CCSF vs Regal Stone

8/14/2019 CCSF vs Regal Stone

1/18

"1m 1111'll

tl11'llllI'lf'l.1

1111

00111111mll'I'11II iii ill I l II IIi III lilllllU Iii IISan Francisco Superior CourtsInformation TechnologyGroup

Document Scanning Lead SheetDec102007 10:30 am

Case Number: CGC..07-469876Filing Date: Dec-10-2007 10:20

Juke Box: 001 Image: 01963232COMPLAINT

TYANDCOUNTYOF SAN FRANCISCO AND PEOPLE OF THE VS. REGAL STONE, LTl

001C01963232

Instructions:Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.


2/18

S U M ~ N S(C/TAeION JUDICIAL)NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:fAVIsa At . DEMANDAOOJ:n.EGAL STONE, LTD; FLEET M1\N1\GEMEl'rr LTD; UANJIN'SHIPPING co., LTD; SYNERGY MANAGEMENT SERVICES;SYNERGY MA'R.tNR T.TMtTF.n; ,TOHN ,T . rOTA, AN INDIV!DU.aL,and DOES 1 through 100

SUM100lO RCOURr USEOM.Y(SOLOPARAusaDeLACORTE)

rI

YOU ARE;BEING SUED BY PlAINTIFF:(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTEJ:CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AND PEOPLE OF THESTATE OF CALIFORNIA

You have 30 CAlENDARDAYS after this summons and legal papers are set'Yedon youto file a written response at thIs court and have acopy served on the plaintiff. A fetter Of phoM call wil l not protect you. Your written responsemust be In proper legal fonn If you want thecourt to hear your case. There may be court form that youcan use fo r your response. You can flnd these court forms and moreInformationat the California CourtsOnline Self-HelpCenter (www.courtlnfo.C8.gov/selfhe'p), your county la w library, Of' the courthousenearest you. If you cannot pay the flUng 'ee, ask the court clerk fora feewaiver form. If you do no t file your response on time, you maylos. th e cas. by default, and your wa g " , money, and propertymaybe takenwithout further wamlng from the court.There are other legal requirements. You maywant to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney,you maywant to call anattorney referral servlc If you cannot afford an attorney, you may N eUgtb1e for free legal services from a nonprofit legal servicesprogram. You can locat. the.. nonprofit groups at the California LegalServicesWeb site (www.lawhe1pealtfornla.org), the CaUfornfaCourts Online Self--HelpCenter (www.courtlnfo.ca.gov/selfhelp). Of' by contacting your local court O f county bar assoctatlon.

11ene30D1AS DE CALENDARIOdespws de que'e enhguen esta eltacldn y pape/es legales para presenta, una respuesta por escritoen esta eorle y hacer que se enhgue una eopla al demandant.. Unacarta 0 unall,mada "/ef6nlca no 10protegen. Su respuesta po r.scrito tlene que estar en formatolega' eorrecto sl desea que procesen su esse en la eorte. Es pos/bleque haya un formulario que ustedpueda usa'para su respuesta. Piled. eneontrar estos formularios dela corte y m ~ Informac/dn en elCentro de Ayuda de las Cortes deCalifoml. {www.courtlnfo.ca.govlselfhelplespanollJ.en.ablbllotec.de/eyes desu condado 0 en la corte que Iequede m ~ c e ~ a . SI nopuede pag., la cuot. de presentae/dn, plda al secretario de/a corte que Ie dIJun formulario d. exeneldn de pago de cuota$. SI no presentasu nspuesta II tlempo, puede ptrder.,caso por Incumpllmlento y la corte Ie pod" qultarsu sueldo, dinero y blenes sin m ~ advertenc/a.Hay otros requls/fos legales. Es recomendabl. quellame II un 'bogado Inmedlatamente. SI no conace a un abogtldo, puede "amar I unservlclo de rem/s/dn a abogados. SI no puede paga,a un Ibogado, es pos/bl. que cumpll con los nqufsltospara obtener servfeloslegales gratu/tos de un program. tH serv/c/os lega'essfn fines delucro. Puede encontrar estos gropos s/n tines tH lucro en e/s/tlo web deCal/fornl. LegalSewfces" (www.lawhe'pcarifom/a.0tT11,en eICentro deAyuda de las Cortes de Cat/fom/a,www.courtfnfo.ca.govlselfhelplespanoV) 0 pon"ndose en contaeto con la corte 0 el coleglo de aboThenameandaddressof thecourtIs: CASE N fEI nombre ydirecci6n de la corte es): INUmetodelC.so;'Superior Court ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~400 McAllister StreetSan Francisco CA 94102Unlimited Civil Jurisdict ion

II STr:r:>r::r:: e

Thename,address,and telephone numberof plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiffwithoutanattorney, is:fEI nombre, la direccl6n y el numero de te/6fono del abogado del demandante, 0 del demandante que no liene abogado, es):Thomas S. Lakritz (SBN 161234) 415-554-6547 415-554-4747Deputy City AttorneyCity Hall, Room 234, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlet t P lace~ A F r ~ n , . . i . e ( ' W ~ .. 9 4 : t . Q l ~ A ~ ~ ' DATE: DEC 10 ZUUl. {.:J\J1lMf rOI":.u Clerk,by ++-__ ,Deputy(Fecha) .. . (Secretarial (Adjunfo)

