Richard E. Brown, Esq. 722 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 NMCE 40 MkDW T (61 Late—Vil'j�aas amended), (Government Govern men t Code Section 911.3) as(� The claim you presented to the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, California, as governing body of the -XY-.. County of Contra Costa and/or District, en July 2 , 1986 is being returned to you herewith because it was not present thin 100 days after the event or occurrence as required by 1aw. (See Sectioms 901 and 911.2 of the Government Code.) Because the claim was not presented within the time allowed by law, no action was taken on the claim. Your only recourse at this time is to apply without delay to the Hoard of Supervisors (in its capacity noted above) for leave to present a late claim. (See Sections 911.6 to 912.2, inclusive, and Section 946.6 of the Goverment Code.) oder same circumstances, leave to present a late claim will be granted. (See Section 911.6 of the Goverment Code.) You body seek the advice of an attorney of ymz choice in connection with this matter. If you desire, to consult an attor- ney, you should do so Immediately. 20 W PIIIZD IN BY TM C1F.ti1C OF 'W 90MO ONLY IF APPLICNKZ: ( ) Bine a portion of your claim is not untimely, we are retaining a copy of your claim for Board action on that portion of your culm which is rat Untimely. 'Ad Batctww.Geri of the Board of Supervises rad County Adn iaaiwalcr my: Deputy Clerk note: July 10, 1986 EXHiBIT The Board of Supervisors Contra wof owd ;punty Administration Building CoS Oo(4� :0.0. Box Ot t Naninez, (;alifornis 94553 rem.ro"m a+o.,nct Inc patntt 1 1'1 i ow"&f.31r0 QI{tnCt 4ynrr Wmg%l rtPK.."a.tnC, ...�.., .•...D tM�TMIM�r+.!tn pstnCt .lilt ! 1 GLORIA ETZLER c/o Law Offices of Melvin M. Belli Richard E. Brown, Esq. 722 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 NMC£ TO C[kP9M PT Late-Klin- as amended) (Goverment Code Section 931.3) as amended (A The claimtyou presented to the Hoard of Supervisors of Contra Costa qty, California, as governing body of the xx Ommty of Contra Costa and/or District, on July 2 1986 is being returned to you herewith use it was not present thin 100 days after the event or occurrence as required by law. (See Sections 901 and 931.2 of the Government Code.) Because, the claim was not presented within the time allowed by law, no action was taken on the claim. Your only recourse at this time is to apply without delay to the Hoard of Supervisors (in its capacity noted above) for leave to present a late claim. (See Sections 911.4 to 932.20, Inclusive, and Section 946.6 of the Government Code.) Order was circumstanoes, leave to present a late claim will be granted. (See Section 911.6 of the Gmmrnment Code.) You way seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this scatter. If you desire to consult an attor- ney, you should do so imoediately. SG N Fn= IN BY WM CLM CF ISE BOARD ONLY.IF APPLIC i►B[Z: ( ) Since a portion of your claim is not untimely, we are retaining a copy of your claim for Board action on that portion of your claim which is rat tntimly. Phil Batchdot, Clerk of the Board of Supervises rad county Adminis"G.1 Deputy Clerk Dates July 10-.1986 SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA CLAIMANTS' NAME: HARRY M. ETZLER CLAIMANT'S ADDRESS: c/o LAW OFFICES OF MELVIN M. BELLI RICHARD E. BROWN, ESQ. 722 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 981-1849 AMOUNT OF CLAIM: $500,000.00 ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICES ARE TO BE SENT: RICHARD BROWN, ESQ. LAW OFFICES OF MELVIN M. BELLI 722 Montgomery St. San Francisco, CA 94111 DATE OF INCIDENT: December 23, 1985 LOCATION OF INCIDENT: Sunvally Mall Shopping Center Concord, CA HOW DID IT OCCUR: The County of Contra Costa negligently approved the planning, design and construction of the Sunvalley Mall Shopping Center in the path of the, landing and take-off corridor of nearby Buchanan Field airport, and knew, or should have known, said area would be subject to aircrash accident . A two-engine Beechcraft plane, piloted by James Graham, crashed into the Sunvalley Mall, which was packed with pre-Christmas shoppers . The crash caused flaming aviation fuel and tons of debris to shower over a crowded section of the mall, including claimant, HARRY M. ETZLER. DESCRIBE DAMAGE OR INJURY: Claimant suffered injury to his stomach, head, neck and shoulders, loss of consortium, loss of wages and earning capacity. In addition, MR. ETZLER suffers from extreme emotional distress, fright, anxiety, and nightmares. NAME OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE(S) CAUSING INJURY OR DAMAGE, IF KNOWN: Unknown at the present time. • ITEMIZATION OF DAMAGES: Hospital and medical expenses Unknown at the present time and continuing . Signed by or on behalf of Claimant RICHARD BROWN, ESQ. Dated: August 1, 1986 APPLICATION TO FILE LATE CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND AS BOARD OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD ACTION Application to File Late Claim ) NOTICE TO APPLICANT September 9 , 1986 Against the County, Routing ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your Endorsements, and Board Action.) notice of the action taken on your application by (All Section References are to the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph III, below), California Government Code.) ) given pursuant to Government Code Sections 911.8 and 915•4. Please note the "WARNING" below. Claimant: KADISON, PFAELZER, WOODWARD, QUINN & ROSSI County Counsel c/o Kathryn Tschopik Attorney: 2049 Century Park East , 14 Floor AUG 12 1986 Los Angeles , CA 90067 Address: Martinez, CA 94553 Amount: Unspecified By delivery to Clerk on August 7 , 1986 CAO Date Received: August 7 , 1936 By mail, postmarked on Federal Express I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 70: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above noted Application t F' a Late Claim. DATED: August 11, 1986PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy a II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( ) The Board should grant this Application to File Late Claim (Section 911.6). (X) The Board should deny this Application to File Late Claim (Sect'on 911.6). DATED: /%Y VICTOR WESTMAN, County Counsel, B .��u�-4-� �=7,---,/��beputy III. BOARD ORDER By unanimous vote of Supervisors present (Check one only) ( ) This Application is granted (Section 911.6). (X) This Application to File Late Claim is denied (Section 911.6). I certify that this is a true and correct copy of.the Boards Order entered in its minutes for this date. DATE: SEP 0 91986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By'" Deputy WARNING (Gov. Code 3911.8) If you wish to file a court action on this matter, you must first petition the appropriate court for an order relieving you from the provisions of Government Code Section 945.4 (claims presentation requirement). See Government Code Section 946.6. Such petition must be filed with the court within six (6) months from the date your application for leave to present a late claim was denied. You may seek the advise of any attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, u should do so immediately. IV. FROM: Clerk of the Board T0: 1 County .Counsel 2 County Adminis rator Attached are copies of the above Application. We notifed the applicant of the Board's action on this Application by mailing a copy of this document, and a memo thereof has ben filed and endorsed on the Board's copy of this Claim in accordance with Section 29703. DATED: $EPO 91986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy V. FROM: 1 County Counsel 2 County Administrator T0: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Received copies of this Application and Board Order. DATED: County Counsel, By County Administrator, By APPLICATION TO FILE LATE CLAIM - LAW OFFICES WYMAN, BAUTZER, ROTHMAN, KUCHEL & SILBERT WASHINGTON, D.C. APARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS NEWPORT BEACH 600 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE,N.W.,SUITE 560 TWO CENTURY PLAZA, FOURTEENTH FLOOR 4100 M-ARTHUR BOULEVARD WASHINGTON, D.C.20037 2049 CENTURY PARK EAST NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92660 (202)466-2222 (714)760-9300 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067 ' (213) 556-8000, (213) 879-8000 KATHRYN TSCHOPIK CAB Lit ADDRESS:WYSAROK DIRECT DIAL NUMBER August 6, 1986 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS RECEIVED The Board of Supervisors r-� of Contra Costa County AUG / 1986 County Administration Building P. t. Box 911 lY- 10CL 8 TORS Martinez, California 94553er . r Attn: Mr. Phil Batchelor Re: Claim of Kadison, Pfaelzer, Woodward, Quinn & Rossi Dear Mr. Batchelor: You recently rejected a claim we presented on July ll, 19861 by. mail. In your letter, you stated that the claim was "late" because it was presented on July 18, 1986, when you evidently received it in the mail. Section 915 . 2 of the Government Code permits a claimant to present a claim by mail. As numerous California cases have held, it is the date of mailing, not the date of receipt, that is the date that notice of the claim or other act is given. We are certain that your rejection is simply the result of an oversight of the proof of service attached to our claim. You should also know that the Board of Supervisors has had ample notice of this claim, well in advance of our mailing it to you. First, your counsel has been advised of progress in this lawsuit since shortly after its commence- ment in 1983, and received copies of all pleadings. Also, we served the Contra Costa Housing Authority with a com- plaint for contribution on .May 27, -1986: Thus, there has been no unfair surprise in this situation. �Y Mr. Phil Batchelor August 6, 1986 Page Two Our service of the claim was timely. Therefore, we request that you withdraw your notice of rejection. Alternatively, while our position is that this should be absolutely unnecessary, you may treat this letter as an application for leave to file a late claim. A copy of our claim is enclosed for your reference. Please advise us promptly of your position. Very truly yours, S Kathryn Tschopik for WYMAN, BAUTZER, KUCHEL & SILBERT KT:md Enclosure t c" r t+ CLAIM PURSUANT TO CAL. GOVT. CODE §§ 900 et seq. TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, ROOM 106, County Administration Building, Martinez, California 94553 and THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a political subdivision of the State of California, 3133 Estudillo Street, Martinez , California: Kadison, Pfaelzer, Woodard, Quinn & Rossi ("Kadison, Pfaelzer") hereby makes a claim against the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa for contribution in connection with the consolidated class action entitled Lind v. Muir California Health Recreation and Retirement Facilities, Inc. , et al. , presently pending before the United States District Court for the Central District of California as action number 83-1314 AAH (and other consolidated actions) (hereinafter "the class action") , all as described in the first amended class action complaint, etc. ("complaint") attached hereto, and makes the following statement in support of the claim: 1. The address of Kadison, Pfaelzer is 707 Wilshire Boulevard, 40th Floor , Los Angeles, California 90007 . 2. Notices concerning the claim should be sent to James S. Schreier , Esq. , Wyman, Bautzer , Kuchel & Silbert, 2049 Century Park East, Fourteenth Floor , Los Angeles, California 90067. RECEIVED JUL J �Iuq CLfA T�pAT Tu�►Eq 1 3. The date and place of the matters giving rise to this claim of contribution are the service on Kadison, Pfaelzer in Los Angeles, California of the attached complaint on April 4 , 1986 . 4 . The circumstances giving rise to this claim are as follows: as described in the attached complaint, the class action plaintiffs allege that they purchased certain revenue bonds issued by Muir California Health Recreation and Retirement Facilities, Inc. ("Muir") on the basis of Muir ' s Official Statement; that among other defendants, Kadison, Pfaelzer supplied and was responsible for certain infor- mation contained in the Official Statement; that the Official Statement contained material misrepresentations and omissions that misled, deceived or defrauded the plaintiff- purchasers; and that plaintiffs suffered damages in the sum of $16,000 ,000 and are entitled to further damages in the sum of $48 ,000 ,000 . Kadison, Pfaelzer makes this claim for contribution against The Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa (the "Authority") on the grounds that the Authority was a major source of the allegedly misleading information contained in the Official Statement, was acti- vely involved as a participant in the preparation of the Official Statement, was otherwise responsible for the infor- mation included or omitted in the Official Statement, that the Authority' s information and participation was primary and superior to that of Kadison, Pfaelzer , and that any 2. misleading or omitted information in the Official Statement attributed to Kadison, Pfaelzer is more properly attributed to the Authority by virtue of its superior and primary par- ticipation in the preparation of the Official Statement. Therefore, to the extent that Kadison Pfaelzer incurs liabi- lity, costs, expenses or attorneys ' fees in connection with its defense of the class action and any judgment, it is entitled to contribution for same from the Authority. 5 . Kadison Pfaelzer ' s injuries are as follows: As a proximate result of the service of the complaint, Kadison, Pfaelzer has been required to retain, and has retained, legal counsel to defend itself against plaintiffs ' claims and has incurred and will incur expenses for investigation costs and attorneys ' and experts' fees in connection with the defense of the class action. In addition, if Kadison, Pfaelzer is adjudged liable to the class action plaintiffs or to any member of the class of plaintiffs, then Kadison, Pfaelzer will incur further damage in the amount of such judgment. 6 . The names of the public employees causing the claimants injuries are the officers and directors of the Authority as of the time period 1980-1981 and, specifically, Robert S. Gray, also known as Robert L. Gray, then a direc- tor or executive director of the Authority. 3 7 . The amount of the claim presented herein by Kadison, Pfaelzer is not presently known and cannot pre- sently be computed but will be known and can be computed on the basis of costs, expenses, attorneys ' fees and assessed damages, if any, at the conclusion of the class action as against Kadison, Pfaelzer, or at such time as the Authority agrees to defend and contribute to any cost, expense, fee or liability in the action. While it is not possible to esti- mate the amount of damages that could be assessed against Kadison, Pfaelzer in the class action, the amounts claimed are noted above. Further, given the number of parties and the multiplicity of allegations set forth in the complaint, Kadison, Pfaelzer estimates that the costs, expenses and attorneys ' fees to be incurred in defending the action will be not less than $100 ,000 . DATED: June 11, 1986 By: Kathryn Tschopik, Esq. WYMAN, BAUTZER, KUCHEL & SILBERT On behalf of claimant Kadison, Pfaelzer, Woodard, Quinn & Rossi 4. 1 LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD I . FINE & ASSOCIATES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2 RICHARD I. FINE, ESQ. LAURA K. STAHNKE , ESQ. 3 JAY STATMAN, ESQ. 4 10100 Santa Monica Blvd. , Suite 250 Los Angeles , California 90067 5 Telephone: (213) 277-5833 BLECHER, COLLINS & WEINSTEIN 6 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION HAROLD R. COLLINS , ESQ. 7 611 West Sixth Street, 28th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017 8 Telephone: (213) 622-4222 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 10 w n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT � W z " 12 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 � < � 0 13 48 'j u ' 0 r on ` -+ 0 ' t DZZU-C 14 oioin " m0VwV A. JOHN LIND, an individual, and ) Consolidated Civil Action W j GW7 06 « � 15 M. JOSEPHINA LIND, an ) No. 83-1314 AAH (J Rx) "o individual, ) 16 ) CONSOLIDATED FIRST AMENDED o Plainpiffs , ) CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 17 VS. ) FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 10 (b) ) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE 18 MUIR CALIFORNIA HEALTH RECREATION ) ACT OF 1934 AND RULE lOb-5; 19 AND RETIREMENT FACILITIES , INC. , j FRAUD AND DECEIT; VIOLATION a California non-profit ) OF THE RACKETEER INFLUENCED & 20 corporation; GIBRALCO, INC. , a ) CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT; California corporation; JAMES D. ) AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 21 SNOW, an individual; ANTHONY G. ) CANNATA, an individual; ZOCCHI ) 22 AND COMPANY, INC. , a California ) corporation; BARRACO & DANILOFF, ) 23 CAMPBELL AND CAMPBELL; ROBERT C. ) MARKS, an individual; BANK OF j 24 AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS ) ASSOCIATION, a national banking ) 25 association; and KADISON, ) PFAELZER, WOODARD, QUINN & ROSSI , ) 26 j Defendants. ) 27 ) 28 � � � " 1 NORMAN SAX, an individual, and ) Civil Action 2 SALLY SAX, an individual, ) No. 83-1315 AAH (JRx) ) 3 Plaintiffs , ) ) 4 vs. ) MUIR CALIFORNIA HEALTH RECREATION ) 5 AND RETIREYENT .FACILITIES, INC. , ) a California non-profit ) 6 corporation; GIBRALCO, INC. , a ) California corporation; JAMES D. ) 7 SNOW, an individual; ANTHONY G. ) CANNATA, an individual; ZOCCHI ) 8 AND COMPANY, INC. , a California ) corporation; BARRACO & DANILOFF , ) 9 CAMPBELL AND CAMPBELL; ROBERT C. ) MARKS , an individual; BANK OF 10 ) AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS ) WASSOCIATION, a national banking ) c '- 11 association; and KADISON, ) Q < o $ 12 PFAELZER, WOODARD, QUINN & ROSSI , ) 00 ; , z � Defendants . , co ; Uom 13 Z 14 ERNEST P. PARTAKER, ) Civil Action aW � W = an individual, ) No. 83-1566 AAH (Kx) < 15Z ) 4 = z Plaintiff ' ) a < � ° 16 ) V C o ) 17 vs. 18 MUIR CALIFORNIA HEALTH RECREATION ) AND RETIREMENT FACILITIES , INC. , ) 19 a California non-profit ) corporation; GIBRALCO, INC. , a ) 20 California corporation; JAMES D. ) SNOW, an individual; ANTHONY G. ) 21 CANNATA, an individual; ZOCCHI ) AND COMPANY, INC. , a California ) 22 corporation; BARRACO & DANILOFF, ) CAMPBELL AND CAMPBELL; ROBERT C.• ) 23 MARKS , an individual; BANK OF ) AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS ) 24 ASSOCIATION, a national banking ) association; and KADISON, ) 25 PFAELZER, WOODARD, QUINN & ROSSI , ) 26 Defendants . ) ) 27 28 2. 1 HARVEY FERRIS DANGBERG, ) Civil Action an individual, ) No. 83-1567 AAH (Tx) 2 ) Plaintiff , ) 3 ) VS. ) 4 ) MUIR CALIFORNIA HEALTH RECREATION ) 5 AND RETIREMENT FACILITIES, INC. , ) a California non-profit ) 6 corporation; GIBRALCO, INC. , a ) California corporation; JAMES D. ) 7 SNOW, an individual; ANTHONY G. ) CANNATA, an individual; ZOCCHI 8 AND COMPANY, INC. , a California ) corporation; BARRACO & DANILOFF, ) 9 CAMPBELL AND CAMPBELL; ROBERT C. ) MARKS , an individual; BANK OF 10 ) AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS ) N 0 ASSOCIATION, a national banking ) c r 11 association; and KADISON, � s o PFAELZER, WOODARD, QUINN & ROSSI , ) 0 y 12 in < a Defendants. )o � 13 o we ) z O Z N 14 H. NORMAN RIISE, ) Civil Action tt00U , Sv _ Wx an individual, CARMINE T. RIISE, ) No. 83-1568 AAH (JRx) cas < 5 an individual , ) Q C t 00 ) x16o Plaintiff , ) 17 vs . ) 18 ) MUIR CALIFORNIA HEALTH RECREATION ) 19 AND RETIREMENT FACILITIES, INC. , j a California non-profit ) 20 corporation; GIBRALCO, INC. , a j California corporation; JAMES D. ) 21 SNOW, an individual; ANTHONY G. ) CANNATA, an individual; ZOCCHI ) 22 AND COMPANY, INC. , a California ) corporation; BARRACO & DANILOFF, ) 23 CAMPBELL AND CAMPBELL; ROBERT C. ) MARKS , an individual; BANK OF ) 24 AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS ) ASSOCIATION, a national banking ) 25 association; and KADISON, ) PFAELZER, WOODARD, QUINN & ROSSI , ) 26 ) Defendants. ) ' 27 ) 28 3. t 1 JULES OAKLEY, an individual, ) Civil Action an individual, ) No. 83-1569 AAH (Px) 2 ) Plaintiff , ) 3 ) 4 VS. ) 5 MUIR CALIFORNIA HEALTH RECREATION ) AND RETIREMENT FACILITIES, INC. , ) a California non-profit ) 6 corporation; GIBRALCO, INC. , a ) California corporation; JAMES D. ) 7 SNOW, an individual; ANTHONY G. } CANNATA, an individual; ZOCCHI ) 8 AND COMPANY, INC. , a California ) corporation; BARRACO & DANILOFF, ) 9 CAMPBELL AND CAMPBELL; ROBERT C. ) MARKS, an individual; BANK OF ) 10 AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS ) m o ASSOCIATION, a national banking ) a 11 association; and KADISON, ) uo12 PFAELZER, WOODARD, QUINN & ROSSI , O ; ) o ) om 13 Defendants. ) Q 6 W F ) Ib u LL n �z z. 14 ) PENNY KENT, an individual, ) Civil-Action 1L 00 u ; ry W - ) No. 83-1570 AAH (Gx) n < 15 Plaintiff, } = n Z m } Q < `m g ) x S 16 VS. 17 ) MUIR CALIFORNIA HEALTH RECREATION ) 18 AND RETIREMENT FACILITIES, INC. , ) a California non-profit ) 19 corporation; GIBRALCO, INC. , a ) California corporation; JAMES D. ) 20 SNOW, an individual; ANTHONY G. ) CANNATA, an individual; ZOCCHI ) 21 AND COMPANY, INC. , a California ) corporation; BARRACO & DANILOFF, ) 22 CAMPBELL AND CAMPBELL; ROBERT C. ) MARKS, an individual; BANK OF ) 23 AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS ) ASSOCIATION, a national banking ) 24 association; and KADISON, ) PFAELZER, WOODARD, QUINN & ROSSI , ) 25 ) Defendants. ) 26 ) 27 28 4. 1 LOUIS LIBIS , an individual, ) Civil Action No. 83-1571 AAH (Kx) 2 Plaintiff , ) 3 vs. ) 4 MUIR CALIFORNIA HEALTH RECREATION ) AND RETIREMENT FACILITIES , INC. , ) 5 a California non-profit ) corporation; GIBRALCO, INC. , a ) 6 California corporation; JAMES D. ) SNOW, an individual; ANTHONY G. ) 7 CANNATA, an individual; ZOCCHI ) AND -COMPANY, INC. , a California ) 8 corporation; BARRACO & DANILOFF, ) CAMPBELL AND CAMPBELL; ROBERT C. ) 9 MARKS, an individual; BANK OF ) 10 `ERICA NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS ) ASSOCIATION, a national banking ) N o association; and KADISON, ) N c � 11 pFAELZER, WOODARD, QUINN & ROSSI , ) V o o ) o a r < 12 Defendants. ) oW � oo 13 ) w < m , 1Jry CHARLES VERHALEN, ) Civil Action Z 2 �?Z m m 14 an individual, ) No. 83-1572 AAH (JRx) ' W j W no < < 15 Plaintiff , ) a ` U) g 16 ) G vs. ) 17j ) MUIR CALIFORNIA HEALTH RECREATION ) 18 AND RETIREMENT FACILITIES, INC. , ) a California non-profit ) 19 corporation; GIBRALCO, INC. , a ) California corporation; JAMES D. ) SNOW, an individual; ANTHONY G. 20 ) CANNATA, an individual; ZOCCHI ) 21 AND COMPANY, INC. , a California ) corporation; BARRACO & DANILOFF, ) 22 CAMPBELL AND CAMPBELL; ROBERT C. ) MARKS, an individual; BANK OF ) 23 AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS ) ASSOCIATION, a national banking ) 24 association; and KADISON, ) PFAELZER, WOODARD, QUINN & ROSSI , ) 25 ) Defendants. ) z6 J 27 28 5. 5• l_ 1 JOHN D. INGERSOLL, ) Civil Action an individual, ) No. 83-1573 AAH (MCx) 2 SUSAN E. INGERSOLL, ' ) 3 an individual, ) ) 4 Plaintiff , ) 5 vs. ) MUIR CALIFORNIA HEALTH RECREATION ) 6 AND RETIREMENT FACILITIES, INC. , ) 7 a California non-profit ) corporation; GIBRALCO, INC. , a ) California corporation; JAMES D. ) 8 SNOW, an individual; ANTHONY G. j CANNATA, an individual; ZOCCHI ) 9 AND COMPANY, INC. , a California ) 10 corporation; BARRACO & DANILOFF, ) CAMPBELL AND CAMPBELL; ROBERT C. j N o MARKS, an individual; BANK OF ) F N 11 AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS. ) W � oN S ASSOCIATION, a national banking ) 0 < o a 12 association; and KADISON, ) Q0WFa ^ PFAELZER, WOODARD, QUINN & ROSSI , ) ) w < m � 3N 14 Defendants. ) zzt ) 0 U Z N n 0 LLN ) c a < < 15 DR. WARREN HARVARD LOW, ) Civil Action ° 16 U an individual, ) No. 83-1574 AAH (Bx) C, J ) 0 17 Plaintiff, ) 18 vs. ) 19 MUIR CALIFORNIA HEALTH RECREATION ) AND RETIREMENT FACILITIES, INC. , ) 20 a California non-profit ) corporation; GIBRALCO, INC. , a ) 21 California corporation; JAMES D. ) SNOW, an individual; ANTHONY G. ) 22 CANNATA, an individual; ZOCCHI j AND COMPANY, INC. , a California ) 23 corporation; BARRACO & DANILOFF, ) CAMPBELL AND CAMPBELL; ROBERT C. ) 24 MARKS., an individual; BANK OF ) AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS ) 25 ASSOCIATION, a national banking j association; and KADISON, ) 26 PFAELZER, WOODARD, QUINN & ROSSI , ) 27 Defendants. ) 28 6. 1 CAROLE SAX, an individual, ) Civil Action No. 83-1591 AAH (Px) 2 Plaintiff , ) 3 vs. 1 4 MUIR CALIFORNIA HEALTH RECREATION ) AND RETIREMENT FACILITIES , INC. , ) 5 a California non-profit ) corporation; GIBRALCO, INC. , a ) 6 California corporation; JAMES D. ) SNOW, an individual; ANTHONY G. ) 7 CANNATA , an individual; ZOCCHI ) AND COMPANY, INC. , a California ) 8 corporation; BARRACO & DANILOFF, ) CAMPBELL AND CAMPBELL; ROBERT C. ) 9 MARKS , an individual; BANK OF ) AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST &SAVINGS ) 10 ASSOCIATION, a national banking ) y 0 association; and KADISON, ) F f. 11 PFAELZER, WOODARD, QUINN & ROSSI , ) Uo � � ) N 0a 12 Defendants . ) aom 13 U o ) JACK SAX, an individual ) Civil Action 14 ) No. 83-1592 AAH zo � Z ,; ,� " W o j = Plaintiff ,L6 1 ) W a 0 . Z 15 ) uC J ) c MUIR CALIFORNIA HEALTH RECREATION ) 17 AND RETIREMENT FACILITIES, INC. , ) a California non-profit ) 18 corporation; GIBRALCO, INC. , a ) California corporation; JAMES D. ) 19 SNOW, an individual; ANTHONY G. ) CANNATA, an individual; ZOCCHI ) 20 AND COMPANY, INC. , a California ) corporation; BARRACO & DANILOFF, ) 21 CAMPBELL AND CAMPBELL; ROBERT C. ) MARKS, an individual; BANK OF 22 ) AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS ) 23 ASSOCIATION, a national banking ) association; and KADISON, ) 24 PFAELZER, WOODARD, QUINN & ROSSI , ) 25 Defendants. ) 26 27 28 7. c, 1 MARVIN SPITZ , an individual , ) Civil Action MYRTLE SPITZ , an individual, ) No. 83-1593 AAH (Gx) 2 ) Plaintiff , ) 3 ) 4 vs. ) MUIR CALIFORNIA HEALTH RECREATION ) 5 AND RETIREMENT FACILITIES , INC. , ) a California non-profit ) 6 corporation; GIBRALCO, INC. , a ) 7 California corporation; JAMES D. ) SNOW, an individual; ANTHONY G. ) CANNATA, an individual; ZOCCHI ) 8 AND COMPANY, INC. , a California ) corporation; BARRACO & DANILOFF , ) 9 - CAMPBELL AND CAMPBELL; ROBERT C. ) MARKS, an individual; BANK OF 10 ) AN�ERICA NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS ) N o ASSOCIATION, a national banking ) W 11 association; and KADISON, ) voN o 12 PFAELZER, WOODARD, QUINN & ROSSI , ) Opo a ) N °01.1" 13 Defendants. ) w < mD, u _" 14 ) zo3Z, „„ GERALD W. ZIMMERMAN, an ) Civil Action &` NowW individual, ANN B. ZIMMERMAN, ) No. 83-1594 AAH (Kx) 15 0an individual, ) < ) � ` o 16 Plaintiff , ) 17 vs. ) 18 ) MUIR CALIFORNIA HEALTH RECREATION ) 19 AND RETIREMENT FACILITIES, INC. , ) a California non-profit ) 20 corporation; GIBRALCO, INC. , a ) California corporation; JAMES D. ) 21 SNOW, an individual; ANTHONY G. ) CANNATA, an individual; ZOCCHI ) 22 AND COMPANY, INC. , a California ) corporation; BARRACO & DANILOFF, ) 23 CAMPBELL AND CAMPBELL; ROBERT C. ) MARKS, an individual; BANK OF ) 24 AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS ) ASSOCIATION, a national banking ) 25 association; and KADISON, ) , PFAELZER, WOODARD, QUINN & ROSSI , ) 26 ) Defendants. ) 27 ) 28 8. ' 1 DR. ARTHUR S . LIGGETT, an ) Civil Action individual, ) No. 83-1595 AAH (JRx) 2 ) Plaintiff , ) 3 ) VS. ) 4 y MUIR CALIFORNIA HEALTH RECREATION ) 5 AND RETIREMENT FACILITIES , INC. , ) a California non-profit y 6 corporation; GIBRALCO, INC. , a ) California corporation; JAMES D. ) 7 SNOW, an individual; ANTHONY G. ) CANNATA, an individual; ZOCCHI ) 8 AND COMPANY, INC. , a California ) corporation; BARRACO & DANILOFF, ) 9 CAMPBELL AND CAMPBELL; ROBERT C. ) MARKS , an individual; BANK OF ) 10 AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS ) H ASSOCIATION, a national banking ) W W 11 association; and KADISON, ) VZ°' " c 12 to PFAELZER, WOODARD, QUINN & ROSSI , ) 0 to a °a c ) Defendants. ) 13 y zc � iHa 14 ROWENA B. STEWART, aka ) Civil Action ROWENA B. ROSS, an individual, ) No. 83-1598 AAH (MCx) W 15 N o Plaintiff , ) 16 ) V C G 17 VS. ) I ) 18 MUIR CALIFORNIA HEALTH RECREATION ) AND RETIREMENT FACILITIES, INC. , ) 19 a California non-profit ) corporation; GIBRALCO, INC. , a ) 20 California corporation; JAMES D. ) SNOW, an individual; ANTHONY G. ) 21 CANNATA, an individual; ZOCCHI ) AND COMPANY, INC. , a California ) 22 corporation; BARRACO & DANILOFF, ) CAMPBELL AND CAMPBELL; ROBERT C. ) 23 MARKS, an individual; BANK OF ) AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS ) 24 ASSOCIATION, a national banking ) association; and KADISON, ) 25 PFAELZER, WOODARD, QUINN & ROSSI , 8 ) 26 Defendants. y )- 27 28 9. r 1 ROY G. ANDERSON, an individual , ) Civil Action No. 83-1643 AAH . (Kx) 2 Plaintiff , ) 3 ) vs. ) 4 MUIR CALIFORNIA HEALTH RECREATION ) AND RETIREMENT FACILITIES, INC. , ) 5 a California non-profit ) corporation; GIBRALCO, INC. , a ) 6 California corporation; JAMES D. ) 7 SNOW, an individual; ANTHONY G. ) CANNATA, an individual; ZOCCHI ) AND COMPANY, INC. , a California ) 8 corporation; BARRACO & DANILOFF, ) 9 CAMPBELL AND CAMPBELL; ROBERT C. ) MARKS , an individual; BANK OF ) 10 `ERICA NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS ) ASSOCIATION, a national banking ) N o association; and KADISON, ) a W r 11 PFAELZER, WOODARD, QUINN & ROSSI ,z 40 ) C) QH G ) Naa< 12 Defendants. ) os ) aa � � o .^ 13 o r m ) W ` oe 14 ANTONIA RYSAVY, an individual, ) Civil Action Z o `u Z 6 ;; ) No. 83-1644 AAH (JRx) LL m o u w ~ ) = 4 � � 15 Plaintiff , c0 z ) 16 vs. ) U ° J ) E 0 17 MUIR CALIFORNIA HEALTH R$CREATION ) AND RETIREMENT FACILITIES, INC. , ) 18 a California non-profit ) corporation; GIBRALCO, INC. , a ) 19 California corporation; JAMES D. ) SNOW, an individual; ANTHONY G. ) 20 CANNATA, an individual; ZOCCHI ) AND COMPANY, INC. , a California ) 21 corporation; BARRACO & DANILOFF, ) CAMPBELL AND CAMPBELL; ROBERT C. ) 22 MARKS, an individual; BANK OF ) AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS ) 23 ASSOCIATION, a national banking ) association; and KADISON, ) 24 PFAELZER, WOODARD, QUINN & ROSSI , ) 25 Defendants . ) 26 27 28 10. 1 WALTER R. ELLIOTT, an ) Civil Action 2 individual, ) No. 83-1645 AAH (MCx) ) Plaintiff, ) 3 ) 4 vs. ) MUIR CALIFORNIA HEALTH RECREATION ) 5 AND RETIREMENT FACILITIES , INC. , ) a California non-profit ) 6 corporation; GIBRALCO, INC. , a ) California corporation; JAMES D. ) - 7 SNOW, an individual; ANTHONY G. ) CANNATA, an individual; ZOCCHI ) 8 AND COMPANY, INC. , a California ) corporation; BARRACO & DANILOFF, ) 9 CAMPBELL AND CAMPBELL; ROBERT C. ) MARKS , an individual; BANK OF ) 10 AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS ) N o ASSOCIATION, a national banking ) a 11 association; and KADISON, ) 0 - 5 o 12 PFAELZER, WOODARD, QUINN & ROSSI , ) Baa ) Defendants . ) oma `- om 13 0" u 4 n ) ZZ - PN 14 ) oyzym PATRICK JAMES KIRBY, an ) Civil Action a N o j = individual, ) No. 83-1646 AAH (Bx) a i 15 aO � ) ` " 0 16 Plaintiff, ) U 0 ) 17 vs . ) MUIR CALIFORNIA HEALTH RECREATION 18 ) AND RETIREMENT FACILITIES , INC. , ) 19 a California non-profit ) corporation; GIBRALCO, INC. , a ) 20 California corporation; JAMES D. ) SNOW, an individual; ANTHONY G. ) 21 CANNATA, an individual; ZOCCHI ) AND COMPANY, INC. , a California ) 22 corporation; BARRACO & DANILOFF, ) CAMPBELL AND CAMPBELL; ROBERT C. ) 23 MARKS, an individual; BANK OF ) AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS ) 24 ASSOCIATION, a national banking ) association; and KADISON, ) 25 PFAELZER, WOODARD, QUINN & ROSSI , ) 26 Defendants. ) 27 28 11. I THELMA REID, an individual ) Civil Action No. 83-1647 AAH (Px) 2 Plaintiff , ) 3 ) VS. ) 4 ) MUIR CALIFORNIA HEALTH RECREATION) AND RETIREMENT FACILITIES , INC. , ) 5 a California non-profit ) corporation; GIBRALCO, INC. , a ) 6 California corporation; JAMES D. ) 7 SNOW, an individual; ANTHONY G. ) CANNATA, an individual; ZOCCHI ) AND COMPANY, INC. , a California ) 8 corporation; BARRACO & DANILOFF, ) CAMPBELL AND CAMPBELL; ROBERT C. . ) 9 MARKS, an individual; BANK OF - ) 10 AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS ) ASSOCIATION, a national banking ) N o association; and KADISON, ) W 11 PFAELZER, WOODARD, QUINN & ROSSI , ) U o 5 c ) 0 ;5 " ° 12 Defendants. ) 13 14 G. M. WOLFE, an individual, ) Civil Action z o 2 Z m m ) No. 83-1649 AAH (Kx) LL N O U W N Plaintiff , ) 4 15 pe : < ) 4ILZ C G 16 V S . ) V ) E c 17 MUIR CALIFORNIA HEALTH R9CREATION ) AND RETIREMENT FACILITIES, INC. , ) 18 a California non-profit ) corporation; GIBRALCO, INC. , a ) 19 California corporation; JAMES D. ) SNOW, an individual; ANTHONY G. ) 20 CANNATA, an individual; ZOCCHI ) AND COMPANY, INC. , a California ) 21 corporation; BARRACO & DANILOFF, ) CAMPBELL AND CAMPBELL; ROBERT C. ) 22 MARKS, an individual; BANK OF ) AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS ) 23 ASSOCIATION, a national banking ) association; and KADISON, ) 24 PFAELZER, WOODARD, QUINN & ROSSI , ) 25 Defendants. ) 26 27 28 12. I JOSEPH B. KERLEY, an individual, ) Civil Action FLORENCE C. KERLEY, an ) No. 83-1650 AAH (MCx) 2 individual , ) 3 Plaintiff , ) 4 vs . ) 5 MUIR CALIFORNIA HEALTH RECREATION ) AND RETIREMENT FACILITIES , INC. , ) 6 a California non-profit ) 7 corporation; GIBRALCO, INC. , a ) California corporation; JAMES D. ) SNOW, an individual; ANTHONY G. ) 8 CANNATA, an individual; ZOCCHI ) AND COMPANY, INC. , a California ) 9 corporation; BARRACO & DANILOFF, ) 10 CAMPBELL AND CAMPBELL; ROBERT C. ) MARKS , an individual; BANK OF ) N c AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS ) W ASSOCIATION , a national banking ) o oN a 12 association; and KADISON, ) Nay PFAELZER, WOODARD, QUINN & ROSSI , I ) N Z ) Qoo13 Defendants. ) Wy 4 U � n 14 ) Ou f vii, ) LLNo � � " AND RELATED CROSS-CLAIMS AND ) pg < 15 THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS. ) 4Z. w ) 4 -Cm; ° 16 _u o 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13. 1 Plaintiffs, by their attorneys , the Law Offices of 2 Richard I . Fine , A Professional Corporation and Blecher , Collins & 3 Weinstein , for themselves and for and on behalf of all other 4 persons similarly situated , respectfully allege as follows: 5 6 I . 7 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 8 9 A. General Nature of the Claims Asserted 10 QW 11 1. This action arises out of the sale of Four Million 005 `0 12 0 < r a Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($4 ,200,000. 00) of First Mortgage Nc < z`- � g � � gn 13 Gross Revenue Bonds, Series A of 1980 (hereinafter referred to as zZ0131 14 "bonds" ) in the marketplace by Defendant MUIR CALIFORNIA HEALTH a ;1 ! WN m 0 u W - o00 z 15 RECREATION AND RETIREMENT FACILITIES, INC. , a California M U ` 0 ° 16 non-profit corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "MUIR") , 17 through the use of an Official Statement and other documents 18 containing material misrepresentations and omissions , and by the 19 employment of a scheme to defraud among the various Defendants, 20 and acts, practices, and course of business which operate as a 21 fraud upon investors, amongst other acts. This action also arises 22 from the receipt of income from a pattern of racketeering activity 23 by some of the Defendants which was invested in the establishment 24 of an enterprise affecting interstate commerce. 25 26 B. Present Status of Investment Bonds 27 28 2. MUIR has defaulted on the bonds and the trustee, 14. 1 BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS ASSOCIATION, a national 2 banking association, (hereinafter referred to as "BANK OF AMERICA 3 ASSOCIATION") , has declared a default. 4 5 C. Parties 6 7 3. Plaintiffs purchased in the marketplace on May 14, 8 1981, with a settlement date of June 16, 1981 , five (5) bonds .of 9 MUIR, the aggregate of which was Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars 10 ($25,000. 00) , pursuant to representations in the May 15, 1981 N o a 11 Summary Announcement and the June 10, 1981 Official Statement, and U o N o OU & 12 such documents. All persons similarily situated who purchased < otto0 13 such bonds in the marketplace until the declaration of default are � � ry z0 -,c 14 class members and represented by Plaintiff in this action. LL N 0 U N a < 15 4. a. Defendant, MUIR is a corporation duly U ` o ° 16 incorporated under the laws of the State of California with its 17 principal place of business in Martinez, California. MUIR was 18 organized as a non-profit corporation whose primary function was 19 to raise and manage funds for and oversee the construction of a 20 retirement facility in Martinez, California. MUIR is presently 21 suspended under the laws of the State of California. 22 b. Defendant GIBRALCO, INC. (hereinafter referred 23 to as "GIBRALCO") is a corporation duly incorporated under the 24 laws of the State of California, with its principal place of 25 business in Santa Monica, California. GIBRALCO is primarily 26 engaged in underwriting tax exempt securities. It operates on a 27 nationwide basis. 28 C. Defendant JAMES D. SNOW is President of 15. 1 Deseret Realty, Inc. and is Secretary-Treasurer and a Director of 2 MUIR and held these positions at the time of the events upon which 3 the claims set forth herein are based and participated in , 4 authorized or ratified acts and transactions of MUIR alleged in 5 this Complaint . 6 d. Defendant ANTHONY .G. CANNATA is the President 7 and a Director of MUIR and held this position at the time of the 8 events upon which the claims set forth herein are based and 9 participated in, authorized or ratified acts and transactions of 10 MUIR alleged in this Complaint. sn 0 a11 e. Defendant ZOCCHI AND COMPANY, INC. Vo ' 0 o < � o 12 (hereinafter referred to as "ZOCCHI") is a corporation yjc < i en > > ¢ n � ; � ° n 13 incorporated under the laws of the State of California with its _zRY ; 6 ; 14 principal place of business in Concord, California. ZOCCHI is N O 4Z 15 primarily engaged in the construction business. x ` o ° 16 f. Defendant BARRACO & DANILOFF, ARCHITECTS , 17 A. I.A. , a California corporation , (hereinafter referred to as 18 "BARRACO & DANILOFF") is an architectural firm with its principal 19 place of business in Concord , California. 20 g. Defendant CAMPBELL AND CAMPBELL is a law firm 21 with its principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri . 22 CAMPBELL AND CAMPBELL acted as bond counsel with regard to this 23 bond issuance. 24 h. Defendant KADISON, PFAELZER, QUINN, WOODWARD & 25 ROSSI (hereinafter referred to as "KADISON PFAELZER" ) ius a law 26 firm with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, 27 California. KADISON PFAELZER acted as counsel to the Underwriter 28 GIBRALCO with regard to this bond issuance. 16. 1 i . Defendant ROBERT C. MARKS is an attorney. with 2 his principal place of business in Martinez , California. ROBERT 3 C. MARKS acted as attorney for the issuer MUIR with regard to this 4 bond issuance . 5 j . Defendant BANK OF AMERICA ASSOCIATION is a 6 national banking association with its -principal place of business 7 in San Francisco, California. BANK OF AMERICA ASSOCIATION acted , 8 and is presently acting , as trustee with regard to this bond 9 issuance . 10 N o W n 11 �' W I I • vc � 12 JURISDICTION ALLEGATIONS c < of = om 13 4 n Z o Z N A 14 A. First Claim W W lL � p � N J � C W � W u a 0 c < 1rJ Cr Z ° 16 g 5. The First Claim arises out of the conduct of 17 Defendants in violation of Section 10 of the Securities Exchange 18 Act of 1934 (hereinafter referred to as "1934 Act") , 15 U.S.C. 19 § 78j (b) and SEC Rule lOb-5, 17 C.F.R. 240. 10b-5. 20 6. This Court has subject matter � jurisdiction over the 21 claims asserted by Plaintiffs in the First Claim and personal 22 jurisdiction over the person of each Defendant pursuant to Section 23 27 of the 1934 Act, 15 U.S.C. S 78aa. 24 7. The United States Mails and other instruments of 25 interstate commerce were used by Defendants in connection with 26 Defendants' unlawful conduct. Said use is more particularly set 27 forth hereinafter . 28 17. • 1 B . Second Claim 2 3 B. The Second Claim arises out of the common law 4 action _for fraud . 5 9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the 6 claims asserted by Plaintiffs in the Second Claim and personal 7 jurisdiction over the person of each Defendant pursuant to the 8 principle of pendent jurisdiction , United States Constitution art. 9 3 8 1 et seq. , 28 U.S.C. S 1331. 10 N o " C. 11 Third Claim � W Q z `- o u2N °0 12 Noy z < o � : om 13 10. The Third Claim arises out of the conduct of � � n �W � m � u � Z o Z N 14 Defendants in violation of 18 U.S.C. S 1962 (a) and (d) , the LLNW 0 W QzN 15 Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act. u ` o ° 16 11. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the 0 17 claims asserted by Plaintiffs in the Third Claim and personal 18 jurisdiction over the person of each Defendant pursuant to 18 19 U.S.C. S 1964 (a) and (c) . 20 12. The United States Mails and other instruments of 21 interstate commerce were used by Defendants in connection with 22 Defendants' unlawful conduct. Said use is more particularly set 23 forth hereinafter . 24 25 E. Venue . 26 27 13. Venue of this action is properly laid in this 28 District and Division under 15 U.S.C. S 78aa and 18 U.S.C. 18. 1 1965 (a) . Acts and transactions alleged to constitute 2 Defendants' unlawful conduct occurred within the Central District 3 of .California. Plaintiffs reside and transact business in the 4 Central District of California. Defendant, Underwriter GIBRALCO, 5 is found in and transacts business in this District. Defendant, 6 MUIR, transacts business in this District, which includes the 7 offer by Official Statement and sale of bonds bought by Plaintiffs 8 in this District. Defendant BANK OF AMERICA ASSOCIATION is found 9 in and transacts business in this district. Plaintiffs allege , 10 upon information and belief, that each of the Defendants U) 0 11 transacted business in this district through contacts with U2 o 0 , 12 GIBRALCO. The documents in this case may be found in the Central 0 Cr cc 13 < oJZ4o District of California. Bondholders' meetings were called by the ;W m N ZZz A 14 trustee in the Central District of California. W LL N O W V W ry W 0W 1 ° 15 0 F t it zIc N 16 X o III . � 0 17 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 18 19 14. a. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action 20 pursuant to Rules 23 (a) and 23 (b) (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil 21 Procedure on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly 22 situated who purchased bonds issued by MUIR pursuant to the 23 May 15, 1981 Summary Announcement and the June 10, 1981 Official 24 Statementand all persons who purchased such bonds in the 25 secondary market until declaration of default. 26 b. Excluded from the class are the named 27 Defendants, members of the immediate family of each Defendant, any 28 entity in which any of the Defendants has a controlling interest, 19. I and the legal representatives , heirs , successors, predecessors in 2 interest, or assigns of any of the Defendants. 3 15. The issuer , MUIR, issued bonds in the aggregate 4 principal amount of Four Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars 5 ($4 ,200,000. 00) in Five Thousand Dollar ($5, 000.00) 6 denominations. Thus, Eight Hundred Forty (840) bonds were 7 issued . These bonds were offered in fifteen (15) states 8 throughout the United States. While the precise number of class 9 members is unknown to Plaintiffs at this time , it is estimated 10 that there are approximately three hundred (300) members and it is Ul W r 11 alleged that their number is so numerous that joinder of all Von0 0 ora a 12 members is impracticable. Ula a < aoWtom 13 16. Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of `W < m � `u � Zo � = � � 14 other members of the class inasmuch as Plaintiffs and members of LL N 2 W W N N 0 V W Z z 15 the class sustained damages arising out of Defendants' wrongful U ` o 16 conduct in violation of federal and state law as alleged herein. 17 17. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the 18 interest of the class as they are members of the class , and 19 Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and experienced in 20 class and securities litigation. 21 18. Common questions .of law and fact exist as to all 22 members of the class and predominate over questions affecting 23 solely individual members of the class. Among the questions of 24 law and fact common to the class are: 25 a. Whether the federal securities laws were 26 violated by acts on the part of the Defendants; 27 b. Whether the Official Statement published to 28 inform investors of the bond issuance made any 20. 1 untrue statement of a material fact or omitted 2 to state material facts necessary in order to 3 make the statements made not misleading; 4 C. Whether the Defendants employed any device, 5 scheme or artifice to defraud Plaintiffs and 6 members of the class; 7 d. Whether the Defendants engaged in any act , 8 practice or course of business which operated 9 as a fraud upon Plaintiffs and members of the 10 class; m o ar 11 e. Whether the Defendants were engaged in a UoN °o c < o 12 pattern of racketeering with regard to fraud a � _ " � � 13 in the sale of securities; ilk < m � � n io � Zvi ; 14 f. Whether these were acts of common law fraud W W DQE 15 and breach of contract committed by � 4 = ° 16 g Defendants; and 17 g. The extent of damages sustained by Plaintiffs 18 and members of the classes the appropriate 19 mode and measure of damages and other relief. 20 19. A class action is superior for the fair and 21 efficient adjudication of the controversy since: 22 a. The alleged violations of law committed by 23 Defendants affect all members of the class in 24 like manner; 25 b. Many members of the class will not be able to 26 prosecute individual actions because the 27 damages they have sustained are not large 28 enough to make it economically feasible to 21. 1 institute separate individual actions. Unless 2 this class action is approved , such 3 individuals will not be able to obtain relief; 4 _ C. A multiplicity of suits in various 5 jurisdictions by holders of MUIR bonds with 6 the consequent burden on the courts and 7 Defendants should be avoided; 8 d. There is danger of inconsistent and varying 9 adjudications that would establish 10 inconsistent standards of conduct for U) o an n 11 Defendants; 5212 o < o e . It would be very difficult for all MUIR yaaW ` � ; 13 bondholders comprising the class to intervene Z = � n orz � � 14 as parties-plaintiff in this action; LL N p U N mU.ax N 15 f. This action will foster orderly and U J 16 expeditious administration of the class 17 claims; economies of time, effort and expense 18 will be fostered, and uniformity of decision 19 will be ensured. This action presents an 20 appropriate mechanism to prosecute the 21 interests of all members of the class; and 22 g . This action presents no unusual difficulties 23 that would impede its management by the Court 24 as a class action. 25 20. The acts of Defendant .KADISON PFAELZER, as alleged 26 -herein, were not discovered by Plaintiffs until in or about July, 27 1985, a date within three years of the commencement of these class 28 actions. Plaintiffs could not, with due diligence, have 22. I previously discovered that Defendant KADISON PFAELZER made false 2 and misleading statements, engaged in acts of fraud and deception, 3 employed manipulative devices , schemes, or artifices to defraud, 4 and engaged in acts , practices, and a course of business which 5 operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon Plaintiffs and 6 the members of the class in connection with the purchase of MUIR 7 bonds. Defendant KADISON PFAELZER' s participation in the 8 misstatements and omissions contained in the Official Statement 9 was not known to Plaintiffs until in or about July of 1985. In or 10 about July of 1985, Plaintiffs first obtained documents which W a n 11 indicated that Defendant KADISON PFAELZER participated in , V 0 5 c 0 < o a 12 authored , revised, and/or critiqued the various provisions and N e � uom 13 statements contained in the Official Statement which are at issue dS u n W , 9 . i<< u zo -cZ� , -n 14 herein. Plaintiffs were not aware, nor could they have been aware LL N ( W W N 0.� W N a01 15 in the exercise of reasonable diligence, that Defendant KADISON g 16 u g PFAELZER had participated in the acts hereinbelow until in or 17 about July of 1985. 18 19 IV. 20 FIRST CLAIM: 21 VIOLATION OF SECTION 10 OF THE SECURITIES 22 EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 , 15 U.S.C. 5 78j (b) , AND 23 SEC RULE l0b-5, 17 C.F.R. 240. 