ML033180090

Declaration of Jennifer A. Becker in Support of City of Oakland and Port of Oakland'S Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay

ML033180090
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	10/23/2003
From:	Becker J - No Known Affiliation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, US Federal Judiciary, Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of California
References
01-30923 DM
Download: ML033180090 (33)

Text

K> K)~~~~~I I JUAN C. ARANEDA State Bar #213041 JENNIFER A. BECKER State Bar #121319 2 LONG & LEVIT LLP 601 Montgomery, Suite 900 3 San Francisco, CA 94111 TEL: (415) 397-2222 FAX: (415) 397-6392 4

Attorneys for Movants 5 CITY OF OAKLAND and PORT OF OAKLAND 6

7 8 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

.9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 11 In re CASE No. 01-30923 DM PACIFIC GAS AND ELIECTRIC 12 COMPANY, a California Corporation, Judge: Hon. Dennis Montali 13 Debtor. DECLARATION OF JENNIFER A.

BECKER IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF 14 OAKLAND AND PORT OF OAKLAND'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM 15 AUTOMATIC STAY 16 Date: November 26, 2003 Time: 1:30 p.m.

17 Dept: 22 18 19 I, Jennifer A. Becker, do hereby declare:

20 1. I am an attorney duly admitted and licensed to practice law in the State of 21 California and the United States Northem District of California, and am a member of the firm 22 Long & Levit LLP, attorneys for defendants City of Oakland and Port of Oakland (collectively 23 "Oakland') in Alameda County Superior Court Case No.2001-023981.

24 2. The Plaintiff in the state court action is the Brotherhood of Teamsters And 25 Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70 (the "Teamsters"). The Teamsters allege to have sustained 26 property damage and business interruption from March through June 21, 2000, stemming from 27 the 98th Avenue improvement and widening project commenced by Oakland.

28 LONG &LEVIT LLP 1 "IuMONTGOMERY STaUR SUMT 900 DECLARATION OF iENNIFER A.BECKER IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF OAKLkND AND PORT OF OAKLANDS MOTION FOR SkX FRANCISCO CAI.FORA 941It RELIEF FROM AUrOMATIC STAY - CASE NO, 01-30923 DM 1411 397.2II2

' @)kpDI

K-) v)

I 3. Attached as E It A is a true ma correct copy of the complaint in the 2 Brotherhood of Teamsters v. City of Oakland et al. matter. The Teamsters allege inverse 3 condemnation, negligence and nuisance for alleged damaged caused to their property during the 4 98th Avenue project.

5 4. Attached as Exhibit B are true and correct copies of the Proof of Service of 6 the Teamster's complaint upon Oakland on September 19,2001.

7 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the cross-8 complaint for indemnity Oakland filed against PG&E on October 9,2003.

9 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the Proof of 10 Service of Oakland's cross-complaint upon PG&E on October 10, 2003.

11 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the Notice of 12 Filing Voluntary Petition And Imposition of Automatic Stay filed by PG&E in the state court 13 action on October 16, 2003.

14 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of a Declaration of 15 lathan T. Annand in Support of Debtor's Motion for Authorization to Settle Post-Petition Third 16 Party Claims in the Ordinary Course of Business.

17 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of this Court's 18 Order Re Motion For Authorization to Settle Post-Petition Third Party Claims in the Ordinary 19 Course of Business.

20 I declare underpenalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that 21 the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed this _ day of October, 22 2003, at San Francisco, California.

23 24 Dated: October , 2003 25 JEVIE A. BECKER 26 DOC5\S726Sn0I 1467I6I.Vt 27 28 LON &LEVIT LLP 2 "I wONOOMuY SI?

SUIT! DECLARATION OF JENNIFER A. BECKER IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF OAKLAND AND PORT OF OAKLANDS MOTION FOR S FBAN8WCO CAUORnA 94111 RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC STAY- CASE NO. 01 -30923 DM (41S 3974M

( L - L I,.-

0 1225M 1 STEWART WEINBERG, Bar No. 031493 BARRY E. HINKLE, Bar No. 071223 2 JAMES J. WESSER, BarNo. 142416 ALAMEDA COUNTY EZEKIEL D. CARDER, Bar No. 206537 3 VAN BOURG, WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD SEP 14At 2001 A Professional Corporation 4 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1400 CLERK OF THE 8UPER10A OOLSr Oakland, California 94612 By- C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.24 5 Telephone (510) 839-6600 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7

8 SUBMUMNS ISSUED IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 10 11 BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS AND ) CaseN0 01 023981 AUTO TRUCK DRIVERS LOCAL NO. 70, 12 Plaintiff, )~I .

13 )

vs. ) COMPLAINT IN INVERSE 14 ) CONDEMNATION, NEGLIGENCE CITY OF OAKLAND, A Municipal ) AND NUISANCE 15 Corporation; PORT OF OAKLAND, A )

Municipal Corporation; GALLAGHER & )

16 BURK - BROSAMER, A Joint Venture of )

GALLAGHER & BURK, INC., A California )

17 Corporation, and R&L BROSAMER, INC., A )

California Corporation; GALLAGHER & )

18 BURK, INC., A California Corporation; R&L )

BROSAMER, INC., A California Coiporation )

19 and DOES 1-20, inclusive )

20 Defendants.

21 Plaintiff complains of Defendants, and each of them and for cause of action alleges:

22 23 1. Plaintiff Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70 24 (hereinafter "Local 70') is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was an unincorporated 25 association residing in Alameda County, State of California, with its principal place of business in 26 Alameda County, California.

VAN SOIMC.wTV40z Rocca a UOWWXL COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCENUIANCE. AND INVERSE Oakb&CA Ii12 (5 I ) wo-4A00 CONDEMNATION EXHIBIT A

K~~~~~) K)~I I 2. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times mentioned in this complaint was, the owner in 2 fee of real property and improvements located at 70 Hegenberger Road, Oakland, California, and 3 more specifically described as Alameda County Assessor's Parcel Number 044-5020-005-49.

{ . 4 Local 70's property interest is referred to in this complaint as the "Subject Property".

5 3. At all relevant times, defendant City of Oakland ("City") is and has been a 6 municipal corporation and subdivision of the State of California organized and existing under the 7 laws of the State of California.

8 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that at all relevant times, 9 defendant Port of Oakland ("Port") is and has been a municipal corporation doing business as a 10 public entity in Alameda County, State of California.

11 S. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that defendant Gallagher 12 & Burkc - Brosamer, a Joint Venture (hereinafter "Gallagber/Brosamer"), is a joint venture of 13 Gallagher & Burk, Inc. and R&L Brosamer, Inc., doing business in Alameda County as a 14 contractor duly licensed under the laws of the State of California.

15 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that defendant Gallagher 16 & Burk, Inc., a California Corporation (herinafter referred to as "Gallagher"), was a contractor 17 duly licensed under the laws of the State of California and doing business in Alameda County.

18 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that defendant R&L 19 Brosamer, Inc., a California Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Brosamee'), was a contractor 20 duly licensed under the laws of the State of California and doing business in Alameda County.

21 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that all defendants were, 22 at all times mentioned in this complaint, the agents, servants, and employees of their codefendants 23 and were acting within their authority as such with the consent and permission of their 24 codefendants.

