'.., ;.,.: ';',.-" 516 West Shaw Avenue, Suite 200

Transcription

1 CRAIG NEEDHAM (SBN ) ANNE KEPNER (SBN ) KIRSTEN FISH (SBN 0) NEEDHAM, DAVIS, KEPNER & YOUNG, LLP 10 The Alameda, Suite San Jose, CA 1 Tel: (0)- Fax: (0) -1 GORDON A. STEMPLE (SBN )...,..... _;... GORDON A. STEMPLE, A Law Corporation '..".",r:.. '.., ;.,.: ';',.-" 1 West Shaw Avenue, Suite 0,.: "\ Fresno, California 0 Phone: () 1- Fax: () -0 Attorneys for Plaintiffs-'r SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA _::;::~.':' :'. IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA- UNLIMITE.,. CASENtl0C V PI-BLIP ADAME; DEANNA MCDANIEL ADAME; MOISES AGUILAR; LISA AGUILAR; JOHN AZEVEDO; ALICE AZEVEDO; DANIEL BARSANTI; JOYCE BARSANTI; STEPHEN BARSANTI; MICHAEL BARSANTI; GINO BARSANTI; LUCIANNA BARSANTI; ANDREW BATTEL; ROBERTA BATTEL BYPASS TRUST; BERNARDITA BILBES; CRISANTO BLAQUERA; MARIA BLAQUERA; DAVID BRADY; TIM BRETHAUER; LAUREN BRETHAUER; BERTINA CHANG; DAN CHAPMAN; PATRICK CHAPMAN; LEE CHAPMAN; DIANNE CHARLESWORTH; JOHN CHARLESWORTH; MARGARET CHARLESWORTH; PALMA CHRISTMAN; WILLIAM CHRISTMAN; WENDY CHRISTOPHERSON; WARREN CHRISTOPHERSON; ALVIRA CHRISTOPHERSON; DENISE CO; HENRY CO; JESUS DELGALDO; KEITH DENNIS; MICHELLE DENNIS; DARYL DERUS; JEROME C. DERUS; RENATO D'ORFANI; ANGELA D'ORFANI; CARLOS FEBLES; JUDY FEBLES; MICHAEL 1. GARVEY; JAMES GARVEY; GENEVIEVE GARVEY; FRANCES GOFF; THOMAS GRAY; DAVID GRAY; ANTOINETTE GRAY; STEVEN GRAY; SHEILA GRAY-GREGORY; ANDRE GREMETT; DIANNA GREMETT; JOE GURUMLAI; MARGIT GURUMLAI; TAKEO HANDA; SUMIE UCS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. Dangcrous Condition of Public.' Prollerty;. Ncgligcncc;. Intcntional Infliction of Emotional Distrcss;. Ncgligent Infliction of Emotional Distress;. Strict Liability for Ultrahazardous Activity;. Public Nuisancc;. Trespass; and'. Inverse Condemnation BVFAX {NDK Y Main\\ J\PLEADING\00 0 DOC} COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

2 HANDA; BERTALEE HATCHETT; RONALD HATCHETT; WILLIAM HAUSER; ROGER IDIART; JAN IDIART; PETER IOIART; KATHRYN IOIART; NANCY JACKSON; RONALD JACKSON; RALF KARGE; DESIREE KARGE; MICHAEL KISSNER; MARILYN KISSNER; CAROLYN KOGURA; GAUDELIO LAQUESTA; ZENAIDA LAQUESTA; DAVID LEWIS; KERRY LEWIS; THOMAS LONERO; REGINA LONERO; JIM MACKIE JR.; EULALIA MACKIE; LUCILLE MAZZEO; MENDIBLE FAMILY TRUST; MANUAL MENDIBLE; CHRISTINE MENDIBLE; SIFET OSMANOVIC; FERIDA OSMANOVIC; GWENDOLINE PATRINO; HOWARD PECK; JENNY PECK; IRMA QUINTEROS; KRISTINA RANDAZZO; TONYA RANDAZZO; KEN RANDAZZO; MARGARITA RANDAZZO; ANTHONY ROGERS; VIRGINIA ROGERS; JO ANNE SCHIRO; DAWN SEAVEY; DAVID A. SILVA; JOI-IN P. SILVA; FRED SILVA; BERNARD SOMERS; ROSE SOMERS; HAROLD SONENKLAR; JEANETTE SPANTON; JOE SUNSERI JR.; KAY SUNSERI; PATRICK SUNSERI; MARIANNE SUNSERI; GARY SUNSERI; JUDY SUNSERI; BARBARA TAMER; SAMIR TAMER; KAREN TANNER; KRISTY TANNER, by and through her Conservator, KAREN TANNER; MARILYN TRAVIS; KIRK VARTAN; MARGUERITE VARTAN; JAMES VILLAVERT; RICHELLE VILLAVERT; MICHAEL WALIAS; JULIA WALIAS; JOHN WARD; JEAN WARD; CHARLES WILSON II; CHARLES WILSON III; VALERIE WILSON; LAWRENCE WEDDEL; FRANCIS WEDDEL, by and through her Power of Attorney, LAWRENCE WEDDEL; NICHOLAS YATSKO; and KATHLEEN YATSKO, vs. Plaintiffs, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES; THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA; RICHARD E. HATCl-IETT (as a nominal defendant); KATHLEEN TANNER (as a nominal defendant); KARLA TANNER (as a nominal defendant); and DOES 1 through 0, inclusive, Defendants. {NDK Y Main\S0 JSIPLEADINGIOO I00.DOC} ~ '. ~,.;. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

3 The above-captioned plaintiffs (hereinafter collectively referred to as "plaintiffs"), allege as ] 1 I " follows against STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL, SERVICES, THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA" and RICHARD E. ' HATCHETT (as a nominal defendant), KATHLEEN TANNER (as a nominal defendant), KARLA TANNER (as a nominal defendant), and DOES I through 0, inclusive, as follows: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise and the true involvement ofdefendants sued herein as DOES I through 0, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs who therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names and will amend this Complaint to show the true names, capacities and involvement when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each ofthe defendants designated as a DOE is legally responsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein referred to and thereby legally caused the injuries and damages herein alleged.. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and that at all relevant times alleged herein each ofthe defendants was the employer, employee, agent, servant, principal, partner, joint venturer, franchisee, aider and abettor, alter ego, co-conspirator or subsidiary ofthe other defendants and at all relevant times alleged herein acted within the course and scope of such employment, agency, service, partnership, joint venture, franchise, enterprise, alter ego relationship and/or conspiracy and with the knowledge and approval ofsaid co-defendants. ", -.. Jurisdiction ofthis coul1 is proper because all acts and omissions alleged herein took place in the County ofsanta Clara, State of California.. At all times herein mentioned, defendant STATE OF CALIFORNIA is and was a sovereign state of the United States ofamerica.. At all times herein mentioned, defendant CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES is and was a department ofthe State ofcalifornia, duly organized and existing under the laws ofthe State ofcalifornia as, a public entity.. At all times herein mentioned, defendant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA is a corporation that administers the University ofcalifornia, a public trust. {NDKY Main\\1\PLEADING\OOI00.DOC) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ~ '.

4 . At all times herein mentioned, plaintiffs are informed and believe and allege thereon that II the approximately -acre parcel of real property located at approximately 0 North Winchester. Boulevard, San Jose, CA '1 in the County of Santa Clara, which was formerly known and operated -' I, as the University of California Deciduous Fruit Station, and thereafter known and operated as the Bay Area Research Extension Center (hereinafter referred to as the "BAREC" propey), was public property under the control ofdefendants STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNJA DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES, and/or THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and DOES I through 0 (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Defendants").. Plaintiffs PHILIP ADAME and DEANNA MCDANIEL-ADAME are residents of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and own and live on residential real property located at Pineview Drive, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property.'. Plaintiffs MOISES AGUILAR and LISA AGUILAR are residents of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and own and live on residential real property located at N. Henry Avenue, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property.. Plaintiffs JOHN AZEVEDO and LISA AZEVEDO are residents of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and own and live on residential real property located at 1 N. Henry Avenue, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC propey.. Plaintiffs DANIEL BARSANTI, JOYCE BARSANTI, STEPHEN BARSANTI, and MICHAEL BARSANTI are now or were residents of the County ofsanta Clara, State of California, and previously lived on residential real property located at Dorcich Street, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC propcy, at the time(s) they and their home were exposed to toxins from the BAREC property.. Plaintiffs GINO BARSANTI and LUCIANNA BARSANTI are residents of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and own and liye on residential real property located at Dorcich Street, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property. 1. Plaintiff ANDREW BATTEL is now or was a resident of the County of Santa Clara, State of California. Said plaintiff is the sole surviving heir of his father, decedent John Battel, who also previously lived on residential real property located at N. Henry Avenue, San Jose CA 1, which {NDKY Main\\ I\PLEADING\OO I00.DOCj COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