10b-5 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 24 25 21. At all times complained of herein, the Defendants 26 were highly sophisticated, informed and experienced in their 27 respective positions and professions and thoroughly familiar with 28 the provisions, including prohibited acts of federal and state 23. 1 securities laws and regulations . 2 22. In effecting the unlawful conduct complained of 3 herein , Defendants acted in concert and conspiracy with each other 4 and with other persons whose names and identities are not at this 5 time known to Plaintiffs , which said persons are hereinafter 6 referred to as "co-conspirators. " 723 . The claims of Plaintiffs and the class asserted 8 herein are based upon violations by Defendants of Section 10 of 9 the 1934 Act and SEC Rule lOb-5 in that in connection with the 10 issuance of bonds by MUIR and in their conduct preceeding and QW n 11 following this issuance , the Defendants knowingly or recklessly: U2 o NQQ 12 a. employed manipulative devices, schemes or o o n 13 artifices to defraud; ds U w < m ; 3N 14 ? 0 Z, .A ;; b. made untrue statements of material facts and W LL 1A 0 W U J n 0004 i 15 omitted to state material facts necessary to U ` o ° 16 make the statements made, in the light of the ac 17 circumstances under which they were made , not 18 misleading; and 19 C. engaged in acts , practices, and a course of 20 business which operated or would operate as a 21 fraud or deceit upon Plaintiffs and the 22 members of the class in connection with the 23 purchase of MUIR bonds. 24 24. The Official Statement was false and misleading in 25 that it made untrue statements of material facts amongst others as . 26 follows: 27 a. The Official Statement of June 10, 1981 states 26 on page 13 as follows: 24. 1 "Prior to the closing of the Bonds the 2 Contractor will execute a construction 3 contract for the Project for a fixed 4rp ice of $2 ,550,000. Such price includes 5 all design fees and costs related to a 6 completed project. ". (Emphasis Added. ) 7 8 b. This statement was false and misleading when 9 made because in truth and in- fact, a 10 construction contract had already been m o a11 signed with the contractor for a price which uo � c opo a 12 was not a fixed price. In truth, no fixed N a a < N n i s Q � ° � 13 price contract was ever signed with the 'W i m Mgt z o- z 6 A 14 contractor . ll N 0 u J N 04= 15 C. As a consequence , the bondholders were U ` o ° 16 mislead to believe that the cost of the � 17 construction would be held to a fixed price 18 when in truth there was no fixed price . 19 d. This was a material misrepresentation which 20 directly led to the bondholders damage in 21 that the cost of the construction project 22 overran the amount raised by the bondholders 23 purchase of bonds. 24 e. At the time this misrepresentation was made, 25 it was false, and was known to be false to 26 the parties to the contract , MUIR and 27 ZOCCHI , and was known or recklessly 28 disregarded by GIBRALCO, JAMES D. SNOW, 25. • 1 ANTHONY G. CANNATA, CAMPBELL AND CAMPBELL, 2 KADISON PFAELZER, ROBERT C. MARKS and the 3 BANK OF AMERICA ASSOCIATION due to their 4 _ relative and responsible positions during 5 the publication of the Official Statement. 6 f. This misrepresentation was made with the 7 intent that Plaintiffs and the class members 8 should rely upon it by purchasing the bonds. 9 g . Plaintiffs and class members did in fact 10 rely upon the misrepresentation and Uf p aF 11 purchased the bonds to their damage. U ° o N1 ¢ 12 h. ' In acting upon this misrepresentation, U1G < i a a W C a 13 ag ; U4 : Plaintiffs and the class members were 'Zii � un 14 ouZ � ,� ignorant of the falsity of the statement lLN0U �N � 4 = < 15 that the construction cost would be held to X ` o ° 16 a fixed price and believed this 17 misrepresentation to be the truth. 18 25. The Official Statement was false and misleading 19 in that it made untrue statements of material facts amongst 20 others as follows: 21 a. The Official Statement of June 10, 1981 22 states on page 13 as follows: 23 24 "In addition, the contractor shall 25 post with the trustee a suitable 26 performance completion bond. " 27 28 b. This statement was false and 26. 1 misleading because a "suitable 2 performance completion bond" was 3 not obtained , proved by the fact 4 _ that upon default, the MUIR 5 contruction project was not 6 completed. 7 C. As a consequence , the bondholders 8 were mislead to believe that in 9 the case of default the 10 construction of the project would N o W 11 be completed and their investment U O O Nar .0 12 would be insured . 0 0 < i � o 'z5om 13 d. This was a material ;WZm � � N zc „ Z ,� � 14 misrepresentation which directly Do < < 15 led to the bondholders' damage in � a < o uJo 16 that the construction project was E 17 not completed and the bondholders 18 have lost the value of their 19 investment. 20 e. At the time this misrepresentation 21 was made , it was false , and was 22 known to be false or recklessly 23 disregarded by MUIR, ZOCCHI , 24 GIBRALCO, JAMES D. SNOW, ANTHONY 25 G. CANNATA, CAMPBELL AND CAMPBELL, 26 KADISON PFAELZER, ROBERT C. MARKS 27 and the BANK OF AMERICA 28 ASSOCIATION due to their relative 27. i 1 and responsible positions during 2 the publication of the Official 3 Statement. 4 - f. This misrepresentation was made 5 with the intent that Plaintiffs 6 and the class members should rely 7 upon it by purchasing the bonds. 8 g. Plaintiffs and class members did 9 in fact rely upon the 10 misrepresentation and purchased U) p * 11 the bonds to their damage. Q r n Voa o " 12 o � C a h. In acting upon this No � z a � W '•_ g13 0 8 9 misrepresentation, Plaintiffs and Wi - jury 14 Z2yzvi ; the class members were ignorant of LL N 0 v 0az 'C' 15 the falsity of the statement that X ` o ° 16 a suitable performance bond was E 9 17 posted by the contractor and 18 believed this misrepresentation to 19 be the truth. 20 26. The Official Statement was false and misleading 21 in that it made untrue statements of material facts amongst 22 others as follows : 23 a. The Official Statement of June 10, 1981 24 states on page 14 as follows: 25 26 "The estimates contained in the 27 Need Study (See Appendix B) are 28 based upon the schedule of maximum 28. 1 allowable rents of the rental 2 assistance program administered by 3 H.U.D. under Section 8 of the 4 National Housing Act . 5 . The Federal Register of 6 August 29, 1980 lipts the fair 7 market rents for new construction 8 for a one bedroom as $502. 00 and a 9 two bedroom as $677. 00. " 10 N o Q r 11 b. This statement was false and misleading when U o f N c o < o a 12 made . because in truth and in fact, the U) < aoJ 13 schedule of revenue from rents used in the SIU < m � uN zo3Z „ � 14 Official Statement was incorrect and " WC u jN W 15 overstated and the correct schedule of W V 0 C ► t U ` o 16 revenue from rents would have been � 17 insufficient to meet the publicized debt 18 service . 19 C. As a consequence, the bondholders were 20 mislead to believe that income for debt 21 service on the bonds would be higher than 22 actually possible. 23 d. This was a material misrepresentation which 24 directly led to the bondholders' damage. 25 e. At the time, this misrepresentation was made, 26 it was false , and was known to be false or 27 was recklessly disregarded by MUIR, 2.8 GIBRALCO, JAMES D. SNOW, ANTHONY G. CANNATA, 29. 1 CAMPBELL AND CAMPBELL, KADISON PFAELZER, 2 ROBERT C. MARKS and the BANK OF AMERICA 3 ASSOCIATION, due to their relative and 4 responsible positions during the publication 5 of the Official Statement. 6 f. This misrepresentation was made with the 7 intent that Plaintiffs and the class members 8 should rely upon it by purchasing the bonds. 9 g . Plaintiffs and class members did in fact 10 rely upon the misrepresentation and U) , cn 11 purchased the bonds to their damage. U2 o Nay < 12 h: In acting upon this misrepresentation, 468 ; 02 : 13 Plaintiffs and the class members were 'ZZ � � � N ou = H �, 14 ignorant of the falsity of this statement LL N p V N 4 = N 15 and believed this misrepresentation to be a < „ g 16 X g the truth. 17 ' 27. The Official Statement was false and misleading 18 in that it made untrue statements of material facts amongst 19 others as follows: 20 a. The Official Statement of June 10, 1981 21 states on page 11 the figures that are 22 applicable to the Source and Application of 23 Funds. Under this section, the Official 24 Statement gives the figures for the Issuing 25 Expenses in Detail. The issuing expenses 26 are calculated to be $303, 500.00. 27 b. This representation was false and misleading 28 when made because in truth and in fact, the 30. 1 issuance expenses were greater than those 2 represented and were allocated differently 3 from the application of funds represented in 4 _ the Official Statement. 5 C. As a consequence , the bondholders were 6 mislead to believe that the application of 7 funds and the issuing expenses for the 8 construction project would be disbursed 9 according to the figures- disclosed in the 10 Official Statement and would be limited to U) o W 11 the amount disclosed for each particular IU U 11 g ' N H a a 12 expense. N C 1 e gw'J LUom 13 � „ d. This was a material misrepresentation which Zoyz . ;; 14 directly led to the bondholders' damage in LL N ZW n N 0 V W OIL < 15 that funds were disbursed for purposes and X ` 0 ° 16 in amounts other than those described in the 17 Official Statement. As a result, there were 18 not sufficient funds to cover the cost of 19 the construction project. 20 e. At the time this misrepresentation was made, 21 it was false, and was known to be false or 22 was recklessly disregarded by Defendants, 23 MUIR, GIBRALCO, JAMES D. SNOW, ANTHONY G. 24 CANNATA, CAMPBELL AND CAMPBELL, KADISON 25 PFAELZER, ROBERT C. MARKS and the BANK OF .26 AMERICA ASSOCIATION. 27 f. This misrepresentation was made with the 28 intent that Plaintiffs and the class members ' 31. VERIFICATION S'FA;L OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF I have read the foregoing and know its contents. ® CHECK APPLICABLE PARAGRAPH ❑ 1 am a party to this action. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. ❑ 1 am ❑ an Officer ❑ .a partner r'1 a of a party to this action, and am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf,and I make this verification for that reason. ❑ 1 am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the foregoing document are true. ❑The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. ❑ 1 am one of the attorneys for , a party to this action. Such party is absent from the county of aforesaid where such attorneys have their offices, and I make this verification for and on behalf of that party for that reason. I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the foregoing document are true. Executed on--------- 19_—, at California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Type or Print Name Signature ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF DOCUMENT (other than summons and complaint) Received copy of document described as on 19 . ~ Type or Print Name Signature PROOF OF SERVICE `..TATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the county of LOS ANGE1 RS State of California. I arrl over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 2049 Century Park_East,_ 14th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067 Or— July 11, 19H_ 1 served the foregoing document described as ____ . PUR—SrtaW Tn rnT rXArr rent~ §9 900 — -- onfhe_intPrP.t-ediaT+iAG in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as-follows: CERTIFIED MAIL — CER'T'IFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED No. P 062 911 634 RETURN RECEIPT RE— QUESTED No. P 062 911 63. TITS HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA CLERK, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 3133 Estudillo Street P.O. Box 911 Martinez, California. 94553 Martinez, California 94553 lia (BY MAIL) I caused such envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States mail at Los Angeles , California. (BY MAIL — CERTIFIED — RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED) Executed on— July 11 19$6_, at Loosngeles California. ❑ (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the offices of the addressee. pp Executed on 19 at , California. + (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. Kathryn Tschopi.k — Type or Print Name Sig azure STUART'S EXBROOK TIMESAVER(REVISED 6/83) f Va,ne .se7 Caidomla State or Federal Courts`. 1 should rely upon it and purchase the bonds. 2 g. Plaintiffs and class members did in fact 3 rely upon the misrepresentation and 4 - purchased the bonds to their damage. 5 h. In acting upon this misrepresentation, 6 Plaintiffs and the Class members were 7 ignorant of the falsity of the Source and 8 Application of Funds statement and the 9 Issuing Expenses in Detail statement and 10 believed the misrepresentation to be the N 0 W « 11 truth. aZ � o V0N 012 NQa 28. The Official Statement was false and misleading N 0 < ao > s I . jULL : 13 in that it made untrue statements of material facts amongst W < m N zOUj U ZN -' 14 others as follows: LL � 0 � n DQ < 15 a. The Official Statement of June 10, 1981 X < o 16 states on page 21 as follows: 17 ` 18 "Flow of Funds. . . . The sum of 19 $472, 500 is deposited in the 20 Interest Fund to provide for 21 interest on the Bonds. " 22 23 b. This representation was false and misleading 24 when made because in truth and in fact , 25 although the amount of $472, 500 was placed 26 in the Interest Fund, this amount of money 27 and the interest it earned was not used to 28 provide for interest on the bonds as 32. 1 represented in the Official Statement. In 2 fact, although this fund was used to meet 3 the first debt service payment of 4 - December 1, 1981, it was not used for 5 subsequent interest payments. 6 C. As a consequence, the bondholders were 7 mislead to believe that an Interest Fund 8 would be created for the sole purpose of 9 providing interest on the bonds and thus, 10 the debt service on the bonds would be trf o a11 guaranteed as long as funds were available U0 c 01- 6 12 in the Interest Fund. � 4 > zo 13 mU !� d. This was a material misrepresentation which iWm J N zo - -z � ry ! 14 directly led to the bondholders' damage in 1L N ZO U J � 4 ' W 15 z < that money in the Interest Fund was not used a < � g u g 16 to provide interest on the bonds. 17 e. At the time this misrepresentation was made, 18 it was false , and was known to be false or 19 was recklessly disregarded by Defendants, 20 MUIR, GIBRALCO, JAMES D. SNOW, ANTHONY G. 21 CANNATA, CAMPBELL AND CAMPBELL, KADISON 22 PFAELZER, ROBERT C. MARKS and the BANK OF 23 AMERICA ASSOCIATION. 24 f. This misrepresentation was made with the 25 intent that Plaintiffs and the class members 26 should rely upon it and purchase the bonds. 27 g . Plaintiffs and class members did in fact 28 rely upon the misrepresentation and 33. 1 purchased the bonds to their damage. 2 h. In acting upon this misrepresentation, 3 Plaintiffs and the class members were 4 - ignorant of the falsity of the statement 5 that an Interest Fund would be created for 6 the purpose of providing interest on the 7 bonds and believed the misrepresentation to - 8 be the truth. 9 29. The Official Statement was false and misleading 10 in that it made untrue statements of material facts amongst 'A o L ^ i n 11 others as follows: 12 a. The Official Statement of June 10, 1981 on nay 13 page 21 incorporated the Trust Indenture and a � = ° LLQ C � Zai � 14 Indenture of Mortgage Agreement (hereinafter W � � cd = Z 15 referred to as "Indenture Agreement") into ° 16 the Official- Statement. This Indenture Agreement provided at pages 32-33 as follows: 18 19 (b) Except as provided in 20 paragraph (d) of this Section 21 3. 03, money deposited in the 22 Construction Fund shall be paid 23 out, from time to time by the 24 Trustee to, or upon the order of, 25 the Corporation, in order to pay, 26 or as reimbursement for payment 27 made for the costs of acquiring, 28 constructing , furnishing and 34. 1 equipping the Facility , in each 2 case upon receipt by the Trustee 3 of the Written Request of the 4 - Corporation, certified as herein 5 set forth: 6 (1) Stating that the costs 7 of an aggregate amount stated 8 in such Written Request have 9 been made or incurred and 10 were necessary for the N o n a r 11 construction or acquisition Von o o < o a 12 of the Facility and were M a a < No > sQ � 0 $ -54 13: : incurred in accordance with Wi < u n Zo 14 the plans and specifications li N G u N W 15 then in effect and on file C) H < Q 6 Z ` " ° 16 u g with the Trustee, or were 17 necessary for furnishing or 18 equipping the Facility 19 (Emphasis Added .) 20 21 b. This statement was false and misleading when 22 made because in truth and in fact, the BANK 23 OF AMERICA ASSOCIATION did not intend to 24 disburse money from the Construction Fund 25 only in accordance with the plans and 26 specifications then in effect and the 27 Defendants did not intend to utilize the 28 money from the Construction Fund only in 35. 1 accordance with the plans and specifications 2 then in effect. In truth, money was 3 withdrawn from the Fund for other purposes 4 - besides those provided for in the plans and 5 specifications, and which were not used for 6 furnishing or equipping the Facility. 7 c. ' As a consequence, the bondholders were 8 mislead to believe that funds for the 9 construction project would be disbursed only 10 in accordance with the plans and L n 11 specifications that had been disclosed to c ,' o na0 12 them in the Official Statement. � 8 > > � cgD _ om 13 d. This was a material misrepresentation which U < m a' i P 11 : 9). .J _ ` c " n 14 directly led to the bondholders' damage in L M p V J N rd = 15 that funds were used for purposes other than ; ` o ° 16 those described in the Official Statement. C o 17 As a result, there were not sufficient funds 18 to cover the cost of the construction 19 project. 20 e. At the time this misrepresentation was made , 21 it was false, and was known to be false or 22 was recklessly disregarded by Defendants, . 23 MUIR, GIBRALCO, JAMES D. SNOW, ANTHONY G. 24 CANNATA, CAMPBELL AND CAMPBELL, KADISON 25 PFAELZER, ROBERT C. MARKS and the BANK OF 26 AMERICA ASSOCIATION. 27 f. This misrepresentation was made with the 28 intent that Plaintiffs and the class members 36. 1 should rely upon it and purchase the bonds. 2 g. Plaintiffs and class members did in fact 3 rely upon the misrepresentation and 4 - purchased the bonds to their damage. 5 h. In acting upon this misrepresentation, 6 Plaintiffs and the class members were 7 ignorant of the falsity of the statement 8 that the funds for construction were to be 9 disbursed and utilized according to the 10 described plans and specifications and to o W F 11 believed the misrepresentation to be the uov', c 0 N a a I truth . ao � = om 13 � 4 30. The Official Statement was false and misleading 'Wm ' u « zZ0 Z ,� ,� 14 in that it made untrue statements of material facts amongst �iNou � N 15 others as follows: ° x g 16 a. The Official Statement of June 10, 1981 on 17 page 21 incorporated the Indenture Agreement 18 into the Official Statement. This Indenture 19 Agreement provided at pages 33-34 as follows: 20 21 "The Trustee shall not act on 22 any such Written Request .of the 23 Corporation unless the same shall 24 be accompanied by a standard lien 25 waiver and a certificate of an 26 Independent Architect stating that 27 he has read such Written Request 28 and (insofar as it relates to the 37. 1 acquisition or construction of the 2 Facility) approves the payment to 3 be made pursuant to said Written 4 _ Request as a payment or 5 reimbursement for a portion of the 6 cost of the completion of the 7 acquisition and construction of 8 the Facility; and that, in the 9 opinion of said Independent 10 Architect, funds remaining in the N o a11 Construction Fund will, after ow Uo ' o Naa a 12 payment of the amount requested in N a > > a n og " 5on 13 said Written Request, be 'W < ccZ' zzn, 14 sufficient to pay the cost of W W IL H 0 U N W W 15 � 4Z completing the acquisition and U ` o ° 16 construction of the Facility, all 17 ` in accordance with plans and 18 specifications and building 19 permits approved by the 20 Independent Architect and on file 21 with the Trustee. " 22 23 b. This statement was false and misleading when 24 made because in truth and in fact, the BANK 25 OF AMERICA ASSOCIATION did not intend to 26 closely supervise the withdrawal of funds 27 from the construction project account. In 28 truth, funds had been withdrawn without the 38. 1 Certificate of the architect stating that 2 sufficient funds remained in the 3 construction fund to complete the project. 4 _ C. As a consequence , the bondholders were 5 mislead to believe that the funds in the 6 construction project account with the 7 trustee , BANK OF AN.ERICA ASSOCIATION, would 8 be closely supervised and that the 9 availability of sufficient . funds to cover 10 completion of the project would be N o W a n 11 guaranteed . 0c „ g 12 N ¢ a d. This was a material misrepresentation which 13 oD ) ° 0 directly led to the bondholders' damage in Zi < � uN 14 2VZO; that sufficient funds were not available to W WN LL N o mi aQ < < 15 cover the completion of the project and the a < „ g 16 x g project was eventually declared in default. 17 e . At the time this misrepresentation was made, 18 it was false, and was known to befalse or 19 was recklessly disregarded by Defendant, 20 BANK OF AMERICA ASSOCIATION. 21 f. This misrepresentation was made with the . 22 intent that Plaintiffs and the class members 23 should rely upon it and upon the 24 trustworthiness of the trustee in 25 supervising these funds. 26 g. Plaintiffs and class members did in fact 27 rely upon the misrepresentation and 28 purchased the bonds to their damage. 39. i 1 h. In acting upon this misrepresentation, 2 Plaintiffs and the class members were 3 ignorant of the falsity of the statement 4 - that the BANK OF AMERICA ASSOCIATION did not 5 intend to closely supervise the withdrawal 6 of funds from the construction project 7 account and believed the misrepresentation 8 to be the truth. 9 31. The Official Statement was false and misleading 10 in that it made untrue statements of material facts amongst W 11 others as follows: : ; o < o 06 12 a. The Official Statement of June 10, 1981 on yc < `: a > t- a n Qg ; ` 1oo 13 page 21 incorporated the Indenture Agreement W U,E 96 = N ; 14 into the Official Statement. This Indenture IiN � � ; N o 15 Agreement provided at pages 33-34 as follows: Za : „ a ` " ° 16 ° U o 0 17 The Trustee shall not act on 18 any such Written Request of the 19 Corporation unless the same shall 20 be accompanied by a standard lien 21 waiver and a certificate of an 22 Independent Architect stating that 23 � he has read such Written Request 24 and (insofar as it relates to the 25 acquisition or construction of the 26 Facility) approves the payment to 27 be made pursuant to said Written 28 Request as a payment or 40. 1 reimbursement for a portion of the 2 cost of the completion of the 3 acquisition and construction of 4 _ the Facility; and that , in the 5 opinion of said Independent 6 Architect, funds remaining in the 7 Construction Fund will, after 8 payment of the amount requested in 9 said Written Request, be 10 sufficient to pay the cost of N o Q '- w 11 completing the acquisition and U2 c NQQ 12 construction of the Facility, all 0 � on 13 in accordance with plans and WZ � � ury z o Z 14 specifications and building 0o� � oIt < 15 permits approved by the maZ ° 16 U g Independent Architect and on file 1.7 with the Trustee. " 18 19 b. This statement was false and misleading when 20 made because in truth and in fact, BARRACO & 21 DANILOFF did not intend to approve payment 22 � p only if sufficient funds were left to 23 complete the construction project. In 24 truth, BARRACO & DANILOFF received funds for 25 the project without verifying and attesting 26 that sufficient funds were left to complete 27 the project. 28 c. As a consequence , the bondholders were 41. x mislead to believe that construction under 2 the supervision of the architects would 3 continue only if sufficient funds were left 4 to complete the construction project. 5 d. This was a material misrepresentation which 6 directly led to the, bondholders' damage in 7 that funds were provided for the 8 construction project without verification by 9 the architects that sufficient funds were 10 available to complete the project and N o a11 eventually the project ran out of money. Vow o NQS a 12 e. At the time this misrepresentation was made , N C It 'i -c a W ► to 13 it was false , and was known to be false or Wima zo ,U6 14 was recklessly disregarded by Defendant, Il 0 OU Mg < 15 BARRACO & DANILOFF. Z u ` o ° 16 f. This misrepresentation was made with the 17 intent that Plaintiffs and the class members 18 should rely upon the architects supervision 19 for satisfactory completion of the project. 20 9. Plaintiffs and class members did in fact 21 rely upon the misrepresentation and 22 purchased the bonds to their damage. 23 h. In acting upon this misrepresentation, 24 Plaintiffs and the class members were 25 ignorant of the falsity of the statement 26 that BARRACO & DANILOFF did not intend to 27 supervise the construction project until 28 satisfactory completion and believed this 42. 1 misrepresentation to be true. 2 32. The Official Statement was false and misleading 3 in that it omitted to state material facts necessary to make 4 the statements contained therein not misleading amongst others, 5 as follows: 6 a. The Official Statement of June 10, 1981 7 stated on page 13 as follows: 8 9 "The Contractor and the 10 Construction Contract. Zocchi and m o aF n 11 Company, Inc. (the "Contractor") , U0 , 0 Nay .0 12 . . . has been in the construction U) -C 4 Q0t: om 13 business since 1958. The firm is 4n Wi zcu = aig 14 specializes in single-family IL N p V � n o '" Z 15 g ; < housing , apartment , theatres and M n Z q ° 16 "E") . " o J hotels (see Appendix _ o 17 ' 18 b. This statement was misleading when made 19 because it omitted to state the fact that 20 ZOCCHI or another owned land surrounding 21 this construction site which would benefit 22 from the installation of services and 23 utilities that were required by the Housing 24 Authority and ZOCCHI would construct a 25 project on such land . 26 C. This was a material nondisclosure of fact 27 because the bondholders were misled to 28 believe that there was no conflict of 43. 1 interest between ZOCCHI and the bondholders' 2 interest in building the facility as 3 inexpensively as possible, i .e. , not 4 installing expensive utilities and services 5 that would benefit the surrounding areas. 6 In fact, ZOCCHI would obtain significant 7 advantages from construction of the project 8 on that site and from the installation of 9 utilities and services on the land . 10 d. This nondisclosure directly led to the ►W- " a F 11 bondholders' damage because due to the U2 o o < o a 12 chosen site and the land surrounding this i ag J, 0om 13 site and projected for future development, z ` - .D " 14 ouzo; ; the construction project was required to U. W W V) Q U J a < Z 15 install utilities and sewage facilities not X ` o 16 previously anticipated in the budget for 17 construction. Because this involved a 18 significant expense, it contributed to the 19 construction project overrunning its 20 budget. This resulted in the default of 21 MUIR. 22 e. At the time of the omission of this material 23 fact , it was known, or was recklessly 24 disregarded by MUIR, GIBRALCO, JAMES D. 25 SNOW, ZOCCHI , ANTHONY G. CANNATA, CAMPBELL 26 AND CAMPBELL, KADISON PFAELZER, ROBERT C. 27 MARKS and the BANK OF AMERICA ASSOCATION 28 because of their respective and responsible 44. 1 positions with regard to the publication of 2 the Official Statement that it was 3 misleading not to disclose to the 4 _ bondholders the existence of this conflict 5 of interest. It is. all the more noticeable, 6 because other conflicts of interest were 7 noted in the Official Statement. 8 f.. In acting upon this nondisclosure, 9 Plaintiffs and the class members were 10 ignorant of the omission of the fact that a� o IU N a F 11 ZOCCHI had a conflict of interest with Vo „ c o < o a 12 regard to the construction project. U) `- 'c to 13 osz � 4n 33. The Official Statement was false and misleading W Z u N Z 0 ligi , 14 in that it omitted to state material facts necessary to make W &L g O W V W N IL 15 the statements contained therein not misleading amongst others, W V 0 C ► < ' Z y a < H g 16 g as follows: 17 a. The Official Statement of June 10, 1981 18 stated on page 13 as follows: 19 20 "The Contractor and the 21 Construction Contract. Zocchi and 22 Company, Inc. (the "Contractor") , 23 has been in the construction 24 business since 1958. The firm 25 specializes in single-family 26 housing, apartment , theatres and 27 hotels (see Appendix "E") . " 28 45. I b. This statement was misleading when made 2 because it omitted to state the fact that 3 although ZOCCHI had been granted the 4 construction contract, this contract was not 5 given as a result of independent bidding . 6 C. This was a material nondisclosure of fact 7 because the bondholders were led to believe - 8 that the amount stated in the Official 9 Statement for construction was the lowest 10 figure required for the completion of the 0 a11 project. � 2 12 Nva d. This nondisclosure directly led to the a01 o ; ' os 13 bondholders' damage because it could have � z Z g 14 o � Z � � been possible to obtain a lower bid for IL 0 C u N a0 i 15 construction of the project and thus avoid r a .x ` o ° 16 default of the project. 17 e. At the time of the omission of this material 18 fact, it was known, or was recklessly 19 disregarded by Defendants , MUIR, GIBRALCO, 20 JAMES D. SNOW, ZOCCHI , ANTHONY G. CANNATA, 21 CAMPBELL AND CAMPBELL, KADISON PFAELZER, 22 ROBERT C. MARKS and the BANK OF AMERICA 23 ASSOCIATION because of their respective and 24 responsible positions with regard to the 25 publication of the Official Statement that 26 it was misleading not to disclose to the 27 bondholders the fact that the construction 28 contract was not the result of independent 46. 1 bidding . 2 f. In acting upon this nondisclosure, 3 Plaintiffs and the class members were 4 _ ignorant of the omission of the fact that 5 ZOCCHI had obtained the construction 6 contract without independent bidding. 7 34. The Plaintiffs and Class Members have been 8 damaged in an amount as yet unknown to Plaintiffs. The damage 9 amount should include the damage suffered by Plaintiffs and 10 class members due to the noncompletion of the construction N o n an 11 project , the consequent lost value of the bonds and the absence U0 °o opNo a 12 of interest or lower interest amount to be paid to the 13 aoJ ` om � .. bondholders. Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that 'Z = mtury 14 0 Zvi the damage amount is approximately Sixteen Million Dollars W U. N W O V W N o < = 15 ($16, 000,000- 00) . 0 S . < Q < 1 0 = S 16 35. Plaintiffs and class members also request their _u 17 costs and disbursements of this action , including the 18 reasonable fees of Plaintiffs' experts and attorneys. 19 Attorneys fees may be awarded in this case under the "common 20 fund" doctrine. 21 22 V. 23 SECOND CLAIM: 24 COMMON LAW ACTION FOR FRAUD AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 25 26 36. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every 27 allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 35 herein. 28 37. Plaintiffs and the members of the class entered 47. 1 into a contract to purchase bonds from MUIR. The bonds were 2 issued to finance the construction of a housing facility for 3 the elderly. It was agreed between the parties that repayment 4 of the bonds would occur over a period of years at a certain 5 rate of interest and would be drawn from the money received 6 from rental of the units. 7 38. As alleged in the First Claim, supra, Defendants 8 knowingly or recklessly misrepresented and omitted to disclose 9 material facts to Plaintiffs and class members in the course of 10 the agreement. In addition, by misappropriation of funds , O W W 11 reckless disregard of the terms of the Indenture Agreement U 2 °o D - o $ 12 covering disbursement of funds , conflict of interest and = Q < Q 00, -,156 : 7 nn W ► Q � Wm 13 general bad faith, Defendants' acts were fitted to deceive WiWz"- � zI - ' N 14 plaintiffs and class members. - o � i Q . 15 39. As a direct result of Defendants' fraud and c Q ` " J 16 o deception, Plaintiffs suffered damage . The Plaintiffs and 17 ` Class Members have been damaged in an amount as yet unknown to 18 Plaintiffs. The damage amount should include the damage 19 suffered by Plaintiffs and Class Members due to the 20 noncompletion of the construction project , the consequent lost 21 value of the bonds and the absence of interest or lower 22 interest amount to be paid to the bondholders. Plaintiffs 23 allege on information and belief that the damage amount is 24 approximately $16,000,000 . 25 40. In doing the things herein alleged, Defendants 26 acted willfully, oppressively, maliciously and with the motive, 27 purpose and specific intent to injure and oppress Plaintiffs 28 and the class members and , further , was guilty of wanton 48. 1 disregard of the rights of Plaintiffs and class members. 2 Therefore, Plaintiffs and class members are entitled to 3 exemplary and punitive damages against Defendants. 4 - 41. Plaintiffs and class members also request their 5 costs and disbursements in this action , including the 6 reasonable fees. of Plaintiffs' experts and attorneys. 7 Attorneys fees may be awarded in this case under the "common 8 fund" doctrine. 9 10 VI . of o W M W THIRD CLAIM: � 11 Nay So 12 VIOLATION OF THE RACKETEER o ^ 13 INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS J J mai � Z o Y i 0 14 ACT, 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (a) AND (d) AGAINST DEFENDANTS IL M p ; « 15 MUIR, GIBRALCO, JAMES D. SNOW, ANTHONY G. CANNATA, ads " U ` 0 ° 16 ZOCCHI -AND BANK OF AMERICA ASSOCIATION 17 18 19 42. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every 20 allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 41. 21 43. Defendants conspired to receive income from a 22 pattern of racketeering activity, which income was used and 23 invested, directly and indirectly, in the establishment of an 24 enterprise affecting interstate commerce. 25 44. Defendants' racketeering activity constituted 26 fraud in the sale of securities in interstate commerce. 27 45. By the organization of a fraudulent securities 28 scheme , the publication of misleading Official Statement and 49. I 1 other documents, and the use of the mails to complete this 2 scheme, Defendants engaged in separate acts of racketeering 3 which constituted a pattern of racketeering in violation of 4 this Act. 5 46. Defendants acted knowingly or recklessly in the 6 commission of these fraudulent acts. ' 7 47. As a direct result of Defendants' racketeering 8 activity, the Plaintiffs and class members have been damaged in 9 an amount as yet unknown to Plaintiff. The damage amount 10 should include the damage suffered by Plaintiffs and class W n a11 nembers due to the noncompletion of the construction project, _ L o o < o 12 the consequent lost value of the bonds and the absence of mo : `-z 0o; � ° n 13 interest or lower interest amount to be paid to the W < m ;i n Z0 Z �Ft 14 bondholders. Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that LL M0 u N a < 15 the damage amount is approximately Sixteen Million Dollars ¢ LZ , a < � ° 16 X S ($16,000, 000. 00) . 17 ' 48. Plaintiffs and class members request treble 18 damages. and attorneys' fees as provided by the Racketeer 19 Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Plaintiffs and class 20 members also request their costs and disbursements of this 21 action, including the reasonable fees of Plaintiffs' experts. 22 23 PRAYER 24 25 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the 26 Defendants, and each of them, as follows: 27 28 50. i . 1 AS TO THE FIRST CLAIM 2 3 1) Determining that this action is a proper class 4 action maintainable pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of 5 Civil Procedure; 6 2) Awarding Plaintiffs and each other member of the 7 class herein defined their damages for the wrongs complained of 8 herein, together with appropriate interest, in a sum of at 9 least Sixteen Million Dollars ($16, 000, 000. 00) or an amount 10 proven at trial; N n a11 3) Awarding Plaintiffs and each other member of the : ; o o < o $ 12 class herein defined their costs and disbursements of this U) aa Ng > > Z ao; LU Uon 13 action, including the reasonable fees of Plaintiffs' attorneys ZZ ' ' . " 14 0 Zvi ;, and experts; and W W lL O U W N o < z a15 4) Awarding Plaintiffs and each other member of the a a0. Co = S 16 class such other and further relief as may be just and proper 17 under the circumstances. ' 18 19 AS TO THE SECOND CLAIM 20 21 1) Determining that this action is a proper class 22 action maintainable pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of 23 Civil Procedure; 24 2) Awarding Plaintiffs and each other member of the 25 class herein defined their damages for the wrongs complained of 26 herein, together with appropriate interest, in a sum of at 27 least Sixteen Million Dollars ($16,000, 000. 00) or an amount 28 proven at trial; 51. f . 1 3) Awarding Plaintiffs and each other member of the 2 class herein defined their costs and disbursements of this 3 action, including the reasonable fees of Plaintiffs' attorneys 4 and experts; 5 4) Awarding Plaintiffs and each other member of the 6 class such other and further relief as- may be just and proper 7 under the circumstances; and 8 5) Awarding Plaintiffs and each other member of the 9 class exemplary damages in an amount to be ascertained at trial. 10 � o Q W n 11 AS TO THE THIRD CLAIM Uo ' c " 0 ;: a ¢ .0 12 om 13 � 1) Determining that this action is a proper class W un zo = ,� � 14 action maintainable pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of W � W 15 � 0Civil Procedure; Z. X `o ° 16 2) Awarding Plaintiffs and each other member of the 17 class herein defined their damages for the wrongs complained of 18 herein, together with appropriate interest, in a sum of at 19 least Sixteen Million Dollars ($16,000, 000. 00) trebled, or in 20 an amount of Forty-Eight Million Dollars ($48, 000, 000. 00) ; 21 3) Awarding Plaintiffs and each other member of the 22 class herein defined their costs and disbursements of this 23 action, including the reasonable fees of Plaintiffs' attorneys 24 and experts, as provided by statute; and 25 26 27 28 52 . 1 4) Awarding Plaintiffs and each other member of the 2 class such other and further relief as may be just and proper 3 under the circumstances . 4 5 Respectfully submitted, 6 LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD I . FINE 7 & ASSOCIATES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION RICHARD I . FINE, ESQ. 8 LAURA K. STAHNKE, ESQ. JAY STATMAN, ESQ. 9 BLECHER, COLLINS & WEINSTEIN 10 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION M 11 HAROLD R. COLLINS, JR. , ESQ. _Q ►_ N U20 " ° 12 J < o � Uo0 13 Dated: March 31 1986 B W Zoma LAURA K. STAHNKE � � u N zo � Z 14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs IL W f" DWN N u W W � ° 2 . < 15 c i ` 19 ;° 16 _V C 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1600B 53. t` 1 VII. 2 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 3 4 _ Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so 5 triable. 6 7 Respectfully submitted, 8 LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD I . FINE & ASSOCIATES 9 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION RICHARD I . FINE, ESQ. 10 LAURA K. STAHNKE, ESQ. W 0 JAY STATMAN, ESQ. * 11 vd z a 12 BLECHER, COLLINS & WEINSTEIN 0 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Q0 � : o � 13 HAROLD R. COLLINS, JR. , ESQ. U ° 'Zii � '�' � 14 _ Ouivi ,� W W LL N p u ` 15 Dated: March 31, 1986 By: � d < " LAURA K. S AHNKE x ` o ° 16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1600B 54. F , I PROOF OF SERVICE . 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within 4 action;- my business address is: 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, 5 Suite 250, Los Angeles , California 90067. On March 31 , 1986, I served the foregoing document 6 described as CONSOLIDATED FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 10 (b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934; 7 FRAUD AND DECEIT; VIOLATION OF RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT; AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL on all interested 8 parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a 9 sealed envelope addressed as follows: 10 SEE ATTACHED LIST m o W 11 F- ~ L r 0 , a 12 fX7 (BY MAIL) I caused such envelope with postage thereon fully ca ; . € ,, prepaid to be placed in the United States mail at Los Angeles , 0 -, 00 13 California. uo . 7n 'ZiiuN 14 Q � 2 ui 'n LL m o W ! W n 15 o < z _ ` ; ° 16 (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope to be delivered o by hand to the offices of the addressee . 17 18 (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the 19 laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. 20 21 ZV (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a 22 member of the bar of this court. at whose direction the service was made. 23 24 Executed on March 31 , 1986, at Los Angeles , California. 25 26 KAREN SHAPPEE 27 Type or Print Name Sic ure 28 55. r' Ii i I SERVICE LIST 2 Thomas M. McCoy, Esq. Richard Buckner , Esq. 3 O'Melveny & Meyers 400 South Hope Street 4 Los Angeles , California 90017 5 (Counsel for Defendant Bank of America) 6 Richard Glucksman, Esq. 7 Wendy Housman, Esq. Victor George , Esq. Chapman & Glucksman 8 1244 Sixth Street 9 Santa Monica, California 90401 James Wulfsberg , Esq. 10 Lempres & Wulfsberg N ° 300 Lakeside Drive , 18th Floor a F 11 Oakland , California 94612 Vo ' o o < o a 12 (Counsel for Defendant Barraco & Daniloff) N ¢ a i m � z " o � 13 Bruce A. Armstrong , Esq. W < m ; 4N 14 Rodney Tomlinson, Esq. zo2Z„ n Haight, Dickson, Brown & Bonesteel " Mot -, = 201 Santa Monica Boulevard c0 15 P.O. Box 680 < < z c Santa Monica, California 90406 _ ° 16 ° 17 (Counsel for Defendant Zdcchi & Company, Inc.) 18 Gregory Houle' , Esq. Clark & Trevithick 19 800 Wilshire Boulevard, 13th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017 20 (Counsel for Defendant Gibralco, Inc. ) 21 Craig Starr , Esq. 22 Bledsoe, Cathcart, Boyd , Eliot & Curfman 650 California Street, Suite 2828 23 San Francisco, California 94108 24 (Counsel for Defendant Anthony G. Cannata) 25 26 27 28 56. f APPLICATION TO FILE LATE CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA BOARD ACTION Application to File Late Claim ) NOTICE TO APPLICANT September 9 , 1986 Against the County, Routing ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your Endorsements, and Board Action.) notice of the action taken on your application by (All Section References are to ) the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph III, below), California Government Code.) ) given pursuant to Government Code Sections 911.8 and 915.4. Please note the "WARNING" below. Claimant: STEVEN PETERSON County Ccur#56 c/o Barbara A. Zuras AUG 1 4 1986 Attorney: I1oberg, Finger, Brown, Cox & Molligan 703 Market Street , 18th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Address: San Francisco, CA 94103 Amount: Unspecified By delivery to Clerk on August 8 , 1936 Date Received: August 8 , 1986 By mail, postmarked on no date on envelope I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors T0: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above noted Application to Fi a Late Claim. DATED: August 11, 198(PHIL.BATCHELOR, Clerk, By ,C—� Deputy L. Hall . II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( ) The Board should grant this Application to File Late Claim (Section 911.6). (Y,) The Board should deny this Application to File Late Claim (Sect'on 911.6). DATED: , EVICTOR WESTMAN, County Counsel, By! Lc,-- -��- -� puty III. BOARD ORDER By unanimous vote of Supervisors present (Check one only) ( ) This Application is granted (Section 911.6). (k) This Application to File Late Claim is denied (Section 911.6). I certify that this is a true and correct .copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. DATE: SEP 0 9 1986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy WARNING (Gov. Code 5911.8) If you wish to file a court action on this matter, you must first petition the appropriate court for an order relieving you from the provisions of Government Code Section 945.4 (claims presentation requirement). See Government Code Section 946.6. Such petition must.be filed with the court within six (6) months from the date your application for leave to present a late claim was denied. You may seek the advise of any attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, u should do so immediately. IV. FROM: Clerk of the Board T0: 1 County Counsel 2 County Administrator Attached are copies of the above Application. We notifed the applicant of the Board's action on this Application by mailing a copy of this document, and a memo thereof has ben filed and endorsed on the Board's copy of this Claim in accordance with Section 29703. DATED: SEP 0 919x6 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By - Deputy V. FROM: 1 County Counsel 2 County Administrator T0: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Received copies of this Application and Board Order. DATED: County Counsel, By County Administrator, By APPLICATION TO FILE LATE CLAIM a HOBEI3G, FINGER, B80WN, COX & MOLLIGAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION CENTRAL TOWER 703 MARKET STREET INGEMAR E. HOBERG (1903-1971) SAN FRANCISCO 94103 JOHN H. FINGER LAW OFFICES PHILLIP E. BROWN PETER N. MOLLIGAN - (415) S43•9464 EAST BAY:ENTERPRISE 10095 STEPHEN T. COX CABLE ADDRESS"INGMAR" RICHARD C. RAINES JAMES GEAGAN August 6, 1986 DAVID W. MOYER ROB ROY MACKEY BARBARA A.ZURAS SARA B. EVANS CHRISTINE M. SCHENONE Clerk Board of Supervisors County of Contra Costa P. . O. Box 911 Martinez , CA 94553 Re: Claim of Steven Peterson Dear Clerk: Enclosed is the application of Mr. Peterson to present his medical malpractice claim against the County (Merrithew . Memorial Hospital) pursuant to the late discovery rule. Also enclosed are the appropriate supporting declarations and points and authorities . Please file these documents and return our endorsed-filed copies in the enclosed envelope. If you have any questions or problems , let me know. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, g. A" BARBARA A. ZURAS BAZ :ad Enclosures 1 HOBERG, FINGER, BROWN, COX & MOLLIGAN STEPHEN T. COX 2 BARBARA A. ZURAS 703 Market Street, 18th Floor 3 San Francisco, California 94103 Telephone: .(415) 543-9464 'AUG f� 4 - cc 5 Attorneys for Petitioner ail �qWo��s fjo,y 6 Rs p -? s 7 g THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 10 11 In The Matter of the NO. Proposed Claim of: 12 APPLICATION TO STEVEN J. PETERSON PRESENT CLAIM PURSUANT 13 TO THE LATE DISCOVERY Against RULE -- MEDICAL 14 MALPRACTICE CLAIM COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA (Government Code §911 .4 ; 15 (MERRITHEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL) Civil Proc. Code §340 .5) / Accompanying Papers : 16 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ; DECLARATION 17 OF STEVEN J. PETERSON; DECLARATION OF 18 STEPHEN T. COX 19 20 1 . Application is hereby made for leave to present a claim 21 pursuant to the "late discovery rule" as recognized in Code of 22 Civil Procedure §340.5 . This claim is founded on a cause of 23 action for medical malpractice against the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 24 brought by petitioner, STEVEN J. PETERSON. Said petitioner 25 discovered on May 20 , 1986 that he had suffered injury on 26 February 8 , 1986 by reason of medical malpractice committed by 27 MERRITHEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL. (See Declaration of STEVEN J. 28 PETERSON, filed herewith. ) Said petitioner presented a claim OBERG. FINGER. BROWN, COX @ MOLLIGAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 703 MARKET STREET SANFRANCISCO.94103 14151 543-9464 I against the COUNTY .OF CONTRA COSTA on June 20, 1986, well within 2 100 days of his discovery of the malpractice . (See Exhibit A, 3 petitioner' s Claim. ) Petitioner' s claim was rejected by the 4 COUNTY- on the purported grounds that it was "late." (See 5 Exhibit B, Notice to Claimant . ) On June 27 , 1986, petitioner 6 submitted an amended claim in which ,he emphasized the late 7 discovery of his injuries . (See Exhibit C, petitioner' s Amended g Claim. ) That claim was also rejected as late. (See Exhibit D, 9 second Notice to Claimant. ) For additional circumstances 10 relating to the cause of action, reference is made to 11 petitioner' s proposed Claim attached hereto and incorporated as 12 part of this Application as Exhibit E. 13 2 . This Application is being presented within a reasonable 14 time after accrual of the cause of action, as shown by the 15 Declaration of Stephen T. Cox 16 WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this 17 Application to Present Claim Pursuant to the Late Discovery Rule 18 be granted and that the attached proposed Claim be received and 19 acted upon. 20 DATED: August 6 , 1986 21' HOBERG, FINGER, BROWN, COX & MOLLIGAN 22 23 BY 24 0—BARBARA A ZURAS Attortil/_ s for Petitioner 25 26 27 28 OBERG, FINGER, BROWN, COX 8 MOLLIGAN 2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 703 MARKET STREET SANFRANCISCO,94103 1 4151 943-9464 1 . HOBERG, FINGER, BROWN, COX & MOLLIGAN STEPHEN T. COX 2 BARBARA A. ZURAS 703 Market Street, 18th Floor � �� ,, 3 San Francisco, California 94103 D Telephone : (415) 543-9464 4 1 ,u feQ 5 Attorneys for Petitioner o LA CS AOR 9 .. .. .... 