25 9. The true names and capacities, whether individual corporate, associate or 26 otherwise, of defendants named herein as DOES I through 20, inclusive, are unknown to plaintiff socea &RouMnw A m COMPLAINT FOR NEWGGENCR. NUISANC. AND MNERSE 180CowdAvAWs. I2t CONDEMNATI -2 OsaktnCA3A 1110)M d

K)

I at this time, who therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and 2 believes and therefore alleges that each of the defendants designated herein by fictitious name is in 3 some manner responsible for the events and happenings herein referred to, and caused damages 4 proximately and foreseeably thereby to plaintiff as hereinafter alleged. Plaintiff is also informed 5 and believes, and alleges on that information and belief that these fictitiously named defendants 6 were, at all times mentioned in this complaint, the agents, servants, and employees of their l . 7 codefendants and were acting within their authority as such with the consent and permission of 8 their codefendants. Plaintiff will amend this complaint when the true names and capacities have 9 been ascertained.

10 10. On December 20, 2000, and in compliance with Govemment Code §910 and all 11 other applicable requirements, Local 70 submitted a written claim to the City. The claim 12 encompassed all of the causes of action stated in this complaint.

13 11. The City, has given Notice of Action Upon Claim dated March 23, 2001, stating 14 that it is has denied plaintiffs' claim.

15 12. Not more than six (6) months have elapsed since the City's Notice of Action Upon 16 Claim was served upon plaintiff.

17 13. On December 20, 2000, and in compliance with Government Code §910 and all 18 other applicable requirements, Local 70 submitted a written claim to the Port. The claim 19 encompassed all of the causes of action stated in this complaint 20 14. The Port has given Notice of Action Upon Claim dated March 16, 2001, stating that 21 it has denied plaintiffs' claim.

22 15. Not more than six (6) months have elapsed since the Port's Notice of Action Upon 23 Claim was served upon plaintiff.

24 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Inverse Condemnation) 25 26 16. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges by reference all the allegations in paragraphs I VANSOIUG.W9Vft*G mtacza &RMoMMA A m COMPLAINT FOR NEGUGEC, NUSANCE. AND NESE aCkks An 9X CONDEMNATION .3.

ISCh9o9uoO

v)

• . 0 I though 15.

2 17. The defendants have at all relevant times, and continue to be, engaged in a 3 construction project known as the "98t Avenue Widening Project' (hereinafler "the Project")

4 which is adjacent to the Subject Property owned by Local 70.

5 18. As a proximate result of the defendants' design, construction, operation, and 6 maintenance of the Project, plaintiff has suffered property damage and interference with business 7 operations which stem from repeated utility, power and water service interruptions and 8 breakdowns. Repeated utility, power and water service interruptions and breakdowns commenced 9 as a result of the aforesaid construction project as early as March 6, 2000, causing said property 10 damage and interference with Local 70's business operations. Said utility interruptions continued II on March 7, 8, 9, 18, 19,20,22-24, April 11 and April 26,2000. Said service interruption caused 12 damage including, but not limited to, the prevention of the operation of sewers and drains on the 13 Subject Property, and interference with electrical equipment on those dates, including the loss of all 14 electrical power to the Subject Property.

15 19. Additional damage to the Subject Property and business interference occurred on 16 May 31, June 14-15, and June 20,2000.

17, 20. As a proximate result of the defendants' design, construction, operation, and 18 maintenance of the Project, the Subject Property was damaged on or about June 21, 2000, by waste 19 emanating from the sewer systems. Said waste was a result of a sewer backup caused by 20 construction at the Project and resulted in raw sewage spilling into the Subject Property. Said 21 substances contaminated the building and rendered several areas of the building including, but not 22 limited to, the kitchen, bathrooms and floors unusable for any use, including its highest and best 23 use, until repairs can be completed.

24 21. As a proximate result of the damage to and taking of the Subject Property alleged in 25 this complaint, plaintiff has been damaged in an amount not presently ascertainable. Plaintiff will 26 seek permission to amend this complaint when the true amount of damages becomes known to UlOCU A ROURM oAp i COMPLAINT nk FOR NEGUGENC NUISANCE. AND INVERSE IIOGdA-w.Si1o l COND)EMNATION ,4.

OAmkoCA si12 i(3O) 93044

0 1 plaintiff.

2 22. Plaintiff has not received any compensation on account of the above described I 3 damage to the Subject Property as alleged in this complaint.

4 23. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur, plumbing, engineering, appraisal, 5 attorney and other fees, cost disbursements, and expenses not yet known or ascertained, in an 6 amount that cannot be presently calculated and that are recoverable under Code of Civil Procedure 7 section 1036.

8 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence) 9

24. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges by reference all the allegations in paragraphs I 10 though 23.

11

25. Plaintiff is inforned and believes, and based on that information and belief alleges, 12 that defendants, and each of them, developed, engineered, planned, investigated, constructed, 13 installed, replaced utility and sewer lines in the area of the Project and widened and re-paved the 14 streets for use by the public. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on that information and 15 belief alleges, that defendants, and each of them, breached their duty of care to plaintiffs and failed 16 to exercise reasonable care in that they failed to properly supervise, inspect, investigate, prepare 17 and construct the replacement utility and sewer lines and steet widening and repaving at the 18 Subject Property in that there is damage to areas such floors, walls, walkways, driveways and 19 parking areas due to defendants' failure to insure that the work was properly performed.

20

26. As a proximate and legal result of the negligence of the defendants, and each of 21 them. the Subject Property is defective and has been, and continues to be, damaged in an amount 22 that exceeds the jurisdictional amount of this Court. The precise amount of Local 70's damages 23 will be proven at trial.

24

27. As a further proximate and legal result of the negligence of defendants, and each of 25 them, plaintiff will incur and/or has incurred repair costs, relocation expenses, loss of use and loss 26 VAM8 OtUG.WWINUSC "Om A W cSVq9L A _ft.wCWMM COMPLAINT FOR NEGUGENCE. NUISANCE. AND INVERSE ISO M Ave. $M. 1*CO CONDEMNATION 5.

0kI3. CA 9*12 (510C131400

Is K)J I of market value in an amount to be proven at trial.

2 28. As a further proximate and legal result of the negligence of defendants, and each of 3 them, plaintiff has been required to expend sums to investigate and make temporary repairs to the 4 property in an amount to be proven at trial.

5 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 6 (Nuisance - CC § 3479) 7 29. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of Paagraphs I through 28 of this 8 complaint.

9 30. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on that information and belief alleges, 10 that defendants, and each of them, by their conduct created, maintained and concealed a public and 11 private nuisance, and have not taken any reasonable steps to permanently abate the nuisance or to 12 mitigate the damage caused to plaintiff by the nuisance.

13 31. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on that information and belief alleges, 14 that the damage hereinabove alleged caused by defendants' wrongful conduct affecting the 15 Property constitute a nuisance within the meaning of Civil Code §3479, in that the condition is 16 injurious to the health and welfare of the Subject Property and its owner and guests, and causes an 17 obstruction to use of the Subject Property and to the owner's peaceful and quiet enjoyment of the 18 premises.

19 32. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on that information and belief alleges, 20 that this nuisance has caused, and continues to cause, damage to the Subject Property in that walls, 21 floors, doors, walkways, driveways, and parking areas have been damaged by defendants' wrongful 22 conduct.

23 33. As a proximate and legal result of these acts or failures to act, the plaintiff has been 24 and continues to be deprived of the peaceful and quiet enjoyment of the premises and of the 25 Subject Property, and have been and will continue to suffer loss of use of tie Subject Property.

26 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays forjudgment as follows:

Y1A1 BO4Q VIW1*C~

MOMM a M05NXfl.3 4 al COMPLAINT FOR NEOLUGENCE NUISANCE AND INVERSE A Ge_ CONDEMNATION .6.

