I il I l ~Ililim

11 tl 111 00111
i i 'll
"1m11 ~ I i~ 11'IIillll·I'lIf'Il·.1lilllllU Ii III'11
1 111mll'

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

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

001C01963232

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.
 SUM~NS SUM·100
(C/TAeION JUDICIAL) lOR COURr USEOM.Y
(SOLOPARA usa
De LA CORTE)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
fA VIsa At. DEMANDAOOJ:
n.EGAL STONE, LTD; FLEET M1\N1\GEMEl'rr LTD; UANJIN' r
SHIPPING co., LTD; SYNERGY MANAGEMENT SERVICES; I
SYNERGY MA'R.tNR T.TMtTF.n; ,TOHN ,T. rOTA, AN INDIV!DU.aL,
and DOES 1 through 100

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'Yed on you to file a written response at thIs court and have a
copy served on the plaintiff. A fetter Of phoM call 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 form that 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 pay the 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 may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want 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.
11ene30 D1AS 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.. Una carta 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 m~s 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 m~s ce~a. 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 m~s 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 tH lucro 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
The name and addressof the court Is: CASE N •
fEI nombre ydirecci6n de la corte es): INUmetodelC.so;'
Superior Court ~--------------------------~
400 McAllister Street
San Francisco CA 94102
Unlimited Civil Jurisdiction
The name, address,and telephone 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
~An Fr~n,..i.e('W~..~ 94:t.Ql~A~~'· II STr:r:>r::r:: •
DATE: DEC 10 ZUUl. {.:J\J1lMf rOI":.u Clerk,by
_e • ~

++-__ , Deputy
(Fecha) .. . (Secretarial (Adjunfo)

3. D on behatfof (specify):

under. D CCP 416.10(corporation) CJ CCP 416.60 (minor)

4.
FOM'I Adopted for MandatOl'Y UH
.b:lldaf C«J'd 01 ClIIlfcn'lta
SUM.100 (Rev. ~ 1. 2004J
D CCP 416.20 (defunctcorporation) CJ CCP 416.70 (conservatee)
D CCP 416.40(association or partnership) CJ CCP 416.90 (authorized person)
D other (specify):
0 by personal delivery on (date):
SUMMONS

L .........._ _- __
--------------_._--_. - -_.--. -. --------_._-. --.- .~--------
 ATTORNEV OR PARfY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (NMIIJ. SUIt. 8M~, 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
'!'£'..~l!~.: 415-554-6547 F.I."':~.:
A FOR Pain i nd oun
SUPERIOR COURT Of CAlIFORNIA,COUNTY OF San Franci seo
srnttTAClOM:ss:400 McAlli9ter StreeL
WI ~ AnMF!t" Same
CrTYANOZIPc6oE:San Francisco, CA
! •.I.~H:".II!:Unlimt tpn Clvi 1 JurlAoicticn
CASENAME: CCSF, et al. v , Regal Stone, Ltd., et al.