FOM'IAdopted forMandatOl'Y UH.b:lldafCJ'd 01ClIIlfcn'ltaSUM.100 (Rev. 1.2004J

3. D onbehatfof (specify):under. D CCP416.10(corporation)D CCP416.20(defunctcorporation)D CCP416.40(association or partnership)D other (specify):4. 0 by personal deliveryon (date):

SUMMONS

CJ CCP416.60 (minor)CJ CCP416.70 (conservatee)CJ CCP416.90 (authorized person)

..........__ - __- - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ . _ - - _ . --_.--. -. --------_._-. - - . - . ~ - - - - - - -


3/18

ATTORNEV OR PARfYWITHOUT ATTORNEY (NMIIJ. SUIt. 8 M ~ , Mtd NbU) ;omas S. Lakrit% (SBN 161234)Deputy City AttorneyCity Hall, Room 2341 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlet t P laceSan Francisco, CA 94102-4682'!''.~ l ! ~ . : 415-554-6547 F . I . " ' : ~ . :

A FOR Pa i n i nd ounSUPERIOR COURTOf CAlIFORNIA,COUNTY OFSan Franci seo

srnttTAClOM:ss:400 McAll i9 ter StreeLWI AnMF!t" SameCrTYANOZIPc6oE:San Francisco, CA! . I . ~ H : " . I I ! : U n l imt tp n Clvi 1 Ju r lAo ic t i cn

CASENAME: CCSF, e t a l . v , Regal Stone, Ltd. , e t a l .

ProvfslonallyComplex Civil LItigatIon(Cal.Rules ofCourt, rules 3.400-3.403)CJ AntitrusVTrade regutation(03)CJ Construction defect (10)CJ Masstort(40)CJ Securities litigation (28)DO EnvironmentaVToxie tort (30)o Insurancecoverage daims arising from theabovelistedprov;stonally complexcasetypes (41)Enforcement of Judgmento Enforcementof judgment(20)Miscellaneous Civil ComplaintCJ RICO(27)o Othercomplaint(not specifiedabove) (42)Miscellaneous Civil Petition

o Partnership andcorporategovernance(21)o Other petition(not specified above) (43)

Items 16 belowmust be co teted see instructions on

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation[XJ Unlimited U Umfted 0 Counter CJ Joinder~ ~ ~ ' : : d ~ ~ = ' ; , ' d ~ d is FI!cd\l:ft't first nppearnnco by defendantexceeds $25000 $25000or less (Cat. RulesofCourt. rule 3.402)

1. Check one ooxbelowfor the case type that best descnbes thts case:Auto Tort ContractCJ Auto (22) CJ Breach ofcontractlwarranty(OS)CJ UnInsuredmototist(46) CJ Rufe3.740conections(09)OtherPVPDIWD(persona' InJurylProperty 0 Other collections (09)DamageIWrongful Death)Tort 0 Insurancecoverage (18)CJ Asbestos (04) 0 Other contract (37)CJ ProductItability(24) Real Propertyc:J Medicalmalpractice(45) D Eminentdomalnl1nverseCJ OtherPIJPOI'ND (23) condemnation (14)Non.pWDtWD (Other) Tort D Wrongfulevfction (33)CJ Businesstort/unfairbusiness practice (07) 0 Other real property (26)c:J eMi rights (08) Unlawful DetaInerc::JDefamation (13) D Commerdal (31)c::J Fraud(16) 0 Residential (32)c:J Intenectuat property(19) 0 Drugs(38)c:J Professionalnegligence(25) Judicial Reviewc::J Othernon-PIJPONVD tort(35) 0 Asset forfeiture (05)Employment 0 Petidonre: arbitration award (11)CJWrongful termination(36) 0 Writof mandate (02)c::JOtheremployment(15) 0 OtherJudicial review (39)

2. Thiscase DO Is 0 Isnot complex underrufe3.400of theCalifornia Rutesof Court.If thecaseis complex,markthefactorsrequiring exceptional Judicial management:a. DO Largenumberof separately represented parties d. 00 large numberofwitnessesb. 00 Extensivemotionpractice raising difflCt.dtor novel e.DOCoordinationwithrelatedactions pending inoneormorecourtsissuesthatwinbe time--tofl3. Remedies sought(check a" that apply): a. 00 monetaryb.00 nonmonetary; declaratoryor Injunctive relief c. 0 [] punitive4. Numberof causesof action(specify):5. Thiscase c::J Is rn is not a classactionsuit.6. If thereareany knownrelated cases,file andservea noticeof relatedcase.(You may use form CM-015.) ID ~ t c : Deecr:-.bcr 10 , 2007 ....,.... , ...LThomas S, Lakritz (SBN 161234) ~ __ + - ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ __(TYPEOR PRINTNAME) NOTICE Plaintiffmustfnethiscoversheetwith thefirstpaperfiled in theactionor p eeding (except smallclaimscasesor casesfiledundertheProbate Code,FamilyCode,orWelfareandInstitutiOns Code).(Cat. RulesofCourt, rule3.220.) Failureto filemayresultin sanctions. Filethis coversheet in addition toanycoversheetrequired by localcourtrule, If this caseis complex underrule 3.400et seq.of theCalifornia Rulesof Court,youmustservea copyof this coversheeton anotherpartiesto theactionor proceeding. Unlessthis is a collections case underrule 3.740 or a complex case,this coversheetwill beused for statistical purposes only.Pa 1cUform AdOp!eG torMandatory useJudtClaf COl.lnClI 01 C a f ~CAHl10 lReY. ......, t. 2007}