Osk84CA 941I (St1411s.Mm

( / e I FOR THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION:

2 .1. For damages in an amount to be proven at trial, and loss of use, 3 2. For costs of suit; 4 3. For prejudgment interest; 5 4. For recoverable engineering, appraisal attorney, and other fees according to proof; 6 and 7 5. For any other and further relief the Court considers just and proper.

8 FOR THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE:

9 1. For damages in an amount to be proven at trial, with interest on that amount at the 10 legal rate from the date of inception of the damages as ascertained by the Court; 1 2. For recoverable engineering, appraisal, attorney, and other fees according to proof, 12 3. For costs of suit incurred in this action; and 13 4. For such other and further relief as the Court deems fit and proper.

14 FOR THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NUISANCE:

15 1. For damages in an amount to be proven at trial for loss of use and intcrference with 16 the quiet enjoyment of plaintif's property, including but not limited to investigative costs, 17 relocation costs, cost of repair, loss of market value, and loss of use; 18 2. For costs of suit; 19 3. For prejudgment interest; 20 4. Reasonable attorneys' fees expended by plaintiff in bringing this lawsuit; and 21 5. For any other and further relief as the Court considers just and proper.

22 Dated: September 12,2001 VAN BOURG, WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD A Professiratr 23 24 BV-

-e.F

&*ESWESSER-25 torneys for Plaintiffs, Brotherhood of teamsters nd Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70 26 30121'226347 VANX MUM WC3*t.

AP w C _ COMPLANT FOR NEGLOGENC. NUISANC. AND INVERSE IlaCam iAm. SOL 7.

0S&4dCA 9"Iz CONDEMNATION 1510)I).e

I /

L - I I

. t. . ;'. ,0

o~~~~~~ 1112.R9356211 STEWART WEINBERG, Bar No. 031493 BARRY E. HNKLE, Bar No. 071223 2 JAMES J. WESSER, Bar No. 142416 3

EZEKIEL D. CARDER. Bar No. 206537 VAN BOURG, WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD FI LE D ALAMEDA COUNTY A Professional Corporation 4 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1400 Oakland, California 94612 OCT 0 3 2001 S Telephone (510) 839-6600 CLE~kOFSURERIOR COUR 6 Attomeys for Plaintiffs Je ~~Deputy 7

8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 10 11 BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS AND Case No. 2001-023981 AUTO TRUCK DRIVERS LOCAL NO. 70, 12 Plaintiffs.

13 VS.~ ~~~.

vs. ) PROOF OF SERVICE 14 CITY OF OAKLAND, A Municipal 15 Corporation; PORT OF OAKLAND, A )

Municipal Corporaton GALLAGHER &

16 BURK - BROSAMER. A Joint Venture of )

GALLAGHER & BURY, INC., A California 17 Corporation, and R&L BROSAMER, INC., A California Corporation; GALLAGHER &

18 BURK, INC., A California Corporation; R&L BROSAMER, INC., A California Corporation 19 and DOES 1-20, inclusive 20 Defendants.

21 22 23 24 25 26 VAR VOUV WUNUR mocga .

A. I=_

iNZUh EXHIBIT B O,8* AlmSa.d. I'ROOFOR o Emv OdCA 9"12

,0 ArToCAY 0N PATY WffHOUT Arrlaty mI a

AJCAM IUDIOi NO. mmICoUfl UtK OUL VAN BOURG, WEINBERG, (510) 839-6600 ROGER & ROSENFELD 180 GRAND AVE. 14TH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 ArTOWY FrS . 00024666-02 UPERIOR COURT, LoawT hNoF CASE BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS vs. CITY OF OAKLAND PROOF OF SERVICE onoo.2001-023981 (Summons)l 1 .At the time of sro I was t st 18 yearsofge d not pa toths assct nd vd oopIs of th (spefy docwnwnsl Summons and Complaint; ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION INFORMATION PACKAGE, ALAME COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ADR PROGRAM, BLANK STIPULATION FOR ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) AND ORDER.

2. a. Paty Served: (spedfy name ofpary es shown on Dh ocui served):

CITY OF OAKLAND

b. Person Served: TAMORA CORBIN, AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT SERVICE

c. Address: 1 FRAN1C OGAWA PLAZA OAKLAND, CA. (Business) 3.1 served the party named In Item 2

a. By personally delivering the copies. (1) on (date): September 19, 2001 (2) at- lJme): 02:57 pmn

4. The 'Notice to the Person Served' (on the summons) was completed as follows:

c. on behalf of:

CITY OF OAKLAND under:

IXXI other: CCP 416.50 (public entity)

5. Person serving (name, address, and telphone No.): a. Fee for service: $ 45.00. ICCP 1033.5(a)(4)(B)

RICHARD SNELL (1) Employee or Independant contractor.

RAPiD SERVE (2) Registration No.: 438 210 Fell Street, # 19 (3) County: SAN FRANCISCO San Francisco. CA 94102 Phone: (415) 882-2266 Fax: (415) 882-2277 8.0 IZde imder penalty of perjuy under te laws of e Sta of Cafarnbm OM Me forgooI mis band orect.

-Date: September 26, 2001 FWM P by 1 3 2 AImda CWAmof C&us*

PROOF OF SERVICE Ce CI. Piu. t 41?7.10M

• 82WC=%§w Aft I. 1671 (Smm)

NIma

Ak

-- ,1 00 * .iuu uuuuuj I

2 STEWART WEINBERG, Btr No. 031493 BARRY E. HINKLE, BarNo. 071223 JAMS 3. WESSER, Bar No. 142416 F ILE D ALAMEDA COUNTY EZEKIEL D. CARDER, Bar No. 206537 3 VAN BOURG, WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD OCT 0 3 2001 A Professional Corporation 4 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1400 CEsOF RIOR COUR Oakland, California 94612 5 Telephone (510) 839-6600 Deputy 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7

8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 10 11 BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS AND )CaseNo. 2001-023981 AUTO TRUCK DRIVERS LOCAL NO. 70, 12 Plaintiffs, )PROOFS:lC 13 )

vs.

14 )

CITY OF OAKLAND, A Municipal 15 Corporation; PORT OF OAKLAND, A )i Municipal Corporation; GALLAGHER &

16 BURK - BROSAMER, A Joint Venture of GALLAGHER & BURK, INC., A California 17 Corporation, and R&L BROSAMER INC., A )

California Corporation; GALLAGHER &

18 BURK, INC., A California Corporation; R&L BROSAMER, INC.. A California Corporation 19 and DOES 1-20, inclusive 20 Defendants.

21 22 23 24 25 26 VAlE3OUM.Wt IU t

%0=xna ixw?1=

Arwome Carmum I800fid Are 31w.

14M PROOF OF SERVICE OAUD&CA W162

K)

AT~owey Om I-0PApRTY WiTW0UT ATroAIETY -AWAA aAD

.0 Tu."= N. . Oa= um Cmx VAN BOURG, WEINBERG, (510) 839-6600 ROGER & ROSENFELD 180. GRAND AVE. 14TH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 I ATToW4IYPORs.A . 00024666-01 ATIOR06"

• riVt0WS ftI7R SUPRIOWWWA Mi.P if i _

SWQA TTU OFCAMS BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS vs. CITY OF OAKLAND CAM,: oDU V: CAR PROOF OF SERVICE . 2001-023981 (Sumirnons) .

1 .At the titl)of service I was at least 18 yar of age and not a party to ths actio, and I asvud opies of the Opecify dcwneW.:

Summons and Complaint; ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION INFORMATION

. PACKAGE, ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ADR PROGRAM, BLANK STIPULATION FOR ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND ORDER.