5 6 0 7 8 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 10 11 In The Matter of the NO. . Proposed Claim of: 12 DECLARATION OF STEVEN J. PETERSON STEPHEN T. COX IN SUPPORT 13 OF APPLICATION TO PRESENT Against CLAIM PURSUANT TO THE 14 LATE DISCOVERY RULE-- COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM 15 (MERRITHEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL) (Government Code §911 . 4 ; / Civil Proc . Code §340 .5) 16 Accompanying Papers : APPLICATION; DECLARATION 17 OF STEVEN J. PETERSON; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS 18 AND AUTHORITIES 19 20 Stephen T. Cox declares : 21 1 . I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of 22 California. I am a partner in the law firm of Hoberg, Finger, 23 Brown, Cox & Molligan, attorneys for petitioner in this 24 Application to Present Claim Pursuant to the Late Discovery Rule. 25 I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below and could 26 competently testify as to those facts . 27 2 . On June 18 , 1986, petitioner STEVEN J. PETERSON retained 28 the law firm of Hoberg, Finger, Brown, Cox & Molligan to OBERG, FINGER. BROWN. COX&MOLLIGAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION . 703 MARKET STREET SANFRANCISCO,94103 1 4151 543-9464 I represent him in a claim against MERRITHEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL for 2 medical malpractice. On June 20 , 1986, I filed a Claim with the 3 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA (Exhibit A) . On June 27, 1986, I filed an 4 Amended Claim that emphasized the late discovery of petitioner's 5 injuries (Exhibit C) . Both of those Claims were rejected by the 6 COUNTY as "late" despite the fact that I brought to the COUNTY' s 7 attention that the injuries had not been discovered until May 20 , 8 1986 . 9 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the 10 State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and 11 that this declaration was executed on 1986, in 12 San Francisco, California. 13 14 STEPHEN T. COX 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OBERG, FINGER, BROWN, - COX&MOLLIGAN 2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 703 MARKET STREET SAN FRANC ISCO,94103 14151 543-9464 1 STEPHEN T. COX BARBARA A. ZURAS ,.,, 2 HOBERG, FINGER, BROWN, COX & MOLLIGAN CLi-t 703 Market Street, 18th Floor -„,,;; 3 San Francisco, California 94103 Telephone: -(415) 543-9464 4 ACS� t El0 5 Attorneys for Petitioner 6 7 8 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 10 11 In The Matter of the NO. Proposed Claim of: 12 DECLARATION OF STEVEN J. STEVEN J . PETERSON PETERSON IN SUPPORT 13 OF APPLICATION TO PRESENT Against CLAIM PURSUANT TO THE 14 LATE DISCOVERY RULE-- COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM 15 (MERRITHEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL) (Government Code §911 .4 ; Civil Proc. Code §340 .5) 16 Accompanying Papers : APPLICATION; DECLARATION 17 OF STEPHEN T. COX; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS 18 AND AUTHORITIES 19 20 I, STEVEN J. PETERSON, declare: 21 I am the petitioner in this Application to Present Claim 22 Pursuant to the Late Discovery Rule. I have personal knowledge 23 of the facts set forth below and could and would competently 24 testify as to those facts . 25 1 . I was injured in an automobile accident on February 8 , 26 1986 . I was "treated” for my injuries at MERRITHEW MEMORIAL 27 HOSPITAL on February 8 , 1986 . However, on May 20 , 1986 , I was 28 forced to return to MERRITHEW because I was suffering from IOBERG, FINGER. BROWN. COX&MOLLIGAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 703 MARKET STREET SANFRANCISCO,94103 1 4151 543-9464 1 persistent pain. On that day, May 20 , 1986, I learned from the 2 staff at MERRITHEW that the staff at MERRITHEW had earlier failed 3 to properly diagnose the injuries I sustained in the automobile 4 accident and that I had suffered further injury as a result. 5 2 . On June 18 , 1986 , I consulted with attorney Stephen T. 6 Cox of Hoberg, Finger, Brown, Cox & -Molligan regarding legal 7 representation for a medical malpractice lawsuit. 8 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of. the 9 State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and 10 that this Declaration was executed on August 5 1986 , in 11 Benicia, California. 12 13 SL STEVEN J. PE SON 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IOBERG, FINGER. BROWN, COX 8 MOLLIGAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 703 MARKET STREET SAN FRANCISCO,94tO3 1415 1 151 543-9464 1 HOBERG, FINGER, BROWN, COX & MOLLIGAN STEPHEN T. COX 2 BARBARA A. ZURAS 703 Market Street, 18th Floor ;-��; 3 San Francisco, California 94103 RL%.1Ei VEE . Telephone: (415) 543-9464 4 - I ''U x'198, 5 Attorneys for Petitioner C e It 9 Tcs toe A 6 &put 7 g THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 9 FOR THE -COUNTY OF CONTRA .COSTA 10 11 In The Matter of the NO. Proposed Claim of: 12 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND STEVEN J. PETERSON AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 13 OF APPLICATION TO PRESENT Against CLAIM PURSUANT TO THE 14 LATE DISCOVERY RULE-- COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM 15 (MERRITHEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL) (Government Code §911 .4 ; / Civil Proc . Code §340 .5) 16 Accompanying Papers : APPLICATION; DECLARATION 17 OF STEVEN J. PETERSON; DECLARATION OF 18 STEPHEN T. COX 19 20 I 21 INTRODUCTION 22 The proposed Claim (Exhibit E) on behalf of petitioner 23 STEVEN J. PETERSON is based upon a cause of action for medical 24 malpractice on the part of MERRITHEW MEMORIAL . HOSPITAL 25 (hereinafter "MERRITHEW") , a public entity of the COUNTY OF 26 CONTRA COSTA (hereinafter "the COUNTY") . The petitioner was 27 injured in an automobile accident on February 8 , 1986 . He was 28 "treated" for his injuries at MERRITHEW on February 8 , 1986 . )BERG, FINGER, BROWN, COX 9 MOLLIGAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 703 MARKET STREET SAN FRANCISCO.94103 14151 543-9464 1 However, on May 20 , 1986 petitioner had to return to MERRITHEW 2 due to persistent pain. On that day, Petitioner learned that the 3 staff at MERRITHEW had failed to properly diagnose petitioner' s 4 injuries on February 8 , 1986 . The first time petitioner 5 discovered that he had been injured by reason of medical 6 malpractice committed by MERRITHEW was on May 20 , 1986. 7 Following his discovery, on June 20 , 1986 , petitioner filed with g the COUNTY a Claim for damages (Exhibit A) . However, the COUNTY 9 claimed that the Claim was late and the COUNTY rejected 10 petitioner' s Claim. (See Exhibit B, Notice to Claimant . ) In 11 order to clarify that the petitioner had not discovered his 12 injuries until May 20 , 1986 , and that , therefore, the 100-day 13 statutory deadline had not expired, petitioner submitted an 14 Amended Claim (Exhibit C) emphasizing his late discovery. 15 However , the COUNTY again rejected petitioner' s Claim. (See 16 Exhibit D, second Notice to Claimant. ) 17 Since petitioner only discovered the cause of his injuries 18 on May 20 , 1986 , the 100-day period of time had not run when 19 plaintiff first presented his Claim to the COUNTY on June 20, 20 1986 . Therefore, plaintiff should be permitted to file his Claim 21 so that this Board of Supervisors can evaluate his claim on its 22 merits . 23 II 24 THE "LATE DISCOVERY" DOCTRINE PERMITS A CLAIMANT TO FILE A CLAIM 25 WITHIN 100 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DISCOVERY OF INJURY 26 27 As stated before, petitioner submitted his Claim to the 28 COUNTY within 100 days from the date that he discovered that he 10BERG, FINGER, BROWN. COX&MOLLIGAN 2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 703 MARKET STREET SAN FRANCISCO,94103 1 4151 543-9464 1 had been injured by the negligent medical care of MERRITHEW. 2 Under the "late discovery" doctrine, a cause of action for 3 medical malpractice is not deemed to have accrued until the 4 claimant discovers and/or has notice of the fact that he has been 5 the victim of medical malpractice. Whitfield v. Roth (1974) 10 6 Cal.3d 874 ; Thompson v. Fresno (1963) . 59 Cal. 2d 686 ; Osborne v. 7 Los Angeles (1979) 91 Cal. 3d 366 . Further, Section 340.5 of the 8 Code of Civil Procedure codifies the "late discovery" rule in q medical malpractice cases and requires that this Board receive 10 petitioner' s claim. 11 Since the law recognizes that petitioner ' s claim did not 12 accrue until such time as he discovered the cause of his injuries 13 (May 20 , 1986) , petitioner' s claim is not late and, therefore, 14 permission should be granted for the filing of the proposed Claim 15 (Exhibit E) . For the reasons set forth in this Application, 16 Memorandum of Points and Authorities , Declarations and exhibits , 17 petitioner respectfully requests that his proposed Claim be 18 accepted by this Board and evaluated on its merits . 19 DATED: August 6 , 1986 20 HOBERG, FINGER, BROWN, COX & MOLLIGAN 21 22 BY 23 BARBAM A. ZURAS Attor e s for Petitioner 24 25 26 27 28 IOBERG, FINGER, BROWN, COX&MOLLIGAN 3 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 703 MARKET STREET SAN FRANCISCO,94103 f4fSI 543-9464 IVB D 196 a �e 6 • c. CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA q AND MERRITHEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL STEVEN J. PETERSON presents a claim for damages against the County of Contra Costa and Merrithew Memorial Hospital . ADDRESS OF CLAIMANT: Steven J. Peterson 11 Hillcrest Benicia, CA 94510 ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICES ARE TO BE SENT: HOBERG, FINGER, BROWN, COX & MOLLIGAN Stephen T. Cox, Esq. 703 Market Street , 18th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 DATE, PLACE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF OCCURRENCE : On February 9 , 1986, Claimant was transported to Merrithew Memorial Hospital because of injuries he suffered in an automobile accident. Claimant sustained a fractured neck in the accident . However, on February 9 , 1986 , and on a subsequent follow-up visit to Merrithew Memorial Hospital, medical personnel failed to properly examine, x-ray, care for, diagnose and treat Claimant . For three months thereafter Claimant suffered severe pain and discomfort as a result of the above described negligence . On May 20 , 1986, Claimant returned to Merrithew Memorial Hospital and was hospitalized from May 20 , 1986 to June 3 , 1986 in order to treat the fractured neck that was negligently misdiagnosed at Claimant ' s initial two visits to Merrithew Memorial Hospital. Claimant is currently wearing a halo brace and must wear the brace for 6-8 weeks . Claimant will then be required to wear a hard collar brace for an additional 6 months . E�HIBiT Page Two Claim Against the County of Contra Costa and Merrithew Memorial Hospital Claimant : Steven J. Peterson AMOUNT OF CLAIM: $1 ,000,000 .00 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF INJURIES AND BASIS OF COMPUTATION OF DAMAGES : Claimant seeks to obtain compensation from the County of Contra Costa and Merrithew Memorial Hospital for expenses incurred as a result of their negligent care and treatment , negligent misdiagnosis and neglect of Claimant . DATED: June 19 , 1986 HOBERG, FINGER, BROWN, COX & MOLLIGAN BY STEPHEN X Attoryteys for Claimant PW�-tc!­, The Board of Supervisors C;Orltfd CWk of to bard County Administration Building CS nail Aen1rl+.0 W — P.O. box gt t C0^Maninez, California 94553 Tom►..en.1111 o.rIc1 .CORRECTED COPY I $on"c F11h*M 1we DIWIC1 PLEASE DESTROY PREVIOUS ISSUE wwm rin"1 me11r11a.n1+Du1rm Tom Ta.NL"R.61w zMtric1 70: Mr. Steven J. Peterson c/o Hoherg, Finger, Brown, Cox and Molligan STEPHEN T. COX, ESO. 703 Market Street, 18th Floor San!Yrancisco, CA 94103 tiAR'MCE 70 CU►II6<+M Late-VilW7UaN) (Goverrmmt We Section 911.3) (x) The claim you presented to the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, California, as governing body of the xx Cmmty of Contra Oasta and/or District, cn JUNE 20, 1986 is being returned to you herewith because—Tt vas n`ot presented within 100 days after the went or occurrence as required by law. (See Sections 901 and 911.2 of the Government Code.) Because the claim was not presented within the time allowed by law, n action was taken on the claim. Your only reomwee at this time is to apply without delay to the Board of Supervisors (in its capacity noted above) for leave to present a late claim. (See Sections 911.6 to 912.2, Inclusive, and Section 966.6 of the Government Code.) ender name cirm=tanoes, leave to present a late claim will be granted. (See Section 911.6 of the Government Code.) You may seek the advice of an attorney of yam choice in connection with this matter. If you desire to consult an attor- ney, you should do so immediately. To W rmm IN BY Mm CLM Cr TM BOAM C LY IF APPLICNEZ: ( ) Bine a portion of your claim is not unt:Lmly, we are retaining a copy of your Claim for Board action on that portion of You claim which is nvt untimely. Phi Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By: / Deputy Clerk Date: July 1 , .1986 EXHIBIT AMENDED CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA AND MERRITHEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL STEVEN J . PETERSON presents this amended claim for damages against ' the County of Contra Costa and Merrithew Memorial Hospital. ADDRESS OF CLAIMANT: Steven J. Peterson 11 Hillcrest Benicia, CA 94510 ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICES ARE TO BE SENT: ccE ���g85 HOBERG, FINGER, BROWN, COX & MOLLIGAN Stephen T. Cox, Esq. 703 Market Street , 18th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 DATE, PLACE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF OCCURRENCE: On February 9 , 1986 , Claimant was transported to Merrithew Memorial Hospital because of injuries he suffered in an automobile accident. Claimant sustained a fractured neck in the accident . However, on February 9 , 1986, and on a subsequent follow-up visit to Merrithew Memorial Hospital, medical personnel failed to properly examine, x-ray, care for, diagnose and treat Claimant . Claimant did not discover that Merrithew Memorial Hospital me ica ersonne a committedmedical malpractice untilMay or t ree months thereafter C aimant suffered severe pain and discomfort as a result of the above described negligence. On May 20 , 1986, Claimant returned to Merrithew Memorial Hospital and was hospitalized from May 20 , 1986 to June 3 , 1986 in order to treat the fractured neck that was negligently misdiagnosed at Claimant ' s initial two visits to Merrithew Memorial Hospital . Claimant is currently wearing a halo brace and must wear the brace for 6-8 weeks . Claimant will then be required to wear a hard collar brace for an additional 6 months . EXHIBIT C Page Two Amended Claim Against the County of Contra Costa and Merrithew Memorial Hospital Claimant : Steven J. Peterson AMOUNT OF CLAIM: $1 ,000 ,000 .00 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF INJURIES AND BASIS OF COMPUTATION OF DAMAGES : Claimant seeks to obtain compensation from the County of Contra Costa and Merrithew Memorial Hospital for expenses incurred as a result of their negligent care and treatment , negligent misdiagnosis and neglect of Claimant. DATED: June 27 , 1986 HOBERG, FINGER, BROWN, COX & MOLLIGAN BY STEPHEN T. COX Attorneys for Claimant PW ftbM The Board of Supervisors Co ira GNP&of go awd old r,oun,y Administration Building Costa sig P.O. Box 911 rl�, Maninei• California 94553 C/ top h..w Is,o+.,►+c, D Nancy c room PW ow►,ct Raw+ acun.b►.aro a.+►.c+ k0 �� to T«Ms+.W o,{+/ICI "'oK � TO: Steven J. Peterson c/o Hoberg, Finger, Brown, Cox & Molligan Stephen T. Cox, Esq. 703 Market Street , 18th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 VMCE TO CU►DPJr PT Late-KiR cU Ti as amended) (Wmrrmwt We Section 911.3) a amended M The clai�m,�you presented to the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa Ommty, California, as gcwerning body of the 0AMty of contra Qosta and/or District, r an June 30, 1986 is being returned to you herewith because t vas n`ot pcesen t?rin 100 days after the anent or aocurrence as required by law. (See Sections 901 and 911.2 of the Government Code.) Because the claim Mas not presented within the time allayed by law, oro action was taken an the claim. Your only recourse at this time is to apply without delay to the Board of Supervisors (in its capacity noted above) ter leave to present a late claim. (See Sections 911.6 to 912.20, inclusive, and Section 946.6 of the Government Code.) order name circumstances, leave to present a late claim will be granted. On Section 911.6 of the Gouernent Cbde.) You nay seek the advice of an attorney of yam choice in connection with this scatter. If you desire to consult an attor- ney, you should do sc immediately. 20 BE VW= IN BY 7BE CUCW CF TM DORM ONLY IF AP'PLICUU: ( ) tine a portion of yam claim is not tsrtimely, we are retaining a copy of spur claim for Board action an that portion of your claim which is not Mntiaaely. Mail Batchelor.Cierk of the Board of Supervisors and Couaq AdrtrinisUah r by: : , X Deputy Clef k Date: July 9 , -1986 1 ' EXHIBIT CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA AND MERRITHEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL STEVEN J. PETERSON presents this Claim for damages against the County of Contra Costa and Merrithew Memorial Hospital. ADDRESS OF CLAIMANT: Steven J. Peterson 16 Hillcrest Benicia, CA 94510 ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICES ARE TO BE SENT: HOBERG, FINGER, BROWN, COX & MOLLIGAN Stephen T. Cox, Esq. 703 Market Street, 18th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 DATE, PLACE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF OCCURRENCE : On February 8 , 1986 , Claimant was transported to Merrithew Memorial Hospital because of injuries he suffered in an automobile accident . Claimant sustained a fractured neck in the accident . However, on February 8 , 1986 , and on a subsequent follow-up visit to Merrithew Memorial Hospital, medical personnel failed to properly examine, x-ray, care for, diagnose and treat Claimant. Claimant did not discover that Merrithew Memorial Hospital me ica ersonnel had committed medical malpractice until May For t ree months thereafter C aimant suffered severe pain and discomfort as a result of the above described negligence. On May 20 , 1986 , Claimant returned to Merrithew Memorial Hospital and was hospitalized from May 20 , 1986 to June 3 , 1986 in order to treat the fractured neck that was negligently misdiagnosed at Claimant' s initial two visits to Merrithew Memorial Hospital. Claimant is currently wearing a halo brace and must wear the brace for 13 weeks . Claimant will then be required to wear a hard collar brace for an additional 6 months. umila8 ' E Page Two Claim Against the County of Contra Costa and Merrithew Memorial Hospital Claimant : Steven J. Peterson AMOUNT OF CLAIM: $1 , 000 , 000 . 00 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF INJURIES AND BASIS OF COMPUTATION OF DAMAGES : Claimant seeks to obtain compensation from the County of Contra Costa and Merrithew Memorial Hospital for expenses incurred as a result of their negligent care and treatment, negligent misdiagnosis and neglect of Claimant . DATED: August 6 1986 HOBERG, FINGER, BROWN, COX & MOLLIGAN BY ST=N/T. COX Attorneys for Claimant AMLN I)L U f CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT September 9, 1986 and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), Amount: Unspecified given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "WARNINGS". CLAIMANT: DEWENA GREINER County Counsel c/o Carol Parrish Beyer ATTORNEY: Attorneys at Law AUG 13 1986 2730 Lone Tree Way, Suite 6C ADDRESS: Antioch, CA 94509 Date received Martinez, CA 94553 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: August 12, 1986 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: August 11, 1986 I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. PHIL BATCHELOR, CLER 6 e DATED: August 12, 1986 BY: Deputy L. Hall II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 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. The 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:— L / �9�� By: ;'-&- 1:!_ -4 puty County Counsel t, III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (,1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present A::rIX/MCW11647`D (V) 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: S E P 0 9 1986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By. ,� Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally'>erved 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. CC: Claimant County Counsel County Administrator 31. s J r - -. _ ' > ; 4 '�- ..tea :,a _'-_� C.,`t,t;.p i �t�.,�..wr 1 -+,. i � Y -'�r.;S gas- y/. �,, 'n r £„_�..�'• ---.'tt`-�J-t1. . --aro `'rye;:.:4 '^r �- L Sa ----, -fi 0-.--'-- r °'"a '"`4- Z,� 'Zr,'% M.� xrc� •Z S t� dap A}�" "- } BEYER & BEYER `� �L - z t=i� t x ;k . , ,s Z -_Y r } ye " c r cr 'h1{ w°�F Attome sat Law - : pry n�� ° � _ s g o- +`'Y f- A Y vE"'- .�'+. 6z 3 uc 4., 2730 A rte T C ay,'suite 6C Antioch. _ a � fi << T ioc A, Y . - (415) 754 %9 Y I'!,. `f " z � ` '. a !z ,� ,f E r K C`BEYf CAROL PARRISH BEYER RED RIC C _. , r . f _ 'CC''- a "8., x1.. > r r� _ r ,e�, _ r � ¢ r y e L;r�;��n i'ivI i,- ._K-✓,c August 11, 1986P. �` F 7.. I - • f-..} —ilt h x �....2 . - _ r _ t f 7 z"-na P Y . ., v_ictor J. ;Westman1. Ddu ( _ ;_ -� r,-_`; s County Counsel Ci411�1 1 _ 'A4' ' ,f 5 ; G - Box 69 Martinez, CA 94553 A�1Ga 2 1981. sir r . Ze 1 . L,. * - ,' rr `/1C'-yam t# r -_,.. :. r _ __' t_._ ���i•63 4£i. "It?, t� .y�d�-3 ,a}a+:. rata,q., �� t RE: CLAIM OF DEWENA GREINERgt'ftnBZ, �!V y s y r A d Y 1 f� 4Y j, t-, I . �. - --PLEASE TAKE NOTICE AS .FOLLOWS � s Y' . - r x k13 The :date of the occurrence which gave rise to the claim asserted_zs Vri , 24, , ,— �' .A ' and 'not 4/34/86 which is a. typographical error. - s _ ;�1. : 4 Pry j.. .'• - y,Y �` v �w' _`r * i3 r 4 P,lease.:cons der this_a correction and/or amendment to the above referenced ; � rt claim and take the .appropriate actions. _ _ a 1 � ,.`E""'." K,r 7 �, ,:k.: • - _ ,41" Y_. }•�" ry.yet{., .r'.,T N . �-i' ' truly ��r t tis . h t , i L{ aA I c' -14 Ver yours, s, b"'-�'*1 -'n_- .. I 'd , , e§� fM - ', e��TWtT"��GG�� .. , _. .. --. r 4. .. :CAROL PARRISH BEYER , .-w y y . .11 ` t' . . a. - _.. _ , - _ . w. et ': . . t "','C, STA i - � F t_. _. 1. r ' - _ .. _ lY�r _ '4 " , � , �G r 5 - _ s _> . .._ _ - _, n _ Cl '' � ' ' G/ 7. f ' sr ., . 6 L -, , . s . ` °'�Oj�@ - ''_ - r - - r . Cyt r, t , ~ _. - .. } - r F _ - r .. _ t _ -- ,.n fin, .. _.. ..+3n _�, .-. ­_ - _..._. _ - - _ .. CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT September. 9 , 1986 and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to yoU is your California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), Amount: $5 , 000. 00 given pursuant to Government Code S ction 91 and 915.4. Please note all "WARNINGS" Gunty Counsel CLAIMANT: DEWENA E. GREINER AUG 0 61986 c/o Carol Parrish Beyer, Esq. ATTORNEY: Beyer & Beyer Maninei, CA 94553 2730 Lone Tree Way, Suite 6c ADDRESS: Antioch, CA 94509 Date received 5 August BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: Au g , 1986 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: August 4, 1986 1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK DATED: August 5 , 1986 BY: Deputy (-1 C � L. Hall II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( ) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2 (V1 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 910.6). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The 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:_,/ �C� By: . y County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (L,) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order nt d i its minutes for this date. Dated: SEP 0 9 1986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By. Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date. this notice was personally'terved 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. CC: Claimant County Counsel County Administrator CLAIM TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA C(**rF0Vappiication to: Instructions to ClaimantC!erk of the Board ski-& R" e Sf.� bio 6 Martinez,California 94553 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 , California 94553. 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 )Reserved for Clerk's filing stamps DEWENA E. GREINER ) ) RECEIVED Against the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA) AUG 51986 or DISTRICT) CLEpKKWPOFqFi in name ) • The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra Costa or the above-named District in the sum of $5,000.00 and in support of this claim represents as follows: date and ---------------------------------------------------------------hour----]---- 1. When did the damage or injury occur? (Give exact 4/34/86 at approximately 2:00 a.m. and on 4/25/86 '�. W�iere did tie damage or injury occur? (Include city and county) Martinez County Hospital, Martinez, Contra Costa County, CA -'r----------------------- ------------------- occur? ------------------occur? (Give iuli details, use extra sheets if required) Went to Martinez Hospital E.R. with severe pain in left side. Informed doctor that I had a vaginal discharge. Doctor performed no pelvic examination but admitted me to the hospital with a diagnosis of a kidney stone. While I was an inpatient, I was x-rayed and no evidence of a kidney stone was found. Again, I mentioned the vaginal discharge and no pelvic was done. ---- -------T----------••----------------------------------- 4. What particular act or omission on the part of county or district officers , servants or employees caused the injury or damage? Both doctors failure to do a pelvic resulted in a failure to properly diagnose a severe case of Pelvic Inflammatory disease for which I treated later at an Urgest Care Facility. (over) 5. What are the names of county or district officers; servants or' employees causing the damage or injury? Unknown to calimant. Would be in hospital records -------------------T-?--T-------------T---�•----- --- - ----------------- -- 6. What damage or injuries do you claim resulted? Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto damage) Pain, suffering, additional medical costs ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. How was the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimated amount of any prospective injury or damage. ) Martinez county hospital $400.00 Urgent care 188.50 Pain & suffering 4411.50 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Names and addresses of witnesses, doctors and hospitals. Dr. Candelario Urgent Care Center 2800 Hiltop Mall Road, Richmond, CA 94806 Dr. Lantz, Urgent Care Center, 2800 Hilltop Mall Road, Richmond, CA 94806 Dewey House, P.O. Box 791, El Sobrante, CA 94803 --------------- ----:-------------------------------------T----------T---- 9. : List "the expenditures you made on account of this accident or injury: DATE: ITEM AMOUNT 4/27%86 : Doctor Bill $115.50 5/16/86 ; Doctor Bill 73.00 . Govt. Code Sec. 910.2 provides : "The claim signed by the claimant SEND NOTICES TO: (Attorney) or by some person on his behalf. " Name and Address of Attorney �!'Z n CAROL PARRISH BEYER, ESQ. BEYER & BEYER 2730 Lone Tree Way Suite 6c s Antioch, CA 94509 Telephone No. (415) 754-5959 "L a lephor a No. 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 a r rBEYER & BEYER Attomeys at Law 4 y 2730 Lone Tree Way, suite-6C µ Antioch, CA 94509 (415) 7545959 x k, k. CAROL PARRISH BEYER FR pERiCK C..BEYER August 1,' 1986 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 4 ' 651 Pine St, #106 � 5 Martinez, CA 94553 a RE:. . Claim of Dewena Greiner against Martinez County Hdspital Dear Clerk: .,-damages Please file ori .nal 'and one coPY of ,a claim :f6r ': t f � ? pursuant -to Sec. 911.2 of .the Calif. Govt, Cade. -. t Please file the original and return the file• endorsed .copy to me in then stampled self--addressed envelope which I have enclosed for .your 'convenience. y- If you have any questions regarding this claim, please do 'nothesitate tei ."Contact me, Very truly yours, CAROL PARRISH BEYER . . CLAIM ` BOARD OF.SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT September 9 , 1986 and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), Amount: $895 . 00 given pursuant to Government Code Ql0.malioiCeunsei 915.4. Please note all "WARNINGS". CLAIMANT: JACK & LORI CECCOTH AUG 0 G 1986 339 Sequoia Ave. Martl"Z, CA 94.553 ATTORNEY: Redwood City, CA 94061 ADDRESS: Date received BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: August 9 , 1986 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: August 2 , 1986 I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK DATED: August 5 , 1986 BY: Deputy L. Hall II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk. of the Board of Supervisors (,Q This .claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2 ( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The 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:-,w- /O(:�o By:� Deputy County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (11 County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present (x) This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's OrdZte���initsminutes for this date. SEP 0 91986 Dated: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By f�0eputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date 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. CC: Claimant County Counsel County Administrator Ci,AIM TO:, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Instructions to 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 Cor mail to P.O. Box 9.11, 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 1 ) Reserved for Clerk' '-ling stamps 1A,GI� 4 L4V' CeccA ) ) RECEIVED S G0►� © C Against the TY OF CONTRA COSTA) AUG 1986 or DISTRICT) p" $L Fill in name) ) °L UP RS The undersigned claimant hereby makes 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 hour) 2. Wherei dd the damage or injury occur? (Include city and county) ,Se 1 I r 5 Road- r contra.. c0 5+CL CO3 ---------------------------------------------- ------------- 3. How did the damage or injury occur? (Give full details, use extra sheets if required) Ir e We'r'e' ••{boli n9 0LJ-r (�0a1- 4owr� Sellers on +he. a bov� da,4�e./d ay/•{-,'rtie - erc. wct.s no l oos e 8 rcwe l 5!5h , -the Speed. I rnit pv, Sellers i G O-Z) rnp h - -h-ave I�'n9 10 rr►P h We 6-fill 5u?64ai,1ecL le- Once- (Jou- 0-re- .0V1 S4&11•er6 Aere. ---!�i-C°--WA4&=--Wa%* --------------------------------------- What particular act or omission on the part of county or district officers , servants or employees caused the injury or damage? `here &Ua-S ar) Uver abUndanCe 0-1C /OOSC- J rave-1 - `The- soe ed, /,mj.4- /-s I,oh we- eve/PcL 7e; ,e0aC1, (5,eller5 ) 0,4 /0 19'Wh - 7/-h e ✓ /7a0e / (over) S P2me�C. 'j be a.•L `eaS4- �4ihehe-5 eZ- eelt::�7 5. What are the names of county or district officers,_ servants-or:� . I employees causing the damage or injury? . COS 4Gc_. COL, rl-fy RoadeV1 c e, ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. What damage or injuries do you claim resulted? (Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto damage) Off- boa:+ -Irck I ev- i S GOm p/e-}--ly pi44ed- O- .nCL 4+e,r-e 0-r-e. 5o m e 101-5 clh p s +a•Ken vc c.--1— o-F 14- GL n c�- 4,h er e.._ --- CU'_C +Q,r ;�_-�-cunt_o n_ oar_ b oc- _ 7. How was the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimated o16) amount of any prospective injury or damage. ) See G �Gt-G`7 p 577 v!'!�• ��C�• ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Names and addresses of witnesses, doctors and hospitals. Low, C ecco +h 3 3 C1 S e qtc w i`c.- Ale— ecJ&OOC)cL C,�Y Jo-ne+ 8ec-n �loa Nilmi+z Ave- �eawood C1.fa,Irv ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. List -the .exRenditures you made on account of this accident or injury: t DATE ITEM AMOUNT ************************************************************************** r 4 Govt. Code Sec. 910.2 provides : "The claim signed by the claimant SEND NOTICES TO: (Attorney) or by some person on his behalf. " eol i Name and Address of Attorney Claimant' s Si gnatu e Ad res ) p 0 Telephone No. Telephone No. LIS 716, <" ************************************************************************** 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 A n t- ❑ � Z W a 0 \Y a o Q � f d n ❑ a� a a O 0 - (/) LL 03 Cl) Z �y N rr N n ❑ 0 H W J X UI -I k V Q d a w Y O 3uj o 0`� s d d W D O ¢,M, }�j� Z z ♦ Q 0 V j z z 20 p d w Z w w w 7 -J W j z z C} S 2 d `J ❑ � a a' 41 ❑ UJ w w \( Z N I _m�mm.�� W � ;N a`�C.m cr m a m'm 2,5 ❑ 0 Crn4O xm j'#uu- �T d C N❑�C C J < 0 Ommm r°a t( ft wZ m Tm"cT7 C U ❑ m � ... z O E �mb oE-`-"w ❑ ❑ Q c o a `- smmag oL� ♦U O 3m cm7m ` z N U 3Ti-OOm�m ° E.- y/� v w ¢ W C `'J Q mbmm"O >y°cob o 6 oo 000 V mRa dVOGm N m m'. N.O C C m d L V O EE CII w p yC�y UbL O�m N U woo) l\/) L4)(Dm O > Oa D 2 ¢O V -E=�iE mn53 a 0 r 0 a aw ` 4 a z a ca n r zow t� a r rJ oCJ woba _......... .......... ....................................................._................_................,......__.. Mc°Z� o a r. Z a:*Dao �. J CLM 0 . U ~ N � d� w •v a d b- 0 3 0u C t7 zsZ.. tY 850 z g ED a s e d' IF (StZ6-ZSZ-Oos+I =y)Ogfq•tyd-M+133HJTIM 3NONdo00+001'1010-W•umg-1 SB�^h' f5tf1706lld a CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA BOARD ACTION Claim Against the County, or District governed by) the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT September. 9 , 1986 and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to yo is your California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), Amount: $437 . 33 given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "WARNING01inty Counsel CLAIMANT: LINDA DONAGAN AUG 0 6 1986 18 Van Gordon Place ATTORNEY: Danville, CA 94526 M461net, CA 94553 ADDRESS: Date received BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: August 3, 1986 CA BY MAIL POSTMARKED: August 4, 1986 i. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK DATED: August 5 , 1986 BY: Deputy L. Hall II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 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. The 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 11I. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (14 County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present (Y) This Claim is rejected in full. (/\) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order ter in its minutes for this date. Dated: SEP 0 9 1986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By ` Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date 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. CC: Claimant County Counsel County Administrator ' CLAIM .TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Instructions to Cla Mant 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 I 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 ) Reserve stamps RECEIVED � Against the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA) AUG /- 1986 Wt4y. q00 M ORor DISTRICT) CL7 PE RS Fill in name) ) sr The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra Costa or the above-named District in the sum of $ HS7 .33 and in support of this claim represents as follows: t-4L��� - r„ ------------------------------------------------------------- - ------- 1. When did the damage or injury occur? (Give exact date and hour) . ----------T------------------------------------------------------------ 2. Where did the damage or injury occur? (Include city and county) 4` �qN✓ � � 1� 11J � 6JO� . ` �GNV ��e � ��.�(��a. "` '�G1 -------------------------------------------------- ----- 3. How did the damage or injury occur? (Give full details, use extra sheets if required) 1l l 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. What particular act or omission on the part of county or district officers , servants or employees caused the injury or damage? (over) f j • P 5. What are the names of county or district officers,'_ser.vants�nra 1 e'm'ployees 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) 11 '' y _________________________________________________________________________ 7. How was the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimated amount of any prospective injury or damage. ) tt ll VV.0r Qf. C°.m ,�.� �e cT a►� �C LI) • � ��: �,,,,�,�Q.•. ��__ a ,,.,.a.., 8. Names and addresses of witness les, do/c?torsl and hospitals �0 lac. `I- �o,neSa.� (� V c►.,.. `]ordoti. ��a�e _ �ah----- 0 . Y _ __ _ T______________________ _ 7. List the expenaitares you made on account of this accident or injury: ; DATE , 1Z ITEM AMOUNT E i f ; Govt. Code Sec. 910.2 provides : "The claim signed by the claimant SEND NOTICES TO: (Attorney) 'or by some person on his behalf. " Name and Address of Attorney Claimant' s Signa M,,,, 2adrLs Telephone No. Telephone No. ( 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. " r •. I tj. wirl 1�,M- m- PARTS' PRICES SUBJECT TO MANUFACTURER'S INVOICE �����'1�L•�•�+�fi©If�l r�� Gyri lip t ► . dr !Sy FRONT Mmm Will Er L'Il oil f 4AW �!r�.� I,M��t.W.WSM aIIAlW.12 www �..tt�.`'�•-'! 1�. ::j i:!X11\ti 1��, �.► Fjr-0161�- -• Mal nil ow-j" WI�Mmm 1"+/ti:i!�ir ►ice•` �� - �.500 PICi1' ►� �� AUTHORIZATION FOR fied repairs. c�1�\�t1 R►r�'J eYou are hereby authorized to make the above speci. Sublet $ [�►f3► r Z CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT September 9 , 1986 and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), Amount: Unspecified given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "WARNINGS". County Counsel CLAIMANT: MACY' S CALIFORNIA (Contra Costa County - Buchanan Field Airport) c/o Daniel M. Crawford, Esq. AUG U 6 1986 ATTORNEY: Carroll, Burdick & McDonough One Ecker Bldg. , Suite 400 Martinet, CA 94553 ADDRESS: San Francisco, CA 94105 Date received BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: August 4 1986 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: August 1 . 1986 I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK DATED: August 5 , 1986 BY: Deputy L. Hall 1I. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 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. The 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:CSC L 4_5 �l�, w By:!)i�C JL- r i L mit ��G��� 'ty County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present ( ) This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: .I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order nter in i s minutes for this date. Dated: SEP 4 9 1986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally'3erved 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. CC: Claimant County Counsel County Administrator CL&W TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COR�AWXapplication to: Instructions to ClaimantC!erk of the Board Martinez,California 94553 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. 911.21 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 , California 94553. 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 oY this form. RE: Claim by )Reserved for ' .:stamps Macy's California ED ' RECEIV jJ ) Against the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA) AUGX9$6 or HANAN FIELD AIRPORT DISTRICT) CoACHEWns (Fill in name ) °N ,,,�, ey L The• undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra Costa or the above-named District in the sum of $ undetermined at this time. and in support of this claim represents as follows: 1. When aia the damage or injury occur? (Give exact date and hour] ---- December 23, 1985 , at approximately 8 :30 'p m. Macy' s was served with a lawsuit by plaintiffs Camcam on July 3 , 1986 , and Macy' s cause of action for indemnity arose on that date ----------------------------- Where al'd the damage or. in3ury occur? (Include city and county) Sunvalley Shopping Center, City of Concord, County of Contra Costa. -T-------�--------------�•-''-T---------- ----- 3 -- ---- -~---T----------•+---- . How did the damage or in3ury occur? (Give full details, use extra sheets if required) See attached Page 1 . -----------------------------------------------=------------------------ 4. What particular act or omission on the part of county or district officers , servants or employees caused the injury or damage? The county, the district and its servants and employees negligently constructed, maintained, operated and/or managed Buchanan Field Airport and other public property. The said county, district and its employees and servants are liable in strict liability for maintaining, operating and/or managing the airport and other (over) public property in its dangerous and defective condition. 5. What are the names of county or district officers, servants or-- employees riemployees causing the damage or injury? Unknown at this time 6. What damage or injuries do you claim resulted? (Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto damage) See attached Page 1. --------------------------------------------------------- 7. How was the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estunated amount of any prospective injury or damage. ) This is a claim for total indemnity. The amount of damages will be determined by the injured parties' recovery against this claimant. 6. Names and addresses of witnesses, doctors and hospitals. See attached Exhibit B . Investigation is continuing with regard to any potential witnesses . The Consolidated First District and' Concord Police Department reports convering the accident list potential witnesses . ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. ...._List the. expenditures you made on account of this accident or injury: DATE ITEM AMOUNT Macy' s' has ` ircurred and is incurring substantial investigative defense costs , ;including attorneys fees and further may be_ subject to the paymentof damages to injured parties and Macy ' s seeks indemnification for all such damages . Govt. Code Sec. 910.2 provides: "The claim signed by t}3e I Int SEND NOTICES T0: (Attorney) or b me erson on - �behal . " c Name and Address of Attorney Daniel M. Crawford, Esq. Claimant s atur Carroll, Burdick & McDonough <11J�Iacyls CalifDrn One Ecker Bldg. , Suite 400 Addre� g San Francisco, CA 94105 P. O. Box � Telephone No. 415/495-0500 San Francisco, CA 94120Telephone No. 415/954-6014 Attn: William H. Kind, Vice Pres . NOTICE Section 72 of the Penal Code provides: "Every person %,-ho, - with intent .to defraud, .presents for all-owance 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." 3 . A Beechcraft Baron aircraft crashed into the roof of Sunvalley Shopping Center, killing the pilot and passengers, and injuring shoppers in the mall, among whom were Carl Camcam, Sr. , Annie Camcam, and Beverly Camcam. The Camcams are claiming damages set forth in their complaint filed on May 5 , 1986 , a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 6 . Plaintiffs seek general damages , reimbursement of past, present and future medical care, past, present and future lost wages , loss of earning capacity, costs of suit, prejudgment interest and punitive and examplary damages . See Exhibit A. Macy ' s claim is for complete and/or partial indemnity of any recovery against Macy ' s by the Camcams and other parties claiming damages due to the aircrash. The accident out of which the claim arose occurred on December 23 , 1985 . The cause of action for indemnity arose on July 3 , 1986 , when Macy ' s was served with the lawsuit filed by the Camcams . 1 MICHAEL J. SHANE 0 D PHILIP T. PRINCE 2 REDMOND & SHANE 11 251 oak Street MAY 5 - 1986 3 San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 621-3366 J.R. OLSSON, County Clerk CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 4 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, By S L E 1E Deputy 5 CARL CAMCAM, SR. , ANNIE CAMCAM, and BEVERLY CAMCAM, a minor, by 6 and through her Guardian ad Litem, CARL CAMCAM SR. 7 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 10 CARL CAMCAM, SR. , ANNIE CAMCAM, ) r� �s 11 and BEVERLY CAMCAM, a minor, by ) NO. ,28588 and through her Guardian ad ) 12 Litem, CARL CAMCAM SR. ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR NEGLIGENCE; PRODUCTS 13 _. Plaintiffs, ) LIABILITY/STRICT LIABILITY IN TORT; PUNITIVE DAMAGES; 14 vs. ) and LOSS OF CONSORTIUM 15 ESTATE OF JAMES MOUNTAIN ) GRAHAM, THE BEECHCRAFT AIRCRAFT } 16 COMPANY, THE SUN VALLEY SHOPPING ) MALL, R.B. MACY, INC. , GENERAL ) 17 AVIATION SERVICES, THE ROE DOE ) ARCHITECTURE COMPANY, THE DOE DOE ) 18 CIVIL ENGINEERING COMPANY, THE ) TAUBMAN COMPANY, INC. , WELLS ) 19 FARGO BANK, as Trustee of the ) TAUBMAN COMPANY, INC. , THE A ) 20 DOE AIRCRAFT REPAIR SERVICE, ) CITY OF CONCORD, COUNTY OF ) 21 CONTRA COSTA and DOES 1 ) through 500, inclusive. , ) _22 } Defendants. } 23 24 COMES NOW plaintiffs, and each of them, and for causes of 25 action against defendants, aryd each of them, alleges as follows: 26 1. That BEVERLY CAMCAM is the minor child of CARL CAMCAM 27 and ANNIE CAMCAM as hereinafter set forth. 28 - 1 2. Plaintiff BEVERLY CAMCAM is a minor born on August 9, 2 1969. 3 3. That a petition for guardian ad litem is filed herewith 4 appointing CARL CAMCAM, SR. , as guardian ad litem for BEVERLY 5 CAMCAM. 6 4 . Plaintiffs CARL CAMCAM, SR. , ANNIE .CAMCAM and BEVERLY 7 CAMCAM were injured on December 23, 1985 at the SUN VALLEY MALL as 8 hereinafter set forth. 9 5. Plaintiffs are required to comply with a claims statute 10 as to defendants CITY OF CONCORD and COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA. 11 Plaintiffs have complied with the applicable claims statute in the 12 following manner: On or about February 18, 1986, plaintiffs and -13 each- .o.f . them, submitted damage and injury claims to defendant CITY 14 OF CONCORD. On or about February 27, 1986, all of said claims 15 were denied. On or about February 18, 1986, plaintiffs and each 16 of them, , submitted damage and injury claims to defendant COUNTY 17 OF CONTRA COSTA. On or about March 18, 1986, said claims were 18 denied. 19 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 20 (For Negligence Against All Defendants) 21 6. That the true names or capacities, whether individual, _22 associate, corporate or otherwise, of defendants DOES 1 through 23 500, inclusive, and each of _them, are unknown to plaintiffs, who 24 therefore sue defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs are 25 informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the defen- 26 dants designated herein as a DOE is responsible in some actionable manner for the events and happenings herein referred to, and 28 caused injuries and damages proximately thereby to plaintiffs as -2- 1 hereby alleged. 2 7. At all times herein mentioned each of the defendants 3 named herein, including, without limitation each DOE defendant, 4 was the agent, servant, employee or otherwise acting in concert 5 with each of the remaining defendants and was at all times acting 6 within the purpose and scope of said agency, service and employ- 7 ment, or acting in concert to bring about the damages alleged 8 herein. 