"1m 11

11
'll
tl
~ I l i l i m 11'llll·I'lf'l·.1
111
1
00111
111mll'I'11
II iii ill I l~ II i ~ IIi III lilllllU Iii II
San Francisco Superior Courts
Information TechnologyGroup
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Dec·10·2007 10:30 am
Case Number: CGC..07-469876
Filing Date: Dec-10-2007 10:20
Juke Box: 001 Image: 01963232
COMPLAINT
CITYANDCOUNTYOF SAN FRANCISCO AND PEOPLE OF THE VS. REGAL STONE, LTl
001C01963232
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.

(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
SUM·100
lORCOURr USEOM.Y
(SOLOPARAusaDeLACORTE)
r
I
YOU ARE; BEING SUED BY PlAINTIFF:
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTEJ:
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AND PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
You have 30 CAlENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are set'Yedon you to file a written response at thIs court and have a
copy served on the plaintiff. A fetter Of phoMcall will not protect you. Your written response must be In proper legal fonn If you want the
court to hear your case. There may be • court formthat you can use for your response. You can flnd these court forms and more
Information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtlnfo.C8.gov/selfhe'p), your county law library, Of' the courthouse
nearest you. If you cannot paythe flUng 'ee, ask the court clerk fora fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may
los. the cas. by default, and your wag", money, and property maybe taken without further wamlng from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You maywant to call an attorney right away. If you do not knowan attorney, you maywant to call an
attorney referral servlc•• If you cannot afford an attorney, you may N eUgtb1e for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services
program. You can locat. the.. nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhe1pealtfornla.org), the CaUfornfa
Courts Online Self--HelpCenter (www.courtlnfo.ca.gov/selfhelp). Of' by contacting your local court Of county bar assoctatlon.
11ene30D1AS DE CALENDARIOdespws de que'e enhguen esta eltacldn y pape/es legales para presenta, una respuesta por escrito
en esta eorle y hacer que se enhgue una eopla al demandant.. Unacarta 0 unall,mada "/ef6nlca no 10protegen. Su respuesta por
.scrito tlene que estar en formatolega' eorrecto sl desea que procesen su esse en la eorte. Es pos/ble que haya un formulario que usted
pueda usa' para su respuesta. Piled. eneontrar estos formularios dela corte y Informac/dn en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de
Califoml. {www.courtlnfo.ca.govlselfhelplespanollJ.en.ablbllotec.de/eyes de su condado 0 en la corte que Ie quede SI no
puede pag., la cuot. de presentae/dn, plda al secretario de/a corte que Ie dIJun formulario d. exeneldn de pago de cuota$. SI no presenta
su nspuesta II tlempo, puede ptrder., caso por Incumpllmlento y la corte Ie pod" qultar su sueldo, dinero y blenes sin advertenc/a.
Hay otros requls/fos legales. Es recomendabl. quellame II un 'bogado Inmedlatamente. SI no conace a un abogtldo, puede "amar I un
servlclo de rem/s/dn a abogados. SI no puede paga, a un Ibogado, es pos/bl. que cumpll con los nqufsltos para obtener servfelos
legales gratu/tos de un program. tH serv/c/os lega'es sfn fines delucro. Puede encontrar estos gropos s/n tines tHlucro en e/s/tlo web de
Cal/fornl. Legal Sewfces"(www.lawhe'pcarifom/a.0tT11, en eI Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de Cat/fom/a,
www.courtfnfo.ca.govlselfhelplespanoV) 0 pon"ndose en contaeto con la corte 0 el coleglo de abo
Thenameand addressof thecourt Is: CASE N •
fEI nombre ydirecci6n de la corte es): INUmetodelC.so;'
Superior Court
400 McAllister Street
San Francisco CA 94102
Unlimited Civil Jurisdiction
II STr:r:>r::r:: •
_e •
The name, address,andtelephone numberof plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiffwithoutan attorney, 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 415-554-4747
Deputy City Attorney
City Hall, Room 234, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
..
DATE: DEC 10 ZUUl. {.:J\J1lMf rOI":.u Clerk,by ++-__, Deputy
(Fecha) .. . (Secretarial (Adjunfo)
FOM'I Adopted for MandatOl'Y UH
.b:lldaf C«J'd 01ClIIlfcn'lta
SUM.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)
L ..........__- __
--------------_._--_. --_.--. -. --------_._-. --.-
ATTORNEV OR PARfY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (NMIIJ. SUIt. Mtd NbU);
omas S. Lakrit% (SBN 161234)
Deputy City Attorney
City Hall, Room 234
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102-4682
'!'£' .. 415-554-6547
A FOR Pain i nd oun
SUPERIOR COURT Of CAlIFORNIA, COUNTY OFSan Franci seo
srnttTAClOM:ss:400 McAlli9ter StreeL
WI AnMF!t" Same
CrTYANOZIPc6oE:San Francisco, CA
! •. imt tpn Clvi 1 JurlAoicticn
CASENAME: CCSF, et al. v , Regal Stone, Ltd., et al.