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET eat. RuteI01Court. Aies 2.30. 3.220, 3t00-3."03, 3.7"0;U( QnS" eat. Standards01JuOO8l Admt1istnltion, Sid.3.10.-'IUS


4/18

MAY 0 9 2008 .gmAM1EPAmfENT2J2

...., ""14 I '" ..f . - ......'u. UL'" I U ,... '.1: ~ GOROOflPARK - LI, CLERK

D.STEPPEay" - ~ D ' : " : : p ' : ' : " : U ' ~ Y ~ C l : " ' : " U ~ . - . . : . . . A

SUMMONS ISSUED. ' FILEDS u ' r ~ I O R COURTCOUNT '( 0; SAN fR !.cHCISCac

COl\IPLAINT FOR DAl\fAGES, CIVILPENALTIES, AND INJUNCTIVERELIEF FOR:

6. UNJUST ENRICIIi\IENT7. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES

1. VIOLATION OFLEl\IPERT.KEENE.SEASTRAND OIL SPILLPREVENTION ANDRESPONSE ACT2. NEGLIGENCE3. NEGLIGENCE PER SE4. NUISANCE5. TRESPASS

(

SUPERIORCOURT OFTHESTATE OFCALIFORNIACOUNTY OFSANFRANCISCO

Plaintiffs,

Defendants.

vs,REGALSTONE, LTD; FLEETMANAGEMENT LTD;HANJINSHIPPING CO.,LTD; SYNERGYMANAGEMENT SERVICES;SYNERGY MARINE LIMITED; JOHNJ. COTA, AN INDIVIDUAL, ANDDOES ONE THROUGH 100,

UNLIMITED JURISDICTION LCGC-07-1J6987CITYANDCOUNTY OF SAN CaseNo. -FRANCISCO ANDPEOPLE OFTHESTATE OFCALIFORNIA,

..

t

Attorneys for Plaintiffs9 CITYANDCOUNTY OF SANFRANCISCO ANDPEOPLE OFTIlE STATE OFCALIFORNIA

DENNIS J. HERRERA t StateBar#139('()9CityAttorney2 THERESE M. STEWART, StateBar11104930ChiefDcputyCity AttorneyDO!-.lALD P. ivIARGOLIS, StateUar# I I M ~ I ST H O ~ 1 A S S. LAKRITZ, St:ltcDri 1612344 DeputyCity AttorneysCity Hall, Room2341Dr.CarltonB.Goodlett PlaceSanFrancisco, California 94102-46826 Telephone: (415)5546547Facsimile: (415) 554-47477 EMail: [email protected]

8

5

2122232425262728

1011121314151617181920

1COMPLAINT, CASE NO. n:'govem\as2007'(J8002 t9'(J04S42t2.doc


5/18

( c2 I.

INTRODUCTIONOn the morning0 fNovember 7, 2007, theM/V CoscoBusan, a 65,131-ton,900-foot

3 long container ship, departedthe PortofOaklandandheaded for thePacificOcean,bound for4 South Korea. TIleJ31-footwide ship was required to pass througha 2,200-foot openingbetween5 two towerbases supportingthe westernspanof the SanFrancisco-Oakland BayBridge. The ship6 failedto navigatesuccessfully through this almostone-halfmilewide gap. Instead, at about8:307 a.m., the ship hit the baseof the "D," or "Delta" Tower, tearing a gash in the port sideof the ship'sS hull, rippingopen fuel tanks on the ship and releasing about 58,000 gallonsof heavybunkerfuel9 into theSanFranciscoBay.10 2.: The releaseof the fuel fouled theBaywaters, killing or injuringat least 2,200birds,11 aswell as marinemammals, fish, invertebrates andother marineorganisms,damagingproperty12 alongthe SanFrancisco waterfrontcontrolled, managed,maintained,and regulated by San13 Francisco,harmingthe livelihoodsof the fishermen who dependon craband other sea life in and14 about the Bay, impairingthepublic'senjoyment of the recreationalopportunities affordedby the15 Bay,and compellingSan Francisco and its taxpayers to expendsubstantial sumsofmoneyfor the16 deploymentofCitypersonnelfor investigation, remediation, andmonitoringofenvironmental17 conditions.18 3. In this action, the City and CountyofSan Franciscoseekscompensation for all of its19 costs of investigating andrespondingto this catastrophic andwholly avoidableoil spill, including,20 without limitation, the costs incurred to assessthe extentof the damage,mobilizeand train21 volunteers, remedydamagescausedby the spiny andmonitorconditions forcontinuingimpactsof22 the spill. The Cityalso seeks to recover for thedamage to natural resourcesandto recreational23 opportunities. The City also requestsinjunctive relief to requiredefendants todevelopand24 implementa planto assess, remediate, andmonitor for as longas is necessary, all harmtoproperty,25 marinelife, andrecreational interestscausedbydefendants'catastrophicblunder. The-City26 Attorneyin additionseekscivil penaltieson behalfof the Peopleof theStateofCaliforniafor27 defendants'violationofa hostof lawsdesigned to protect the delicatemarineenvironment in and28 about the Bay.