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation
[XJ Unlimited U Umfted 0 Counter CJ
Joinder
~~~'::d~ ~=';,'d~d isFI!cd\l:ft't first nppearnnco by defendant
exceeds $25 000 $25 000 or less (Cat. Rulesof Court. rule 3.402)
Items 1·6 below must be co teted see instructions on
1. Check one oox below for the case type that best descnbes thts case:
Auto Tort Contract Provfslonally Complex Civil LItigatIon
CJ Auto (22) CJ Breach of contractlwarranty (OS) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403)
CJ UnInsured mototist (46) CJ Rufe3.740conections(09) CJ AntitrusVTrade regutation(03)
Other PVPDIWD(persona' InJurylProperty 0 Other collections (09) CJ Construction defect (10)
DamageIWrongful Death) Tort 0 Insurancecoverage (18) CJ Mass tort(40)
CJ Asbestos (04) 0 Other contract (37) CJ Securities litigation (28)
CJ ProductItability(24) Real Property DO EnvironmentaVToxie tort (30)
c:J Medicalmalpractice (45) D Eminentdomalnl1nverse o Insurancecoverage daims arising from the
CJ Other PIJPOI'ND (23) condemnation (14) abovelisted prov;stonally complex case
Non.pWDtWD (Other) Tort D Wrongful evfction (33) types (41)
CJ Businesstort/unfair business practice (07) 0
Other real property (26) Enforcement of Judgment
c:J eMi rights (08) Unlawful DetaIner o Enforcementof judgment (20)
c::J Defamation (13) D Commerdal (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
c::J Fraud (16) 0 Residential (32) CJ RICO (27)
c:J Intenectuat property (19) 0 Drugs (38) o Other complaint (not specified above) (42)
c:J Professionalnegligence (25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition
c::J Other non-PIJPONVD tort (35) 0 Asset forfeiture (05) o Partnership and corporategovernance(21)
Employment 0 Petidonre: arbitration award (11) o Other petition (not specified above) (43)
CJ Wrongful termination(36) 0 Writ of mandate (02)
c::JOther employment (15) 0 OtherJudicial review (39)
2. This case DO Is 0 Is not complex underrufe 3.400 of the California Rutesof Court.If the caseis complex, markthe
factorsrequiring exceptional Judicial management:
a. DO Largenumberof separately represented parties d. 00 large numberof witnesses
b. 00 Extensive motionpractice raising difflCt.dt or novel e. DO Coordination withrelatedactions pending in oneor morecourts
issuesthat win be time--<:onsuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, Of in a federal court
c. I X I Substantial amount of documentary evidence r. 0 Substantial posljudgment judicialsupervi::>tofl
3. Remedies sought (check a" that apply): a. 00 monetary b. 00 nonmonetary; declaratory or Injunctive relief c. 0[] punitive
4. Numberof causesof action (specify):
5. This case c::J Is rn
is not a class actionsuit.
6. If there are any knownrelated cases,file and servea noticeof relatedcase. (You may use form CM-015.) I

Deecr:-.bcr 10, 2007

D~tc: . . . . , . . . . , ... L
Thomas S, Lakritz (SBN 161234) ~r__+-~~~a~~~~~t~~~~~~~~~~ __
(TYPEOR PRINT NAME)

NOTICE
• Plaintiffmustfnethis coversheet with the first paperfiled in theactionor p eeding (except smallclaimscasesor casesfiled
underthe Probate Code,FamilyCode,or WelfareandInstitutiOns Code).(Cat. Rulesof Court, rule 3.220.) Failureto file may result
in sanctions.
• File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheetrequired by local court rule,
• If this case is complex underrule 3.400 et seq.of theCalifornia Rulesof Court,you must servea copyof this cover sheeton an
other partiesto the actionor proceeding.
• Unlessthis is a collections case underrule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheetwill be used for statistical purposes only.
Pa 1cU
form AdOp!eG tor Mandatory use
JudtClaf COl.lnClI 01 Caf~
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
CAHl10 lReY. ......, t. 2007}
~ .-'IUS
 .
( c SUMMONS ISSUED
.' FILED
Su'r~IOR COURT
COUNT '( 0; SAN fR !.cHCISCa
t DENNIS J. HERRERA t State Bar # 139('()9
City Attorney ...., UL'"
'u. ""14 I '"
IU
i f.- ......
..