Provfslonally Complex Civil LItigatIon
(Cal. Rules of Court, 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 the
abovelistedprov;stonally complex case
types (41)
Enforcement of Judgment
o Enforcementofjudgment (20)
Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
CJ RICO(27)
o Other complaint(not specified above) (42)
Miscellaneous Civil Petition
o Partnership and corporategovernance(21)
o Other petition(not specified above) (43)
Items 1·6 belowmust be co teted see instructions on
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation
[XJ Unlimited U Umfted 0 Counter CJ Joinder
is FI!cd\l:ft't first nppearnnco by defendant
exceeds $25000 $25 000 or less (Cat. Rulesof Court. rule 3.402)
1. Check one ooxbelowfor the casetype that best descnbes thts case:
Auto Tort Contract
CJAuto (22) CJ Breach of contractlwarranty (OS)
CJUnInsured mototist(46) CJ Rufe3.740conections(09)
Other PVPDIWD(persona' InJurylProperty 0 Other collections (09)
DamageIWrongful Death) Tort 0 Insurancecoverage (18)
CJ Asbestos (04) 0 Other contract (37)
CJ ProductItability(24) Real Property
c:J Medical malpractice(45) D Eminentdomalnl1nverse
CJOtherPIJPOI'ND(23) condemnation (14)
Non.pWDtWD (Other) Tort D Wrongful evfction (33)
CJ Businesstort/unfairbusiness practice (07) 0 Other real property (26)
c:J eMi rights (08) Unlawful DetaIner
c::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 Review
c::J Othernon-PIJPONVDtort(35) 0 Asset forfeiture (05)
Employment 0 Petidonre: arbitration award (11)
CJWrongful termination(36) 0 Writ of mandate (02)
c::JOtheremployment (15) 0 OtherJudicial review(39)
2. This case DO Is 0 Is not complex underrufe3.400of theCalifornia Rutesof Court.If thecaseis complex, markthe
factorsrequiring exceptional Judicial management:
a. DOLargenumberof separately represented parties d. 00 large numberof witnesses
b. 00 Extensive motionpractice raising difflCt.dt or novel e. DOCoordinationwithrelatedactions pending inoneor morecourts
issuesthat winbe time--<:onsuming toresolve in other counties, states, or countries, Of in a federal court
c. I X I Substantial amount of documentary evidence r. 0 Substantial posljudgment judicial supervi::>tofl
3. Remedies sought (check a" that apply): a. 00 monetaryb. 00 nonmonetary; declaratory or Injunctive relief c. 0[] punitive
4. 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 useform CM-015.) I
Deecr:-.bcr 10, 2007 ....,.... , ...L
Thomas S, Lakritz (SBN 161234) __ __
(TYPEOR PRINTNAME)
NOTICE
• Plaintiff must fnethis coversheet withthe first paperfiledintheactionor p eeding (except small claimscasesor casesfiled
undertheProbate Code,FamilyCode,or WelfareandInstitutiOns Code).(Cat. Rulesof Court, rule3.220.) Failuretofilemayresult
in sanctions.
• Filethis cover sheet in addition toanycover sheetrequired bylocal court rule,
• If this caseis complex underrule 3.400 et seq.of theCalifornia Rulesof Court,youmust servea copyof thiscover sheeton an
other partiesto the actionor proceeding.
• Unlessthis is a collections case underrule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheetwill beusedfor statistical purposes only.
Pa 1cU
form AdOp!eG tor Mandatory use
JudtClaf COl.lnClI 01
CAHl10lReY. ......, t. 2007}
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET eat. RuteI 01Court. Aies 2.30. 3.220, 3t00-3."03, 3.7"0;
U( QnS" eat. Standards01JuOO8l Admt1istnltion, Sid. 3.10
.-'IUS
MAY 0 9 2008 .gmAM
1EPAmfENT2J2
...., ""14 I '" .. if.- ......
'u. UL'" I U , ... '.1:
GOROOflPARK - LI, CLERK
D.STEPPE
ay·

SUMMONS ISSUED
.' FILED
COURT
COUNT '( 0; SAN fR!.cHCISCa
c
COl\IPLAINT FOR DAl\fAGES, CIVIL
PENALTIES, AND INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF FOR:
6. UNJUST ENRICIIi\IENT
7. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES
1. VIOLATION OFLEl\IPERT.
KEENE.SEASTRAND OIL SPILL
PREVENTION AND RESPONSE ACT
2. NEGLIGENCE
3. NEGLIGENCE PERSE
4. NUISANCE
5. TRESPASS
(
SUPERIORCOURT OFTHESTATE OFCALIFORNIA
COUNTY OFSANFRANCISCO
Plaintiffs,
Defendants.