5 r is adjacent to or near the BAREC property, at the time(s) he and his home were exposed to toxins from the BAREC property. 1. The ROBERTA BATTEL BYPASS TRUST owns residential real property located at. ~.. N. Henry Avenue, San Jose CA 1, whichis adjacent to or near the BARECproperty. 1. Plaintiff BERNARDITA BILBES is a resident of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and owns and lives on residential real property located at Westridge Drive, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property. 1. Plaintiffs CRISANTO BLAQUERA, and MARIA BLAQUERA are residents of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and own and live on residential real propelty located at Westridge Drive, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property. Plaintiff DAVID BRADY is the sole surviving heir of his wife, decedent Maureen Brady. Said decedent previously lived on residential real property located at Pineview Drive, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC properly, at t1~e time(s) she and her home were exposed to toxins from the BAREC property...plaintiffs TIM BRETHAUER and LAUREN BRETHAUER are residents of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and own and live on residential real propelty located at 1 N. Henry Avenue, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC propelty. 1. PlaintiffBERTINA CHANG is now or was a resident of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and owns and previously lived on residential real property located at Forest Avenue,. '. San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property, at the time(s) she and her home were exposed to loxins from the BAREC property.. Plaintiffs DAN CHAPMAN, PATRICK CHAPMAN, and LEE CHAPMAN are the sole surviving heirs oftheir decedent, Kathleen Chapman, the mother ofdan CHAPMAN and PATRICK CHAPMAN and the wife of LEE CHAPMAN, and are now or were residents of the County of Santa Clara, State of California. Plaintiff LEE CHAPMAN owns and lives on residential real propelty located at Cecil Street, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREe property. Said plaintiffs and their decedent previously lived on residential real property located at 10 Dorcich Street, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property, at the time(s) they and their (NDKY Main\S0\I S\PLEAD1NG\OOI 00.DOC) COMPLAINT POR DAMAGES

6 ~ r. home were exposed to toxins from the BAREC property I. Plaintiffs DIANNE CHARLESWORTH, JOI-IN CHARLESWORTH and MAR'OA.RET CHARLESWORTH are now or were residents of the County of Santa Clara, State of California. DIANNE CHARLESWORTH previously lived on residential real property located at J N. Henry Street, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property, at the time(s) they and their home were exposed to toxins from the BAREC property. JOHN CHARLESWORTH and MARGARET CHARLESWORTH own and live on residential real property located at 1 N. Henry Street, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property. JOHN CHARLESWORTH and MARGARET CHARLESWORTH previously lived on residential real property located at Forest Avenue, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property, a the time(s) they and their home were exposed to toxins from the BAREC property. DIANNE CHARLESWORTH and JOHN CHARLESWORTH are the sole surviving heirs oftheir decedent, Robert Lee Charlesworth, the husband of plaintiff DIANNE CHARLESWORTH and the father of plaintiff JOHN CHARLESWORTH, who previously lived at 1 N. Henry Street, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property, at the time(s) he and his home were exposed to toxins from the BAREC property.. Plaintiffs PALMA CHRISTMAN and WILLIAM CHRISTMAN are residents of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and own and live on residential real property located at Forest Avenue, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property.. Plaintiff WENDY CHRISTOPHERSON is now or was a resident of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and previously lived on residential real property located at N. Henry Avenue, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property, at the time(s) she and her property were exposed to toxins from the BAREC property.. Plaintiffs WARREN CHRISTOPHERSON and ALVIRA CHRISTOPHERSON are residents ofthe County of Santa Clara, State of California, and own and live on residential real property located at N. Henry Avenue, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property.. Plaintiffs DENISE CO and HENRY CO are residents of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and own and live on residential real property located at 1 N. Henry Avenue, San Jose, {NDKY Main\\I \PLEADING\OOl00.DOC} COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

7 II CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property.,. Plaintiff JESUS DELGALDO is a resident of the County of Santa Clara, State of.. California, and owns and Iives on residential real property located at Forest Avenue, San Jose, CA. ~. 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREe property.. Plaintiffs KEITH DENNIS and MICHELLE DENNIS are residents of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and own and live on residential real property located at Forest Avenue, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property.. Plaintiff DARYL DERUS is a resident of the County of Santa Clara, State ofcalifoll1ia, and owns and lives on residential real property located at Pineview Drive, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or ncar the BAREC property.. PlaintiffJEROME C. DERUS is a resident of the County of Santa Clara: State of California, and owns and lives on residential real property located at 1 N. Henry Avenue, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property. 0. Plaintiffs RENATO D'ORFANI and ANGELA D'ORFANI are residents of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and own and live on residential real property located at Pineview Drive, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property. 1. Plaintiffs CARLOS FEBLES and JUDY FEBLES are now or were residents of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and previously lived on residential real property located at Forest Avenue, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or ncar the BAREC property, at the time(s) they and their home were exposed to toxins from the BAREC property.. Plaintiff MICHAEL J. GARVEY is the sole surviving heir of his wife, decedent Peggy Garvey, and owns and lives on residential real property located at N. Henry Avenue, San Jose, CA 1, where his decedent Peggy Garvey previously lived and which is adjacent to or ncar the BAREC property, at the time(s) she and her home were exposed to toxins from the BAREC property.. Plaintiffs JAMES GARVEY and GENEVIEVE GARVEY are residents of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and own and live on residential real property located at 1 Pineview Drive, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property.. Plaintiff FRANCES GOFF is a resident of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, {NDKY Mnin\\1\PLEADING\OOI00.DOC} COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES " -,

8 i I and owns and lives on residential real propelty located at 0 Crestview Drive, San Jose, CA I, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property, l' ;. II PlaintiffTHOMAS ORAY is now or was a resident of the County of Santa Clara,State. ~. of California, and previously lived on residential real propclty located at Pineview Drive, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacenito or near the BAREC property, at the time(s) he and his home were exposed to toxins from the BAREC property.. Plaintiffs DAVID ORAY and ANTOINETTE ORAYare residents ofthe County of Santa Clara, State ofcalifornia, and own and live on residential real property located at Pineview Drive, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property.. Plaintiff STEVEN ORAY is a resident ofthe County of Santa Clara, State of California, and lives on residential real property located at Pineview Drive, San Jose, CA ', which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property...'. PlaintiffSHEILA ORAY-GREGORY is or was a resident of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and previously lived on residential real property located at Pineview Drive, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property, at the time(s) she and her home were exposed to toxins from the BAREC property.. Plaintiffs ANDRE OREMETT and DIANNA GREMETT are residents of the County of Santa Clara, State ofcalifornia, and own and live on residential real property located at Crestview Drive, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property. ", ~. 0. Plaintiffs JOE GURUMLAI and MARGIT OURUMLAI are residents of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and own and live on residential real property located at Pineview Drive, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property. 1. Plaintiffs TAKEO HANDA and SUMIE I-JANDA are residents of the County ofsanta Clara, State of California, and own and live on residential real propelty located at 1 N. Henry Avenue, San Jose, CA I], which is adjacent to or near the BAREC propel1y.. PlaintiffBERTALEE HATCHETT is a resident of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and owns and lives on residential real property located at DOl'cich Street, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC propel1y. Plaintiff RONALD HATCHETT is or was a {NDKY Main\\I \PLEADING\OOI00,DOq COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

9 resident of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and previously lived at residential real property II l";' located at Dorcich Street, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property, at the time(s) he and- his horne were exposed to toxins from the BAREC property. Plaintiffs BERTALEE. ~.. HATCHETT and RONALD HATCHETT are surviving heirs of decedent James C. Hatchett, the husband of BERTALEE I-IATCHETT,and the father of RONALD HATCHETT. Said decedent previously lived at residential real property located at Dorcich Street, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property, at the time(s) he and his home were exposed to toxins from the BAREC property.. Nominal defendant RICHARD E. HATCHETf is the son of decedent James C. Hatchett.. Plaintiff WILLIAM HAUSER is a resident of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and owns and lives on residential real property located at 1 Westridge Drive, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC propelty.. Plaintiffs ROGER IDIART and JAN IDIART ~re residents of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and own and Jive on residential real property located at N. Henry Avenue, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property.. Plaintiff PETER IDIART is now or was a resident of the State of California and previously lived at residential real property located at N. Henry Avenue, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC propelty, at the time(s) he and his home were exposed to toxins from the BAREC property.. Plaintiff KATHRYN IDIART is or was a resident of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and previously lived at residential real property located at N. Henry Avenue, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property, at the time(s) she and her home were exposed to toxins from the BAREC property.. Plaintiffs NANCY JACKSON and RONALD JACKSON are residents of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and own and live on residential real property located at Pineview Drive, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property.. Plaintiffs RALF KARGE and DESIREE KARGE are residents of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and own and live on residential real property located at Crestview Drive, {NDKY Mail1\\1\PLEADINO\OOI00.DOC} COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

10 San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property. II I.';'." 0. Plaintiffs MICHAEL KISSNER and MARILYN KISSNER are resident of the County of Santa Clara, State of CaHfornia, and own and live on residential real property located at 0 Forest. ~" Avenue, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property. 1. Plaintiff CAROLYN KOGURA is a resident ofthe County of Santa Clara, State of California, and owns and lives on residential real property located at 1 Forest Avenue, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property.. Plaintiffs GAUDELIO LAQUESTA and ZENAIDA LAQUESTA are residents of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and own and live on residential real property located at Dorcich Street, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property.. Plaintiffs DAVID LEWIS and KERRY LEWIS are residents of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and own and live on residential real property located at N. Henry Avenue,.. San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property.. Plaintiffs THOMAS LONERO and REGINA LONERO are residents of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and own and live on residential real property located at N. Henry Avenue, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property.. Plaintiff JIM MACKIE JR. is now or was a resident of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and lives at residential real property located at 0 Forest Avenue, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property. Plaintiff EULALIA MACKIE is a resident of the ", '. County of Santa Clara, State of California, and owns and lives on residential real property located at 0 Forest Avenue, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property. Plaintiffs JIM MACKIE JR. and EULALIA MACKIE are the sale surviving heirs of decedent Jim Mackie, husband ofeulalia MACKIE and father of JIM MACKIE JR. Said decedent previously lived at residential real property located at 0 Forest Avenue, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property, at the time(s) he and his home were exposed to toxins from the BAREC property.. Plaintiff LUCILLE MAZZEO is a resident of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and owns and lives on residential real property located at Pinewood Drive, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property. {NDKY MainI1SIPLEADINGIOOI00.DOCj COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