,... '.1: ~l
2 THERESE M. STEWART, State Bar11104930
Chief Dcputy City Attorney GOROOflPARK - LI, CLERK
DO!-.lALD P. ivIARGOLIS, State Uar# IIM~IS D.STEPPE
THO~1AS S. LAKRITZ, St:ltcDri 161234 ay·
4 Deputy City Attorneys "-~D':"::£p':':":U'~Y~Cl:"':"U~.-..:...A
City Hall, Room 234
5 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, California 94102-4682
6 Telephone: (415)554·6547
Facsimile: (415) 554-4747
7 E·Mail: tomJakritz@sfgov.org MAY 0 9 2008 .gmAM
8
Attorneys for Plaintiffs 1EPAmfENT2J2
9 CITYAND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AND
PEOPLE OF TIlE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 SUPERIOR COURT OFTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 COUNTY OFSAN FRANCISCO
13 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION L

14 CITYAND COUNTY OF SAN Case No.

CGC-07-1J6987°-
FRANCISCO AND PEOPLE OF THE
15 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COl\IPLAINT FOR DAl\fAGES, CIVIL
PENALTIES, AND INJUNCTIVE
16 Plaintiffs, RELIEF FOR:
17 vs, 1. VIOLATION OFLEl\IPERT.
KEENE.SEASTRAND OIL SPILL
·18 REGALSTONE, LTD; FLEET PREVENTION AND RESPONSE ACT
MANAGEMENT LTD;HANJIN
19 SHIPPING CO., LTD; SYNERGY 2. NEGLIGENCE
MANAGEMENT SERVICES;
20 SYNERGY MARINE LIMITED; JOHN 3. NEGLIGENCE PER SE
J. COTA, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND
21 DOES ONE THROUGH 100, 4. NUISANCE
22 Defendants. 5. TRESPASS
23 6. UNJUST ENRICIIi\IENT
24 7. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES
25
26
27
28
1
COMPLAINT, CASE NO. n:'govem\as2007'(J8002 t9'(J04S42 t 2.doc
 ( c
INTRODUCTION

2 I. On the morning 0 fNovember 7, 2007, the M/V Cosco Busan, a 65, 131-ton,900-foot
3 long container ship, departedthe Port ofOakland and headed for the Pacific Ocean, bound for
4 South Korea. TIle J31-foot wide ship was required to pass through a 2,200-foot opening between
5 two tower bases supportingthe western span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. The ship
6 failed to navigate successfully through this almostone-half mile wide gap. Instead, at about 8:30
7 a.m., the ship hit the base of the "D," or "Delta" Tower, tearing a gash in the port side ofthe ship's
S hull, ripping open fuel tanks on the ship and releasing about 58,000 gallons of heavy bunker fuel
9 into the San FranciscoBay.
10 2.: The release of the fuel fouled the Bay waters, killing or injuringat least 2,200 birds,
11 as well as marinemammals, fish, invertebrates and other marine organisms,damagingproperty
12 along the San Francisco waterfrontcontrolled, managed, maintained, and regulated by San
13 Francisco, harmingthe livelihoodsof the fishermen who depend on 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 sums ofmoney for the
16 deploymentof City personnel for investigation, remediation, and monitoringofenvironmental
17 conditions.
18 3. In this action, the City and Countyof San Francisco seeks compensation for all of its
19 costs of investigating and respondingto this catastrophic and wholly avoidableoil spill, including,
20 without limitation, the costs incurred to assessthe extent ofthe damage,mobilize and train
21 volunteers, remedydamages causedby the spiny and monitor conditions for continuingimpactsof
22 the spill. The City also seeks to recover for thedamage to natural resources and to recreational
23 opportunities. The City also requests injunctive relief to require defendants to develop and
24 implementa plan to assess, remediate, and monitor for as long as is necessary, all harm to property,
25 marine life, and recreational interests causedby defendants'catastrophicblunder. The-City
26 Attorney in additionseeks civil penaltieson behalfof the People of the State of Californiafor
27 defendants'violationofa host of laws designed to protect the delicate marineenvironment in and
28 about the Bay.
2
CO~1PLAINT, CASE NO. n:\govem\as2001\0800219\004S4212.doc
 r (

1 VENUE
2 4. Venue is proper in this Court, becausethe spill, discharge, and violationof laws
3 occurred, in part,in the City and Countyof San Francisco, and becausedefendantsat all relevant
4 times have done business in the City and CountyofSan Francisco. (Gov. Code. § 8670.59.)