vs,
REGALSTONE, LTD; FLEET
MANAGEMENT LTD; HANJIN
SHIPPING CO., LTD; SYNERGY
MANAGEMENT SERVICES;
SYNERGY MARINE LIMITED; JOHN
J. COTA, ANINDIVIDUAL, AND
DOES ONE THROUGH 100,
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION L
CGC-07-1J6987°
CITYANDCOUNTY OF SAN CaseNo. -
FRANCISCOANDPEOPLE OFTHE
STATE OFCALIFORNIA,
..
t
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
9 CITYANDCOUNTY OF SANFRANCISCO AND
PEOPLE OFTIlE STATE OFCALIFORNIA
DENNIS J. HERRERA
t
StateBar# 139('()9
CityAttorney
2 THERESE M. STEWART, StateBar11104930
Chief Dcputy City Attorney
DO!-.lALD P. ivIARGOLIS, State Uar#
S. LAKRITZ, St:ltcDri 161234
4 Deputy City Attorneys
City Hall, Room234
1 Dr. CarltonB. Goodlett Place
SanFrancisco, California 94102-4682
6 Telephone: (415)554·6547
Facsimile: (415) 554-4747
7 E·Mail: tomJakritz@sfgov.org
8
5
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
·18
19
20
1
COMPLAINT, CASE NO.
n:'govem\as2007'(J8002t 9'(J04S42t2.doc
(
c
2 I.
INTRODUCTION
On the morning0 fNovember 7, 2007, the M/V Cosco Busan, a 65, 131-ton, 900-foot
3 long container ship, departedthe Port ofOaklandand headed for the Pacific Ocean, bound for
4 South Korea. TIle J31-foot wide ship was required to pass througha 2,200-foot openingbetween
5 two tower bases supportingthe westernspan of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. The ship
6 failedto navigatesuccessfully throughthis almostone-half mile wide gap. Instead, at about 8:30
7 a.m., the ship hit the base ofthe "D," or "Delta" Tower, tearing a gash in the port side ofthe ship's
S hull, rippingopen fuel tanks on the ship and releasing about 58,000 gallonsof heavybunker fuel
9 into the San FranciscoBay.
10 2.: The release of the fuel fouled the Bay waters, killing or injuringat least 2,200birds,
11 as well as marinemammals, fish, invertebrates and other marineorganisms, damagingproperty
12 alongthe San Francisco waterfrontcontrolled, managed, maintained, and regulated by San
13 Francisco, harmingthe livelihoodsof the fishermen who dependon crab and other sea life in and
14 about the Bay, impairingthe public's enjoyment of the recreational opportunities affordedby the
15 Bay, and compellingSan Francisco and its taxpayers to expend substantial sumsofmoneyfor the
16 deploymentofCitypersonnel for investigation, remediation, and monitoringofenvironmental
17 conditions.
18 3. Inthis action, the City and CountyofSan Franciscoseekscompensation for all of its
19 costs ofinvestigating and respondingto this catastrophic and wholly avoidableoil spill, including,
20 without limitation, the costs incurred to assessthe extent ofthe damage, mobilizeand train
21 volunteers, remedydamagescausedby the spiny and monitor conditions for continuingimpactsof
22 the spill. The City also seeks to recover for thedamageto natural resourcesandto recreational
23 opportunities. The City also requestsinjunctive relief to requiredefendants to developand
24 implementa planto assess, remediate, and monitor for as long as is necessary, all harmto property,
25 marine life, and recreational interestscausedbydefendants' catastrophicblunder. The-City
26 Attorneyin additionseeks civil penaltieson behalfof the Peopleof the State ofCaliforniafor
27 defendants' violationofa host of laws designed to protect the delicatemarineenvironment in and
28 about the Bay.
2
CASE NO. n:\govem\as2001\0800219\004S4212.doc
Venue is proper in this Court, becausethe spill, discharge, and violationof laws
1
2 4.
r
VENUE
(
3 occurred, in part, in the City and Countyof San Francisco, and becausedefendantsat all relevant
4 times have donebusinessin the City andCountyofSan Francisco. (Gov. Code. § 8670.59.)
5 PARTIES
6 5. PlaintiffCITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ("San Francisco," or "the
7 City") is a municipal corporation duty organized and existingunder the Jaws of the State of
8 California. Under the BurtonAct, Stars, 1968, ch, 1333, San Francisco, actingby and through the
9 Port ofSan Francisco andother City departments or agencies, has at all relevant times hadcomplete
10 authorityto use, operate, maintain, manage, regulate, improve, and control the Port and facilities
1I along approximately 7.5miles ofthe easternandnorthern waterfront ofSan Francisco, adjacentto
12 the San Francisco Bay.