2C O ~ 1 P L A I N T , CASE NO. n:\govem\as2001\0800219\004S4212.doc


6/18

Venue is properin this Court,becausethe spill,discharge, andviolationof laws12 4.

rVENUE

(

3 occurred, in part,in theCity andCountyof San Francisco, and becausedefendantsat all relevant4 timeshave donebusinessin the City andCountyofSan Francisco. (Gov. Code. 8670.59.)5 PARTIES6 5. PlaintiffCITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ("SanFrancisco," or "the7 City") is amunicipal corporation dutyorganized and existingunder the Jaws of the Stateof8 California. Underthe BurtonAct, Stars, 1968, ch, 1333, SanFrancisco, actingby andthrough the9 PortofSan Francisco andotherCity departments or agencies, hasat all relevant timeshadcomplete10 authority to use,operate, maintain,manage, regulate, improve, and control the Port and facilities1I alongapproximately 7.5milesof the easternand northern waterfront ofSan Francisco, adjacentto12 the San Francisco Bay.13 6. PlaintiffTHE PEOPLE OF TilE STATE OF CALIFORNIA C'thePeople")14 appearby and throughDennisJ. Herrera, SanFranciscoCity Attorney, whoasserts theseventhIS causeof action forpenaltiesunderBusinessand Professions Codesection 17200,as authorized by16 Businessand Professions Codesection17204. The Cityhas a populationin excessof750,000 as17 determinedby theDemographic Research Unit of theStateofCatifomia's Department ofFinance.18 7. Plaintiffs are informed andbelieve andon that basisallegethat defendantREGAL19 STONE, LTD. is, andat all relevanttimeswas, the owner,operatoror time-charterer 0 f theCosco20 Busan,and that thisdefendant has at all relevant timesdonebusiness in the StateofCalifomia by21 allowingits operation in Californiawaters,22 8. Plaintiffs are informed and believe andon thatbasisallegethat defendant FLEET23 1\IANAGEl\IEl''TLTD., whichmaybeotherwise knownas FleetShipManagement, Inc.24 (hereafter,"FleetManagement Ltd."), is, and atall relevant timeswas, the operator,or sub..25 manager,of theCoscoBusan, andthat this defendant hasat all relevanttimesdonebusiness in the26 State ofCaHfomiaby operatingthe ship inCalifornia waters.27 9. Plaintiffs are informed andbelieve andon that basis allegethatdefendantIIANJIN28 SHIPPING CO., LTD. is, andat all relevant timeswas, the ownerof the spilledbunker fuel,

3C O ~ 1 P L A I N T , CASE NO.

------------------- -------


7/18

( (and/orthe owner,operator,or chartererof the ship, and that this defendanthas at all relevanttimes

2 done business in theStateofCalifomia.10. Plaintiffsare informedand believe andon that basis allegethat defendant

4 SYNERGY l\tANAGEl\IENT SERVICES is, and at all relevanttimes was. an agentofdefendant5 RegalStone,Ltd.,and therefore that this defendant has at all relevanttimes donebusinessin the6 StateofCalifomia,and at all relevant times actedwithin thecourseand scopeof its agency.7 11. Plaintiffsare informedandbelieveandon that basis allegethat defendantS SYNERGY i\IARINE I..Tl\IITED is, and at all relevanttimeswas, an agent of defendantRegal9 Stone,Ltd.,and that this defendanthas at all relevanttimesdonebusinessin the StateofCalifornia,

10 and at all relevanttimes actedwithin the courseand scopeof its agency.11 12. Plaintiffsare informedand believeand on that basis allegethat defendantJOliN J.12 COTA is an individual residingin SonomaCounty, California,and'vas piloting theship at the time13 of the incident.14 13. Eachof the above-named defendants is liablefor the torts, breaches,andother15 wrongsof theothers, andwasactingwithin thecourseandscopeof itsor his employment or16 agency.17 14. The true names or capacities,whetherindividual, corporate,associate, or otherwise,18 ofDOEI through DOE100are unknown to plaintiffs. whothereforesue such defendants by such19 fictitious names,andwho will amend this complaint to showtheir true names and capacitieswhen20 ascertained. Plaintiffsare is informedand believeand thereonallegethat eachof the defendants21 designated as aDOE is responsible in somemannerfor the wrongsherein referredto and thereby22 proximatelycausedinjuries anddamagesas alleged herein.23 FACTS24 15. Plaintiffsare informed and believe, andon thatbasis allege, the following facts: The25 MN CoscoBusanis a 6S, t 31toncontainership, longerthan900 feet,constructed in or about26 2001. On November 7, 2007,the ship departed the PortofOakland,boundforSouthKorea. It was27 required to follow a routine routethroughtheSanFrancisco BaytowardtheGoldenGate. That28 route included passingbeneath the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. The ship's pilot intendedto

4C O ~ P L A I N T , CASE NO. n:\govem\as200r.oSOO2I9'OO4S42 I2.doe


8/18

( (steer between two bases supporting towers on the west span of the bridge. The spans were 2,200