9 8. That at all times mentioned herein, defendant CITY OF 10 CONCORD was a municipal corporation duly organized and existing 11 under the laws of the State of California and situated in the 12 County of Contra Costa. Said defendant is being sued herein on 13 the grounds that plaintiffs' injuries. were a proximate result of 14 the negligence of the CITY OF CONCORD, its agents and employees, 15 who, while acting within the course and scope of their agency and 16 employment by said governmental entity, permitted, authorized, 17 advised, licensed and consented to the creation, design, .construc- 18 tion and continued operation of the Sun Valley Shopping Center 19 under the air corridor of a busy airport, thereby placing large 20 numbers of the public, including plaintiffs herein in a very 21 dangerous position when using said center. _22 9. That at all times herein mentioned, defendants SUN 23 VALLEY MALL and each of them, are located at Number 1, Sun Valley 24 Mall in the City of Concord, State of California. Said defendants 25 are being sued as a result of negligently, carelessly, wantonly 26 and recklessly placing a shopping center that attracts a great 27 number of people on a heavily trafficked air corridor in the 28 vicinity of the BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT. _3_ 1 10. That at all times mentioned mentioned herein, defendant 2 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA was a county duly organized and existing 3 under the laws of the State of California. Said defendant is 4 being sued herein on the grounds that plaintiffs' injuries were a 5 proximate result of .the negligence of the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, 6 its agents and employees, who, while acting within the course and scope of their agency and employment by said governmental entity,, 8 permitted, authorized, advised, licensed and consented to the 9 creation, design, construction and continued operation of the Sun 10 Valley Shopping Center under the air .corridor of a busy airport, 11 thereby placing large numbers of the public, including plaintiffs 12 herein in a very dangerous position when using said center. Fur- 13 they, said agents and employees, while acting within the course 14 and scope of their agency and employment on behalf of said govern- 15 mental entity, negligently owned, operated, employed personnel, 16 maintained, entrusted, repaired and supervised at Buchanan Field, 7 -as- well as- the business and activities of said airport, so as to 18 proximately cause the subject airplane crash and plaintiffs' in- 19 juries. 20 11. At all times herein mentioned, the WELLS FARGO BANK, 21 Trustee for the TAUBMAN COMPANY, INC. , and its predecessors in _22 interest, the TAUBMAN COMPANY, INC. , a Michigan corporation, and 23 Does 1 through 20, were corporations or other entities doing busi- 24 ness in the State of California for the purpose of owning, placing, 25 managing and maintaining defendants SUN VALLEY MALL AND SHOPPING 26 CENTER. Said defendants are doing business in the State of Cali- 27 fornia and maintain more than minimal contacts. Said defendants 28 are hereby being sued as a result of their negligent, careless, -4- 1 wanton and reckless behavior of placing and maintaining a shopping 2 center in the area of a busy air corridor in the vicinity of the 3 BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT. Said defendants knew, or should have 4 known, that during a •fog, aircraft would make a missed approach 5 and fly over their mall in a very vulnerable position therefore 6 causing a risk of disaster and destruction. 7 12. R.H. MACY, INC. , and DOES 100 through 300, inclusive, 8 were at all times relevant business entities luring customers into 9 the mall while knowing that their location was dangerous due to 10 the close proximity to BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT and knowing the like- 11 lihood of an air crash from panes using BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT. 12 13. That at all times herein mentioned, decedent JAMES 13 MOUNTAIN GRAHAM, and defendants GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES, and 14 DOES 21 through 40 and each of them, were the owners and operators 15 of defendants' BEECHCRAFT BARON AIRCRAFT. Said defendants, and 16 each of them, are hereby being sued as a result of negligently, 17 carelessly, recklessly and wantonly operating, maintaining, con- 18 trolling , aviating and navigating said aircraft so as to proxi- 19 mately cause the crash in defendants' shopping mall thereby seri- 20 ously injuring the plaintiffs. 21 14. That at all times mentioned, defendants BEECHCRAFT _22 AIRCRAFT COMPANY and DOES 41 through 60, inclusive, negligently, 23 carelessly, recklessly and wantonly designed, assembled, manufac- 24 tuned and distributed said aircraft so that said aircraft could 25 not be properly controlled by defendant JAMES MOUNTAIN GRAHAM, so 26 as to proximately cause said aircraft to crash into said defen- dants' mall. 27 28 15. Op or about December 23, 1985, defendants and decedent, -5- 1 JAMES MOUNTAIN GRAHAM, so negligently, carelessly, wantonly and 2 recklessly maintained and controlled and repaired said airacraft 3 so as to proximately cause said aircraft to crash in the mall 4 thereby proximately causing the plaintiffs to suffer severe per- 5 sonal injuries. 6 16. That at all times herein mentioned, GENERAL AVIATION 7 SERVICES, DOE AIRCRAFT REPAIR SERVICE, and DOES 21 through 40, 8 inclusive, so negligently, carelessly, wantonly and recklessly q maintained and repaired said aircraft so as to render said air- 10 craft inoperable proximately causing said aircraft to crash in the 11 shopping mall. 12 17. That at all times herein mentioned, defendants DOE CIVIL 13 ENGINEERING COMPANY and DOE ARCHITECTURAL COMPANY and DOES 61 14 through 80, located said mall and gave advice to locate said mall 15 under the main corridor of air traffic from BUCHANAN FIELD AIR- 16 PORT. As a direct and proximate result of placing large numbers 17 of the public and enticing them to go to a shopping center, large 18 numbers of the public were placed in a very dangerous position. 19 Said placement of said shopping center under the air corridor of a 20 busy airport was negligently, carelessly, wantonly and recklessly 21 promoted by said defendants and each of them. _22 18. As a proximate result of the negligence of defendants 23 and each of them, plaintiffs and each of them, suffered a loss of 24 earnings and earning capacity which has been greatly impaired, 25 both in the past, present and future, in an amount according to 26 proof. 27 18. As a further, proximate result of the negligence of 28 defendants ,and each of them, plaintiffs and each of them, have -6- 1 incurred and will continue to incur, medical and related expenses 2 in an amount according to proof. 3 20. As a further proximate result of the negligence of 4 defendants and each of them, plaintiffs and each of them, were 5 hurt and injured in ther health, strength, and activity, sustain- 6 ing injury to their nervous systems and person, all of which in- 7 juries have caused and continue to cause, plaintiffs great mental, g physical and nervous pain and suffering. Plaintiffs are informed 9 and believe and thereon allege that such injuries will result in 10 some permanent disability to them. As a result of such injuries, 11 Plaintiffs and each of them, have suffered general damages in an 12 amount according to proof. 13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 14 (For Products Liability/Strict Liability In Tort Against Defendants• BEECHCRAFT AIRCRAFT COMPANY, and 15 DOES 21 through 61, inclusive) 16 21. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 20 as though 17 fully .set forth herein. 18 22. Said aircraft was defectively designed, manufactured and 19 assembled proximately causing said aircraft to crash into said 20 mall. 21 23. That at all times herein , mentioned, said defendants' _ BEECHCRAFT AIRCRAFT was designed, manufactured and assembled and 23 distributed for the purpose of flying in the air and safely trans- 24 porting persons and property in a safe manner so that said air- 25 craft would not crash as a result of any of its parts or com- 26 ponents. 27 24. That as a direct and proximate result of the defective 28 manufacture, assembly and design and the distribution of said -7- BEECHCRAFT - AIRCRAFT involved in said accident, said aircraft did crash proximately causing severe personal injures to the plain- t tiffs who were pedestrians and shoppers in defendants' mall. 3 4 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION .(For Punitive Damages and Exemplary Damages Against 5 Defendants WELLS FARGO BANK, as Trustee for the TAUBMAN COMPANY, INC. , the TAUBMAN COMPANY, INC. , SUN 6 VALLEY SHOPPING CENTER, SUN VALLEY MALL, and - . . DOES 1 through 20, inclusive) 7 25. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 20 of the First a 9 Cause of Action and Paragraphs 22 through 24 of the Second Cause of-Action as though fully set forth herein. 10 - _ - 26. _ Plaintiffs and each of them, allege a cause of action 1L 12 for punitive damages and exemplary damages in the sum of $25,000,000.00 on facts alleged in this complaint. 13 27. That at all times herein mentioned, BUCHANAN FIELD AIR- 14 PORT is an airport which purchased its land 'in 1942 and started 15 operations _in 1946. During heavy fog , when the airport lights 16 cannot be seen, "missed approaches" are common and at such times 17 airplane pilots are flying by instruments. The stress level of 19 pilots during such maneuvers of aviating , navigating and communi- cating to the tower is extremely high. THe probability of a crash 20 of a circling plane during these times are statistically much higher 21 than normal. All property within a one mile radius of an airport _22 -- - is in - a foreseeably dangerous position. Defendants and each of 23 them, knew of said danger, but in conscious disregard of the dan- 24 ZS ger that potential customers and users of said mall might undergo, they selected said site for said shopping mall because of the 26. inexpensive land that can be purchased in the vicinity of air- 27 ports. Members of the general public who are not as sophisticated 28 -8- 1 as architects, engineers and shopping center developers would not 2 know of this foreseeable danger and would shop at said mall feel- 3 ing perfectly safe. 4 28. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege 5 that the CITY OF CONCORD, its agents and employees, received actu- 6 al or constructive notice that an air crash was substantially 7 certain to occur as a result of the aforementioned permission, 8 authorization, advice, licensing and consent to the creation de- i 9 sign, construction and continued operation of the Sun Valley Shop- j.. 10 ping Center, as well as the negligent ownership, operation, 11 employment of personnel, maintenance, entrustment, repair and 12 supervision at Buchanan Field and that said agents and employees i 13 failed to undertake any affirmative action reasonably calculated 4 14 to reduce the likelihood of an air crash within a reasonable time 15 after receiving said notice. 16 29. As a direct ' and proximate result of said conscious dis- 17 regard of the safety and life of the potential users of the mall, 18 said mall was located in said dangerous location thereby attract- 19 ing thousands of potential shoppers and placing them in a very 20 precarious position. 21 30. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege 22 that the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, its agents and employees, re- 23 ceived actual or constructive notice that an air crash was sub- 24 stantially certain to occur as a result of the aforementioned 25 permission, authorization, advice, licensing and consent to the 26 creation design, construction and continued operation of the Sun 27 Valley Shopping Center, as well as the negligent ownership, opera- 28 tion, employment of personnel, maintenance, entrustment, repair _9_ ,Field and that said agents and em- any affirmative action reasonably ' ikelihood of an air crash within a ng said notice. :)x.imate result of said conscious dis- ty of potential shoppers and users of ,-e attracted to said mall on a foggy n extreme danqer of an airplane crash i causing severe personal injuries to Ii �t by placing said shopping center in i n airport that a crash was inevitable ' iah likelihood of occurring on their CAUSE OF ACTION y :)nsortium for Plaintiff Against All Defendants) I AM, SR. incorporates all paragraphs on as though fully set forth herein. 3, 1985, which is the date of the of this lawsuit, the plaintiffs CARL sere husband and wife and said mar- to marriage and said plaintiff ANNIE hat were expected of a loving wife .. njury; and as a proximate result ,M has been unable to perform the ted of a loving wife, which include performed in the home, maintenance -10- 1 and management of the family home and will be unable to perform' 2 such work, service and duties in the future. 3 36. As a result of said accident, plaintiff CARL CAMCAM, SR. 4 alleges that plaintiff. ANNIE CAMCAM is unable and is informed and 5 believes and thereon alleges that plaintiff ANNIE CAMCAM will 6 continue to be unable, for an unspecified period fo time, to have 7 marital comfort to the detriment of the marriage. 8 37. Plaintiff CARL CAMCAM, SR. has witnessed his wife' s 9 physical and mental suffering. This has caused plaintiff CARL 10 CAMCAM, SR. mental suffering. 11 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, and each of them, pray for the relief 12 as follows against defendants and each of them,* on Causes of 13 Action One , Two and Four: 14 1. For general damages within the jurisdiction 'of this 15 court; 16 2• For medical expenses, past, present and future; 17 3. For wage loss, past, present and future; 18 4 . For loss of earning capacity; 19 5. For costs of suit; 20 6. For prejudgment interest; and 21 7. For such other and further relief as is just. Plaintiffs, and each of them pray for relief as follows on -22 23 the Third Cause of Action against said defendants named therein: 24 1. For general damages within the jurisdiction of this 25 court; 26 2. For medical expenses, past, present and future; 27 3. For wage loss, past, present and future; 4. For loss of earning capacity; 28 -11- I -- 5. - -- - For costs of suit; 2 6. For prejudgment interest; and 3 7 . For such other and further relief as is just: and 4 8. For punitive and exemplary damages in the amount of 5 $ 25,000 ,000 .00 . 6 REDMOIJD & SH,�NE- Dated : April 7, 1986 j by �' i i j; f 8 MICHAEL J,. S ANE Attorneys for Plaintiffs 9 10 - 11 12 13 14 15 16 _ 17 - 18 19 20 21 .22. 23 24 25 26 27 28 -12- MACY'S SUN VALLEY MALL CRASH - Arbelaez, Deanna Armsden, Vincent M. Bonella, Jina Borque, Joseph t Camcan, Ann Church, Larry Conner, Brian Crouch, Jonathan L. Davis, Kathy Doty, Margaret Dunn, Dayle Elliott, Vern Eros, Charlotte Evangelista, Danielle Evangelista, Stephanie Evans, Diane Glinndon, Davis Graham, James Grehl, Wayne Guadagni, Wendy Hamilton, Lynn Howe, Timothy Jacobsen, James Jacobus, Brett Jamash, Aaron Jamash, Fatima Johnson, Anthony MA.CY'S SUN VALLEY MALL CRASH - Kaify, Mohamed Lang, Richard Larsen, Pat Lewis, Mack Lodge, Christina Lodge, Cindy Lodge, Gary Lodge, Julie Ann Lucchese, Nancy Lucchese, Peter Lui, Kenneth Lui, Kenneth Lui, Virginia Luong, Alexander Maderos, Kim Molina, Marial Murray, James Oliver, Brian On, Ann Patterson, Merle Pellegrina, Gian Ploughman, Janet Plowman, Clorene Pruett, Richardson, James Roberson, Kenneth Rodreguez, David MACY'S SUN VALLEY MALL CRASH - Sadler, "Kelly Sadler, Pamela Sadler, Sabrina Santos, Edward Seiffert, Gregory Sellars, Patricia Shah, Chandra - Shah, Chandrika Shaw, Kunjavadan Sheppie, Ruth A Shiehan, William Sodaro, Susan Stanford, Pam Stratton, Shannon Suzuki, Kenji Taylor, Nora Thompson, Heather Tillmany, FNU Trice, Jarrod Trice, Susan Wagner, Timothy Wells, Allan White, Carolyn Widdrick, Robert Wilson, Michael Wood, Timothy Woodson, Matthew d: /021 CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA EX-Officio as the Governing Board of the Contra Costa County Fire District BOARD ACTION Claim Against the County, or District governed by) the Bard of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT September 9, 1986 and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), Amount: Unspecified given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "WARNINGS". County Counsel CLAIMANT: MACY' S CALIFORNIA AUG U G 1986 c/o Daniel M. Crawford, Esq. ATTORNEY: Carroll , Burdick. & McDonough Martin©Z, CA 94553 One Ecker Bldg. , Suite 400 ADDRESS: San Francisco , CA 94105 Date received BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: August 4, 1986 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: August 1 , 1986 1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK DATED:_ August-5, 1986 BY: Deputy L. Hall II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 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. The 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: /( (� f � � By::'� y'�- �� 1��1� ���d✓.�.--deputy County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (Y) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present (k) This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order nter d in its minutes for this date. Dated: SEP O 9 1986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date 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. CC: Claimant County Counsel County Administrator 1CLT0: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COP*APWYapplication to: Instructions to ClaimantC!erk of the Board Al 0 6 Martinez,California 94553 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, California 94553. 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 o this form. RE: Claim by )Reserved for Clerk's filing stamps Macy 's California ) i LRCEIVED. Against the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA) UGor 14SOLIDATED FIRE DISTRICT' DISTRICT) A B T suFii 1n named ) T ty The' undersigned claimant hereby makes claim a Contra Costa or the above-named District in the sum of undetermined at this time. and in support of this claim represents as follows: 1. When did the damage or injury ----------------------------- occur? ( vxt dtd houiT December 23, 1985 , at approximately 8 .30 'p m. Macy' s was served with a lawsuit by plaintiffs Camcam on July *3, 1986 , and Macy 's cause of action for indemnity arose on that date . -...�- ---- T—————------ ---T- ---'-----------------�--------..------ Y ----- �. Where aid the damage or. injury occur? (Include city and county) Sunvalley Shopping Center, City of Concord, County of . Contra Costa. -•r------- ------------"'-----T--------------------- -----T-----�•----.�---- 3. How did the damage or injury occur? (Give full details, use extra sheets if required) See attached Page 1 . 4. What-particular act or omission on the part of county or-district officers, servants or employees caused the injury or damage? The county, the district and its servants and employees negligently constructed, maintained, operated and/or managed Buchanan Field Airport and other public property. The said county, district and its employees and servants are liable in strict liability for maintaining, operating and/or managing the airport and other (over) public property in its dangerous and defective condition. 5. ,What.,are the names of county or district officers, servants or— employees causing the damage or injury? Unknown at this time 6. what damage or injuries do you claim resulted? (Give full extent- of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates -for auto damage) See attached Page 1. 7. How Was tale mountclaimedabove computed? (Include the estimated amount of any prospective injury or damage. ) This is a claim for total indemnity . The amount of damages will be determined by the injured parties ' recovery against -- _ this cl_aimant_.____ 8. Names and addresses of witnesses, doctors and hospitals. - See attached Exhibit B. Investigation is continuing with regard to any potential witnesses . The Consolidated First District and' Concord Police Department reports . convering the accident list potential witnesses . ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. List the expenditures you made on account of this accident or injury: S.. DATE -. ._. . __ ITEM AMOUNT ,,Mac.y,'s ; has -Jncurred and is incurring substantial investigative ' defen'se- costs ;' 'including attorneys fees and further may be. subject to the payment of damages to injured parties and Macy 's seeks indemnification for all such damages . Y.. Govt. Code Sec. 910.2 provides: "The claim signed by thV claimant SEND NOTICES TO: (Attorney) or by . me person on :- s eh f. " Name and Address of Attorney Daniel M. Crawford, Esq. 1 mant s at Carroll, Burdick & McDonough fo .� acy ' s CalifA a One Ecker Bldg. , Suite 400 Addr� 8 San Francisco, CA 94105 P. 0. Box Telephone No. 415/495-0500 San Francisco, A 94120 Tele p Telephone No. 415/954-6014 Attn : William H. King, Vice Pres . NOTICE Section 72 of the Penal Code provides: "Every person who, with intent to defraud, presents for all-owance 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. " 3 . A Beechcraft Baron aircraft crashed into the roof of Sunvalley Shopping Center, killing the pilot and passengers , and injuring shoppers in the mall, among whom were Carl Camcam, Sr. , Annie Camcam, and Beverly Camcam. The Camcams are claiming damages set forth in their complaint filed on May 5 , 1986 , a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 6 . Plaintiffs seek general damages, reimbursement of past, present and future medical care, past, present and future lost wages , loss of earning capacity, costs of suit, prejudgment interest and punitive and examplary damages . See Exhibit A. Macy ' s claim is for complete and/or partial indemnity of any r recovery against Macy ' s by the Camcams and other parties claiming damages due to the aircrash. The accident out of which the claim arose occurred on December 23 , 1985 . The cause of action for indemnity arose on July 3 ,: 1986 , when Macy ' s was served with the lawsuit filed by the Camcams . 1 MICHAEL J. SHANE PHILIP T. PRINCE 2 REDMOND & SHANE 251 oak Street MAY 5 - 1986 3 San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 621-3366 J.R. OLSSON, County Clerk CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 4 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, By LEIE Deputy 5 CARL CAMCAM, SR. , ANNIE CAMCAM, and BEVERLY CAMCAM, a minor , by 6 and through her Guardian ad Litem, CARL CAMCAM SR. 7 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 10 CARL CAMCAM, SR. , ANNIE CAMCAM, ) 11 and BEVERLY CAMCAM, a minor, by ) NO. 285887 and through her Guardian ad ) 12 Litem, CARL CAMCAM SR. ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR NEGLIGENCE; PRODUCTS 13 . . Plaintiffs, j LIABILITY/STRICT LIABILITY IN TORT; PUNITIVE DAMAGES; 14 vs. ) and LOSS OF CONSORTIUM ) 15 ESTATE OF JAMES MOUNTAIN ) GRAHAM, THE BEECHCRAFT AIRCRAFT ) 16 COMPANY, THE SUN VALLEY SHOPPING ) MALL, R.H. MACY, INC. , GENERAL ) 17 AVIATION SERVICES, THE ROE DOE ) ARCHITECTURE COMPANY, THE DOE DOE ) 18 CIVIL ENGINEERING COMPANY, THE ) TAUBMAN COMPANY, INC. , WELLS ) 19 FARGO BANK, as Trustee of the ) TAUBMAN COMPANY, INC. , THE A ) 20 DOE AIRCRAFT REPAIR SERVICE, ) CITY OF CONCORD, COUNTY OF ) 21 CONTRA COSTA and DOES 1 ) through 500, inclusive. , ) -22 Defendants. ) 23 ) 24 COMES NOW plaintiffs, and each of them, and for causes of 25 action against defendants, aqd each of them, alleges as follows: 26 1. That BEVERLY CAMCAM is the minor child of CARL CAMCAM 27 and ANNIE CAMCAM as hereinafter set forth. 28 1 2. Plaintiff BEVERLY CAMCAM is a minor born on August 9 , 2 1969. 3 3. That a petition for guardian ad litem is filed herewith 4 appointing CARL CAMCAM, SR. , as guardian ad litem for BEVERLY 5 CAMCAM. 6 4 . Plaintiffs CARL CAMCAM, SR. , ANNIE ,CAMCAM and BEVERLY 7 CAMCAM were injured on December 23, 1985 at the SUN VALLEY MALL as 8 hereinafter set forth. 9 5. Plaintiffs are required to comply with a claims statute 10 as to defendants CITY OF CONCORD and COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA. 11 Plaintiffs have complied with the applicable claims statute in the 12 following manner: On or about February 18, 1986, plaintiffs and -13 each. .o.f . .them, submitted damage and injury claims to defendant CITY 14 OF CONCORD. On or about February 27, 1986, all of said claims 15 were denied. On or about February 18, 1986, plaintiffs and each 16 of them, , submitted damage and injury claims to defendant COUNTY 17 OF CONTRA COSTA. On or about March 18, 1986,. said claims were 18 denied. 19 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 20 (For Negligence Against All Defendants)_, 21 6. That . the true names or capacities, whether individual, _22 associate, corporate or otherwise, of defendants DOES 1 through 23 500, inclusive, and each of them, are unknown to plaintiffs, who 24 therefore sue defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs are 25 informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the defen- : 26 dants designated herein as a DOE is responsible in some actionable : I 27 manner for the events and happenings herein referred to, and 28 caused injuries and damages proximately thereby to plaintiffs as i -2- 1 1 hereby alleged. 2 7. At all times herein mentioned each of the defendants 3 named herein, including, without limitation each DOE defendant, 4 was the agent, servant, employee or otherwise acting in concert 5 with each of the remaining defendants and was at all times acting 6 within the purpose and scope of said agency, service and employ- 7 ment, or acting in concert to bring about the damages alleged g herein. 9 B. That at all times mentioned herein, defendant CITY OF 10 CONCORD was a municipal corporation duly organized and existing 11 under the laws of the State of California and situated in the 12 County of Contra Costa. Said defendant is being sued herein on 13 the grounds that plaintiffs ' injuries were a proximate result of 14 the negligence of the CITY OF CONCORD, its agents and employees, 15 who, while acting within the course and scope of their agency and 16 employment by said governmental entity, permitted, authorized, 17 advised, licensed and consented to the creation, design, construc- 18 tion and continued operation of the Sun Valley Shopping Center 19 under the air corridor of a busy airport, thereby placing large 20 numbers of the public, including plaintiffs herein in a very 21 dangerous position when using said center. .22 9. That at all times herein mentioned, defendants SUN 23 VALLEY MALL and each of them, are located at Number 1, Sun Valley 24 Mall in the City of Concord, State of California. Said defendants 25 are being sued as a result of negligently, carelessly, wantonly 26 and recklessly placing a shopping center that attracts a great 27 number of people on a heavily trafficked air corridor in the. 2 vicinity of ,the BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT. -3- 1 10. That at all times mentioned mentioned herein, defendant 2 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA was a county duly organized and existing 3 under the laws of the State of California. Said defendant is 4 being sued herein on the grounds that plaintiffs' injuries were a 5 proximate result of the negligence of the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, 6 its agents and employees, who, while acting within the course and scope of their agency and employment by said governmental entity, 8 permitted, authorized, advised, licensed and consented to the 9 creation, design, construction and continued operation of the Sun 10 Valley Shopping Center under the air corridor of a busy airport, 11 thereby placing large numbers of the public, including plaintiffs 12 herein in a very dangerous position when using said center. Fur- 13 ther, said agents and employees, while acting within the course 14 and scope of their agency and employment on behalf of said govern- 15 mental entity, negligently owned, operated, employed personnel, 16 maintained, entrusted, repaired and supervised at Buchanan Field, U as well as the, business and activities of said airport, so as to 18 proximately cause the subject airplane crash and plaintiffs' in- 19 juries. - 20 11. At all times herein mentioned, the WELLS FARGO BANK, 21 Trustee for the TAUBMAN COMPANY, INC. , and its predecessors in interest, the TAUBMAN COMPANY, INC. , a Michigan corporation, -and 23 Does 1 through 20, were corporations or other entities doing busi- 24 ness in the State of California for the purpose of owning, placing, 25 managing and maintaining defendants SUN VALLEY MALL AND SHOPPING 26 CENTER. Said defendants are doing business in the State of Cali- 27 fornia and maintain more than minimal contacts. Said defendants 28 are hereby being sued as a result of their negligent, careless, -4- 1 wanton and reckless behavior of placing and maintaining a shopping 2 center in the area of a busy air corridor in the vicinity of the 3 BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT. Said defendants knew, or should have 4 known, that during a fog, aircraft would make a missed approach 5 and fly over their mall in a very vulnerable position therefore 6 causing a risk `of disaster and destruction. 7 12. R.H. MACY, INC. , and DOES 100 through 300, inclusive, 8 were at all times relevant business entities luring customers into 9 the mall while knowing that their location was dangerous due to 10 the close proximity to BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT and knowing the like- 11 lihood of an air crash from panes using BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT. 12 13. That at all times herein mentioned, decedent * JAMES 13 MOUNTAIN GRAHAM, and defendants GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES, ' and 14 DOES 21 through 40 and each of them, were the owners and operators 15 of defendants' BEECHCRAFT BARON AIRCRAFT. Said defendants, and 16 each of them, are hereby being sued as a result of negligently, 17 carelessly, recklessly and wantonly operating, maintaining, con- 18 trolling, aviating and navigating said aircraft so as to proxi- 19 mately cause the crash in defendants' shopping mall thereby seri- 20 ously injuring the plaintiffs. 21 14. That at all times mentioned, defendants BEECHCRAFT _22 AIRCRAFT COMPANY and DOES 41 through 60, inclusive, negligently, 23 carelessly, recklessly and wantonly designed, assembled, manufac- 24 tured and distributed said aircraft so that said aircraft could 25 not be properly controlled by defendant JAMES MOUNTAIN GRAHAM, so 26 as to proximately cause said aircraft to crash into said defen- 27 dants' mall. 28 15. Op or about December 23, 1985, defendants and decedent, -5- 1 JAMES MOUNTAIN GRAHAM, so negligently, carelessly, wantonly and 2 recklessly maintained and controlled and repaired said airacraft 3 so as to proximately cause said aircraft to crash in the mall 4 thereby proximately causing the plaintiffs to suffer• severe per- 5 sonal injuries. 6 16. That ' at all times herein mentioned, GENERAL AVIATION 7 SERVICES, DOE AIRCRAFT REPAIR SERVICE, and DOES 21 through 40, 8 inclusive, so negligently, carelessly, wantonly and recklessly 9 maintained and repaired said aircraft so as to render said air- 10 craft inoperable proximately causing said aircraft to crash in the 11 shopping mall. 12 17. That at all times herein mentioned, defendants DOE CIVIL 13 ENGINEERING COMPANY and DOE ARCHITECTURAL COMPANY and DOES 61 14 through 80, located said mall and gave advice to locate said mall 15 under the main corridor of air traffic from BUCHANAN FIELD AIR- 16 PORT. As a. direct and proximate result of placing large numbers 17 of the public and enticing them to go to a shopping center , large 18 numbers of the public were placed in a very dangerous position. 19 Said. placement of said shopping center under the air corridor of a 20 busy airport was negligently, carelessly, wantonly and recklessly 21 promoted by said defendants and each of them. _22 18. . As a proximate result of the negligence of defendants, ' 23 and each of them, plaintiffs and each of them, suffered a loss of 24 earnings and earning capacity which has been greatly impaired, 25 both in the past, present and future, in an amount according to 26 Proof. y 18. As a further , proximate result of the negligence of 28 defendants ,and each of them, plaintiffs and each of them, have -6- 1 incurred and will continue to incur, medical and related expenses 2 in an amount according to proof . 3 20. As a further proximate result of the negligence of 4 defendants and each of them, plaintiffs and each of them, were 5 hurt and injured in ther health, strength, and activity, sustain- 6 ing injury to their nervous systems and person, all of which in- 7 juries have caused and continue to cause, plaintiffs great mental, 8 physical and nervous pain and suffering. Plaintiffs are informed 9 and believe and thereon allege that such injuries will result in 10 some permanent disability to them. As a result of such injuries, 11 Plaintiffs and each of them, have suffered general damages in an 12 amount according to proof. 13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 14 (For Products Liability/Strict Liability In Tort Against Defendants BEECHCRAFT AIRCRAFT COMPANY, and 15 DOES 21 through 61, inclusive) 16 21. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 20 as though 17 fully set forth herein., 18 22. Said aircraft was defectively designed, manufactured and 19 assembled proximately causing said aircraft to crash into said 20 mall. 21 23. That at all times herein mentioned, said defendants' -22 BEECHCRAFT AIRCRAFT was designed, manufactured and assembled and 23 distributed for the purpose of flying in the air and safely trans- 24 porting persons and property in� a safe manner so that said air- 25 craft would not crash as a result of any of its parts or com- 26 ponents. 27 24. That as a direct and proximate result of the defective 28 manufacture, assembly and design and the distribution of said -7- BEECHCRAFT AIRCRAFT involved in said accident, said aircraft did . 2 1 crash proximately causing severe personal injures to the plain- tiffs who were pedestrians and shoppers in defendants' mall. 3 4 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (For Punitive Damages and Exemplary Damages Against S Defendants WELLS FARGO BANK, as Trustee for the TAUBMAN COMPANY, INC. , the TAUBMAN COMPANY, INC. , SUN 6 VALLEY SHOPPING CENTER, SUN VALLEY MALL, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive) 7 25. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 20 of the First 8 Cause of Action and Paragraphs 22 through 24 of the Second Cause 9 of Action as though fully set forth herein. 10 26. Plaintiffs and each of them, allege a cause of action 11 12 for . punitive damages and exemplary damages in the sum of $25,000,000.00 on facts alleged in this complaint. 13 27. That at all times herein mentioned, BUCHANAN FIELD AIR- 14 PORT is an airport which purchased its land in 1942 and started 15 operations in 1946. During heavy fog, when -the airport lights 16 17 cannot be seen, "missed approaches" are common and at such times airplane pilots are flying by instruments. The stress level of 18 19 pilots during such maneuvers of aviating, navigating and communi- cating to the tower is extremely high. THe probability of a crash 20 of a circling plane during these times are statistically much higher 21 than normal. All property within a one mile radius. of an airport -22 is in ' a foreseeably dangerous position. Defendants and each of 23 them, knew of said danger, but in conscious disregard of the dan- 24 ger that potential customers and . users of said mall might undergo, 2.5 they selected said site for said shopping mall because of the 26 y inexpensive land that can be purchased in the vicinity of air- ports. Members of the general public who are not as sophisticated 28 -8- t I as architects, engineers and shopping center developers would not. 2 know of this foreseeable danger and would shop at said mall feel- 3 ing perfectly safe. 4 28. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege 5 that the CITY OF CONCORD, its agents and employees, received actu- 6 al or constructive notice that an air crash was substantially 7 certain to occur as a result of the aforementioned . permission, 8 authorization, advice, licensing and consent to the creation de- 9 sign, construction and continued operation of the Sun Valley Shop- i j 10 ping Center , as well as the negligent ownership, operation, 11 employment of personnel, maintenance, entrustment, repair and 12 supervision at Buchanan Field and that said agents and employees 13 failed to undertake any affirmative action reasonably calculated 14 to reduce the likelihood of an air crash within a reasonable time 15 after receiving said notice. 16 29. As a direct and proximate result of said conscious dis- 17 regard of the safety and life of the potential users of the mall, 18 said mall was located in said dangerous location thereby attract- 19 ing thousands ' of potential shoppers and placing them in a very 20 precarious position. 21 30. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege 22 that the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, its agents and employees, re- 23 ceived actual or constructive notice that an air crash was sub- 24 stantially certain to occur as a result of the aforementioned 25 permission, authorization, advice, licensing and consent to the 26 creation design, construction and continued operation of the Sun 27 Valley Shopping Center, as well as the negligent ownership, opera- 28 tion, employment of personnel, maintenance, entrustment, repair -9- ' Field and that said agents and em- I any affirmative action reasonably .ikelihood_ of an air crash within a .n9 said notice. s oximate result of said conscious dis- =ty of potential shoppers and users of re attracted to said mall on a foggy in extreme danger of an airplane crash i causing severe personal injuries to I . at by placing said shopping center 'in 'I in airport that a crash was inevitable ' i igh likelihood of occurring on their i CAUSE OF ACTION i onsortium for Plaintiff ! Against All Defendants) i i ',AM, SR. incorporates all paragraphs on as though fully set forth herein. ?3, 1485, which is the date of the of this lawsuit, the plaintiffs CARL were husband and wife and said mar- :te marriage and said plaintiff ANNIE :hat were expected of a loving wife. injury, and as a proximate result %M has been unable to perform the ;ted of a loving wife, which include performed in the home, maintenance -10- 1 and management of the family home and will be unable, to perform 2 such work, service and duties in the future. 3 36. As a result of said accident, plaintiff CARL CAMCAM, SR. 4 alleges that plaintiff ANNIE CAMCAM is unable and is informed and 5 believes and thereon alleges that plaintiff ANNIE CAMCAM will 6 continue to be unable, for an unspecified period fo time, to have 7 marital comfort to the detriment of the marriage. ' 8 37. Plaintiff CARL CAMCAM, SR. has witnessed his wife' s 9 physical and mental suffering. This has caused plaintiff CARL 10 CAMCAM, SR. mental suffering. 11 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, and each of them, pray for the relief 12- as follows against defendants and each of them, on Causes of .13 Action One, Two and Four: 14 1. For general damages within the jurisdiction of this 15 court; 16 2. For medical expenses, past, present and future; 17 3. For wage loss, past, present and future; 18 4 . For loss of earning capacity; 19 5. For costs of suit; 20 6. For prejudgment interest; and 21 7. For such other and further relief as is just. _22 Plaintiffs, and each of them pray for relief as follows on 23 the Third Cause of Action against said defendants named therein: 24 1. For general damages within the jurisdiction of this 25 court; 26 2. For medical expenses, past, present and future; 27 3. For wage loss, past, present and future; 28 4. For loss of earning capacity; -11- 1 5. For costs of suit; 2 6. For prejudgment interest; :and + 3 7. For such other and furthe.-- .elief: as is just : and i 4 8. For punitive and .. in . the :a:r_onn.t o} 5 $ 25, 000 , 000 .00 . ` s -REDMOND & PANE - 6 Dated: April 7, 1986 ; 7 Iby .' 3tICHAEL J L S ANP/ 8 i Attorfteys f or .f;Iaintiffs I 9 10 11 12 , 13 14 15 , 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ! 25 I 26 j 27 28 ACY'S SUN VALLEY MALL CRASH - Arbelaez, Deanna Armsden, Vincent M. Bonella, Jina Borque, Joseph } Camcan, Ann Church, Larry Conner, Brian Crouch, Jonathan L. Davis, Kathy Doty, Margaret Dunn, Dayle Elliott, Vern Eros, Charlotte Evangelista, Danielle Evangelista, Stephanie Evans, Diane Glinndon, Davis Graham, James Grehl, Wayne Guadagni,. Wendy Hamilton, Lynn Howe, Timothy Jacobsen, James Jacobus, Brett Jamash, Aaron Jamash, Fatima. Johnson, Anthony MACY'S SUN VALLEY MALL CRASH - Kaify, Mohamed Lang, Richard . Larsen, Pat Lewis, Mack i Lodge, Christina Lodge, Cindy Lodge, Gary Lodge, Julie Ann Lucchese, Nancy Lucchese, Peter Lui, Kenneth Lui, Kenneth Lui, Virginia Luong, Alexander Maderos, Kim Molina, Marial Murray, James Oliver, Brian On, Ann Patterson, Merle Pellegrina, Gian Ploughman, Janet Plowman, Clorene Pruett, Richardson, James Roberson, Kenneth Rodreguez, David t9AGY'S SUN VALLEY MALL CRASH - Sadler, Kelly Sadler, Pamela Sadler, Sabrina Santos, Edward Seiffert, Gregory Sellars, Patricia Shah, Chandra Shah, Chandrika Shaw, Kunjavadan Sheppie, Ruth Shiehan, William Sodaro, Susan Stanford, Pam Stratton, Shannon Suzuki, Kenji Taylor, Nora Thompson, Heather Tillmany, FNU Trice, Jarrod Trice, Susan Wagner, Timothy Wells, Allan White, Carolyn Widdrick, Robert Wilson, Michael Wood, Timothy Woodson, Matthew CLAIM t BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA BOARD ACTION Claim Against the County, or District governed by) the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT September 9 , 1986 and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), Amount: Unspecified given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 a01.1f1391 915.4. Please note all "WARNINGS". co 11 Y V CLAIMANT: MACY' S CALIFORNIA 4UG 0 61986 c/o Daniel M. Crawford, Esq. ATTORNEY: Carroll , Burdick & McDonough N1&1t1t10t, CA 94553 One Ecker Bldg. , Suite 400 ADDRESS: San Francisco, CA 9.4105 Date received BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: August 4, 1986 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: August 1 , 1986 I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK-=�\ • i��V DATED: August 5 , 1936 BY: Deputy L. Hall II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 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. The 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: / r Dated:Gt LC -5 County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (11 County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present (X) This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order nt rjed in its minutes for this date. Dated: SEP 0 9 1986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally'terved 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. CC: Claimant County Counsel County Administrator SPEED MESSAGE TO Clerk, Hoard of Supervisors FROM CARROLL, BURDICK & McDONOUGH Contra Costa County 651 Pine St. #106 ONE ECKER BUILDING, SUITE 400 Martinez, CA 94553 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105 SUBJECT Macy' s claims TELEPHONE: (415) 495-0500 DATEMIgust 1 19 86 Enclosed please find claims by Macy' s against the county of Contra Costa, Buchanan Field Airport and Consolidated Fire District. Please return file endorsed copy. Thank you. Carol Roskelley SIGNED k i TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA CO* rro9WWapplication to: Instructions to ClaimantC!erk of the Board ioC Martinez.Calitomia 84553 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 , California 94553. 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 oTthis form. RE: Claim by )Reserved for Clerk's filing stamps Macy' s California i R9the D Against the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA) or DISTRICT) (Filln name ) C�The' undersigned claimanthereby makes claim aganty of Contra Costa or the above-named District in the sum of $ undetermined at this time. and in support of this claim represents as follows: ----------------------------------------------------------- -- --- �. When did the damage or injury occur? (Give exact date and hourf December 23 , 1985 , at approximately 8 :30 p m. Macy' s was served with a lawsuit by plaintiffs Camcam on July 3 , 1986 , and Macy ' s cause ofaction for indemnity-arose on that date . -------------- _ j '�. Where did-the damage or_ injury occur? (Include city and county Sunvalley Shopping Center, City of Concord, County of i Contra Costa. 3. How did the damage or injury occur? (Give �u�I details, use extra . } sheets if required) See attached Page 1 . 4. What particular- act or omission on the part of county or district officers, servants or employees caused the injury or damage? The county, the district and its servants and employees negligently constructed, maintained, operated and/or managed Buchanan Field Airport and other public property. The said county, district and its employees and servants are liable in strict liability for maintaining, operating and/or managing the airport and other (Over) public property in its dangerous and defective condition. 5,. What 'are the names of county or district officers, servants ori employees' causing the damage or injury? Unknown at this time 6. What damage or injuries do you claim resulted? ZGive full extent of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto damage) See attached Page 1. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. How was the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimated amount of any prospective injury or damage. ) This is a claim for total indemnity. The amount of damages will be determined by the injured parties ' recovery against this claimant. -------------------------------------------------=----------------------- 6. Names and addresses of witnesses, doctors and hospitals. See attached Exhibit B. Investigation is continuing with regard to any potential witnesses . The Consolidated First District and Concord Police Department reports convering the accident list potential witnesses . �. List the expenditures you made on account of this accident or in0ury: DATE _.. ._ ITEM AMOUNT Macy`',s has ° incurredand is incurring substantial investigative defense costs , ificliiding attorneys fees and further may be: subject to the payment of damages to injured parties and Macy' s seeks indemnification for ?all such damages . r } ... -... Govt. Code Sec. 910.2 provides "The claim signed by claimant SEND NOTICES TO: (Attorney) or by vdmf--, Person o is/behalf. " Name and Address of Attorney . ZI/Y/X W. Daniel M. Crawford, Esq. Claimant s ature Carroll, Burdick & McDonough fo acy s Cali r is One Ecker Bldg. , Suite 400 P. O. ddi5n8 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone No. 415/495-0500 Box San Francisco, A 94120 Tele p Telephone No. 415/954-6014 Attn: William H. Kinq, vice Pres . 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. " 3 . A Beechcraft Baron aircraft crashed into the roof of Sunvalley Shopping Center, killing the pilot and passengers , and injuring shoppers in the mall, among whom were Carl Camcam, Sr. , Annie Camcam, and Beverly Camcam. The Camcams are claiming damages set forth in their complaint filed on May 5 , 1986 , a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 6 . Plaintiffs seek general damages, reimburtement of past, present and future medical care, past, present and future lost wages , loss of earning capacity, costs of suit, prejudgment interest and punitive and examplary damages . See Exhibit A. Macy ' s claim is for complete and/or partial indemnity of any recovery against Macy 's by the Camcams and other parties claiming damages due to the aircrash. The accident out of which the claim arose occurred on December 23 , 1985 . The cause of action for indemnity arose on July 3 , 1936 , when Macy' s was served with the lawsuit filed by the Camcams . I MICHAEL J. SHANE PHILIP T. PRINCE 2 REDMOND & SHANE 251 Oak Street MAY 5 - 1986 3 San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 621-3366 J.R. OLSSON, County Clerk CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 4 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, By LU Deputy 5 CARL CAMCAM, SR. , ANNIE CAMCAM, and BEVERLY CAMCAM, a minor , by 6 and through her Guardian ad Litem, CARL CAMCAM SR. 7. 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 10 CARL CAMCAM, SR. , ANNIE CAMCAM, ) 11 and BEVERLY CAMCAM, a minor, by ) NO. 285887 and through her Guardian ad ) 12 Litem, CARL CAMCAM SR. ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR NEGLIGENCE; PRODUCTS 13 Plaintiffs, ) LIABILITY/STRICT LIABILITY IN TORT; PUNITIVE DAMAGES; 14 vs. ) and LOSS OF CONSORTIUM ) 15 ESTATE OF JAMES MOUNTAIN ) GRAHAM, THE BEECHCRAFT AIRCRAFT ) 16 COMPANY, THE SUN VALLEY SHOPPING ) MALL, R.H. MACY, INC. , GENERAL ) 17 AVIATION SERVICES, THE ROE DOE ) ARCHITECTURE COMPANY, THE DOE DOE ) 18 CIVIL ENGINEERING COMPANY, THE ) TAUBMAN COMPANY, INC. , WELLS ) 19 FARGO BANK, as Trustee of the ) TAUBMAN COMPANY, INC. , THE A ) 20 DOE AIRCRAFT REPAIR SERVICE, ) CITY OF CONCORD, COUNTY OF ) 21 CONTRA COSTA and ' DOES 1 ) through 500, inclusive. , ) _22 ) Defendants. ) 23 ) 241 COMES NOW plaintiffs, and each of them, and for causes of 25 action against defendants, a4d each of them, alleges as follows: 26 1. That BEVERLY CAMCAM is the minor child of CARL CAMCAM 27 and ANNIE CAMCAM as hereinafter set forth. 