13 6. PlaintiffTHE PEOPLE OF TilE STATE OF CALIFORNIA C'thePeople")
14 appear by and throughDennisJ. Herrera, SanFrancisco City Attorney, who asserts the seventh
IS cause of action for penaltiesunder Businessand Professions Codesection 17200,as authorized by
16 Businessand Professions Codesection17204. The Cityhas a populationin excess of750,000 as
17 determinedby the Demographic Research Unit ofthe StateofCatifomia's Department ofFinance.
18
7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allegethat defendant REGAL
19 STONE, LTD. is, andat all relevanttimes was, the owner, operator or time-charterer 0 f theCosco
20 Busan, and that this defendant has at all relevant times done businessin the State of Califomia by
21 allowingits operation in California waters,
22 8. Plaintiffs are informed and believe andon that basis allegethat defendant FLEET
23 1\IANAGEl\IEl''TLTD., whichmaybe otherwise knownas Fleet Ship Management, Inc.
24 (hereafter, "Fleet Management Ltd."), is, and at all relevant times was, the operator, or sub..
25 manager, ofthe CoscoBusan, and that this defendant has at all relevant times done business in the
26 State ofCaHfomiaby operatingthe ship in California waters.
27 9. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allegethat defendant IIANJIN
28 SHIPPING CO., LTD. is, andat all relevant times was, the owner of the spilledbunker fuel,
3
CASE NO.
------------------- -------
(
(
and/or the owner, operator, or charterer ofthe ship, and that this defendant has at all relevant times
2 done business in the State ofCalifomia.
10. Plaintiffsare informedand believe and on that basis allege that defendant
4 SYNERGY l\tANAGEl\IENT SERVICES is, and at all relevanttimes was. an agent ofdefendant
5 Regal Stone, Ltd., and thereforethat this defendant has at all relevant times done business in the
6 Stateof Califomia, and at all relevant times actedwithin the course and scope of its agency.
7 11. Plaintiffsare informedand believeand on that basis allege that defendant
S SYNERGY i\IARINE I..Tl\IITED is, and at all relevant times was, an agent of defendant Regal
9 Stone, Ltd., andthat this defendant has at all relevanttimes done business in the State ofCalifornia,
10 and at all relevanttimes actedwithin the courseand scopeofits agency.
11 12. Plaintiffsare informedand believeand on that basis allege that defendantJOliN J.
12 COTA is an individual residingin Sonoma County, California, and'vas pilotingthe ship at the time
13 ofthe incident.
14 13. Eachofthe above-named defendants is liable for the torts, breaches, and other
15 wrongs ofthe others, and was actingwithin thecourse and scope of its or his employment or
16 agency.
17 14. The true names or capacities, whetherindividual, corporate, associate, or otherwise,
18 of DOE I through DOE 100are unknown to plaintiffs. who thereforesue such defendants by such
19 fictitious names, andwho will amend this complaint to showtheir true names and capacitieswhen
20 ascertained. Plaintiffsare is informedand believeand thereonallegethat each of the defendants
21 designated as a DOE is responsible in some mannerfor the wrongsherein referredto and thereby
22 proximatelycausedinjuries anddamagesas alleged herein.
23 FACTS
24 15. Plaintiffsare informed and believe, andon that basis allege, the following facts: The
25 MN CoscoBusanis a 6S, t 31·ton container ship, longer than 900 feet, constructed in or about
26 2001. On November 7, 2007, the ship departed the Port ofOakland, bound for South Korea. It was
27 requiredto follow a routine routethroughthe San Francisco Bay towardthe GoldenGate. That
28 route included passingbeneaththe San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. The ship's pilot intendedto
4
CASE NO. n:\govem\as200r.oSOO2I9'OO4S42I2.doe
(
(
steer between two bases supporting towers on the west span ofthe bridge. The spans were 2,200
2 feet apart. The ship was only 13t feet wide. The pilot of the ship - defendant John J. Cola - failed
3 to dear the "Delta" tower west of Verba Buena Island and, as a result, the ship collided with the
4 fender of the tower base.
5 16. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe, and on that basis allege, the following
6 facts: The ship's collision with the tower base fender created a deep gash in the hull, tearing open
7 tanks carrying bunker fuel. Approximately 58,000 gallons ofbunker fuel poured out ofthe ship
8 into the Bay waters.
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 their
11 catch of crabs and other sea life, and impaired boating, swimming, recreational fishing, walking or
12 jogging and other such opportunities for members ofthe public to use and enjoy the fouled beaches,
13 piers, wharves, and other facilities.
14 18. As an actual and legal result ofthe spill, the public was prevented from enjoying the
IS use of several beaches and San Francisco Port facilities, including wharves and piers, because ofthe
16 risk ofexposure to hazardous materials, bodily injury and property damage. The beaches included,
17 without limitation, Baker Beach, Crissy Field, and China Beach.