2. a. Party Served: lspcffy name of parry ashown on the docrn* ww):

PORT OF OAKLAND

b. Person Served: CHRISTOPHER MARSHALL, AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT SERVICE

c. Address: 530 WATER ST.

OAKLAND, CA (Business) 3.1 served the party named in item 2

a. By personally delivering the copies. (1) on Ndte): September 19, 2001 (2) at Itime): 02:40 pm

4. The 'Notice to the Person Served' (on the summons) was completed as follows:

c. on behalf of:

PORT OF OAKLAND under:

lXXI other: CCP 416.50 (public entity)

5. Person servig (name, addr's, and telephone Nod.: a. Fe. for servico:# 45.00 [CCP 1033I.5(a)(4)(B RICHARD SNELL (1) Employee or.Independant contractor.

RAPID SERVE (2) Registration No.: 438 210 Fel Street, 19 (3) County: SAN FRANCISCO San Franclsco, CA 94102 Phone: (4151 882-2266 Fax: (415) 882-2277

60. I dece underpeyofperuy drthet ps e Sftat Cakti thadu t e rgoi trueaand crrect.

Date: September 26, 2001 Z7 Fam AdepudfV ok" SSZ JWudwd Cou'cU of Calfoeis PROOF OF SERVICE Co" COW.

Pmw.C417.tOt 962IaH23)IN.'w.Ay I. 11173 (Summons) 33704i6Ot

b '2~~~~~763829' FI L ED ALAMEDA COUNTY I JOSEPH P. MCMONIGLE State Barl6681 JENNIER A. BECKER State Bar #121319 2 LONG & LEVIT LLP OCT 0 9Z003 601 Montgomery, Suite 900 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COUI T 3 San Francisco, CA 94111 Au-CALA4ALk~

TEL: (415) 397-2222 FAX: (415) 397-6392 - -1~~~~~~

\ Dep ty 4

5 Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF OAKLAND and SUMMONS ISSU PORT OF OAKLAND 6

7 8

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT C)F THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9

IN AND FOR THE CIOUNTY OF ALAMEDA 10

. * - b

'1 BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS CASE'No. 2001-023981 12 AND AUTO TRUCK DRUMERS LOCAL NO. 70, CROSS-COMPLAINT BY CITY OF 13 OAKLAND AND PORT OF OAKLAND Plaintiffs, 14 Action Filed: September 7,2001 VS. Trial Date. October 31, 2003 -

15 CITY OF OAKLAND, a Municipal 16 Corporation; PORT OF OAKLAND, A Municipal Corporation; GALLAGHER &

17 BURK - BROSAMER, A Joint Venture of GALLAGHER & BURK INC.,A .A.

18 California Corporation, and R & L BROSAMER, INC., A California 19 Corporation; GALLAGHER & BURK.

INC., A California Corporation; R & L.

20 BROSAMER, INC., A California.

Corporation and DOES 1-20, inclusive, 21 Defendants.

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 L3NO & LLVIT LLP

. P .1 CAUPOMIA 941 1 CROSS-comnAZ fy aff oFOAXaAN A" FORT OF OAKLAC q4111 4r2 EXHIBIT C.

_j \ )

I I

CITY OF OAKLAND, a Municipal 2 Corporation; PORT OF OAKLAND, a Municipal Corporation 3

4 Cross-Complainants 5

vs.

6 7 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California Corporatibn; 8 PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, A California Corporation; 9 and Does 1-50, inclusive 10 Cross-Defendants 11 12 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS 13 14 Defendants and cross-complainants City of Oakland and Port of Oakland, 15 (hereinafter "Oakland') allege:

16 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS i7

1. The City of Oakland and Port of Oakland at all times relevant hereto were 18 public entities in the State of California, County of Alameda.

19

2. Oakland is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that cross-20 defendants Pacific Gas & Electric Company and Pacific Bell Telephone Company and Does I 21 through 50 were and'at all relevant times mentioned herein were a corporation or other business 22 entity licensed to conduct business and doing business in California.

23

3. Oakland does not know the true names and capacities, whether individual, 24 corporate or otherwise, of the cross-defendants named herein as Does 1 through 50 inclusive.

25 Oakland therefore sues these cross-defendants by fictitious names. Oakland will amend this 26 cross-complaint to reflect the Doe coss-defendants' tre names and capacities when they have 27 been ascetained. Oakland is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of Does 28 LONG & LEVI? LLP 64l MONTCOMY IatlhZ 2 SAN IANCUCO CALIFO**IA 94111 c~"I~ l CROSS-COMLAIN MY OF OLAy AND PMOT OF OAXIAND Has} 31 an

t' )

t. I i -

I~~~~~~

I through Does SO is at fault in some manner for the acts and omissions alleged below against 2 Oakland and Does I through 50, and caused and/or is otherwise legally responsible for Plaintiffs 3 alleged injury and damage incurred as a result of the actions or inactions by Oakland and Does 1 4, through 50.

5 4. Cross-defendantsDoes.l through 50, inclusive, are the fictitious names of 6 those cross-defendants whose true names are unknown to Oakland and whose true capacities, 7 whether as individuals, corporations, pa inerships, joint ventures, and/or associations are also 8 unknown to Oakland and when such true names are ascertained, Oakland will amend this 9 cross-complaint by inserting said true names in place of said fictitious names in accordance Code 10 of Civil Procedure section 474. Oakland is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Does II I through 50 are also responsible in some manner for the events and happenings alleged herein, 12 and it shall be deemed that said Doe cross-defendants, and each of them, are likewise the subject 13 of said charging allegations herein by Oakland.

14 5. Oakland is infformed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times 15 herein mentioned, cross-defendants Pacific Gas & Electric and/or Pacific Bell and Does I through 16 50 were the agents, servants and employees of their co-defendants and in doing the things herein 17 mentioned were acting in the scope of authority as such agents, servants and employees with 18 permission and consent from their co-cross-defendants.

19 6. Oakland is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all relevant 20 times herein, each cross-defendant was the principal, agent, joint venturer, partner, parent, 21 subsidiary, employee or director of eachother cross-defendant, and acted within the course and 22 scope of that relationship.

23 7. Plaintiff's comp incorporated herein by reference, as if set forth in

'intis 24 full for the purpose of illustrating the aliigitions contained therein; not for the truth of said 25 allegations. Oakland has filed an answer to plaintiffs' complaint that denies the material 26 allegations thereof, and further denies that Oaklhnd is in any way responsible or liable in any 27 manner whatsoever for any damages alleged in the complaint to have been suffered by plaintiff.

28 Oakland further contends that the alleged damages to plaintiff, if any, were caused either by L3NG &LEVIT LLP WI MONGOURY mTMET .. 3.

Iult g,, -

SAN FRANCISCO CAUFOINA W11 CROSS-COMLAINT BY CITY OF OAKLAND AND PORT OF OAXIAND 41,1 )97.221

. , .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I. )

1, 0.

• plaintiffs own negligence or caused solely by the failure of the cross-defendants named herein to 2 exercise due care in connection with the peqfarmance of their various duties at the subject 3 property, or to otherwise adequately discharge their contractual obligations to Oakland.

-4 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 5 (Total And/Or Partial Equitable Indemnity) 6 8. Oakland realleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1

.7 through 7 inclusive of the general allegations as though set forth in full in this second cause of 8 action.