11 . PlaintiffMENDIBLE FAMILY TRUST owns residential real property located at Pineview Dr., San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property.. Plaintiffs'MANUAL MENDIBLE and CHRISTINE MENDIBLE are residentsofthe ~.. County of Santa Clara, State of California, and live on residential real property located at 1 Pineview Dr., San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property.. Plaintiffs SIFET OSMANOVIC and FERIDA OSMANOVIC are residents of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and own and live on residential real property located at Forest Avenue, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property. 0. Plaintiff GWENDOLINE PATRINO is a resident of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and owns and lives on residential real property located at 0 Crestview Drive, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property. Said plaintiff is the sole survi'ving heir of decedent Ben Patrino, her husband, who also lived at residential real property located at 0 Crestview Drive, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property, at the time(s) he and his home were exposed to toxins from the BAREC property. 1. Plaintiffs HOWARD PECK and JENNY PECK are residents of the County ofsanta Clara, State of California, and own and live on residential real property located at Forest Avenue, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property.. Plaintiff IRMA QUINTEROS is a resident of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and owns and lives on residential real propel1y located at Forest Avenue, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property.. Plaintiff KRISTINA RANDAZZO is now or was a resident of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and previously lived at residential real property located at 1 N. Henry Avenue, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property, at the time(s) she and her home were exposed to toxins from the BAREC property.. PlaintiffTONYA RANDAZZO is now or was a resident of the County of Santa Clara, State of California and previously lived at residential real property located at 1 N. Henry Avenue, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property, at the time(s) she and her home were exposed to toxins from the BARBC property. {NDKY M~il1\\1\PLEAf)}NG\OOI00.DOC} II COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

12 .0 )0 )) ) ) ) ) 1 1. Plaintiffs KEN RANDAZZO and MARGARITA RANDAZZO are resident ofthe ~,. ;. County ofsanta Clara, State ofcalifornia, and own and live on residential real property located at ) N. Henry Avenue, Sim Jose,' CA )), which is adjacent to or near the BAREC propel1y.,. Plaintiffs ANTHONY ROGERS and VIRGINIA ROGERS are residents:ofthe County 0 Santa Clara, State of California, and own and live on residential real property located at Pineview Drive, San Jose, CA 1), which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property. Said plaintiffs also own residential real propel1y located at Pinewood Drive, San Jose, CA ) ), which is adjacent to or near the BAREC propel1y.. Plaintiff JO ANNE SCHIRO is a resident ofthe County of Santa Clara, State of California, and owns and lives on residential real property located at 1 Dorcich Street, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC propel1y. Said plaintiff also owns residential rea) property located at Dorcich Street, San Jose, CA )), which is adjacent to or near the BAREC.. property. Said plaintiff is the sole surviving heir of decedent Chincy Schiro, her mother, who lived at ) 1 Dorcich Street, San Jose, CA ) ), which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property, at the time(s) she and her home were exposed to toxins from the BAREC property.. PlaintiffDAWN SEAVEY is a resident ofthe County ofsanta Clara, State of California, and owns and lives on residential real property located at Forest Avenue, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property.. PlaintiffDAVID A. SILVA is now or was a resident of the County of Santa Clara, State ", -. of California, and previously lived at residential real property located at Dorcich Street, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property, at the time(s) he and his home were exposed to toxins from the BAREC property. 0. Plaintiff JOliN P. SILVA is now or was a resident of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and previously lived at residential real property located at Dorcich Street, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC propelty, at the time(s) he and his home were exposed to toxins fr01 the BAREC propel1y. 1. P)aintiffFRED SILVA is a resident of the County of Santa Clara, State ofcalifornia, and owns and lives on residential real property located at Dorcich Street, San Jose, CA 1, which is {NDKY M<lin\\1\PLEADING\OOI00.DOC} COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

13 adjacent to or near the BAREC property Plaintiffs BERNARD SOMERS and ROSE SOMERS are residents of the County of Santa Clara, State- of California, and own and live on residential real propcrty located at 1 Dorcich Street, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or ncar the BAREC property.. Plaintiff HAROLD SONENKLAR is a resident of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and owns and lives on residential real property located at 0 N. Henry Avenue, San Jose, C 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property., Plaintiff JEANETTE SPANTON is a resident of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and owns and lives on residential real property located at Dorcich Street, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property.. Plaintiff JOE SUNSERI JR. is a resident ofthe County of Santa Clara, Slate of California, and owns and lives on residential real propclty located at I Dorcich Street, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property. Said plaintiff is a surviving heir of decedent Joe Sunseri, his father, who lived at residential real property located at 1 Dorcich Street, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property, at the time(s) he and his home were exposed to toxins from the BAREC property.. PlaintiffKAY SUNSERI is a resident ofthe County of Santa Clara, State of California, and owns and lives on residential real property located at 1 DOl'cich Street, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property. Said plaintiff is a surviving heir ofdecedent Joe Sunseri, her husband, who lived on residential real property located at 1 Dorci~h Street, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property, at the time(s) he and his home were exposed to toxins from the BAREC property.. Plaintiffs PATRICK SUNSERI and MARIANNE SUNSERI are residents of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and own and live on residential real property located at Dorcich Street, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property. Plaintiff PATRICK SUNSERI is a surviving heir of decedent Joe Sunseri, his father, who lived on residential real property located at 1 Dorcich Street, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property, at the time(s) he and his home were exposed to toxins from the BAREC propclty. lndky Main\\1\PLEADING\OOI00.DOC} 1 COMPLA1NT FOR DAMAGES

14 i!. Plaintiffs GARY SUNSERI and JUDY SUNSERI are residents of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and own and live on residential real property located at 0 N. Henry'Avenue, San Jose, CA n, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property. Plaintiff GARY SUNSERI is a surviving heir of decedent Joe Sunseri, his father, who lived on residential real property located at J 1 Dorcich Street, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property, at the time(s) he and his home were exposed to toxins from the BAREC propel1y.. Plaintiffs BARBARA TAMER and SAMIR TAMER are residents of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and own and live on residential real property located at Pineview Drive, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property. 0. Plaintiff KAREN TANNER is a resident of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and owns residential real property located at Westridge, San Jose, CA 1 and Westridge Drive, San Jose, CA 1, which are adjacent to or near the BAREC property. Said plaintiff previously lived on Westridge, San Jose, CA 1, which is 'adjacent to or near the BAREC property. Said plaintiff is a surviving heir of decedent Rita Tanner, her mother, who lived on Westridge, San Jose, CA1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property, at the time(s) she and her home were exposed to toxins from the BAREC propel1y. 1. Plaintiff KRISTY TANNER is a resident of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and lives on residential real property located at Westridge, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property. Said plaintiff is a surviving heir of decedent Rita Tanner, her mother, who lived at Westridge, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or 'near the BAREC property, at the time(s) she and her home were exposed to toxins from the BAREC property. Said plaintiff brings this action by and through her conservator, plaintiff KAREN TANNER.. Nominal defendants KATHLEEN TANNER and KARLA TANNER are the daughters 0 decedent Rita Tanner.. PlaintifTMARILYN TRAVIS is a resident ofthe County of Santa Clara, State of California, and owns and lives on residential real property located at Dorcich Street, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property. Said plaintiff is the sole surviving heir of decedent Ted Travis, her husband, who lived on Dm'dch Street, San Jose, CA 1, which is {NDKY Main\S0\ IS\PLEADlNG\OO 0 DOC} 1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

15 adjacent to or near the BAREC propel1y, at the time(s) he and his home were exposed to toxins from the II BAREC property.. PlaintiffsKIRK VARTAN and MARGUERITE VARTAN are residents of the County of... Santa Clara, State of California, and own and live on residential real property located at N. Henry Avenue, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property.. Plaintiffs JAMES VILLAVERT and RICHELLE VILLAVERT are residents of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and own and live on residential real property located at 10 Dorcich Street, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property.. Plaintiffs MICHAEL WALIAS and JULIA WALIAS are residents of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and own and live on residential real property located at 1 Crestview Drive, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property.. Plaintiffs JOHN WARD and JEAN WARD are resident of the County of Santa Clara,.. State of California, and own and live on residential real property located at Crestview Drive, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property. PlaintiffJEAN WARD is the sole surviving heir of decedent Paul Hel1er, who lived on residential real property located at Crestview Drive, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property, at the time(s) he and his home were exposed to toxins from the BAREC property.. Plaintiffs CHARLES WILSON II, CHARLES WILSON III and VALERIE WILSON are the sole surviving heirs of decedent Michelle Battle, who previously lived on residential real property ", '. located at N. Henry Avenue, San Jose CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC propel1y, at the time(s) she and her home were exposed to toxins from the BAREC property.. PlaintiffLAWRENCE WEDDEL is a resident ofthe County of Santa Clara, State of California, and lives on residential real property located at 10 N. Henry Avenue, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property. 0. Plaintiff FRANCIS WEDDEL is a resident of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and owns and lives on residential real property located at 10 N. Henry Avenue, San Jose, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC property. Said plaintiff brings this action by and through her power ofattorney, plaintifflawrence WEDDEL. {NDK Y Main\\1\PLEADlNG\OOI00.DOqI COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

