The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 06051984 - 1.2 (2) CLAW saw C! 8o9mt4IBCRS C! Cam COMM BOARD ACTION " June 5 , 1984 Clam Against the oxx"e. or 01strietTO CLRIN rP Is _ ao�utinngg eawmtaby the a and of s0 ) aowti� the action tooin an your ccc Ems a&xm* iW30 to laim by the Action. All section seferanoes are Board of Sisors Waragraph IV, below), to Califo is tiosrerneent Codes givrn paasuent to Gmrnsetit dude Rection 913 arrd 915.6. please note all s arnings`. Claimant: Turtle Creek Master Association, Inc. , Attorney: Ronald M. Abend, ESQ. Law Offices of Ronald M. Abend Address: 1333 Broadway, Suite 840 Oakland, CA 94612 Amount: $675,000. 00 BY delivery to clerk on May 7 , 1984 Date FAoeived: May 7 , 1984 By sail, postmarked an May 4 . , 1984 Certifie-d Mail P246 nii 590 I. M: fferi of the 9=3 R Supervisors T0: County Counsel Atta&Ad is a copy of the above-noted claim. ` , Dated: May 7 , 1984 J.R. Q�SQO, Clerk, By /� Deputy Kelly -'R¶ Calhoun II. PWX: County Counsel 70: Clerk Boar Supervisors (Check only ane) s?( ) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2ash &els &,e0- n or w., an—L . ( ) This claim FAITS to caadply subitantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ks-b Cl4:,ws ar"S'e, Marc--1Lie..Igor-prior& flan„�S f a� /Z4-chink . ( ) Claim is not timely filed, �erk should eturn claim an ground that it was filed late and send Warming of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). (X ) Other: 93 - &6.'..ry - Dated: - - By: Deputy County Counsel III. PKX: Clerk of the Board 70: 4) County Counsel, (2) County Administrator ( Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. 90= CtSEEI By unanimous vote of Supervisors present claim is rejected in full. ( X) Other: Portion of original claim not previously returned as untimely is refected in full . certify that this N a true and correct copy of the Board's order entered in its minutes for this date. R n i DuBois Dated: ' 6- 5-84 J. R. CUMM, Clerk, By o��: /D ,��o , Deputy Clerk lam• Cade section 913) SUbJw-t do certain 620e1?tiaw. 3W hsae only six (6) months fee the date t h i s notice rtes persoarnelly served er deposited in the mail .bo file a court action an this claim. fee Goaerrma nt Code section 945.6. _ !bn may seek the advice of an attorney of p= choice ineoaag�e,tion with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so 3seediately. V. !fel: Clerk of the We 10: (1) Bounty Counsel. (2) Comity Administrator We notified the claimant of the Board's action an anis claim by sailing a avy of this docmint, card a memo thereof has been filed and endoarsed an the Board's copy of this Ciai:e in aasoordwm with Section 29703. aX) A Morning of clai: mVe right to apply far leave to present a late claim was hailed to claimant. D%M: 6-5-84 J. R. ttB"r Clarke By _ 1��, �-�� .cso . Deputy Clerk cc: County Administrator (2) County Counsel (1) • 00 035 CLA,T M RONALD M. ABEND, ESQ. jC/G LAW OFFICES OF RONALD M. ABEND, INC. 1333 Broadway, Suite 840 RECEIVED Oakland, California 94612 (415) 465-4430 Attorneys for Claimant MAY 7 1964 R. OLSSON JAKRD OF PERV*OR5 O. r:.. CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY [Government Code H905, 9 , 910.2] TO: COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA Board of Supervisors 651. Pine Street, room 106 Martinez, California 94553 RE: Turtle Creek Subdivision, Concord, California Turtle Creek Master Association, Inc. , hereby makes Claim against the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA for the minimum sum of $675,000.00; and makes the following statements in support of that Claim: 1. Notices concerning the Claim should be sent to the Law Offices of Ronald M. Abend, 1333 Broadway, Suite 840, Oakland, California 94612. 2. The date and place of occurrence giving rise to this Claim, are as follows: The occurrence or incident is of a continuing nature causing Claimant's uncertainty as to a specific date of the event or events wherein the cited injury and damages have occurred. The most recent occurrence was on or about February, 1984. The place of occurrence is the Turtle Creek Subdivision, City of Concord, County of Contra Costa, California. 3. The circumstances giving rise to this Claim are as follows: On or about February, 1984, several culverts beneath Ygnacio 00 036 Valley Road, bordering the southern portion of the Turtle Creek Project, and connected to the Concord storm drain system, which empties into the Claimant's Development, projected and emitted and continues to emit, large amounts of sediment-laden water into the Turtle Creek underground and surface drainage system. When this water enters the three ponds and connecting streams located within the Turtle Creek Project, which form a part of the Concord System, the water flow slows, permitting excessive sediment to settle out, severely decreasing the detentionability of those basins; and further causing severe flooding to the Project Park, Common Areas and Improvements, and certain individual Houses and Lots adjacent to the mentioned community park area. The condition has been created and aggravated by: (a) Grading activity taking place as part of landslide repair along Ygnacio Valley Road, [West of the Ygnacio Valley Road/Cowell Road Intersection] , believed to be under the control and direction of the City of Walnut Creek and the County of Contra Costa, respectively; and under the further control and jurisdiction of the City of Concord. (b) Extreme and continuing erosion along the perimeter of an abandoned quarry southeast of the Cowell Road/Ygnacio Valley Road Intersection, believed to be owned by the County of Contra Costa, and within the jurisdiction and control of the City of Concord. (c) Continuing erosion of land area of approximately 2.5 acres believed to be owned by the Contra Costa County Water District, also located within the mentioned quarry area site, which houses a water tank. It is Claimant's understanding 2 00 037 that this Water District area is within the control and supervision of the City of Concord. The Turtle Creek Common Park Area has suffered and continues to experience severe loss of Common Area Park use, erosion of stream and pond banks, excessive sedimentation into its three ponds and connecting waters, flooding of its banks and adjacent landscaped and pathway areas, damage to bordering homes, injury to its pond equipment, and resultant diminution of value to its properties. 4. Claimant's injuries are in excess of $675,000.00 for property damage, installation of an adequate, alternative drainage system, out-of-pocket excessive repairs and maintenance to existing Project improvements, and . further and other economical loss. 5. The names of the public employees, causing the Claimant's injuries are unknown. 6. The Claim as of this date is in excess of $675,000.00. 7. Compilation of Claim and damages: 1. . Damage to several acres of Turtle Creek Park Landscaping, irrigation system, paths, walkways: $ Unknown 2. Loss of Park use: $ Unknown 3. Creation of peril and damage to houses located adjacent to the Turtle Creek Park: $ Unknown 4. Damage to three ponds and connecting streams, due to erosion of banks, and sedimentation fill: $ Unknown 3 00 038 5. Damage to pond and stream aeration equipment: $ Unknown 6. Damage to walls, fences, grading, drainage system, and utilities located within and around the Turtle Creek Park Area: $ Unknown 7. Required drainage system installation to adequately carry Concord City system and other related waters through the Turtle Creek Project: $675,000.00 (estimated) . 8. Diminution of value to the Claimant's properties: $ Unknown. TOTAL ESTIMATED CLAIM: Excessive of $675,000.00. Dated: May 4, 1984 Offices of Ronal nd, Inc. B Ro d M. bend W be Claimant, Tur e Creek Masters Association, Inc. 4 or 801Q3lPISW or cam Cam a)w f. CM-1( r k BOARD ACTION June 5 , 1984 Clain Against the 0=ty. a District ) BOM= 20 Q&II4M CC tUs abOUNWIt 22" to ym LS _ Pout ng 9�r ramsents, sed the Mud of Supavi m • ) mti� the action tabes to pan thein by the Action. All Section referenmw ate ) Doerd of dwX (paragraph IV• bsla►), to California Ooaerr„_t Oo3es ) given gavmt to QOWW& 9 i Oo�lee Section 913 and 915.6. please note all '14n Claimant: The Ohio Casualty Group of Insurance Companies U nsel Claims Office ( Insured Robert R. Rigor) MAY 0 4 1984 Attorney: P. 0. Box 5126 (File No. OAK-1 AU 84-136285) Concord, CA 94524 Martinet. CA 94553 Address: Via County Administrator Amount: Unspecified BY delivery to Clerk an � May 2 , 1984 Date FAceived: May 2 , 1984 By email, Postmarked on i. PR74: ifferk of the Board of Supervisors 70: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-scree claim. Dated: May 2 , 1984 J.R. txSSCN# Clerk, By Da'Puty Kell R. Calhoun II. PRM: County Counsel 70: Clerk of Board of Supervisors (Check only one) ( ) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( � This claim FAIIS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.21 and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15. days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. Clerk should return claim on gram-4 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 Caassel dta 40 Am III. lALM: Clerk of the Board 70: (3ff County Cassel, (2) County Administrator ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. Dam QaEEt By unanimous vote of Supervisors present (X ) This claim is rejected in full. ( ) other: certify that th a true correct copy of the ,Boar 's Order enter is minutes for this date. eni DuBois Dated: 6-S-84 J. R. , Clerk, ByI�Pn , „�� , Deputy Clerk MAI= (Gov. Code Section 913) Subject to certain exoSPtions, you have only six (6) uonths from the date t h i s notice was personally served cc deposited in the mail .to file a oast action an tbis claim. Bee Qovernm�ent Dada Scotian 945.6. _ YOU asY seek the advice of an attorney of pea choice in aorakc1 -- with this matter. If ym want to consult an attorney, you should do so imaedLately. V. IK14: Clerk of the Board TO: (1) O=ty Dour sel, (2) County A&dMstrator We notified the claimant of the Board's action an this claire by wiling a copy of this docu mt, end a mw thereof has been filed and endorsed en the Board's copy of this Claim in a000cdanoe with 6ectien 29703. ( ) A warning of claimant's right to apply far heave to present a late claim wens mailed to claimant. /� ►TED: 6-5-84 J. R. MSM, Clerk, By Z�q �jLa L� • y Clerk Cc: County Administrator ( 2) County Counsel (1) • 00 030 CLAIM t The CasualtyOhioGroupof Insurance Companies CLAIM OFFICE: P.O.Box 5126,Concord,California 94524-Telephone: 415/825.4552 DAVID GERVERS,Claims Manager Contra Costa CounF,- April 26 , 1984 R 4 I'VE E,! APR 3 U 1984 01 County Administrator Contra Costa County R E D Eleventh Floor County Administration Building 651 Pine Street MAYo2 1984 Martinez , California 94553 J. R. OLSSON Re : Our Insured : Robert R. Rigor LnifR�QAIRID O� PERVISORS Our File No : OAK-1 AU 84-136285 -��° `� Date of Loss : 4/09 /84 Dear Sir : This will place the County of Contra Costa on notice of an automobile accident occuring April 9 , 1984 wherein our insured , Robert R. Rigor , was struck on Muir Road upon leaving the exit gate of the Contra Costa County Office of Emergency Services Facility at 50 Glacier Drive , Martinez , CA. Investigation discloses that Mr. Rigor' s vision of traffic on Muir Road was unreasonably obscured by a Cyclone fence erected by the County on its property at this location. Property. damage and personal injury resulted from the accident and claim for contribution toward settlement or judgement of Ms. Hill ' s claims is hereby made against the County of Contra Costa . Kindly turn this matter over to .your liability represen- tative , requesting that this office be contacted as soon as possible for further information. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours , Patrick A. Cady Claims Representative PAC :sep The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company-West American Insurance Company-American Fire 8 Casualty Company The Ohio Life insurance Company- Ohio Security insurance Company - Ocesco Budget, Inc. 00 040 4ill cum L BARD CE finomplow or CIMM MM"r. UUaZU QIA BOARD ACTION June 5 , 1984 C324s Against the O=ty, oc District ) Bt'Ji'iCE To CZAII4M governed by the Board of supervis!WL Tae W You is your Routing Endorsements, aid Board aotiae of the action takin an y= Clain by the Action. All section references are Board of Super i Laws Waugh IV, balm)• to California Government Codes ) given pursuant to GovernaennI Code section 913 and 915.6. please note all 'Ihsnings': . Claimant: Teri Ann Timmons , 1616 Ohio Avenue, Richmond, CA 94805County Counsel Attorney: F-I by 0 4 1984 Address: - Martinez. CA 94553 Hand delivered Amount: $53 . 24 By delivery to clerk an _ April 30 , 1984 Date Received: April 30 , 1984 By sail, postmarked an 11M. er o Boar Supervisors 't0: County Oconee Attadwd is a copy of the above-W. claim. 01 Dated: April 30 , 1984 J.R. CLSSON, Clerk, Deputy Ke R. Calhoun II. IRM: Ommty Counsel 70: Clerk of the Board of super sons (Check only one) This claim aanplies substantially with sections 910 and 910.2. This claim FAIIS to damply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: By: Deputy County Counsel III. PKX: Clerk of the Board 70: (1 County Counsel, (2) cLty Administrator ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Seetian 911.3). IV. so= matt By unanimous vote of Supervisors present ( X) This claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: , certify that this a true and correct Copy of the Board's Order enter is minutes for this date. Aeeni DuBois Dated: _ _ J. R. QSSQB, Clerk, By . Deputy Clerk 1!►PM G Mv. Code section 913) Bub ject to certain esorptians, you have only six (6) months from the date t h i s notice was personally served ar deposited in the sail .to file a cart action on this claim. see Government Code section %5.6. _ Tau may seek the advice of an attorney of 1= choice in eoeanef-1 ' n with this utter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so iiamediatel-y. V. PKK: Clerk of the Board T0: (1) County Counsel, (2) County A&dnistrator We notified the claimant of the Board's action an this claim by sailing a copy of this doconent, and a mow thereof has been filed and endorsed on the Board's copy of this Clain in aocordanee with Section 29703. ( ) A warning of claimant's right to apply for kava to present a late claim was sailed to claimant. nn 6- 5-84 J. R. MOW, Clerk, By Deputy Clerk cc.: County Administrator (2) County Counsel (1) .. CLAIM 00 041 CLAIM TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COS %uWbRVWa1 application to: Instructions to Claimant Clerk of the Board P.O. Box 911 ' Martinez,California 94533 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 muse 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 TERI ANN TIMMONS RECEIVED, . `83-17715J ) -- ) .� Against the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA) APR J 84 or - �N/A DISTRICT) J. . OLSSON (Fill. in name) ) CLERK o of RVISORS T The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the Count x of Contra Costa or the above-named District in the sum of $ $53,24 (See copy of Recepii and in support of this claim represents as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ d l. When did tre amage or injury occur? (Give exact date and hour) THE LOSS OCCURED between 12/14/83 and 2/9/84 Thurs at approx 3;00 pm -----------t------------------------------------------------------------ 2. Where did the damage or injury occur? (Include city and county) MAIN DETENTION FACILITY, MARTINEZ,CA - CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ---------------------------------------------------- 3. How did the damage or injury occur? (Give full details, use extra sheets if required)On .12/14/83 My Mother Beatrice Timmons brought some clothing for my court trial date. To Leave Clothing at MDF it is required that you give out the clothing that you arrived at the MDF in. I requested that they give my Jeans jacket a torn sweater and some striped pants& burgundy shoes be given for the new 2 piece sweat Suite and tennis shoes. This was done. ------------i7i-u --------------------------------------- --------------- 4. What particular act or omission on the part of county or district Ht- officers, servants or employees caused the injury or damage? I pled guilty so I did not have to go to trial and therefore did not realize that the items were missing until I was to be transferred to the Work Furlough Center on 2/9/84. When I was ready to be dressed out for transfer no items of clothing could be founq, even though the deputies (Agresta & Scott) looked for approximately an hour, with negative results. I was transferred to WFC in county Clothing.(ove r) 00 019 ".5. What are the-Mames of county or district officers, servants or employees causing the damage or injury? Unknown who made the trade of clothing in December 1983. Bill Schmidt 6. What damage or injuries do you claim resulted? ZGive full extent of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto damage) _ N/A ------------------------------------------------------------- 7. How was the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimated amount of any prospective injury or damage. ) TRADED. SEE THE ATTACHED COPIES OF SALES RECEIPTS WHICH WERE RETURNED WHEN THE CLOTHING WAS ------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- 8. Names and addresses of witnesses , doctors and hospitals. MOTHER: BEATRICE TIMMONS PURCHASED AND BROUGHT TO MDF. SISTER: BETTE FERGUSON —Bette dropped them off at the front window 9. List the expendi:Eures you made ,on account of this accident or in3ury: DATE _ ITEM AMOUNT ? lpr size 9 "EBS" Black & white $17:03 'tennis shoes 11 ] 83 �. 1#2 pc Black &Ghite Sweat suite $36.21 -size large (J C Penny kt Govt. Code Sec. 910. 2 provides : = "'`'' "The claim signed by the claimant SEND NOTICES TO: (Attorney) or by some person on his behalf. " • r Name and Address of Attorney Jwu Claimant s Signature In custody until 6/1/84) 1616 Ohio Avenue Address Richmond. CA Telephone No. Telephone No. 235-6980 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. " 00 043 1 t ,- - j�"•r_-' y, �` � :sem..-'}`_'_�,� � Jca'.s'CJ_ - - .� ,� Y �'�. �.- �.��— t�ea�-'.'�'e'.-,sem y+k �,�-•-xc'•-s�.c� _ �' •..xt zl ^'...?►a,' i !S'ia- .. s-.-• - � .. a -_ K�• Lt.)-- i• y �M r _k?t e� 13oVq �T 22 EMP" ` 1 CA V" 93668011500 MDSE 905 5I 15.99 EA 15.99+ .- '1 P 2 8448 194201 - — _... _,.15.99+5 � =-.y.._ZC.. .q.._,�.