2 feet apart. The ship was only 13 t feet wide. The pilot of the ship - defendant John J. Cola- failed3 to dear the "Delta" tower west ofVerba Buena Island and, as a result, the ship collidedwith the4 fender of the towerbase.5 16. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe, and on that basis allege, the following6 facts: The ship's collision with the tower base fender created a deep gash in the hull, tearing open7 tanks carrying bunker fuel. Approximately 58,000 gallons ofbunker fuel poured out of the ship8 into the Baywaters.9 17. The bunker fuel, a heavy, viscous and toxic substance, killed thousands of sea birds,10 fouled beaches and wildlife habitats, threatened the livelihood of fishermen who depend on their11 catch of crabs and other sea life, and impaired boating, swimming, recreational fishing, walking or12 jogging and other suchopportunities for members of the public to use and enjoy the fouled beaches,13 piers, wharves, and other facilities.14 18. As an actual and legal result of the spill, the public was prevented from enjoying theIS use of several beaches and San Francisco Port facilities, includingwharves and piers, because of the16 risk of exposure to hazardous materials, bodily injury and property damage. The beaches included,17 without limitation, Baker Beach, CrissyField, and China Beach.18 19. The opening of the crab season, and all other fishing, were postponed, becauseof the19 human health risks presented by consumption of sea animals taken from or through the20 contaminated waters.21 20. PlaintiITSan Francisco has sustained, and will continue to sustain, economic22 damage. This damage includes, without limitation, the costs and expenses associated with:23 a. Establishing an incident command post at Treasure Island to organize, on an ongoing24 basis, activities in response to the spill ('tresponse activities"), assessment ofdamage,2S and monitoring;26 b. Committing time, labor, and materials to identifying, assessing and cleaning up San27 Francisco property damaged by the oil spin, containing the oil slick caused by the28

5C O ~ 1 P L A I N T , CASE NO. n:\8ovc:m'as200l'.o800219'.()()4S4212.doc

- ' ~ - - ...._- - - - - - - - -_ ..._--_._.- - ----- - - - . - ._---_. - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - -


9/18

( (12

456789101112131415 21.

spill,monitoringforcontinuingdamage and otherwiseminimizingandmitigatingfurtherdamage;

c. Engagingfishermen and their vessels in the effort to cleanup oil and attempt to saveafflicted sea life, in the immediate aftermathof the oil spilt;

d. Recruiting, trainingand supervising volunteers to performcleanup activitiesandtasks tomitigateandminimizedamageto natural resources, includingbeaches andwildlife;

e. PayingSanFranciscoemployees for their time respondingto the oil spilt, whichtemporarily precludedthese employees' performanceof regularjob duties;

f. Payingemployeesof the Port ofSan Franciscowho wereunable to occupyPortoffices in the immediate aftermath of the spill in order to performtheir regularjobduties; and

g. Impressing San Francisco employees intoperformingdutieson anovertimebasis torespondon an urgentbasis to thecrisis createdby the oil spill.PlaintiffSan Francisco has sustained, and witt continueto sustain,additional

16 economicdamage. This damageincludes, without limitation,the loss of:17 a. Anticipated rents, berthing,dockage andother fees,tax revenuesand profit shares18 from fishing activities;19 b. Anticipated incomefromcanceled commuter ferrytrips andpleasureexcursions,20 includingthoseto Alcatraz andAngel Islands;21 c. Anticipated parkingticket revenues that could notbe collectedbecauseof the22 deploymentofSanFranciscoparkingcontrolofficers to non revenue-producing23 duties; and24 d. Anticipated tax revenues associated with impactsto tourismand business25 interruption of tenantsand lessees of the PortofSan Francisco.26 22. PJaintiffSan Francisco andthePeopleof theStateofCatifornia also have sustained27 damagethrough lossof the use andenjoyment of recreational andother opportunities affordedby28 the natural resourcesdamagedor threatened by the spilt, including, withoutlimitation,the useof

6C O ~ i P L A J N T , CASE NO.

- - - - _ . _ - - - - ~ ~ ~ - - - - - . ~ . _ - - - _ . _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


10/18

publicbeaches,wharves,piers, pedestrianandbicycle paths,marinas,and seawalls, This damageincludes,without limitation,lossesarising from:

a. Preventionoi the use ofSanFrancisco marinasand harbors by recreational boaters;b. Preventionof the useofAquatic Park,publicbeaches,pedestrianandbicyclepaths,

andotherSan Franciscomarineenvironmentsby pedestriansandbicyclists,swimmers,bathers,and waders, includingcancellationof the plannedswim from

234567891011121314 23.

(

Alcatrazto AquaticPark;c. Cancellationof theplanned triathlon at Treasure Island;andd. Prevention ofrecreational andsubsistencefishingoffofSan Francisco piers and

wharves.FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION(Damages And Civil Penalties Under Lempert-Keene-SeastrandOil Spill Prevention and Response Act)(Against An Defendants)

Plaintiffsreallegeand incorporate by referenceparagraphs1 through22 of this15 Complaint.16 24. The Lempert-Keene-SeastrandOil Spill PreventionandResponseAct,Government17 Code sections8670.1,et seq. ("theAct")providesthat "[a]nyresponsible party,as defined in18 Section8670.3 [of theGovernment Code], shallbe absolutely liablewithoutregardto fault forany19 damages incurredby any injuredpartywhichariseout of, or are causedby, the dischargeor leaking20 of oil intoor ontomarinewaters," (Gov.Code, 8670.56.5, subd. (a).)21 25. "Responsible parties" include"[he owner or transporter of oil or a personor entity22 acceptingresponsibility for the oil;" and "theowner,operator,or lesseeof, or personwho charters23 bydemise, any vessel .. or a personor entityacceptingresponsibility for the vessel .." (Gov.24 Code, 8670.3, subd. (w).)25 26. As theowner, operator, lessee, or charterer by demiseof the vesselandowner or26 transporterof the oil of the discharged oil, defendant RegalStoneLtd. is a responsible party that is27 absolutelyliableunder the Act.28

7C O ~ i P L A [ N T , CASE NO.