5 PARTIES
6 5. Plaintiff CITY 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, acting by and through the
9 Port ofSan Francisco and other City departments or agencies, has at all relevant times had complete
10 authority to use, operate, maintain, manage, regulate, improve, and control the Port and facilities
1I along approximately 7.5 miles ofthe easternand northern waterfront ofSan Francisco, adjacentto
12 the San Francisco Bay.
13 6. PlaintiffTHE PEOPLE OF TilE STATE OF CALIFORNIA C'thePeople")
14 appear by and throughDennis J. Herrera, San Francisco City Attorney, who asserts the seventh
IS cause of action for penaltiesunder Businessand Professions Code section 17200,as authorized by
16 Business and Professions Code section 17204. The City has a populationin excess of750,000 as
17 determinedby the Demographic Research Unit of the State ofCatifomia's Department of Finance.
18 7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that defendant REGAL
19 STONE, LTD. is, and at all relevanttimes was, the owner,operator or time-charterer 0 f the Cosco
20 Busan, and that this defendant has at all relevant times done business in the State of Califomia by
21 allowing its operation in California waters,
22 8. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allegethat defendant FLEET
23 1\IANAGEl\IEl''T LTD., whichmay be otherwise known as Fleet Ship Management, Inc.
24 (hereafter, "FleetManagement Ltd."), is, and at all relevant times was, the operator,or sub..
25 manager,ofthe Cosco Busan, and that this defendant has at all relevanttimes done business in the
26 State ofCaHfomia by operatingthe ship in California waters.
27 9. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allegethat defendant IIANJIN
28 SHIPPING CO., LTD. is, and at all relevant times was, the owner of the spilled bunker fuel,
3
CO~1PLAINT, CASE NO.

------------------- -------
 ( (

and/or the owner, operator, or charterer of the ship, and that this defendant has at all relevant times
2 done business in the State ofCalifomia.
10. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that defendant
4 SYNERGY l\tANAGEl\IENT SERVICES is, and at all relevant times was. an agent ofdefendant
5 Regal Stone, Ltd.,and therefore that this defendant has at all relevanttimes done business in the
6 State of Califomia, and at all relevant times actedwithin the course and scope of its agency.
7 11. Plaintiffs are 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., and that this defendanthas at all relevanttimes done business in the State ofCalifornia,
10 and at all relevanttimes acted within the course and scope of its agency.
11 12. Plaintiffs are informed and believeand on that basis allege that defendant JOliN J.
12 COTA is an individual residingin Sonoma County, California,and 'vas piloting the ship at the time
13 of the incident.
14 13. Each ofthe above-named defendants is liable for the torts, breaches, and other
15 wrongs ofthe others, and was acting within the course 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 100 are unknown to plaintiffs. who thereforesue such defendants by such
19 fictitious names, and who will amend this complaint to show their true names and capacitieswhen
20 ascertained. Plaintiffsare is informedand believeand thereon allege that each of the defendants
21 designated as a DOE is responsible in some mannerfor the wrongsherein referred to and thereby

22 proximatelycausedinjuries and damages as alleged herein.

23 FACTS
24 15. Plaintiffsare informed and believe, and on that basis allege, the following facts: The
25 MN Cosco Busan is 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 of Oakland,bound for South Korea. It was
27 required to follow a routine route through the San Francisco Bay toward the Golden Gate. That
28 route included passing beneath the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. The ship's pilot intendedto
4
CO~PLAINT, CASE NO. n:\govem\as200r.oSOO2 I9'OO4S42 I2.doe
 ( (

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

2 feet apart. The ship was only 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 of the 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 of the public to use and enjoy the fouled beaches,

13 piers, wharves, and other facilities.