� - 6.500% TAX 1.04+ :....,._ I—�►-f iQ� OE.S . . j 8448: .194201 J.C. CustoMors. S5P6/ 370 ? ` Ie7 E76 JR SPORTSWR 's4.JJ 1 , 1.zE 8�1�- . fir TE SUBTOTAL /gip<Y l'Fn SwZ0-7 Eum TAX 34.00 2.21 AMOUNT %NVERL-p 41j. w CHANGE 00 i 83 -i CSFs - �- -- 36 Z TTL J115 n. _ k _ 34, v - - _" a 4 y = CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY CLOTHING RECEIPT DATE: 10.r 03,s z TIME: '- NAME (L,F,M): T i M. inN TI ER : Alii, BOOKING NBR: 0i771Z J DOB: 06/04/'5,6 CLOTHING SHIRTJE�1� rSH NTSCOAT � - OESSHORTS HIRT ❑ SOCKS ❑ HAT ❑ 'SWEATER Cl GLOVES Cl BELT Cl TIE OTHER r INTAKE i CLH OFC: INMATE X (SIGNATURE) CLOTHING B SSIGNED: CLOTHIN ACK SSIGNED: RELEASE REL OFC: DATE: RECEIVED ALL CLOTHING INMATE (SIGNATURE) I 1 00 0�� CLAM �. BMM qF SGAE ISW Cr COW rMAHL CMWR, (ALIlOIaQIA BOARD ACTION June 5 , 1984 Claim Against the County, or District ) "MCE TO CLRMW governed by the Board of Supervisors, ) The ccpq t ed to you is your Routing im 1,rseoents, and Board ) notice of tl* action talo an yaw claim by the Action. All Section references are ) Hoard of Supervisors (Paragraph IV, b83 ), to California ao ernoerut Godes ) given pursuant to Goveru�nt Code Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "Warnings'. Claimant: Vesta Bartheld Attorney: Brian D. Thiessen Thiessen, Gagen & McCoy Address: P. 0. Box 218 Danville, CA 94526 Amount: $500 ,00.00 By delivery to clerk an April 2 7 , 1984 HAND DELIVERED Date Received: April 27 , 1984 By mail, postmarked on I. MR: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 70: Canty Damsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. Dated: April 27 , 1984 J.R. 0L9S0N, Clerk, Deputy Kell .Calhoun II. PF04: County Counsel 70: Clerk of the Hoard of Supervisors (Check only one) (�( ) This claim oomplies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. (/ ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's .right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: By: Deputy Dainty Counsel III. PRM: Clerk of the Board 70: (1) County Damsel, (2) ty Administrator ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD Q Irta By unanimous vote of Supervisors present ( X) This claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct poppy of the Board's Order entered in7ts minutes for this date. Re n i DuBois Dated: ' 6-5- 84 J. R. CESSW, Clerk, By . Deputy Clerk; IiA1HM (Cow. Code Section 913) Subject to certain ezoeptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served er deposited in the mail .to file a court action an this claim. See ©overlent Code Section 945.6. You map 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 imnediatel"y. V. PFCM: Clerk of the Board 70: (1) County Counsels, (2) County Administrator we notified the claimant of the Board's action on this claim by mailing a copy of this docunent, and a meso thereof has been filed and endorsed on the Board's copy of this Claim in accordance with Section 29703. ( ) A warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim was mailed to claimant. DATED: 6- 5-84 J. R. MWW, Clerk, By . Deputy Clerk cc: County Administrator (1) County Counsel (2) 00 046 `1 CLAIM 4i, 1 THIESSEN, GAGEN & McCOY AZ „ A Professional Corporation 2 279 Front Street RECEIVED Post Office Box 218 3 Danville, California 94526 Telephone: (415) 837-0585 APR aj 19844 J. R. OLSSON Attorneys for Claimant ttERK BOARD OF SUPERVISOMS 5 VESTA BARTHELD NTRA -CORA CO. 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 9 10 VESTA BARTHELD, ) NO. 11 Claimant, ) GOVERNMENT CLAIM [Government Code §§905, 905.2, 910 and 910.21 12 vs. ) 13 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, and/or The CITY ) OF DANVILLE, and DOES I through L, ) 14 ) Agencies. ) 15 ) 16 TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY and/or The CITY OF DANVILLE: 17 VESTA BARTHEID hereby makes claim against CONTRA COSTA COUNTY and/or 18 the CITY OF DANVILLE for five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) , or such 19 lesser or greater sum as is hereafter determined, according to proof, and 20 makes the following statements in support of her claim. 21 1. Claimant's Post Office address is 3301 Camino Tassajara, Danvill , .22 California 94526. 23 2. Notices concerning this Claim should be sent to VESTA BARTHELD 24 in care of BRIAN D. THIESSEN, THIESSEN, GAGEN & McCOY, A Professional Corpora- 25 tion, P. 0. Box 218, Danville, California 94526. 26 3. The date and place of the occurrence giving rise to this Claim LAW OFFICES - 1 - THIESSEN,GAGEN&McCOY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 279 FRONT STREET DANVILLETE L. 00 047 14 1 is May, 1983, and continuing to the present date at 3301 Camino Tassajara, 2 Danville, California. 3 4. The circumstances giving rise to this Claim are as follows: 4 Claimant alleges upon information and belief that, as a result 5 of the conduct of CERA COSTA COUN'T'Y and/or the CITY OF DANVILLE and their 6 employees and agents, water has accumulated under Claimant's home and on her 7 property. Claimant alleges upon information and belief that this accumulation 8 of water is caused from inadequate drainage being constructed for the street 9 adjacent to Claimant's property, as well as, the defective design and 10 construction of said street. Further, Claimant alleges upon information and 11 belief that as a result of large cracks in the street, causing the asphalt 12 to separate from the curb, water is flowing from the overwatered median strip 13 into the cracks and supersaturating the soils on and around Claimant's 14 property and causing a dangerous condition to public property. 15 5. Claimant's damages are as follows: 16 Claimant has suffered land movement on her property, damage to 17 her septic system, diminution in value to her property, the cost of installing 18 a drainage system to drain the invading water in order to preserve her 19 property, and such other damages she has suffered and continues to suffer, 20 according to proof. 21 6. The names of the public en ployees causing the Claimant's damages 22 are unknown. 23 7. As of the date of this Claim, Claimant seeks five hundred 24 thousand dollars ($500,000.00) or such other sure, whether lesser or greater, 25 as is necessary to repair and eliminate the invasion of the water onto her 26 property. The exact cost of these repairs is unknown to Claimant at this time. LAW OFFICES THIESSEN,GAGEN B McCOY — 2 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION279 STREET e DANVROETCA 94526 8 TEL.8�7-0585 O® o s r� ' i i 1 8. Claimant cannot state the basis for computing the amount claimed 2 at this time because she has not yet determined haw best to eliminate and 3 prevent further invasion of water onto her property. 4 5 6 Dated: April A7 1984 7 8 THIESSEN, GAGEN & McCOY A Professional Corporation 9 10 11 By ��- ES EN 12 Attorn s On Behalf of VESTA BARTHELD, Claimant 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 LAW OFFICES _ 3 _ THIESSEN,GAGEN&McCOY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 279 FRONT STREET DA I 945262 83-0585 TEL. 0 O 049 I THIESSEN, GAGEN & MCCOY A Professional Corporation 2 279 Front Street Post Office Box 218 3 Danville, California 94526 Telephone: (415) 837-0585 4 5 Attorneys for Claimant VESTA BARTHELD 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 9 10 VESTA BARTHELD, ) NO. 11 Claimant, ) GUIERI NT CLA324 [Govenm ent Code S5905, 905.2, 910 and 910.2] 12 vs. ) DECLARATION OF PERSONAL SERVICE 13 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, and/or The CITY ) OF DANVILLE, and DOES I through L, ) 14 ) Agencies. ) 15 ) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 LAW OFFICES THIESSEN,GAGEN&McCOY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 279 FRONT STREET DA TEL.L 526 8�7-0585 00 050 / t1 r� I 1 DECLARATION OF PERSONAL SERVICE 2 3 I 1 am over the age of eighteen years of age and am not a party to the i 4 I above entitled action. I am a n attorney of Thiessen, Gagen & McCoy 5 and my business address is 279 Front Street, Danville, California 94526. li 6 � I personally served the following document(s) : I GOVERlZ'IE[VT CLAIM 8 `I � 1 9 I upon I I 10 J. R. Olsson, Clerk Board of Supervisors of 1 Contra Costa County 12 i 13 in the following manner: 14 by pt,rsonal delivery to the attorney 15 '! by leaving the docua. nt(s) with the Board's G=OV= clerk or with a person 16 having charge of his or hrer office i 17 i by leaving the docum-nt(s) batw,,cn th:� hours of 9:00 A.M. dnd 5:00 P.M. in a 18 conspicuous place in his or her office because I found there was no parson in 19 thv offic-=. 20 jt I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. ! :) I 21 Lxecutud this 27th day of April 19884, at Danville, — i 22 California. 23 !i P CIA F. MOY 24 i I I� 25 26 i 00 U- 1 I QAII4 MW CV SOPWTA 5 CW COW CMA'T C1MM-MMORM BOARD ACTION June 5, 1984 Clain Against the County, cc District ) 16y!'ICE To CLRDOW governed by the Board of Bupervisors, ) %U copyt t+o YW is Your Routing Erdorseoents, and Hoard ) notice of the action taken on Y= claim by the Action. All Section references are ) Board of (Paragraph IV, balm), to California Government Godes ) given pmousnt to Q- -r-- meat Code Section 913 and 915.6. Please nate all `Mornings•. Claimant: Leland Cunningham Attorney: Richard H. McConnell Professional Corporation Address: 114 Sansome Street, suite 808 San Francisco, CA 94104 Amount: Unspecified By delivery to clerk on April 27 , 1984 Date Received: APRIL 27 , 1984 By mail., postmarked on April 26 , 1984 I. ffM—: clerk of the Board of Supervisors 70: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. Dated: April 27 , 1984 J.R. CESSW, Clerk, By Deputy IX. PROM: County Counsel Z0: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (Check only one) i (>cf This claim oaaplies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This claim FAIIS to damply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). i r ( ) Claim is not timely filed. Clerk should return claim on grand that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: By: Deputy County Counsel III. FROK: Clerk of the Board 70: (1) y Oounsel, (2) County Administrator ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with not oe to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. so= WPM By unanimous vote of Supervisors present ( X) This claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true W correct oopy of the Board's order entered in its minutes for this date. eeni DuBois Dated: 61--S- 84 J. R. MSW r Clerk, By , Deputy Clerk IiWG (Ow. Code Section 913) Subject to certain esosptions, You have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail .to file a court action an this claim. See Goverrment Oade Section 965.6. _ You nay seek the advice of an attorney of Your choice in ooextiectian with this matter. If You went to consult an attorney, You should do so immediately. V. 1943~!: Clerk of the Hoard TO: (1) County Cbunsel, (2) County Aduinistrator We notified the claimant of the Board's action on this claim by mailing a copy of this docuoesnt, and a nano thereof has been filed and endorsed on the Board's a y of this Claim in accordance with section 29703. ( ) A warning of claiment's right to apply for leave to present a late claim was mailed to claimant. p M.0 6-5- 84 J. R. MESO T, Clerk, By F , Deputy Clerk cc: County Administrator (1) County Counsel (2) 00 07 CLAIM RECEIVED CLAIM AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY (Government Code S§910, 910. 2) APR>-'71984 J. R. OISSON RD Of SUER(WE County of Contra Costa / t co. c/o County Clerk--Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 Leland Cunningham hereby makes a claim against the above referenced public entity as follows: 1. Claimant ' s post office address is: Leland Cunningham 1520 Crest Road Richmond, California 94805 2. Notices concerning this claim should be sent to: Richard H. McConnell Professional Corporation 114 Sansome Street, Suite 808 San Francisco, California 94104 3. The claim is one for indemnification and/or apportion- ment of fault arising from Leland Cunningham having been served as a defendant on or after January 30, 1984 , in actions in which vari- ous plaintiffs claim damages from a landslide occurring on or about March 2, 1983, at 3430 San Pablo Dam Road, San Pablo, California. Leland Cunningham files this claim as a condition precedent to filing a cross-complaint in said action. The actions in which he has so far been served as a defendant are Casas del Sol vs. Baldwin & Howell (Contra Costa Superior Court action No. 253 706) , Seaman & Menjou vs. Baldwin & Howell (Contra Costa Superior Court action No. 254 559 ) and Nickerson vs. Baldwin & Howell (San Francisco Superior Court action No. 818 505) . 4. The names of public employees causing claimants ' damages are not known at this time. 5. The amount claimed is not known to Claimant at this time in that it depends upon the amounts claimed by plaintiffs in the above mentioned actions in which Claimant is a defendant. Executed at San Francisco, California, on March 26, 1984. I am informed and believe in thereupon alleged, under penalty of perjury, that the . foregoing is true and '-correct. Richard H. McConnell 00 053 _saw Q MEMO I LC CW cam CO Pi, BOARD ACTION June 5 , 1984 Clain Against the Carty, or District ) O M vTmt '10 Ci LINW governed by the Dowd of Supervisors, ) 2e oapp to you is your routing andorements, and Dowd ) ootiee of the action t ken on pour dlaim by the Action. All Section referano.s are ) Doerd of Vwagraph 1v,Section 913 to California 0overnaent Codes ) given ptasuent to Oovere�ent Code 6aetion 913 and 915.6. please note all G rn1n9e* Claimant: Arthur Reinstein County Counsel Attorney: Brian D. Thiessen MAY 0 4 1984 Thiessen, Gagen & McCoy Address: A Professional Corporation CA 94553 279 Front St. , Martinez, Avert: Danville, CA 94526 By delivery to clerk on May 3 , 1984 $8 ,000 + legal rate Date deceived: May 3 , 1984 By nail, postmarked on May 2 ,- 1984 I. lied: -Clerk of Board of Supervisors 70: County Course Attact:ed is a copy of the above-noted claim. Dam: May 3 , 1984 J.R. C SSONe Clerk, By malty Kell R. Calhoun II. PROM: County Counsel 70: Clerk of the Board 61 Super sors (Check only one) ()C ) This claim oamplies substantially with �e�t ions 910 and 910.2.at usk;c.h arc ho+ w1'F �M�e.ly bud" Sea- hetow ( ) This claim FAII.S to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board can not act for 15 days (Section 910.8)). ( Claim is not tu11Y6 i�il 'S &Lk3%)Qffreturn-cM0an ggrraaid�a�t it nes filled��M late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave ,to present a late claim (Section 911.3). (Y ) Other: Dated: By: Deputy County Counsel III. Phil: Clerk of the Board 70: (1) ty Corsel, (2) County Administrator Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. DOW QQEt I By unanimous vote of Supervisors present ( ) This claim is rejected in full. (X ) Other: Portion of original claim not previously returned as untimely is reiected in full , certify that Eli is a trine and correct copy of the Board's order entered in its minutes for this date. Re en i DuBois Dated: ' 6- 5- 8 4 J. R. aLMM, Clerk, By , Deputy Cler k W 0131 1 (Ow. Code Section 913) Subject to certain =m%tions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the sail .to file a coat action an this claiad. Nee Cover-ant Cade Section 965.6. _ !bu may sneak the advice of an attorney of paz choice in eoraWith this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you ohm-0 do so isnediately. V. IM: Clark of the Board 20: (1) Carty Counsel, (2) Coity ABainistrator We notified the claimant of the Board's action an this claim by sailing a copy of this doe me:t, and a menu thereof has been filed and andorsed an the Board's copy of this Claim in a000rdanoe with Section 29703. (x) A Merning of claimant's mant's right to apply for lam to present a late claim was sailed to claimant. DATED: 6-5-84 J. R. QSSONV Clerk, By Deputy Clerk cc.: County Administrator (2) County Counsel (1) QO 054 I�• 7!TN , ..,CLAIM TO. BOA f-IF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA 'VA COUNTY Instructions to Claima 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 A=}l^ur poins! t-; n ' RECEIVED ) Against the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA) MAYS 1984 N. OLSSON or DISTRICT) CLERK , RD OiPGROVISpJtS mi (Fill in na e) ) �G,�/ The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the Countv of Cont Zi Costa or the above-named District in 'the sum of $ interest at He nnn and in support of this claim represents as follows: �� ra e. 1 When aid the damage or injure occur? (Give exact date and our Continuing damage through this date. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Where did the damzge or injury occur? (Include city and county) The damage has occurred and continues to occur on Highland Road, Victorine Road and Manning Road as to the portions of my property that are located in Contra Costa County; also along Tassajara, Carneal and'Marciel Roads. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3. }low did the dar:age or injury occur? (Give full details, use extra sheets if required) The damage occurs as a result of road spraying by the Department of Public Works. The weed control spray kills grass and weeds before they grow to the surface,, and hence there are insufficient roots to prevent soil erosion. When the soil erodes, the fence posts fall down, thereby causing the loss of fencing in the area described .in question number 2. -- - -- - ' --i-i- -------What particular act or omission on the part of county or district officers, servants or employees caused the injury or damage? Workers responsible for County weed control under the supervision of Jim Baugh, of the County Public Works Department, continue to spray the Claimant's property improperly. Art Reinstein has repeatedly notified (SEE ATTACHMENT) 00 055 (over) Claim by ARTHUR REINSTEIN against the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA AttacIzent 4. Meat particular act or cnmssion on the part of county or district officers, servants or employees caused the injury or damage: (Continued) : the county in order to spray when the weeds.are high in order to develop the root systems necessary to prevent soil erosion. Jim Baugh says he has instructed his crew not to spray until weeds are fairly high, nevertheless, spraying has continued in the same areas where fences are being lost. 00 056 S. What are the names ( - county or district office. servants or employees causing the damage or injury? Claimant does not ]mow the names pf. the persons working for Public Works who are in charge of & responsible for the weed control spraying but there are several folks. --=---------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. What damage or injuries do you claim- resulted? (Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for autc damage) One mile of fencing is worth a minintiun of. $8,000 'and this damage continues each year. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. How was the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimated amount of any prospective injury or damage. ) .Lost fencing is computed based on inquiry estimes to suppliers who sell fencing such as Orchard Supply hard- ware store at 7884 Dublin Boulevard, Dublin, Alameda County; _estimate replacement costs of at least $3,500 for material plus labor;approximately $1.50 per. foot total. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 Names and addresses Ot w.itnesses, doctors and hospitals. Witnesses to the problem include : Peter Banke, 1563 De Soto Way, Livermore, Ca. 94550 Henry Bettencourt, 9055 Highland Road, Livermore, Ca. 94550 John Leonardini , 2001 Victorine Road, Livermore, Ca. 94550 Vera Reinstein, 8100 Carneal, Livermore, Ca. 94550 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 . List the expenditures you mace on account of this accident or in]urv: DATE ITEM A.MIOUNT At this point in time, it would be_- futile to make expenditures. to•.replace the fencing because the spraying that is causing the damage is continuing. Covt. Code Sec . 910 . 2 provides : "The claim sicned by the claimant SEIND NO'T'ICES TO: (Attorney) or by some .erson on his behalf. " r Name and Address of Attorney BRIAN D. THIESSEN Claimant ' s Signature THIESSEN, GAGEN & MCCOY o nn`_ 210c, A Professional Corporation Address 279 Front St. , P.O. Box 218 T i��PrmnrP, C`a 94550 Danville, CA 94526 Telephone No. (415) 837-0585 Telephone No. (41ro 449-5216 NOTICE Section 72 of the Penal Code provides: "Every person uho , 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. " ` 0 0 7 CLAM HARD CP OMMISMS Q CWW STA Muff , BOARD ACTION June 5 , 1984 Ciais Against the Cmurty,. cc District ) TO cuaffi P Ao�utinngby the Boud Of 0 AS IF Ti=g seeentsI end d s� I eoti� the action W= an yaw dis 7=ie by the Action. All Section references are ) Board of Paragraph IV, balaM). to California G vermeut Codes ) given p:asuent to tiorre=went Oode Rection 913 and 915.4. Please note all Guarniegs'. Claimant: Manijeh Quinn, 3797 Moss�iood Drive, Lafayette, CA 94549 Attorney• Address: Amount: $974 . 47 BY °� Clerk �deli W May 9 , 1984 Date Aeoeivuea: May 9 , 1984 By mail, postmarked an May 8 , 1984 I. PKx: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: CountyCounsel Attached is a soppy of the above-noted claim. Dated: J.R. Q&SW* Clerk. By qty R. Calhoun II. IF04: County Oounsel T0: Clerk of the Bwd of Supervisors (Check only one) j This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This claim FAIIS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. 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: 53V By: z laid 145jif Deputy County Counsel, III. PKY4: Clerk of the Board 70: County Counsel, (2) County Administrator ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. saw Q6EEt By unanimous vote of Supervisors present (X ) This claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: certify that Egis is a truce and correct wry of the Board's order entereid in Its minutes for this date. Re e n i DuBois Dated: ' 6-5-84 J. R. QSSON, Clerk, By Deputy Clerk MMM (Gary. Code Section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, You have only six (6) months from the date t h i s notice was personally served at deposited in the mail .to file a court action an this claim. See GovernmentCode Section 965.6. _ You may seek the advice of an attorney of jaz ct oice in cog with this matter. It You want to Consult an attorney, You should do so iseediateTy. V. "W: Clark of the Hoard 70: (1) County Counsel. (2) County ABainistrator We notified the claimant of the Board's action on this claim by sailing a copy of this document, and a memo thereof has been filed and endorsed an the Board's copy of this Claim in accordance with Rection 29703. ( ) A Morning cf claimant's right to apply for lam to present a late claim was sailed to claimant. LZl'ISDs 6-5-84 J. R. aa"t Clerk, By, Deputy Clerk cc.: County Administrator (2) County Counsel (1) CT 058 CLAIM CLAIM TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Instructions o Claimant A. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops must be presented not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be presented not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action. (Sec. 911. 2, Govt. Code) B. Claims must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at its office in Room 106, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez , CA 94553 (or mail to P.O. Box 911, Martinez, _CA) . C. If claim is against a district governed by the Board of Supervisors , rather than the County, the name of the District should be filled in. D. If the claim is against more than one public ent _ty, 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 RECEIVED a n1 Against the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA) MA'i or DISTRICT) J. R. OLSSON CLERry BOARD Of SUPERVISORS (Fill in name) :.�?afd) N7 OSTACO. B a,�......N 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: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ d 1. When did the amage or injury occur? (Give exact date and hour) Tlz a r 5 � C y 3 .1-/-7 n /, f Cl R If B . Ll-S 1-7-13-1 2 Where did the damage-or injury occur? (Includecity and couunty) f K T )9l a b l D /3 1 lid d P"W l V c,11-_-I -------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- 3. How did the damage or injury occur? (Give full details, use extra sheets if required) 11 1 H nn v A" 2� (r ti� �, hf -/-, r-:alCP a T furh To u ° / d (;c-eC4 r ,7 fh GR 4, ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. What particular act or omission on the part of county or district / officers , servants or employees caused the injury /or damage? / '7/7 P �o �i C •P �°[ l /�'1 �I d •P q /e f� f u//1 .-Fj° '" 7��7-c' rl G� �77� La n -P (over) 00 059 5. What are the names of county or district officers , servants or employees causing the damage Tor ,injury? �jinC jT,- N✓a S or pc�� C O-��iC-er .J- Ltd ,7c O5 fjil �7a kwe ✓e�. ff7e o#-et cffiC•e (5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. What damage or injuries do you claim resulted? (Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto damage) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. How was the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimated amount of y anprospective injury or damage. ) K o I �u/O'..04;✓- f�f��pr,S�fJJ d;d on ��e,� Com��7`-er �. Th e P fe SSionk ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Names and addresses of witnesses, d/octors and hospita/l Lr dc r�c- h a `-e f!'! e ��„ S 5J J n a ., J h c ✓✓_e (/-Q / �lj c 57<a � l ✓Q J / i �' 0 �� f 1 �e-fe Yz' Ch(i 5-�c-f-f-efseo .1 n17 -e P6IiC� c10 Dave �� ""` oF, +�-e� r Y�f'orf• ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. is the expenditures. you made on account of this accident or injury: ; .DATE ITEM AMOUNT Govt. Code Sec. 910.2 provides : "The claim signed by the claimant SEND NOTICES TO: (Attorney) or bysonm�e person on his behalf. " Name and Address of Attorney ClaimantSignature PP. o jS Wo o b✓;►mei(L �a Address `t S� . . . . . . . . . . . . Telephone No. Telephone No. Z2? 3=2 4/1 6' ************************************************************************** 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. " 00 060 BUTLER-CONTI, INC. DODGE 3434 Mt. Diablo Blvd. Lafayette,Californi SALES AND SERVICE 2844491 � 1t/� DATE . OWNER- APPRAIS ORDER NO. �� r LOCATION OF CAR MAKE'� YEAR STfIfLE- -MODEL 41 MOTOR NO. SERIAL NO. LIC.NO. a Q430MILEAGE CONDITION Symbol FRONT. labors Labor Mrs. Parts Symbol LEFT labor $ Labor Mrs. Parts Syrilbol RIGHT Labors Labor Mrs. Parts Bumper(U) 13 Fender, Frt. Fender, Frt. Bumper(L) Fender Shieid FendPPSRII!1d Bumper Brkt. fender Mldg. Fender Mldg. Bumper Gd. Headlamp Heal amp Frt.$ystpmHeadlamp Door Headlamp Door Frame Sealed Beam Sealed Beam Cross Member. Cowl r-40 Stabilizer Windshield Windshield Wheel Door,Front Door, Front Hub Cap Door Hinge Door Hinge Hub& Drum Door Glass Door Glass Knuckle Vent Glass Vent Glass Knuckle Sup. Door Mldg. Door Midg. Lr.Cont.Arm Door Handle Door Handle Lr.Cont Shaft Center Post Center Post Up.Cont.Arm Door Rear Door Rear Shock Door Glass Door Glass Spring Door Mldg. Door Mldg. Tie Rod Rocker Panel Rocker Panel Steering Gear Rocker Mldg. Rocker Mldg. Steering Wheel Floor floor Horn Ring Frame Frame Gravel Shield Dog Leg Dog Leg Park.Light Quar.Panel Quar. Panel Red.Grille,Ctr. Quar.Mldg. Quar.Mldg. Rad.Grille,Side Quer.Glass Quar.Glass Grill Mldg. Stone Shield Stone Shield REAR misc. Bumper Inst. Panel Name Plate Bumper Brkt. Front Seat Horn Bumper Gd. Front Seat Adj. Baffle,Side Gravel Shield 41iow / Baffle,Lower Lower Panel Headlining Baffle,Upper Floor Lock Plate, Lr. Trunk Lid Tire % Worn Lock Plate,Up. Trunk Light Tube Hood Top Trunk Handle Battery Hood Hinge Tail Light Paint Hood Mldg. Tail Pipe Undercoat Ornament Gas Tank ad.Sup. 1 Frame Rad.Core Wheel Anti Freeze Hub&Drum Rad. Hoses Axle ESTIMATE VOI3�D YS AFTER Fan Blade Spring DATE Fan Belt Water Pump Motor Mts. RECAPITU:, TION _ Clutch linkage Jj Labor Hours/.O-. . . . . . .at. . � � . .$3�.0l� Parts&Material . . . . . . . . . Less Disc.% . . . . . .$ k5—r6.S p "THIS ESTIMATE, BASED ON OUR INSPECTION, DOES NOT Sublet&Net Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ . . . . . . INCLUDE ANY ADDITIONAL PARTS OR LABOR THAT MAY BE REQUIRED AFTER THE WORK HAS BEEN STARTED,, OCCA— Sales Tax. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .•oO $ ^,�� SIONALLY, AFTER WORK HAS BEEN STARTED, DAMAGED OR TOTAL $ 7 BROKEN PARTS ARE FOUND WHICHWERE NOT EVIDENT ON 1 THE FIRST INSPECTION. BECAUSE OF THIS. THE PR ICES !NOTE—WE NEVER AUTHORIZE REP ::•.: .+w dajLLLLv NAiAE kdo:YBUS.PHO' DATE NE STATE ZIP PHONE RES. / ODEL i.D.NO.PAINT CODE— fROD.DATE TRIM MILEAGE LICENSE NO. 1 WRITTEN BY— / W__4 '44INS.CO.--FILE NO. CLAIM NO.— P.O.NO. N V •• NO, PHONE— Deductible/ ,. H S ._ _._� `. k L .s }:. '• No.�,' p•n, lpl•ce I� s,;'; ,s�` t,.j DESCRIPTION OF DAMAGE, LABOR I •.;`,PAIN? I AL I OTHER BMW EMM ■s it ■■r�r• ®MINE LIM IN, mom ■■■�■■■■■■r■.. Mirnow ■�■�■�■ BMW MINIM mom BMW MIN ENIFtJONE Ono HIM 001M - MUM MENto"M 1 hereby authorize the .. . . AIM T - �m©s��■�■ PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVE ,. ,% -Art 15 ITS* �- „1003 Blackwood CLAIM sones CE SapEffVI8Q1s Or cam mom C nw, BOARD ACTION June 5 , 1984 Clain Against the Cotsft, Cr District ) O1RM 20 CLRMN P Vmrnsd by the Board of , ) 9e Oopy bo you is your aoating Bdocsementa, and Board ) MUCO of the action tL%m on your ca-I= by the Action. All Section references are ) Board of Praragraph IV, below), to California Qwnrra mt Godes ! given puasuertt to (loverysoent Code Section 913 and 915.6. Place robe all aftMiega'. Claimant: Joleen Rene Murphy, a minor, DOB 9116176 Atbornry: Roboostoff-Allen, Inc. Constantin V. Roboostoff Address: 55 New Montgomery Street, Suite 401 San Francisco,. California94195-3476 Amount: Undetermined By delivery to clerk on _ May 9 . 1gRA Date FAMLved: May 9 , 1984 By mail, postmarked on May 9 , 1984 I. FROM: erk of the Boar Supervisors 70: Counsel Attached is a copy of the claim. Dated: May-9 , 1984 J.R. CTSSM, Clerk, . Ae_ .� DeFx1tY Kelly R. Calhoun II. FSLM: County Co�aisel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (Check only one) ( ) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) Ibis claim FAIIS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. 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: "Ift Deputy County Counsel III. Pill: Clerk of the Board Ta: ) County Counsel, (2) County Administrator ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. so= Qa w BY unanimous vote of Supervisors present !x ) This claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its sinubes for this date. Reeni DuBois Dated: 6-5-84 J. R. CLSS0K, Clerk, By „�A , Deputy Clerk luta= 133. Code Section 913) _ notice " personally Served or dsposimtedinthe coil bo file oaurt action an Wn claim. See Owerrmnt Code Section 965.6. _ You my seek the advice of an attorney of youz d:oice in rxgl-m tion with this •atter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so Inmediately' . V. FKK: Clark of the Board 20: (1) County Counsel, (2) County Administrator We notified the claimant of the Board's action an this claim by wiling a o W of this dowme t, and a P thereof has been filed and endorsed an the Board's copy of this Main in accordance with Section 29703. ( ) A warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim was sailed to claimant. Zzcg o . Deputy Clerk RAZED: 6- 5- 84 .T. R. t=88Q�1, Clerk, BY . cc.: County Administrator (2) County Counsel (1) 00 063 CLAIM 1 CLAIM AGAINST COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA AND COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER 2 AT RICHMOND 3 To: (A) Clerk, Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, 4 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California 94553 5 (B) Community Mental Health Center 232 Broadway, Richmond, California 94804 6 7 1. Claimant Joleen Rene Murphy, a minor, DOB: 9/16/76, through her guardian ad litem, Judieth Hill, hereby makes this 8 claim against the County of Contra Costa and Community Mental Health Center at Richmond for the death of her mother Holli D. 9 Murphy which occurred on February 13, 1984. 10 2 . Claimant is represented by Constantin V. Roboostoff of ROBOOSTOFF-ALLEN, INC. 55 New Montgomery Street, Suite 401, San 11 Francisco, California (415) 543-5372. All notices to be directed to claimants attorneys. 12 3 . Claimant's mother died as a result of an overdose of 13 medication which had been prescribed to her as part of the treatment rendered by the Community Mental Health Center at 14 Richmond. 15 4. Claimant's mother died at Kaiser Hospital, 1330 Cutting Blvd. , Richmond, California. 16 5. The circumstances giving rise to this claim are as 17 follows: Negligent care and treatment of Ms. Holli D. Murphy by agents and/or employees of Community Mental Health Center at 18 Richmond. 19 6. The damages of Joleen Renee Murphy as a result of the negligence of the Health Center are as follows: claimant s 20 deprivation of the society, comfort, protection services and support of the deceased. 21 7. The name of the agents and/or employees of the public 22 entity responsible for causing the wrongful death of Holli D. Murphy, and thereby causing damages to claimant are unknown at 23 this time. 24 8. The full dollar amount of damages sustained by claimant is unknown at this time and will be according to proof. 25 Dated: May 7, 1984 ROBOOSTOFF-ALLEN, INC .. 26 ,1 27 RECEIVED l / s V 28 SAY 104 Attorneys V. Roboostoff Attorneys for Claimant J. R 1SS c>' CLERK ✓ 00 064 APPLICATION TO FILE LATE CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA corm cour. "y, ^m mi-:NIA BOARD ACTION June 5 , 1984 Application to File Late ) NOTE TO APPLICANT Claim Against the County, ) 11he copy of this document mailed to you is your Routing Endorsements, -and ) notice of the action taken on your application by Board Action. (All Section ) the Board of Supervisors (paragraph III, below) , references are to California ) given pursuant to Government Code Sections 911.8 Government Code.) ) and 915.4. Please note the "Warning" below. Claimant: Egils Stabulis County Counsel Attorney: O'Neill & Bridgmen, Inc MAY 0 4 1984 One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1485 Address: Oakland, California 94612 Martinez. CA 94553 Amount: $2 ,000 , 000 . 00 By delivery to Clerk on May 3 , 1984 Date Received: May 3 , 1984 By mail, postmarked on I. FPO!.',: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted Applicatio File Late Claim. DATED: May 3 , 1984 J. R. OLSSON, Clerk, By , Deputy Kelly- R. II. FRCM: 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 a Late Claim (Section 911.6) . DATED: JOHN B. CLAUSEN, County Counsel, By12 , Depoly 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 Board's Order entered in its minutes for. this date. DATED- 6- 5- 84 J. R. OLSSON, Clerk, By ► Deputy Reeni DuBois WARNING (Gov't.C. §911.8) If you wish to file a court action on this matter, you must first petition the appropriate court for an order relieving you fr m the provisions of Government Code Section 945.4 (claims presentation re- quirement) . See Government Code Section 946.6. Such petition must be filed with the court within six (6) months from the date your applica- tion for leave to present a late claim was denied. You may seek the advice of any attorney of your choice in connec- tion with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. IV. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: 1 County Counsel, 2 County Administrator Attached are copies of the above Application. We notified the applicant of the Board's action on this Application by mailing a copy of this document, and a memo thereof has been filed and endorsed on the Board's copy of this Claim in accordance with Section 29703. DATED: 6-5- 84 .J. R. OLSSON, Clerk, By , Deputy V. FROM: 1 County Counsel, 2 County Administrator 'RD: 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 CIO 065 PROOF OF SERVICE IN, THE ❑ MUNICIPAL ❑ SUPERIOR COURT COUNTY OF Contra Costa Stabulis vs Plaintiff Defendant Case Number I SERVED A COPY OF THE! Claim against county of Contra Costa and Contra Costa County Hospital a. by serving (1) ❑ Defendant ❑ Respondent M .......Plexk.Roard. of—Supervisors. .Costa.County....... (2) ❑ Person and title or relationship to person served (Name, etc.): ...... . ...................................... ........................... .. . ..... .. .. .. . . ................ . . .. .. .. . . ............ .. ........ ................ b. Delivery at ❑ Home IB Business (1) Date of:..A-24-84 ........ .... .(2) Time of: . . 1:05.Pi7k..... . .. ..... .................. (3) Address: .6 Pine.Street,..MA3�t�.rfe z .CA...... ... ..... ... . ........ .. ............................... c. ❑ Mailing (1) Date of................. ...I..... .(2) Place of: ... .......... ...... .. . . .. .............. ....................... 2. Manner of service: (Check proper box) a. IN Personal Service) By personally delivering copies (CCP 415.10). b. ❑ Substituted service on corporation,unincorporated association(including partnership),or public entity.By leaving, during usual office hours,copies in the office of the person served with the person who apparently was in charge and thereafter mailing (by first-class mail, postage prepaid) copies to the person served at the place where the copies were left. (CCP 415.20(a)) c. ❑ Substituted service on natural person,minor,incompetent,or candidate. By leaving copies at the dwelling house, usual place of abode,or usual place of business of the person served in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of the office or place of business, at least 18 years of age, who was informed of the general nature of the papers,and thereafter mailing (by first-class mail,postage prepaid)copies to the person served at the place where the copies were left. (CCP 415.20(b))Attach separate declaration or affidavit stating acts relied on to establish reasonable diligence In first attempting personal service.) d. ❑ Other (Specify code section): .............................................................................. ❑ Additional page is attached. 3. The notice to the person served (Item 2 on the copy of the summons served)was completed as follows(CCP 412.30,415.10,and 474): a. ® As an individual defendant. b. ❑ As the person sued under the fictitious name of: ............................................................ c. — On behalf of:...... ......................... ........... ............................................. .... Under: ❑ CCP 416.10 (Corporation) ❑ CCP 416.60 (Minor) 13-Other: ❑ CCP 416.20 (Defunct corporation) ❑ CCP 416.70 (Incompetent) ❑ CCP 416.40 (Association or partnership) ❑ CCP 416.90 (Individual) d. ❑ by personal delivery on (Date): ................................................................ ............ 4. 'Fee for service: $...28...50. ........... 5. Witness fees demanded and paid: $ ............................... . . . ... .. 'NOTE: fee for service includes additional reasonable costs necessarily incurred in effecting service as per (CCP 1032(B)) I am and was on the dates herein mentioned, over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the action Served by an employee or independent contractor of a Registered Process Server. Executed on 4-25-84 , at Oakland, ,Calif. TYPE Thomas TYPE OR PRINT E ECLARANT l declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is rL� q7��G� true and correct. Ac*ctsfW:_ SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT 111 W. St. John St, San Jose, CA 95113 0 (408) 286-5880 Santa Clara Cty Reg. #20 1404 Franklin St, Oakland, CA 94612 Q (415) 839- 8200 Alameda Cty Reg. #93 00 06G •1 .ta . O'NEILL & BRIDGMAN, INC. A Professional Corporation 2 One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1485 Oakland, California 94612 3 (415) 893-3900 RECEIVED 4 Attorneys for Claimant j. =. ci.SSDA 6 CLEM eoArD o: Su«avl,oZS CC;-:' CCI COSTA A r . �_ _.or1,�.•, i 10 EGILS STABULIS, 11 Claimant, e 12 vs. 13 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA AND APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HOSPITAL. TO FILE LATE CLAIM 14 15 I 16 Application is hereby made for leave to present a late claim founded 17 on a cause of action for medical malpractice which accrued on January 16, 1984 18 and for which petitioner presented a claim within the 100-day period specified 19 by California Government Code §911.2. For additional circumstances relating 20 to the cause of action, reference is made to the proposed claim attached to 21 this application and marked Exhibit "A". 22 II 23 The said claim was timely presented on April 24, 1984, within the 24 100-day period specified in California Government Code §911.2 and §901 based 25 upon the date of discovery of the within cause of action and the doctrine of 26 postponed accruel applicable thereto. A`copy of said claim and proof of 27 service thereto is attached and marked Exhibit "B11, the same being incorporate 28 herein by reference. "BILL A BRIDGMAN.INC. APROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1456 ORDWAY BLDG. O O 067 ONE KAISER PLAZA OAKLAND.CALIF.94011 —1— PHONE 893.5900 „ I III 2 The reason for this Application is that petitioner's. claim was 3 returned by the Clerk of Contra Costa County with a Notice to claimant of 4 Late - Filed Claim attached thereto pursuant to California Government Code 5 §911.3 on April 27, 1984, a copy of which is attached and marked Exhibit "CII, 6 the same being incorporated herein by reference. Although the County is 7 clearly erroneous in rejecting the claim, petitioner files this application 8 out of an abundance of caution. 91 IV 10 This application is being presented within one year from the 11 accrual of this cause of action and Contra Costa County is not prejudice by 12 this failure in presentation, but in fact, the said County has had timely 13 notice as required by law. 14 WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this application be 15 granted and that the attached proposed claim (Exhibit "A") be received and 16 acted on in accordance with California Government Code §§912.4, 912.8. 17 DATED: May 2, 1984. 18 O'NEILL & BRIDGMAN, INC. 19 A Profess' a C porat on 20 By 21 -/RI1C4MD D. BRID 22 Attorneys for Petitioner 23 24 25 26 27 28 O•NEILL A BRIDGMAN.INC. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1455 ORD WAY BLDG. ONE KAISER PLAZA OAKLAND,CALIF.94812 PHONE 893.3900 -2- 00 068 1 CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 2 AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HOSPITAL 3 CLAIMANT: 'EGILS STABULIS 4 ADDRESS: Valley Manor Convalescent Hospital 3806 Clayton Road . 5 Concord, California 94521 6 ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICES SHOULD BE SENT: 7 O'NSILL & BRIDGMAN, INC. A Professional Corporation 8 One Raiser Plaza, Suite 1485 Oakland, California 94612 . 9 '. . . DATE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF OCCURRENCE: On or about August 1, 1983,- and 10 11 subsequent thereto, Claimant was a patient of claimees, and each of them, at 12 Contra Costa County Hospital; at said time and place, claimees so negligently 13 and carelessly examined, and/or diagnosed, and/or treated, and/or attended said 14 EGILS STABULIS as to cause him to suffer severe, permanent and disabling 15 injuries to his renal system, and other injuries not presently known. 16 Claimant was not aware of the negligence and carelessness of claimees, 17 and each of them, until he was admitted to the Veteran's Administration 18 Hospital, Martinez, California, on January 16, 1984, with the diagnosis of end 19 stage renal failure; and that in the excercise of reasonable care claimant 20 only discovered or could have discovered the cause of action complained of .21 herein on January 16, 1984. 22 NAMES OF PEOPLE, EMPLOYEES CAUSING INJURY: Employees of Contra Costa 23 County Hospital, whose identities are presently unknown to claimant. 24 AMOUNT CLAIMED: General damages $2,000,000.00 and special damages 25 according to proof. 26 DATED: April 23, 1984. O'NEILL b BRIDGMAN, INC. 27 A Professional Corporation 28 By -RICHARD D. BRIaUUN ,KILL•SRIDONAN.INC. RICHARD D. BRIDGMAN' A P11019SSIONAL COR/ORATION ,Attorneys for Claimant ATTORNEYS AT LAW • tASS ORDWAY OLDO. ONE KAISER PLAZA00 AKLAND.CALIF.0441M rl II11 ; EXHIBIT A r PHONE 893.5000 • 1 CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 2 AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HOSPITAL 3 CLAIMANT: 'EGILS STABULIS 4 ADDRESS: Valley Manor Convalescent Hospital 3806 Clayton Road 5 Concord, California 94521 RECEW.E . 6 ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICES SHOULD BE SENT: 7 0 NEILL & BRIDGMAN, INC. A Professional Corporation J. q oLSbGN 8 One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1485 =• y 1 ��,�aCA1 Oakland, California 94612 9 DATE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF OCCURRENCE: On or about August 1, 1983, and 10 11 subsequent thereto, Claimant was a patient of claimees, and each of them, at 12 Contra Costa County Hospital; at said time and place, claimees so negligently 13 and carelessly examined, and/or diagnosed, and/or treated, and/or attended said 14 EGILS STABULIS as to cause him to suffer severe, permanent and disabling 15 injuries to his renal system, and other injuries not presently known. 16 Claimant was not aware of the negligence and carelessness of ciaimees, 17 and each of them, until he was admitted to the Veteran's Administration 18 Hospital, Martinez, California, on January 16, 1984, with the diagnosis of end 19 stage renal failure; and that in the excercise of reasonable care claimant 20 only discovered or could have discovered the cause of action complained of 21 herein on January 16, 1984. 22 NAMES OF PEOPLE, EMPLOYEES CAUSING INJURY: Employees of Contra Costa 23 County Hospital, whose identities are presently unknown to claimant. 24 AMOUNT CLAIMED: General damages $2,000,000.00 and special damages 25 according to proof. 26 DATED: April 23, 1984. O'NEILL & BRIDGMAN, INC. 27 A Professional Corporation 28 RICHARD D. BRIDG" By ',ILL•BRIDGMAN.INC. RICHARD D. BRIDGMAN A PRO f 6SSIONAL CORPORATION Attorneys for Claimant TTORNEYS AT LAW 199 ORDWAY CLOG. IN[KAISER PLAZA KLAND.CALIF.SISI! EXHIBIT "B" ` 00 ri PHONE SOS-5900 W AMENDED CLM BARD Cap VEMERVISCM CE RW Cmm CCmy r BOARD ACTION June 5 , 1984 Claim Against the County, of District ) B4PIC>6 TO CSRDIW governed Aou B by the and 8�oard s� ) notice the action taken on yaw alibis by the Action. All Section references are ) Board of Superviaors (Paragraph IV. b83 ), to California Government Codes ) given pursuant to Govern ant Code Section 913 81nd 915.6. Blease note all 'Karnings'. Claimant: Jennings Professional Insurance Brokers County Counsel (Insured-Frank & Virginia Brown) Attorney: 1620 Tice Valley Boulevard PONY 21 1984 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 . Address: Martinez, CA 94553 . Via County Counsel Amount: Undetermined By delivery to Clerk on 5-14-84 Date Received: May 14 , 1984 By mail, postmarked on I. FSM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 70: County Counsel Attached is a aapy of the above-noted claim. Dated: May 14 , 1984 J.R. Ct.SSQJ, Clerk, ByZ Deputy XeR. Calhoun II. FROM: County Counsel 70: Clerk of the Board Super sons (Check only one) 1 ( ) 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 i so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). Claim is not timely filed. Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: Deputy County Counsel III. FRCK: Clerk of the Board T0: (1) County Counsel, (2) County Administrator ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. saw C 11 .1 By unanimous vote of 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 enterR in its minutes for this date. eni Du ois Dated: * 6- 5- 84 J. R. C LSSM, Clerk, By . . Deputy Clerk MMM 00ow. Code Section 913) Subject to certain esveptions, you have only-six (6) gonths from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail .to file a doom action an this claim. Bae Gaw amlt Code Section 965.6. _ You may seek the advice of an attorney of yoga choice in cove-ctien with this I matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so inimediatel-y. I V. PROM: Clerk of the Board ZO: (1) County Counsel, (2) County Administrator We notified the claimant of the Board's action on this claim by mailing a copy of this document, and a a,enn thereof has been filed and endorsed on the Board's copy of this Claim in accordance with Section 29703. ( ) A warning of claimants right to apply far leave to present a late claim was mailed to claimant. 'n DAM*. 6-5-84 J. R. MMMe Clerk, By ,��aCL/� . Deputy Clerk cc: County Administrator (1) County Counsel (2) 00 071. FROM TO JENNINGS PROFESSIONAL Jo Ann H e red i a INSURANCE BROKERS INC. County Counsel's Office u P O Box 69 1620 rice Valley Blvd. Martinez, CA 94553 Walnut Creek, Calif. 94595 (415) 933-8810 Subject Claim of Frank R. Virninia Brown DATE 5-10-84 Date of loss: 4-26-84 Location: Intersection of, Rheem Blvd & Moraga Road, Moraga - Dear Ms, Heredia: Thank you for your reply and notice received today: In answer to your request: - I. Claimant: Frank & Virginia Brown, 1843 Joseph DRive; Moraga; CA 94556 2. Please send notices either to me at the letterhead adLor directly to the Browns with copies to us 4. The public employee would not divulge his name to our insured because he was on an undercover operation apparently Please contact your Moraga P.D-., Sgt. Coburn at 376-2515 for this information 5. Estimates for repairs will follow. Thank you for your attention to this matter: Sincerely, '' �� RECEIVED Nancy Mills ,/y MAY 1984 — I^ oLSSON CLERK WARD OL S.PER tSORS 77 Q� t. V . 00 072 AMENDED CUM f j 1AD Q dNW cam anw, BOARD ACTION ,June 5 , 1984 Clain Agby the ainst the Couof nty,. at District ) gaIL iPr 7=Mti�ng seoentsa ad Hoard s� ) wti� the action taken cm gas dais by the Action. All Section referenoas are ) Board of 27, balm) to California Goverre+ent Codes ) given parsusnt to Government Code Scotian 913 sed 915.4. please Tobe all 'Ip�rnI -. Claimant: John J. Hallenbeck individually and on b half of Dam Road County�Counsel properties Attorney: Jack T. Friedman, Esq MAY 0 4 1984 CARROLL, BURDICK & McDONOUGH Address: 48 Quail Court, Suite 300 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Martinez, CA 94553 Amount: $1 ,000 ,000 .00 BY delivery to clerk on May 4 , 1984 Date Rsoeived: May 4 , 1984 BY mail, postmarked on May 3 , 1984 I. Clerk of the Board 31 Supervisors 70: ty Course Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. Dated: May 4, 1984 J.R. MSSCN# Clerk, Deputy Kell R. -CaThoun II. FROM: County Counsel 70: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (Check only one) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This claim FAILS to Damply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). • J ( ) Claim is not timely filed. Clerk should return claim on grand that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 93.1.3). ( ) Other: Dated: By: y 0ou my Counsel 1II. FROM: Clerk of the Board 70: County Counsel, (2) ty Administrator ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. DO1t(D Ctr in I By unanimous vote of Supervisors present (X ) This claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: certify that this a true and correct wry of the Board's C)rder enter is minutes for this date. e eni DuBois Dated: 6-5- 84 J. R. CES.SON, Clerk, By _ � D,i . Deputy Clerk MMM Mv. Code Section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only sit (6) months frac the date t h i s notiae vies persanelly served at deposited in the man .to file a court action an this claim- See Govmm-t Code Section 945.6. _ !bu nay seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in with this estter. If you vent to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. V. RM: Clerk of the 8oerd 20: (1) County Counsel, (2) County Administrator We notified the claimant of the Basra's action an this claim by mailing a appy of this document, and a sem thereof has been filed and endorsed on the Board's copy of this Claim in woordanoe with Section 29703. ( ) A warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim vas mailed to claimant. DEM: 6-5-84 J. & CIEMM, Clerk, By .26� , Deputy Clerk CC: County 1ian nistrator (2) . County Counsel (1) 00 . 073 I CARROLL, BURDICK & Mc DONOUGH L-EEIVE D COUNSELORS AND ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2 49 QUAIL COURT, SUITE 300 X1984 WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 945963 TELEPHONE (4151 945.8579OtSSON 4c of Irvi RD 5 ' ATTORNEYS FOR Claimant JOHN J. HALLENBECK 6i r 7 f! SUPPLMENT TO CLAIM AGAINST f THE COUNTY OF CONTRA IN P,ESPONSE• 8 TO NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY 9 11 I In response to Notice of Insufficiency and request for 12 date of service of Complaint claimant states that the Casas del 13 Sol III Complaint was served on or about January 17, 1984 and 14 that the other claims referred to in the claim have not been 15 formally served. 16 Dated: May 2, 1984 . I 17 CARROLL, BURDICK & McDONOUGH 18 .L 19 By T. Friedman 20 AUJack orneys for Claimant JOHN J. HALLENBECK 21 22 23 24 25 26 00 074 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL - CCP 1013x, 2015.5 I 1 1 declare that: I 2 1 am (a resident of/employed in) the county of...............................Contra....Go.sta._............... Clalifornio. (COUNT% w.,ERE Nt A,LING OCCURRED, 3 1 am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within cause; my (business/residence) address is: ......�................ 4 4.9...Qua i.1...Ca.ur.t.......Suite....3.0.0........Walnut....Creek......CA........9.4.5.9..G.........................i................ 5 On .....:...Play... ......19,84..................................... I served the within ........**.*...................................................................I................ I 6 .... .. _ . .............. ........... .. I..............I..... on the ............party.. ........................................................ .............. 7 I in saiii cause, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the I( Walnut Creek ....CA 8 United States mail at ...._................................................................................ ....................................................... addressed as follows: 9 i 10 John B. Clausen j County Counsel I 11 P. 0. Box 69 Martinez, CA 94553-0006 12 Clerk, Board of Supervisors 13 County of Contra Costa 651 Pine Street 14 Martinez, CA 94553 15 17 i 18 19 20 *** SUPPLEMENT TO CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY OF CONTPA COSTA IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY. 21 22 23 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on 24 ................. ay..3.,.....19.84............................................, at ..............Walnut....Creek............................................... California. (DATE.' (PLACE) 25 26 .................Stacey....Sha.r.er.................................................... trtf'[ (it?VION7 NAMI ,,NATURE. 00. 075 ATTORNEYS PRINTING SUPPLY FORM NO. tl•S RC1• MVL,AR, I471 1 11 APR 2 0 1984 1 CARROLL, BURDICK & MCDONOUGH COUNSELORS AND ATTORNEYS AT LAW RECEIVED 2 49 QUAIL COURT, SUITE 300 WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 I ' 3 TELEPHONE (415( 945-A579 APR/,7 19R4 4 R. cis_oN �CIIEER P.D U�PPEERVIS�ORRSS 5 ATTORNEYS FOR Claimants 6 I 7 CLAIM AGAINST: COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 8 I i 9 TO THE CLERK, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: 10 John J. Hallenbeck, ind-ividually and on behalf of Dam Road 11 Properties, a partnership, hereby makes a claim against the COUNTY 12 OF CONTRA COSTA for the sum of One Million Dollars ($1 , 000 , 000) plus 13 an unspecified amount to be ascertained if claimants are held 14 liable in damages in litigation to be hereinafter described, and 15 makes the following statements in support of .the claim: 16. 1. Claimant' s address is 1485 Park Avenue, Emeryville, 17 California 94608. i 18 2 . Notices concerning the claim should be sent to: i 19 Jack T. Friedman, Esq. CARROLL, BURDICK & McDONOUGH 20 49 Quail Court, Suite 300 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 j 21 22 3 . The date and place of the occurrence giving rise to 23 this claim are March 2, 1983 and that certain real property commonly 24 known as and located at 3232 San Pablo Dam Road, San Pablo, - Contra 25 Costa County, California, and adjoining parcels of land. 26 00 '0'76 x i 1 4 . The circumstances giving rise to this claim are as 2 follows:. On or about the above date a landslide occurred in the 3 hillside area above, on and adjacent to claimants ' property des- 4 cribed hereinabove. It is alleged that said public entity planned, 5 approved, constructed, operated, and maintained a public roadway 6 known as Hillcrest Road located upslope from claimants ' property 7 and associated embankment storm drainage culverts. It is alleged 8 that as a direct and necessary result of the plan, design, construc- 9 tion, maintenance and operation of Hillcrest Road and embankment 10 and of inadequate drainage provisions therefor, claimants ' property 11 has sustained damage and claimants' property has been caused to 12 slide onto property of others, leading to potential liability of 13 claimants to third parties. 