18 19. The opening of the crab season, and all other fishing, were postponed, because ofthe
19 human health risks presented by consumption of sea animals taken from or through the
20 contaminated waters.
21 20. PlaintiITSan Francisco has sustained, and will continue to sustain, economic
22 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 ongoing
24 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 San
27 Francisco property damaged bythe oil spin, containing the oil slick caused by the
28
5
CASE NO. n:\8ovc:m'as200l'.o800219'.()()4S4212.doc
.... _---------_... _--_._.- - ----- --- .-._---_.
(
(
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 21.
spill, monitoringforcontinuingdamage and otherwiseminimizingand mitigating
furtherdamage;
c. Engagingfishermen and their vessels in the effort to cleanup oil and attempt to save
afflicted sea life, in the immediate aftermathof the oil spilt;
d. Recruiting, trainingand supervising volunteers to performcleanup activities and
tasks to mitigateand minimizedamageto natural resources, includingbeaches and
wildlife;
e. PayingSan Franciscoemployees for their time respondingto the oil spilt, which
temporarily precludedtheseemployees' performanceofregularjob duties;
f. Payingemployeesof the Port of San Franciscowho wereunable to occupyPort
offices in the immediate aftermath ofthe spill in order to performtheir regularjob
duties; and
g. Impressing San Francisco employees into performingduties on anovertimebasis to
respondon an urgent basis to thecrisis createdby the oil spill.
PlaintiffSan Francisco has sustained, and witt continueto sustain, additional
16 economicdamage. This damage includes, without limitation, the loss of:
17 a. Anticipated rents, berthing, dockage and other fees, tax revenuesand profit shares
18 fromfi shingactivities;
19 b. Anticipated incomefromcanceled commuter ferrytrips and pleasureexcursions,
20 includingthoseto Alcatraz andAngel Islands;
21 c. Anticipated parkingticket revenues that could not be collectedbecause ofthe
22 deploymentofSan Franciscoparkingcontrol officers to non revenue-producing
23 duties; and
24 d. Anticipated tax revenues associated with impactsto tourismand business
25 interruption oftenants and lessees ofthe Port ofSan Francisco.
26 22. PJaintiffSan Francisco andthe Peopleofthe StateofCatifornia also have sustained
27 damagethrough loss ofthe use andenjoyment ofrecreational and other opportunities affordedby
28 the natural resourcesdamagedor threatened by the spilt, including, withoutlimitation,the use of
6
CASE NO.


public beaches, wharves, piers, pedestrianandbicycle paths, marinas, and seawalls, This damage
includes, without limitation, lossesarising from:
a. Preventionoi the use ofSan Francisco marinas and harbors by recreational boaters;
b. Preventionof the use ofAquatic Park, public beaches, pedestrianand bicycle paths,
andother San Franciscomarineenvironmentsby pedestriansand bicyclists,
swimmers, bathers, and waders, includingcancellationof the plannedswim from
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 23.
(
Alcatrazto AquaticPark;
c. Cancellationofthe planned triathlon at Treasure Island; and
d. Prevention ofrecreational and subsistencefishingoffofSan Francisco piers and
wharves.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Damages And Civil Penalties Under Lempert-Keene-Seastrand
Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act)
(Against An Defendants)
Plaintiffsreallegeand incorporate by referenceparagraphs 1 through22 ofthis
15 Complaint.
16 24. The Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Preventionand ResponseAct, Government
17 Code sections 8670.1, et seq. ("the Act") providesthat "[a]nyresponsible party, as definedin
18 Section8670.3[ofthe Government Code], shallbe absolutelyliablewithout regardto fault for any
19 damages incurredby any injuredpartywhicharise out of, or are causedby, the dischargeor leaking
20 ofoil into or onto marinewaters," (Gov.• Code, § 8670.56.5, subd. (a).)
21
25. "Responsible parties" include"[he owner or transporter ofoil or a personor entity
22 acceptingresponsibility for the oil;" and "the owner,operator, or lesseeof, or personwho charters
23 by demise, any vessel ..• or a personor entityacceptingresponsibility for the vessel .•.•" (Gov.
24 Code, § 8670.3, subd. (w).)
25 26. As the owner, operator, lessee, or charterer by demiseofthe vessel and owner or
26 transporterofthe oil ofthe discharged oil, defendant Regal Stone Ltd. is a responsible party that is
27 absolutelyliable under the Act.
28
7
CASE NO.
---------------
n:\Stwem\U2007\0800219\004542I2.doc:
(
(
1 27. As the owner, operator, lessee, or charterer by demise ofthe vessel and owner or
2 transporter of the discharged oil, defendant Hanjin Shipping Co" Ltd. is a responsible party that is
3 absolutely liable under the Act.