28 - 1 2. Plaintiff BEVERLY CAMCAM is a minor born on August 9, 2 1969. 3 3. That a petition for guardian ad litem is filed herewith 4 appointing CARL CAMCAM, SR. , as guardian ad litem for BEVERLY 5 CAMCAM. 6 4 . Plaintiffs CARL CAMCAM, SR. , ANNIE ,CAMCAM and BEVERLY 7 CAMCAM were injured on December 23, 1985 at the SUN VALLEY MALL as 8 hereinafter .set forth. 9 5. Plaintiffs are required to comply with a claims statute 10 as to defendants CITY OF CONCORD and COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA. 11 Plaintiffs have complied with the applicable claims statute in the 12 following manner: On or about February 18, 1986, plaintiffs and 13 each. o.f.. them, submitted damage and injury claims to defendant CITY 14 OF CONCORD. On or about February 27, 1986, all of said claims 15 were denied. On or about February 18, 1986, plaintiffs and each 16 of them, , submitted damage and injury claims to defendant COUNTY 17 OF CONTRA COSTA. On or about March 18, 1986, said claims were 18 denied. 19 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (For Negligence Against All Defendants) 20 21 6. That the true names or capacities, whether individual, _22 associate, corporate or otherwise, of defendants DOES 1 through 23 500, inclusive, and each of them, are unknown to plaintiffs, who 24 therefore sue defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs are 25 informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the defen- 26 dants designated herein as a DOE is responsible in some actionable I 27 manner for the events and happenings herein referred to, and 28 caused injuries and damages proximately thereby to plaintiffs as i l -2- 1 hereby alleged. 2 7. At all times herein mentioned each of the defendants 3 named herein, • including, without limitation each DOE defendant, 4 was the agent, servant, employee or otherwise acting in concert 5 with each of the remaining defendants and was at all times acting 6 within the purpose and scope of said agency, service and employ- 7 ment, or acting in concert to bring about the damages alleged 8 herein. 9 8. That at all times mentioned herein, defendant CITY OF 10 CONCORD was a municipal corporation duly organized and existing 11 under the laws of the State of California and situated , in the 12 County of Contra Costa. Said defendant is being sued herein on 13 the grounds that plaintiffs' injuries. were a proximate result of 14 the negligence of the CITY OF CONCORD, its agents and employees, 15 who, while acting within the course and scope of their agency and 16 employment by said governmental entity, permitted, authorized, 17 advised, licensed and consented to the creation, design, construc- 18 tion and continued operation of the Sun Valley Shopping Center 19 under the air 'corridor of a busy airport, thereby placing large 20 numbers of the public, including plaintiffs herein in a very 21 dangerous position when using said center. .22 9. That at all times herein mentioned, defendants SUN 23 VALLEY MALL and each of them, are located at Number 1, Sun Valley 24 Mall in the City of Concord, .State of California. Said defendants 25 are being sued as a result of negligently, carelessly, wantonly 26 and recklessly placing a shopping center that attracts a great 27 number of people on a heavily trafficked air corridor in the 28 vicinity of .the BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT. -3- 1 10. That at all times mentioned mentioned herein, defendant 2 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA was a county duly organized and existing 3 under the laws of the State of California. Said defendant is 4 being sued herein on the grounds that plaintiffs' injuries were a 5 proximate result of the negligence of the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, 6 its agents and employees, who, while acting within the course and 7 scope of their agency and employment by said governmental entity, 8 permitted, authorized, advised, licensed and consented to the 9 creation, design, construction and continued operation of the Sun 10 Valley Shopping Center under the air corridor of a busy airport, 11 thereby placing large numbers of the public, including plaintiffs 12 herein in a very dangerous position when using said .center. Fur- 13 then, said agents and employees, while acting within the course 14 and scope of their agency and employment on behalf of said govern- 15 mental entity, negligently owned, operated, employed personnel, 16 maintained, entrusted, repaired and supervised at Buchanan Field, 17 as well as the business and activities of said airport, so as to 18 proximately cause the subject airplane crash and plaintiffs' in- 19 juries. 20 11. At all times herein mentioned, the WELLS FARGO BANK, 21 Trustee for the TAUBMAN COMPANY, INC. , and its predecessors in _22 interest, the TAUBMAN COMPANY, INC. , a Michigan corporation, and 23 Does 1 through 20, were corporations or other entities doing busi- 24 ness in the State of California for the purpose of owning, placing, 25 managing and maintaining defendants SUN VALLEY MALL AND SHOPPING 26 CENTER. Said defendants are doing business in the State of Cali- 27 fornia and maintain more than minimal contacts. Said defendants 28 are hereby being sued as a result of their negligent, careless, -4- I wanton and. reckless behavior of placing and maintaining a shopping 2 center in the area of a busy air corridor in the vicinity of the 3 BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT. Said defendants knew, or should have 4 known, that during a fog, aircraft would make a missed approach 5 and fly over their mall in a very vulnerable position therefore 6 causing a risk of disaster and destruction. 7 12. R.H. MACY, INC. , and DOES 100 through 300, inclusive, 8 were at all times relevant business entities luring customers into 9 the mall while knowing that their location was dangerous due to 10 the close proximity to BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT and knowing the like- 11 lihood of an air crash from panes using BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT. 12 13. That at all times herein mentioned, decedent * JAMES 13 MOUNTAIN GRAHAM, and defendants GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES, and 14 DOES 21 through 40 and each of them, were the owners and operators 15 of defendants' BEECHCRAFT BARON AIRCRAFT. Said defendants, and 16 each of them, are hereby being sued as a result of negligently, 17 carelessly, recklessly and wantonly operating, maintaining, con- 18 trolling , aviating and navigating said aircraft so as to proxi- 19 mately cause the crash in defendants' shopping mall thereby seri- 20 ously injuring the plaintiffs. 21 14. That at all times mentioned, defendants BEECHCRAFT AIRCRAFT COMPANY and DOES 41 through 60, inclusive, negligently, ' -22 23 carelessly, recklessly and wantonly designed, assembled, manufac- 24 tured and distributed said aircraft so that said aircraft could 25 not be properly controlled by defendant JAMES MOUNTAIN GRAHAM, so 26 as to proximately cause said aircraft to crash into said defen- 27 dants' mall. 28 15. Op or about December 23, 1985, defendants and decedent, -5- 1 JAMES MOUNTAIN GRAHAM, so negligently, carelessly, wantonly and 2 recklessly maintained and controlled and repaired said airacraft 3 so as to proximately cause said aircraft to crash in the mall 4 thereby proximately causing the plaintiffs to suffer severe per- sonal injuries. 6 16. That at all times herein mentioned, GENERAL AVIATION 7 SERVICES, DOE AIRCRAFT REPAIR SERVICE, and DOES 21 through 40, 8 inclusive, so negligently, carelessly, wantonly and recklessly 9 maintained and repaired said aircraft so as to render said air- 10 craft inoperable proximately causing said aircraft to crash in the 11 shopping mall. 12 17. That at all times herein mentioned, defendants DOE CIVIL 13 ENGINEERING COMPANY and DOE ARCHITECTURAL COMPANY and DOES 61 14 through 80, located said mall and gave advice to locate said mall 15 under the main corridor of air traffic from BUCHANAN FIELD AIR- 16 PORT. As a direct and proximate result of placing large numbers 17 of the public and enticing them to go to a shopping center, large 18 numbers of the public were placed in a very dangerous position. 19 Said placement of said shopping center under the air corridor of a 20 busy airport was negligently, carelessly, wantonly and recklessly 21 promoted by said defendants and each of them. _?? 18. As a proximate result of the negligence of defendants 23 and each of them, plaintiffs and each of them, suffered a loss of 24 earnings and earning capacity which has been greatly impaired, 25 both in the past, present and future, in an amount according to 26 Proof. 27 18. As a further, proximate result of the negligence of 28 defendants ,and each of them, plaintiffs and each of them, have -6- 1 incurred and will continue to incur., medical and related expenses 2 in an amount according to proof. 3 20. As a further proximate result of the negligence of 4 defendants and each of them, plaintiffs and each of them, were 5 hurt and injured in ther health, strength, and activity, sustain- 6 ing injury to their nervous systems and person, all of which in- 7 juries have caused and continue to cause, plaintiffs great mental, 8 physical and nervous pain and suffering. Plaintiffs are informed 9 and believe and thereon allege that such injuries will result in 10 some permanent disability to them. As a result of such injuries, 11 Plaintiffs and each of them, have suffered general damages in an 12 amount according to proof. 13 SECOND CAOSE OF ACTION 14 (For Products Liability/Strict Liability In Tort Against Defendants BEECHCRAFT AIRCRAFT COMPANY, and 15 DOES 21 through 61, inclusive) 16 21. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 20 as though 17 fully set forth herein. 18 22• Said aircraft was defectively designed, manufactured and 19 assembled proximately causing said aircraft to crash into said 20 mall. 21 23. That at all times herein mentioned, said defendants' -22 BEECHCRAFT AIRCRAFT was designed, manufactured and assembled and 23 distributed for the purpose of flying in the air and safely trans- 24 porting persons and property in a safe manner so that said air- 25 craft would not crash as a result of any of its parts or com- 26 ponents. 27 24. That as a direct and proximate result of the defective 28 manufacture, assembly and design and the distribution of said -7- BEECHCRAFT AIRCRAFT involved in said accident, said aircraft did ' 1 2 crash proximately causing severe personal injures to the plain- 3 tiffs who were pedestrians and shoppers in defendants ' mall. 4 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (For Punitive Damages and Exemplary Damages Against 5 Defendants WELLS FARGO BANK, as Trustee for the TAUBMAN COMPANY, INC. , the TAUBMAN COMPANY, INC. , SUN 6 VALLEY. SHOPPING CENTER, SUN VALLEY MALL, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive) 7 8 25. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 20 of the First Cause of Action and Paragraphs 22 through 24 of the Second Cause 9 of Action as though fully set forth herein. 10 26. Plaintiffs and each of them, allege a cause of action 11 12 for punitive damages and exemplary damages in the sum of $25,000,000.00 on facts alleged in this complaint. 13 27. That at all times herein mentioned, BUCHANAN FIELD AIR- 14 15 PORT is an airport which purchased its land in 1942 and started 16 operations in 1946. During heavy fog , when the airport lights 17 cannot be seen, "missed approaches" are common and at such times airplane pilots are flying by instruments. The stress level of 18 pilots during such maneuvers of aviating , navigating and communi- 19 cating to the tower is extremely high. THe probability of a crash 20 of a circling plane during these times are statistically much higher 21 than normal.. All property within a one mile radius of an airport ?2 is in a foreseeably dangerous position. Defendants and each of 23 them, knew of said danger, but in conscious disregard of the dan- 24 ger that potential customers and users of said mall might undergo, 25 they selected said site for said shopping mall because of the 26 27 inexpensive land that can be purchased in the vicinity of air- 28 ports. Members of the general public who are not as sophisticated 1 as architects, engineers and shopping center developers would not know of this foreseeable danger and would shop at said mall feel- 3 ing perfectly safe. 4 28. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege 5 that the CITY OF CONCORD, its agents and employees, received actu- 6 al or constructive notice that an air crash was substantially 7 certain to occur as a result of the aforementioned permission, 8 authorization, advice , licensing and consent to the creation de- ' 4 9 sign, construction and continued operation of the Sun Valley Shop- I j 10 Ping Center, as well as the negligent ownership, operation, 11 employment of personnel, maintenance, entrustment, repair and 12 supervision at Buchanan Field and that said agents and employees 13 failed to undertake any affirmative action reasonably calculated 14 to reduce the likelihood of an air crash within a reasonable time 15 after receiving said notice. 16 29• As a direct and proximate result of said conscious dis- 17 regard of the safety and life of the potential users of the mall, 18 said mall was located in said dangerous location thereby attract- 19 ing thousands ' of potential shoppers and placing them in a very 20 precarious position. 21 30. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, its agents and employees, re- 22 23 ceived actual or constructive notice that an air crash was sub- 24 stantially certain to occur as a result of the aforementioned 25 permission, authorization, advice, licensing and consent to the 26 creation design, construction and continued operation of the Sun 27 Valley Shopping Center, as well as the negligent ownership, opera- 28 tion, emplpyment of personnel, maintenance, entrustment, repair -9- Field ` and that said agents and em- i e anv affirmative action reasonably ikelihood of an air crash within a ng said notice. I �oximate result of said conscious dis- ?ty of potential shoppers and users of ' re attracted to said mall on a foggy in extreme danger of an airplane crash i i causing severe personal injuries to i at by placing said shopping center in in airport that a crash was inevitable ' ,iah likelihood of occurring on their I, 1 f CAUSE OF ACTION i onsortium for Plaintiff i Against All Defendants} i 'AM, SR. incorporates all paragraphs .on as though fully set forth herein. 23, 1985, which is the date of the of this lawsuit, the plaintiffs CARL were husband and wife and said mar- .te marriage and said plaintiff ANNIE -hat were expected of a loving wife. injury, and as a proximate 'result a.M has been unable to perform the :ted of a loving wife, which include performed in the home, maintenance -10 • 1 and management of the family home and will be unable to perform 2 such work, service and duties in the future. 3 36. As a result of said accident, plaintiff CARL CAMCAM, SR. 4 alleges that plaintiff ANNIE CAMCAM is unable and is informed and 5 believes and thereon alleges that plaintiff ANNIE CAMCAM will 6 continue to be unable, for an unspecified period fo time, to have 7 marital comfort to the detriment of the marriage. 8 37. Plaintiff CARL CAMCAM, SR. has witnessed his wife' s 9 physical and mental suffering. This has caused plaintiff CARL 10 CAMCAM, SR. mental suffering. 11 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, and each of them, pray for the relief 12 as follows against defendants and each of them, on Causes of 13 Action One, Two and Four: 14 1. For general damages within the jurisdiction of this 15 court; 16 2. - For medical expenses, past, present and future; 17 3 . For wage loss, past, present and future; 18 4. For loss of earning capacity; 19 5. For costs of suit; 20 6. For prejudgment interest; and 21 7. For such other and further relief as is just. _22 Plaintiffs, and each of them pray for relief as follows on 23 the Third Cause of Action against said defendants named therein: 24 1. For general damages within the jurisdiction of this court; 25 26 2. For medical expenses, past, present and future; 27 3. For wage loss, past, present and future; 4 . For loss of earning capacity; 28 -11- 1 5. For costs of suit; 2 6. For prejudgment interest; and 3 7 . For such other and further relief as is just: and 4 8. For punitive and exemplary damages in the amount of i $ $ 25, 000,000.00. 6 REDMONp & SHANE - Dated : April 7, 1986 i by 8 MICHAEL J. S ANE Attorneys for ..P,Iaintiffs 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 27 23 24 25 26 27 28 -12- CLAIM /.2� BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA BOARD ACTION Claim Against the County, or District governed by) the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT September 9, 1986 and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below). Amount: W2 . 7 9 given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "WARNINGS". County Counsel CLAIMANT: BUDDY STROTHER AUG 12 1986 ATTORNEY: Martinez, CA 94553 ADDRESS: Route 2 , Box 251 Date received Brentwood, CA 94513 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: August 8 ,. 1986 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: August 7 , 1986 I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK DATED: August 11 , 1986 BY: Deputy L. Hall II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (�() 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. The 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: , L.c C�.�L,C�C,1CkDEjuty County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of Ne Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present (x) This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order enter d in its minutes for this date. Dated: SEP 0 9 1986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov, code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally'terved 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. CC: Claimant County Counsel County Administrator CL-AIM�O: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY • �� Instructions 'to 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 W Ig stamps ECEIVED ) Against the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA) AUG F 1986 or DISTRICT) CL AN AT vpq Fill in name) ) tl .. ..... The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra Costa or the above-named District in the sum of $ 802. 79 and in support of this claim represents as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. When did the damage or injury occur? (Give exact date and hour) 07/09/86 1 :00 p.m. ---------------------------------------------------------=-------------- 2. Where did the damage or injury occur? (Include city and county) Fairview Avenue, Brentwood, East-Contra Costa County -----H - ---------------------------------------------- 3. ow---did----the-----damage------or--injury occur? (Give full details, use extra sheets if required) I was heading south on Fairview ave in Brentwood. Approxamently 65. Upon approaching Sandcreek road I observed a shirrif pulling out in ., $bnt of me going the same direction,-I then slammed on the brakes to avoid contact and rolled.;, - -------------------------------------------- ----W-h-at-p-a-rt-i-cu--a-r--act--o-r--omission on the part of county or district officers , servants or employees caused the injury or damage? Failure to yi:ia' ld right-of-way. (over) 5.- What are the names of county or district officers, _se=van;ts;,Qr:r I employees causing. the damage or injury? J� sr 6. What amage or injuries do you claim resulted? (Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto damage) Truck-Totaled injured neck, along with numerous bruises. H ------ow--was t----=-he-------amount--------claimed---above--------compute-----d?----------(Include----the-----------estimated--- 7. amount of any prospective injury or damage. ) Two an a half days work 100.00 :ospital 229.25 Ambulance 1�73�54 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Names and addresses of witnesses, doctors and hospitals. Delta McLnorial Hospital Doctor-Lynch Ambulance-Regional Medical AnOtioch,eCA 94509 P.O.Box 7780 Frew-int, CA 94537-7780 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. List the expenditures you made on account of this accident or injury: DATE: ITEM AMOUNT 07/09/86 Ambulance 473-54 07/09/86 Hospital 229.25 07/05/86-07/11/86 Off work 100.00 r Govt. Code Sec. 910. 2 provides : "The claim signed by the claimant SEND NOTICES TO:' (Attorney) or by some person on his behalf. " Name and Address of AttorneyBuddy Strother) Claiman s Signature Rt. 2 Bok 251 Address Brentwood, CA 94513 Telephone No. Telephone No. (415-634-1892) 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. " 4 CLAIM /« BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT September 9 , 1986 and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), Amount: $100. 00 given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "WARNINGS". CLAIMANT: MICHAEL A. CONiVORS County cou+nsel ATTORNEY: AUG 12 196 ADDRESS: 1545 Mansfield Ave. Date received M attinez, CA 84553 Santa Cruz , CA 95060 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: August 8,, 1986 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: August 7, 1986 I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK DATED: August 11 , 1986 BY: Deputy J !y L. Hall 1I. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (�y 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. The 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:/ L. G By: E-�- i >t, �G�C't i2 Qp�¢uty County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present x) This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order me ed in idfs minutes for this date. Dated: SEP 0 91986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, BDeputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date 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. CC: Claimant County Counsel County Administrator ;AI.M TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA CO*aQ Yappiication to: . Instructions to ClaimantClerk of the Board .O.Box 911 Martinez.Califomia 94553 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, California 94553. C. If claim is against a district governed by the Board of Supervisors, rather than the County, the name of the Distript 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 )Reserved for Clerk's g stamps RECEIVED Against the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA) AUG F1986 ) or Z DISTRICT) e c R oaf Fillin name ) asi W The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra Costa or the above-named District in the sum of $/00.00 and in support of this claim represents as follows: -- -------------------- ------------------------=-------------- �. When did the damage or injury occur? (Give exact date and hour]---- �. W�iere �i� t5e damage or snjury occur? (Include city and county) -------------------------- --------------- - --T ----- -------- 3. How did the damage or injury occur? Give dull �etais, use extra sheets if required) 00���� �0.5A �u� j Ser(�iP� B.�Se�r you 1OJ7L,' ' .A- 7"'Ie NG m n Rtctl,OT -------------T---------------T--T--------••---••---------------- ---..- 4. What particular act or omission on the part of county or district officers, servants or employees caused the injury or damage? s£NJ !7 G�s£ w / t y 5W D� LrJ /elf tfIV 07N£k. _1-,4/ . r/ (over) 5. What are the names of county or district officers, servants or employees causing the damage or injury? E D'N b'1�r4 C O S JA-- Gdzt rt)?-1 .7;f-/A 6. What damage or �n3uries do you claim resulted? ZGve dull extent of injuries of damages claimed. - Attach two estimates for auto damage) . of /D?ti7/ Fici4a+lb� i" oNEY !S7 G.4iZR!£2 Vtl 7f-L 611W _ 7. w Bowas the amount c1dimed Bove computed? (Include the estimated_- amount of any prospective injury or damage.) G 6 Y7- 6 DC ---�N--�-�-�- 6. Names and addresses of witnesses, doctors and hospitals. -------- 37 List the expenditures you made on account of this accident or injury: DATE. ITEM AMOUNT �� �o ��7 >tFN B► ore -047-) Govt. Code Sec. 910.2 provides: "The claim signed by the claimant SEND NOTICES TO: (Attorney) or by some person on his behalf." i Name and Address of Attorney _ Claim nt s g u Adcjxess Telephone No. Telephone No. �, 'NOTICE Section 72 of the Penal Code provides: *'very 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." r a CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY REC--NO: o$E.7rjtOPERTY RECEIPT MJ: 0 - 07/28/86 BJ: ❑ DATE: f 50$ WF: ❑ TIME: NAME (L,F,M): CONNORS MICHAEL ALLEN BOOKING NBR: 860170543 DOB: 0$/03/67 VALUABLES CASH: $ 2. 29 JEWELRY: y N DESC: YM DIGITAL WATCH: N DESC: ; WALLET: KEYS: GLASSES: v DISP W/Wil CASE LIGHTER: y. 4" LOCKING BLADE, POCKET IN SH KNIFE: BAS OF Cl r , SH OTHER: ELATH INTA�p, BKG OFC INMATE X (SIGMTURE) ADMINISTRATION VERIFICATION: YES ❑ NO ❑ PROPERTY BOX ASSIGNED: RELEASE . REL OFC: DATE: RECEIVED ALL PROPERTY INMATE (SIGNATURE) _ r ,1 CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT September 9 , 1986 and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), Amount: given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 a n d Unspecified 915.4. Please note all "WARNINGS". CLAIMANT: DOROTHY A GRAHAM ET AL Action No. ' 281087 COunty Counsel c/o Fisher & Hurst ATTORNEY: Attn : Stephen C. Kenney, Esq. AUG U G 1986 Scott D. Raphael , Esq. MM ADDRESS: Four Embarcadero Center Date received Au ust$r�i^ 9 94553 25th Floor BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: g , San Francisco, CA 94111-4132 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: July 31 , 1986 Gertified P 017967619 1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK DATED: August 5 , 1986 BY: Deputy L. Hall II. FRAM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 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. The 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: E(- uty County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel- (1,) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order me d in its minutes for this date. SEP 0 9 � -: Dated: 1986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date 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. CC: Claimant County Counsel County Administrator i i a STEPHEN C. KENNEY, ESQ. 4SCOTT D. RAPHAEL, ESQ. C LAW OFFICES OF I V� 1 FISHER 8 HURST A(/� FOUR EMBARCADERO CENTER I",ci^ SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 `'{ 2 TELEPHONE (415) 956-6000 Y Aq M�(QR p 3 As 4 5 ATTORNEYS FOR Claimant, DOROTHY A. GRAHAM as the executor of, the ESTATE OF JAMES M. GRAHAM. 6 7 8 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF ) THE ESTATE OF JAMES M. GRAHAM, ) 12 ) Claimant, ) CLAIM FOR INDEMNITY 13 v. ) 14 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, ) 15 Respondent. ) 16 17 TO THE HONORABLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA: 18 DOROTHY A. GRAHAM, as the Executor of the ESTATE OF JAMES M. 19 GRAHAM, Deceased, by presents this claim to the COUNTY OF CONTRA 20 COSTA pursuant to California Government Code § 910.4. 21 1 . The name and post office address of the claimant is as follows: 22 DOROTHY A. GRAHAM, as the Executor of the 23 ESTATE OF JAMES M. GRAHAM c/o FISHER & HURST 24 Attn: Stephen C. Kenney, .Esq. Scott D. Raphael, Esq. 25 Four Embarcadero Center. 25th Floor San Francisco, California 94111-4132 26 -1= 1 6. The post office address to which claimant desires notice of this claim to be sent is as follows: 2 Stephen C. Kenney, Esq. 3 Scott D. Raphael , Esq. FISHER & HURST 4 Four Embarcadero Center. 25th Floor San Francisco, California 94111-4132 5 3. On December 23 , 1985, in the City of Concord, County of 6 Contra Costa, California, James M. Graham, John Frederick Lewis and Brian Ward Oliver, were occupants of a Beechcraft Baron 7 BA55A Aircraft, FAA Reg. No. N1494G, when said aircraft crashed while attempting a landing at the Concord Buchanan Field 8 Airport. All three occupants of said aircraft were killed in the crash. Jonathan L. 'Crouch was allegedly injured in the 9 crash, which occurred at the Sun Valley Mall , located in the . City of Concord, County of Contra Costa, California. 10 4. The County of Contra Costa is responsible for the 11 design, construction, maintenance, operation, and certification of the Concord Buchanan Airport, and control of its use. The 12 County of Contra Costa is further responsible for the certifica- tion, permission, approval, and the provision of zoning and 13 ordinances permitting the construction of the Sun Valley Mall, attracting a great number of persons, in close proximity to- 14 the Buchanan , Field Airport, and below and directly within a heavily traveled air corridor in the vicinity of the air- 15 port. 16 5. On or about July 22, 1986, a First Amended Complaint for personal injury damages was filed in the Superior Court of 17 the State of California, in and for the County of Contra Costa, by plaintiff, Jonathan L. Crouch. ( "plaintiff" ) . (A true and 18 correct copy of said complaint, Action No, 281087, is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" , and incorporated herein by reference. ) 19 The complaint alleges, inter alis; that on December 23, 1985, decedent James M. Graham and others negligently operated and 20 controlled the subject aircraft, causing it to crash while attempting a landing at the Concord Buchanan Airport. Said 21 complaint was served upon claimant, Estate of Graham, on or about July 22, 1986. 22 23 24 25 26 -2- z 1 6. If, in fact, plaintiff sustained damages as alleged in his complaint in Action No. 281087, said damages were caused by 2 the primary and active negligence or' other fault of the County of Contra Costa. Claimant, therefore, alleges that it is 3 entitled as a matter of law to indemnity from the County of Contra Costa for any judgment or settlement in favor of the 4 plaintiff, together with claimant 's attorneys fees and costs. 5 7. Further, if claimant is liable to plaintiff, it will be because of the comparative negligence or other fault of the 6 County of Contra Costa. Accordingly, claimant alleges that the County of Contra Costa is required by law to contribute to the 7 amount of any judgment or settlement in favor of the plaintiff in accordance with the comparative degree and nature of fault in 8 causing said plaintiff 's damages, if any, and is required to reimburse and indemnify and hold claimant harmless for the amount 9. of any such judgment or settlement which is in excess of claimant 's proportional share thereof, if any, as determined by 10 the comparative degree and nature of the respective fault in causing said plaintiff 's damages, if any. 11 8. As of the date of the filing of this claim, the extent 12 of the damages and injuries allegedly incurred by the plaintiff in the above-mentioned action is unknown to claimant, and will be 13 determined in the aforementioned, pending litigation. 14 9. At the present time, the identity of the employee of employees of the County of Contra Costa who caused the creation 15 and continued existence of the aforementioned dangerous conditions, is unknown to claimant. 16 10. At the time of the presentation of this claim, claimant 17 seeks the total amount of potential recovery by plaintiff in Action No. 281087 (the total amount of which is presently unknown 18 to claimant) and recognition of the duty of the County of Contra Costa to provide a defense to and indemnify claimant for any and 19 all damages, costs, and attorneys fees it may suffer as a result of the complaint brought by the plaintiff, against claimant, in 20 Superior Court Action Number 281087, filed in the Contra Costa Superior Court. 21 22 DATED: July J, 1986 FISHER & HURST 23 By: 24 SCO D. RAP AEL;-Attorneys for Claimant, DOROTHY A. 25 GRAHAM, as the Executor of the ESTATE OF JAMES M. GRAHAM, 26 Deceased. -3- S J U L 2 3 RECD ROBERT W. LAZZARINI, ESQ. 1 LAllARINI & FRAZ IER 2 A Professional Corporation 49 Quail W urt, Suite 212 3 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (415 ) 934-5000 4 Attorneys for Plaintiff 5 JONATHAN L. CROUCH 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 9 10 JONATHAN L. CROUCH NO. 281087 11 Plaintiff , FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DA MAGES 12 1. Negligence VS . 2. Nuisance 3. Breach of Warranty 13 BEECHCRAFT AIRCRAFT CO. ; 4. Strict Products 14 BEECHCRAFT WEST, a California Liabili. y Corporation ; TELEDYNE 5. Negligent Infliction of 15 CONTINENTAL MOTORS, a division Emotional Distress of TELEDYNE INDUSTRIES, INC. ; 6. Punitive Damages 16 ESTATE OF JAMES MOUNTAIN GRAHAM ; GENERAL AIR SERVICE, a 17 California Corporation; JAMES V. MAGEEAN ; ARK DISTRIBUTING 18 COMPANY; CITY OF CONCORD; COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA; 19 BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT; SUNVALLEY ASSOCIATION dba 20 SUNVALLEY MALL SHOPPING CENTER; TA UBMA.N COMPANY, INC. , a 21 Michigan Corporation; WELLS FARGO BANK, as Trustee and 22 Successor- In Interest to the TAUBMAN COMPANY, INC. , ; and 23 DOES ONE through ONE HUNDRED, inclusive , 24 Defendants. / 25 Plaintiff alleges as follows : 26 1. Plaintiff JONATHAN L. CROUCH was injured on 4w OFTCES .. ._. _ La:zarini & Frazier ��O.ESS10-,COnPpn�1.01 A9 OU'L COUP SUITE 212 .'•'JT GpEUc ULii0aN1A 94596 ���'�'� + cn5193.5000 I i 1 December 23, 1985, at the Sun Valley Mall as hereinafter set 2 forth . 3 2. Plaintiff herein timely filed his amended claim 4 against the City of Concord and the County of Contra Costa on or 5 about March 27, 1986. The CITY denied Plaintiff' s claim on or 6 about April 1, 1986. The COUNTY denied Plaintiff' s claim on or 7 about April 29, 1986. 8 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (For Negligence Against All Defendants) 9 — 3. That the true names or capacities , whether individual , 10 associate , corporate or otherwise , of defendants DOES 1 through 11 500, inclusive , and each of them , are unknown to plaintiff , who 12 therefore sues defendants by such fictitious names . Plaintiff is 13 ` informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the 14 defendants designated herein as a DOE is responsible in some 15 actionable manner for the events and happenings herein referred 16 to , and caused injuries and damages proximately thereby to 17 plaintiff as hereby alleged . . 18 4. At all times herein mentioned each of the defendants 19 named herein , including , without limitation each DOE defendant , + 20 was the agent, servant, employee or otherwise acting in concert 21 of each of the remaining defendants and was at all times acting 22 within the purpose and scope orf said agency, service and 23 employment , or acting in concert to bring about the damages 24 alleged herein . i 25 5. That at all times herein mentioned , defendants SUN 26 VALLEY SHOPPING CENTER and each of them, are located at Law ,CES 1_a¢arini & Frasier - ' �2 Oi ESS'ONaL CORPORaTiON 49 OUa1L COURT SUITE" 'AUT CREEK CALIFORNIA 94598 -413,93.50M � 1 Number 1 Sun Valley Mall in the City of Concord , State of 2 California. Defendants SUNVALLEY SHOPPING CENTER, CITY OF 3 CONCORD, and COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA are being sued as a result of 4 their negligently , carelessly , wantonly and recklessly placing a 5 shopping center that attracts a great number of people on a 6 heavily trafficked air corridor in the vicinity of the Buchanan 7 Field Airport and failing to operate same in a safe manner . 8 6. At all times herein mentioned , the WELLS FARGO BANK, 9 Trustee for the TAUBMAN COMPANY, INC. , and its predecessors of 10 interest, the TAUBMAN COMPANY, INC. , a Michigan corporation , and 11 Does 1 through 20, were corporations or other entities doing 12 business in the State of California for the purpose of owning , 13 placing , managing and maintaining defendants SUN VALLEY MALL AND 14 SHOPPING CENTER. Said defendants are doing business in the State 15 of California and maintain more than minimal contacts . The above 16 defendants along with the CITY OF CONCORD and COUNTY OF CONTRA 17 COSTA are hereby being sued as a result of their negligent , 18 careless , wanton and reckless behavior of placing and maintaining 19 a shopping center in the area of a busy air corridor in the 20 vicinity of the Buchanan Field Airport . These defendants knew , 21 or -should have known , that during a fog , aircraft would make a 22 missed approach and fly over their mall in a very vulnerable 23 position therefore causing a risk of disaster and destruction . 24 Said defendants knew or should have known that it was reasonably 25 I foreseeable that an aircraft might collide with their maintained 26 premises and were therefore negligent in not providing LA.OST CE5 anti- collision lights or beacons on the buildings or designing Laz:arini & Frazier '.O.ESS-ONAL CORP-ORATION 49 OUAIL COVR1 —3— So E 212 _*-T CREEK COLI"'O.".94596 14151934.5000 �1 and maintaining an adequate fire suppression, warning and escape system for the general public . . 2 ( . 3 7. R. H. MACY, INC. , and DOES 100 through 300, inclusive 4 were at all times relevant business entities luring customers 5 into the mall while knowing that their location was dangerous duE 6 to the close proximity to Buchanan Field Airport and knowing the 7 likelihood of an air crash from planes using Buchanan Field 8 Airport . Said defendants knew or should have known that it was 9 reasonably foreseeable that an aircraft might collide with their 10 maintained premises and were therefore negligent in not providin 11 anti- collision lights or beacons on the buildings or designing 12 and maintaining an adequate fire suppression , warning and escape 13 system for the general public . 14 8. That at all times herein mentioned , decedent JAMES 15 MOUNTAIN GRAHAM, JAMES V. MAGEEAN, ARK DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, 16 INC. , and defendants GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES and DOES 21 17 thro ugh 40 and each of them , were the owners and operators of 18 defendants' BEECHCRAFT BARON AIRCRAFT, registration number N1494 19 Said defendants , and each o.f them , are hereby being sued as a 20 result of negligently, carelessly, recklessly and wantonly 21 operating , maintaining , controlling , av iating and navigating said 22 aircraft so as to proximately cause the crash in defendants' 23 shopping mall thereby seriously injuring the plaintiff . 24 9. That at all times herein mentioned , defendants j 25 BEECHCRAFT AIRCRAFT COMPANY, BEECHCRAFT WEST, and DOES 41 through 26 60, inclusive , negligently, carelessly, recklessly and wantonly ur r=-Es designed , assembled , manufactured and distributed said aircraft t .i_-arini & Frazier �/� '�OFESSIONAL CORPORATION So that said aircraft could not be .properly controlled by .9 GJ.-t CW 4T SUITE 212 JT CREEK CAIIrORN1A 9.596 �4— 1.16r 9JU so= _ 1 defendant JAMES MOUNTAIN GRAHAM, and each of them , so as to 2 proximately cause said aircraft to crash into said defendants' 3 mall . 4 10. On or about December 23, . 1985, defendants and 5 decedent , JAMES MOUNTAIN GRAHAM, JAMES V. MAGEEAN, and 'ARK 6 DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, INC. , so negligently, carelessly, wantonly 7 and recklessly maintained and controlled and repaired 8 said aircraft so as to proximately cause said aircraft to crash 9 in the mall thereby proximately causing the plaintiff to suffer 10 severe personal injuries . 11 11. That at all times herein mentioned , GENERAL AVIATION 12 SERVICES, DOE AIRCRAFT REPAIR SERVICE, JAMES MOUNTAIN GRAHAM, 13 JAMES V. MAGEEAN, ARK DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, INC. , and DOES -21 14 through 40 , inclusive , so negligently , carelessly , wantonly and 15 recklessly maintained and repaired said aircraft so as to render 16 said aircraft inoperable proximately causing said aircraft to 17 crash in the shopping mall , thereby causing, the plaintiff to 18 suffer severe personal injuries . 19 12. That at all times herein mentioned , defendants DOE 20 CIVIL ENGINEERING COMPANY and DOE ARCHITECTURAL COMPANY and DOES 21 61 through 80, located said mall and gave advice to locate said 22 mall under the main corridor of air traffic from Buchanan Field 23 Airport . As a direct and proximate result of placing large 24 numbers of the public and enticing them to go to a shopping 25 center , large numbers of the public were placed in a very 26 dangerous position. ' Said placement of said shopping center ,under -Lrw OT_ES - —5— Lazzarini 6L Frazier '<O.ESS,ONAL CO-OR.701 •9 OUAiL COURT SUITE 212 •'UTCREEr CALIFORNIA 94596 14151934 5000 f 1 the air corridor of a busy airport was negligently, carelessly, 2 wantonly and recklessly promoted by said defendants , and each of 3 t hem . 4 13. As a further , proximate result of the negligence of 5 defendants , and each of them , plaintiff suffered a loss of 6 earnings and earning capacity which has been greatly impaired , 7 both in the past , present and future , in an amount according to 8 proof 9 14. As a further , proximate result of the negligence of 10 of defendants , and each of them , plaintiff has incurred and will 11 continue to incur , ,medical and related expenses in an amount 1.2 according to proof.. 13 15. As a proximate result of the negligence of 14 defendants , and each of them , plaintiff was hurt and injured in 15 his health, strength, and activity, sustaining injury to his 16 nervous system and person , all of which injuries have caused , and 17 continue to cause , plaintiff great mental , physical and nervous 18 pain and suffering. Plaintiff is informed and believes and 19 thereon alleges that such injuries will result in some permanent 20 disability. As a result of such injuries , plaintiff has suffered 21 general damages in an ainount according to proof. 22 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 23 [Nuisance] 24 16. Plaintiff alleges as though fully set forth at 25 length , and incorporates herein by this reference, all of. the 26 allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 15, inclusive . VN C-CES -6- _a rini 6_arini & Frasier 7.ESS-01AL CC.-ORATION 49 QUAIL COV RT SUITE 212 .'rwT CREEK rALIFORNIA 94596 1415,934-3000 ' i 1 1 7. Defendants CITY, COUNTY, TAUBMAN, WELLS FARGO, and .2 DOES ONE through TWENTY, inclusive , and each of them , in 3 building , constructing , placing , approving , ratifying and 4 permitting the building and continued operation of the Sun Valley 5 Mall too close to Buchanan Field Airport and in the path of 6 established flights , landings and missed landing patterns at said 7 airport , committed and maintained a nuisance , resulting in 8 personal injuries to the plaintiff , as set forth more g particularly hereinafter . 10 18. De fendants CITY, COUNTY, and DOES ONE through TWENTY, 11 inclusive , and each of them , permitted planes attempting to land 12 at AIRPORT to come too close to the mall;' failed to properly 13 supervise and control flights and landings ; failed to properly 14 supervise operations of AIRPORT; permitted landings under fog 15 conditions ; failed to maintain sufficient flight controller 16 operations; failed to maintain adequate navigational aids; and 17 permitted planes to land on December 23, 1985 , under dangerous 18 conditions without proper monitoring or flight controller 19 direction and guidance to the danger of the public and to the 20 actual injury of plaintiff and constituted a nuisance . 21 19. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid 22 conduct of defendants , and each of them , plaintiff suffered 23 severe and permanent injuries . 24 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION [Br each of «arranty 25 20. Plaintiff alleges as though fully set forth at 26 Vw ORCES —7_ [.ac:acini SE Fra zier ' "ESSiON��CORPORATION 49 OUAII COURT SUITE 24 '-UT CREEK UIiFORNI.9.596 i.15i 934 scm III _ i 1 length, and incorporates herein by this reference, all of the 2 allegations of Paragraphs 1 thro ugh 1 4, incl usive . 3 21 . Defendants , and each of them , expressly and/or 4 impliedly warranted that the BEECHCRAFT BARON, registration 5 nunber N1494G, was airworthy, of merchantable quality, and fit 6 and safe for the purpose for which it was designed , manufactured , 7 assembled , sold , intended and used , and was free from all 8 defects ; and reliance was made upon said warranties . g 22. Defendants , and each of them , breached said 10 warranties in that the said aircraft was not airworthy , of 11 merchantable quality, fit or safe for the purpose for which it 12 was designed , manufactured , assembled and sold , intended and 13 used , and further it was not free from all defects , and as •a 0 14 result thereof , plaintiff JONATHAN L. CROUCH sustained severe 15 in j ur ie s . 16 23. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid 17 conduct of defendants , and each of them , plaintiff suffered 18 severe and permanent injuries . 19 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION ( Fbr Products Li ab it it y/ Strict Liability) 20 In 'Ibrt Against Defendants BEECHCRAFT AIRCRAFT COMPANY, AND DOES 21 through 61 , inclusive, 21 24. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 23 as though 22 fully set forth herein . 23 25. Said aircraft was defectively designed , manufactured 24 and assembled proximately causing said aircraft to crash into 25 said mall . 26 -8- LAw OFF'c:ES t_a:zarini & Fra:ier ==o.ESSONAL COMPO"'.r(ON 49 QUAIL�OUFT SU,rE 212 -VT[REEK G.LIFORry11 91596 IIISI934-S000 I( I 1 26. That at all times herein mentioned , said BEECHCRAFT 2 BARON .AIRCRAFT was designed , manufactured , and assembled and 3 distributed for the purpose of flying in the air and safely 4 transporting persons and property in a safe manner so that said 5 aircraft would not crash as a result of any of its parts or 6 components . 7 27. That as a direct and proximate result of the 8 defective manufacture , assemply and design and distribution of 9 said BEECHCRAFT BARON AIRCRAFT involved in said accident, said 10 aircraft did crash proximately causing severe personal injuries 11 to the plaintiff who was a pedestrian and shopper in defendants' 12 mall . i3 28. Defendants , and each of them, knew, or should have 14 known , that the airplane and its component parts would be used 15 without inspection for defects therein or in any of its component 16 parts . 17 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 18 [Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress] 19 29. Plaintiff alleges as though fully set forth at 20 length , and incorprates herein by this reference , all of the 21 allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 28, inclusive . 22 30. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence o 23 defendants , and each of them, as described more fully above , 24 plaintiff JONATHAN L. CROUCH has suffered great mental suffering 25 and emotional distress occasioned by receiving his own injuries 26 uw CFWr-ES -9- L"azzarini & Frazier •°R�AI CORPORATION 40 OU"COURT SURE 212 -`NM T CREOL C .iORNIA 94596 (4131 @34.5000 . and by witnessing the injuries and the severe burning of his fiancee' s children. 2 3 31 . Defendants should reasonably have foreseen that thein serious commissions and omissions could lead to the serious 4 emotional distress for the reasons stated heretofore above . 5 6 32. Based on this negligent infliction of serious emotional distress by defendants , plaintiff JONATHAN L. CROUCH is 7 entitled to general damages . 8 9 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 10 ( For Punitive Damages and Exemplary Damages Against Defendants WELLS FARGO BANK, as 11 Trustee for the TAUBMAN COMPANY, INC. , the TAUBMAN COMPANY, INC. , SUN VALLEY SHOPPING CENTER, 12 SUN VALLEY MALL , and DOES 1 through 20 , inclusive.) 13 33. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 27 of "the 14 First and Second Causes of Action as though fully set forth 15 herein . 16 34. Plaintiff alleges a cause of action for punitive 17 damages and exemplary damages in the sum of TEN MILLION DOLLARS 18 on facts alleged in this complaint . 19 35. That at all times herein mentioned, Buchanan Field 20 Airport is an airport which purchased its land in 1942 and 21 started operations in 1946. During heavy fog , when the airport 22 lights cannot be seen , "missed approaches" are common and at such 23 times airplane pilots are flying by instruments . The stress 24 level of pilots during such maneuvers of aviating , navigating and 25 communicating to the tower is extremely high. The probability of 26 LAW C"CES Lazzarini 6L Frazier ° CIEIMCNAL WRPOR rAWO •Y QUA&COURT sum 712 ,NUT C MEDL CALFOR111A"S" {{1;j1 Oj{epOO I a crash of a circling plane during these times are statistically 2 much higher than normal. All property within a one mile radius 3 of an airport is in a foreseeably dangerous position. 