14 5. Claimants ' damages are: 15 1 a) Sums not currently known or ascertained result- 1� ing from actions filed against claimants arising out of 17 the aforesaid occurrence, including the following known 18 actions: 1) Casas del Sol III v. Baldwin & Howell, et 19 al. , No. 253706, currently pending in the Superior Court 20 in and for the County of Contra Costa, and related cross- 21 actions; 2) Seaman, et al. v. Baldwin & Howell , No. 22 254559, currently pending in the Superior Court in and for 23 the County of Contra Costa, and related cross-complaint 24 (not yet served on claimants) ; 3) Nickerson v. Baldwin & 25 Howell, No. 818505, currently pending in Superior Court, 26 in and for the City and County of San Francisco, but -2- 00 077 1 presently subject to motion to change venue to Contra 2 Costa Superior Court (not yet served) . 4) Others as yet 3 unknown actions or cross-actions. 4 Claimants herein seek reimbursement for judgments or 5 settlement to be assessed or entered with respect to the b j above, and litigation costs, attorney ' s fees and any other 7 expenses incurred in defending the above actions . i 8 b) The sum of One Million Dollars ($1, 000, 000) . 9 6 . The names of the public employees causing the claim- 10 ants ' damages are presently unknown. 11 7 . The claim as of this date is One Million Dollars 12 ($1, 000, 000) plus an agreement to defend and reimburse claimants 13 for the defense costs, fees and expenses set forth above and for 14 any judgments or settlements to be entered arising out of the 15 matters herein asserted. 14„ 8 . The basis of the computation of the above amount is 17 depreciated market value based upon owners' appraisal and repair 18 cost of claimants' property only. 19 Dated: ' a 20 CARROLL, BURDICK & McDONOUGH 21 22 By 23 Jack T. Friedman Qbehalfof Claimants 24 25 26 -3- (` C'140 CC) / 1 CARROLL, BURDICK & MCDONOUGH _�� eta' V�� COUNSELORS AND ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2 49 QUAIL COURT, SUITE 300 CITY CLEt�� ' WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA 94596 3 TELEPHONE (4151 945-e579 •� , City of San 5 ATTORNEYS FOR Claimants I 6 � CLAIM AGAINST: !' ( SAN PABLO REDEVELOPPIENT AGENCY 9 ITO 'TIME CITY CLERK, CITY OF SAN PABLO: 10 John J. Hallenbeck, in&ividually and on behalf of Dam 11 Road Properties, a partnership, hereby makes a claim against the 12 SAN PABLO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY for the sum of One Million Dollars 13 ($1 , 000, 000) plus an unspecified amount to be ascertained if claim- 14 ants are held liable in damaqes in litigation to be hereinafter 15 described, and makes the following statements in support of the 1+6 claim: 17 1. Claimant' s address is 1485 Park Avenue, Emeryville, 18 California 94608. 19 2 . Notices concerning the claim should be sent to: 20 Jack T. Friedman, Esq. CARROLL, BURDICK & McDONOUGH 21 49 Quail Court, Suite 300 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 22 23 3. The date and place of the occurrence giving rise to 24 this claim are March 2, 1983 and that certain real property ' cbmmonly 25 known as and located at 3232 San Pablo Dam Road, San Pablo, Contra 26 Costa County, California, and adjoining parcels of land. 00 079 _ f 1 4 . The circumstances giving rise to this claim are as 2 follows: On or about ?March 2, 1983 a landslide occurred in the 3 hillside area above, on and adjacent to claimants ' property. 4 Claimants are informed that SAN PABLO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY was in 5 charge of evaluating parcels of real property located within the 6 geographic limits of the City of San Pablo for development and 7 x_�development and was charged with responsibility for approving $ lonly those parcels which could be developed safely. In or about 9 1978-1979 said Agency authorized the development for residential 10 housing of a project located at -3430 San Pablo Dam Road. Said 11 approval and construction of said development affected the stabil- 12 i-ty of the hillside and has otherwise lead to lawsuits filed 13 against claimants herein for property damage, causing potential 14 liability of claimants to third parties. 15 5 . Claimants ' damages are: 1k a) Sums not currently known or ascertained result- 17 ing from actions filed against claimants arising out of 18 the aforesaid. occurrence, including the following known 19 actions: 1) Casas del Sol III v. Baldwin & Howell , et 20 al. , No. 253706, currently pending in' the Superior Court 21 in and for the County of Contra Costa, and related cross- 22 actions; 2) Seaman, et al. v. Baldwin -& Howell, No. 23 254559, currently pending in the Superior Court in and for 24 the County of Contra Costa, and related cross-complaint 25 (not yet served on claimants) ; 3) Nickerson v. Baldwin & 26 Howell, No. 818505, currently pending in Superior Court, -2 00 080 1 in and for the City and County of San Francisco, but 2 presently subject to motion to change venue to Contra 3 Costa Superior Court (not (not yet served) . 4) Others as 4 yet unknown actions or cross-actions . 5 Claimants herein seek reimbursement for judgments 6 f or settlement to be assessed or entered with respect to 7 the above, and litigation costs, attorney ' s fees and any 8 other expenses incurred in defending the above actions . 9 b) The sum of One Million Dollars ($1 , 000 , 000) . 10 6 . The names of the public employees causing the claim- 11 ants ' damage's are presently unknown. 12 7 . The claim as of this date is One Million Dollars 13 ($1 , 000 , 000) plus an agreement to defend and reimburse claimants for 14 the defense costs, fees and expenses set forth above and for any 15 judgments or settlements to be entered arising out of the matters 16 herein asserted. 17 8 . The basis of the computation of the above amount is 18 depreciated market value based upon owners' appraisal and repair 19 cost of claimants ' property only. 20 Dated: 21- CARROLL, BURDICK & McDONOUGH 22 23 By • (� �) �� ; «L 24 Jack T. Friedman On .behalf of Claimants 25 26 -3- 00 0.81 I� APR 2 0 1984 . 1 CARROLL, BURDICK & MCDONOUGH / 6�t 'i V COUNSELORS AND ATTORNEYS AT LAW � r � J 1(]8 4 2 49 QUAIL COURT, SUITE 300 _ J WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 L� CITY Y CLERK ?; 3 City ct San Pablo TELEPHONE (4151 945-8579 ( / 4 5 ATTORNEYS FOR Claimants 6 7 CLAIM AGAINST: CITY OF SAT? FABLO 9 TO THE CITY CLERK, CITY OF SAN PABLO: 10 John J. Hallenbeck, individually and on behalf of Dam 11 Road Properties, a partnership, hereby makes a claim against the 12 CITY OF SAN PABLO for the sum of One Million Dollars ($1, 000, 000) 13 plus an unspecified amount to be ascertained if claimants are held 14 liable in damages in litigation to be hereinafter described, and 15 makes the following statements in support of the claim: 16. 1 . Claimant' s address is 1485 Park Avenue, Emeryville, 17 California 94608 . 18 2 . Notices concerning the claim should be sent to: 19 Jack T. Friedman, Esq. CARROLL, BURDICK & McDONOUGH 20 49 Quail Court, Suite 300 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 21 22 3. The date and place of the occurrence giving rise to 23 this claim are March 2, 1983 and that certain real property commonly 24 known as and located at 3232 San Pablo Dam Road, San Pablo, ' Contra 25 Costa County, California, and adjoining parcels of land. 26 00 082 I - 4 . The circumstances giving rise to this claim are as 2 follows: On or about the above date a landslide occurred in the 3 hillside area above, on and adjacent to claimants ' property des- 4 cribed hereinabove. It is alleged that said public entity planned, 5 approved, constructed, operated, and maintained a public roadway 6 known as Iiillcrest Road located upslope from claimants ' property 7 and associated embankment storm drainage culverts . It is alleged 8 that as a direct and necessary result of the plan, design, con- 9 sLruction, maintenance and operation of Hillcrest Road and embank- 10 ment and of inadequate drainage provisions therefor, claimants ' 11 property has sustained damage and claimants' property has been 12 caused to slide onto property of others, leading to potential 13 liability of claimants to third parties. 14 5 . Claimants ' damages are: 15 a) Sums not currently known or ascertained result- lb ing from actions filed against claimants arising out of 17 the aforesaid occurrence, including the following known 18 actions: 1) Casas del Sol III v. Baldwin & Howell, et 19 al. , No. 253706, currently pending in the Superior Court 20 in and for the County . of Contra Costa, and related cross- 21 actions; 2) Seaman, et al. v. Baldwin & Howell, No. 22 254559, currently pending in the Superior Court in and 23 for the County of Contra Costa, and related cross-complaint 24 (not yet served on claimants) ; 3) Nickerson v. Baldwin & 25 Howell, No. 818505, currently pending in Superior Court, 26 in and for the City and County of San Francisco, but -2- 00 O8 a I presently subject to motion to change venue to Contra s 2. Costa Superior Court (not yet served) . 4) Others as yet 3 unknown actions or cross-actions. 4 Claimants herein seek reimbursement for judgments 5 or settlement to be assessed or entered with respect to 6 the above, and litigation costs , attorney ' s fees and any 7 other expenses incurred in defending the above actions. 8 b) The sum of One Million Dollars ($1 , 000, 000) . 9 6 . The names of the public employees causing the claim- 10 ants ' damages are presently unknown. 11 7 . The claim as of this date is One Million Dollars 12 ($.1, 000, 000) plus an agreement to defend and reimburse claimants 13 for the defense costs, fees and expenses set forth above and for 14 any judgments or settlements to be entered arising out of the 15 matters herein asserted. 1¢ 8 . The basis of the computation of the above amount is 17 depreciated market value based upon owners' appraisal and repair 18 cost of claimants ' property only. 19 Dated: 20 CARROLL, BURDICK & McDONOUGH 21 22 By �f 23 Jack T. Friedman O behalf of Claimants 24 25 26 -3 00 081 v FEg Z 3 1984 1 JOHN B . HALLBAUER Attorney at Law 2 12960 San Pablo Avenue Richmond , CA 94805 3 (415 ) 237-3224 4 Attorney for Plaintiffs 5 6 7 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 10 ll . 12 13 CASAS DEL SOL III - OAKPARK HOMEOWNERS' ) ASSOCIATION, etc., et al., ) No. 253706 14 ) Plaintiffs, ) AMENDMENT TO 15 ) COMPLAINT VS. ) 16 BALDWIN & HOWELL, etc., et al., T7 ) Defendants. ) 18 ) 19 Plaintiffs hereby amend the complaint in this action and change 20 the Fourteenth Cause of Action so that that cause of action reads . 21 and alleges as follows: 22 PLAINTIFFS COMPLAIN OF THE DEFENDANTS AND ALLEGE THAT, FOR A 23 FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION [ FOR VIOLATION OF A STATUTORY DUTY 24 AGAINST DEFENDANTS SAN PABLO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND DOES FORTY- 25 SIX THROUGH FIFTY , INCLUSIVE 26 1 . Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs One, Two, Nine Ten and 27 Eleven of the General Allegations as though herein set forth in 28 full . 00 0105 1 r s >r. 1 2. Defendant Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Pablo 2 ( hereinafter "agency") is an administrative agency and public 3 entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of 4 California. 5 3. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege 6 that defendants Does Forty-Six through Fifty, inclusive, were the 7 agents, servants and employees of each of their co-defendants and 8 were acting within the course and scope of their authority as 9 Stich agents , servants and employees with the permission and 10 cnnsent of their co-defendants. 11 4, At all times herein cited, defendant Agency was entrusted 12 with the authority to designate property within the geographic 13 limits of defendant City of San Pablo for development or 14 redevelopment in order to remove blight and devote the land to 15 public uses and in order to promote the public welfare and 16 safety . , Defendant Agency was further entrusted with the 11 authority to facilitate the development or redevelopment of 18 designated properties by encouraging and helping private 19 developers obtain title to the properties and develop the 20 properties for certain public uses as determined by the Agency 21 within its statutory mandate. 22 5. Prior to the construction and development of the Casas 23 del Sol complex, defendant Agency designated as a redevlopment 24 zone the property on which it now stands and , pursuant to its 25 statutory authority and in the implementation of the 26 redevelopment plan adopted under that authority , encouraged and 27 aided defendant Baldwin and Howell in its successful efforts to 28 obtain title to that property and construct a multi -family 00 H 2 1 residential complex thereon. 2 6. At no time did defendant Agency make any attempt to 3 determine whether the development contemplated and implemented by 4 defendant Baldwin and Howell, with the encouragement and aid of 5 defendant Agency , was a safe use of the property , nor did 6 defendant Agency make any attempt to determine whether defendant `7 Baldwin and Howell had planned, designed or constructed the Casas 8 del Sol complex in a safe manner . 9 7. As a proximate result of defendant Agency' s lack of 10 diligence in performing it-s statutory duty to implement its 11 redevlopment plan in a manner' which promotes the public safety , 12 the Casas del Sol complex was constructed without proper 13 safeguards and in such a manner that it was unsafe for habitation 14 because of the great risk of landslides. 15 B. Plaintiffs purchased 37 of the 40 condominium units 16 between September, 1981 , and July , 1983 , and own the individual 17 units described and set forth in Exhibit "A" attached to this 18 pleading. 19 9. On march 2, 1983 , a massive landslide occurred in the 20 hillside area above the Casas del Sol development with the lower 21 portion of the slide encroaching on and impacting against 22 Building 3 of said development. 23 10. As a proximate result of the violation of the statutory 24 duty on the part of defendants, and each of them , plaintiffs 25 sustained economic loss in the form of lost marketability and 26 valuation of their individual residences and the condemnation of 27 Buildings one, two and three , all to their damage in the sum of 28 SIX MILLION DOLLARS. 00 117 3 1 WHEREFORE , plaintiffs pray judgment as hereinafter set 2 forth: 3 4 Dated: February , 1984 . 5 John B. Hallbauer 6 Atto ney for Plaintiffs 7 8 9 10 ll ` 12 13 14 15 16 ts1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 00 OS-: . 4 I PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL - CCP 1013a, 2015.5 2 I declare that I am employed in the County of Contra 3 Costa, California. I am over the age of eighteen years and 4 not a party to the within action; my business address is 5 12960 San Pablo Avenue , Richmond, California, 94805 . On 6 February 22 , 1.984 , I served the within AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT 7 on the interested parties in said cause , by placing a true 8 copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon 9 felly prepaid, in the United States mail at Richmond, California, 10 addressed as follows : ll Jack T. Friedman -Charles Freiberg Carroll , Burdick & McDonough Heller , Ehrman , White & McAuliffe 12 Attorneys at Law Attorneys at Law 49 Quail Court , Ste . 300 44 Montgomery Street 13 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 San Francisco , CA 94104 14 Gary Lepper George Pfieffer Stoddard, Lepper & Falco Stoddard, Lepper & Falco 15 Attorneys at Law Attorneys at Law 1440 Maria Ln. , Ste. 230 1440 Maria Ln. , Ste. 230 16 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 17 Timothy J. Ryan Gordon, DeFraga, Watrous & Pezzaglia, Inc . 18 Attorneys at Law 611 Las Juntas Street 19 Martinez , CA 94553 20 21 22 23 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing 24 is true and correct and that this declaration was executed 25 on February 22 , 1984 , at Richmond, California. 26 27 28 BRENDA K. BUTLER 00 089 EXHIBIT "A" UNIT NUMBER AT 3430 San Pablo Dam Road, U6divERS San Pablo , California ' 94806 Jose Alcala 10 . Baldwin., Howell 11 Baldwin G •Howell', 12 - Becky Wong - 13 ; Bill and Ivy Lai 14 John Monica .Cheeseman 15 . Perla Cuerdo 16 Les and Tamra Johnson 17 Andrew 'Lee .'2 p Nancy. Van House :'21 Charito and Ilda .Lazaro .22 Darrell Johnson 23 Paul McKay 24'. Karen Lee- and Hawkins G Lorraine Lee 25 Lloyd and Shirley vinston x. 26 Judi Poirier and- Craig ' 14ielsen _ 27 Sung Park and. Peney Lee 30 . Cecilio Dumlao 31 ;. Thomas "Yen _ 32 Charles Seaman ' . 33 • Patrick Tang and Karen 1o.w 34 ' Mark Orr 35 . . . Doug and Sheila Madsen 36 . . . . Gary Nix_kgrson, 3 Susan and James Culang 38 John and Marilyn Krason 39 Lynda Schindler and Luis 'and Cynthia Yickoy . 40 ' . Da-Lien and Shian Lee 41 Aida S . and Nilo Dente 42 Ingrid Low and Larry -Low ' 43 Baldwin & Hower' 44 Richard' Crawford 45 . ?aul Keary °50 ` EXHIBIT "A" UNIT NUMBER AT 3430 San Pablo Dam Road OWNERS San Pablot California 94806 Nicholas Kostek 51 Gloria _Ramos .and Alfred and Esperanza Gonzalez 52 Bob and Virginia Aicher 53 Diane and Richard Schick oo - Erika Pesta 61 Prapan and Nuetip Lorskulsint , Larry and ..Jennifer Mills 53 -2- f 1 i JOHN B . HALLBAUER ACLorney at Law 2 ' 12960 San Pablo Avenue Richmond , CA 94805 NOV 2 8 19QI 3 (4 15) 237-3224 OLSSON, COMP Clerk 4 Attorney for Plaintiff coNrrna cosTe COUNTY_ 5 By WELSH Nwry G 71 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA I 9 IN A11D FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 10 I 11 � j2 I' CASAS DEL SOL III - O''KPARK HO?-1EO1N11 E?:S ' ) ASSOCIATION , A NO'." ROFIT I•;UTUAL BENEFIT ) 13 ' CORPORA.TIONI ; JOSE ALCALA; BECKY WONG ; } 3,7{;6 BILL and !VY LAI ; JOHNI and MONICA ) ti� 14 CHEESE* JN; PERI--'. CUERDO ; LES and TAMRA ) NO . JOVINSO" ; ANDREW LEE ; NANCY VAN HOUSE ; ) 15 CFARITO and ILDA LAZARO ; DARRELL JOHNSON ; ) CO?-fPLAI1%T FOR PAUL McK:.Y ; KAREN LEE and HAWKINS and ) D.4l GES IG LORRAINE LEE ; LLOYD and SHIRLEY WINSTON ; ) JUDI POIRIER and CRAIG NIELSEN ; SUNG PARI; ) 17, land PENCY LEE ; CECILIO DU2�4..4-,0 ; THOMAS YEH ; ) CHARLES SEAY-kN ; PATRICK TANG and -4-REN ) 18 I LOW ; 1:.A...RK ORP,; DOUG and SHEILA MADSEN ; ) GARY I3ICKE::SON ; SUSANq and JAMES CUI -'.!�G ; ) . 19 JOHN and IQ%RILYN KRF SON ; LYINDA SCHINDLER ) and LUIS and CYNTHIA YICHOY; DA-LIED: and ) 201SHIAN LEE ; AIDA S . and NIDA DENTE ; INGRID ) LOW and L.�RRY LOW; RICHARD CRAWFORD; ) .21 PAUL YEARY ; NICHOLAS KOSTEK; GLORIA RAMOS ) and ALFRED and E SPEP.A.N Z?. GON ZALE Z : BOB ) 22 and VIRGINIA RICHER: DIANE and RICHARD ) SCHICK; ERIKA PESTA: PR.-.P.-".N and NUETIP ) 23 LORSKULSINT; and LARRY and. JENNIFER MILLS , ) 24 , Plaintiffs , } 25! ) 26 27 i Vs • ) 28 I; 00 0 0,21 I i BALDWlty & HOWELL, a California ) corporation ; COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA; ) 2 CITY OF SAN PABLO; SAN PABLO REDEVELOPMENT) AGENCY ; LELAND CUNNINGHAM, an individual , ) 3 JOH14 HALUMBECK and PHIL ERYING and DOES ) through 70 , inclusive , ) 4 �� yr•...1? ) Defendants . 