9 9. Oakland conte that if it is found to be liable to plainti or if it is 10 determined that plaintiff or others are entitled to recover against Oakland directly or indirectly, in 11 any amount whatsoever, then such liabilik il be the direct and proximate result of the wrongful 12 conduct and negligence of cross-defendant Pacific Gas & Electric and/or Pacific Bell, and Does I 13 through 50.

14 10. By reason thereof, Oakland contends that if it is held liable to plaintiff 15 upon his complaint, then Oakland is entitled to be indemnified by Pacific Gas & Electric and/or 16 Pacific Bell and Does I through 50, and each of them, in whatever amounts may be adjudged, and 17 for its costs and expenses incurred in the defense of this action, including reasonable attorneys' 18 fees. The total amount of Oakland's costs and attorneys' fees is not yet known and Oakland will 19 ask leave of this court to insert such amounts at the time of trial.

20 WHEREFORE, Oakland prays forjudgment as set forth below.

21 SECOND iAUSE OF ACTON 22 (Comparative Equitable Indemnity And Declaration Of Rights And Liabilities) 23 11. Oakland realleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 24 I through 10 inclusive of the general allegations as though set forth in full in this third cause of

-25 action.

26 12. As previously alleged herein, plaintiff has alleged negligence and the true 27 extent of which is unknown, and which allegedly has resulted in plaintiffs injuries.

28 13. If Oakland is held liable for plaintiff's damages of any kind it would be as LO00 &LEVIT LLP "l PROROfY ESm sum "S

. 4 SAN, nANCC

.AUMMIA Hill CROSS CM,'LAwsrycrm bF OAxlAND AND voRr or OmaAND

I I.

A . :l I a result of and caused by Pacific Gas & Electric and/or Pacific Bell and Does I through 50, and 2 each of their sole, active and afirmativeriegligence in exercising their various duties in 3 connection with improvement, repairs, or ma ntenance on or around Plaintiff's property.

4 14. Oakland is without active fault, culpability or negligence in the 5 above-referenced claim for damages, but is being required to defend itself in an action solely as a 6 result of Pacific Gas & Electric and/or Pacific Bell's and Does I through SO's tortious conduct.

7 Pacific Gas & Electric and/or Pacific Bell.and Does I through 50, and each of them therefore 8 have an equitable obligation to indennify and hold Oakland harmless fim= and against any and 9, all claims, losses, damages, attorneys' fees, costs, judgment and settlement expenses incurred in 10 litigation and defense against any action or claim asserted against Oakland.

I1 15. Oakland contends that pursuant to the California Supreme Court's decision 12 in American Motorcycle v. Superior Court (I978) 20 Cal3d 578, Oakland is entitled to proceed 13 against cross-defendants, and each of them, for a detemination of the extent to which Pacific Gas 14 & Electric and/or Pacific Bell and Does 1 through SO should indemnify Oakland for any judgment 15 made or entered against Oakland arising from any assertions of design defects, construction 16 defects and/or damages in this action.

17 16. Oakland further contends that if it is found liable to plaintiffs or others, 18 Oakland should be indemnified by.Pacific Qas & Electric and/or Pacific Bell, and Does 1 through 19 50, and each of them, on the basis of a comparison of Oakland's comparative fault (if any) with 20 that of Pacific Gas & Electric and/or Pacific Bell and Does I through 50, and each of them, under 21 the principles of partial and comparative indemnity set forth in American Motorcycle.

22 17. An actual controversy exists between Oakland and Pacific Gas & Electric 23 and/or Pacific Bell and Does I through 50, and each of them, as stated above, and unless the joint 24 and several obligations, rights and duties arising out of the instant action are determined in one 25 proceeding, there will be a multiplidtyo6flawsuits required in order to ultimately determine the 26 rights, duties and obligations of the parties hereto, all of which can be determined in this one 27 action.

28 I ONO &LEVIT LLP

, .1MONTCOMIRY S11t1 SUTt Is SAN tIANC1SCO CALIfORNIA ,4111 CROSS-COMnAMT BY TY OF OAfLAD AM PORT OF OrnA4 g4IIa 197-222

I I I I

.77 S

1 WHEREORE, Oakland"#ays forjudgment as set forth below.

2 TTED CAUSE OF ACTION 3 (Dec.aratoy Rel 4 18. Oakland realleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 5 through 17, inclusive, as though set fob in full in this fourth cause of action.

6 19. An actual controversy has arise and now exists among Oakland and 7 Pacific Gas & Electric and/or Pacific Bell and Does 1 through 50, and each of them, in that 18 Oakland contents that:

9 (1) as between Oakland and Pacific Gas & Electric and/or Pacific Bell 10 and Does I through 50, liability and resonsibility, if any, for damages claimed in connection 21 with the complaint by plaintiffs herein, ests entirely or partially with Pacific Gas & Electric 12 and/or Pacific Bell and Does I through 50,.and each of them, and 13 (2) as a result, Pacific Gas & Electric and/or Pacific Bell and Does I 14 through 50, and each.of them, are obligated to .indemnify Oakland for the sums Oakland may be 15 compelled to pay as a result of damages, judgment or other award recovered by the plaintiffs, or 16 any of them, against Oakland; and 17 (3) as a further result, Oakland is entitled to be indemnified and held 18 harmless by Pacific Gas & Electric and/or Pacific Bell and Does 1 through 50 and be reimbursed 19 for its attorneys' fees and costs.

20 20. Oakland is inforned and believes and therein alleges that Pacific Gas &

21 Electric and/or Pacific Bell and Does .lthrough 50, and each of them deny such liability, 22 responsibility, obligations and duties.

23 21. Oakland desires a judicial determination of the respective rights and duties

. .1..

I24 Oakland and Pacific Gas & Electric and/or Pacific Bell and Does I through 50, and each of them, 25 with respect to damages claimed in the complaint filed by plaintiffs herein. In particular Oakland 26 desires a declaration of the respective liabilities of Oakland, Pacific Gas & Electric and/or Pacific 27 Bell and Does I through 50 for such damages which Oakland may be compelled to pay, whether 28 by settlement entered into by Oakland orbyjudgment which may be rendered against Oakland, UWNO &LEVIr LLP

", MoNTGOMERY STilu?

suIts 6.

sO FRANCISCO CAUoINIAt 4111 CROSS-COMA TBY cMY O OALa-ND ANAPOar OF OAKLAND

,41S1 "74.2l2

( J I I

, ! , .1 0 1 Oakland further desires a judicial determination that it is entitled to reimbursement for all 2 expenses incurred and to be inciurtd by it in repairing the subject property, and that Oakland is 3 entitled to reimburse for all costs nd expenses incurred and to be incurred by it in defending 4 against plaintiffs' complaint and in prosecuting this cross-complaint, including the reasonable 5 attorneys' fees.

6 22. If it is determined herein that Oakland is liable in any way by reason of any 7 facts alleged in plaintiffs' complaint, or otherwise, Oakland is entitled to be indemnified in an 8 amount proportionate to the extent Pacific Gas & Electric and/or Pacific Bell and Does 1 through 9 50, and each of them, caused and contributed to the damages recovered by plaintiffs, if any, in the 10 within action.

11 23. The judicial deteiziination of the rights of Oakland to indemnify from 12 Pacific Gas & Electric and/or Pacific Bell and Does 1 through 50, and each of them, is necessary 13 and appropriate at this time in order that Oakland ascertains its rights with respect to the claims of 14 plaintiffs herein for damages, and in order that Oakland may avoid the multiplicity of actions 15 which will otherwise result if it is required to defend against the claim of plaintiffs in the 16 complaint and then to bring a separate cause of action against Pacific Gas & Electric and/or 17 Pacific Bell and Does I through 50 for indemnification.