---------------n:\Stwem\U2007\0800219\004542I2.doc:


11/18

( (1 27. As the owner, operator, lessee, or charterer by demise of the vessel and owneror2 transporter of the discharged oil, defendant Hanjin Shipping Co" Ltd. is a responsible party that is3 absolutelyl iable under the Act.4 2R. A the owner, operator, lessee, or chartererby demise of the vessel. defendant Fleet5 Management Ltd. is a responsible party that is absolutely liable under the Act.6 29. As the owner, operator, lessee, or charterer by demise of the vessel, defendant7 Synergy Management Services is a responsible party that is absolutely liable under the Act.8 30. As the owner, operator, lessee, or charterer by demise of the vessel, defendant9 Synergy Marine Limited is a responsible party that is absolutely liable under the Act.10 31. As the transporter of the oil and the person accepting responsibility for the oil and for11 the vessel, defendant John J. Cota is a responsible party who is absolutely liable under the Act.12 32. The bunker fuel that was discharged from the vessel is "oil" within the meaningof13 the Act, which defines "oil" as "anykind of petroleum, liquid hydrocarbon, or petroleum products14 or any faction or residues therefrom, including .. . bunker fuel .." {Gov. Code, 8670.3, subd,15 (n).)16 33. The San Francisco Baywaters are "marinewaters" within the meaning of the Act,17 because the Bay is "subject to tidal influence." (Gov. Code, 8670.3, subd. (i).)18 34. On November 7,2007, defendants discharged or leaked bunker fuel into the San19 Francisco Bay, and are therefore absolutely liablewithout regard to fault for an damages that20 plaintiffs sustained orwill sustain.21 35. The Act entitles a plaintiff to recover a broad variety of damages, including.. without22 limitation, the costs of investigation, response, containment, removal and treatment; damages for23 injury to, or economic tosses resulting from destruction ofor injury to real or personal property; lost24 taxes, royalties, rents, or net profit shares caused by the injury; destruction, loss, or impairment of25 use of real property, personal property, and natural resources. (Gov. Code, 8670.56.5, subd. (h).)26 36. In addition to those damages, alleged above, in any action brought by a county or27 city, the Act entitles such an entity to recover:28

8C O ~ 1 P L A I N T , CASE NO. --------- n:\govcm\as2007\OSOO219'()()4 S42I2.doc


12/18

r ct a. Damages for injuryto, destruction or loss o natural resources,including,but not2 limited to, the reasonablecostsofrehabiJitatingwildlife,habitat,andother resources3 and the reasonablecostsorassessing that injury,destructionor loss. (Gov.Code, 4 8670.3,subd. (h)(3): and5 b. Damages for lossofuse and enjoyment ofnatural resources,publicbeaches,and6 other public resourcesor facilities. (Gov. Code, 8670.3,subd.(h)(7).)7 37. The civil r emediesprovidedin theAct are "separateand in addition to, anddo not8 supersedeor limit,any and all other remedies, civil or criminal," (Gov.Code, 8670.61.)9 38. Plaintiffssustained a variety of formsofdamagerecoverableunder theAct, in10 excessof thejurisdictionallimit of this Court,including,withoutlimitation,eachof the forms of11 damagealleged in paragraphs20 through 22, above.12 39. The Act furtherprovidesthat "[a]nypersonwho intentionallyor negligentlydoes13 anyof the following acts shan be subjectto a civilpenaltyofnot Jess than twenty-fivethousand14 dollars ($25,000) or more than fivehundredthousand dollars (S500,000) foreach violation,and15 eachday or partial day that a violationoccursis a separateviolation: .. Discharges or spillsoil into16 marinewaters, unless the dischargeis authorized by the UnitedStates,thestate,or other agency17 withappropriatejurisdiction. {Gov. Code, 8670.66, subd. (a)(3).)18 40. The Act furtherprovidesthat [e]xcept as providedin subdivision(a), anyperson19 who intentionallyor negligentlyviolates any provisionof [theAct] .. or any permit,rule,20 regulation,standard,or requirement issuedor adoptedpursuantto those provisions,shallbe liable21 for a civil penaltynot to exceedtwo hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) for each22 violationof a separateprovision,or, forcontinuingviolations, foreach day that violation23 continues." (Gov.Code, 8670.66, subd.(b).)24 41. Plaintiffsare informed andbelieve that defendants committed a violationof the Act,25 within themeaningofsections 8670.66, subdivisions (a) and (b), by discharging or spillingbunker26 fuelintothe watersof the Bay,whicharemarinewaters, Eachday or partial day thatthe oil has27 remainedandwin remaininmarinewaters constitutes anadditional violation.28

9COMPLAINT, CASE NO. n : ' g o \ l e m ~ 2 0 0 7 \ 0 8 0 0 2 1 9 \ O ( ) . $ S 4 2 1 2 .doe


13/18

( (1 42. Defendants arethereforeliable forcivil penaltiesunderGovernment Code section2 \8670.66 according to proof.345 43.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION(Damages For Negligence)(AgainstAn Defendants)Plaintiffsreallegeand incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through42 of this