16 1. Plaintiffs NICHOLAS YATSKO and KATHLEEN YATSKO are residents of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and own and live on residential real property located at Forest Avenue, San Jose-, CA 1, which is adjacent to or near the BAREC propey. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and allege thereon that defendants STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES and DOES 1 through arc the current owners of the BAREC property. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that on or about May 0, 0, the BAREC propey was conveyed to said defendants by defendants THE REGENTS OF TI-I-; UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and DOES through 0.. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and allege thereon that prior to the transfer of ownership ofthe BAREC property to defendants the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES and DOES 1 through, defendants THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and DOES througl; 0' owned and operated the BAREC property for approximately years, that is, from approximately 1 to 0.. Plaintiffs-are informed and believe and allege thereon that during the time the BAREC propey was owned, operated and maintained by defendants THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and DOES through 0, said defendants used the BAREC property to develop, test and design new pesticides, as defined by Cal Food & Agr Code 1, as well as herbicides, fungicides and other, as yet unknown, hazardous chemicals the use of which is regulated or prohibited under Chapter (commencing with 0I) of Division of the Agricultural Code (her~inafterreferred to collectively as "toxins").. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and allege thereon that defendants THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and DOES through 0 knowingly applied substantial amounts of said dangerous neurotoxic and carcinogenic toxins to the vegetation and soil of the BAREC property from approximately 1 to 0, that said toxins remained in the soil ofthe BAREC property from that time to the time the property was transferred to defendants the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES and DOES 1 through in 0, that said toxins still remain in the soil of the BARBC property currently owned and tilled by defendants the {NDKY Main\\1\PLEADING\OOI00.DOC} 1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

17 /~ j'! II STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES and DOES I through to this day, and that as a result, the BAREC property has at all relevant times mentioned, herein been in a dangerous condition in that the propelty creates a substantial risk ofinjury when. " adjacent property is used with due care in a manner in which it is rcasonably foreseeable:that it will. be used.. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and allege thereon that, in the course of and after such applications of said toxins by defendants THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and DOES through 0, said toxins migrated and continue to migrate to and near the adjacent residential property sunounding the BAREC property through air, airborne soil dusts, adhered to soil palticulates, rain, fog and irrigation water, and as soil vapors rising up (volatilization) from underground water beneath and ncar the adjacent residential property that surrounds the BAREe property.. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and allege thereon that said toxins from the BAREC.. property have entered and continue to enter their bodies through the routes of dermal contact (absorption), inhalation, and/or consuming what was at the time believed to be safe home-grown vegetables and fruits fro1 the BAREC property (hereinafter referred to collectively as "routes of exposure").. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and allege thereon that, unbeknownst to them at the timc, at least 0 different documented chemical compounds were applied to the BAREC property by defendant defendants THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and DOES., ". through 0 between approximately 1 and 0 in unsafe amounts greater than allowed by state and federal licenses, permits, ordinances, reporting requirements and other laws. The amount of undocumented chemical compounds that said defendants applied to the BAREC property and/or applied to the vegetation on the BAREC propelty prior to this time (that is, before records were kept for the BAREC property) is unknown.. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and allege thereon that soil samples taken at properties bordering the BAREC property have detected the presence of toxins in excess of thc Preliminary Remediation Goals ("PRGs") set by the EPA. Said soil samples showed the presencc of gamma-bhc;,,-00e;,-dot; Oieldrin; Heptachlor epoxide; Arsenic; Cadmium; and Chromium (NDKY Main\\ I\PLEADING\OO I00.DOq COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES " '

18 (~ (hereinafter also incorporated into the term "toxins"). Said toxins are the same as those listed as having been applied to and detected on the BAREC property Plaintiffs are informed and believe and allege thereon that at least approximately cases.. _. ~.. of varying forms of cancer have been documented in the immediate neighborhood adjacent to or near the BAREC property. 1. At all times herein mentioned, defendants, and each of them, were legally charged with a duty to, and did in fact undertake to, own, operate, maintain, possess, control, repair, remedy, correct and/or improve the BAREC property, including providing safeguards against the dangerous condition of the BAREC property and/or warning of the dangerous condition ofthe BAREC propel1y. Said defendants were legally charged with the duty of keeping the subject BAREC property in a safe condition and to protect the adjacent propel1ies and/or those living on adjacent properties against foreseeable injury, including plaintiffs, within the meaning of Government Code 0 et seq. and Government Code.. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and auege thereon that defendants, and each ofthem, negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally and knowingly breached their duty to plaintiffs by applying toxins to the BAREC property in unsafe amounts greater than allowed by state and federal licenses, permits, ordinances, reporting requirements and other laws and/or tilling the soil on the BAREC property after said toxins were applied to the property and were aware that these toxins would follow said routes ofexposure to plaintiffs and the environment, placing plaintiffs and the environment at an increased risk of foreseeable harm.. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and allege thereon that said toxins from thebarec property have migrated and continue to migrate to the adjacent residential land, homes and persons of plaintiffs to this day and that the BAREC property has been at all relevant times mentioned herein been in a dangerous condition in that said property creates a substantial risk of injury when adjacent property is used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used.. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and allege thereon that defendants, and each of them, have known for many years of the ongoing migration of said toxins from the BAREC property to the adjacent residential land, homes and persons of plaintiffs and where and when said toxins would follow (NDKY Main\\J\PLEADING\OOJ00.DOC) ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES " -.

19 :~, said routes of exposure to plaintiffs. Said conditions and circumstances were created by the negligent " and/or intentional acts or omissions of defendants or their employees or agents acting within the scope of their employment or agency. Alternatively, said defendants had actual and/or constructive notice of the ~.- ' aforesaid conditions and circumstances for a sufficient time prior to the injuries to plaintiffs to have taken measures to protect against the same in that said conditions and circumstances had existed for such a period of time and were of such an obvious nature to said defendants that, in the exercise of reasonable and due care, said defendants should have discovered and/or recognized the same and the dangerous character thereof. Said defendants negligently failed to take such remedial or precautionary measures to protect against injury to plaintiffs.. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and allege thereon that the injuries to plaintiffs alleged herein were proximately caused by said dangerous condition and were reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of said dangerous condition.... Plaintiffs have filed this Complaint within the applicable statute oflimitations pursuant to the delayed discovery rule, as plaintiffs had no knowledge, nor should they have, of the wrongful and tortious conduct alleged herein by defendants, and each of them, the effect of said conduct, and/or that said conduct was the cause of plaintiffs' injuries as alleged herein, until within the applicable statute of limitations for the filing of this Complaint. Based on the delayed discovery rule, plaintiffs' failure to discover their causes of action against defendants, and each of them, prior to this time is reasonable, 'ustifiable and not a result of plaintiffs' failure to investigate or to act. ". Plaintiffs MOJSES AGUILAR, LISA AGUILAR, JOHN AZEVEDO, ALICE AZEVEDO, GINO BARSANTI, LUCIANNA BARSANTI, ANDREW BATTEL, ROBERTA BATTEL BYPASS TRUST, BERNARDITA BILBES, CRISANTO BLAQUERA, MARIA BLAQUERA, DAVI BRADY, TIM BRETHAUER, LAUREN BRETHAUER, BERTINA CHANG, DIANNE CHARLESWORTH, JOHN CHARLESWORTH, MARGARET CHARLESWORTH, PALMA CHRISTMAN, WILLIAM CHRISTMAN, WARREN CHRISTOPHERSON, ALVIRA CHRISTOPHERSON, DENISE CO, HENRY CO, JESUS DELGALDO, KEITH DENNIS, MICHELLE DENNIS, RENATO D'ORFANI, ANGELA D'ORFANl, DAVID GRAY, ANTOINETTE GRAY, STEVEN GRAY, ANDRE GREMETT, DIANNA GREMETT, MARGlT GURUMLAI, TAKEO {NDKY. Main\\1\I'LEADING\OOI00.Doq 1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