18 U/I I,' .,

19 20 N/

21 22 N/

23 24, "-l 25 . .I 26 27 28 LOIIO & LEVM LLP "I OnTGOMEII flSZ*I

.. . -7 tAN PnAMCMO I ALUOtRMA NO Iu CROSS-COMPLAWNT BYCTY OF OALAPND AND PORT OF OAKLAND 14111A139112 N. I

1r- K) 1 ,

p0 1 WHEREFORE, Oalnd prays forjudgment as set forth below.

I 2 PRAYER 3 Oakland prays for ajudgment against Pacific Gas & Electric and/or Pacific Bell 4 and Does I through 50 and each of them, as follows:

S I. For ajudicial determination, adjudicating the obligations of Pacific Gas &

6 Electric and/or Pacific Bell and Does I through 50, and each ofthem, to defend herein to hold

7. Oakland harmless from anyjudgment or settlement herein, and to reimburse Oakland for all 8 monies heretofore or hereafter expended for all indemnity, costs expenses, attorneys' fees and all 9 other damages incurred in defendingplaintiff' action and prosecuting this cross-complaint.

10 2. For an order ofthe c6&t declaring the rights of Oakland to indemnity from 11 Pacific Gas & Electric and/or Pacific Bell and Does 1 through 50, and each of them, in regard to I 12 all matters alleged in the pleadings in this action.

13 3. For costs of suit herein incurred, including reasonable attorneys' fee, and 14 4. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

15 Dated: Octoberdi, 2003 LONG & LEVIT LLP 16 17 By, 'it4 A.BECKER 18 i/Attomes for Defendant

. . OAKLAND BUILDERS, INC.

19 D0CS=U6414 1WS2.VI

.4 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 . .. ." .

LONO &LEVT LLP '..

0Ia bOeCOhWa, Snun *'- ; -

sumT

• SAWFLANCCo CAUVOINIA t411 CROSS-COMLAIjr BY MY OF OATaAD AND wOUr OF OAAND 441$) ht2421

KuJ JENNIFER A. BECKER (SEN 121319)

LONG & LEVIT LLP 601 Montgomery Street #900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 397-2222 Attorney for: Defendant SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA Plaintiff : BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, et al.

Defendant : CITY OF OAKLAND, a Municipal Corporation, et al.

Ref#: 132076

• PROOF OF SERVICZ

• Case No.: 2001-023981 1.At the time of' service I was at least eighteen years of age and not a party to this action and I served copies of the:

SUMMONS ON CROSS-COMPLAINT; CROSS-COMPLAINT BY CITY OF OAKLAND AND PORT OF OAKLAND

2. a. Party served  : PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California Corporation

b. Person served : Candi Griffin, Authorized Agent

c. Address  : (Business) 1 Market Tower, Suite 2400 San Francisco, CA 94105

3. I served the party named in item 2

a. by personally delivering the copies (1) on: October 10, 2003 (2) at: 10:21 AM

4. The "Notice to the Person Served (on the summons) was co mpleted as follows:

c. on behalf of: PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California Corporation under: CCP 416.10 (corporation)

5. Person serving:

CHRISTIAN MARTINEZ a. Fee for service: $35.00 SPECIALIZED LEGAL SERVICES, INC. b. Registered California process server.

1112 Bryant Street, Suite 200 (1) Employee or Independant Contractor San Francisco, CA 94103 (2) Registration no.: 828 Telephone: (415) 357-0500 (3) County: San Francisco

6. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date: October 15, 2003 Signature X Jud. Coun. form, rule 982(a) (23) (

K-)

S 0 *. 11w111111I.

1 STEPHEN L. SCHIRLE, #96085 LORETA W. MCDONNE4, #146264 2

3 77 Beale Street, B30A San Francisco, CA 94105 FI LED ALAMEDA COUNTY 4 Direct coSofndence to: OCT I6 2003 LORETTA W. MCDONNELL 5 P.O. Box 7442 CLERKWHE SRIOR4PR San Francisco, CA 94120 By6/ S 14~i Bum- _

6 - 4 t', De" Telephone: (415) 973-6689 7

Attorneys for Cross-Defendant 8 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 9

10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 12 13 CITY OF OAKLAND, a Municipal Corporation; No. 2001-023981 14 PORT OF OAKLAND, a Municipal Corporation NOTICE OF FILING VOLUNTARY PETITION 15 Cross-Complainants, AND IMPOSITION OF AUTOMATIC STAY (11 U.S.C. section 362(a))

16 V.

17 PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, a California Corporation; PACIFIC GAS AND 18 ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California Corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive 19 Cross-Defendants.

20 BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS AND 21 AUTO TRUCK DRIVERS LOCAL NO. 70 22 Plaintiffs, 23 V.

24 CiTY OF OAKLAND; PORT OF OAKLAND, GALLAGHER & BURK, et al.

25 Defndians.

26 27 28 To the Honorable Court, and all parties to the above-caponed action (the "Action"):

8

~~~~EX~lI i * .A .. -- W.ii -a 5 a .

K) J.

. ~.

1 Please take notice that on April 6,2001, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E"), a 2 defendant in the Action herein filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of 11the 11 of the United 3 States Codes, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California, San 4 Francisco division, commencing that certain bankrupcy case In re Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 5 Bankr. Case No. 01-30923 (the "Bankruptcy Case"). A true and correct copy of the first page of the 6 Voluntary Petition commencing the Bankruptcy Case is attached hereto as Exhibit 'A.'

7 Please take further notice that pursuant to section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, the 8 commencement of the Bankruptcy Case results in the imposition of an automatic stay," which 9 prohibits a number of actions against a bankruptcy debtor afte the commencement of the case.

10 Prohibited actions include, but are not limited to: (a) actions to commence or continue an action 11 which was or could have been commenced against the debtor prior to the commnement of the 12 bankruptcy case, (b) actions to collect debts owed by the debtor, (c) actions to obtain the debtors 13 property or property ofthe bankruptcy estate, and (d) actions to create or perfect a lien against the 14 debtor's property or property of the estate. Willful violation of the automatic stay may result in the 15 imposition of damages against the offending party.

16 As a result of the commencement of the Bankruptcy Case and the imposition of the automatic 17 stay, the above-referenced action is stayed against the debtor, pending an order from the Bankruptcy 18 Court.

19 20 Dated: October 15,2003 STEPHENL. SCHIRLE LOREITA W. MCDONNELL 21 22

-3 Bay-. jd l'. )

LORElTA W. MCDONNELL 24 Attorneys for Cross-Defedant 25 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 26 27 28 x,_1-1 otx._ \W..

K) i l

fM f f l d .II U I I S T v 0 United States Bankrupty Court I

FiMU Di Voluntary Petiton Northern District orCalifornia AM OtrXozm uW ~b7 en Dvbttnt a4ekg ran AU iO Nw wd cbttatuciwis O~Im Syms r mcb &d =A4 sa dMgu V S&24 6): cl d f su da k Samoai . a d W" *o ff" SW. S~fTIZ M s.& (lts w Obm Ur, tuf Al): 5o SWA&Z MDNe (t mmv= Vma em . sj a al):

SaidA41auS MUM PI&oaSbeck Cily. SWat A ZIP Codc* S w' AddW Sflei 0C?.& uwt. Owy. Stale a zip Gc&)

77 Dcatu Stred 12 Sso Frahidsce, CA 9P 0 County OrRUMIUMc Kmutoul O~w~ eu hisuipaPiece f DQ16 = San F raseiwi_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _

NamagA dd w U.Wn m w ( Vis U& 5 lu n vi addna:) a c Mm. J I t ib t c i j~ a P.. B= ISC2 _

S au Frsa cudl CA 94121 _ _ _ _ _ _ _

LoatkemofrtfldpaZ Asma of Dubw iib'n Informalioni Regarding the Debtor (Check the Applicable Boxes) bU Ye..i ~~~~~~~~ai aayqypi *r~c aa ~ s np q dc WM 0 bj 4arhvbanx* a u3pca abuk(. dimrdftdsue IS oz awks)d O~~amm~~~d'yflmfr tok P to oparaf

_ _ _D _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __a_ _ ImIuy

_ _ _ __I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ S.L N4 c m wa FU1da C1 of D~~~~~4a P~~~atg 00) s oasboAWx)4 7mvActuft-l", Lamy W Dt sv d nuv d aa m L. w as ofa gr'okf be ma twod vvdksik lb o~~ is sammo guid 1.1S lidS SW 1U4M M Mf 3aS..s Somtd rE S O a e, uNMTED sTATESBANKRuPrcY C ----

• ~~~

" :CAZscf01.3O2.3 SFlUf NORTHERN IDMSMUCrFO ChapterlIFIlnt beeft ofCrudlgn CALIORNIA o3 a ci

~~13 Filed: 09ft AM. otWA~I Ssaa Fjrmnd Dat: May at, 2001 too Ism" SIWAI o

~~ * :~ j ~~~ T ime: 1I:00A M l EA e ~ d r o3 a .13 0 - .

-i I~Debtarfs)-

Pacific Gas and Eloccic Co.

250 sakes I0 F oat I Cq

• Fvawism CA 94104.34 10

