Pacific Gas Electric Companys Reply In Support of Motion To Transfer Venue To Fresno County And Consolidate Pursuant To Ccp Section 403

Reply

Cal. Super. - 5th Dist.April 22, 2015

L I M N E X U S L L P 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PAUL HASTINGS LLP DENNIS S. ELLIS (SB# 178196) dennisellis@paulhastings.com COURTNEY T. DETHOMAS (SB# 294591) . courtneydethomas@paulhastings.com 515 South Flower Street Twenty-Fifth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228 Tel.: (213) 683-6000; Fax: (213) 627-0705 ARNOLD BARBA (SBN 198131) Arnold. Barba@LimNexus.com NICHOLAS J. BEGAKIS (SBN 253588) Nick.Begakis@LimNexus.com LiMNEXUS LLP 1055 West Seventh Street, 28" Floor Los Angeles, California 90017 Phone: (213) 955-9500 / Fax: (213) 955-9511 Attorneys for Defendant PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY E-FILED 8/22/2017 4:42 PM FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT By: C. Cogburn, Deputy SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO SAM OUK, EDGAR TORRES, and GABINO ALBERTO PIZANO Plaintiffs, Vv. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants. AND CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS {01153966} Case No. 15CECGO01274 [Motion Directed To San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC 17-558177] PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO FRESNO COUNTY AND CONSOLIDATE PURSUANT TO CCP § 403 DATE: August 29,2017 TIME: 3:30 p.m. DEPT: 501 PG&E’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO FRESNO COUNTY A NI VA L N L A IR D Ad d ik 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Plaintiff Ismael Arreazola’s (“Plaintiff”) sole basis for opposing the transfer of the action entitled Arreazola v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-17-558177 (the “Arreazola Action”) to this Court, and its consolidation with the eight (8) other actions pending before this Court under the lead case Ouk ef al. v. PG&E, Case No. 15CECG01274 (the “Consolidated Fresno Actions”) is his desire to avoid this Court’s stay order. Plaintiff fails, however, to cite any legal authority establishing this to be a cognizable basis to oppose Defendant Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E”) motion to transfer, consolidate, and stay the Arreazola Action (“Motion”). As demonstrated in PG&E’s Motion, litigating one of nine actions arising from the same incident on a separate schedule in a different county will unnecessarily tax the resources of the Courts and the parties, and may yield inconsistent rulings on the same or similar issues of fact and law. Plaintiff proffers no evidence to demonstrate otherwise. Nor does he dispute that PG&E’s Motion satisfies all the requirements of C.C.P. Section 403. Because Plaintiff neither cites legal authority nor presents evidence to oppose the transfer, consolidation and stay of the Arreazola Action along with the Consolidated Fresno Actions, no grounds exist upon which to deny PG&E’s Motion. PG&E therefore respectfully requests this Court grant its Motion and issue an Order transferring, consolidating, and staying the Arreazola Action pursuant to this Court’s prior orders in the Consolidated Fresno Actions. IL PLAINTIFF PRESENTS NO BASIS UPON WHCH TO DENY THE TRANSFER, CONSOLIDATOIN AND STAY OF THE ARREAZOLA ACTION. PG&E’s Motion to transfer, consolidate, and stay the Arreazola Action cited legal authority and presented ample evidence establishing that: (1) the Arreazola Action involves {01153966} 1 PG&E’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO FRESNO COUNTY AA LA VI L N A N O La kd d 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 common, predominant questions of fact and law that are significant to the Consolidated Fresno Actions; (2) the Arreazola Action and the Consolidated Fresno Actions meet the criteria set forth in Section 404.1 of the California Code of Civil Procedure; and (3) the Arreazola Action and the Consolidated Fresno Actions are “not complex” under the guidelines established by the Judicial Council. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 403. (See generally Mot. at 5:13-11:5.) In contrast, Plaintiff’s opposition cites no legal authority and presents no evidence to demonstrate that PG&E’s Motion fails to meet any of the requirements for the transfer and consolidation of the Arreazola Action under C.C.P. Section 403. In fact, Plaintiff’s opposition stipulates, as it must, that the Arreazola Action involves common and predominant questions of law and fact that are significant to the Consolidated Fresno Action, to wit, the proximate cause of the puncture and explosion of the PG&E gas line on April 17, 2015 in Fresno California, and the party(ies) responsible for alleged injuries and damages proximately caused by that explosion. Because Plaintiff cannot deny that the incident giving rise to. the Arreazola Action and the Consolidated Fresno Actions occurred in Fresno, that all these actions implicate Fresno County as a party, and that all percipient witnesses, material third party witnesses, all parties, and all counsel of record in the Consolidated Fresno Actions reside in Fresno (with the exception of PG&E), Plaintiff can only argue PG&E’s Motion should be denied because he wants to avoid this Court’s stay of the Consolidated Fresno Actions. Plaintiff’s desire to avoid a stay and proceed ahead of the Consolidated Fresno Actions, however, is not a cognizable basis upon which to oppose PG&E Motion. III. CONCLUSION Plaintiff understandably desires to move forward with the prosecution of his case, as do all the parties in the Consolidated Fresno Actions, but he has presented no cognizable {01153966} 2 PG&E’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO FRESNO COUNTY A N A L N E S O N O A a s 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 basis to oppose the transfer and consolidation of the Arreazola Action with the Consolidated Fresno Actions. As such, for all the foregoing reasons, PG&E respectfully requests that the Court transfer to this Court, consolidate, and stay the Arreazola Action consistent with the Court’s prior orders in the Consolidated Fresno Actions’ lead case Ouk et al. v. PG&E. Dated: August 22, 2017 {01153966} LiMNEXUS LLP Arndld Barba Attorneys for Defendant PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 3 PG&E’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO FRESNO COUNTY AA LI YL L N A A N A d a n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE [CCP 1013a; Fed. R. Civ. P.6] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SS. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. Iam over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1055 West Seventh Street, g™ Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017. On August 22, 2017, I served the foregoing document, described as: PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO FRESNO COUNTY AND CONSOLIDATE PURSUANT TO CCP § 403 in this action by placing [] the original [¢/] a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST [v/] [BY MAIL - CCP §1013a(1)] I am "readily familiar" with the business’ practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. I know that the correspondence is epic with the United State Postal Service on the same day this declaration was executed in the ordinary course of business. I know that the envelope was sealed and, with postage thereon fully prepaid, placed for collection and mailing on this date, following ordinary business practices, in the United States mail at Pasadena, California. [1] [BY MESSENGER SERVICE - CCP §1011] by consigning the document(s) to an authorized courier and/or process server for hand delivery on this date. [ BY OVERNIGHT MAIL-CCP §1013(c)] I am personally and readily familiar with the usiness practice for collection and procession of correspondence for overnight delivery, and I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be delivered to an overnight courier service for delivery to the above address(es). [v/] [BY ELECTRONIC