20 (~ HANDA, SUMIE HANDA, BERTALEE HATCHETf, ROGER IDIART, JAN IDIART, PETER IDIART, KATHRYN IDIART, RALF KARGE, DESIREE KARGE, MICHAEL KISSNER, MARILYN KISSNER, CAROLYN KOGURA, GAUDELIO LAQUESTA, ZENAIDA LAQUESTA, DAVID, LEWIS, KERRY LEWIS; THOMAS LONERO, REGINA LONERO, JIM MACKIE JR., EULALIA, MACKIE, SIFET OSMANOVIC, FERIDA OSMANOVIC, GWENDOLINE PATRINO, HOWARD PECK, JENNY PECK, IRMA QUINTEROS, KRISTINA RANDAZZO, TONYA RANDAZZO, KEN RANDAZZO, MARGARITA RANDAZZO, JO ANNE SCHIRO, DA WN SEAVEY, FRED SILVA, BERNARD SOMERS, ROSE SOMERS, JEANETTE SPANTON, JOE SUNSERI JR., KAY SUNSERI, PArRICK SUNSERI, MARIANNE SUNSERI, GARY SUNSERI, JUDY SUNSERI, KAREN TANNER, KRISTY TANNER, MARILYN TRAVIS, KIRK VARTAN, MARGUERITE VARTAN, JAMES VILLAVERT, RICHELLE VILLAVERT, MICHAEL WALIAS, JULIAWALlAS, JOHN WARD, JEAN WARD, CHARLES WILSON II, CHARLES WILSON III, VALERIEWILSON, LAWRENCE WEDDEL, FRANCIS WEDDEL, NICHOLAS'yAirSKO, and KATHLEEN YATSKO have prepared and served claims upon defendants STATE OF CALIFORNIA and THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES within the time, manner and form prescribed by law. Said claims have been or are deemcd rejected or, although they were properly presented within the time prescribed by law under the delayed discovery rule, were improperly not considered by defendants STATE OF CALIFORNIA and THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES because they were decmed by said defendants to have been filed beyond six months from the date of inj ury to said plaintiffs, despite factual assertions in the claim that clearly indicated otherwise under the delayed discovcry rule.. Plaintiffs PHILIP ADAME; DEANNA MCDANIEL-ADAME, LEE CHAPMAN, DARYL DERUS, JEROME C. DERUS, MICHAEL J. GARVEY, JAMES GARVEY, GENEVIEVE GARVEY, FRANCES GOFF, JOE GURUMLAI, WILLIAM HAUSER, NANCY JACKSON, RONALD JACKSON, LUCILLE MAZZEO, MENDIBLE FAMILY TRUST, MANUAL MENDIBLE, CHRISTINE MENDIBLE, ANTHONY ROGERS, VIRGINIA ROGERS, HAROLD SONENKLAR, BARBARA TAMER, and SAMIR TAMER have not yet served claims upon defendants STATE OF CALIFORNIA and THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES. Accordingly, except for the Eighth Cause of Action for Inverse Condcmnation as alleged herein, said plaintiffs are hereby asserting (NDKY Main\\1\PLEADING\OOI00.DOC) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

21 each of the remaining causes of action alleged herein solely against THE REGENTS OF THE 1I UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and DOES through 0 at this time, as pursuant to Cal. Go'v..Code 0., the claims presentation requirement of the Government Claims Act does not apply to claims.,, against TI-IE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and pursuant to, Cal Gov Code. 0.1, no claim presentation is required to maintain a cause of action against a public entity for inverse condemnation for the taking of, or damage to, private property pursuant to Section 1 of Article I of the California Constitution.. Plaintiffs DANIEL BARSANTI; JOYCE BARSANTI; STEPHEN BARSANTI; MICHAEL BARSANTI; ANDREW BATTEL; DAVID BRADY; DAN CHAPMAN; PATRICK CHAPMAN; WENDY CHRISTOPHERSON; CARLOS FEBLES; JUDY FEBLES; THOMAS GRAY; SHEILA GRAY-GREGORY; RONALD HATCHETT; KRISTINA RANDAZZO; TONYA RANDAZZO; DAVID A. SILVA; JOHN P. SILVA, CHARLES WILSON II, CHARLES WILSON III, and VALERIE WILSON are hereby asserting each cause of a~tioli alleged herein solely against defendants THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and DOES through 0 at this time. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION DANGEROUS CONDITION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY (Govt. Code 0 et seq.; Govt. Code ; Code of Civ. Proc. 1.00; Govt. Code 1.(a), (a», " [Against all Defendants by all Plaintiffs Subject to ~r~,, supra] 1. Plaintiffs refer to paragraphs 1- and incorporate them into this First Cause of Action as though fully set forth herein. Ill. At all times herein mentioned, defendants, and each of them, were legally charged with a duty to, and did in fact undertake to, own, operate, maintain, possess, control, repair, remedy, conect and/or improve the BAREC property free ofdangerous conditions, including providing safeguards against the dangerous condition of the BAREC property and/or warning of the dangerous condition ofth BAREC property. Said defendants were legally charged with the duty of keeping the subject BAREC property in a safe condition and to protect the adjacent properties and/or those living on adjacent {NDKY MainII'LEADINGIOOI00.DOC} COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

22 properties against foreseeable injury, including plaintiffs, within the meaning of Government Code 0 el seq. and Government Code. \' Pt"aintiffs 'are informed and believe and based thereon allege that defendants, and each of - - ~ -. them, negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally and knowingly breached said duties to' plaintiffs by" applying toxins to the BAREC propelty in unsafe amounts greater than allowed by state and federal licenses, permits, ordinances, and other laws, and/or subsequently causing said toxins to migrate to the residential land surrounding the BAREC property, when said defendants were aware that these toxins would follow said routes ofexposure to plaintiffs and the environment, placing plaintiffs and the environment at an increased risk of foreseeable hann.. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that said toxins from the BAREC property have migrated and continue to migrate to the adjacent residential land,' homes and persons of plaintiffs to this day and that the BAREC property has been at all relevant times mentioned.' herein been in a dangerous condition in that said property creates a substantial risk of injury when adjacent property is used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it wiii be used.. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that defendants, and each of them, have known for many years of the ongoing migration of said toxins from the BAREC property to the adjacent residential land, homes and persons of plaintiffs and where and when said toxins would follow said routes of exposure to plaintiffs. Said conditions and circumstances were created by the negligent and/or intentional acts or omissions of defendants, and each of them, or their employees or agents acting within the scope of their employment or agency. Alternatively, defendants, and each of them, had actual and/or constructive notice of the aforesaid conditions and circumstances for a sufficient time prior to the injuries to plaintiffs to have taken measures to protect against the same in that said conditions and circumstances had existed for such a period of time and were of such an obvious nature to defendants, and each of them, that in the exercise of reasonable and due care, defendants, and each of them, should have discovered and/or recognized the same and the dangerous character thereof. Defendants, and each of them, negligently failed to take such remedial or precautionary measures to protect against the foreseeable injury to plaintiffs. {NDKY Main\\1\PLEADING\OOI00,DOC} COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

23 Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that the injuries to plaintiffs.. alleged herein were proximately caused by said dangerous condition of public property as defined by Government Code 0 et seq., owned andlor controlled by defendants, and each of them, and were, ~. reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of said dangerous condition. The BAREC property was in a dangerous condition at the time of each plaintiffs' injuries in violation of Government Code and Government Code. Said propel1y was and is dangerous in that under reasonably foreseeable circumstances, said property creates a substantial risk of injury when adjacent property is used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used.. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the acts and omissions of defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, plaintiffs were caused to sustain personal injuries, mental pain and suffering, past, present and future medical expenses and medical monitoring expel1ses, toss of earnings andlor earning capacity, andlor other general and special damages as alleged herein, in amount to be.. proven at trial and in excess of the minimal jurisdictional limits of the Superior Court. Said acts and omissions by defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, were a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs' harm as alleged herein. 1. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result ofthe acts and omissions ofdefendants, and each of them, as alleged above, decedent John Battel, the legal heir of plaintiffandrew BATTEL, died on April, 00, thereby depriving said plaintiff of his love, companionship, comfort, affection, society, solace, protection, services, and support, all to plaintiffs damages in an amount in amount to be. " proven at trial and in excess of the minimal jurisdictional limits of the Superior Court. Said acts and omissions by said defendants, as alleged above, were a substantial factor in causing said plaintiff's harm. 1. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the acts and omissions ofdefendants, and each of them, as alleged above, decedent Maureen Brady, the legal heir of plaintiff DAVID BRADY, died on February,0, thereby depriving said plaintiffof her love, companionship, comfort, affection, society, solace, protection, services, and support, all to plaintiffs damages in an amount in amount to be proven at trial and in excess of the minimal jurisdictional limits of the Superior Court. Said acts and omissions by said defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, were a substantial factor in causing said plaintiff's harm. {NDKY Main\\I \PLEADING\OO I00.DOC} COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

24 . As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the acts and omissions of dcfendants, and each ofthem, as alleged above, decedent Kathleen Chapman, the legal heir of plaintiffs DAN.. ~. : CHAPMAN, PATRICK CHAPMAN, and LEE CHAPMAN, died in 1, thereby depriving said. ~.. plaintiffs of her love, companionship, comfort, affection, society, solace, protection, ~ervices, and support, all to plaintiffs' damages in an amount in amount to be proven at trial and in excess of the minimal jurisdictional limits of the Supcrior Court. Said acts and omissions by said defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, were a substantial factor in causing said plaintiffs' harm. 1. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the acts and omissions ofdefendants, and each of them, as alleged above, decedent Robert Lee Charlesworth, the legal heir ofplaintiffs DIANNE CHARLESWORTH and JOHN CHARLESWORTH, died in, thereby depriving said plaintiffs of his love, companionship, comfort, affection, society, solace, protection, services, and support, all to plaintiffs' damages in an amount in amount to be proven at trial and in excess of the minimal 'urisdictionallimits of the Superior Court. Said acts and omis~ions by said defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, were a substantial factor in causing said plaintiffs' harm. 1. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the acts and omissions of defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, decedent Peggy Garvey, the legal heir of plaintiff MICHAEL J. GARVEY, died in 0, thereby depriving said plaintiffofher love, companionship, comfort, affection, society, solace, protection, services, and support, all to plaintitrs damages in an amount in amount to be proven at trial and in excess of the minimal jurisdictional limits ofthe Superior COUlt. Said acts and. '. omissions by said defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, were a substantial factor in causing said plaintiffs harm. 1. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the acts and omissions of defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, decedent James C. Hatchett, the legal heir ofplaintiffs BERTALEE HATCHETT, RONALD HATCHETT, and nominal defendant RICHARD E. HATCI-IETT, died in 1, thereby depriving said plaintiffs of his love, companionship, comfort, affection, society, solace, protection, services, and support, all to plaintiffs' damages in an amount in amount to be proven at trial and in excess of the minimal jurisdictional limits of the Superior Court. Said acts and omissions by said defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, were a substantial factor in causing said plaintiffs' harm. {NDKY Main\\1\PLEADING\OOI00,DOC} COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