5 ) 6 7 PLAINTIFFS COMPLAIN OF THE DEFENDnNTS , AND EACH OF THEM, 8 A73D MA.1:E THE FOLLOWING GENERAL ALLEGATIONS ; 9 1 . At all times herein mentioned CASAS DEL SOL III - OAKPARKi 10 HOMEOWNERS ' ASSOCIATION (hereinafter "plaintiff association") 11 was and now is , a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation , composed 12 of dues paying members and having its principal place of business 131in Contra Costa County , California . Plaintiff association 14 is an owners ' association established in a project of condo- 15 miniums which has title to the commonly owned areas and is 16 obligated to maintain , preserve , and repair those common areas as well as individually owned areas damaged by the acts and 18 omissions of others . Plaintiff association thus brings this 19 action for damages to areas under its control or which it 20 is obligated to maintain , preserve , and repair pursuant to 21 Section 374 of the Code of Civil Procedure . 22 2 . The remaining sixty-one (61) party plaintiffs set forth 23 in the caption above collectively own and possess thirty-seven 24j (37) of the forty (40) individual condominium units within 25lthe Casas del Sol condominium development located at 311130 San 2611 Pablo Dam Road, S--n Pablo , California , and further own and 1' 27`1 have title to the ground beneath their individual condo-minium 28h units . Said individual party plainrifl s join the plain, * 093 fj ' Ilassociation in bringing this action for damages sustained by 2 their individual condominLum units and other injuries for which 3 plaintiff association is not the real party in interest under 4 Code of Civil Procedure Section 374 . The sixty-two named party 5 plaintiffs comprise the entire membership of plaintiff asso- 6 ciation , excepting the defendant developer Baldwin & Howell 7 which owns three (3) units . A listing which identifies the 8 individual condominium units owned by those party plaintiffs 9 is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein. 10 3 . Defendant Br.LDWIN & HOWELL, INC . (hereinafter "B & H") 11 is a California corporation with its principal place of business 12 at 433 California Street , San Francisco , California . 13 � 4 . Defendant B & H is , and at all times cited herein was , 14 ' generally engaged in the business of real estate brokerage 15 land consultation . Said defendant is and at all times cited 16 herein was , specifically engaged in the planning , design and 17 construction of condominium projects on raw land owned by it -18 and thereafter marketing and selling individual condominium 19 units located within such developments to the general public . 20 S . On or about July 12 , 1983 , and within 100 days after 21 the incident referred to herein occurred, the plaintiffs presented 22 in writing a claim for damages to the defendant COUNTY OF CONTRA 23 COSTA and filed the same with the Board of Supervisors . A 24 copy of said claim :s attached hereto as Exhibit "B" , and 25., incorporated herein as though set forth in full . 26 6 . The of oresad claim was thereafter rejected on or 27,E about July 12 , 1-963 . 2811 7 . On or about July 12 , 1983 , and within 100 days after 1� 00 094 1 -J i I the incident referred to herein occurred , the plaintiffs presented 2 in writing 3 claim for damages to the defendant CITY OF SAN 3 PABLO and filed the same with the City Clerk. A copy of said q claim is attached hereto as Exhibit "C" , and incorporated 5 herein as though set forth in full . G 8 . The aforesaid claim was thereafter rejected on or about 7 ( July 12 , 1983 . 8 � 9 . On or about July 19 , 1983 , and within 100 days after 9 the incident referred to herein occurred, the plaintiffs presented 10 in writing a claim for damages to the defendant SAN PABLO 11 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY and filed the sante with the agency. A 12 copy of said claim is attached hereto as Exhibit "D" , and 13 I incorporated herein as though set forth in -full . : 14 10 . The aforesaid claim was thereafter rejected on or about 15 July 19 , 1983 . IG 11 . The true names and capacities of defendants DOE ONE 17 through DOES SE'.'ENTY , inclusive , are unknown to plaintiffs , who 18 therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names . 19 Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to set forth their true 20 names and identities when the same are ascertained. Plaintiffs 21 are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the 22 defendants designated Herein as a DOE is legally responsible 23 in some manner for the events and happenings herein referred 24 to, and caused injury and damages to the plaintiffs as herein 25 alleged. 26,1 27' 28 40 095 -4 - -- I I PLAIivTIFFS COMPLAIN OF THE DEFENDANTS AND ALLEGE THAT ; 2 FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (FOR FRAUD AND DECEIT BY SUPPRESSION 3 OF FACT} AGAINST DEFENDANTS BALDWIN & HOWELL, INC . AND DOES 4 ONE THROUGH TWENTY FIVE , INCLUSIVE : 5 1 . Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs One through Four and 6 Paragraph Eleven of the General Allegations as if set forth 7 in full herein . 81 2 . At all tides herein mentioned each of the defendants 9 against whom this cause of action is directed (defendants 10 B & H and DOES ONE through TWENTY FIVE) was the agent of each I1 of the remaining defendants against whom this. cause of action 12 is directed and was at all times acting within the purpose 13 and scope or said agency . 14 3 . On or about January , 1978, defendant B 6 H was the owner 15 of a parcel of raw land located within the City of San Pablo , 16 California , and commonly known as .3430 San Pablo Dam Road. 17 , 4 . Thereafter, . during the winter of 1978-1979 , defendant I8 � B 6 H developed the property generally described in the prior 19 paragraph by planning and constructing thereon an extensive 20 condominium development. Said defendant further determined 21 that it would thereafter market and sell individual condominium 22 units in their project , known then and now as Casa del Sol , 23 to the general public . 24 5 . Defendants B & H and DOES ONE ,through TEN learned, during 25the pre-construction phase of their Casa del Sol development, i 26 that all of their land and the entire land upslope to above 271, Hillcrest Road was within an area described as consisting of 28 actively or recently actively moving ground, including recognized i C)o o%wt" -5- 1 I landslides , landslide scarps and disturbed ground. They further 2 learned that their hillside property was within a zone of lower 3 stability which had undergone multiple instances of recent 4 sliding. Said defendants further discovered .that significant 5 risk: of further slide activity was present from the adverse G geologic and soil conditions on their property and upslope 7 to above Hillcrest Road. In sum, said defendants knew that 8 their sought after project was entirely within a known landslide 9 area and a zone of documented lower stability ; that the area 10 of documented slide activity extended from the Hillcrest roadway 11 to within thirty-five (35) feet- of Building 3 of the projected 12 Casa del Sol development ; that it was likely that further 13 sliding would occur ; and that the degree of hillside risk 14 existing at their property was significantly higher than average 15 and ordinary for hillside construction and development in the 16 Greater Bay Area . 17 b . Defendants B & H, despite their full knowledge and under- 18 standing of the adverse geologic and soil conditions existing 19 on- an upslope from their property which had produced historic 20 slide activity and posed an unacceptable risk of future slide 21 activity, made the decision to in fact develop their property 22 for residential construction and sale to private parties . 23 7. Construction of the Casa del Sol project by defendant 24 1B & H was thereafter initiated. The development was completed 25 on or about September 1 , 1981 . 26 , S . Defendant B & H kn.-:-w that public awareness and knowledge . I' 27 I of the facts se- forth in Paragraph Five of this Cause of ')8 Action would significantly and materially reduce the true vobeoo I and desirability of their condominium development at 3430 2 San Pablo Dam Road, San Pablo, California . They knew that 3 no buyers would willingly and knowledgeably contract to pay 4 B & H' s full asking price , or any price whatever , for the right 5 to own a condominium located squar-ely in the path of a future G landslide . Defendant B & H determined that they would not , 7 during the marketing and sales phase of their Casa del Sol 8 development project , disclose those facts to potential buyers 9 of individual condominium units located within the project 10 and gain their full and optimum profit by keeping silent. t1 9 . Thereafter, defendants B & H and DOES ELEVEN through 12 TWENTY-FIVE deliberately , consciously and maliciously suppressed 13 the true facts concerning the geologic and soil conditions 14 existing on and adjacent to their condominium units in the 15 Casa del Sol project and the risk posed by said conditions 16 during their campaign to market and sell those properties . 17 10 . None of the sixty-one individual party plaintiffs was 1S informed during their negotiations with B & H and DOES ELEVEN 19 through TWENTY-FIVE for the purchase and sale of thirty-seven 20 of the condominium units of the history of earth movement on 21 and about the development or the risk of future earth movement 22 and slide activity within and adjacent to the Casa del Sol 23 development . The representations of said defendants during 24 ! their sales negotiations with the individual plaintiffs included 25 statements that the properties were newly constructed and good 26 ! investments for both present shelter and future appreciation. 2i Said defendants , and each of them, with knowledge of the facts 28 set forth in Paragraph 5 above , with further knowledge a�� 098 I understanding that disclosure by them of those facts would 2 deter their sales effort , and with full awareness of their 3 affirmative duty of full disclosure of plaintiffs , remained I q silent as to any and all facts which materially affected the 5 value of the condominium units they were offering for sale . 6 11 . The true facts concerning the geologic and soil conditions. 7 as set forth in Paragraph 5 were unknown to plaintiffs and 8 the ascertainment of. those facts was beyond their reach in 9 view of the representations and nondisclosures of defendants 10 B & H and DOES ELEVEN through TWENTY-FIVE . 11 12 . The foregoing failure to disclose information and 12 suppression of information herein alleged to have been made 13 by defendants B & H and DOES ELEVEN through TWENTY-FIVE was 14 made with the intent to induce plaintiffs to act in the manner 15 herein alleged in reliance thereon. 16 13 . Plaintiffs , at the time these failures to disclose 17„ and suppressions of fact occurred, and at the time plaintiffs 18 took the actions herein alleged, were ignorant of the facts 19 which defendants suppressed and failed to disclose . If 20 plaintiffs had been aware of the facts not disclosed by 21 defendants , plaintiffs would not have acted as they did , by 22 _ electing to purchase thirty-seven condominium units from 23 defendants . 24 14 . On March 2 , 1983 , a mass iv6 .lan dsIide occurred in the 25 hillside area above the Casa del Sol development with the 26lower portion of the slide encroaching upon a portion of 27 Building 3 in the Casa del Sol development . The slide. was 28 11 aoproximately one thousand two hundred (1 , 200) feet in01Qn P I i i' II by four hundred fifty (450) feet in width , and involved more 2 than twelve acres . The top of the slide is approximately 3 even with the southerly edge of the Hillcrest roadway and 4 the lower portion of the slide is in contact with the southwestern 5 portion of Building 3 of the Casa del Sol project . 6 I 15 . As a proximate result of the fraud and deceit of 7 ( defendants , and each of them, and the facts herein alleged, 81Buildings 1 , 2 and 3 housing twenty-six (26 ) units were the 9 � subject of a joint recommendation of evacuation by Soils 10 Engineers , the City of San Pablo, and the San Pablo Police 11 Department . As a further prox,im&te result of the fraud and 12 deceit of defendants, and each of them, the remaining three 13 (3 ) condominium buildings owned by plaintiff sustained sub- 1.4 stantial reductions in their market value . As a further proximate 15 result of the fraud and deceit of defendants , and each of 16 them, the property of all plaintiffs was rendered non-marketable 17 ,since the general public would not volunteer to buy real pro- IS perty rendered all- but valueless by the slide of March 2 , 19 1983 , and the clear and present danger of a future slide 20 during the rainy season of 1983-1984 . By reason of these 21 nondisclosures and suppressions of fact and the ensuing happenings 22 set forth above , plaintiffs have been damaged in the sum of 23 SIX MILLION DOLLARS ($6 , 000 , 000 . 00) . 24 16 . In doing the acts herein alleged , defendants ; and 25 each of them, acting with fraud, and plaintiffs are entitled 26 to punitive damages in the sum of FOURTEEN MILLION: DOLL4RS Vii ; ($14 , 000 , 000 . 00) , 28 f{ I 1 1-HEREFORE , plaintiffs pray judgment_ as hereinafter set 2 forth. 3 PLAINTIFFS COMPLAIN OF THE DEFENDANTS AND ALLEGE THAT; 4 FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (FOR NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION) 5 AGAINST DEFENDANTS BALDWIN & HOWELL, INC. AND DOES ONE THROUGH 6 TWENTY-FIVE , INCLUSIVE 7 1 . Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs One through Seven 8 and Eleven through Fifteen of the First Cause of Action 9 as though set forth in full herein. 10 2 . None of the sixty-one individual party plaintiffs 1 ) was informed during their negotiations with B & H and DOES 12 ELEVEN through TVE!17T:'-FIVE for the purchase and sale of thirty 13 seven (37) of the condominium units of the history of earth 14 movement on and about the development or .the risk of future 15 earth movement and slide activity within and adjacent to the 16 Casa del Sol development. 17 - 3 . The representations of said defendants during 18 their sales negotiations with the individual , plaintiffs included 19 statements that the properties were newly constructed and 20 good investments for both present shelter and future appreciation. 21 Defendants B & H and DOES ELEVEN through TWENTY-FIVE , when 22 they made these representations , had no reasonable ground 23 for believing that the representations were true . 24 WHEREFORE , plaintiffs pray judgment as hereinafter set . 25 Corr-h. 26 271 111 28 ti -10- . I I PLAINTIFFS COMPLAIN OF THE DEFENDANTS AND ALLEGE THAT; 2 FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION [FOR NEGLIGENCE] AGAINST DEFENDANTS 3 BALDWIN HOWELL, INC. AND DOES ONE THROUGH TWENTY-FIVE , INCLUSIVE 4 1 . Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs One through Four 5 and Paragraph Eleven of the General Allegations as though 6 set forth in full herein . Plaintiffs further incorporate 7 each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs Two through 8 Seven and Paragraph Fourteen of the First Cause of Action 9 as though set forth in full herein. 10 2. Defendants B & H and DOES ONE through TWENTY-FIVE , 11 who were fully aware of the fact that their property was at 12 the foot of a documented slide area extending upslope to the 13 Hillcrest roadway and aware that it was reasonably forseeable 14 that the known risk of future slide activity involving harm 15 to the persons or property of the future owners of their 16 individual condominium units would in fact materialize , owed 17 a duty to plaintiff buyers of mitigating that foreseeable 18 risk. 19 3. Said duty , to provide reasonably safe housing to the 20 purchasing public , clearly involved the integration of a system 21 of conventional earth buttresses , heavy retaining walls , and 22 improved surface and subsurface drainage into their Casa del 23 Sol development before the individual condominium units were 241 orf Bred for sale to plaintiffs . The installation of such 25 corrective measures on the Casa del Sol property would have 26 both stabilized the property and lessened the risk of slide 27;itat2rials flowing downslope onto the property and impacting �b � thereon.. 00 1 , 4 . Defendants , and each of them, breached their duty 2 by constructing and selling the individual condominium units . 3 to plaintiffs without having incorporated earth buttresses , 4 heavy retaining walls and improved surface and subsurface 5 drainage systems into the Casa del Sol project. 6 S . As a proximatelcause of the negligence of defendants , 7 and each of them, the individual he units owned 8 by plaintiffs sustained severe damage when material from. the 9 landslide of March 2, 1983 , flowed downslope without impediment 10ionto the Casa del Sol development and touched building three. 11 6 . As a further proximate cause of the negligence of 12 defendants , and each of them, plaintiffs sustained economic 13 loss in the form of lost marketability and valuation of their 14 individual residences and the condemnation of buildings cne , 15 two and three , all to plaintiffs ' damage in the sum or SIX 16 MILLION DOLLARS . 17. WHEREFORE , plaintiffs pray judgment as hereinafter set 18 forth. 19 PLAINTIFFS COMPLAIN OF THE DEFENDANTS AND ALLEGE THAT; 20 FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION [FOR STRICT LIABILITY IN TORT] 21 AG..INST DEFENDANTS BALDWIN & HOWELL, INC . AND DOES ONE THROUGH 22 TWENTY-FIVE INCLUSIVE 23 1 . Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs One through Four 24 and Paragraph Eleven of the General Allegations and further 25 incorporate Paragraphs. One through Three bf the First Cause 26 of Action as though set forth in full herein . 27 2 . Defendants B & H and DOES ONE through TWENTY-FIVE I 28 are , and at all times herein mentioned were , engaged in the I CO 103 , II -12- i I uLass production of houses for sale to and use by members of 2 the general public , and as a part of its business said defendants 3 constructed a condominium project consisting of forty (40 ) 4 individual condominium units located at 3430 San Pablo Dam 5 Road, -San Pablo , California. 6 3 . Defendant B & H intended that the condominium units 7 constructed by it were to be used for the purpose of residences . 8 4 . Defendant B & H , at all times herein mentioned , knew 9 that the condominium residences would be purchased and used 10 without inspection for defects by the purchasers . 11 5 . On or about September 1 , _1981 , and thereafter , defendant 12 B & H sold thirty-seven of the forty condominium residences 13 referred to in Paragraph 2 of the General Allegations , to 14 the individual purchasers and party plaintiffs set forth in 15 the caption of this complaint and on the listing appended 16 hereto as Exhibit "Al " . 17 6 . Plaintiffs relied on the skill of defendant B & H 18 in producing individual condominium residences with surface 19 and subsurface drainage and grading systems that were reasonably 20 fit for their intended purposes and further relied on defendant ' s 21 skill to develop and install a diversion system to either 22 block and/or channel away from the development upslope water 23 and debris . 