6 Complaint.7 44. Defendants oweda dutyof reasonable andordinarycare to plaintiffs, whichrequired8 them to operatethe ship in a safemannerso as to avoidthe injuriesallegedherein.9 45. Defendants breached theirdutyofcare to plaintiffs innumerousrespects. Examples10 of theirbreach include, but arenot limited to, the following actsor omissionsofdefendantCota:11 a. Attempting to sail the ship in theBay in foggyconditions that limited visibilityto no12 greaterthan 1/10ofa mile;13 b. Proceeding ona coursein the Baywith insufficient information aboutthe levelof14 visibility;15 e. Proceeding at a speed thatwasexcessivefor thecircumstances;16 d. Failingto useall available resources to maximize safetyandminimizethe riskofan17 incident, including a tugboat,theVesselTrafficServiceof the CoastGuard,and the18 ship's lookout;19 e. Failingto be fuUy acquaintedwithandable to operatethe ship's navigation system;20 and21 f. Failing, ul?on beinginformedbytheCoastGuardthat the vesselwason a coursethat22 would result in a collision with the bridge, to heed thatwarning and to stopor23 reversecourseuntil the location and courseof thevesselcouldbe ascertained with24 certainty.25 46. Becausedefendant John J. Cola was at an relevant timesactingwithin the courseand26 scopeof his employment or agencyforeach of the otherdefendants, each suchotherdefendant is27 liableforthe actsand omissions ofdefendant Cota on thebasisof respondeat superior.28

10C O ~ f P L A J N T , CASENO.


14/18

( (

2TIIIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

( L t ! m 1 ' ! ~ ~ ~ Fnr N ~ ~ U ~ e ! 1 c e Per Se)(Against All Defendants)4i . Plaintiffs reallege and incorporateby reference paragraphs I through 46 of this

4 Complaint.5 48. Defendants violated severalstatutes, ordinances, or regulations, including, without6 limitation, the following statutes and implementing and related regulations and ordinances:789101112131415161718

a. Government Code, 8670.25b. Government Code, 86iO.2S.Sc. Government Code, 8670.27d. Government Code, 867056.5;e. Government Code, 8670.57;f. Government Code, 8670.58;g. GovernmentCode, 8670.62h. Government Code, 8670.64i. Government Code, 8670.66;j. Government Code, 8670.67.5;k. Government Code, 8670.69;J. Fish& GameCode, 5650;

19 m, Fish& GameCode, 12015;20 n. Harbors & Navigation Code, 133;21 o, WaterCode, 13350, subd, (a)(3); and22 p. WaterCode, 13271, subds, (a) & (c).23 49. Defendants' violation ofstatutes, ordinances, or regulations actually and legally24 caused injuryandotherharmto plaintiffs, as alleged herein.25 50. Plaintiffs' harm resulted from anoccurrence of thenature that thesestatutes,26 ordinances, or regulations weredesigned to prevent.27 51. Plaintiffs aremembers of the class of personsforwhose protection the statutes,28 ordinances, or regulations wereadopted.

11COMPLAINT. CASENO. n:'sovcm\u200ro800219"OO4,4212.doc


15/18

( (12

52.4 Complaint.

FOURTJI CAUSE OF ACTION( D ~ n n ~ 2 e s For AI'''"' A h ~ f t ' m e ! ! t ofNuisance)(Against All Defendants)

Plaintiffs reallegeand incorporate by referenceparagraphs 1 through51of this

5 53. Defendants' conductas allegedhereinconstituteda use of theSanFranciscoBayin6 sucha manneras to constitute a privateand public nuisance. The particularconductconstitutinga7 nuisanceis thedischarge ofapproximately 58,000 gallonsofbunker fuel into theBayenvironment.8 54. Defendants' creationof thenuisancewas the resultofunsafe,negligent,unnecessary,9 unreasonable, and injurious methodsofoperation of their business.10 55. Defendants' conductconstitutesa privatenuisancewithin themeaningofSection11 3479of theCivilCode,anda publicnuisancewithinthe meaningofsection3490et seq.of the12 CivilCode.13 56. TheconductofwhichSanFrancisco complains is specialtyinjuriousto San14 Franciscoas thepartywithcomplete authority to use, conduct,operate,maintain,manage, regulate,15 improve, andcontrolpropertyat andabout theSan Francisco waterfront including, without16 limitation, propertywithinthejurisdictionofthePortofSanFrancisco.17 57. Despiteabundant noticeand demands, defendants have failed and refused,and18 continueto fail and refuse,to completelyinvestigate, assess,monitor,and abatethe nuisance.19 58. Defendants have threatened to andwill, unless restrained by thisCourt,continueto20 maintainthe nuisance andcontinuethe actscomplained of, and eachandevery act has been, and21 will bet without theconsent,against thewill, and in violation ofplaintiffs' rights.22 59. Asanactualandproximateresult of thenuisancecreatedbydefendants, plaintiffs23 havebeen, andwill be, damaged in an amount tobe determined, inexcessof thejurisdictional limit24 of thisCourt.25 60. Unless defendants are restrained by orderof this Court,it willbe necessaryfor26 plaintiffs tocommencemanysuccessive actions againstdefendants to securecompensation for27 damagessustained, thus requiringamultiplicityof suits,and thegeneral publicwillbedaily28 threatened withharmto theirhealth.safety,andrecreational interests.

12COMPLAINT,CASENO.

, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ' - - _ . ' -


16/18

( (61. Plaintiffshave noplain, speedy, or adequateremedyat law, and injunctiverelief

2 requiring immediate abatementof the nuisanceis expresslyauthorizedby Sections526 and 731 of3 the Code ofCivil Procedure. Plaintiffsare entitled to an injunctionrequiringdefendantsto devise4 and implementa plan to investigate, assess.. contain.remediate, and monitoron an ongoingbasis, all5 harmto San Franciscowaterfrontproperty,marine life,and recreational interests at and about the6 waterfrontabuttingthe Bay, and the beaches along the Bay and PacifieOcean.7 62. Inmaintainingthe nuisance,defendants are actingwith fullknowledgeof the8 consequences anddamagebeingcaused,and theirconduct is willful,oppressiveandmalicious;9 accordingly, the City is entitled to punitivedamages againstdefendants.101112 63.