4 2R. the owner, operator, lessee, or charterer by demise ofthe vessel. defendant Fleet
5 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, defendant
7 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, defendant
9 Synergy Marine Limited is a responsible party that is absolutely liable under the Act.
10 31. As the transporter ofthe oil and the person accepting responsibility for the oil and for
11 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 meaning of
13 the Act, which defines "oil" as "any kind of petroleum, liquid hydrocarbon, or petroleum products
14 or any faction or residues therefrom, including ... bunker fuel •..•" {Gov. Code, § 8670.3, subd,
15 (n).)
16 33. The San Francisco Bay waters are "marine waters" 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 San
19 Francisco Bay, and are therefore absolutely liable without regard to fault for an damages that
20 plaintiffs sustained or will sustain.
21 35. The Act entitles a plaintiff to recover a broad variety of damages, including.. without
22 limitation, the costs of investigation, response, containment, removal and treatment; damages for
23 injury to, or economic tosses resulting from destruction ofor injury to real or personal property; lost
24 taxes, royalties, rents, or net profit shares caused by the injury; destruction, loss, or impairment of
25 use ofreal 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 or
27 city, the Act entitles such an entity to recover:
28
8
CASE NO.
---------
n:\govcm\as2007\OSOO219'()()4S42I2.doc
r
c
t a. Damages for injuryto, destruction or loss natural resources, including, but not
2 limited to, the reasonablecosts ofrehabiJitatingwildlife, habitat, and other resources
3 and the reasonablecosts orassessing that injury,destructionor loss. (Gov. Code, §
4 8670.3, subd. (h)(3»): and
5 b. Damages for loss ofuse and enjoyment of natural resources, public beaches, and
6 other public resourcesor facilities. (Gov. Code, § 8670.3, subd. (h)(7).)
7 37. The civil remediesprovidedinthe Act are "separateand in additionto, and do not
8 supersedeor limit, any and all other remedies, civil or criminal," (Gov. Code, § 8670.61.)
9 38. Plaintiffssustaineda varietyof formsofdamagerecoverableunder the Act, in
10 excess ofthejurisdictional limit ofthis Court, including, without limitation, eachof the forms of
11 damagealleged in paragraphs20 through 22, above.
12 39. The Act furtherprovidesthat "[a]nypersonwho intentionallyor negligentlydoes
13 any ofthe following acts shanbe subjectto a civil penaltyofnot Jess than twenty-fivethousand
14 dollars ($25,000) or more than fivehundredthousand dollars(S500,000) for eachviolation, and
15 eachday or partial day that a violationoccursis a separateviolation: •.. Discharges or spills oil into
16 marinewaters, unless the dischargeis authorized by the UnitedStates, the state, or other agency
17 with appropriatejurisdiction. {Gov. Code, § 8670.66, subd. (a)(3).)
18 40. The Act furtherprovidesthat ••• [e]xcept as providedin subdivision(a), any person
19 who intentionallyor negligentlyviolates any provisionof[the Act] ..• or any permit, rule,
20 regulation, standard,or requirement issuedor adoptedpursuantto those provisions, shall be liable
21 for a civil penaltynot to exceedtwo hundred and fiftythousand dollars ($250,000) for each
22 violationof a separateprovision, or, forcontinuingviolations, for eachday that violation
23 continues." (Gov. Code, § 8670.66, subd. (b).)
24 41. Plaintiffsare informed and believethat defendants committed a violationof the Act,
25 within the meaningofsections 8670.66, subdivisions (a) and (b), by discharging or spillingbunker
26 fuel intothe waters ofthe Bay, which are marinewaters, Eachday or partial day that the oil has
27 remainedand win remainin marinewaters constitutes an additional violation.
28
9
COMPLAINT, CASE NO. .doe
(
(
1 42. Defendants arethereforeliable for civil penaltiesunder Government Code section
2 \8670.66 according to proof.
3
4
5 43.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Damages For Negligence)
(Against An Defendants)
Plaintiffsreallegeand incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through42 of this
6 Complaint.
7 44. Defendants oweda duty of reasonable andordinarycare to plaintiffs, whichrequired
8 themto operatethe ship in a safe mannerso as to avoidthe injuriesallegedherein.
9 45. Defendants breached their dutyofcare to plaintiffs in numerousrespects. Examples
10 of their breach include, but are not limitedto, the following acts or omissionsofdefendantCota:
11 a. Attempting to sail the ship in the Bay in foggyconditions that limitedvisibilityto no
12 greaterthan 1/10ofa mile;
13 b. Proceeding on a coursein the Baywith insufficient information about the level of
14 visibility;
15 e. Proceeding at a speed that wasexcessivefor the circumstances;
16 d. Failingto use all available resources to maximize safetyand minimizethe riskofan
17 incident, including a tugboat, theVessel TrafficServiceofthe Coast Guard, and the
18 ship's lookout;
19 e. Failingto be fuUy acquainted withand able to operatethe ship's navigation system;
20 and
21 f. Failing, ul?on beinginformedbythe Coast Guardthat the vessel was on a coursethat
22 wouldresult in a collision withthe bridge, to heed that warningand to stop or
23 reversecourseuntil the location and courseof the vesselcouldbe ascertained with
24 certainty.