24 7 . On or about March 2 , 1983 , as.. a proximate result of 25 defective drainage , grading , and water and debris diversion 26 I systems , plaintiffs incurred lost marketability and value 27 1 of their individual condominium units and grounds that are 28 so extensive that repair is not economically feasible and 00 .10 it -13- i I were forced to expend sums of money for the temporary acquisition 2 of other shelter, all to their damage in the sum of SIX MILLION 3 DOLLARS- 06 , 000 ,000 .00) . 4 WHEREFORE , plaintiffs pray judgment as hereinafter set 5 forth. 6 PLAINTIFFS COMPLAIN OF THE DEFENDANTS AND ALLEGE THAT ; FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY) AGAINST 8 DEFENDr.NTS BALDWIN & HOWELL , INC . AND DOES ONE THROUGH TWENTY 9 FIVE , INCLUSIVE 10 1 . Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs One through Four 11 and Paragraph Eleven of the General Allegations and further 12 incorporate Paragraphs Two and Three of the First Cause of 13 Action as though set forth in full herein. 14 2 . Defendant Baldwin & Howell constructed a condominium 15 project consisting of forty individual condominium units at 16 3430 San Pablo Dam Road, San Pablo, California . 17, 3 . On or about September 1, 1981 , and thereafter , defendant 18 B & H sold thirty-seven of the forty condominium residences 19 referred to in Paragraph 2 above to the individual purchasers 20 and party plaintiffs set forth in the caption of this Complaint 21 and on the listing appended hereto as Exhibit "A" . 22 - 4 . Defendant B & H impliedly warrantied that the individual 23 condominium units and the Casa del Sol development were designed 24 and constructed in a reasonably workmanlike manner . 25 5. Plaintiffs relied on such warranty and believed in 26 good faith that the individual condominium .units and Casa 27 del Sol development were of marketable quality . 28 6 . Defendant B a H breached the warranty that the individual Op , 10 1 �I WHEREFORE , plaintiffs pray judgment as hereinafter f 2 ' ser_ forth. 3 PLAINTIFFS COMPLAIN OF THE DEFENDA14TS AND ALLEGE THAT; 4 FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION [FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION 5 OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS] AGAINST DEFENDANTS BALDWIN & HOWELL, G INC . AND DOES ONE THROUGH TWENTY-FIVE , INCLUSIVE , 7 1 . Plaintiffs incorporate each and every allegation 8 contained within the First Cause of Action as though set 9 forth in full herein . 10 2. The conduct of defendants , and each of them, was 11 extreme and outrageous and done intentionally and maliciously 12 and for the purpose of causing plaintiffs to suffer humiliation , 13 mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress . 14 3 . As a proximate result of the aforementioned acts , 15 plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer humiliation, 16 mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress , and 17 , have been injured in mind and body as follows : worry , sleepless- 18 ness , headaches , .nausea , loss of appetite , and a generalized 19 and specific fear about their personal safety and economic 20 well being during the rainy season of 1983-1984 , all to 21 plaintiffs damage in a sum as yet , not fully ascertained 22 but sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the Superior Court 23 of the State of California . 24 4 . As a further proximate result of the aforementioned 25 acts , plaintiffs were required to and did employ physicians 26 and other healers, to examine , treat and care for theta, 27 and incurred other medical exuenses in an amount which has 28 not yet been ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and o® g -16 - I believe and thereon allege that they will incur some additional 2 medical expenses , the exact amount of which is unknown. 3 S : By reason of the aforementioned acts , plaintiffs were 4 prevented from attending to their usual occupations and pro- 5 fessons and thereby lost earnings in a sum not yet ascertained. 6 Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that 7 they will be thereby prevented from attending to their usual 8 occupations and professions for a period in the future which 9 they cannot ascertain and will thereby sustain further loss of 10 earnings . 11 WHEREFORE , plaintiffs prayjudgment as hereinafter set 12 forth. 13 { PLAINOTIFFS COMPLAIN OF THE DEFENDA14TS AND ALLEGE THAT; FOR 14 A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTIOII [FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL 15 DISTRESS] AGAINST DEFENDANTS BALDWIN & HOWELL, INC . AND DOES 16 ONE THROUGH TWENTY-FIVE , INCLUSIVE 17, 1 . Plaintiffs incorporate each and every allegation contain- 18 ed within the Second and Third Causes of Action as though set 19 forth in full herein . 20 2 . Because of the negligence of defendants B & H and DOES 21 ELEVEN through TWENTY-FIVE, plaintiffs sustained great emotional 22 disturbance and shock and injury. 23 3 . Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs Three through Five 24 of the Sixth Cause of Action as though set forth in full herein. 25 WHEREFORE , plaintiffs pray judgment as hereinafter set forth. 26 271 /// 28I r G 1, -17- I l PLAINTIFFS COI•IPLAIN OF THE DEFENDA14TS AND ALLEGE MAT; 2 FOR A EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATIO141 3 AGAINST DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA AND DOES TWENTY-SIX 4 THROUGH THIRTY-FIVE , INCLUSIVE 5 _ 1 . Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs One , Two , Seven , 6 Eight , and Eleven of. the General Allegations as though set 7 forth in full herein. 8 2 . Defendant County of Contra Costa (hereinafter "County") 9 is a public entity organized and existing under - the laws of the i 10 State of California . 11 3 . Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege I 12 that defendants DOES TWENTY-SIX through DOES THIRTY-FIVE , 13 inclusive , were the agents , servants and employees of each 14 '.of their co-defendants and were acting within the course and 15 scope of their authority as such agents , servants and employees IG with the permission and consent of their co-defendants . 1,7 4 . On March 2 , 1983 , and at all times herein mentioned 18 plaintiffs were- the owners of thirty-seven individual condo- 19 minium residences as set forth in Exhibit "A" as appended hereto . 20 Said properties were in a condominium development known 2) as Casa del Sol and were located within the City 'of San Pablo , 22 County of Contra Costa at 3430 San Pablo Dam Road. 23 5 . Defendant County planned, approved, constructed, operated. 24 and maintained a public roadway known as Hillcrest Road located 25 upslope from plaintiffs properties and to the south thereof . 26 6 . As a direct and necessary result of the plan , design, 27 maintenance and operation of Hillcrest Road, plaintiffs pro- 28 perties were subjected to the effects of a massive landslide 0 0 I and abnormal water runoff on March 2 , 1983 . Plaintiffs are 2linformed and believe and thereon allege that , as a direct and 3 necessary result of the construction , maintenance and operation 4 of Hillcrest Road by defendant County , plaintiffs properties 5 will continue to be subjected to landslides and abnormal water 6 runoff at various times . 74 7 . The above described damage to plaintiffs properties 8 was substantially caused by defendant County ' s actions in that 9 the fragile soil at the southern edge of the Hillcrest roadway 10 was subjected to surcharge loading by the considerable weight 1l of the embankment defendant County placed thereon. The aforesaid 12 1 embankment was not properly maintained, repaired, or buttressed 13Ifor a roadway located at the top of a known slide area which 14 had been experiencing movement for a period of years prior 15 to the landslide of March 2 , 1983 . The design , maintenance 16 and operation of the Hillcrest roadway was also faulty in 17 that inadequate provision was made for the unnatural collection 18 and concentration ofrunoff waters by Hillcrest Road storm 19 drainage culverts and no other provision was 'made for controlling 20 the flow of water onto the downslope lands of plaintiffs . 21 8 . As a result of the above described damage to plaintiffs 22 properties , plaintiffs have been damaged in the sum of SIX 23 MILLION DOLUAPRS ($6 ,000 , 000 . 00) . 2� 9 . Plaintiffs have received no ;compensation for the damaeE 25 to their properties . 2G 10. Plaintiffs have incurred and will incur attorney ' s , 27appraisal and engineering fees because of this proceeding , 2Sy in amounts that cannot be ascertained, which are recovcrab>�© I� I in this action under the provisions of Section 1036 of the 2 Code of Civil Procedure . 3 WHEREFORE , plaintiffs pray damages as hereinafter set 4 forth . 5 - PLAINTIFFS COMPLAIN OF THE DEFENDANTS AND ALLEGE THAT ; 6 FOR A NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION [FOR NEGLIGENT INSPECTION AND 7 MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY] AGAINST DEFENDANTS COUI4TY OF B CONTRA COSTA AND DOES TWENTY-SIX THROUGH THIRTY-FIVE , INCLUSIVE 1 . Plaintiffs incorporate each and every allegation of 10 Paragraphs One through Seven of the Sixth Cause of Action as 11 though set forth in full herein. 121 2 . The defendants , and each of theca, owed a duty to 13 plaintiffs as downslope property owners to reasonably inspect 14 the Hillcrest Road embankment storm drainage culverts located 15 adjacent to the embankment and the travelled roadway . ' Defendants 16 owed plaintiffs a further duty of discovering and promptly 17 remedying dangerous defects or deficiencies discovered during 18 said reasonable inspections . 10 3 . A reasonable inspection of the Hillcrest roadway embank- 20 ment and the system of storm drainage culverts would have 21 disclosed the dangerous conditions posed by both the inadequately 22 maintained, repaired and buttressed roadway embankment and 23 the defective and inadequate system of storm drainage culverts . 24 4 . It was foreseeable that the major defects described 25 above would interfere with the stability of all downslope 26 and adjacent lands in what was known by defendants to be a 7 historic and active landslide area . 281 00 .11.0 � l _ y 1 5 . Defendant County , despite the knowledge alleged in the 2 prior paragraphs and despite constructive notice of the aforesaid 3 dangerous conditions , negligently failed to inspect their 4 public roadways and its storm drainage culvert system or to 5 remedy the apparent defects in both. Defendants , and each 6 of them, by so failing to inspect and remedy the roadway embank- 7 merit and its drainage system breached the duty they owed 8 plaintiffs . 9 6 . As a proximate cause of the failure of defendants 10 to conduct reasonable inspections and repairs on the Hillcrest 11 embankment and culvert , plaintiff cL were damaged in that the 12 surcharge caused by the embankment and the considerable volume 13 of water artificially concentrated at the storm drainage culverts 14 undermined and weakened the soil . The undermined and weakened 15 soil gave way on March 2 , 1983 , in a major landslide which 16 flowed downslope onto the Casa del Sol development and impacted 17 against Building 3 . . 18 7 . As a further proximate cause of the negligence of 19 defendants , and each of them, plaintiffs sustained economic 20 loss in the form of lost marketability and valuation of their 21 individual residences and the condemnation of Building 3 , 22allto their damage in the sum of SIX MILLION DOLLARS 23 ($, , 000 , 000 . 00) . 24 WHEREFORE , plaintiffs pray judgment as hereinafter set . 25 forth. 26 27 2500 � I1/ 2 I PLAINTIFFS COMPLAIN OF DEFENDANTS AND ALLEGE THAT ; FOR 2 A TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION [FOR NUISANCE] AGAINST DEFENDANTS 3 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA AND DOES TWENTY-SIX THROUGH DOES 4 THIRTY-FIVE , INCLUSIVE 5 1: Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs One through Six of . G the Sixth Cause of Action as though set forth in full herein. 7 2 . Defendants , and each of them, are maintaining , and 8 at all times mentioned have maintained , Hillcrest roadway , 9 in such a manner that rain waters are obstructed and directed 10 frou, their natural waterway and are artificially diverted 11 in great concentration into an, ar-tificial system of culverts . 12 This concentrated runoff is then allowed to escape down the 13 slope and onto the lands .of plaintiffs . Repeated instances 14 of this diversion saturate the fragile soils and generate 15 landslides such as that which occurred on March 2 , 1983 . 16 Defendants have failed and neglected and still fail and neglect , 17 "to provide proper facilities or any facilities for handling 18 such diverted waters so as to prevent both their overflow 19 ( onto the downslope properties of plaintiffs and the settling 20 earth movements below the Hillcrest roadway . 21 3 . Defendants have failed and continue to fail to implement 22 corrective measures to stabilize the hillside so that the 23 rainy season of 1983-1984 will not produce further slide activity 24 and water damage to plaintiffs ' properties . 25 4 . The aforementioned occupation, use and maintenance I 26 , of the Hillcrest Road by defendant County is a nuisance within 27 the meaning of Secticn 3479 of the Civil Code in that it - inter- ?S �� feres with the comfortable use of plaintiffs ' property and 00 11 I ' s in 'urious to plaintiffs health in that their land and i 1 I� J p i 2 condominium residences are periodically threatened with flooding, 3 damage ,-- and destruction by the acts and omissions of defendants. 4 5 . On or about March 3 , 1983 , plaintiffs gave notice to 5 defendant County of the damage caused by the nuisance , and 6 requested its abatement, but defendants , and each of them, have 7 refused and continue to refuse , to abate the nuisance . 8 6 . Defendant County has threatened to and will unless 9 restrained by this Court , continue to maintain the nuisance 10 and continue the acts complained of, and each and every act 1 � has been , and will be, without the consent , against the will , 12 and in violation of the rights of plaintiffs . 13 7 . As a proximate result of the nuisance , the value of 14 plaintiff ' s property has been diminished by SIX MILLION DOLLARS . 15 Unless the nuisance is abated, plaintiffs property will be 16 further diminished in value. 17 8 . As a further proximate result of the nuisance created 18 by defendants , and each of them, plaintiffs have been hurt 19 and injured in their health, strength, and activity , sustaining 20 injury to their nervous system and person, all of which injuries 21 have caused, and continue to cause, plaintiffs great mental , 22 physical and nervous pain and suffering. As a result of such 23 injuries , plaintiffs have suffered general damage in an 24 amount according to proof . 25 9 . As a further proximate result of the nuisance created 26 by the defendants , and each of them, plaintiffs have incurred, 27 and ,will continue to incur, medical and related expenses in 28 an amount according to proof . 00 11-3 . 1 10 . Unless defendant County is restrained by order of this 2 Court , it will be necessary for plaintiffs to commence many 3 successive actions against defendants , and each of them, to 4 secure compensation for damages sustained , thus requiring a 5 multiplicity of suits , and plaintiffs will be periodically 6 threatened with flooding and landslide activity impinging 7 on their property and persons . 8 11 . Unless defendant County is enjoined from continuing 9 their course of conduct , plaintiffs will suffer irreparable 10 injury in that the economic value of plaintiffs ' property , now 11 at salvage value , will be totally extinguished and made valueless 12 for. all .purposes ; plaintiffs will be deprived of the comfor- 13 table enjoyTient of their properties ; and plaintiffs ' persons 14 and lives will be placed at untenable risk. 15 12 , Plaintiffs have no plain, ,speedy , or L-adequare:remedy- 16 at law, and injunctive relief is expressly authorized by Section 17 526 of the Code of Civil Procedure . 18 WHEREFORE plaintiffs pray judgment against defendants 19 as hereinafter set forth. 20 PLAINTIFFS MTLAIN OF THE DEFENDANTS AND ALLEGE THAT; 21 FOR A ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION [FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION] 22 AGAINST DEFENDANTS CITY OF SAN PABLO AND DOES THIRTY-SIX THROUGH 23 FORTY-FIVE , INCLUSIVE 24 1 . Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs One , Two , Seven, 25 Eight , and Eleven of: the ' General Allegations as though set forth 26 in full herein. 27 2 . Defendant City of Sar. Pablo (hereinafter "City") is 28 a public entity organized and existing under the laws of )-xf, 1 '24 - l! I State of California . 2 3 . Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege 3 that defendants DOES THIRTY-SIX THROUGH FORTY-FIVE , inclusive , 4 were the agents , servants and employees of each of their 5 co-defendants and were acting within the course and scope of 6 their authority as such agents , servants and employees with the 7 permission and consent of their co-defendants . 8 4 . On March 2 , 1983 , and at all times herein mentioned 9 plaintiffs were the owners of thirty-seven individual condo- 10 minium residences as set forth in Exhibit "A" as appended hereto. 11 Said properties were in a condominium development known as 12 Casa del Sol and were located within the City of San Pablo at 13 3430 San Pablo Dam Road. 14 S . Defendant City planned, approved, constructed, operated 15 and maintained a public roadway known as Hillcrest Road located 16 upslope from plaintiffs properties and to the south thereof. 17 6 . As a direct and necessary result of the plan , design , 18 maintenance and operation of Hillcrest Road, plaintiffs pro- 19 perties were subjected to the effects or- a massive landslide 20 and abnormal water runoff on March 2 , 1983 . Plaintiffs are 21 informed and believe and thereon allege that , as a direct and 22 necessary result of the construction , maintenance and operation 23 of Hillcrest Road by defendant City , plaintiffs properties 231 will continue to be subjected to landslides and abnormal water 25 runoff at various times . 2G� 7 . The above described damage to plaintiffs properties 271 was substantially caused by defendant City ' s actions in that 25` the fragile soil at the southern edge: of the 1illcrest roa y My k. ! I was subjected to surcharge loading by the considerable weight 2 of the embankment defendant City placed thereon . The aforesaid 3 embankment was not properly maintaL.ned, _repaired, --or._buttressed 4 for a roadway located at the top of a known slide area which 5 had been experiencing movement for a period of years prior to 6 the landslide of March 2 , 1983 . The design , maintenance and 7 operation of the Hillcrest roadway was also faulty in that 8 inadequate provision was made for the unnatural collection and 9 concentration of runoff waters by Hillcrest Road storm drainage 10 culverts and no other provision was made for controlling the 11 flow of water onto the downslope lands of plaintiffs . 