14 18. As an actual and legal result of the spill, the public was prevented from enjoying the

IS use of several beaches and San Francisco Port facilities, including wharves and piers, because of the

16 risk of exposure 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 of the

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 by the oil spin, containing the oil slick caused by the

28
5
CO~1PLAINT, CASE NO. n:\8ovc:m'as200l'.o800219'.()()4S4212.doc

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

 ( (

1 spill, monitoringforcontinuingdamage and otherwise minimizingand mitigating

2 furtherdamage;
c. Engaging fishermen and their vessels in the effort to clean up oil and attempt to save
4 afflicted sea life, in the immediate aftermath of the oil spilt;
5 d. Recruiting, training and supervising volunteers to performcleanup activities and
6 tasks to mitigate and minimizedamage to natural resources, includingbeaches and
7 wildlife;
8 e. Paying San Franciscoemployees for their time respondingto the oil spilt, which
9 temporarily precludedthese employees' performanceofregularjob duties;
10 f. Paying employeesof the Port of San Franciscowho were unable to occupy Port
11 offices in the immediate aftermath ofthe spill in order to perform their regularjob
12 duties; and
13 g. Impressing San Francisco employees into performingduties on an overtime basis to
14 respondon an urgent basis to the crisis created by the oil spill.
15 21. PlaintiffSan Francisco has sustained, and witt continue to sustain, additional
16 economicdamage. This damage includes, withoutlimitation, the loss of:
17 a. Anticipated rents, berthing,dockage and other fees, tax revenues and profit shares
18 from fi shing activities;
19 b. Anticipated income fromcanceled commuter ferry trips and pleasure excursions,
20 includingthose to Alcatraz andAngel Islands;
21 c. Anticipated parking ticket 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 and the Peopleof the State ofCatifornia also have sustained
27 damage through loss ofthe use and enjoyment ofrecreational and other opportunities affordedby
28 the natural resourcesdamagedor threatened by the spilt, including, withoutlimitation,the use of
6
CO~iPLAJNT, CASE NO.

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

 (

public beaches, wharves, piers, pedestrian andbicycle paths, marinas, and seawalls, This damage
2 includes, without limitation,losses arising from:
3 a. Preventionoi the use of San Francisco marinas and harbors by recreational boaters;
4 b. Preventionof the use of Aquatic Park, public beaches, pedestrianand bicycle paths,
5 and other San Franciscomarineenvironmentsby pedestriansand bicyclists,
6 swimmers,bathers,and waders, including cancellationof the plannedswim from
7 Alcatraz to AquaticPark;
8 c. Cancellationofthe planned triathlon at Treasure Island; and
9 d. Prevention ofrecreational and subsistence fishing offofSan Francisco piers and
10 wharves.
11 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Damages And Civil Penalties Under Lempert-Keene-Seastrand
12 Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act)
(Against An Defendants)
13
14 23. Plaintiffsreallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 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]ny responsible party, as defined in
18 Section 8670.3 [ofthe Government Code], shallbe absolutely liable without regardto fault for any
19 damages incurredby any injured party whicharise out of, or are caused by, the dischargeor leaking
20 ofoil into or onto marine waters," (Gov.• Code, § 8670.56.5, subd. (a).)
21 25. "Responsible parties" include "[he owner or transporter ofoil or a person or entity
22 acceptingresponsibility for the oil;" and "the owner,operator, or lessee of, or personwho charters
23 by demise, any vessel ..• or a person or entity acceptingresponsibility 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
CO~iPLA[NT, CASE NO. n:\Stwem\U2007\080021 9\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. A~ the owner, operator, lessee, or charterer by demise of the 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 of the 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 of real property, personal property, and natural resources. (Gov. Code, § 8670.56.5, subd. (h).)