25 46. Becausedefendant John J. Cola was at an relevant times actingwithin the courseand
26 scopeof his employment or agencyforeachof the other defendants, each suchother defendant is
27 liable for the acts and omissions ofdefendant Cota on the basisof respondeat superior.
28
10
CASENO.
( (
2
TIIIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Fnr Per Se)
(Against All Defendants)
4i. Plaintiffs reallege andincorporate by reference paragraphs I through 46 of this
4 Complaint.
5 48. Defendants violated several statutes, ordinances, or regulations, including, without
6 limitation, the following statutes andimplementing and related regulations and ordinances:
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
a. Government Code, § 8670.25
b. Government Code,§ 86iO.2S.S
c. Government Code, § 8670.27
d. Government Code, § 867056.5;
e. Government Code, § 8670.57;
f. Government Code, § 8670.58;
g. Government Code, § 8670.62
h. Government Code, § 8670.64
i. 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); and
22 p. WaterCode, § 13271, subds, (a) & (c).
23 49. Defendants' violation ofstatutes, ordinances, or regulations actually and legally
24 caused injuryandother harmto plaintiffs, as alleged herein.
25
50.
Plaintiffs' harm resulted from anoccurrence of the nature that thesestatutes,
26 ordinances, or regulations weredesigned to prevent.
27 51. Plaintiffs are members of the class of personsfor whose protection the statutes,
28 ordinances, or regulations wereadopted.
11
COMPLAINT. CASENO.
n:'sovcm\u200ro800219"OO4,4212.doc
(
(
1
2
52.
4 Complaint.
FOURTJI CAUSE OF ACTION
For AI'''"' of Nuisance)
(Against All Defendants)
Plaintiffs reallegeand incorporate by referenceparagraphs 1 through51 ofthis
5 53. Defendants' conductas allegedhereinconstituteda use ofthe San FranciscoBayin
6 such a manner as to constitute a privateand public nuisance. The particularconduct constitutinga
7 nuisanceis thedischarge ofapproximately 58,000 gallonsofbunker fuel into the Bay environment.
8 54. Defendants' creationof the nuisance was the resultofunsafe, negligent,unnecessary,
9 unreasonable, andinjurious methods ofoperation oftheir business.
10
55. Defendants' conductconstitutesa privatenuisancewithin the meaningofSection
11 3479of the Civil Code, and a public nuisancewithinthe meaning ofsection3490 et seq. ofthe
12 Civil Code.
13 56. Theconduct ofwhich San Francisco complains is specialtyinjuriousto San
14 Franciscoas the partywithcomplete authority to use, conduct,operate,maintain, manage, regulate,
15 improve, and controlpropertyat and about theSan Francisco waterfront including, without
16 limitation, propertywithinthejurisdictionofthe Port ofSanFrancisco.
17 57. Despiteabundant noticeand demands, defendants have failed and refused, and
18 continueto fail and refuse, to completelyinvestigate, assess, monitor, and abatethe nuisance.
19 58. Defendants have threatened to andwill, unless restrained by this Court, continueto
20 maintainthe nuisance andcontinuethe acts complained of, and eachand everyact has been, and
21 will bet without the consent, against the will, and in violation ofplaintiffs' rights.
22 59. As an actual andproximateresult ofthe nuisancecreatedby defendants, plaintiffs
23 havebeen, andwill be, damaged in an amount tobe determined, in excessof thejurisdictional limit
24 of this Court.
25 60. Unless defendants are restrained by order ofthis Court, it will be necessaryfor
26 plaintiffsto commence manysuccessive actions against defendants to securecompensation for
27 damagessustained, thus requiringa multiplicityofsuits, andthe general publicwill be daily
28 threatened withharmto their health. safety, andrecreational interests.
12
COMPLAINT, CASENO.

(
(
61. Plaintiffshave no plain, speedy, or adequateremedyat law, and injunctiverelief
2 requiringimmediate abatementofthe nuisanceis expresslyauthorizedby Sections 526 and 731 of
3 the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunctionrequiringdefendantsto devise
4 and implementa plan to investigate, assess.. contain. remediate, and monitor on an ongoingbasis, all
5 harmto San Franciscowaterfront property, marinelife, and recreational interests at and about the
6 waterfrontabuttingthe Bay, and the beaches alongthe Bay and Pacifie Ocean.
7 62. In maintainingthe nuisance, defendants are actingwith full knowledgeofthe
8 consequences anddamage being caused, and their conduct is willful, oppressiveand malicious;
9 accordingly, the City is entitled to punitivedamages againstdefendants.