~~~~~~~~San

.................................... ~~~~~~~~~~

EXHIBIT A

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL 2 City of Oakland, Port of Oalkand v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company, PG&E, et aL 3 Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 2001-023981 4 I, the undersigned, state that I am a resident of the United States and am employed in the City 5 and County of San Francisco; I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within 6 cause; my business address P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120; I am familiar with the practice 7 of Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("PG&E) for the collection and processing of items for mailing, 8 in the ordinary course of business such items would be deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day; and on the date set out below true copies of the following:

NOTICE OF FILING VOLUNTARY PETITION AND IMPOSITION OF AUTOMATIC 10 STAY (11 U.S.C. section 362(a))

11 was sealed in envelopes, addressed as follows, and placed for collection and mailing on tat date 12 following PG&Fs ordinary busine practices:

13 JenniferA. Becker, Esq.

Long & LevitLLP 14 601 Montgomery Street, Ste., 900 15 San Francisco, CA 94111 16 1declare under penalty of peuy under the laws of the State of Califomia that the foregoing is true and correct 17 Executed this 15th day of October, 2003, in San Francisco, California.

18 19 20 21 JANICE R. CHAPP 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

KJ RFR-2Ea-pp is:eO FROM:s T 9ir? 1p lq ,-.r. ,

tT I 0 1 JAMES L LOPES (No 63C78)

JEFFREY L(NSCo 9144) I.

2 JANETA NEXON (o. 10747)

HOWARD R1CE, NMOVlfI, CANADY, ft.l. -te

• S 3 iMX' & RABKIN A Profession[ Cwporua1on T1e Embarcadwrd Centiz 7th Floor Su Fracisco, Califoria 94111.4065 Tclepbone 415/434-1600

,.fp4&

Mt,*

j Facienik: 41f217-5910 6

Ano=cys for De ud`Debtr iu Possession 7 PACFIC GAS AND ELECTC COMPANY 8

.9 UNTED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 10 NORTE DISICT OF CALtFORNrA 11 SAN FRANCISCO DIVION 12 Inre No. 01 30923 DM Wm 13 PACIFIC GAS AND E LECTMIC apter 11 'gm COMPANY, a C4lfo i corpn,

_ 14 Da=: me 26, 2001 Dcbwr. T: 9:30 a.

=Is Plc: 23SPinS, 22ndFloor San Frn=isco, Califomi 16 Ftdval ID. No.94-074 2640 17 19 DECLARATION OF IATHAN T. ANNAND IN SUPPORT OF DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR AUQORZATON TO SET7LE POST-PETITION THRD 20 PARTV CL 1AFN TR n IRARY ITUTRqP rtJINSS BUnS 21-22 23 24 25 26 27 28 N..OI3O 23MI DEC OF IATW? T. AMND ISO IEBTOR'S MON No. 0t 30M3 MA EXHIBIT f

K) 16:99 FROM: TO: 4082914 I VAayid

• .R 28 1 I, LathmnT. Aiad, declare as follows:,

2 1. , I an ateymm sed to practice law in the State of Californin and 3 admitted to praaie in the United Sttes Districi Court for the North District of 4 CghfoiL 1Am the ChiefCounsel.of Lidgion for Pacific Gas and Elecic Company 5 ("PG&F'), aposition I bave held smci 1997. 1m DraionbisedupO my.

6 personal knowledge of PG&E's laim resolution process adpn my rew of PG&V s 7 records corccmine the matters stated hereI f Wallcd as a witess, I culd and would tastif.,

8 compctenty to the fats stated herein.

9 ..2. Claims ge ly arc esolied by e Law Depatmat and the Safty, 10 Hcalth and CLahis Deparbmeat of PG&E. Both deparonents report to PG&E's General 11 Counsel. During the five year period from 1996 thgh 2000, PG&E rmsored gm average 12 of 15,250 clms a ya involving tol, employment and commerl mattes. T morty of these claims were stided for less than S5,000 each. For most clai, PG&E is self-omD 14 insured for up to S0 million perclaim

• M4

3. During the five year peiod from 1996 through 2000, the Average total 16 payout for third party claims settlements was S31 miion a y, exclusive of individual*.

17 payments greater than S5 million, environental remedistion claims and unusual events, 18 such as the December 8, 1998 cumge That outagc suddenly andtueectedly blackd-o 19 most oFSan Frncisco and part of the Peninsula for many conecutive ba=, resulting in 20 almost 19,000 ClAm 21' 4. n the ordinary coc of business, the Law Departzsctd the Safety, 22 Health and Claims DF t receive thousands of claims and underti to investigate, 23 evaluae md resolve the. These claims incude, i= ia.motor vehicle accideuts, minor 24 property dama caused by PG&E personnel or equipezt, slip and fills, electical personal 25 ijues, g2s or electric fres, dxmgc to appliances caused by power sures and conract 26 disputes. Due to the shecr number of claims received ach year, it is imperative that these 27 matters be resolved as cxeditiously us possible. Additionally, once a 28 M-CL OF IATHAPMT. AN~NAND ISO DETOR'S MOfCl - Wm el 3O9 DM

.1-

K) 16: R TD:43293514 28-20*

9 %, .0

.I I

claim hss been properly rveuacd by the Law and/or Safdy, kIeauh and Cls 2

Dqpartramts it is gcaly in the best interest of il interested parties, inlding PG&E's customrs ad the geneal public, to rsolv e dispu as prptly as posibl 4

• . Thm o n for claims molso on Post-pefdon as set 5 fmilor -peddo*

foth in the Motion woud autorzePG&E to expend up t s21 6 aftr (subje, in ec claims geaedforcaled year200 nd S31 mlion nUlly t 7 ilar setdeiet amv SS million). Te S21 mio figure isS caue, to an ecption for a 8 r201 wili only cover the prised on the fct at popetion claims forycsaPm 9 ptcr i peti toug pciod from l 6,2001, thet PG&E filed it 10 will be a Dcmbci 31, 2001. It is also aftScipatd that t 11 take some time for Claims raising post-Petition t Work their Way though the caim 12 resolution process. The S31 million figur, as mentioned aboe, is drived by averagingthe

-1%ftwt~13 total payout for claims duing the pteeding five yearperiod,ecdg any singie setdement 14 h onImntal rczediation claims and unuual v such as the in excess of M5 lllion, is1

• Deccrnber8, 1998 outa

.16 A3aowingPG&Etores ;claimsm thcmaw set ffrhinthe

6. .