26 36. In addition to those damages, alleged above, in any action brought by a county or

27 city, the Act entitles such an entity to recover:

28
8
CO~1PLAINT, CASE NO. n:\govcm\as2007\OSOO219'()()4S42I2.doc

---------
 r c
t a. Damages for injuryto, destruction or loss o~ natural resources, including,but not
2 limited to, the reasonablecosts ofrehabiJitating wildlife, habitat, and other resources
3 and the reasonablecosts or assessing that injury,destruction or 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 remedies provided in the Act are "separateand in addition to, and do not
8 supersede or limit, any and all other remedies, civil or criminal," (Gov. Code, § 8670.61.)
9 38. Plaintiffssustained a variety of forms ofdamage recoverableunder the Act, in
10 excess ofthe jurisdictional limit ofthis Court,including,without limitation,each of the forms of
11 damage alleged in paragraphs20 through 22, above.
12 39. The Act furtherprovides that "[a]nyperson who intentionallyor negligentlydoes
13 any of the following acts shan be subjectto a civil penalty ofnot Jess than twenty-fivethousand
14 dollars ($25,000) or more than five hundred thousand dollars (S500,000) for each violation,and
15 each day or partial day that a violation occursis a separate violation: •.. Discharges or spills oil into
16 marine waters, unless the dischargeis authorized by the United States, 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 issued or adopted pursuantto those provisions,shall be liable
21 for a civil penalty not to exceed two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) for each
22 violation of a separate provision,or, forcontinuingviolations, for each day that violation
23 continues." (Gov. Code, § 8670.66, subd. (b).)
24 41. Plaintiffsare informed and believethat defendants committed a violationof the Act,
25 within the meaningofsections 8670.66, subdivisions (a) and (b), by discharging or spillingbunker
26 fuel into the waters of the Bay, which are marinewaters, Each day or partial day that the oil has
27 remainedand win remain in marinewaters constitutes an additional violation.
28
9
COMPLAINT, CASE NO. n:'go\lem~2007\0800219\O().$S4212 .doe
 ( (

1 42. Defendants are thereforeliable for civil penaltiesunder Government Code section
2 \8670.66 according to proof.
3 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Damages For Negligence)
4 (Against An Defendants)
5 43. Plaintiffsreallegeand incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 42 of this
6 Complaint.
7 44. Defendants owed a duty of reasonable and ordinarycare to plaintiffs, which required
8 them to operatethe ship in a safe mannerso as to avoid the injuriesalleged herein.
9 45. Defendants breached their dutyofcare to plaintiffs in numerousrespects. Examples
10 of their breach include, but are not limited to, the following acts or omissionsofdefendantCota:
11 a. Attempting to sail the ship in the Bay in foggyconditions that limited visibilityto no
12 greaterthan 1/10ofa mile;
13 b. Proceeding on a course in the Bay with insufficient information about the level of
14 visibility;
15 e. Proceeding at a speed that was excessivefor the circumstances;
16 d. Failingto use all available resources to maximize safetyand minimizethe risk ofan

17 incident, including a tugboat,the VesselTraffic Serviceofthe Coast Guard, and the

18 ship's lookout;
19 e. Failingto be fuUy acquainted with and able to operatethe ship's navigation system;
20 and
21 f. Failing, ul?on being informedby the Coast Guard that the vessel was on a course that

22 would resultin a collision with the bridge, to heed that warningand to stop or
23 reversecourseuntil the location and courseof the vesselcould be ascertained with
24 certainty.
25 46. Becausedefendant John J. Cola was at an relevant times acting within the course and
26 scope of his employment or agency foreach of the other defendants, each such other defendant is
27 liable for the acts and omissions ofdefendant Cota on the basis of respondeat superior.
28
10
CO~fPLAJNT, CASE NO.