FIITII CAUSE OFACTION(Trespass)(AgainstAll Defendants)Plaintiffsreallegeand incorporate by referenceparagraphs 1 through62 of this

13 Complaint.14 64. PlaintiffSan Franciscohas complete authorityto use,conduct,operate,maintain,15 manage,regulate,improveandcontroltheSanFranciscoPort, includingwithout limitation property16 conveyedto San Franciscoin trust pursuantto the BurtonAct andother propertyheld in feeby the17 City, and its facilities harmedor threatened by defendants'conduct, includingpiers, wharves,18 pedestrian paths,seawalls,riprap,andmarinasand harbors andtheir associated landsidefacilities19 ("theproperty").20 65. Beginning on November7,2007, andcontinuingto the presenttime, defendants,21 without San Francisco's consent, trespassed onthepropertyby causing thebunker fuelspill to22 occur,failing toprevent the migrationof the spined fuel,and failingto removethe spilledproduct23 from themarineenvironment,despite abundant notification of its obligation andopportunityto24 perform.25 66. Asan actualand legal resultof thetrespass,SanFrancisco has been and continuesto26 be damaged in an amountto be determined, inexcessof thejurisdictionallimitof this Court.27 I I I28

13COMPLAINT, CASENO. n : ' g o v c m \ a s 2 0 0 7 \ 0 8 0 0 2 ' 9 ' O O 4 S ~ 2 1 2 . d o c


17/18

( c12

67.

SIXTII CAUSE OF ACTION{Unju!t Enrichment}(Against All Defendants)Plaintiffsreallegeand incorporate by reference paragraphs1 through 66of this

4 Complaint.5 68. The volunteerswhomSan Francisco recruited, trainedand supervised perfonned6 hundredsor thousands of hoursofservice, including, withoutlimitation, retrieving, treatingand7 savingoiled birds and othermarinelife, cleaningup fouled beachesandothercoastal property.8 69. Thevolunteerserviceconstituted a benefit to defendants, whowereobligatedby law9 to perfonn thework that the volunteers performed,10 70. Defendants have unjustlyretained andbeen enrichedby the benefitof the volunteers'11 service,at the expenseofSan Francisco.12131415

71. Defendantsmustdisgorgeto plaintiffs their unjustly retained benefit.SEVENTJI CAUSE OF ACTION

(Unfair Business Praetlees Act, Bus. & Profs. Code, 17200)(Against All Defendants)72. The Peoplereallegeand incorporate by referenceparagraphs 1 through71 of this

16 Complaint.17 73. Section 17200 of theBusiness andProfessions Codeprovidesthat unfaircompetition18 shall meanand includeany"unlawful,unfair, or fraudulent businessact or practicesand unfair,19 deceptive, untrueormisleading advertising."20 74. Eachof thedefendants' acts al1eged hereinwasunlawful, unfair, and fraudulent,21 within the meaning, and in violation, of section 17200.22 75. Violations ofstatutes,ordinances, or regulations constituteunlawful actswithinthe23 meaningofsection17200. Suchprovisions thatdefendants violatedinclude, without limitation, the24 statutes,ordinances and regulations allegedinparagraph 48, above.25 III26 III27 III28

14C O ~ P L A I N T , CASENO.

.,---.-.._ ~ - _ . _ .._._-_._-- ..._- - - -_._------- - - - _ ..- ------


18/18

... . .. ( (1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF2 Wherefore, plaintiffspray forjudgmentagainstdefendantsas follows:

1. Fordamagesin excessof the jurisdictional limitof this Court, in an amount to be4 determined at trial, including, without limitation, all damages necessaryto compensate forthe5 economic,real property, Joss ofuseandenjoyment andnaturalresourcedamageallegedherein;6 2. Foran injunction requiringdefendants to abate thenuisanceanddeviseand7 implementa planto investigate, assess,monitor, containand remediate, on an ongoingbasis, all8 llano (0 San Francisco waterfront property,marine life,and recreational interestsat and about the9 waterfrontabuttingtheBay, and thebeachesalongtheBayandPacificOcean.10 3. Foran order requiringdefendants todisgorgeto plaintiffs thevalueof all unjustly11 retainedbenefits flowing from thecommitment ofvolunteers' remediation activitiesin response to12 the spill;13 4. Forcivil penaltiesunderGovernment Codesection8670.66, Businessand14 Professions Codesection 17206, andanyotherapplicable law;15 5. For an awardof reasonable costsandattorney's feesunderGovernment Codesection16 8670.56.5, subdivision (0; CodeofCivil Procedure section1033.5; andany other applicable law;1718

5.6.

Forpunitivedamages; andFortrial by jury ofall issuessotriable.

19 Dated: December10, 2007202122232425262728

C O ~ f P L A I N T . CASENO.

DENNIS J. HERRERACityAttorneyTHERESE M.STEWARTChiefDeputyCityAttorneyDONALD P. ivlARGOLISTHOMAS S. LAKRITZDeputyCityAtto eys

Attorneys forPlaintiffsCITY ANDCOUNTY OFSAN FRANCISCO; andthePEOPLE OFTHE STATEOFCALIFORNIA15

n : \ g o v e m \ a s 2 0 0 1 \ 0 8 0 0 2 1 9 \ 0 0 4 ~ 2 1 2 . d o c

Documents

CCSF vs Regal Stone