10
11
12 63.
FIITII CAUSE OF ACTION
(Trespass)
(Against All Defendants)
Plaintiffsreallege and incorporate by referenceparagraphs 1 through62 ofthis
13 Complaint.
14 64. PlaintiffSan Franciscohas complete authorityto use, conduct, operate, maintain,
15 manage,regulate, improveand control the SanFranciscoPort, includingwithout limitation property
16 conveyedto San Franciscoin trust pursuant to the BurtonAct andother propertyheld in feeby the
17 City, and its facilities harmedor threatened by defendants' conduct, includingpiers, wharves,
18 pedestrian paths, seawalls, riprap, and marinasand harbors and their associated landside facilities
19 ("theproperty").
20 65. Beginning on November7,2007, and continuingto the present time, defendants,
21 without San Francisco's consent, trespassed onthe propertyby causingthe bunker fuel spill to
22 occur, failing to prevent the migrationof the spinedfuel, and failingto removethe spilledproduct
23 from the marineenvironment,despite abundant notification of its obligation and opportunityto
24 perform.
25 66. As an actual and legal result of the trespass, San Francisco has been andcontinuesto
26 be damaged in an amount to be determined, inexcessof thejurisdictional limit of this Court.
27 III
28
13
COMPLAINT, CASENO.
(
c
1
2
67.
SIXTII CAUSE OF ACTION
{Unju!t Enrichment}
(Against All Defendants)
Plaintiffsreallegeand incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 66 of this
4 Complaint.
5 68. The volunteers whomSan Francisco recruited, trainedand supervised perfonned
6 hundredsor thousands of hours ofservice, including, without limitation, retrieving, treatingand
7 savingoiled birds and other marinelife, cleaningup fouled beaches andother coastal property.
8 69. The volunteerserviceconstituted a benefit to defendants, who wereobligatedby law
9 to perfonn the workthat the volunteers performed,
10 70. Defendants have unjustlyretained and been enrichedby the benefit of the volunteers'
11 service, at the expenseofSanFrancisco.
12
13
14
15
71. Defendants must disgorgeto plaintiffs their unjustlyretained benefit.
SEVENTJI CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unfair Business Praetlees Act, Bus. & Profs. Code, § 17200)
(Against All Defendants)
72. The Peoplereallegeand incorporate by referenceparagraphs 1 through71 ofthis
16 Complaint.
17 73. Section 17200 of the Business andProfessions Code providesthat unfair competition
18 shall mean andincludeany"unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent businessact or practicesand unfair,
19 deceptive, untrueor misleading advertising."
20 74. Eachof thedefendants' acts al1eged herein was unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent,
21 within the meaning, and in violation, ofsection 17200.
22 75. Violations ofstatutes, ordinances, or regulations constituteunlawful acts withinthe
23 meaningofsection17200. Such provisions thatdefendants violatedinclude, without limitation, the
24 statutes, ordinances and regulations allegedinparagraph 48, above.
25 III
26 III
27 III
28
14
CASE NO.
.,---.-.. .. _.. _-_._--..._- -- -_._-------
---_..- ------
... . ..
(
(
1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
2 Wherefore, plaintiffspray forjudgment against defendantsas follows:
1. For damagesin excess of the jurisdictional limit of this Court, in an amount to be
4 determined at trial, including, without limitation, all damages necessaryto compensate for the
5 economic, real property, Joss ofuse and enjoyment and natural resourcedamageallegedherein;
6 2. For an injunction requiringdefendants to abate the nuisanceand devise and
7 implementa planto investigate, assess, monitor, containand remediate, on an ongoingbasis, all
8 llano (0 San Francisco waterfront property, marine life, and recreational interestsat and about the
9 waterfront abuttingthe Bay, and thebeaches alongthe Bay and PacificOcean.
10 3. For an order requiringdefendants to disgorgeto plaintiffs the value of all unjustly
11 retainedbenefits flowing from the commitment ofvolunteers' remediation activitiesin response to
12 the spill;
13 4. Forcivil penaltiesunder Government Codesection8670.66, Businessand
14 Professions Codesection 17206, and anyotherapplicable law;
15 5. For an awardofreasonable costsand attorney's fees under Government Code section
16 8670.56.5, subdivision (0; CodeofCivil Procedure section1033.5; and any other applicable law;
17
18
5.
6.
For punitivedamages; and
For trial byjury of all issues sotriable.
19 Dated: December10, 2007
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASENO.
DENNIS J. HERRERA
CityAttorney
THERESE M. STEWART
Chief DeputyCity Attorney
DONALD P. ivlARGOLIS
THOMAS S. LAKRITZ
Deputy City Atto eys
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CITY ANDCOUNTY OF SANFRANCISCO; and
thePEOPLE OFTHESTATE OF CALIFORNIA
15