 ( (

TIIIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Lt!m1'!~~~ Fnr N~~U~e!1ce Per Se)
2 (Against All Defendants)
4i. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs I through 46 of this
4 Complaint.
5 48. Defendants violated severalstatutes, ordinances, or regulations, including, without
6 limitation, the following statutes and implementing and related regulations and ordinances:
7 a. Government Code, § 8670.25
8 b. Government Code, § 86iO.2S.S
9 c. Government Code, § 8670.27
10 d. Government Code, § 867056.5;
11 e. Government Code, § 8670.57;
12 f. Government Code, § 8670.58;
13 g. Government Code, § 8670.62
14 h. Government Code, § 8670.64
15 i. Government Code, § 8670.66;
16 j. Government Code, § 8670.67.5;
17 k. Government Code, § 8670.69;
18 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 injuryand other harm to 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 persons for whose protection the statutes,
28 ordinances, or regulations were adopted.
11
COMPLAINT. CASE NO. n:'sovcm\u200ro800219"OO4,4212.doc
 ( (

1 FOURTJI CAUSE OF ACTION

(D~nn~2es For AI'''"' Ah~ft'me!!t of Nuisance)
2 (Against All Defendants)
52. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by referenceparagraphs 1 through51 of this
4 Complaint.
5 53. Defendants' conductas allegedherein constituteda use of the San Francisco Bay in
6 such a manner as to constitute a private and public nuisance. The particularconduct constitutinga
7 nuisance is the discharge ofapproximately 58,000 gallons ofbunker fuel into the Bay environment.
8 54. Defendants' creationof the nuisance was the resultof unsafe,negligent,unnecessary,
9 unreasonable, and injurious methods ofoperation oftheir business.
10 55. Defendants' conductconstitutesa private nuisancewithin the meaningofSection
11 3479 of the Civil Code,and a public nuisancewithin the meaning ofsection 3490 et seq. ofthe
12 Civil Code.
13 56. The conductofwhich San Francisco complains is specialtyinjuriousto San
14 Franciscoas the party with complete authority to use, conduct,operate,maintain, manage, regulate,
15 improve, and controlpropertyat and about the San Francisco waterfront including, without
16 limitation, propertywithin thejurisdiction ofthe Port of San Francisco.
17 57. Despiteabundant notice and demands, defendants have failed and refused,and
18 continue to fail and refuse,to completelyinvestigate, assess,monitor,and abate the nuisance.
19 58. Defendants have threatened to and will, unless restrained by this Court, continueto
20 maintainthe nuisance and continuethe acts complained of, and each and every act has been, and
21 will bet without the consent,against the will, and in violation ofplaintiffs' rights.
22 59. As an actual and proximateresult ofthe nuisancecreated by defendants, plaintiffs
23 have been, and will be, damaged in an amount to be determined, in excess of the jurisdictional limit
24 of this Court.
25 60. Unless defendants are restrained by order ofthis Court, it will be necessaryfor
26 plaintiffs to commence manysuccessive actions against defendants to securecompensation for
27 damagessustained, thus requiringa multiplicity of suits, and the general public will be daily
28 threatened with harm to their health. safety, andrecreational interests.
12
COMPLAINT, CASENO.

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

61. Plaintiffshave no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law, and injunctiverelief

2 requiring immediate abatementofthe nuisanceis expresslyauthorized by Sections 526 and 731 of
3 the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunctionrequiring defendantsto devise
4 and implementa plan to investigate, assess.. contain.remediate, and monitor on an ongoingbasis, all
5 harm to San Franciscowaterfront property,marine life, and recreational interests at and about the
6 waterfrontabuttingthe Bay, and the beaches along the Bay and Pacifie Ocean.
7 62. In maintainingthe nuisance,defendants are acting with full knowledgeofthe
8 consequences and damage being caused,and their conduct is willful, oppressive and malicious;
9 accordingly, the City is entitled to punitive damages againstdefendants.
10 FIITII CAUSE OF ACTION
(Trespass)
11 (Against All Defendants)
12 63. Plaintiffsreallege and incorporate by referenceparagraphs 1 through62 ofthis
13 Complaint.
14 64. PlaintiffSan Franciscohas complete authority to use, conduct, operate, maintain,
15 manage,regulate,improve and control the San FranciscoPort, includingwithout limitation property
16 conveyedto San Franciscoin trust pursuant to the Burton Act and other property held in fee by the
17 City, and its facilities harmed or threatened by defendants'conduct, includingpiers, wharves,
18 pedestrian paths, seawalls, riprap, and marinasand harbors and their associated landside facilities
19 ("the property").