25 1. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the acts and omissions of defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, decedent Jim Mackie, the legal heir of plaintiffs JIM MACKIE JK and EULALIA MACKIE, die'd in 00, thereby deprivingsaid plaintiffs of his love, companionship,.' ~ -. comfort, affection, society, solace, protection, services, and support, all to plaintiffs' damages in an amount in amount to be proven at trial and in excess of the minimal jurisdictional limits of the Superior Court. Said acts and omissions by said defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, were a substantial factor in causing said plaintiffs' halm. 1. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the acts and omissions of defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, decedent Ben Patrino, the legal heir of plaintiff GWENDOLJNE 1,.,;... lopatrino, died in December 1, thereby depriving said plaintiffofhis love, companionship, comfort, affection, society, solace, protection, services, and support, all to plaintiff's damages in an amount in amount to be proven at trial and in excess of the minimal jurisdictional limits of the Superior Court. Said.. acts and omissions by said defendants, and each'of them, as alleged above, were a substantial factor in causing said plaintiff's harm.. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the acts and omissions of defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, decedent Chincy S<:hiro, the legal heir of plaintiff JO ANNE SCHIRO, died on February, 0, thereby depriving said plaintiff of her love, companionship, comfort, affection, society, solace, protection, services, and supp0, all to plaintiff's damages in an amount in amount to be proven at trial and in excess ofthe minimal jurisdictional limits of the Superior Court. Said ", -: acts and omissions by said defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, were a substantial factor in causing said plaintiff's harm. 1. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the acts and omissions of defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, decedent Joe Sunseri, the legal heir of plaintiffs JOE SUNSERI JR., KAY SUNSERI, PATRICK SUNSERI, and GARY SUNSERI, died on March, 0, thereby depriving said plaintiffs of his love, companionship, comfort, affection, society, solace, protection, services, and support, all to plaintiffs' damages in an amount in amount to be proven at trial and in exces of the minimal jurisdictional limits of the Superior Court. Said acts and omissions by said defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, were a substantial factor in causing said plaintiffs' harm. {NDKY Milin\\I \I'LEADINGlOOI00,DOC} COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

26 1. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the acts and omissions of defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, decedent Rita Tanner, the legal heir of plaintiffs KAREN TANNER and -.. KRISTY TANNER and nominal defendants KATHLEEN TANNER and KARLA TANNER, died in. -.' ~, 01, thereby depriving said plaintiffs of her love, companionship, comfort, affection, society, solace, protection, services, and support, all to plaintiffs' damages in an amount in amount to be proven at trial and in excess of the minimal jurisdictional limits of the Superior Court. Said acts and omissions by said defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, were a substantial factor in causing said plaintiffs' harm. 1. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the acts and omissions of defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, decedent Ted Travis, the legal heir of plaintiff MARILYN TRAVIS, died on June,1, thereby depriving said plaintiffofhis love, companionship, comfort, affection, society, solace, protection, selvices, and support, all to plaintiffs damages in an amount in amo~nt to be proven at trial and in excess of the minimal jurisdictional limits of the Superior Court. Said acts and omissions by said defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, were a substantial factor in causing said plaintiffs harm.. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the acts and omissions of defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, decedent Paul Heller, the legal heir of plaintiff JEAN WARD, died on May, 1, thereby depriving said plaintiff of his love, companionship, comfort, affection, society, solace, protection, services, and support, all to plaintiffs damages in an amount in amount to be proven at trial and in excess ofthe minimal jurisdictional limits of the Superior Court. Said acts and omissions by said defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, were a substantial factor in causing said plaintiffs harm.. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the acts and omissions of defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, decedent Michelle Battle, the legal heir of plaintiffs CHARLES WILSON II, CHARLES WILSON III and VALERIE WILSON, died on October, 0, thereby depriving said plaintiffs of her love, companionship, comfort, affection, society, solace, protection, services, and support, all to plaintiffs' damages in an amount in amount to be proven at trial and in exces of the minimal jurisdictional limits of the Superior Court. Said acts and omissions by said defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, were a substantial factor in causing said plaintiffs' harm. (NDKY Main\\1\PLEADING\OOI00.DOC) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

27 ] 1, As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result ofthe acts and omissions of defendants, and each ofthem as alleged above, the residential real property ofpjaintiffs PHILIP ADAME, DEANNA MCDANIEL-ADAME, MOISES AGUILAR, LISA AGUILAR, JOHN AZEVEDO, ALICE AZEVEDO, GINO BARSANTI, LUCIANNA BARSANTI, ROBERTA BATTEL BypASS TRUST, BERNARDITA BILBES, CRISANTO BLAQUERA, MARIA BLAQUERA, TIM BRETHAUER, LAUREN BRETHAUER, BERTINA CI-IANG, LEE CHAPMAN, JOHN CHARLESWORTH, MARGARET CHARLESWORTH, PALMA CHRISTMAN, WILLIAM CHRISTMAN, WARREN CHRISTOPHERSON, ALVIRA CHRISTOPHERSON, DENISE CO, HENRY CO, JESUS DELGALDO, KEITH DENNIS, MICHELLE DENNIS, DARYL DERUS, JEROME C. DERUS, RENATO D'ORFANI, ANGELA D'ORFANI, MICHAEL J. GARVEY, JAMES GARVEY, GENEVIEVE GARVEY, FRANCES GOFF, DAVID GRAY, ANTOINETTE GRAY, ANDRE GREMETT, DIANNA GREMETT, JOE GURUMLAI, MARGIT GURUMLAI, TAKEO I-lANDA, 0 SUMIE I-lANDA, BERTALEE HATCHETT, WILLIAM HAUSER, ROGER IDIART, JAN IDIART, NANCY JACKSON, RONALD JACKSON, RALF KARGE, DESIREE KARGE, MICHAEL KISSNER, MARILYN KISSNER, CAROLYN KOGURA, GAUDELIO LAQUESTA, ZENAIDA LAQUESTA, DAVID LEWIS, KERRY LEWIS, THOMAS LONERO, REGINA LONERO, EULALIA MACKIE, LUCILLE MAZZEO, MENDIBLE FAMILY TRUST, SIFET OSMANOVIC, FERIDA OSMANOVIC, GWENDOLINE PATRINO, HOWARD PECK, JENNY PECK, IRMA QUINTEROS, KEN RANDAZZO, MARGARITA RANDAZZO, ANTHONY ROGERS, VIRGINIA ROGERS, JO ANNE SCHIRO, DAWN SEAVEY, FRED SILVA, BERNARD SOMERS, ROSE SOMERS, HAROLD SONENKLAR, JEANETTE SPANTON, JOE SUNSERI JR., KAY SUNSERI, PATRICK SUNSERI, MARIANNE SUNSERI, GARY SUNSERI, JUDY SUNSERI, BARBARA TAMER, SAMIR TAMER, KAREN TANNER, MARILYN TRAVIS, KIRK VARTAN, MARGUERITE VARTAN, JAMES VILLAVERT, RICHELLE VILLAVERT, MICHAEL WALIAS, JULIA WALIAS, JOI-IN WARD, JEAN WARD, FRANCIS WEDDEL, NICHOLAS YATSKO, and KATHLEEN YATSKO, as described above, has been damaged in an amount in amount to be proven at trial and in excess ofthe minimal 'urisdictionallimits ofthe Superior Court. Said acts and omissions by said defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, were a substantial factor in causing said plaintiffs' harm. (NDKY Main\\1\PLEADlNG\OOI00.DOC) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES l,.".'

28 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE (GoveCode ; Code of Civ. Proc. 1.00; Govt. Codc 1.(a), (a». ~. IAgainst all Defendants by all Plaintiffs Subject to ~~r,, supra} l"," Plaintiffs refer to paragraphs 1- and incorporate them into this Second Cause of Action as though fully set forth herein. 1. At all times herein mentioned, defendants, and each of them, were legally charged with a duty to, and did in fact undertake to, own, operate, maintain, possess, control, repair, remedy, correct and/or improve the BAREC property. Said defendants, and each ofthem, were legally charged with the duty of keeping the subject BAREC property in a safe condition and to protect the adjacent or nearby properties and/or those living on adjacent or nearby properties against foreseeable injury, including plaintiffs. 1. Plaintiffs are infollned and believe and based thereon allege that defendants, and each of them, negligently breached said duties to plaintiffs by applying toxins to the BAREC property in unsafe amounts greater than allowed by state and federal licenses, permits, ordinances, and other laws, and/or subsequently causing said toxins to migrate to the residential land surrounding the BAREC property, when said defendants, and each of them, were aware that these toxins would follow said routes of exposure to plaintiffs and the environment, placing plaintiffs and the environment at an increased risk of foreseeable harm. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that said toxins from the 0. BAREC property have migrated and continue to migrate to the adjacent residential land, homes and persons to this day. 1. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that defendants, and each of them, have known for many years of the ongoing migration of said toxins from the BAREC property to the adjacent residential land, homes and persons of plaintiffs and where and when said toxins would follow said routes of exposure to plaintiffs. Said conditions and circumstances were created by the negligent and/or intentional acts or omissions of said defendants, or their employees or agents acting within the scope of their employment or agency. Alternatively, said defendants, and each ofthem, had actual and/or constructive notice of the aforesaid conditions and circumstances for a sufficient time prior {NDKY Main\\ I\PLEADING\oO I00.DOC} COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