4 Defendants , and each of them , knew of said danger but acted in 5 conscious disregard of the danger that potential customers and 6 users of said mall might undergo if they selected said site for 7 said shopping mall because inexpensive land can be purchased in 8 the vicinity of airports . Defendants , and each of them , were 9 also aware that the mall would be used at night . The darkness 10 when coupled with fog created an even greater risk. Members of 11 the general public who are not as sophisticated as architects , 12 engineers and shopping center developers would not know of this 13 foreseeable danger and would shop at said mall feeling perfectly 14 safe . i5 36. As a direct and proximate result of said conscious 16 disregard of the safety and life of the potential users of the 17 mall , said mall was located in said dangerous location thereby 18 attracting thousands of potential shoppers and placing them in a 19 very precarious position. 20 37. As a direct and proximate result of said conscious 21 disregard of the rights and safety of potential shoppers and 22 users of the mall , plaintiff was attracted to said mall on a 23 foggy night , thereby placing him in extreme danger of an airplane 24 crash which did occur proximately causing severe personal 25 injuries to the plaintiff . 26 LAw OFT,CES rini &L Frasier " 31ESSION4 CORROR.T.ON 49 OUAIL COURT SUITE 212 _'•UT CREEK CALIFORNIA 94596 1-151 97A 5000 38. Defendants knew that by placing said shopping center 2 in a radius within one mile of an airport that a crash was 3 inevitable and that said crash had a high likelihood of occurring 4 on their mall. Defendants , and each of them , knew of said danger 5 but in conscious disregard of the probability of a disasterous 6 air crash , and solely for their own pecuniary gain , placed 7 Defendant Mall in the inexpensive land immediately surrounding 8 said airport . In so doing , said Defendants , and each of them , 9 acted maliciously, wantonly and willfully, and with the intent to 10 vex , injure and annoy Plaintiff , and the general public , and in a 11 manner as described in California Civil Code Sec . 3294. 12 Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive- and exemplary damages 13 in an amount determined to be just by the trier of fact so 'as to 14 prevent and deter said dangerous conditions and continuing 15 dangerous conditions all to the public' s detriment as herein 16 before and hereinafter set forth . 17 WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against defendants, 18 and each of them , as follows : 19 1. General and special damages in an amount as alleged 20 herein or according to proof at trial; 21 2. Damages for medical and related expenses, according to 22 proof ; 23 3. Damages for loss of earnings and earning capacity, 24 according to proof ; 25 4. Damages for plaintiff' s other economic losses, 26 accord ing to proof ; uw OfTrCES - 1_a:xarini & Fra:ier —12—12_ -` CWESSON.L CORaOR.TION AS QUAIL COURT SUITE 212 `.T CREEK CAWF0RN1.9.596 14151 934 5000 1 5. For punitive or exemplary damages in the amount of 2 $10, 000, 000. 00; 3 6. Interest on all sL n s allowed by law; 4 7. Plaintiff' s costs of suit incurred herein ; 5 8. For reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in bringing 6 this action ; ,and 7 9 . For such other and further relief as the Court deems 8 just and proper . 9 bated : July , 1986, 10 11 LAllARINI & FRA A Profession rporation 12 13 By 14 ERT W. LAZZARINI , 'Attorney for Plaintiff 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 LANA OMCES -13- Lazzarini & Frazier -OFESS+ONAL CORPORATION /9 OUAIL COURT SUITE 212 %UT CREEK.CALIFORNIA 91598 , 1/ISI 931-5000 1 VERIFICATION 2 3 I am a party to this action ; the attached document is true 4 of my own knowledge, except as .to the matters that are stated in 5 it on my information and belief , and as to those matters, I 6 believe them to be true . 7 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is g true and correct . 9 Executed on July , 1986, at , 10 California . 11 01 12 . TH4NL. RUCH 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 LAw IC O.TES T.azzarini &L Frazier -"4O►[SSIOMAL COOOPMATIOW 49 QUAIL COURT VA71 Zia NU,C WEDL CALFCONIA 94596 ueI 9L•5000 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I declare that I am a citizen of the United States , over the age of 18 years, and not a party to the within cause ; my 3 business address is 49 Quail Court, Suite 212, Walnut Creek, CA 94596. On July 22 , 1986, I served the 4 within : 5 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 6 7 8 Case Name: Jonathan L. Crouch v. Estate of James Mountain Graham, et al . 9 Action No. : 281087 10 by placing the same in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid , in the United States Mail at Walnut Creek, 11 California , addressed as follows : 12 SEE ATTACHED. LIST 13 14 15 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the 16 State of California that the foregoing is true and correct . Executed on July 22 1986, at Walnut Creek, 17 California . 18 19 Karen M. Nagle 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4w OFY C.ES Lazzarini & Frazier A+OrESSOONAL CORPORATKgN ' .Y,OUAK COURT SINTE 212 +:NUT CREEK CALWORNIA 045" t"515]4.5000 - 1 SERVICE LIST Jonathan L. Crouch v. Estate of James Mountain Graham, et al. 2 3 Theodore W. Phillips ESTATE OF JAMES GRAHAM Phillips, Cohn & Greenberg DOROTHY GRAHAM 4 One Maritime Plaza, Suite 725 GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES San Francisco, CA 94111 5 Lee Danforth THE TAUBMAN CO. , INC. , 6 Coddington & Winters SUNVALLEY SHOPPING CENTS 3000 Sand Hill Road aka SONVALLEY SHOPPING 7 Bldg. 1 , Suite 185 MALL Menlo Park, CA 94025 8 William H. Owen BEECH AIRCRAFT CORP. 9 Owen, Melbye & Rohlff BEECHCRAFT WEST 700 Jeffersori Avenue, 2nd F1. 10 Redwood City, CA 94063 11 Dan Cranford R.H. MACY, INC. Carroll, Burdick & McDonough 12 One Ecker Building, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 13 14 . 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 LAW CMCES Lazzarini & Frazier `c OFESS�ON.L CORPOR.TtON 49 OU.iL COURT SUITE 2t2 ".UT CREEK,ULWORNI.94596 ."S,934.5000 . CLAIM %= BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA BOARD ACTION Claim Against.the County, or District governed by) the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT September 9 , 1986 and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below). given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 a n d Amount: Unspecified 915.4. Please note all "WARNINGS" County Counsel CLAIMANT:DOROTHY A. GRAHAM 'ET AL fiction. #288666 c/o Moris Davidovitz , Esq. AUG 12 1986 ATTORNEY: 4 Embarcadero Center Martinet, CA 94553 San Francisco , CA 94111 ADDRESS: Date received BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: August 8 , 1986 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: August 6 , 1986 Certified P017967623 I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. ll list Il PHIL BATCHELOR,. CLERK August g , 1936 BY: Deputy C9, L. Ha11 II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (�() 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. The 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: ZAZ N, 8y. z-c `. �1 �-r2 C�C!�1LfC.-� Deputy County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of t)4 Board TO: County Counsel (`I) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present (}O This Claim is rejected in full. ( `) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order nter�d in its minutes for this date. Dated: SEP 0 9 1986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Oeputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date 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. CC: Claimant County Counsel County Administrator C. MORISEDAVIDOVITZ,� ESQ. RECEIVED LAW OFFICES OF FISHER 8 HORST AUG 19?u 1 WOAIF FOUR EMBARCADERO CENTER A2 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94171 Cl CAS TELEPHONE (415) 956-8000 ( � 3 4 5 ATTORNEYS FOR Claimant, DOROTHY A. GRAHAM, 6 as the Executor of the ESTATE OF JAMES M. GRAHAM. 7 8 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF ) 12 THE ESTATE OF JAMES M. GRAHAM, ) CLAIM FOR INDEMNITY 13 Claimant, ) ) 14 V. ) 15 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, ) 16 Respondent . ) 17 TO THE HONORABLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA: 18 DOROTHY A. GRAHAM, as the Executor of the ESTATE OF 19 JAMES M. GRAHAM, Deceased, hereby presents this claim to the 20 COUNTY .OF CONTRA COSTA pursuant to California Government Code 21 Section 910 .4 . 22 1. The name and post office address of the claimant is 23 as follows : 24 DOROTHY A. GRAHAM, as the Executor of the ESTATE OF JAMES M. GRAHAM 25 c/o FISHER & HURST Attn: Stephen C. Kenney, Esq. 26 Moris Davidovitz, Esq. Four Embarcadero Center, 25th Floor San Francisco, California 94111-4132 -1- 1 2 . The post office address to which claimant desires 2 notice of this claim to be sent is as follows : Stephen C. Kenney, Esq. 3 Moris Davidovitz, Esq. 4 FISHER & HURST Four Embarcadero Center, 25th Floor 5 San Francisco, California 94111-4132 3 . On December 23 , 1985, in the City of Concord, County 6 of Contra Costa, California, James M. Graham, John Frederick 7 Lewis and Brian Ward Oliver, were occupants of a Beechcraft Baron BA55A Aircraft, FAA Reg. No. N1494G, when said aircraft 8 crashed while attempting a landing at the Concord Buchanan Field Airport . All three occupants of said aircraft were 9 killed in the crash. Pamela Hurst was injured in the crash, which occurred at the Sun Valley Mall, located in the City of 10 Concord, County of Contra Costa, . California . 11 4 . The County of Contra Costa is responsible for the design, construction, maintenance, operation, and 12 certification of the Concord Buchanan Airport, and control of its use. The County of Contra Costa is further responsible 13 for the certification, permission, approval, and the provision of zoning and ordinances permitting the construction of the 14 Sun Valley Mall, attracting a great number of persons, in close proximity to the Buchanan Field Airport, and below and 15 directly within a heavily traveled air corridor in the vicinity of the airport. 16 5 . On July 15, 1986, a complaint for damages damages 17 was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, In and For the County of Contra Costa, by Pamela Hurst. (A true 18 and correct copy of said complaint, Action No. 288666, is attached hereto- as Exhibit "A" , and incorporated herein by 19 reference) . The complaint alleges, inter alia, that on December 23, 1985, decedent James M. Graham and others 20 negligently' operated and controlled the subject aircraft, causing it to crash while attempting a landing at the Concord 21 Buchanan Airport. Said complaint was served upon claimant, Estate of Graham, on or about July 17, 1986 . 22 6. If, in fact, plaintiff Pamela Hurst sustained 23 damages as alleged in her complaint in Action No. 288666, said damages were caused by the primary and active negligence or 24 other fault of the County of Contra Costa. Claimant, therefore, alleges that it is entitled as a matter of law to 25 indemnity from the County of Contra Costa for any judgment or settlement in favor of plaintiff Pamela Hurst, together with 26 claimant ' s attorneys ' fees and costs . -2- 1 7. Further, if claimant is liable to plaintiff Pamela 2 Hurst, it will be because of the comparative negligence or other fault of the County of Contra Costa. Accordingly, 3 claimant alleges that the County of Contra Costa is required by law to contribute to the amount of any judgment or 4 settlement in favor of plaintiff Pamela Hurst, in accordance with the comparative degree and nature of its fault in causing 5 said plaintiff ' s damages, if any, and is required to reimburse and indemnify and hold claimant harmless for the amount of any 6 such judgment or settlement which is in excess of claimant ' s proportional share thereof, if any, as determined by the comparative degree and nature of the respective fault in causing plaintiff 's damages, if any. 8 8 . As of the date of the filing of this claim, the 9 extent of the damages and injuries incurred by plaintiff in the above-mentioned action is unknown to claimant, and will be 10 determined in the aforementioned, pending litigation. 11 9 • At the present time, the identity of the employee or employees of the County of Contra Costa who caused the 12 creation and continued existence of the aforementioned dangerous conditions, is unknown to claimant. 13 10 . At the time of the presentation of this claim, 14 claimant seeks the total amount of potential recovery by plaintiff in Contra Costa County Superior Court Action No. 15 288666, (the total amount of whichis presently unknown to claimant) and recognition of the duty of the County of Contra 16 Costa to provide a defense to and indemnify claimant for any and all damages, costs, and attorney' s fees it may suffer as a 17 result of the complaint brought by plaintiff Pamela Hurst against claimant, in Superior Court Action No. 288666, filed i8 in the Contra Costa County Superior Court . 19 DATED: August 1, 1986 . �!-- --� 20 FISHER & HURST�� 21 MOR� AVIDOVIT , Attorneys 22 for%Claimant, DOROTHY A. GRAHAM, as the Executor of the 23 ESTATE OF JAMES M. GRAHAM, Deceased. 24 25 26 -3- i j WILLIAM A. JENNINGS 55 S. Market St. , 41610 2 San Jose , CA 95113 (408) 291-6291 g Attorney for Plaintiff 4 `.,•.qty. 5 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 9 PAMELA HURST ) N0. 28066 10 ) Plaintiff ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 11 ) vs . ) 1 . Negligence 12 ) 2. Strict Liability BEECHCRAFT WEST, a ) 3. Negligent Infliction of 13 California Corporation; ) Emotional Distress JAMES MOUNTAIN GRAHAM; ) 4. Willful Misconduct 14 ESTATE OF JAMES MOUNTAIN ) GRAHAM; SUNVALLEY SHOPPING) . 15 CENTER a/k/a SUNVALLEY ) SHOPPING MALL;- GENERAL ) 16 AVIATION SERVICES; ARK ) DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, INC. ) 17 a California corporation; ) JAMES V. MAGEEAN; ) 18 THE TAUBMAN COMPANY, INC. , ) a Michigan corporation ) 19 WELLS FARGO BANK, as ) Trustee of The Taubman ) 20 Company , Inc. ; and DOES I ) through 500, inclusive, ) 21 ) Defendants. ) 22 ) 23 - Comes now the plaintiff , PAMELA HURST , who files 24 this complaint at the request of Associated Aviation 25 Underwriters as a response to their complaint in 26 interpleader , and who for a cause of action alleges as 2711 f ollows : 28'I ; EXHIBIT 1 1 • I . 1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 2 (Negligence ) 3 1 . Plaintiff is and at all times herein mentioned 4 was a resident of County of Contra Costa , State of 5 California. 6 2 . Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names or 7 capacities , whether individual , corporate , associate or 8 otherwise , of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 500 , 9 inclusive , and therefore sues said defendants by such 10 fictitious names . Plaintiff herein prays leave that when 11 the true names and capacities of said defendants are 12 ascertained, that the same may be inserted herein with 13 appropriate allegations. Each of the defendants designated 14 herein as a DOE is negligently responsible , strictly 15 liable , or in some manner legally responsible for the 16 events herein alleged and liable to plaintiff herein. • 17 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes , and thereon 18 alleges that defendant BEECHCRAFT WEST ( hereinafter 19 "BEECHCRAFT" ) is a corporation duly organized and existing , 20 under the laws of the State of California and qualified to 21 do business -and is doing business in the County of Contra 22 Costa, State of California. 23 4 . That at all times herein mentioned, defendant , 24 BEECHCRAFT , negligently , carelessly , recklessly , and 25 wantonly designed , assembled, manufactured and distributed 26 a certain Beechcraft Baron aircraft operated by defendant 27 and decedent , JAMES MOUNTAIN GRAHAM , such that said 28 2 ij aircraft was caused to crash into defendant shopping mall 1 thereby seriously injuring plaintiff as hereinbefore and 2 hereinafter set forth. 3 5 . That at all times herein mentioned, defendants , 4 5 SUNVALLEY SHOPPING CENTER a/k/a SUNVALLEY SHOPPING MALL , are located at No. 1 Sunvalley Mall in the City of Concord, 6 County of Contra Costa , State of California . Said 7 g defendants are being sued as a result of negligently , carelessly, wantonly and recklessly placing the shopping 9 10 center that attracts a great number of people on a heavily trafficked air corridor in the vicinity of the Buchanan 11 Field Airport. 12 6 . That at all times herein mentioned, defendant , 13 14 WELLS FARGO BANK , acting as Trustee for defendant, THE' 15 TAUBMAN COMPANY , INC. , and its predecessors in interest , The Taubman Company, Inc. , a Michigan corporation , were and 16 are corporations or other entities doing business .in the 17 18 State of California for the purpose of owning , placing , 19 managing and maintaining defendants ' SUNVALLEY MALL and 20 SHOPPING CENTER . Said defendants were and are doing business in the State of California and maintain more than 21 22 minimal contacts . Said defendants are hereby being sued as a result . of their negligent , careless , wanton and 23 24 reckless behavior in placing and maintaining a shopping 25 center in the area of a busy air corridor in the vicinity 26 of Buchanan Field Airport. Said defendants knew, or should have known , that during fog , or other low visibility 27` 2$+1 conditions , aircraft would make misapproaches and fly over ii 3 1 said mall thereby causing great risk of disaster and 1 destruction to the general public including plaintiff 2 herein. 3 7 . Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon 4 alleges that decedent , JAMES MOUNTAIN GRAHAM , defendant 5 GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES , defendant JAMES V. MAGEEAN , and 6 defendant ARK DISTRIBUTING COMPANY , INC. , were the owners 7 and operators of said Beechcraft Baron aircraft . Said 8 defendants , and each of them, are hereby being sued as a 9 result of their negligent operation , maintenance , control 10 and navigation of said Beechcraft Baron aircraft , which 11 aircraft proximately caused the serious injuries of 12 13 plaintiff as hereinbefore and hereinafter set forth. 8 . That at all times herein mentioned , defendant , 14 BEECHCRAFT , negligently carelessly, recklessly and wantonly 15 designed , assembled , manufactured and distributed said 16 Beechcraft Baron aircraft such that said aircraft could not 17 be properly controlled by defendant , JAMES MOUNTAIN GRAHAM , 18 19 so as to proximately cause said aircraft to crash into defendant Shopping Mall , thereby seriously injuring 20 21 plaintiff as hereinbefore and hereinafter set forth. 9. That on or about December 23 , 1985 , defendants 22 and decedent , JAMES MOUNTAIN GRAHAM , GENERAL AVIATION 23 SERVICES , ARK DISTRIBUTING COMPANY , INC . , and JAMES V . 24 25 MAGEEAN , and each of them, so negligently , carelessly , wantonly and recklessly maintained , operated , controlled , 26 27 and repaired said Beechcraft aircraft so as to proximately cause said aircraft to crash into defendant Mall , thereby 28 4 proximately causing plaintiff ' s injuries as hereinbefore 1 and hereinafter set forth. 2 10 . _ That at all times herein mentioned, defendants 3 DOES 1 through 100 , inclusive , were and are civil 4 engineering companies and /or architectural firms , that 5 located defendant Mall or otherwise gave advice to locate 6 said Mall under the main corridor of air traffic to and 7 from Buchanan Field Airport , and designed said structure or 8 installed and maintained the fire suppression /working 9 system and escape routes . That as a direct and proximate 10 result of said defendants ' conduct , members of the public, 11 including plaintiff herein , were placed in a dangerous 12 position and suffered injuries as hereinbefore and 13 hereinafter set forth. 14 11 . At all times herein mentioned , each defendant 15 was . the agent , servant , and employee of their 16 co-defendants , and each of them, and in doing the things 17 herein alleged, was acting within the course and scope of 18 such agency and employment , and with the permission ad 19 consent of said co-defendants , and each of them. 20 12. As a further proximate result of the negligence 21 of defendants , and each of them, plaintiff has suffered a 22 loss of earnings and will continue to suffer a loss of 23 earnings in the future , in an amount according to proof. 24 13 . As a further proximate result of the negligence 25 of defendants , and each of . them, plaintiff suffered serious 26 injury to her health , strength , -and activity and severe 27 i shock to her nervous system, thereby causing severe and 28i I 5 continual mental , physical and nervous pain and suffering. 1 As a result of such injuries , plaintiff has incurred and 2 3 will continue to incur , medical and related expenses in an amount according to proof and has suffered general damages 4 in an amount according to proof. 5 II. 6 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Products Liability/Strict Liability) 8 As a second, separate , and distinct cause of action 9 10 against defendants , and each of them, plaintiff alleges as follows : 11 14 . Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference 12 paragraphs 1 through 17 , inclusive , of plaintiff ' s First. 13 Cause of Action and makes them a part of the instant cause 14 of .action as though fully set forth. 15 15 . Defendant BEECHCRAFT is , and at all times 16 herein mentioned , was engaged in the manufacturing , li designing, assembling and selling of aircraft for use by 18 members of the general -public , and plaintiff is informed 19 and believes . and thereon alleges that as part of its 20 business , defe"ndant BEECHCRAFT designed, manufactured and 21 assembled a specific Beechcraft Baron aircraft , _operated by 22 defendant GRAHAM , said aircraft proximately caused 23 plaintiff 's injuries as hereinbefore and hereinafter set 24 forth. 2 16 . Defendant " BEECHCRAFT and defendant GENERAL 26 27 � . AVIATION SERVICES , and defendant ARK DISTRIBUTING COMPANY , INC. , at all :"tivie s herein mentioned , knew, or should have 28i 6 known., that the said aircraft , including its component 1 parts , would be used without inspection for defects by 2 plaintiff . 3 17 . Said Beechcraft Baron aircraft was defectively 4 designed , manufactured and assembled , thereby proximately 5 causing said aircraft to crash into defendant Mall. 6 18 . That at all times herein mentioned , said 7 Beechcraft Baron aircraft was designed, manufactured , and 8 assembled and distributed for the purposes of flying in the 9 air , safely transporting persons and property in a safe 10 manner so that said aircraft would not crash and would not 11 otherwise be defective. 12 19 . As a direct and proximate result of the 13 defective design and manufacture of said aircraft , 14 plaintiff suffered the injuries as hereinbefore and 15 hereinafter set forth. 16 III . 17 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 18 (Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress ) 19 As a third, separate , and distinct cause of action 20 against defendants , and each of them, plaintiff alleges as 21 follows : 22 20 . Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference 23 24 paragraphs 1 through 17 , inclusive , of plaintiff ' s First Cause of Action , paragraphs 18 through 23 , inclusive , of 25 plaintiff ' s Second Cause of Action , and makes them a part 26 of the instant cause of action as though fully set forth. 27 J 28 7 i 21 . Plaintiff , PAMELA HURST , was a shopper in the 1 Sunvalley Mall when the aircraft came through the roof in a 2 ball of flame . A fellow patron standing next to her burst 3 into flame and persons all around her received severe and 4 grievous injuries . She witnessed the burning persons and 5 heard screams of the injured. She was continuously in fear 6 for her own life and safety. 7 22 . Because of the negligence of defendants , and 8 each of them, and as a proximate result thereof , plaintiff 9 sustained great emotional disturbance and shock and injury 10 to her nervous system , all of which has caused , continues 11 to cause , and will cause her great physical and mental pain 12 and suffering, all to her damage in an amount according to 13 proof. 14 IV. 15 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 16 (Willful Misconduct ) 17 18 As a fourth , separate and distinct cause of action against defendants , and each of them, plaintiff alleges as 19 follows : 20 23 . Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference 21 22 paragraphs 1 through 17 , inclusive , of plaintiff ' s First Cause of Action , paragraphs 18 through 23 , inclusive , of 23 24 plaintiff ' s Second Cause of action , paragraphs 24 through 25 26 , inclusive , of plaintiff ' s Third Cause of Action , and makes them a part of the instant cause of action as though 26 fully set forth. 27 28 +� I 8 24 . That at all times herein mentioned , Buchanan 1 Field airport is an airport which purchased land in 1942 2 and started operation in 1946 in Contra Costa County , 3 California. That during heavy fog , a common condition in 4 the area , when the airport lights cannot be seen , 5 misapproaches on the part of aircraft are common and are 6 known to be common within said area. The probability of a 7 crash of a circling plane during these times are 8 statistically much higher than normal. All property within 9 a one mile radius of the airport is thus foreseeably 10 dangerous . Defendants , and each of them, knew or said 11 danger, but in conscious disregard of the probability of a 12 disastrous air crash , and solely for their own pecuniary 13 gain , placed defendant Mall on the inexpensive land 14 immediately surrounding said airport . In doing so, said 15 defendants , and each of them, acted maliciously , wantonly 16 and willfully, and with the intent to vex, injure and annoy 17 18 plaintiff , and the general public , and in a manner as described in California Civil Code Section 3294 . Plaintiff 19 is therefore entitled to punitive and exemplary damages in 20 an amount determined to be just by the trier of fact so as 21 to prevent and deter said dangerous conditions and 22 23 continuing dangerous conditions all to the public ' s detriment as hereinbefore and hereinafter set forth. 24 WHEREFORE , plaintiff prays judgment against the 25 defendants , and each of them, as follows : 26 271 1 . For general damages according to proof ; 2 . For medical and incidental expenses according to 28 r 9 i h proof ; 1 . 3 . For costs of suit herein incurred ; 2 4 . For punitive and exemplary damages in an amount 3 determined to be just ; 4 5 . For such other and further relief as the Court 5 may deem just and proper. 6 DATED : July 10, 1986 7 8 LAW OFFICES 0 ILLIAM A. JENNINGS 9 10 By WILLIAM A J NNINGS 11 Attorney ' fo Plaintiff 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2; l 28 10 o , CLAIM / BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT September 9 , 1986 and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes, ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), Amount: Unspecified given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "WARNINGS". County Counsel CLAIMANT: DOROTHY A. GRAHAM ET AL Action #287773 AUG 12 1986 c/o Moris Davidovitz, Esq. ATTORNEY: 4 Embarcadero Center Martinez, CA 94553 San Francisco, CA 94111 ADDRESS: Date received BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: August 8 , 1986 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: August_ 6, _ 1986 CertiMed POI-7967624 I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK DATED: August 11 , 1986 BY: Deputy a II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (�() 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. The 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: KI V` By: (.�/c.C��'�C i� P� Deputy County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of a Board TO: County Counsel (1) v County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present (x) This Claim is rejected in full. ( `) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's OrderentVRd in its minutes for this date. SEP 0 91986 Dated: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov, code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally'5erved 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. CC: Claimant County Counsel County Administrator i STEPHEN C. KENNEY, ESQ. MORIS DAVIDOVITZ, ESQ. R /^ Y LAW OFFICES OF 1-.Ll FISHER 8 HURST v i■ v � AUG '? 1986 FOUR EMBARCADERO CENTER SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94111 2 TELEPHONE (415) 956.8000 CL R � HEL 3 0 F R .. °eAuir 4 5 ATTORNEYS FOR Claimant, DOROTHY A. GRAHAM, as the Executor of the ESTATE OF 6 JAMES M. GRAHAM. 7 8 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF ) THE ESTATE OF JAMES M. GRAHAM, ) 12 ) CLAIM FOR INDEMNITY Claimant, ) 13 ) 14 V. ) ) 15 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, ) 16 Respondent . ) 17 TO THE HONORABLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA: 18 DOROTHY A. GRAHAM, as the Executor of the ESTATE OF 19 JAMES M. GRAHAM, Deceased, hereby presents this claim to the 20 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA pursuant to California Government Code 21 Section 910 .4 . 22 1. The name and post office address of the claimant is 23 as follows : 24 DOROTHY A. . GRAHAM, as the Executor of the ESTATE OF JAMES M. GRAHAM 25 c/o FISHER & HURST Attn: Stephen C. Kenney, Esq. 26 Moris Davidovitz, Esq. Four Embarcadero Center, 25th Floor San Francisco, California 94111-4132 -1- k 2 . The post office address to which claimant desires 1 notice of this claim to be sent is as follows : 2 Stephen C. Kenney, Esq. Moris Davidovitz, Esq. 3 FISHER & HURST Four Embarcadero Center, 25th Floor 4 San Francisco, California 94111-4132 5 3 . On December 23, 1985, in the City of Concord, County of Contra Costa, California, James M. Graham, John Frederick 6 Lewis and Brian Ward Oliver, were occupants of a Beechcraft Baron BA55A Aircraft, FAA Reg . No. N1494G, when said aircraft 7 crashed while attempting a landing at the Concord Buchanan Field Airport. All three occupants of said aircraft were 8 killed in the crash. Pamela Joy Stanford was killed in the crash, which occurred at the Sun Valley Mall, located in the 9 City of Concord, County of Contra Costa, California. 10 4 . The County of Contra Costa is responsible for the design, construction, maintenance, operation, and 11 certification of the Concord Buchanan Airport, and control of its use. The County of Contra Costa is further responsible 12 for the certification, permission, approval, and the provision of zoning and ordinances permitting the construction of the 13 Sun Valley Mall, attracting a great number of persons, in close proximity to the Buchanan Field Airport, and below and 14 directly within a heavily traveled air- corridor in the vicinity of the airport. 15 5. On June 23, 1986, a complaint for damages was filed 16 in the Superior Court of the State of California, In and For the County of Contra Costa, by Barbara Stanford Guadagni, 17 individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Pamela Joy Stanford, and E. David Stanford. (A true and 18 correct copy of said complaint, Action No. 287773 , is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" , and incorporated herein by reference) . 19 The complaint alleges, inter alia, that on December 23, 1985, decedent James M. Graham and others negligently operated and 20 controlled the subject aircraft, causing it to crash while attempting a landing at the Concord Buchanan Airport. Said 21 complaint was served upon claimant, Estate of Graham, on or about July 10, 1986- 22 6 . If, in fact, plaintiffs Barbara Stanford Guadagni, 23 individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Pamela Joy Stanford, and E. David Stanford, sustained damages 24 as alleged in their complaint in Action No. 287773, said damages were caused by the primary and active negligence or 25 other fault of the County of Contra Costa. Claimant, therefore, alleges that it is entitled as a matter ' of law to 26 indemnity from the County of Contra Costa for any judgment or -2 1 settlement in favor of plaintiffs, Barbara Stanford Guadagni, individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of 2 Pamela Joy Stanford, and E. David Stanford, together with claimant ' s attorneys ' fees and costs. 3 7. Further, if claimant is liable to plaintiffs, 4 Barbara Stanford Guadagni, individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Pamela Joy Stanford, and E. 5 David Stanford, it will be because of the comparative negligence or other fault of the County of Contra Costa . 6 Accordingly, claimant alleges that the County of Contra Costa is required by law to contribute to the amount of any judgment 7 or settlement in favor of plaintiffs, Barbara Stanford Guadagni, individually and as Special Administrator of the 8 Estate of Pamela Joy Stanford, and E. David Stanford, in accordance with the comparative degree and nature of its fault 9 in causing said plaintiffs ' damages, if any, and is required to reimburse and indemnify and hold claimant harmless for the 10 amount of any such judgment or settlement which is in excess of claimant ' s proportional share thereof, if any, as 11 determined by the comparative degree and nature of the respective fault in causing plaintiffs ' damages, if any. 12 8 . As of the date of the filing of this claim, the 13 extent of the damages and injuries incurred by plaintiffs in the above-mentioned action is unknown to claimant, and will be 14 determined in the aforementioned, pending litigation. 15 9 • At the present time, the identity of the employee or employees of the County of Contra Costa who caused the 16 creation and continued existence of the aforementioned dangerous conditions, is unknown to claimant. 17 10. At the time of the presentation of this claim, 18 claimant seeks the total amount of potential recovery by plaintiffs in Contra Costa County Superior Court Action No. 19 287773, (the total amount of which is presently unknown to claimant) and recognition of the duty of the County of Contra 20 Costa to provide a defense to and indemnify claimant for any and all damages, costs, and attorney' s fees it may suffer as a 21 result of the complaint brought by plaintiffs Barbara Stanford Guadagni , individually and as Special Administrator of the 22 23 24 25 26 -3- Estate of Pamela Joy Stanford, and E. David Stanford, against 1 claimant, in Superior Court Action No. 287773, filed in the Contra Costa County Superior Court. 2 DATED: August 5, 1986 . 3 FISHER & H 4 BY: 5 40RIS DA IDOV- orneys for Claim , DOROTHY A. 6 GRAHAM, as the Executor of the .ESTATE OF JAMES M. GRAHAM, 7 Deceased. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -4- 26 JUN 9 3 1986 11 1 MICHAEL MOORE, ESQ. J. A. TRA CO TOU111y LN' CONTRA COSTA MLN' MADELYN J. CHABER, ESQ. By '2 CARTWRIGHT, SUCHERMAN & SLOBODIN, INC. M. Allendorph. Deputy 101 California Street, 26th Floor 3 San- Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: ( 415) 433-0440 4 0. F. FENSTERMACHER, ESQ. 5 LAW OFFICES OF 0. F. FENSTERMACHER' 300 East Leland Road - #207 6 Pittsburg, California 94565 Telephone: ( 415 ) 432-4787 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff 8 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 12 13 BARBARA STANFORD GUADAGNI , ) Individually and as Special ) 14 Administrator of the Estate of ) PAMELA JOY STANFORD, and ) 15 E. DAVID STANFORD, ) 16 Plaintiffs, ) No. 287773 17 v. ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (Wrongful Death 18 ) and Survival Claim) BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION; ) 1 . Negligence 19 BEECHCRAFT WEST, a California ) 2. Nuisance corporation; TELEDYNE CONTINENTAL ) 3. Breach of Warranty 20 MOTORS, a division of TELEDYNE ) 4. Strict Products INDUSTRIES, INC. ; ESTATE OF JAMES ) Liability 21 MOUNTAIN GRAHAM; GENERAL AIR ) 5. Survival Claim SERVICE, a California corporation; ) 6. Punitive Damage 22 JAMES V .. i:AGEEAN ; ARK DISTRIBUTING) ( Survival Claim) COMPANY; CITY OF CONCORD; COUNTY ) 23 OF CONTRA COSTA; BUCHANAN FIELD ) AIRPORT; SUNVALLEY ASSOCIATION ) 24 DBA SUNVALLEY MALL SHOPPING ) CENTER; TAUBMAN COMPANY, INC. , a ) , . Michigan corporation; WELLS FARGO ) BANK, as Trustee and Successor- ) 26 in-Interest to the TAUBMAN ) COMPANY, INC. ; and DOES ONE ) EX14101T . 1 through ONE HUNDRED, inclusive, ) 2 ) Defendants. ) 3 - ) 4 Plaintiffs allege as follows: 5 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 6 1. Plaintiffs BARBARA STANFORD GUADAGNI and E. DAVID 7 STANFORD are the parents and sole surviving heirs at law of 8 PAMELA JOY STANFORD, deceased, who was fatally injured on 9 December 23, 1985 at the SunValley Mall located in the City of 10 Concord, County of Contra Costa, State of California, as 11 hereinafter set forth. Immediately prior to death, plaintiff' s 12 decedent was an adult person, in good physical and mental 13 condition, and was a faithful and dutiful daughter to her 14 Parents. 15 2. On or about June 20 , 1986, plaintiff BARBARA STANFORD 16 GUADAGNI was duly appointed Special Administrator of the Estate 17 of PAMELA JOY STANFORD, deceased, with the special powers 18 specified in the Order for Probate. 19 4 • The true names or capacities, whether individual, 20 associate, corporate or otherwise, of defendants DOES ONE 21 through ONE HUNDRED, inclusive, and each of them, are unknown 22 to plaintiff, who therefore sues defendants by such fictitious 23 names. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege 24 that each of the defendants designated herein as a DOE is 25 responsible in some actionable manner for the events and 26 -2- 1 happenings herein referred to, and caused injuries and damages 2 proximately thereby to plaintiffs as hereby alleged. 3 4 . At all times mentioned herein, defendants BEECHCRAFT 4 AIRCRAFT CO. , BEECHCRAFT WEST, a California corporation, 5 TELEDYNE CONTINENTAL MOTORS, a division of TELEDYNE INDUSTRIES, 6 INC. , GENERAL AIR SERVICE, a California corporation, ARK 7 DISTRIBUTING CO. , CITY OF CONCORD, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, 8 BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT, SUNVALLEY ASSOCIATION DBA SUNVALLEY 9 MALL SHOPPING CENTER, TAUBMAN COMPANY, INC. , a Michigan 10 corporation, WELLS FARGO BANK, as Trustee and Successor-in- 11 Interest to the TAUBMAN COMPANY, INC. , and DOES ONE through ONE 12 HUNDRED, inclusive, were corporations or other entities 13 authorized to and doing business in the State of California. 14 5. At all times mentioned herein, each of the defendants 15 named herein, including, without limitations each DOE 16 defendant, was the agent, servant, employee or otherwise acting 17 in concert of each of the remaining defendants and was at all 18 times acting within the purpose and scope of said agency, 19 service and employment, or acting in concert to bring about the 20 damages alleged herein. 21 6. Defendants the CITY OF CONCORD [hereinafter "CITY" ] 22 and the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA [hereinafter "COUNTY" ] , and DOES 23 ONE through TWENTY, inclusive, and each of them, were the 24 owners and operators of BUCHANNAN FIELD AIRPORT [hereinafter 25 "AIRPORT" ] , defendants CITY, COUNTY and AIRPORT are 26 governmental entities, pursuant to Government Code Section 910 , -3- i ' 1 1 et see . Plaintiffs herein timely filed her claim against said 2 defendants on or about March 18 , 1986 . The CITY denied 3 plaintiffs; . claim on or about March 19 , 1986 . The COUNTY 4 denied plaintiffs' claim on or about April 22, 1986. 5 7. At all times mentioned herein, defendants BEECHCRAFT 6 AIRCRAFT CORPORATION [hereinafter "BEECHCRAFT" ] , BEECHCRAFT WEST [hereinafter "WEST" ] , and DOES TWENTY-ONE through FORTY , 8 inclusive, and each of them, were engaged in the business of 9 designing, manufacturing, distributing and/or selling airplanes 10 and said defendants, and each of them, designed, manufactured, 11 distributed, sold and/or otherwise placed into the stream of 12 commerce, the subject twin-engine Beechcraft Baron, 13 registration number N1494G, serial number TC-262, 14 8 . At all times mentioned herein, defendants TELEDYNE 15 CONTINENTAL MOTORS, a division of TELEDYNE INDUSTRIES, INC. 16 [hereinafter "TELEDYNE" ] , and DOES FORTY-ONE through SIXTY , 17 inclusive, and each of them, were engaged in the business of 18 designing, manufacturing, distributing and/or selling aircraft 19 component parts, including but not limited to aircraft engines, 20 crankshafts and other engine component parts, and that 21 defendant TELEDYNE and DOES FORTY-ONE through SIXTY, inclusive, 22 and each of them, designed, manufactured, distributed, sold 23 and/or otherwise placed into the stream of commerce the engine 24 and component engine parts installed in the said Beechcraft 25 Baron aircraft,. registration number N1494G. 26 j -4- 1 9 . At all times mentioned herein, defendants SUN"VALLEY 2 ASSOCIATION DBA SUNVALLEY MALL SHOPPING CENTER [hereinafter 3 "SUNVALLEY" ] , TAUBMAN COMPANY , INC. [ hereinafter "TAUBMAN" ] , 4 WELLS FARGO BANK as Trustee and Successor-in-Interest to the 5 TAUBMAN COMPANY, INC. [ hereinafter "WELLS FARGO" ] , and DOES 6 SIXTY-ONE through EIGHTY, inclusive, and each of them, owned, 7 operated, managed, designed, engineered, built and/or otherwise 8 maintained the Sun Valley Mall Shopping Center located at number 9 1 SunValley Mall, in the City of Concord, County of Contra 10 Costa, State of California. 11 10 . At all times mentioned herein, defendants JAMES 12 MOUNTAIN GRAHAM, deceased, [ sued herein as ESTATE OF JAMES 13 MOUNTAIN GRAHAM, and known hereinafter as "GRAHAM" ] , GENERAL 14 AIR SERVICES, INC. [hereinafter "GENERAL AIR" ] , JAMES V. 15 MAGEEAN [ hereinafter "MAGEEAN" ] , ARK DISTRIBUTING CO. 16 [hereinafter "ARK" ] , and DOES EIGHTY-ONE through ONE HUNDRED, 17 inclusive, and each of them, were the owners, operators, 18 servicers, inspectors and maintainers of said Beechcraft Baron 19 aircraft and were responsible for and involved in the service, 20 repair, inspection, maintenance and/or operation of said 21 Beechcraft Baron aircraft, registration number N1494G. 22 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 23 [Negligence (-Wrongful Death) ] 24 11. Plaintiffs allege as though fully set forth at 25 length, and incorporates herein by this references, all of the 26 -5- i I allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 10 , inclusive, of the 2 General Allegations, above. 3 12 . On December 23 , 1985 , defendants. GRAHAM, GENERAL AIR, 4 MAGEEAN, ARK, and DOES EIGHTY-ONE through ONE HUNDRED, 5 inclusive, and each of them, operated, controlled, serviced, 6 repaired and inspected the certain Beechcraft Baron aircraft, 7 registration number N1494G, manufactured, distributed and sold 8 by defendants BEECHCRAFT, WEST, TELEDYNE, and DOES TWENTY-ONE 9 through SIXTY, inclusive, and each of them, which crashed into 10 the SunValley Mall Shopping Center while executing a missed 11 approach maneuver. to Buchanan Field Airport, in the City of 12 Concord, County of Contra Costa, State of California. 13 12. Said crash was solely and proximately caused by 14 defendants, and each of them and their agents, servants, and 15 employees, in negligently designing, manufacturing, 16 distributing, selling, operating, maintaining, controlling, 17 entrusting, servicing, inspecting and .repairing said aircraft, 18 among other things. 19 14 . Defendants CITY, COUNTY, SUNVALLEY, TAUBMAN, WELLS 20 FARGO, and DOES ONE through TWENTY, and DOES SIXTY-ONE through 21 EIGHTY, inclusive, and each of them, negligently, carelessly, 22 wantonly and recklessly built,, constructed, placed, approved, 23 ratified and permitted the building and continued operation of 24 I the SunValley Mall too close . to Buchanan Field Airport and in 71 ` the path of established flights, landings and missed landing 26 patterns at Buchanan Airport. -6- 1 15 . Defendants CITY , COUNTY, and DOES ONE through TWENTY , 2 inclusive, and each of them, negligently permitted planes 3 attempting to land at Buchanan Field Airport to come too close 4 to the mall ; negligently failed to properly supervise and 5 control flights and landings; negligently failed to properly 6 supervise operations of Buchanan Field. Airport; negligently 7 permitted landings under fog conditions; negligently failed to 8 maintain sufficient flight controller operations; negligently 9 failed to maintain adequate navigational aids; and negligently 10 permitted planes to land on December 23 , 1985 , under dangerous 11 conditions without proper monitoring or flight controller 12 direction and guidance. 13 16 . Each said negligent, careless, reckless, unskillful, 14 unlawful, tortious and wrongful act and omission of each of . 15 said defendants concurred with each said negligent, careless, 16 reckless, unskillful, unlawful, tortious and wrongful act and 17 omission of each and all of the other defendants and is a 18 proximate cause of said accident to plaintiffs ' decedent and of 19 plaintiffs' decedent' s injuries and wrongful death to the 20 damage of plaintiffs herein. 21 17. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid 22 conduct of the defendants, and each of them, plaintiffs' 23 decedent, PAMELA JOY STANFORD, was severely and gravely 24 injured, including but not limited to severe burns over most of 25 her body and as a direct and proximate result thereof, 26 plaintiffs ' decedent died on that same day, December 23 , 1985 . -7- 1 18 . As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid 2 wrongful conduct of the defendants, and each of them, and of 3 the injuries to and wrongful death of PAMELA JOY STANFORD 4 proximately resulting therefrom, plaintiffs have incurred 5 funeral and burial expenses, which expenses will be stated 6 according to proof pursuant to California Code of Civil 7 Procedure, Section 425 . 10. 8 19 . As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid 9 wrongful conduct of the defendants, and each of them, and of 10 the personal injuries to and wrongful death of PAMELA JOY 11 STANFORD proximately resulting therefrom, plaintiffs have been 12 deprived of the comfort, companionship, solace, advice, 13 consortium, care, love, moral support, anticipated services and 14 anticipated financial support of PAMELA JOY STANFORD, and have 15 been generally damaged in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional 16 minimum of the Superior Court. 17 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 18 [Nuisance (Wrongful Death) ] 19 20. Plaintiffs allege as though fully set forth at 20 length, and incorporates herein by this reference, all of the 21 allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 10 , inclusive, of the 22 General allegations, above, and Paragraphs 11 through 19 , 23 inclusive, of the First Cause of Action. 24 21. Defendants CITY, COUNTY, TAUBMAN, WELLS FARGO, and 25 DOES ONE through TWENTY, and DOES SIXTY-ONE through EIGHTY, 26 inclusive, and each of them, in building, constructing, � -8- 1 placing, approving, ratifying and permitting the building and 2 continued operation of the SunValley Mall too close to Buchanan 3 Field Airport and in the path of established flights, landings 4 and missed landing patterns at said airport, committed and 5 maintained a nuisance, resulting in personal injuries to the 6 plaintiffs, as set forth more particularly hereinafter. 7 22 . Defendants CITY, COUNTY, and DOES ONE through TWENTY, 8 inclusive, and each of them, permitted planes attempting to 9 land at AIRPORT to come too close to the mall ; failed to 10 properly supervise and control flights and landings; failed to 11 properly supervise operations of AIRPORT; permitted landings 12 under fog conditions; failed to maintain sufficient flight 13 controller operations; failed to maintain adequate navigational 14 aids; and permitted planes to land on December 23, 1985, under 15 dangerous conditions without proper monitoring or flight 16 controller direction and guidance to the danger of the public 17 and to the actual injury of plaintiffs' decedent and 18 constituted a nuisance. 19 23. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid 20 conduct of defendants, and each of them, plaintiffs suffered 21 damages as alleged in Paragraphs 17 and 19 , inclusive, of the 22 First Cause of Action, which allegations are incorporated 23 herein and made a part hereof by this reference. 24 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 25 [Breach of Warranty (Wrongful Death) ] 26 -9- 1 24. Plaintiffs allege as though fully set forth at 2 length, and incorporates herein by this references, all of the 3 allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 10 , inclusive, of the 4 I General allegations, above, and Paragraphs 12 through 19 , 5 inclusive, of the First Cause of Action, and Paragraphs 21 6 through 23 of the Second Cause of Action. 