12 S . As a result of the above described damage to plaintiffs 13 properties , plaintiffs have been damaged in the sum of SIX 14 MILLION DOLLARS ($6 , 000 , 000 . 00) . 15 9 . Plaintiffs have received no compensation for the damage 16 to their properties . 17 10 . Plaintiffs have incurred and will incur attorney ' s 18 appraisal and engineering fees because of this proceeding , in 19 amounts that cannot be ascertained, which are recoverable in 20 this action under the provisions of Section 1036 of the 21 Code of Civil Procedure. 22 WHEREFORE , plaintiffs pray damages as hereinafter set 23 forth. 241 PLAINTIFFS COIrLIP .AIN OF THE DEFEt4DANTS AND ALLEGE Tr.T; 25 FOR A T14ELTH CAUSE OF ACTION [FOR NEGLIGENT INSPECTION :.:;D 26 MAINTENr.NCE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY] AGAINST DEFENDANTS CITY OF SAN 27 PABL0 AND DOES THIRT:-SIX THROUGH FORTY-FIVE , INCLUSIVE . 28 11 I► 00 .. 1 l 1 1 . Plaintiffs incorporate each and every allegation of 2 Paragraphs One through Seven of the Sixth Cause of Action as 3 though set forth in full herein. 4 2. The defendants , and each of them, owed a duty to 5 plaintiffs as downslope property owners to reasonably inspect i 6 the Hillcrest Road embankment storm drainage culverts located ? adjacent to the embankment and the travelled roadway . Defendants i 8 owed plaintiffs a further duty of discovering and promptly 9 remedying dangerous defects or deficiencies discovered during 10 said reasonable inspections , 11. 3 . A reasonable inspection of the Hillcrest Roadway embank- 12 anent and the system of storm drainage culverts would have 13 disclosed the dangerous conditions posed by both the inadequately 14 maintained, repaired and buttressed roadway embankment and the 15 defective and inadequate system of storm drainage culverts . 16 4 . It was foreseeable that the major defects described P above would interfere with the stability of all downslope and 18 . adjacent lands in what was known by defendants to be a historic 19 and active landslide area . 20 5. Defendant City , despite the knowledge alleged in the 21 prior paragraphs and despite constructive notice of the aforesaid 22 dangerous conditions , negligently failed to inspect their public 23 roadways and its storm drainage culvert system or to remedy the 24 apparent defects in both . Defendants , and each of them, .by so 25 failing to inspect and remedy the roadway embankment and its 26 drainage sytem breached the duty they owed plaintiffs . 27 6 . As a proxz.mate cause of the failure of defendants 28 to conduct reasonable inspections and repairs on the Hilo 6es 1 l -27- I embankment and culvert , plaintiffs were damaged in that the 2 surcharge caused by the embankment and the considerable volume 3 of water artificially concentrated at the storm drainage 4 culverts undermined and weakened the soil . The undermined and 5 weakened soil gave way on March 2 , 1983 , in a major landslide 6 which flowed downslope onto the Casa del Sol development and 7 impacted against Building 3 . 8 7 . As a further proximate cause of the negligence of 9 defendants , and each of them, plaintiffs sustained economic 10 loss in the form of lost marketability and valuation of their 11 individual residences and the coDdemnation of Building 3 , all 12 to their damage in the sum of SIX MILLION DOLLARS ($6 , 000 , 000 . 00) . 13 WHEREFORE , plaintiffs pray judgment as hereinafter set 14 forth. 15 PLAINTIFFS CO:�TLAIN OF DEFENDANTS AND ALLEGE THAT; FOR 16 A THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION [FOR NUISANCE) AGaI14ST DEFENDANTS 17 CITY OF SAN PABLO p.1:D DOES THIRTY-SIX THROUGH FORTY-FIV£ 18 INCLUSIVE 19 1 . Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs One through Six of 20 the Sixth Cause of Action as though set forth in full herein. 21 2. Defendants , and each of them, are maintaining, and 22 at all times mentioned have maintained, Hillcrest roadway , in 23 such a manner that rain waters are obstructed and directed 24 from their natural waterway and are artificially diverted in. 25 �Igreat concentration into an artificial system of culverts . This 261 concentrated runoff is then allowed to escape down the slope 21 and onto the lands of plaintiffs . Repeated instances of- this ..8 id-;version saturate the _rag_le soils and generate landslides 00 1. 18 ,c . r I such as that which occurred on March 2 , 1983 . Defendants have 2 failed and neglected and still fail and neglect , to provide 3 proper facilities or any facilities for handling such diverted 4 waters so as to prevent both their overflow onto the downslope 5 proper-ties of plaintiffs and the settling earth movements below 6 the Hillcrest roadway . 7 3 . Defendants have failed and continue to fail to implement 8 corrective measures to stabilize the hillside so that the rainy 9 season of 1983-1984 will not produce further slide activity 10 and water damage to. plaintiffs ' properties . 11 4 . The aforementioned ogcupation , use and maintenance of 12 the Hillcrest Road by defendant City is a nuisance within the 13 meaning of Section 3479 of the Civil Code in that it interferes 14 with the comfortable use of plaintiffs ' property and is injurious 15 to plaintiffs health in that their land and condominium residences 16 are periodically threatened with flooding , damage , and destruction 1? by the acts and omissions of defendants . 18 S . On or about March 3 , 1983 , plaintiffs gave notice to 19 defendant City of the damage caused by the nuisance , . and re- 20 quested its abatement , but defendants , and each of them, have 21 refused and continue to refuse , to abate the nuisance . 22 6 . Defendant City has threatened to and will unless 23 restrained by this Court , continue to maintain the nuisance and 24 continue the acts complained of , and .-each and every act has 25 been , and will be , without the consent , against the will , and 26 in violation of the rights of plaintiffs . 27� 7 . As a proximate result of the nuisance , the value of 281 plaintiff ' s property. has been dit:;inished by SIX MILLION DOLLAR11 S� -29- i I Unless the nuisance is abated , plaintiffs property will be 2 further diminished in value . 3 B . As a further proximate result of the nuisance created q' by defendants , and each of them, plaintiffs have been hurt and 5 injured in their health, strength, and activity , sustaining l 6 injury to their nervous system and person , all of which injuries 7 have caused , and continue to cause , plaintiffs great mental , 8 physical and nervous pain and suffering . As a result of such 9 injuries , plaintiffs have suffered general damage in an 10 amount according to proof . H 9 . As a further proximate result of the nuisance created 12 by the defendants , and each of them, plaintiffs have incurred, 13 and will continue to incur , medical and related expenses in 14 an amount according to proof . 15 10 . Unless defendant C;isyi .is ..restrained.•by.. orderzof,:.this_ 16 Court , it will be necessary for plaintiffs to commence many 1,1 successive actions against defendants , and each of then, to 15 secure compensation for damages sustained, thus requiring a 19 multiplicity of suits , and plaintiffs will be periodically 20 threatened with flooding and landslide activity impinging on 21 their property and persons . 22 11 . Unless defendant City_is_enjoined_fr�m,:c-our�.u�iug:. 23 their course of conduct , plaintiffs will suffer irreparable 24 injury in that the economic value of plaintiffs ' property , now 25 at salvage value , will be totally extinguished and made valueless 26 for all purposes ; plaintiffs will be deprived of the comfortable 27 enjoyment of their properties ; and plaintiffs ' persons . and lives 28 will be placed at untenable risk. Ct ,-,� 1 12 . Plaintiffs have no plain , speedy , or adequate remedy 2 at law, and injunctive relief is expressly authorized by Section 3 526 of the Code of Civil Procedure . 4 WHEREFORE plaintiffs pray judgment against defendants as 5 hereinafter set forth. 6 PLAINTIFFS CO:QLAIN OF THE DEFENDANTS AND ALLEGE THAT ; 7 FOR A FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION [FOR NEGLIGENCE) AGAINST.- 8 DEFENDAIJTS SAN PABLO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND DOES FORTY-SIX 9 THROUGH FIFTY , INCLUSIVE 10 1. Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs One , Two , Nine , Ten 11 and Eleven of the General Allegations as though set forth in 12 full herein. 13 2 . Defendant Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Pablo , 19 (hereinafter "Agency") , is an administrative agency and public 15 entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of 16 California . 17 3 . Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege 18 that defendants Does Forty-Six through Fifty , inclusive were 19 the agents , servants and employees of each of their co-defendants 20 and were acting within the course and scope of their authority 2) as such agents , servants and employees with the permission 22 and consent of their co-defendants . 23 4 . At all times herein cited , defendant agency- was in 24 charge of evaluating parcels . of real property located within 25 the geographic limits of defendant City of San Pablo for 26 development and redevelopment . 27 5 . De:endant agency had a duty of authorizing the develop- 28 ment or redevelopment of only those parcels of new or improved I land which could be safely developed. Said duty was owed to 2 all purchasers and ultimate owners of the developed or. redeveloped 3 properties . 4 6 . Defendant agency knew at all times cited herein that 5 the geological and geophysical status of the raw land at I 6 3430 San Pablo Dam Road, San Pablo , California , was so precarious 7 as to make the property unsafe for development and hence 8 unbuildable . 9 7 . Despite the duty and knowledge set forth above , defendant . 10 agency authorized defendant both to proceed with plans for and 11 construction of a 33 unit condominium project known as Casas 12 del Sol and located at 3430 San Pablo Dam Road. Defendant agency 13 knew defendant Baldwin & Howell would thereafter sell the 14 properties to the public and that it -was foreseeable that I 15 the owners of individual condominium units would be damaged by 16 earthslide activity. 17 8 . Defendant agency breached its duty to plaintiffs on 18 or about 1978-1979 by authorizing the development for residential 19 housing of the unsafe lands described above . 20 9 . Plaintiffs purchased 37 of the 40 condominium units 21 from on or about September 1 , 1981 , through July 1983 , and 22 own the individual units described and set forth in Exhibit "A" 23 attached to this pleading . 24 10 . On March 2 , 1983 , a massive landslide occurred in the 25 hillside area above the Casas del Sol development with the 26 lower portion of the slide encroaching on and impacting against 27 Building 3 of said development . 28 � I /lI1-22 I i!) 1 11 . As a proximate cause . of the negligence of defendants , 2 and each of them, plaintiffs sustained economic loss in the form 3 of lost marketability and valuation of their individual resi- 4 dences and the condemnation of Building 1 , 2 and 3 , all to 5 their damage in the sum of SIX MILLION DOLLARS . 6 WHEREFORE , plaintiffs pray judgment as hereinafter set 7 forth. 8 PLAI14TIFFS COMPLAIN OF THE DEFENDANTS AND ALLEGE THAT ; 9 FOR A FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (FOR NEGLIGENCE) AGAINST 10 DEFENDANTS LELAND CUNNINGHAM AND DOES FIFTY-ONE THROUGH SIXTY , 11 INCLUSIVE , 12 1 . Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs One , Two , and Eleven 13 of the General Allegations as though set forth in full herein. 14 2 . Defendant LELAND CUNNINCHAM (hereinafter "Cunningham") 15 is , and at all times herein mentioned, was , the owner and in 16 possession of that real property situated in Contra Costa 17 County , located as follows : beginning with the east-west boundary 18 of Hillcrest Road, extending in a northerly direction (downhill) 19 and terminating on the southern and western borders of plaintiffs ' 20 property . 21 3 . Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege _ 22 that defendants Does Fifty-One through Sixty, inclusive , were 23 the agents , servants and employees and each of their co-defendants 24 and were acting within the course and scope of their authority 25 as such agents , servants , and employees with the permission and 26 consent of their co-defendants . 27 28 // 00 �.. � � 1 4 . The above described properties of plaintiffs and defen- 2 dant adjoin each other at plaintiffs ' southern and defendant ' s 3 northern boundaries . 4 5 . At all times herein mentioned defendant Cunningham . 5 owed. a_ duty to maintain the natural water course of the hillside 6 and to not artificially capture, concentrate and divert its 7 natural flow onto the lands of plaintiffs .- 8 G . It was foreseeable that an alteration of the natural 9 grade and water course onto plaintiffs ' lands would result in 10 periodic flooding of and damage to plaintiffs ' residences . 11 7 . Despite the aforesaid duty and knowledge , on or about 12 October, 1982 , defendant Cunningham breached its duty by negli- 13 gently obstructing and diverting the natural course of rain 14 water so that they entered plaintiffs ' lands and properties . 15 Defendant further breached by negligently failing to provide IG proper facilities for handling such diverted waters so as to 17 ,prevent their overflowage and seepage onto plaintiffs ' pro- I8 perties and the resulting damage to plaintiffs . 19 8 . As a proximate cause of defendant ' s inegligence , 20 plaintiffs experienced flooding and an enhanced susceptibility 21 to landslide and subsidence activity during the winter of 22 1982-1983 . The plaintiffs also experienced, as a further proxi- 23 mate cause of defendant ' s negligence , a great volume of rain 24 water and landslide debris on Larch 2., 1983 . 25 9 . As a further proximate cause of the negligence of 2G defendant Cunningham, plaintiffs sustained economic loss in the 27 I form of lost marketability and valuation of their individual 2811 residences and the condemnation, of Building ,3all to p later if L► � :: I natural flow onto the lands of plaintiffs . 2 6 . It was foreseeable that an alteration of the natural 3 grade and water course onto plaintiffs lands would result in q periodic flooding of and damage to plaintiffs residences . 5 7 . Despite the aforesaid duty and knowledge , on or about 6 October , 1982 , defendant Hallenbeck breached its duty by negli- 7 gently obstructing and diverting the natural course of rain 8 water so that they entered plaintiffs lands and properties . .. 9 Defendant further breached by negligently failing to provide 10 proper facilities for handling such diverted water so as to I1 prevent their overflowage and seepage onto plaintiffs properties 12 and the resulting damage to plaintiffs property . 13 8 . As a proximate cause of defendant ' s negligence , 14 plaintiffs experienced flooding and an enhanced susceptibility 15 to landslide and subsidence activity during the winter of 16 1982-1983 . The plaintiffs also experienced , as a further. 17 ,proximate cause of defendant ' s negligence , a great volume of 1'8 rain water and landslide debris on March 2 , 1983 . 19 9 . As a further proximate cause of the negligence of 20 defendant Hallenbeck, plaintiffs sustained economic loss in the 21 form of lost marketability and valuation of their individual 22 residences and the condemnation of Building 3 , all to plaintiffs ' 23 damage in the sum of SIX MILLION DOLLARS . 24 WHEREFORE , plaintiffs pray judgment as follows : 25 FOR THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 26 1 . For general damages in the sum of Six Million Dollars ; �-J 27 2. For punitive damages in the sum of Fourteen Million 28 Dollars ; 00 1 -36- l 3 . For costs of suit herein ; and 2 4 . For such other and further relief as the Court deems 3 proper. 4 FOR THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 5 A . For general damages in the suia of Six Million Dollars ; G 2 . For costs of suit herein ; and 7 3 . For such other and further relief as the Court deems S proper, 9 FOR THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 10 1 . For general damages in the sum of Six Million Dollars ; 11 2 . For costs of suit herein; and 12 3 . For such other and further relief as the Court deems 13 proper . 14 FOR THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTIO14 15 1 . For general damages in the sum of Six Million Dollars ; 16 2 . For costs of suit herein ; and 17 3 . For such other and further relief as the Court deems 16 proper. - 19 FOR THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 20 1 . For general damages in the sum of Six Million Dollars ; 21 2 . For costs of suit herein; and 22 3 . For such other and further relief as the --curt deems 23 proper . .24 FOR THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 25 1. For general damages in the sum of Six Million Dollars ; 26 2 . For costs of suit herein ; and 27 3 . For such other and further relief as the Court deems 231` proper : 1 I FOR THE SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 2 1 . For general damages in the sum of Six Million Dollars ; 3 2 . For costs of suit herein ; and 4 3 . For such other further relief as the Court shall deem 5 proper. G FOR THE EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 7 1 . For damages in the amount of Six Million Dollars with 8 interest thereon at the legal rate from the date of 9 damages ; 10 2 . For punitive damages in the sum of Fourteen Million 11 Dollars ; 12 3 . For reasonable attorney ' s., appraisal and engineering 13 fees according to proof ; 19 4 . For costs of suit herein incurred ; and 15 5 . For such other and further relief as the Court shall 16 deem proper. _ 17FOR THE NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION 18 1 . For a -preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining 19 defendants , and each of them, and 'their agents , servants 20 and employees , and all persons acting under, in concert 21 with, or for them, from continuing to operate and 22 maintain the public roadway known as Hillcrest Road 23 in such a manner as to pose a continuing threat and 24 danger to plaintiffs comfortable enjoyment of their 25 residence ; 26 2 . For general damages in the sum of Six Million Dollars ; 27 3 . For costs of suit herein incurred ; and 25 00 nr�) -38- 4 . For such other and further relief as the Court shall 2 deem proper. 3 FOR THE. TENTH, ELEVENTH, TWELTH, THIRTEENTH, FOURTEENTH, g FIFTEENTH and SIXTEENTH CAUSES OF ACTION 5 1 . For general damages in the sum of Six Million Dollars ; 6 2 . For costs of suit herein incurred; and 7 3 . For such other and further relief as the Court shall 8 deem proper. 9 10 DATED : 11 12 JOHN B . HALLBAUER 13 Attorney for Plaintiffs 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 00 1. 28 J