29 to the injuries to plaintiffs to have taken measures to protect against the same in that said conditions and circumstanccs had existed for such a period of time and were of such an obvious nature to said,... defendants, and each of them, that in the exercise of reasonable and due care, said defendants should.. ~.. have discovered and/ol"recognized the same and the dangerous character thereof. Sajd defendants... negligently failed to take such remedial or precautionary measures to protect against injury to plaintiffs. 1. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the acts and omissions of defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, plaintiffs were harmed in the manner alleged above. Said acts and omissions by said defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, were a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs' harm. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTUESS '.. (Against all Defendants by all Plaintiffs Subject to ~I~ (Govt. Code ; Govt. Code 1.(a), (a»,, supra] 1. Plaintiffs refer to paragraphs 1-1 and incorporate them into this Third Causc of Action as though fully set forth herein. 1. The conduct of defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, caused plaintiffs to suffer severe emotional distress in that said defendants' conduct exposed plaintiffs to pesticides and other toxic materials on multiple occasions. The conduct of defendants, and each of them, was extreme and outrageous and was done with a reckless disregard of the probability that plaintiffs would suffer ", ~. emotional distress, in that said defendants knew that plaintiffs and other members of the public were living at residential property adjacent to or near the BAREC property when said extreme and outrageous conduct occurred. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that defendants, and each of them, have known for many years of the ongoing migration of said toxins from the BAREC property to the adjacent residential land, homes and persons ofplaintiffs and where and when said toxins would follow said routes ofexposure to plaintiffs. Said conditions and circumstances were created by the negligent and/or intentional conduct of defendants or their employees or agents acting within the scope 0 their employment or agency. Alternatively, said defendants had actual and/or constructive notice of the aforesaid conduct for a sufficient time prior to the injuries to plaintiffs to have taken measures to protect {NDKY Main\\1\PLEADING\OOI00.[)()C} COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

30 -zs J against the same in that said conduct had existed for such a period of time and were of such an obvious, nature to said defendants that, in the exercise of reasonable and due care, said defendants should have discovered and/or recogn'ized the same. 1. Plaintiffs, indeed, suffered severe emotional distress from a reasonable fear of developing cancer and other serious illnesses as a result of the exposure to pesticides and other toxic materials caused by defendants, and each of them, as alleged above. Said severe emotional distress includes fear of contracting cancer or other serious illnesses, suffering, anguish, fright, honor, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, and shame. The conduct of defendants, and each ofthem, was a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs' severe emotional distress. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (Govt. Code ; Govt. Code 1S.(a), (a» " (Against all Defendants by all Plaintiffs Subject to ~r~r,, supra]. Plaintiffs refer to paragraphs 1- J and incorporate them into this Fourth Cause of Action as though fully set forth herein.. The conduct of defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, caused plaintiffs to suffer severe emotional distress in that said defendants' negligent conduct caused plaintiffs to be exposed to pesticides and other toxic materials on multiple occasions. Said conditions and circumstances were created by the negligent and/or intentional conduct of defendants, and each of them, or their employees ", ~. or agents acting within the scope of their employment or agency. Alternatively, said defendants, and each of them, had actual and/or constructive notice of the aforesaid conduct for a sufficient time prior to the injuries to plaintiffs to have taken measures to protect against the same in that said conduct had existed for such a period of time and were ofsuch an obvious nature to said defendants, and each of them that, in the exercise of reasonable and due care, said defendants should have discovered and/or recognized the same.. Plaintiffs, indeed, suffered severe emotional distress from a reasonable fear of developing cancer and other serious illnesses as a result of the exposure to pesticides and other toxic materials caused by defendants, and each of them, as alleged above. Said severe emotional distress includes fear (NDKY Milin\\1\I'LEADING\OOI00.DOC) 0 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

31 II ofcontracting cancer or other serious illnesses, suffering, anguish, fright, holtor, nervousness, grief,....;. :".", anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, and shame. The negligent conduct ofdefendants, and each of.them, was a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs' severe emotional distress. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION STRICT LIABILITY FOR ULTRAHAZARDOUS ACTIVITY (Govt. Code ; Govt. Code 1.(a), (a)) [Against all Defendants by all Plaintiffs Subject to ~~,, supra] 1. Plaintiffs refer to paragraphs 1- and incorporate them into this Fifth Cause of Action as though fully set f0l1h herein. 1. Defendants, and each ofthem, engaged in an ultrahazardous activities as alleged above by testing, applying, employing various methods of above ground spraying to vegctatiort, fumigating the soi I with pesticides, and/or allowing or causing and other toxins on the BAREC properiy adjacent to and/or near a highly developed and densely populated residential area where, regardless of defendants' efforts, said pesticides and other toxins would and did migrate from the BAREC property to the adjacent residential land, homes and persons of plaintiffs as alleged above. Said ultrahazardous activities, as alleged above, were engaged in by defendants, and each of them, and/or defendants' employees or agents acting within the scope of their employment or agency. 1. Alternatively, said defendants, and each of them, had actual and/or constructive notice of the aforesaid ultrahazardous activities for a sufficient time prior to the injuries to plaintiffs as alleged above to have taken measures to protect against the same in that said conditions a~d circumstances had existed for such a period oftime and were of such an obvious nature to said defendants, and each ofthem that, in the exercise of reasonable and due care, said defendants should have discovered and/or recognized the same. 1. As a direct and proximate result ofsaid ultrahazardous activities ofdefendants, and each of them, as alleged above, plaintiffs were harmed in the manner alleged above. Plaintiffs' harm was the kind ofharm that would be anticipated as a result of the risk created by said ultrahazardous activity. The ultrahazardous activities ofdefendants, and each of them, as alleged above, were a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs' harm. (NDKY Main\\1\1'LEADlNG\OOI00DOC} 1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

32 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION PUBLIC NUISANCE (Govt. Code ; Civil Code ; Govt. Code 1.(a), (a».. ~.. [Against all Defendants by aji Plaintiffs Subject to ~~,, supra] ~. : , Plaintiffs refer to paragraphs 1-1 and incorporate them into this Sixth Cause of Action as though fully set forth herein. 1. At all times herein mentioned, defendants, and each of them, have conducted business at the BAREC property in such a manner to cause a public nuisance as defined by Civil Code -l, in that said defendants, and each ofthem, have allowed and/or caused pesticides and other toxins to migrate from the BAREC property to the adjacent residential land, homes and persons of plaintiffs as. alleged above. Said conduct of the defendants, and each of them, created a condition that was harmful to plaintiffs' health and/or property and was indecent or offensive to the senses and interfered with plaintiffs' comfortable enjoyment of life and/or property, Said co'ndition affected a substantial number 0 people at the same time and an ordinary person would have been reasonably annoyed or disturbed by the condition caused by defendants, and each of them. 1. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that said conditions and circumstances alleged above were created by the negligent and/or intentional acts or omissions of defendants or their employees or agents acting within the scope of their employment or agency. Alternatively, said defendants had actual and/or constluctive notice of the aforesaid conditions and. -: circumstances for a sufficient time prior to the injuries to plaintiffs to have taken measures to protect against the same in that said conditions and circumstances had existed for such a period oftime and were of such an obvious nature to said defendants that, in the exercise of reasonable and due care, said defendants should have discovered and/or recognized the same.. The seriousness of the harm caused by said defendants, and cach of them, as alleged above, outweighs the social utility ofsaid conduct. Plaintiffs did not consent to the conduct by said defendants, and each of them, as alleged above. As a direct and proximate result of said conduct by defendants, and each of them, plaintiffs were hanned in the manner alleged above. Said conduct by defendants, and each of them, was a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs' harm. (NDKY Mllin\\1\PLEADING\OOI00.DOC} COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