7 25 . Defendants, and each of them, expressly and/or 8 impliedly warranted that the Beechcraft Baron, registration 9 number N1494G, was airworthy, of merchantable quality, and fit 10 and safe for the purpose for which it was designed, 11 manufactured, assembled, sold, intended and used, and was free 12 from all defects; and reliance was made upon said warranties. 13 26 . Defendants, and each of them, -breached said 14 warranties in that the said aircraft was not airworthy, of 15 merchantable quality, fit or safe for the purpose for which it 16 was designed, manufactured, assembled and sold, intended and 17 used, and further it was not free from all defects, and as a 18 result thereof, plaintiffs ' decedent PAMELA JOY STANFORD 19 sustained severe injuries, resulting in her death, all to the 20 damage of plaintiffs herein. 21 27. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid 22 conduct of defendants, and each of them, plaintiffs suffered 23 damages as alleged in Paragraphs 17 through 19 , inclusive, of 24 the First Cause of Action, which allegations are incorporated 25 herein and made a part hereof by this reference. 26 ';i -10- FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 1 ( Strict Products Liability (Wrongful Death) ] 2 28 . Plaintiffs allege as though fully set forth at 3 length, and incorporates herein by this references, all of the 4 allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 10, inclusive, of the 5 General allegations, above, and Paragraphs 11 through 19 , 6 inclusive, of the First Cause of Action, Paragraphs 20 through 7 23 , inclusive, of the Second Cause of Action, and Paragraphs 25 8 through 27 of the Third Cause of Action. 9 29. Said aircraft and its component parts were 10 defectively designed, manufactured and assembled proximately 11 causing said aircraft to crash into said mall. Said defect( s) 12 existed in the aircraft and its component parts at the time 13 they left the possession of defendants, and each of them. 14 30. That at all times herein mentioned, defendants, and 15 each of them, designed, manufactured, assembled and distributed 16 said aircraft for the purpose of flying in the air and safely 17 transporting persons and property in a safe manner so that said 18 aircraft would not crash as a result of any of its parts or 19 components. 20 31. That as a direct and proximate result of the 21 defective manufacture, assembly, design and distribution of 22 said Beechcraft Baron aircraft and its component parts said 23 aircraft did crash proximately causing severe personal 24 injuries, resulting in death, to the plaintiffs' decedent who was a pedestrian and shopper in defendants ' mall. 26 -11- 1 32. Defendants, and each of them, knew, or should have 2 known, .that the airplane and its component parts would be used 3 without inspection for defects therein or in any of its 4 component parts. 5 33 . As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid 6 conduct of defendants, and each of them, plaintiffs suffered damages as alleged in Paragraphs 17 through 19 , inclusive, of 8 the First Cause of Action, which allegations are incorporated 9 herein and made a part hereof by this reference. 10 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 11 [ Death Survival Action - Probate Code Section 5731 12 On Behalf of BARBARA STANFORD GUADAGNI, Special 13 Administrator to the Estate .of PAMELA JOY STANFORD 14 34. Plaintiffs allege as though fully set forth at 15 length, and incorporates herein by this references, all of the 16 allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 10 , inclusive, of the 17 General allegations, above, and Paragraphs 11 through 19 , 18 inclusive, of the First Cause of Action, Paragraphs 20 through 19 23, inclusive, of the Second Cause of Action, and Paragraphs 25 20 through 27 of the Third Cause of Action, and Paragraphs 28 21 through 33 of the Fourth Cause of Action. 22 '35. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid 23 conduct of defendants, and each of them, and prior to her 24 death, PAMELA JOY STANFORD suffered severe and grave injuries 25 to her health, and severe shock to her nervous system, and was 26 caused to suffer mental pain and anguish, all to her general -12- 1 damage in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of the . 2 Superior Court. 3 36 . As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid 4 conduct of the defendants, and each of them, PAMELA JOY 5 STANFORD was compelled to and did employ the services 6 of hospitals, surgeons, physicians, nurses and the like, to 7 care for and treat her, and did incur medical , hospital, and 8 professional and incidental expenses, which expenses will be 9 stated according to proof pursuant to California Code of Civil 10 procedure, Section 425 . 10. 11 37 . As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid 12 conduct of defendants, and each of the, the Estate of PAMELA 13 JOY STANFORD has incurred, and will incur, loss of income, 14 wages, profits and commissions, a diminishment of earning 15 potential, and other pecuniary losses; the exact amount of said 16 losses will be stated according to proof pursuant to California 17 Code of Civil Procedure, Section 425. 10. 18 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 19 [Punitive Damages ( Survival Action) ] 20 38. Plaintiffs allege as though fully set forth at 21 length, and incorporates herein by this references, all of the 22 allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 10, inclusive, of the 23 General allegations, above, and Paragraphs 11 through 19 , 24 inclusive, of the First Cause of' Action, Paragraphs 20 through 25 23 , inclusive, of the Second Cause of Action, and Paragraphs 25 26 I through 27 of the Third Cause of Action, and Paragraphs 28 -13- _. 1 through 33 of the Fourth Cause of Action , and Paragraphs 35 2 through 37 of the Fifth Cause of Action. 3 39 . That at all times herein entioned, BUCHANAN FIELD 4 AIRPORT is an airport which purchased its land in 1942 and 5 started operations in 1946 . During heavy fog, when the airport 6 lights cannot be seen "missed approaches" are common and at 7 such times airplane pilots are flying by instruments. The 8 stress level of pilots during such maneuvers of aviating, 9 navigating and communicating to the tower is extremely high. 10 The probability of a crash of a circling plane during these 11 times are statistically much higher than normal. All property 12 within a one mile radius of an airport is in a foreseeably 13 dangerous position. Defendants, and each of them, knew of said 14 danger but in conscious disregard of the danger that potential 15 customers and users of said mall might undergo, they selected 16 said site for said shopping mall because of the inexpensive 17 land that can be purchased in the vicinity of airports. 18 Members of the general public who are not as sophisticated as 19 architects, engineers and shopping center developers would not 20 know of this foreseeable danger and would shop at said mall 21 feeling perfectly safe. 22 40. As a direct and proximate result of said conscious 23 disregard of the safety and life of the potential users of the 24 mall, said mall was located in said dangerous location thereby 25 attracting thousands of potential shoppers and placing them in 26 very precarious positions. !� -14- 1 41. As a direct and proximate result of said conscious 2 disregard of the rights and safety of potential shoppers and 3 users of the, mall, the plaintiffs ' decedent was attracted to 4 said mall on a foggy night, thereby placing her in extreme 5 danger of an airplane crash which did occur proximately causing 6 severe personal injuries and resulting death to the plaintiffs ' 7 decedent. 8 42. Defendants knew that b placing said y p g sho pping center 9 in a radius within one mile of an airport that a crash was 10 inevitable and that said crash had a high likelihood of 11 occurring on their mall. Defendants, and each of them, knew of 12 said danger but *in conscious disregard of the probability of a 13 disasterous air crash, and soley for their own pecuniary gain, 14 placed defendant mall in the inexpensive land immediately 15 surrounding said airport. In so doing, said defendants, and 16 each of them, acted maliciously, wantonly and willfully, and 17 with the intent to vex, injure and annoy plaintiff, and the 18 general public, and in a manner as described in California Code 19 of Civil Procedure, Section 3294. Plaintiffs are therefore 20 entitled to punitive and exemplary damages in an amount 21 determined to be just by the trier of fact so as to prevent and 22 deter said dangerous conditions and continuing dangerous 23 conditions all to the public ' s detriment as hereinbefore and 24 hereinafter set forth. 25 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray judgment against defendants, 26 and each of them, as follows: I -15- 1 1 . General damages in an amount as alleged herein or 2 according to proof at trial ; 3 2 . For costs of funeral and burial expenses, according to 4 proof; 5 3 . For pecuniary loss including sums decedent would have 6 earned and used to support, maintain and care for plaintiff and 7 loss of advice, counsel, instruction and services; 8 4. Reasonable compensation for loss of love, 9 companionship, comfort, affection, society, solace, and moral 10 support; 11 5. Interest on all sums allowed by law; 12 6 . Plaintiffs ' costs of suit incurred herein; 13 7 . For reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in bringing 14 this action; and 15 8 . For loss of income , wages and earning potential 16 according to proof; 17 9 . For medical and related expenses according to proof; 18 10. For such other and further relief as the Court deems 19 just and proper; 20 DATED: June 23, 1986 21 LAW OFFICES OF 0. F. FENSTERMACHER 22 CARTWRIGHT, SUCHERMAN & SLOBODIN, INC. 23 24 I B -97 y MADELYN C BER Attorneys fo la intiffs 26 -16- CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA and Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of Contra Costa CountyBOARD ACTION Claim Against the County, or District governed by) the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT September 9, 1986 and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), Amount: $524. 76 given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "WARNINGS". County Counsel CLAIMANT: CALIFORNIA STATE AUTHOMOBILE INTER-INSURANCE BUREAU AUG 13 1985 ATTORNEY: Martinez, CA 94553 ADDRESS: P. O. Box 5001 Date received Antioch, CA 94509 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: August 11 , 1986 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: August 8 , 1986 I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK DATED: August 12, 1986 BY: Deputy �l Kw�f_�� L. Hall II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (�) 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. The 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: County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present ( This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Or ntered in its minutes for this date. Dated: SEP 0 9 1986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date 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. CC: Claimant County Counsel County Administrator Y HOUSING AUTHORITY of the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 3133 Estudillo Street P.O. Box 2396 Martinez, California 94553 RECEIVED icentral Administration August 8, 1986 AUG 1/ 1986 (415)372-0791 ❑ Construction&Engineering IIAT ELOR (415)372-7308CL $UV SORS ❑ Fiscal •y .. .f.. ...... Acctg.& Financial Services . (415)372-8134 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ❑ Housing Operations (415)372-7400 Contra Costa County ❑ New Development 651 Pine Street (415)372-0796 Martinez, CA 94553 ❑ Special Projects (415)372.0796 Attention: Ms Louise Hall Housing Offices ❑ 2102 Buchanan Road Antioch,CA 94509 (415)754.2565 Subject: Claim Against the Housing Authority ❑ 801 "J"Street of the County of Contra Costa Antioch.CA 94509 (415)757.2925 Dear Louise: ❑ 2425 Bisso Ln..Suite 225 Concord,CA 94520 (415)687-8791 Attached is a Claim for Damages from California State Automobile ❑ 3133EstudilloStreet Association Inter-Insurance Bureau, which contains the following: P.O. Box 2396 Martinez..CA 94553 ` (415)372.8621 Assignment of Claim and Subrogation Agreement signed ❑ 1601 N.Jade Street by George R. Dorr No.Richmond,CA 94802 (415)232-8492 Copy of Voucher 010737973 in the amount of $524.76 ❑ 4th& Rosemary Ln. Oakley.CA 94561 (415)625-2245 Estimate Report from American Auto Painting and Body ❑ 875 EI Pueblo Avenue Repair, Pittsburg, California Pittsburg.CA 94565 (415)432.3523 ❑ Rodelo.ifornia CA945721 This claim was received by Certified Mail at 9:50 a.m. , Friday, (415)799-4476 August 8, 1986. ❑ 52 Pueblo Avenue West Pittsburg.CA 94565 ,Slncerely (415)458.3202 cqueline P. Tillman Executive Secretary Attachment Claim For Damages In accordance with Section 910 of the California Government Code, this is to formally place you on notice of our subrogated claim for the loss described below. Date: June 12, 1986 19 • CONTRA COSTA HOUSING AUTHORITY A/Ti O C , California P 0 BOX 2396 MARTINEZ CA 94553 attn: Jackie Tillman Claim is hereby made and filed against the CONTRA COSTA HOUSING AUTHORITY as follows: Name of Claimant: California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau Address of Claimant: (Send notices to this address) p 0 BOX 5001 ANTIOCH CA 94509 Date of Occurrence: 6-10-86 Place of Occurrence: SOMERSVILLE & BUCHANAN ROAD ANTIOCH rl +.Y Nature and Amount of Damages 524.7696�; /(;'& AUG Items Making up said Amount: CL see attached estimate T ELoh Name of Public Employee(s) a RS causing said Damage(if known): JOSE FRANK BALDAZO Facts & Details: u,e /w SUeXj- bjelVel&' Aa6l*,r bad W1:91-c y/,r✓","4 7a �1'�GrOA1 iN��► �i2AF`i G � ik� l/y c� Air 72,✓ AMOY �rru.010& ,� �2 � �s jLDAio Imbe •ems• # T California State Automobile Association Inter-I urance Bureau F2688 (REV.5-78) <' � � assi nment of claim and subrogation agreement In consideration of the payment to the undersigned of M the sum of El a sum estimated to be FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY FOUR DOLLARS &76/100 Dollars, being the full amount of loss and damage insured against under an automobile insurance policy, number B303211 issued to the undersigned by the CALIFORNIA STATE AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION INTER-INSURANCE BUREAU, said loss and damage having occurred on or about the 10th day of June 19 86 the said undersigned hereby assigns and transfers to said Bureau $524.76 said claim in the above amount plus no additional claim for damage resulting from said accident, not covered under said policy of insurance, in the amount of$ 524.76 fl a total p y , constituting claim (] a total estimated in the amount of $ 524.76 Said Bureau is hereby subrogated in our or my place and stead to the extent of the above amount of the said total claim and is hereby authorized and empowered to sue, compromise or settle inour or my name or other- wise to the extent of said total claim for loss and damage, and to endorse in my name any check made payable to me therefor, and collect and receive any money payable thereby. The undersigned covenants that I ha Ve not released or discharged any such claim or demand against such party or parties and that I will furnish to said Bureau any and all papers and information in M' possession, necessary for the proper prosecution of such claim. Dated at y / this day of 19 . WITNES F1433 (REV.7-77) assi nment of claim and ~� subrogation agreement of In consideration of the payment to the undersigned of El the sum D a sum estimated to be HIVE HUNDRED TWENTY FOUR DOLLARS & 76/100 Dollars, being the full amount of loss and damage insured against under an automobile insurance policy, number B303211 issued to the undersigned by the CALIFORNIA STATE AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION INTER-INSURANCE BUREAU, said loss and damage having occurred on or about the 10th day of June 19 86 the said undersigned hereby assigns and transfers to said Bureau $524.76 said claim in the above amount plus no additional claim for damage resulting from said accident, not covered under said policy of insurance, in the amount of$ 524'76 , constitutingfl a total claim ❑ a total estimated in the amount of$ 524.76 Said Bureau is hereby subrogated in our or IRY place and stead to the extent of the above amount of the said total claim and is hereby authorized and empowered to sue, compromise or settle inour or my► name or other- wise to the extent of said total claim for loss and damage, and to endorse in my name any check made payable to me therefor, and collect and receive any money payable thereby. The undersigned covenants that-1ha ye not released or discharged any such claim or demand against such party or parties and that I will furnish to said Bureau any and all papers and information in possession, necessary for the proper prosecution of such claim. Dated at / this day of 19 . � 1 WITNESL F1433 (REV.7-77) J� California State Automobile Association Inter Insurance Bureau 01 D .37973 DATE OSS CLAIM 1105UftED*5 MAME DATE s _ ' 0_ajT -POLICY KIND OF.LOSS SUFFIX CLAIMANY'E SANIC JPAYAti-T-Ac COL 01F BORE GEORraE O I I 3).C. ADJUSTER NO. IN PAYMENT or: ANT 16125 (•; s € oa su.nomo. 1210 Z 3 -i 'fg11�OD.t'iA um -41 O PAY m- A Ir ._ mx ac AMERICAN AUTO PAINTING Y-, �x Nz TO AND GEORGE R OR PATRICIA A DORR. :,.. _ R - ' �•• A ^pper� �•�+C AVE + ( ., :. j M . ORDER 05 BLISS Y '�C19\N' RI OF PITTSBURG CA 94565 D.O. COPY TWD SIGNATURES REQUIRED r Y � � i Estimate Report 161313 NAME OQ a� �� V �V�,� /]ATE� -- _ BUS.PHONE -------:—PHONE AES: IF rJul y ADDRESS Z D K� Raz STATE__ P YEAR_ l •A�IUfE �'C�ap MODEF w A rl��'T� LD.NO. PAINT COO PROD.DATE TRIM MILEAGE LICENSE NO. WRITTEN BY INS.CO. FILE NO CLAIM NO. P.O.NO. ADJUSTER LIC.NO PHONE Deductible/Betterrnem Til�l L 2 3 p 5 6 7 f 'Y/ 8 9 ,y pp t0 — 11 12 13 14 15 1s Z 1 17 16 79 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - IVSD VEHICLE 27 rORR, GEORGE, R;OR PATRICIA 28 03-P30321-1 06-10-86 29 05 FORD 84 1/2 TN 2K07331 30 05753 COL 00150 TOT, LOSS-PAYEE ANT 16125 I hereby authorize the above work and acknowledge receipt of copy.signed X PARTS Prices subject to invoice S LABOR h (� _ rs. AMERICAN Shop Supplies S <e 9 Auto Painting & Bogy Repair PAINT hrs.i&S S s \J0. Data/bier 80 System Paint Supplies Towing/Storage Law Accuracy Unlb"y Repair Sublet/Miscellaneous a SUB TOTAL 4 105 Bliss Ave. • Pittsburg, California 94565 TAX s Phone (415) 432-10 TOTAL ESTIMATE 5a . 7/6 Form No 1007 I/D/ErA.Inc_401 Mair,Catowell ID.83605 Call 1oll Free t$00•{�?�9261 ttEv�•� W- erial s 1'S: I NSD VEHICLE , DORk, GEOkGE, R;OR PATRICIA Clad 03-B30321-1 06-10-86 C fL 05 'FORD 84 1/2 TN 2KO7331 05753 COL 00150 - D8tE LOSS-PAYEE ANT 16125 , _ Cblor d lr G ear Coat Ses r No T ?e of Pa int, Strop is usime r Enamel la.nufacturer of Paint. Shop is using D.S laropean or Japanese Ref inish hours a Z post Metal fork livors obst e� . Cbm 0•* owt 35.55+ 2.88+ 38.43* Total Materials 0•* 20x )dark up oo ldaterfals /• �O 8 38.43% 209z SUb Total 7.686* Tax 38@43+ 7.68+ C-and lbtal 46.11* 46• llx 6.5% 2.99715* 0•* 46. 11+ .2.99+ ... 49. 1* �^��� ' •�:. ijbis damage report is Dasea On wur ,may be required"after the work is opened up. Occasionally after the--work has started, worn or.damaged P i' ^parts e discovered k' wh ich are not evident on first inspection. rProcurement and delivery oarges,t*#Y be ­.)a0dad'_f or special service on items not available-focally. Damage Report Deposit (Date-) to be applied-to totaf.cost . . . . Photos . . . . . . . . . . . . Car Rental (S-per day since-) . . . . . . . . Temporary Repair (Date-Area Performe 1 $ .-The -following items -were. included in th 95933+ but were denied by Insurance Company -Representative. 4*75+ 7*6+ 41 .5+ 259+ 57*69+ Total Change to Damage Report $ - -(Carry This Amount to Front 231 .87* POWER JEY 231 *87x late 6-5% KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: 1 5.07155* That the undersigned does hereby constitu: .006+ my (or our) true-andlawf u I attorney to sign nan0*3+ if the undersigned on any Insurance Checks or Drafts issued by e Company) covering any repairs to A@8+ -)Fny,4,o.r our) automobile authorized by myself Jc 0*3+ war manner is necessary to place check or draft in a cashable position. 80* I (or We) hereby ratify and confirm whatev 36*x vey shall or may take by virtue hereof in the premises. Witness 268-* Witness 3 6%x 288-* 288-+ 164*+ 57969+ 15*07+ 52A*76* T04-4r CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT September 9 , 1986 and Board Action. All Section references are to ). The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), Amount: $3 ,000,000. 00 given pursuant to Government Code Sectio and 915.4. Please note all WARNINGSn. Y Counsel CLAIMANT: CLINTON E. MAPLES ET AL AUG 13 1986 C/o Roger A. Dreyer Martin@Z, ATTORNEY: Thompson, Dreyer & Scalia CA 84fi53 845 University Ave . ADDRESS: Sacramento , CA 95825 Date received g Au ust 12 , 1986 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: BY MAIL POSTMARKED: August 7 , 1986 I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK DATED: August 12 , 1986 BY: Deputy L. Hall II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 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. The 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: a&-, / � By: ���� �' ,'� -� eptit`y County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel PI) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present (x) This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Or to din ifs minutes for this date. Dated: SEP 0 9 1986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov, code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally'5erved 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. CC: Claimant County Counsel County Administrator THOMPSON dt DREYER 4 ATIOEIfs AT LAMP MADE It .INC. Oft IWYERSM AVEIWE JOSEPH J.I ABICH MORAIiNiO. MEA CODE ttb ROBERT A.91!0001/1 CALi01A �' x F1r•J.)��q o++�_* r r August 8,y 1986 F ai 4W r a T.c Clerk, Board of Supervisors 'Contra Costa:County - 65 T.Pine Street, :Room 106 -Martinez-,*CA, 94553 x�V' Re: Maples V. CountY:of Contra Costa: J' ` ; g :Dear Sir: 7 f Enclosed please find an original and copies of a Claim"for Damages ;for Personal injuries in the above-referenced matter.. Please return:L�, aY Office a "stamped-received" copy in the envelope provided. r Thank you for your.attention to Ahe above.' ' d Very 'truly.yours," THO SON 6 DREYER R4 r Deyer . RAD/gd Enclosures e r� ti a - : r , i THOMPSON, DREYER & SCALIA r Attorneys at Law - , 845 University Avenue r w 2" Sacramento, California 95825 {916j 928- 2111 3 Attorneys for Claimants a 1986 ri r r' 7 8 CLINTON E. MAPLES .and DOREEN L . MAPLES, individually and as Guardian ad Litem for CLAIM fOR `DAAA6ES �zr 9 CLINTON J. Wil�l'LES, FOR PERSONAL -INJURIES r, 10 > Claimants K 12 COUN1 Y OF .CONTRA COSTA, . a political entity.13 14 10 1 HL CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 15 CLINTON J. MAPLES, a minor, by and through fii s Guar04n `:ad 16Fs L i tem, UUREEN L. MAPLES, :hereby makesa claim for-­ damages for 17 personal i nj uri es received on June 23, 1986, i n an accident <' t t; 181 occur•ed at a time whi 1 e CLINTON J. MAPLES was on a. bi cycle ion `Cel aya 19 Ci r•cl e at or rivar i is intersection with""Campeche Court, whi ch s • N 20 located ' Within the :confi nes of Contra Costa County ,antl under. 21 control and operation of. Contra ,Costa - County and al Lege as follows I . That 'C1aimaint '"s name is CLIN1ON J. MAPLES, 'a $ nor. represented in this ac:tion` by ' his -Guardian ad 11 tem, DOREE'N L. 24 MAPLES, and- t`hei r-, address i s _ 313 Lynbrook D--rive; Sanmon, 25 California, 94583 a 26 2. The "address ' to which C1 aimant.; desires.:all 'corr:espon;dencc and. no cc n `this , . 27 ; . r matt.er -tp, e' sent is;` t•he: atldress "•of - �Cl.ai mant_' s r at:tor nc:y, T HOMPSON, DREYER & SCALIA, 845 -Uni ver'sl ty' :..Avenue, Sacramento, California 95825. f . 2 �.. , 3 3. that on or about June 23, 1986, Claivia nd when' at such time as a result of the f.aiLure of the em 1o��ee§� `of p 4 x 5 CONTRA ' COSTA CUNNI Y and those charged with ,responsi b"i 1 i tysotr; tfie 6 design, operation, maintenance and control of the: area ia n and round 7 the Celaya Drive and Campeche Court intersection located Iri -Contra Costa County, Claimant was struck while at or.. near the confines of 8 a: 9 the above-described intersection by a vchi_cla driven "by 8oenyamin ?> 10 Se'�iawan, resulting in severe physical , mental and emotional w injuries to 'CLIN'roN J. MAPLES. 4. *(h a t as a direct and ,proximate 'resin t of the negl.i gent 12 mui ntcnancc, control , design and man"agement of the Celaya 'Drive and .13 14 Campechc Court i nter•5ect:i on, _ a dangerous condition was created, i n that i arge trees. were pl anted `and a -fenc.e was ":ere''ct at sai d 15 i ntcrj,ect�i on and were allowed . to -remain- ' at and ::near. F the 16 intersection, til oc lei rig, the vi ew of .craft-i c' on, tel aya Drive. from any 17 and all bicyclists l oca.ted 'on or -near the `i ntersect r o`n, - al 1 of vhi ch resin ted i ri.'the .i nj ur•i es to the mi nor Claimant; CLINtON J MAPiES, 18 and his i ricur•r'i ng var�i ous roedi cal bills and expenditures ➢r 20 5. That as a prdxrm to result of the negligent maintenance 21 _ . -and control of the empl oyees '-of CONTRA COSTA COUN7;Y to: comply "with thei r mandatory duty to propErl y ma) n t a i n, des:i.gn, control and 23 operate the above described �;ntersection, _a dangerous condition, and. 24 essentr al i y a trap, was t-e" created which 'r`esui tedi`n 'thc 25ts a. infurres to the mrnorClaimant, CLiN7UN J MAPLES, a5 stated above f t so x{ .�. 27 ti That, a5 a dr rest and fpro A mate resin t <of the negligence . 28 and dangerous c ondi t.i on created -,a'*' 'J_Fcaused by CONTRA COST11 COUNTI' '• , zz and each of their respective employees and/or agents r.espo:hsil_b'Je for such operations, whose names are unknown .at - this time to Claiman't , as 2 hereinabove generally -set forth, claimant . CLINTON J,.J MARC tx q - s 3al � in ured ;al1 to his general damage in the sum :6 53, 889, 000. ` ? 8-nd 4 # medical and other incidental 'expenses accordng to proof I. That ` cl ai mart, DOREEN L. MAPLES, :the mother, and ri;'uar.di ari 6 4. ad Litem of ,Claimant 'CLINTON J. °MAPLES, and ,claimant CLINTDN r: f. 7 MAPLES, the father of Claimant CLINTON_ J. :MAPLES, incurredariou:: medical bi l'i s and e.xpendi tures as a result o;f ahe . i n' urf es u5tai ned by their Con, the minor C1ai-mant, CLINTON J. MAPLES wsTheata1 10 sip'r �i amount of, medical'- bi l l's' are unknown at this . i me, however, ` Cl;a'imant would request reimbursement of any 'a"nd. all medfzal a'ntl other 12 „ . 4 rpt incidental expenses accord7.ng to proof 13 4 $ x WHEREF 0(zE, CLIN7UN E: MAPLES, UOREEN L': MAPLES, i nd;i vi dual l y 14 , } , and as 6uaT-di an :ad Li.tem `for C1 ain1ant CLTNI ON J �MAPIES . ► � requests 15 .. .• .s..?WL that the CUllNTY UF' CONIRk COSTA approve -the -amount specif,i.ed X V y €Y hercinaboV"e a 17 � DAT EU $J$ IS to 18 Y F4 , f, H Ni F'S N EY.- 8 SCIILIR d . 20 ZY. ..: G ER . UREYER 21 22 4 tu.lt } > t S ht•' 7 3 , t w ti 211 i • yy ' 'J2 CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT September 9, 1986 and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), Amount: $1, 000. 00 given pursuant to Government Code Sec 1:iQ� � a�+'�IJf186) 915.4. Please note all "WARNINGS". �+ou CLAIMANT: RON E. SCALISE ET AL AUG 13 198 ATTORNEY: Martinez, CA 94553 ADDRESS: 2299 Springlake Drive Date received Martinez , CA 94553 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: August 11 , 1986 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: August 10, 1986 I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK DATED: August 12 , 1936 BY: Deputy L. Hall II. FROI4: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 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. The 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 .(,(,-•C / '• ` By.` (�` �f�-��—C-�UI�- puty County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of he Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present (x) This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Or ent ed in ifs minutes for this date. Dated: `� P g 1986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By �1 Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date 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.. CC: Claimant County Counsel County Administrator CLAIM TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Instructions to 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 Cor 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: Cl m by ) Res iling stamps RECEIVED _ ; 1 Q e.Af--s <<\2 m QS (� - �f ) AUG Against the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA) O Aii AOW.... or (Fill RS in name) DISTRICT)) o By The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against�e o nty7 of Contra Costa or the above-named District in the sum of $ C/ and in support of this claim represents as follows:/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. When did the damage or injury occur? (Give exact date and hour) 2-----------------------------'---------�-- (Include city count )and -- Where di the damage or injury occur y y 'IC4 ---------------------------------------------- 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? (over) 5. What are `the names of county or district officers; I employees causing the damage or injury? --------------------------------------------------------- 6. What damage or injuries do you claim resulted? (Give full extent of injuries 93c damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto damage) cc�v 1Z S, s �i�► �� u c� -- -- -1 -- 7.- How--was--- the---amount- claimed above computed? (Include the estimated amount of any prospective injury or damage. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Names and addresses of witnesses, doctors and hospitals. �t-- I X o L4ft - JTX-m-C-�,- 9. List the expenditures- you made on account of this accident or injury: .DATE ITEM AMOUNT yds?t dad s Govt. Code Sec. 910. 2 provides: "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 Add ess > Telephone No. Telephone No.ljQCn 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. " r _____-------- P( Q i ga )2-k10 ; s _ _ i i P CLAIM BOARD=OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT September 9 , 1986 and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), Amount: $550, 878 . 41 given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and ' 915.4. Please note all "WARNINGS". CLAIMANT: EUN STYLES County Co.� l c/o David Michael Bigeleisen AUG 13 191=, ATTORNEY: 950 John Daly Blvd. , Suite 280 ADDRESS: Daly City, .CA 94015-3004 Date received Martinez, CA 94353 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: August 12 , 1986 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: August 11 , 1986 1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK DATED: August 12 , 1986 BY: Deputy L. Hall 1I. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( ) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2 CA 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. The 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: uL! L-, ,/_,'4e-A_Jaeputy County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of t e Board TO: County Counsel County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present (x) This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order t in its minutes for this date. Dated: SEP O 9 1986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date 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. CC: Claimant County Counsel County Administrator ' Y , , DAVID MICHAEL BIGELEISEN ATTORNEY 950 JOHN DALY BOULEVARD CALIFORNIA FEDERAL BUILDING SUITE 280 DALY CITY, CALIFORNIA 94015 (415)755-141W DATE: August 11 , 1986 TO: CLERK OF THE BOARD, CONTRA COSTA•COUNTY FROM: DAVID MICHAEL BIGELEISEN SUBJECT: Styles V. Hilltop Mall ENCLOSED PLEASE FIND original and photocopy of CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA ❑ FOR YOUR FILES ❑ FOR YOUR INFORMATION ❑ IN ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR REQUEST ❑ PLEASE COMMENT ❑ PLEASE SIGN AND RETURN ❑ PLEASE TELEPHONE ME ❑ PLEASE ADVISE ME HOW TO REPLY ❑ PLEASE HANDLE WITH COPY TO US 91 FOR FILING AND RETURN OF ENDORSED COPIES; self-addressed, stamped , envelope enclosed. Thank you. DMB:gm Encl. v DAVID MICHAEL BIGELEISEN ATTORNEY 950 JOHN DALY BOULEVARD CALIFORNIA FEDERAL BUILDING SUITE 280 DALY CITY, CALIFORNIA 94015 (415)755-1414v86_ er CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA fs"E�oa CLAIMANT'S NAME: EUN STYLES CLAIMANT'S ADDRESS: 3223 May Road, E1 Sobrante, CA CLAIMANT'S TELEPHONE: (H) 222-2139 (W) 755-1414 AMOUNT OF CLAIM: $550,878. 41 ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICES ARE TO BE SENT: c/o DAVID MICHAEL BIGELEISEN, Attorney at Law, 950 John Daly Blvd. , Suite 280, Daly City, CA 94015-3004. DATE OF INCIDENT: MAY 7, 1986 _ LOCATION OF INCIDENT: Hilltop Mall, Richmond, in vicinity of Leeds Leathers, Second floor HOW DID IT OCCUR: Claimant tripped and fell when the heel of her shoe became caught in a gap in the floor. The gap was long standing and could have been avoided. :Claimant fell and sustained personal injuries. DESCRIBE DAMAGE OR INJURY: Bodily injuries, including injury to leg and other body parts, medical expenses and emotional distress. NAME OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE(S) CAUSING INJURY OR DAMAGE, IF KNOWN: Unknown ITEMIZATION OF CLAIM Medical expenses as of July 28 , 1986 $ 878.41 Future medical expenses unknown, but estimated at 25,000.00 Lost earnings unknown, but estimated at 25,000.00 . General damages 500, 000. 00 TOTAL $550 ,878. 41 Signed on behalf of claimant ' D D MICHAEL BIGELEISEN '4 CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ` BOARD ACTION Claim Against the County, or District governed by) the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT September 9, 1936 and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below). Amount: $42, 000, 000. 00 given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "WARNINGS". County Counsel CLAIMANT: MICHAEL PHILLIPS ET AL AUG 12 1986 ATTORNEY: Martinez, CA 94553 ADDRESS: C/O Orinda Records Date received P. O. BOX 838 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: August 7., 1986 Orinda, CA 94563 • BY MAIL POSTMARKED: August 6 1986 Certitied P466708R S I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK DATED: August 11, 1986 BY: Deputy L. Hall II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supe visors {x) Thi I comoli s,_subs�antially ith Sections 910 and 910.2/��`'�— �� ( ) This claim FAILS to comply 'stantialiy with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for i ays ( ecti n 910.8)... �`� (� Claim is not timely file /t The Cler should return claim on ground that it was fol�d) late and ;eGnd warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). B�`J q ( ) Other: J I/ Dated:/�� l o /��,�'la By: t,rn �-- v �!1C-� �`-Gi -1De�uty County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel E<1) County Administrator (2) X) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present ( ) This Claim is rejected in full. (X) Other: Portion of original claim not nrPvi n,lcl y returnprl as. untimely is rejected in fill : I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order nt ed 'n its minutes for.this date. Dated: SEP 0 9 1986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Gc Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov, code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you.have only six (6) months from the date 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. CC: Claimant County Counsel County Administrator 1 CLAIM OF MICHAEL PHILLIPS, ) C.J. BLACK, ) 2 C.J. BLACK DOING BUSINESS AS ) CLAIM FOR INJURIES ORINDA RECORDS ) 3 ) 4 vs j RECEIVED 5 GARY T. YANCEY, 3 AUG f71986BRAD NIX, 6 JAMES L. SEPULVEDA ) OF/AND ) aK A U R 7 THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ) ey .. ar V Re CONTRA .COSTA COUNTY ) 8 ) 9 10 TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISIORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, with a mailing 11 address of 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California 94553: 12 You are hereby notified that MICHAEL PHILLIPS, C.J. BLACK AND C.J. 13 BLACK DOING BUSINESS AS ORINDA RECORDS, with a mailing address of c/o Orinda 14 Records, P.O. Box 838, Orinda, California 94563, claims damages from Gary T. 15 Yancey, Brad Nix and James L. Sepulveda and The District -Attorney's Office 16 of Contra Costa County whose mailing address is P.O. Box 670, Martinez, 17 California 94553 in the amount, computed as of the date of presentation of 18 this claim, of $ 42,0009000.00. 19 This claim is based on the injuries (said claim does not have a cause 20 of action for death, injury to a person as in body harm, personal property or 21 growing crops as described in Section 911.2 of the Government Code. This is 22 a claim relating to other causes of action as presented herein following) as 23 sustained by the Claimants on or about August 8, 1985 and continuing as 24 discovery is still on-going, and occurred in or about the vicinity of Contra 25 Costa County and throughout the State of California,, all under the following 26 circumstances: 27 GENERAL'ALLEGATIONS 28 A malicious and carefully orchestrated scheme in which a number of -1- I small businesses located in Contra Costa County are being victimized by Gary 2 T. Yancey, the District Attorney and two of his Deputies by the names of 3 Brad Nix and James L. Sepulveda. 4 - Yancey, Nix and Sepulveda are targeting specific small businesses 5 and filing various fictitious blown-up and exaggerated allegations which 6 include hugh fines. Upon the victimized small business being served, it 7 would contact their lawyer only to find that legal costs would be as high as 8 $25,000,00 and that it could take 2 years or more to go to trial. At the 9 same time, Yancey, Nix and Sepulveda would threaten the small business with 10 closing them down through revolking of business licenses, actions by the 11 Health Department and/or releasing damaging statements to the press so that 12 the public would lose confidence in the business or its products and/or 13 services. 14 With Yancey, Nix and Sepulveda having knowledge of the unaffordable 15 legal fees for the small business and, the use of constant "Strong Arm Tactics" 16 by them, they would then offer the small business a "Deal" which was compose 17 of restrictions and a payment. However, one major point was that any and al 18 future similar actions (as well as some that were added) by the small business 19 would carry a very grave and constly consequence, which, was setting up the 20 small business for Round Two. 21 In the end these extortion and coercion tactics forced a number of 22 small businesses, which included Service Stations, Record Companies, Consultants, 23 Clubs and others, to have no other financial solution but to consider succumbing. 24 The claimants Michael Phillips, C.-J. Black and C.J. Black DBA Orind 25 Records are but one of the victims of Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the Office 26 of the District Attorney, as related to the aboye scheme.and actions. 27 The Office of the District Attorney, Yancey, Nix and Sepulveda have 28 used Declarations which contain perjured statements as well as false and/or -2- I "doctored" documents, all of which they have knowledge of, against the 2 Claimants. 3 The scheme is being used by Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the Office 4 of the District Attorney for a number of reasons, each of importance and 5 standing on its own as well as combined for strength and they are: First, 6 the statistic released for 1985 shows that the District Attorney's Office had 7 a felony conviction rate of less than 12 (i.e. , of 3042 cases that were filed 8 as felonies only 1488 convictions occurred in the Supreior Court for a mere 9 49% felony conviction rate of cases originally filed) . The underlining 10 personal gain is to increase this rate and "Keep their Job." Poor performanc 11 means poor support and funding. 12 Second, by filing actions against small businesses who can not affor 13 the high cost of legal battles, even when the business is right and IS THE 14 VICTIM OF THE D.A. 's OFFICE, with said businesses succumbing, a higher "Hit 15 Rate" can now be achieved thus taking on a personal klory and making the 16 individuals (Yancey, Nix and Sepulveda) efficiency report "look good." 17 Third, by filing actions against small businesses and having said 18 small business have no other financial solution but to consider succumbing, 19 then money is brought into the coffers of the County of Contra Costa. As 20 Mr. Nix has said repeatly, "I am measured on the amount 'of settlements, in 21 dollar amounts, which I can bring into the County." 22 Fourth, based on the large staff that Yancey has and the budget that 23 he must spend (or loose it due to not generating enough work/cases), Yancey 24 must keep the staff working at full capacity '(and past this) . It is the old 25 government ploy that budgets must be fully strained so that the next time a 26 budget is borught before the governing powers and the deciding powers for 27 granting budgets and money for operations, that it can be shown how much has 28 been accomplished and how "over worked and under staffed" the agency (the -3- 1 D.A.'s Office) is during the fiscal year. It's an old game with new players. 2 And finally, what would be a better way than to offset other actions 3 such as the "law suit by the Pittsburg Police "Lt. "Bank's 'naming Yancey, the 4 use by Yancey of a boy to test sexual abuse allegations and whose mother 5 has retained an attorney who is to prepare a $1 million claim naming Yancey 6 and others, the credit scam in which 7 employees of Yancey have been charged 7 with falsifying financial statements and doctoring credit applications, 8 employees of Yancey who are in a de-tox programs, an employee "whistle-blower ' 9 at Unocal oil refinery who came forward in January 1985 and described how 10 the company bypassed pollution discharge controls into the Bay and deliberate .y 11 falsified test data to the governing regulatory agency and Yancey said he 12 could do nothing, etc., than by bring actions and press attention towards the 13 small businesses here in Contra Costa County. 14 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO CONSPIRACY 15 The claimants have sustained injury due to Conspiracy by Yancey, Nix 16 Sepulveda and the Office of the District Attorney, as each of them, willfully 17 and knowingly conspired and agreed amoung themselves to destroy 18 the Claimants business and financial credit by contacting accounts of the 19 Claimants, contacting individuals to include Judge(s) in the Walnut Creek- 20 Danville Municipal Court and by contacting vendors with false, prejudice and 21 injureous statements againt and concerning the Claimants. 22 Further, said Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the Office of the District 23 Attorney has filed a damaging legal action which was willful and spitful and 24 for the purpose of ruining and to place into bankruptcy the Claimants. 25 Further, said Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the Office of the .D.A. want ,-d 26 to destroy the Claimants business and reputations through the interference 27 with the Claimants suppliers, .trade and industry individuals and companies, 28 and bank relationshipsp as well as potential investors. -4- 1 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A.'s Office cooperated, aided 2 and encouraged and ratified and adopted acts, herein described and other acts 3 yet to be determined as discovery is on-going, which resulted in actual damag 4 to the Claimants from the tortious act or acts done in pursuance of the 5 conspiracy. 6 That the conduct of Yancey, Nix, 'Sepulveda and the D.A.'s Office 7 was fraudulent, oppressive and without regard for the rights of the Claimants 8 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO THE 9 FALSEFICATION OF DOCUMENTS 10 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's Office did accept stateme t 11 documents and Declarations which they knew to be false and they did this 12 willfully and knowingly. That they knew that Declarations as received from 13 Norman Varney. and Lynn Packer declared and affirmed in a particular manner 14 and/or to a particular fact in which it was stated willfully and contrary to 15 the true facts of the material addressed in said Declarations, was false and 16 damaging matter. 17 That the basis of a legal action as filed by the Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda 18 and the D.A. 's Office (Case No. 275765) included affidavits/Declarations as 19 described herein above which contained the statements in which they knew to 20 be false or knew to be with disregard as to the truth. That by doing this 21 such actions are contemptuous and were intended to mislead and distort for 22 the purpose of dollar gains and for the purpose of damaging the business 23 essence .and operations and the creditability of the Claimants. 24 That these individuals did these actions with complete disregard fo 25 the legal system and in collusion with each other, Said action was willful 26 and- spitful and for the purpose of harassing, vexing, ruining, degrading and 27 trying to control the business activities of the Claimants. 28 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A.'s Office were advised that -5- 1 the Declarations were, in fact, containing false information and statements 2 and that they knew of the true facts but failed to and would not act on the 3 disqualification and/or prosecution of said declarants. That it was intended 4 to generate and create false declarations for the purpose of harassing the 5 Claimants and to use said Declarations in an overall "Strong Arm Tactic" to 6 threaten and to extort money from the Claimants. 7 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO COERCION 8 . That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A.'s Office willfully and 9 knowingly conspired to compel the Claimants to act or think in a given manner 10 said manner to be profitalbe to themselves. 11 That they dominated and/or restrained the trade and business functions 12 of the Claimants through and by their damaging and injureous actions. That 13 these actions were willful and spitful and for the purpose of harassing, 14 vexing, ruining, degrading and placing into bankruptcy the Claimants. 15 That this conduct was fraudulent, oppressive and without regard for 16 the rights of the Claimants. 17 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO 18 INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS 19 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A.'s Office willfully and. 20 knowingly, by the actions and statements hereinabove and as following, exposed 21 the Claimants to hatred, contempt and distrust amoung both the Claimants 22 profession, venders of products, bank(s), agencies and buyers of their products. 23 That these actions and statements had such an effect as to disrupt 24 the performance of the business operations of the Claimants. That further 25 said acts jeopardized the relationship between venders, banks and buyers of 26 the products of the Claimants as well as potential investors. 27 That this conduct was fraudulent, oppressive and without regard for 28 the rights of the Claimants. -6- 1 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO EXTORTION 2 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's Office willfully and 3 knowingly, by their actions and statements as described herein tried to/ 4 placed fear of/succeeded, by coercion and intimidation, to obtain money and/ 5 or goods from the Cliamants. 6 That during meetings with Nix and 'Sepulveda as well as during telepho e 7 conversations beginning August 8, 1985 and continuing until the present,. these 8 individuals used "Strong Arm Tactics" and threats of large fines, putting the 9 Claimants out of business, controling all aspects of the Claimants present 10 business and future business operations and directions. That through these 11 actions which included harassing, that they tried to force the signing of 12 various papers and documents which would be determental to the existance of 13 the Claimants both now and in the future. 14 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's Office threatened, coerced 15 and intimidated the Claimants and carried out reprisals through their actions. 16 That they exposed the Claimants to hatred, contempt and mistrust amoung vender ;, 17 banks, potential investors and accounts of the Claimants. 18 That this conduct was fraudulent, oppressive and without regard for 19 the rights of the Claimants. 