MAIL - CCP §1010.6(a)(6)] I caused such document(s) described herein to be sent to the person(s) at the e-mail address listed above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. [1 [BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION - CCP §1013(e)] I am personally and readily amiliar with the business practice for collection and processing of document(s) to be transmitted by facsimile and I caused such document(s) on this date to be transmitted by facsimile to the offices of address(es) at the number(s) listed above. The facsimile machine that I used complies with Rule 2003(3) and no error was reported by the machine. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. / PE DATED: August 22,2017 ANA Anne] Cruz {01153966} 1 PROOF OF SERVICE A RA VI L N A L I N d a i n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SERVICE LIST San Francisco Superior Court 400 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Dario de Ghetaldi, Esq. Amanda L. Riddle, Esq. Sumble Manzoor, Esq. COREY, LUZAICH, DE GHETALDI, NASTARI & RIDDLE LLP 700 El Camino Real P.O. Box 669 Millbrae, CA 94030 Tel: (650) 871-5666 Fax: (650) 871-4144 deg@coreylaw.com alr@coreylaw.com sm(@coreylaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Ismael Arreazola Nicholas Wagner, Esq. WAGNER, JONES, KOPFMAN & ARTENIAN LLP 111 E. Herndon, Suite 317 Fresno, CA 93720 Tel: (559) 449-1800 Fax: (559) 449-0749 Email: bwagner@wagnerjones.com Email: kschemenwagnerjones.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Sam Ouk, Edgar Torres, Gabino Alberto Pizano, Kao Hang, Fidel Ramirez Lazaro Salazar, Esq. LAZARO SALAZAR LAW, INC. 252 N. Fulton Street Fresno, CA 93701 Tel: (559) 498-0828 Fax: (559) 498-0822 Email: lazaro@lazarosalazarlaw.com Attorney for Plaintiffs, Juan Pablo Chagoya Gonzalez, Monica Andrade Sanchez Warren R. Paboojian, Esq. BARADAT & PABOOJIAN, INC. 720 W. Alluvial Avenue Fresno, CA 93711 Tel: (559) 431-5366 Fax: (559) 431-1702 Email: wrp@bplaw-inc.com Attorney for Claimants, Efrain S. Garcia, Christina Gutierrez {01153966} 2 PROOF OF SERVICE AA LI VA L N L L O a s a d 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dennis S. Ellis PAUL HASTINGS LLP 515 South Flower Street, 25" Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Email: dennisellis@paulhastings.com Attorney for Defendant, Pacific Gas & Electric David M. Overstreet, IV, Esq. OVERSTREET & ASSOCIATES 1300 Shaw Avenue, # 125 Fresno, CA 93710 Tel: (559) 221-2771 Fax: (559) 221-2775 Email: dmo@oa-law.net Attorneys for County of Fresno David H. Parker, Esq. Richard J. Kern, Esq. PARKER, KERN, NARD & WENZEL 7112 North Fresno Street, Suite 300 Fresno, CA 93720 Tel: (559) 449-2558 Fax: (559) 449-2564 Attorneys for County of Fresno Ara Jabagchourian, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ARA JABAGCHOURIAN 1650 S. Amphlett Blvd., Suite 216 San Mateo, CA 94402 Tel: (650) 437-6840 Fax: (650) 403-0909 Email: ara@arajlaw.com Attorneys for Espino Family and Rosario Lara J. David Petrie, Esq. PETRIE DORFMEIER, LLP 6051 North Fresno Street, Suite 110 Fresno, CA 93710 Tel: (559) 498-6522 Fax: (559) 498-6516 Attorneys for Fresno County Peace Officers Association Michael Lehman, Esq. ERIKSEN ARBUTHNOT 2440 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 101 Fresno, CA 93711 Tel: (559) 449-2600 Fax: (559) 449-2603 Attorneys for Union Pacific Railroad Company {01153966} 3 PROOF OF SERVICE AA LI VI L N L D A a s 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Kyle Wallor, Esq. LAMSON, DUGAN & MURRAY 10306 Regency Parkway Drive Omaha, NE 68114 Attorneys for Union Pacific Railroad Company Daniel C. Cederborg, Esq. OFFICE OF FRESNO COUNTY COUNSEL 2220 Tulare Street, 5" Floor Fresno, CA 93721 Tel: (559) 600-3479 Fax: (559) 600-3480 Email: dcederborg@co.fresno.ca.us Attorneys for Fresno Sheriff’s Department Bradley Post, Esq. BORTON PETRINI LLP 201 Needham Street Modesto, CA 95354 Tel: (209) 576-1701 bpost@bortonpetrini.com Sheriff’s Foundation for Public Safety {01153966} 4 PROOF OF SERVICE