17 Motion will aciltate coe iunation of routine, daily operations, ruce trsactioSal costs, i8 sputes, and enable the Low Dcparqment nd the pnroide flexibility to xpeditiouly resol 19 Safety, Heah ard Cba. Depxtmet to rain responsive to PG&E szom raand thee 20

-aalp bublc in moh luims.

-21 I declr upenpeAty-of psjury under the laws of th United States of America 22 thait t foregoing is t and comrct. Ecated ts 5 day of June, 2001, at S=n 23 Pimmiaco forciL 24 25

. 26 L~~I WD Smfl4dtftmfllI2,3J4 27 28 D!0 OF ZAIRM T. AWAIM ISO DEMR'S McUn1 No. 01 3O2 DM U- K)j

• 1*II

• %a 00 i

i II JAIMES L LOPES (No. 63678)

JEFFRBEY SCLlNo.91404) t JANETA. N o10474, HOWARD RIlCBEMMEROVS I CANADY, "t'I J",129 Pfl 1: 00 3I FAL1 & PABKIN A Professional C~orporation. K.LU~A34 ;. CASADY. CLERK~

.4 Thre Em bscader Centa 7th Floor 'U.S. GAV'RUPTCY CM ~T San Francisco,Califonia U 1 11-4065 NORTIJZRN DIST. OF C SAN M.?ANCIS(0CA.

Telephone 415/434-2600 Fcimihle: 4151217-5910 11 Attors for Debtor and Debtor in PossessioD 7 PACIFPC GAS ANDLExCRIC COMPANY 8 I UNITED STATES BANkRUPtCY COURT 19 NORTHN DISTRICT OF CALIORNIA 10 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION II.6 ln re Cas No. 01-30923 DM 12 PACIFC GAS AND E ECTRIC Chapt. II Case

____f 13 COMPANY, a Califor ia coroation Dfte: June 26,2001 Pd itor. Tim: 9.30 am*.

U,-

Place: 235 Pine Strvd, San Francisco, CA

. . 15 J2d4e: H0 1 Motli I -

Federal ID. No. 94-074:12640 16 ORDER RE MOTION FOR AM OR7ZATION TO SETTLE 17 POST PETIION TH[RD PARTY LAIMS 22 INTMQDWARYLUSiEiDUNSTW 18 19 The Court, haig considered fte Motion forAuthorization to Settle Post-Petition 20 Third Pty Caiminthe Orday Cse of Business (the ¶Motion") filed herinbyPacific 21 Gas and Eleciic Company, debtor and debtor in possession brcein (PG&E7); the 22 Declaration of la1 T. Annand in p thereog the Official Committee of UnIecd 23 Creditor (thce Committo Response in support of the Motion; and the Opposition of IBEW 24 Local #1245 C'DIEW-) to Portions of Motion Seeking Autoity to Settle Certain Post-

.25 Petition Third Party Claims; the reord in this cae&, and any adaissible evidence presented to 26 the Court at orprior to the bearing On the Motion, hereby fins a's follows:

27 A. Notice of the Motion was adequate and apppriate under the c i of 28 this Chapter 11 case.

I ORDER RE MOT. FOR AUTHOR. TO SEFtE PO WD O0M1n-/4i snmyr23Yv3

-PT.1T)R"Y. CLAM IN MD. COURE OF MM

. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\?0Ct1 I - - __ -mod EXHIBIT -C

Q-) __K

• I. . lb I

.0 0

I B. Good case its for approvin the Motion and nihutzDigPG&E toxoter.

2 into post-peltion se6 ements on the terms and conditiow described tbrin, as r i 3 by the additilai prooedu seaforth below.

.4 Based o the foregoing, IT IS HZPEY ORDER t 5 1. 7e Modoo u gmntz*d.

6 2. PG&E is anthorizod to settle and pay post-petition tost, aeployment and

.7 comnercial caims, as describedin fh Motion, within the 'limits sa for in the Motio.aL In

.8 9

addition to Such iio, PG&E is newized to enter int and pay settlomaita inder the co1oective bargaining agreat to wHic PG& is a party Withe onal U.

10 Brothecribod of Electrical Woien, Local 1245, AFL-IO, the Egine and Sientists of 11 Califfimma, IFP7E Local 20, AFL-IO and CLC, and he Itational of Se 12 Officen (collectively, the "Colective Bxnim g Atreementlh), in an agegate mount of.

up to S2 million per calendar yew, ;m3ddtftt if any pmposod sttlemt of, snl&e

- 2 13 am grievance is mexces ofSSOO,00, PG&E shall give ite Commifte fhi0 (5) buiidn dy' glum Dotice ofand opprt to odect to such pposed settlement.

16 3. PG&E shall report to BEW, by letter to its counsel, if ;etmients under the 17 Colective Bargaining Agreement reach SI.5 milliai in the aegg t inan m g ive ye, in i8 which event PG&E will, upon the written request of EW, bring a motion befcxu this Cout 19 on notice to PG&E and fhe Creitors' Commitee, seeking expanded authzt for such 20 setdcet 21 Date&- iu 20031.

22 ODRS ION=J 23 HONORABLE" DEGNIS'MONrALI 24 UiTED SrATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE 25 26 27 28 ORDERPBEMOT. FOR AUrHOR. TO SBTMhE PO-PET. E3]DPTYaCAIMS IN ORD. COURSE BUS WDOaOMI/r1441 ~2WS72m33& 2 I

U i

K-) K)j 415 4% 7465 P.B44 I '4.

• 3LH-26-2M v 15:3 0 LW OWIC 615 IS SF W .~~~~~~~

I I APPROVEDAS TOPORM I I 2

DatMd Jmlc 2001 M4ILANK TWEED, HADLEY & MC=LY 3

4 5 AuoDe" fir O2&a Coi=O Of 6 U I I 3 7

200 NEYNPAR, ANDON, PREIAS, a 8 Dde& ]=44

• ;RO931Y 9 ^

1rMI/i

)D 6 By:W #

11-

• 12 13 I 114 Z.15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AU1E L7 5 7 zISTWfT.T7!D PT O DZ OaD. RUROP BUS

.ORDERt EM 02 WbDSC2MM4&lqarI &Wu?3P4 -3.

Tam P.04

- a--

4 a .0

.0

.3 PROVED4ASTOS:PM . ~ ~ ~~~~~~.

1 . I .

2 'MANu 1 T h, ADLEY &MCLOY 2m.2bO.

Datd~~.. ..6 3 . . . .~

.4

.5 A~umcpfc~Officfig O.ffof 6

• Is ,- ----

7 Dated: Jma ,20O1 NBYJL4RT AN~DMRON, PBR1TAS,  : I

• FLYNN A GSEOLL I 9 . . .~~~~~~~~~

i, omi14

_tsu~IJW I.

11 12 13 414 E-ma As 16 17 19 oIEmDFYwn a.~zC 3.

20 OR.1IT WDU4IflS7a 0 11.~m

.3 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I

I ll