20 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO 21 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 22 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's Office willfully and 23 knowingly have intentionally harassed, shamed and mortified the Claimants by: 24 contacting individuals, Courts, venders, accounts, potential investors and 25 banks with false and injureous statements concerning the Claimants; entering 26 into a conspiracy; wilful misconduct; misleading and distorting facts for the 27 purpose of dollar gains and for the purpose of damaging the business essence 28 and operations and creditability of the Claimants; coercion; exposing the -7- I Claimants to harted, contempt and distrust amoung their profession, venders, 2 banks, potential investors and accounts of the Claimants; using "Strong Arm 3 Tactics" to extort money and other items; making false representations; Fraud; 4 Deceit; Malice and other actions which will be attested to at the time of the 5 hearing/trial. 6 That this conduct was fraudulent, oppressive and without regard for 7 the rights of the Claimants. 8 That as a direct and proximate cause of these actions the Claimants 9 have suffered further severe emotional distress and anguish and continue to 10 suffer emotional distress and anguish. 11 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and The D.A. 's Office have willfully 12 intended to cause the Claimants severe emotional distress and anguish through 13 their reckless disregard of the probability that said conduct would cause 14 emotional distress to the Claimants. 15 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO 16 NEGLIGENT INFLICTION'OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 17 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A.'s Office were under the duty 18 to exercise due care in the prevention of Emotional Distress to the Claimants 19 and that they have breached this duty, acting with reckless disregard of the 20 probability that said conduct would cause severe Emotional Distress and anguis 21 and as a direct and proximate result of this conduct the Claimants have suffer( d 22 and continue to suffer great mental and nervous pain and suffering. 23 That this conduct was fraudulent, oppressive and without regard for 24 the rights of the Claimants. 25 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO BARRATRY 26 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's Office willfully and 27 knowingly, by their actions, excited legal action for the purpose of continuan e 28 and work for their Office and themselves. That they are judged on a the number -8- l of legal actions they file as well as the amounts of money they bring in by 2 such actions. 3 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A.'s Office know that many 4 individuals and companies and that of the Claimants, can not afford the time 5 or the money to fight legal actions as filed by them. That through fear and 6 constant "Strong Arm Tactics" they anticipate that the indiviudlas and/or 7 companies named by them in actions will settle for sums which are part of the 8 overall fund they are judged by, thus making the scheme that the are invloved 9 in a personal gain. 10 That Nix has already been charged with "Substantial Prosecuting 11 Misconduct" in a decision rendered by Judge Richard E. Arnason of the Supreior 12 Court on May 5, 1985, Case No. 29792, in which Judge Arnason stated, "Uncoubte ly 13 the record here,' and the testimony presented in the hearing in this matter, 14 reveals a pattern of SUBSTANTIAL PRESECUTING MISCONDUCT." 15 That Yancey, who was the prosecutor in another case as the Court 16 of Appeals (161 Cal. App. 3d 961 dated November 1984) had ruled, "We conclude, 17 however, that the ,prosecutor's (Yancey) voir dire of Gamer crossed the line 18 separating proper advisement from intimidation. The District Attorney's 19 statements represent the type of THREAT or COERCION which has been held to 20 violate due process." The Court furhter ruled, "Gamer was a material witness 21 PREVENTED form testifying by the THREATENING STATEMENTS OF THE PROSECUTOR - 22 Yancey." 23 That this conduct was fraudulent, ;oppressive and without regard for 24 the rights of the Claimants. 25 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO CORRUPTION 26 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's Office willfully and 27 knowingly have intentionally harassed, shamed and mortified the Claimants by 28 their actions to sustain injury to the Claimants due to each of the above herein -9- 1 injuries sustained as listed as: the General Allegations; Conspiracy; Falsefic - 2 tion of Documents; Coercion; Interference With Business; Extortion; Intentiona 3 Infliction of Emotional Distress; Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; 4 and Barratry, all allegations as stated therein hereinabove. 5 That this conduct was fraudulent, oppressive and without regard for 6 the rights of the Claimants.. 7 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO ACTUAL MALICE 8 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D,A.'s Office willfully and 9 knowingly have intentionally harassed, shamed and mortified the Claimants by 10 their actions of ill will with a desire to harm through the sustaining of the 11 injuries as described herein above, to include.all allegations, as listed as 12 in the: General Allegations; Conspiracy; Falsefication of Documents; Coercion; 13 Interference With Business; Extortion; Intentional Infliction of Emotional 14 Distress; Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; Barratry; and Corruption 15 That this conduct was fraudulent, oppressive and without regard for 16 the rights of the Claimants. 17 ADDITIONAL FACTS AND INFORMATION 18 The names of the public employees causing the Claimant's injuries 19 under the herein above described circumstances are: Gary T. Yancey, Brad Nix 20 and James L. Sepulveda. Based on Discovery being on-going, other names and 21 acts may be discovered as which time it would be requested to amend this 22 Claim. That the Claimants do not know the true names or capacities of all 23 of the public employees causing the Claimants injuries and that the Claimants 24 will seek leave to amend this Claim for Injuries to show the true name(s) 25 and capacities of each as they become known to the Claimants. 26 The injuries sustained by the Claimants, as far as known, as of the 27 date of the presentation of this Claim, consist of: that as described in the 28 General Allegations herein above; Conspiracy; Falsefication of Documents; -10- ] Coercion; Interference With Business; Extortion; Intentional Infliction of 2 Emotional Distress; Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; Barratry; 3 Corruption and Actual Malice, all allegations stated herein above. 4 - AMOUNT OF CLAIM 5 The amount claimed, as of the date of presentation of this claim is 6 computed as follows: 7 Damages Incurred To Date 8 General Allegations 9 General Damages $1,000,000.00 10 Special Damages 1,000,000.00 11 Punitive/Exemplary 1,000,000.00 12 Conspiracy 13 General Damages 1,000,000.00 14 Special Damages 1,000,000.00 15 Punitive/Exemplary 1,000,000.00 16 Falsefication of Documents !7 General Damages 500,000.00 18 Punitive/Exemplary 500,000.00 19 Coercion 20 General Damages 1,000,000.00 21 Punitive/Exemplary 1,000,000.00 22 Interference With Business 23 General Damages 2,000,000.00 24 Punitive/Exemplary 2,000,000.00 25 Extortion 26 General Damages 1,000,000.00 27 Punitive/Exemplary 1,000,000.00 28 -11- 1 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 2 Exemplary Damages $1,000,000.00 3 Punitive Damages 1,000,000.00 4 - Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 5 Exemplary Damages 1,000,000.00 6 Punitive Damages 1,000,000.00 7 Barratry 8 General Damages 300,000.00 9 Punitive/Exemplary 200,000.00 10 Corruption 11 General Damages 2,000,000.00 12 Special Damages 2,000,000.00 13 Punitive/Exemplary 1,000,000.00 14 Actual Malice 15 General Damages 2,000,000.00 16 Special Damages 2,000,000.00 17 Punitive/Exemplary 1,000,000.00 18 Loss of Earnings 500,000.00 19 Other just relief To be Determined 20 Legal Fees and Costs To be Determined 21 Total Damages incurred to date $30=000,,000_00 22 Estimated Prospective Damages As Far As Known 23 Future Expenses 1,000,000.00 24 Loss of Earnings 1,000,000.00 25 General Damages 5,000,000.00 26 Special Damages 5,000,000.00 27 Legal Fees and Costs To be Determined 28 Total Estimated Prospective Damagesj12,,000,000_00 -12- 1 Total Amount Claimed as of the Date of 2 Presentation of this Claim 1_42, 0002000_00 3 ALL NOTICES OR OTHER COMMUNICATIONS WITH REGARD TO THIS CLAIM SHOULD 4 BE SENT TO THE CLAIMANTS AT: 5 MICHAEL PHILLIPS 6 C.J. BLACK 7 C.J. BLACK DOING BUSINESS AS ORINDA RECORDS 8 c/o Orinda Records 9 P.O. Box 838 10 Orinda, CA 94563 11 That the Claimants will pray for additional claims/amounts based 12 on any additions or changes of the claims or any change as to any amendments 13 to this claim. 14 Respectfully submitted, 15 DATED: August 4, 1986 16 17 " low_� MICHAEL PHILLIPS 18 19 20 C.J. BLACK 21 22 23 IMA 0 eb C.J. BLACK DOING BUSINESS AS ORINDA RECORDS 24 25 .26 27 28 -13- CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Clair„ Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT September 9," 1986 and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your California Government Codes. ) notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), 'Amount: $42 , 000. 000. 00 given pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "WARNINGS". CLAIMANT: MICHAEL PHILLIPS ET AL County Counsel ATTORNEY: AUG 12 1986 ADDRESS: c/o Orinda Records Date received Martinez, CA 94553 P.O. Box 838 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: August 6 , 1986 hand del . Orinda, CA 94563 e no envelope BY MAIL POSTMARKED: P I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK DATED: August 11 , 1986 BY: Deputy L. Hall I1. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (x) This ,claim complies substantially wi Se,�tions 910 and 910.2 d_ZC1�d 14( ) Thi c aim FAS to comply �ub ntially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Sectio 910.Q)_. �f cam! !�} �C.cLL��4 .tOf �1p� 5 �O Claim is not timely filed!( The Cl k should retur�i laim on round that it was ed late an se warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). 1�12_ ( ) Other: Dated: ela_a By: Wit.- a ��C�,t.G(�ct.lU �.beputy County Counsel 1II. FROM: Clerk of t'e Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) (x Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present ( ) This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order ent"eeddiin its minutes for this date. Dated: S E P O 9 1986 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, 8Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date 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. CC: Claimant County Counsel County Administrator 1 CLAIM OF MICHAEL PHILLIPS, ) C.J. BLACK, ) 2 C.J. BLACK DOING BUSINESS AS ) CLAIM FOR INJURIES ORINDA RECORDS ) 3 ) �- 4 - vs IVB 5 GARY T. YANCEY, BRAD NIX, ) 10 9 6 JAMES L. SEPULVEDA L OF/AND ) CL N ao tz u�vE I 7 THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ) 8 ) 9 10 TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISIORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, with a mailing 11 address of 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California 94553: 12 You are hereby notified that MICHAEL PHILLIPS, C.J. BLACK AND C.J. 13 BLACK DOING BUSINESS AS ORINDA RECORDS, with a mailing address of c/o Orinda 14 Records, P.O. Box 838, Orinda, California 94563, claims damages from Gary T. 15 Yancey, Brad Nix and James L. Sepulveda and The District Attorney's Office 16 of Contra Costa County whose mailing address is P.O. Box 670, Martinez, 17 California 94553 in the amount, computed as of the date of presentation of 18 this claim, of $ 42,0009000.00. 19 This claim is based on the injuries (said claim does not have a cause 20 of action for death, injury to a person as in body harm, personal property or 21 growing crops as described in Section 911.2 of the Government Code. This is 22 a claim relating to other causes of action as presented herein following) as 23 sustained by the Claimants on or about August 8, 1985 and continuing as 24 discovery is still on-going, and occurred in or about the vicinity of Contra 25 Costa County and throughout the State of-California, all under the following 26 circumstances: 27 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 28 A malicious and carefully orchestrated scheme in which a number of -1- 1 small businesses located in Contra Costa County are being victimized by Gary 2 T. Yancey, the District Attorney and two of his Deputies by the names of 3 Brad Nix and James L. Sepulveda. 4 Yancey, Nix and Sepulveda are targeting specific small businesses 5 and filing various fictitious blown-up and exaggerated allegations which 6 include hugh fines. Upon the victimized small business being served, it 7 would contact their lawyer only to find that legal costs would be as high as 8 $25,000.00 and that it could take 2 years or more to go to trial. At the 9 same time, Yancey, Nix and Sepulveda would threaten the small business with 10 closing them down through revolking of business licenses, actions by the 11 Health Department and/or releasing damaging statements to the press so that 12 the public would lose confidence in the business or its products and/or 13 services. 14 With Yancey, Nix and Sepulveda having knowledge of the unaffordable 15 legal fees for the small business and, the use of constant "Strong Arm Tactics" 16 by them, they would then offer the small business a "Deal" which was compose 17 of restrictions and a payment. However, one major point was that any and al 18 future similar actions (as well as some that were added) by the small business 19 would carry a very grave and constly consequence, which, was setting up 'the 20 small business for Round Two. 21 In the end these extortion and coercion tactics forced a number of 22 small businesses, which included Service Stations, Record Companies, Consultants, 23 Clubs and others, to have no other financial solution but to consider succumbing. 24 The claimants Michael Phillips, C.J. Black and C.J. Black DBA Orind 25 Records are but one of the victims of Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the Office 26 of the District Attorney, as related to the aboye scheme.and actions. 27 The Office of the District Attorney, Yancey, Nix and Sepulveda have 28 used Declarations which contain perjured statements as well as false and/or -2- 1 "doctored" documents, all of which they have knowledge of, against the 2 Claimants. 3 The scheme is being used by Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the Office 4 of the District Attorney for a number of reasons, each of importance and 5 standing on its own as well as combined for strength and they are: First, 6 the statistic released for 1985 shows that the District Attorney's Office had 7 a felony conviction rate of less than � (i.e. , of 3042 cases that were filed 8 as felonies, only 1488 convictions occurred in the Supreior Court for a mere 9 49% felony conviction rate of cases originally filed) . The underlining 10 personal gain is to increase this rate and "Keep their Job." Poor performanc 11 means poor support and funding. 12 Second, by filing actions against small businesses who can not affor 13 the high cost of legal battles, even when the business is right and IS THE 14 VICTIM OF THE D.A. 's OFFICE, with said businesses succumbing, a higher "Hit 15 Rate" can now be achieved thus taking on a personal klory and making the 16 individuals (Yancey, Nix and Sepulveda) efficiency report "look good." 17 Third, by filing actions against small businesses and having said 18 small business have no other financial solution but to consider succumbing, 19 then money is brought into the coffers of the County of Contra Costa. AA 20 Mr. Nix has said repeatly, "I am measured on the amount of settlements, in 21 dollar amounts, which I can bring into the .County." 22 Fourth, based on the large staff that Yancey has and the budget that 23 he must spend (or loose it due to not generating enough work/cases), Yancey 24 must keep the staff working at full capacity (and past this) . It is the old 25 government ploy that budgets must be fully strained so that the next time a 26 budget is borught before the governing powers and the deciding powers for 27 granting budgets and money for operations, that it can be shown how much has 28 been accomplished and how "over worked and under staffed" the agency (the -3- i I D.A.'s Office) is during the fiscal year. It's an old game with new players. 2 And finally, what would be a better way than to offset other actions 3 such as the law suit -by the Pittsburg Police Lt. Bank's naming Yancey, the 4 use ty Yancey of a boy to test sexual abuse allegations and whose mother 5 has retained an attorney who is to prepare a $1 million claim naming Yancey 6 and others, the credit scam in which 7 employees of Yancey have been charged 7 with falsifying financial statements and doctoring credit applications, 8 employees of Yancey who are in a de-tox programs, an employee "whistle-blower ' 9 at Unocal oil refinery who came forward in January 1985 and described how 10 the company bypassed pollution discharge controls into the Bay and deliberate y 11 falsified test data to the governing regulatory agency and Yancey said he 12 could do nothing, etc., than by bring actions and press attention towards the 13 small businesses here in Contra Costa County. 14 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO CONSPIRACY 15 The claimants have sustained injury due to Conspiracy by Yancey, Nix 16 Sepulveda and the Office of the District Attorney, as each of them, willfully 17 and knowingly conspired and agreed amoung themselves to destroy 18 the Claimants business and financial credit by contacting accounts of the 19 Claimants, contacting individuals to include Judge(s) in the Walnut Creek- 20 Danville Municipal Court and by contacting vendors with false, prejudice and 21 injureous statements againt and concerning the Claimants. 22 Further, said Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the Office of the District 23 Attorney has filed a damaging legal action which was willful and spitful and 24 for the purpose of ruining and to place into bankruptcy the Claimants. 25 Further, said Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the Office of the D.A. want ,,d 26 to destroy the Claimants business and reputations through the interference 27 with the Claimants suppliers, trade and industry individuals and companies, 28 and bank relationshipsp as well as potential investors. -4- I That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A.'s Office cooperated, aided 2 and encouraged and ratified and adopted acts, herein described and other acts 3 yet to be determined as discovery is on-going, which resulted in actual damag 4 to the Claimants from the tortious act or acts done in pursuance of the 5 conspiracy. 6 That the conduct of Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A.'s Office 7 was fraudulent, oppressive and without regard for the rights of the Claimants 8 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO THE 9 FALSEFICATION OF DOCUMENTS 10 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's Office did accept statements, 11 documents and Declarations which they knew to be false and they did this 12 willfully and knowingly. That they knew that Declarations as received from 13 Norman Varney and Lynn Packer declared and affirmed in a particular manner 14 and/or to a particular fact in which it was stated willfully and contrary to 15 the true facts of the material addressed in said Declarations, was false and 16 damaging matter. 17 That the basis of a legal action as filed by the Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda 18 and the D.A. 's Office (Case No. 275765) included affidavits/Declarations as 19 described herein above which contained the statements in which they knew to 20 be false or knew to be with disregard as to the truth. That by doing this 21 such actions are contemptuous and were intended to mislead and distort for 22 the purpose of dollar gains and for the purpose of damaging the business 23 essence and operations and the creditability of the Claimants. 24 That these individuals did these actions with complete disregard fo 25 the legal system and in collusion with each other, Said action was willful 26 and spitful and for the purpose of harassing, vexing, ruining, degrading and 27 trying to control the business activities of the Claimants. 28 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the -D.A. 's Office were advised that -S- l the Declarations were, in fact, containing false information and statements 2 and that they knew of the true facts but failed to and would not act on the 3 disqualification and/or prosecution of said declarants. That it was intended 4 to generate and create false declarations for the purpose of harassing the 5 Claimants and to use said Declarations in an overall "Strong Arm Tactic" to 6 threaten and to extort money from the Claimants. 7 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO COERCION 8 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's Office willfully and 9 knowingly conspired to compel the Claimants to act or think in a given manner 10 said manner to be profitalbe to themselves. 11 That they dominated and/or restrained the trade and business functions 12 of the Claimants through and by their damaging and injureous actions. That 13 these actions were willful and spitful and for the purpose of harassing, 14 vexing, ruining, degrading and placing into bankruptcy the Claimants. 15 That this conduct was fraudulent, oppressive and without regard for 16 the rights of the Claimants. 17 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO 18 INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS 19 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's Office willfully and 20 knowingly, by the actions and statements hereinabove and as following, exposed . 21 the Claimants to hatred, contempt and distrust amoung both the Claimants 22 profession, venders of products, bank(s), agencies and buyers of their products. 23 That these actions and statements had such an effect as to disrupt 24 the performance of the business operations of the Claimants. That further 25 said acts jeopardized the relationship 'between venders, banks and buyers of 26 the products of the Claimants as well as potential investors. 27 That this conduct was fraudulent, oppressive and without regard for 28 the rights of the Claimants. -6- 1 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO EXTORTION 2 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's Office willfully and 3 knowingly, by their actions and statements as described herein tried to/ 4 placed fear of/succeeded, by coercion and intimidation, to obtain money and/ 5 or goods from the Cliamants. 6 That during meetings with Nix and 'Sepulveda as well as during telepho e 7 conversations beginning August 8, 1985 and continuing until the present, these 8 individuals used "Strong Arm Tactics" and threats of large fines, putting the 9 Claimants out of business, controling all aspects of the Claimants present 10 business and future business operations and directions. That through these 11 actions which included harassing, that they tried to force the signing of 12 various papers and documents which would be determental to the existance of 13 the Claimants both now and in the future. 14 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A.'s Office threatened, coerced 15 and intimidated the Claimants and carried out reprisals through their actions. 16 That they exposed the Claimants to hatred, contempt and mistrust amoung vender , 17 banks, potential investors and accounts of the Claimants. 18 That this conduct was fraudulent, oppressive and without regard for 19 the rights of the Claimants. 20 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO 21 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 22 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's Office willfully and 23 knowingly have intentionally harassed, shamed and mortified the Claimants by: 24 contacting individuals, Courts, venders, accounts, potential investors and 25 banks with false and injureous statements concerning the Claimants; entering 26 into a conspiracy; wilful misconduct; misleading and distorting facts for the 27 purpose of dollar gains and for the purpose of damaging the business essence 28 and operations and creditability of the Claimants; coercion; exposing the -7- I Claimants to harted, contempt and distrust amoung their profession, venders, 2 banks, potential investors and accounts of the Claimants; using "Strong Arm 3 Tactics" to extort money and other items; making false representations; Fraud; 4 Deceit; Malice and other actions which will be attested to at the time of the 5 hearing/trial. 6 That this conduct was fraudulent, oppressive and without regard for 7 the rights of the Claimants. 8 That as a direct and proximate cause of these actions the Claimants 9 have suffered further severe emotional distress and anguish and continue to 10 suffer emotional distress and anguish. 11 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and The D.A.'s Office have willfully 12 intended to cause the Claimants severe emotional distress and anguish through 13 their reckless disregard of the probability that said conduct would cause 14 emotional distress to the Claimants. 15 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO 16 NEGLIGENT INFLICTION'OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 17 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A.'s Office were under the duty 18 to exercise due care in the prevention of Emotional Distress to the Claimants 19 and that they have breached this duty, acting with reckless disregard of the 20 probability that said conduct would cause severe Emotional Distress and anguis 21 and as a direct and proximate result of this conduct the Claimants have suffer d 22 and continue to suffer great mental and nervous pain and suffering. 23 That this conduct was fraudulent, oppressive and without regard for 24 the rights of the Claimants. 25 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO BARRATRY 26 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's Office willfully and 27 knowingly, by their actions, excited legal action for the purpose of continuance 28 and work for their Office and themselves. That they are judged on a the numbe -8- ] of legal actions they file as well as the amounts of money they bring in by 2 such actions. 3 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A.'s Office know that many 4 individuals and companies and that of the Claimants, can not afford the time 5 or the money to fight legal actions as filed by them. That through fear and 6 constant "Strong Arm Tactics" they anticipate that the indiviudlas and/or 7 companies named by them in actions will settle for sums which are part of the 8 overall fund they are judged by, thus making the scheme that the are invloved 9 in a personal gain. 10 That Nix has already been charged with "Substantial Prosecuting 11 Misconduct" in a decision rendered by Judge Richard E. Arnason of the Supreior 12 Court on May 5, 1985, Case No. 29792, in which Judge Arnason stated, "Uncoubte ly 13 the record here, and the testimony presented in the hearing in this matter, 14 reveals a pattern of SUBSTANTIAL PRESECUTING MISCONDUCT." 15 That Yancey, whb was the prosecutor in another case as the Court 16 of Appeals (161 Cal. App. 3d 961 dated November 1984) had ruled, "We conclude, 17 however, that the prosecutor's (Yancey) voir dire of Gamer crossed the line 18 separating proper advisement from intimidation. The District Attorney's 19 statements represent the type of THREAT or COERCION which has been held to 20 violate due process." The Court furhter ruled, "Gamer was a material witness 21 PREVENTED form testifying by the THREATENING STATEMENTS OF THE PROSECUTOR - 22 Yancey." 23 That this conduct was fraudulent, pppressive and without regard for 24 the rights of the Claimants. 25 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO CORRUPTION 26 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D.A. 's Office willfully and 27 knowingly have intentionally harassed, shamed and mortified the Claimants by 28 their actions to sustain injury to the Claimants due to each of the above herein -9- l injuries sustained as listed as: the General Allegations; Conspiracy; Falsefic - 2 tion of Documents; Coercion; Interference With Business; Extortion; Intentiona 3 Infliction of Emotional Distress; Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; 4 and Barratry, all allegations as stated therein hereinabove. 5 That this conduct was fraudulent, oppressive and without regard for 6 the rights of the Claimants. 7 INJURY SUSTAINED DUE TO ACTUAL MALICE 8 That Yancey, Nix, Sepulveda and the D,A. 's Office willfully and 9 knowingly have intentionally harassed, shamed and mortified the Claimants by 10 their actions of ill will with a desire to harm through the sustaining of the 11 injuries as described herein above, to include all allegations, as listed as 12 in the: General Allegations; Conspiracy; Falsefication of Documents; Coercion; 13 Interference With Business; Extortion; Intentional Infliction of Emotional 14 Distress; Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; Barratry; and Corruption 15 That this conduct was fraudulent, oppressive and without regard for 16 the rights of the Claimants. 17 ADDITIONAL FACTS AND INFORMATION 18 The names of the public employees causing the Claimant's injuries 19 under the herein above described circumstances are: Gary T. Yancey, Brad Nix 20 and James L. Sepulveda. Based on Discovery being on-going, other names and 21 acts may be discovered as which time it would be requested to amend this 22 Claim. That the Claimants do not know the true names or capacities of all 23 of the public employees causing the Claimants injuries and that the Claimants 24 will seek leave to amend this Claim for Injuries to show the true name(s) 25 and capacities of each as they become known to the Claimants. 26 The injuries sustained by the Claimants, as far as known, as of the 27 date of the presentation of this Claim, consist of: that as described in the 28 General Allegations herein above; Conspiracy; Falsefication of Documents; -10- 1 Coercion; Interference With Business; Extortion; Intentional Infliction of 2 Emotional Distress; Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; Barratry; 3 Corruption and Actual Malice, all allegations stated herein above. 4 AMOUNT OF CLAIM 5 The amount claimed, as of the date of presentation of this claim is 6 computed as follows: 7 Damages Incurred To Date 8 General Allegations 9 General Damages $1,000,000.00 10 Special Damages 1,000,000.00 11 Punitive/Exemplary 1,000,000.00 12 Conspiracy 13 General Damages 1,000,000.00 14 Special Damages 1,000,000.00 15 Punitive/Exemplary 1,000,000.00 16 Falsefication of Documents 17 General Damages 500,000.00 18 Punitive/Exemplary 500,000.00 19 Coercion 20 General Damages 1,000,000.00 21 Punitive/Exemplary 1,000,000.00 22 Interference With Business 23 General Damages 2,0000000.00 24 Punitive/Exemplary 2,000,000.00 25 Extortion 26 General Damages 1,000,000.00 27 Punitive/Exemplary 1,000,000.00 28 -11- l Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 2 Exemplary Damages $1,000,000.00 3 Punitive Damages 1,000,000.00 4 _ Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 5 Exemplary Damages 1,000,000.00 6 Punitive Damages 1,000,000.00 7 Barratry 8 General Damages 300,000.00 9 Punitive/Exemplary 200,000.00 10 Corruption ll General Damages 2,000,000.00 12 Special Damages 2,000,000.00 13 Punitive/Exemplary 1,000,000.00 14 Actual Malice 15 General Damages 2,000,000.00 16 Special Damages 2,000,000.00 17 Punitive/Exemplary 1,000,000.00 18 Loss of Earnings 500,000.00 19 Other just relief To be Determined 20 Legal Fees and Costs To be Determined 21 Total Damages incurred to date $30,0001000_00 22 Estimated Prospective Damages As Far As Known 23 "Future Expenses 1,000,000.00 24 Loss of Earnings 1,000,000.00 25 General Damages 5,000,000.00 26 Special Damages 5,000,000.00 27 Legal Fees and Costs To be Determined 28 Total Estimated Prospective Damagesj1210001000_00 -12- 1 Total Amount Claimed as of the Date of 2 Presentation of this Claim 1ALQ00j000_00 3 ALL NOTICES OR OTHER COMMUNICATIONS WITH REGARD TO THIS CLAIM SHOULD 4 BE SEAT TO THE CLAIMANTS AT: 5 MICHAEL PHILLIPS 6 C.J. BLACK 7 C.J. BLACK DOING BUSINESS AS ORINDA RECORDS 8 c/o Orinda Records 9 P.O. Box 838 10 Orinda, CA 94563 11 That. the Claimants will pray for additional claims/amounts based 12 on any additions or changes of the claims or any change as to any amendments 13 to this claim. 14 Respectfully submitted, 15 DATED: August 4, 1986 16 17 �G��� . . . . . . . MICHAEL PHILLIPS 18 19 , 20 C.J. CK 21 22 23 > C.J. 9LACK DOING BUSINESS AS ORINDA RECORDS 24 25 26 27 28 -13- 1 . 20 Flood Control Issue Purchase Order to Richmond Zone 7 , Wildcat/ Chevron U .S .A. for Facility San Pablo Creeks Relocations in Amount - of $150 ,000 1 . 21 Drainage Area 13- Accept Quitclaim Deed from Alamo Line A Contra Costa County 1 .22 Assessment Accept Grant Deed and Concord District 1984-2 Temporary Construction Permit from Concord Industrial Park 1 .23 Upper Pine Creek Accept Quitclaim Deed from Concord City of Concord to Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 1 .24 Drainage Area 13- Accept Offer of Dedication Alamo Line A for Drainage Easement, Subdivision 2852 1 . 25 Drainage Area 13- Convey Drainage Easement Alamo Line A to County Flood Control District PUBLIC WORKS - OTHER Facility Action Location 1 . 26 Buchanan Field Approve Plans for Compass Concord Airport Locator/Outer Marker in Port Chicago area for Runway 19R , and Advertise for Bids STATUTORY ACTIONS 1 .27 APPROVE minutes for month of August, 1986. 1 .28 DECLARE certain ordinances duly published. CLAIMS, COLLECTIONS & LITIGATION 1 .29 DENY claims of E. Styles, R. Scalise et al, C. Maples et al, California State Automobile Inter—Insurance Bureau, D. Graham et al, M. Connors, B. Strother, Macy's California, L. Donagan, J. Ceccoth et al, D. Greiner, M. Phillips et al; deny amended claim of D. Greiner; deny application to file late claim of G. Etzler, H. Etzler, S. Peterson, Kadison, Pfaelzer, Woodward, Quinn' & Rossi . HEARING DATES 1 .30 ADOPT Resolution fixing October 14, 1986 at 10:30 a.m. for hearing on the vacation of Dutra Road, Martinez area. 5 (9-9-86) HONORS & PROCLAMATIONS 1 .31 AUTHORIZE issuance of Certificate of Appreciation to Scott Strain for his years of service on the Contra Costa County Alcoholism Advisory Board. 1 .32 PROCLAIM September 13-19, 1986 as "Health Promotion Week in Contra Costa County" . ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES 1 .33 ADOPT Ordinance (introduced August 26, 1986) providing citation authority for designated County officials in connection with the Code Enforcement Program. APPOINTMENTS & RESIGNATIONS 1 .34 DECLARE vacant the Private Industry Council's small business category position; authorize issuance of Certificate of Appreciation to Richard Janssen for his services to the Council; and direct the Clerk to apply the Board' s policy for filling the vacancy. APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS - 1986-1987 FY 1 .35 County Administrator (Plant Acquisition 0111 ) : Carry forward 1985-1966 fiscal year appropriation and revenue in the amount of $389 ,945 from various grants for capital projects. 1 .36 County Library: Appropriate additional revenue of $353 from donations for operating expense. 1 .37 General Services: Reallocate administrative costs within ` various General Services budget units due to the addition of the Radio Communications Division effective July 1 , 1986. 1 .38 General Services: Transfer occupancy costs for various loca- tions from Budget Unit 0077 to Communications Division, reflecting transfer of radio communications function from the Sheriff' s Office to General Services. 1 .39 Sheriff-Coroner (Budget Unit 0255) : Appropriation and revenue adjustments required by addition of $22,500 to Department's budget as part of Final 1986-1987 Budget to supply part of Center for Human Development's required match for State grant (no change in net County cost) . (See also Grants & Contracts Item No. 1 .60) 1 .40 Sheriff-Coroner (Budget Unit 0255) : Allocate additional reve- nue and appropriation in the amount of $495,000 from the City of. Orinda and $54,000 from the City of Lafayette for the provi- sion of contract police services. 6 (9-9-86) LEGISLATION - none PERSONNEL ACTIONS REALLOCATE positions as follows: Department From To 1 .41 Personnel 1 Administrative 1 Administrative Aide Analyst CANCEL and add positions as follows: Department Cancel Add 1 .42 Public Works 1 Civil Engineer 1 Senior Civil Engineer 1 .43 CLASSIFY two Sheriff' s Dispatcher positions at salary level $ 1773-2156, in the Sheriff-Coroner's Office. 1 .44 ADOPT resolution correcting Board action of August 5, 1986 relative to certain Public Works Department positions. 1 .45 REVISE and retitle classification of Transportation Planning Manager to Deputy Director Community Development - Transportation (same salary level) in the Community Development Department. 1 .46 ABANDON the class of Appraiser Aide-Project in the Assessor' s Office. 1 .47 CLASSIFY two Junior Appraiser positions at salary level $1647-2002 and two Appraiser Aide positions at salary level $1425-1732 in the Assessor's Office. 1 .48 ESTABLISH the class of Retirement Services Specialist and allo- cate to the basic salary schedule at level $1831-2226; reclassify person and position of Account Clerk-Advanced Level to Retirement Services Specialist; cancel a vacant Supervising Clerk position and add one Accountant I position at salary level $1915-2328. 1 .49 ESTABLISH and allocate to the salary schedule the class of Social Service Chief-Financial Management; reclassify one Social Service Fiscal Officer to one Social Service Chief-Financial Management. 7 (9-9-86) GRANTS & CONTRACTS APPROVE and authorize execution of agreements between the County and following agencies: Amount County Agency Purpose/Period To Be Reeld Match 1 .50 State Department Purchase of equip- $20,000 0 of Health ment for and Services structural modifica- tions of County's existing State- purchased hazardous materials emergency response vehicles. ( 1/1/86 to 6/30/87) 1 .51 Dorothy Gayles To provide resident- $25/client 0 dba Gayles ial care for mentally Residential Care disordered offenders. Home (9/1/86 to 6/30/87) Amount County Agency Purpose/Period To Be Paid Cost 1 .52 Diablo Valley Extend the provision $2,404 0 Foundation for of case management (additional) the Aging services for one month to 10/31/86. 1 .53 Thomas D. For managment and $33,000 $13,200 Geiselman, Ph.D. organizational development training for Social Services Department staff. (8/1/86 to 7/31/87) 1 .54 Housing Alliance Allocation of CDBG $369800 0 of Contra Costa funds for housing (HUD funds) County counseling program for low to moderate income individuals or families. (9/1/86 to 3/31/87) R.M. Nyman Fire District Five $99500 0 Year Financing Plan implementation. (8/1/86 to 6/30/87) 1 .56 City of Concord To make Contra Per specified Depends Costa Health Plan schedules upon available to employees utilization of City of Concord. (9/1/86 to 8/31/87) 8 (9-9-86) GRANTS & CONTRACTS - continued. Amount County Agency Purpose/Period To Be Paid Cost 1 .57 California State For provision of $379000 0 Department of volunteer health Aging insurance counseling services. (7/1/86 to 6/30/87) 1 .58 Center for Human To amend and adjust $80, 183 0 Development certain budget line items; payment limit and term remain unchanged. 1 .59 AUTHORIZE Chairman to sign amendment to the 1986 Community Development Block Grant agreement between the County and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to increase the County's allocation by $480,000 from $2,337,000 to $298179000. 1 .60 APPROVE and authorize the Sheriff-Coroner to execute on behalf of the County a contract with the Center for Human Development, to provide drug suppression services in East County schools, at a cost of $145 , 140, for the period August 1 , 1986 to June 30, 1987 , including any extensions or amendments thereof. ($22,500 County funds) (See also Appropriation Adjustment Item No. 1 .39) 1 .61 APPROVE modification to Health Plan Service Agreement with the State Public Employees Retirement System to delete two paragraphs from the standard agreement as required by the State. E. LEASES 1 .62 AUTHORIZE the Chairman to execute a lease with Muir Parkway Properties for the premises at 1340 Arnold Drive, Suite 129, Martinez, for use by the Sheriff' s Communication Administration. 1 .63 AUTHORIZE the Director of General Services to execute a rental agreement with Kate Concannon for the premises at 176 Camino Pablo, Orinda. i .64 APPROVE Notice of Intention to assign the County option for the purchase of Rheem Estate to the Town of Moraga and direct publication of hearing for September 23, 1986. OTHER ACTIONS 1 .65 AUTHORIZE the write-off of delinquent accounts receivable for the period from January 1 , 1986 through June 30, 1986, in the amount of $41 ,744. 9 (9-9-86) OTHER ACTIONS - continued 1 .66 AUTHORIZE reallocation of $20,000 of Community Development Block Grant Program Housing Development Assistance Funds to retain. the firm of Caine, Gressel, Midgley and Slater to assist In the development of housing financing plans. 1 .67 AUTHORIZE the County Clerk-Recorder to destroy certain County Clerk records, pursuant to Government Code Section 26202. 1 .68 APPOINT the Risk Manager of Contra Costa County to serve as the County's representative on the Board of Directors of County Supervisors' Association of California's Excess Insurance Authority; authorize the County Administrator to designate an alternate, and authorize appointees to execute such documents on behalf of the County as required in their administration of the insurance program. 1 .69 ACKNOWLEDGE receipt of report from Risk Management division concerning Actuarial Study of County's Self Insurance Trust Funds and refer to the Finance Committee for review in conjunc- tion with the Budget Committee referral on this subject. 1 .70 APPROVE and adopt property tax exchange resolution for annexa- tions to County Service Area L-100. 1 .71 AUTHORIZE relief of cash shortage in inmate cash account as recommended by the County Auditor-Controller and District Attorney. 1 .72 AUTHORIZE the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District petty cash fund to be increased from $200 to $ 100, as recom- mended by the County Auditor-Controller. 1 .73 AUTHORIZE County Counsel to file a lawsuit against Orca Corporation and Dimitri Matagaras for an -accounting of copy machine commissions and to collect money due the County Library. 1 .71 ADOPT resolution approving a chgnge in the name of the Rodeo Fire Protection District to the Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District. 1 .75 ACKNOWLEDGE receipt of monthly report on investment policy for the. period July 1 , 1986 through July 31 , 1986 submitted by the Treasurer-Tax Collector pursuant to SB 115, Chapter 1526, Statutes of 1985. 1 .76 APPROVE appointments and reappointments effective August 18, 1986 made by the Medical Staff Executive Committee for a.. period of two years. 1 .77 ACCEPT gifts of $250 from Cetus Corporation to Public Health Division Laboratory, and $635 from Syncor International Corporation. 1 .78 APPROVE costs associated with child care and mileage for foster parents participating in the County-sponsored training program held at designated community college locations, effective September 11 , 1986 through June 30, 1987 . 10 (9-9-86) HOUSING AUTHORITY 1 .79 AWARD contract to Ultrez Corporation in the amount of $2,887 ,000 for Phase II modernization work at Bayo Vista, Rodeo, as recommended by the Advisory Housing Commission. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1 .80 APPROVE Relocation Assistance Claim of $59.50 from Albert and Corine Werner submitted in connection with Redevelopment Agency purchase of property at 141 Wayne Court, Walnut Creek. DETERMINATION ITEMS (Staff recommendation shown following the item. ) 2. 1 REPORT from Public Works Director, in response to Board referral, recommending closure of Empire Mine Road on September 139 1986 for Kilpatrick' s Ironkids Triathlon. APPROVE RECOMMENDATIONS 2.2 REPORT from Director of Community Development, in response to Board referral of May 5, 1986, concerning letters from Paul Speroni and Barry Nudelman on amendments to the Controlled Manufacturing Zoning District. ACCEPT REPORT 2.3 REPORT from County Administrator on recommendations relative to Apartheid Policy. CONSIDER IN CONJUNCTION WITH INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE REPORT ON THIS SUBJECT 2.14 REPORT from Community Development Director, in response to Board referral, on status of appointments to the Water Task Force. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT 2.5 REPORT from Director of Community Development, in response to Board referral, explaining solidjwaste policy statements, local host community mitigation and coptrol of solid wastestream. ACCEPT REPORT 2.6 REPORT from Public Works Director requesting approval of plans and specifications for airport construction of a owner/maintenance hangar, wash rack, and automatic gate at estimated costs of $100,000 and authorization to initiate County bid process. APPROVE REQUEST 2.7 REPORT from County Counsel, in response to Board referral, on the abandoned vehicle policy of the City and County of San Francisco. CONSIDER ACTION TO BE TAKEN 2.8 REPORT from County Counsel, in response to Board referral, relative to the selection of directors for the Contra Costa Resource Conservation District. CONSIDER ACTION TO BE TAKEN 2.9 REPORT from Health Services Director recommending the adoption • of a resolution establishing the circumstances under which the California Highway Patrol is authorized to arrange for the clean-up of a hazardous materials spill on roads in the unincorporated area of the County. APPROVE RECOMMENDATION AND ADOPT RESOLUTION 2. 10 RECOMMENDATIONS of County Administrator on Extra Items and Award of contracts (as required) . 11 (9-9-86) CORRESPONDENCE 3 . 1 LETTER from State Senator John Garamendi relating to legislation for disaster relief assistance. REFER TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 3.2 LETTER from Dean Lesher expressing opposition to the request of East Bay Regional Park District for a trail along the Southern Pacific right-of-way from Concord to Pleasanton. REFER TO DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3.3 LETTER from Director, Private Industry Council, transmitting the Job Training Partnership Act Financial and Compliance Audit Report for the period of October 19 1983 through June 30, 1985. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT 3.4 LETTER from Lee J. Amaral and petition from residents requesting a load limit restriction be established on Camino Tassajara. REFER TO DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS 3.5 LETTER from General Manager, Braddock & Logan Associates, transmitting Notice of Non-renewal of California Land Conservation Contract and requesting notification of meetings concerning the Bettencourt property. REFER TO DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3.6 LETTER from Vice President, IT Corporation, transmitting a response to the Assembly Office of Research report on hazardous waste sites. REFER TO DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3.7 LETTER from Laura Croul relating to maintenance of creek debris. REFER TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR 3.8 LETTER from Asemblyman McAlister requesting further support from the Board for AB 600, relating to health insurance. REFER TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR R INFORMATION ITEMS - none 12 (9-9-86) i THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MET IN ALL ITS CAPACITIES PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE CODE SECTION 24-2.402 INm AR SESSIONN �y TUESDAY 7 Q� N ROOM 107 COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA PRESENT: HONORABLE THOMAS M. POWERS CHAIRMAN, PRESIDING SUPERVISOR NANCY C. FAHDEN SUPERVISOR ROBERT I . SCHRODER SUPERVISOR SUNNE W. MC PEAK SUPERVISOR TOM TORLAKSON ABSENT: NONE PHIL BATCHELOR COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK: Jeanne 0. Maglio And the Board adjourns to meet in regular session on , at , 6 in the Board Chambers, Room 107 , County Administration Building, Martinez , California. Thomas M. " owe-r,'s, Chairman ATTEST: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By JeAnne 0. Maglio, Deputy Clerk