20 65. Beginning on November7,2007, and continuingto the present time, defendants,
21 without San Francisco's consent, trespassed on the property by causing the bunker fuel spill to

22 occur, failing to prevent the migrationof the spined fuel, and failingto removethe spilled product
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 and continuesto
26 be damaged in an amount to be determined, in excess of the jurisdictional limit of this Court.
27 III
28
13
COMPLAINT, CASENO. n:'govcm\as2007\08002'9'OO4S~212.doc
 ( c
1 SIXTII CAUSE OF ACTION
{Unju!t Enrichment}
2 (Against All Defendants)
67. Plaintiffsreallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 66 of this
4 Complaint.
5 68. The volunteers whom San Francisco recruited, trained and supervised perfonned
6 hundreds or thousands of hours ofservice, including, without limitation, retrieving, treatingand
7 saving oiled birds and other marine life, cleaningup fouled beaches and other coastal property.
8 69. The volunteerservice constituted a benefit to defendants, who were obligated by law
9 to perfonn the work that the volunteers performed,
10 70. Defendants have unjustlyretained and been enrichedby the benefitof the volunteers'
11 service, at the expenseof San Francisco.
12 71. Defendants must disgorge to plaintiffs their unjustly retained benefit.
13 SEVENTJI CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unfair Business Praetlees Act, Bus. & Profs. Code, § 17200)
14 (Against All Defendants)
15 72. The People reallegeand incorporate by referenceparagraphs 1 through71 ofthis
16 Complaint.
17 73. Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code providesthat unfair competition
18 shall mean and include any "unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practicesand unfair,
19 deceptive, untrueor misleading advertising."
20 74. Eachof the defendants' 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 within the
23 meaningofsection 17200. Such provisions thatdefendants violatedinclude, without limitation, the
24 statutes, ordinances and regulations alleged in paragraph 48, above.
25 III
26 III
27 III
28
14
CO~PLAINT, CASE NO.

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

.. .. ---_ ..- ------
... . ..
(
(

1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2 Wherefore, plaintiffspray forjudgment againstdefendantsas 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 necessary to compensate for the

5 economic,real property, Joss of use and enjoyment and natural resource damage alleged herein;
6 2. For an injunction requiringdefendants to abate the nuisance and devise and
7 implementa plan to investigate, assess, monitor, containand remediate, on an ongoingbasis, all
8 llano (0 San Francisco waterfront property, marine life, and recreational interests at and about the
9 waterfrontabuttingthe Bay, and the beaches alongthe Bay and Pacific Ocean.
10 3. For an order requiringdefendants to disgorgeto plaintiffs the value of all unjustly
11 retainedbenefits flowing from the commitment ofvolunteers' remediation activities in response to
12 the spill;
13 4. Forcivil penalties under Government Codesection 8670.66, Businessand
14 Professions Code section 17206, and any otherapplicable law;
15 5. For an awardofreasonable costsand attorney's fees under Government Code section
16 8670.56.5, subdivision (0; Code ofCivil Procedure section 1033.5; and any other applicable law;
17 5. For punitivedamages; and
18 6. For trial by jury of all issues sotriable.
19 Dated: December 10, 2007 DENNIS J. HERRERA
City Attorney
20 THERESE M. STEWART
Chief DeputyCity Attorney
21 DONALD P. ivlARGOLIS
THOMAS S. LAKRITZ
22 Deputy City Atto eys
23

24

25

26
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
27 CITY ANDCOUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; and
the PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
28
15
CO~fPLAINT. CASE NO. n:\govem\as2001\0800219\004~212.doc