33 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION TRESPASS,,'.\ (Govt. Code ; Govt. Code 1.(a), (a» - - ~, (Against all Defendants by PHILIP ADAME, DEANNA MCDANIEL-ADAME, MOISES AGUILAR, LISA AGUILAR, JOHN AZEVEDO, ALICE AZEVEDO, GINO BARSANTI, LUCIANNA BARSANTI, ROBERTA BATTEL BYPASS TRUST, BERNARDITA BILBES, CRISANTO BLAQUERA, MARIA BLAQUERA, TIM BRETHAUER, LAUREN BRETHAUER, BERTINA CHANG, LEE CHAPMAN, MARGARET CHARLESWORTH, JOHN CHARLESWORTH, PALMA CHRISTMAN, WILLIAM CHRISTMAN, WARREN CHRISTOPHERSON, ALVIRA CHRISTOPHERSON, DENISE CO, HENRY CO, JESUS DELGALDO, KEITH DENNIS, MICHELLE DENNIS, DARYL DERUS, JEROME C. DERUS, RENATO D'ORFANI, ANGELA D'ORFANI, MICHAEL J. GARVEY, JAMES GARVEY,.. 1 GENEVIEVE GARVEY, FRANCES GOFF, DAVID GRAY, ANTOINETTE GRAY, STEVEN 1 GRAY, ANDRE GREMETT, DIANNA GREMETT, JOE GURUMLAI, MARGIT GURUMLAI, 1 TAKEO HANDA, SUMIE HANDA, BERTALEE HATCHETT, WILLIAM HAUSER, ROGER 1 IDIART, JAN IDIART, NANCY JACKSON, RONALD JACKSON, RALF KARGE, DESIREE KARGE, MICHAEL KISSNER, MARILYN KISSNER, CAROLYN KOGURA, GAUDELIO LAQUESTA, ZENAIDA LAQUESTA, DAVID LEWIS, KERRY LEWIS, THOMAS LONERO, 1 REGINA LONERO, JIM MACKIE JR.; EULALIA MACKIE, LUCILLE MAZZEO, ".: MENDIBLE FAMILY TRUST, MANUAL MENDIBLE, CHRISTINE MENDIBLE, SIFET OSMANOVIC, FERIDA OSMANOVIC, GWENDOLINE PATRINO, HOWARD PECK, JENNY PECK, IRMA QUINTEROS, KEN RANDAZZO, MARGARITA RANDAZZO, ANTHONY ROGERS, VIRGINIA ROGERS, JO ANNE SCHIRO, DAWN SEAVEY, FRED SILVA, BERNARD SOMERS, ROSE SOMERS, HAROLD SONENKLAR, JEANETTE SPANTON, JOE SUNSERI JR., KAY SUNSERI, PATRICK SUNSERI, MARIANNE SUNSERI, GARY SUNSERI, JUDY SUNSERI, KAREN TANNER, BARBARA TAMER, SAMIR TAMER, KRISTY TANNER, MAIULYN TRAVIS, KIRK VARTAN, MARGUERITE VARTAN, JAMES VILLAVERT, RICHELLE VILLAVERT, MICHAEL WALIAS, JULIA WALIAS, JOHN {NDKY Main1\1 1PLEADINGIOO I00.DOq COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

34 sma, i WARD, JEAN WARD, LAWRENCE WEDDEL, FRANCIS WEDDEL, NICHOLAS YATSKO, 1 1 IS 1 1 and KATHLEEN YATSKO Subject to ~r~,,suprll]. Said plaintiffs refer to paragraphs 1- and incorporate th~m into this Seventh Cause of -.' ~. Action as though fully set forth herein.. The acts and omissions of defendants, and each of them, as alleged herein, constitute unlawful trespassory interference with, and invasions of, said plaintiffs' rights to possession of their property in that those acts were done with the substantial certainty that they would result in damage to said plaintiffs via the migration of pesticides and other toxins from the BAREC property to the adjacent living environment and residential real property owned and/or occupied by said plaintiffs as alleged above. 1. The acts and omissions of defendants, and each of them, as alleged herein, has resulted in pesticides and other toxins entering and penetrating into said plaintiffs' propeliies, including, but not 0' limited to, their homes and land as alleged above. Said pesticides and other toxins have dispersed and migrated and continue to penetrate said plaintiffs' propelties, including, but not limited to, their homes and land as alleged above. 1. Said plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that said conditions and circumstances alleged above were created by the negligent and/or intentional acts or omissions of defendants or their employees or agents acting within the scope of their employment or agency. Alternatively, said defendants had actual and/or constructive notice ofthe aforesaid conditions and circumstances for a sufficient time prior to the injuries to said plaintiffs to have taken measures to protect against the same in that said conditions and circumstances had existed for such a period oftime and were of such an obvious nature to said defendants that, in the exercise of reasonable and due care, said defendants should have discovered and/or recognized the same. 1. Said plaintiffs did not consent to the conduct by said defendants, and each ofthem, as alleged above. As a direct and proximate result of said conduct by said defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, said plaintiffs were harmed in the manner alleged above. Said conduct by said defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, was a substantial factor in causing said plaintiffs' harm as alleged herein. (NDKY Main\\ IS\PLEADlNG\OO I00.DCX:} COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

35 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION INVERSE CONDEMNATION ~,. : ':",,' (Govt. Cod'c ;' Cal Const Art I, 1; CivilCode ; Govt. Codc 1S.(a), (a». - - ~ '., ' [Against all Defendants by PHILIP ADAME, DEANNA MCDANIEL-ADAME, MOISES" AGUILAR, LISA AGUILAR, JOHN AZEVEDO, ALICE AZEVEDO, GINO BARSANTI, LUCIANNA BARSANTI, ROBERTA BATTEL BYPASS TRUST, BERNARDITA BILBES, CRISANTO BLAQUERA, MARIA BLAQUERA, TIM BRETHAUER, LAUREN BRETHAUER, BERTINA CHANG, LEE CHAPMAN, MARGARET CHARLESWORTH, JOHN CHARLESWORTH, PALMA CHRISTMAN, WILLIAM CHRISTMAN, WARREN CHRISTOPHERSON, ALVIRA CHRISTOPHERSON, DENISE CO, HENRY CO, JESUS DELGALDO, KEITH DENNIS, MICHELLE DENNIS, DARYL DERUS, JERO'ME C. DERUS, RENATO D'ORFANI, ANGELA D'ORFANI, MICHAEL J. GARVEY, JAMES GARVEY, 0' 1 GENEVIEVE GARVEY, FRANCES GOFF, DAVID GRAY, ANTOINETTE GRAY, ANDRE 1 GREMETT, DIANNA GREMETT, JOE GURUMLAI, MARGIT GURUMLAI, TAKEO 1 HANDA, SUMIE HANDA, BERTALEE HATCHETT, WILLIAM HAUSER, ROGER IDIART, 1 JAN IDIART, NANCY JACKSON, RONALD JACKSON, RALF KARGE, DESIREE KARGE, MICHAEL KISSNER, MARILYN KISSNER, CAROLYN KOGURA, GAUDELIO LAQUESTA, ZENAIDA LAQUESTA, DAVID LEWIS, KERRY LEWIS, THOMAS LONERO, REGINA 1 LONERO, EULALIA MACKIE, LUCILLE MAZZEO, MENDIBLE FAMILY TRUST, SIFET. ~: OSMANOVIC, FERIDA OSMANOVIC, GWENDOLINE PATRINO, HOWARD PECK, JENNY PECK, IRMA QUINTEROS, KEN RANDAZZO, MARGARITA RANDAZZO, ANTHONY ROGERS, VIRGINIA ROGERS, JO ANNE SCHIRO, DAWN SEAVEY, FRED SILVA, BERNARD SOMERS, ROSE SOMERS, HAROLD SONENKLAR, JEANETTE SPANTON, JOE SUNSERI JR., KAY SUNSERI, PATRICK SUNSERI, MARIANNE SUNSERI, GARY SUNSERI, JUDY SUNSERI, BARBARA TAMER, SAlVlIR TAMER, KAREN TANNER, MARILYN TRAVIS, KIRK VARTAN, MARGUERITE VARTAN, JAMES VILLAVERT, RICHELLE VILLAVERT, MICHAEL WALIAS, JULIA WALIAS, JOHN WARD, JEAN WARD, FRANCIS WEDDEL, NICHOLAS YATSKO, and KATHLEEN YATSKO Subject to~r~ lndky Main\\1\I'LEADINGlOOI00.DOC} COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

36 f\,, supra} : l"', '.' 1. Said plaintiffs refer to paragraphs 1-1 and incorporate thern into this Eighth Cause of Action as though 'fully se't forth herein.. The acts and omissions of defel~dants, and each of them, as alleged herein, has resulted in pesticides and other toxins entering and penetrating into said plaintiffs' propeies, including, but not limited to, their homes and land as alleged above. Said pesticides and other toxins have dispersed and migrated and continue to penetrate said plaintiffs' properties, including, but not limited to, thcir homes and land as alleged above.. Said acts and omissions ofdefendants, and each of them, as alleged herein, constitute a physical invasion of said plaintiffs' real property for a public use, placing a burden on said properties that is direct, substantial and peculiar to the properties themselves. 1. Said plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that said conditions and circumstances alleged above were created by defendants, and ~acl1 of them, or their employees or agents acting within the scope of their employment or agency. Alternatively, defendants, and each ofthem, had actual and/or constructive notice ofthe aforesaid conditions and circumstances for a sufficient time prior to the injuries to said plaintiffs to have taken measures to protect against the same in that said conditions and circumstances had existed for such a period oftime and were of such an obvious nature to defendants, and each of them that in the exercise ofreasonable and due care, said defendants, and each 0 them, should have discovered and/or recognized the same. ", ~. 10. As a direct and proximate result ofsaid conduct by defendants, and each ofthem, as alleged above, said plaintiffs were harmed in the manner al1eged above. Said conduct by defendants, and each of them, as alleged above, was a substantial factor in causing said plaintiffs' harm. PRAYER WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray judgment against defendants, and each of them, as follows. 1. For special damages, including but not limited to past, present and future medical care and monitoring expenses, loss of earning and/or earning capacity, and property damage in an amount as shah be proven at the time of trial in a sum according to law and proof;. For general damages, including but not limited to physical pain, mental SUffering, fear of {NDKY Main\\1\PLEI\DING\OOI00DOC} COMPLAiNT FOR DAMAGES ~..

37 i'! contracting cancer and other serious illnesses, and loss of enjoyment of life according to law and proof;. For costs of suit incurred herein;. For attonleys' fees and costs according to law;. For pre-judgment interest according to law; and ~ '.. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper. Dated: February, 0 NEEDHAM1~IS' KEPN 'R & YOUNG, LLP By: I~ --z-. ~ CRAIG NE DHA' Attorney for Plaintiffs {NDKY Mnin\\1\I'LEADING\OOI00.DOC} COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES