Camera aur on 10 il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MATERN LAW GROUP, PC Matthew J. Matern (SBN 159798) Tagore Subramaniam (SBN 280126) Daniel J. Bass (SBN 287466) 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Tel: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 Attorneys for Plaintiffs ARNOLD GOLDSTEIN, JOHN COVAS, and GISELA. JANETTE LA BELLA, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ARNOLD GOLDSTEIN, an individual, JOHN] CASE NO.: COVAS, an individual, and GISELA. JANETTE LA BELLA, an individual, COMPLAINT individually and on behalf of all others CLASS ACTION: similarly situated, as Negligence Strict Liability-Ultrahazardous Activity Private Nuisance (Continuing) Private Nuisance (Permanent) Public Nuisance (Continuing) Public Nuisance (Permanent) Trespass Plaintiffs, vs. Defendants EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, a New Jersey corporation; PBF ENERGY INC, a Delaware corporation; ‘TORRANCE REFINING COMPANY, LLC,a | DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL, Delaware Limited Liability Company; PBF ENERGY WESTERN REGION, LLC , a Delaware Limited Liability Company; PBF HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; PBF ENERGY COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; STEVEN STEACH, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Aayaepe Defendants ‘CLASS ACTION AND REPRESENTATIVE 1 ACTION COMPLAINT27 28 PLAINTIFFS ARNOLD GOLDSTEIN, JOHN COVAS, and GISELA JANETTE LA BELLA (“PLAINTIFFS”) bring this class action (“Complaint”) against Defendants EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION (“Exxon”); PBF ENERGY INC; TORRANCE REFINING COMPANY, LLC; PBF ENERGY WESTERN REGION, LLC; PBF HOLDING COMPANY, LLC; PBF ENERGY COMPANY, LLC (the “PBF Defendants”); STEVEN STEACH (STEACH"), and DOES 1-100 (collectively “DEFENDANTS”). PLAINTIFFS aver the following upon personal knowledge and information and belief based upon the investigation of counsel as to all other facts alleged in the Complaint: 1. This case represents an example of corporate choice to place profits over public safety. It arises from the massive refinery explosion that occurred on February 18, 2015 at DEFENDANTS’ Torrance Refinery (“Refinery”), the extensive fallout from that explosion, and the continuation of years of neglect, lax oversight, and corporate indifference to necessary safety, operating standards, and necessary diligence that have caused numerous fires, leaks, explosions, and other releases of dangerous pollutants. 2. On February 11, 2015 the Fluid Catalytic Cracking (“FCC”) expander at the Refinery, a unit that converts oil to gasoline by “cracking” the large oil molecules apart into smaller ones began experiencing vibrations that over the course of several days continued to worsen. 3. On February 16, 2015 the expander vibrations exceed a specified limit which caused the FCC unit to switch to a “park” mode by the preset logic controls. 4, PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that in the early morning of February 18, 2015 maintenance workers who were dispatched to the FCC expander became concemed due to. the amount of steam coming from the FCC expander. As the concerning steam reduced, however, hydrogen sulfide alarms started, requiring Refinery workers to exit the FCC unit. 5. As residents and workers were finishing their morning commutes on February 18, 2015 a blast which hit the Torrance area with a shockwave comparable to an earthquake, originated from the refinery’s 12 story electrostatic precipitators (“ESP”). As a result, the residents, commuting workers, and business owners of the Torrance area suffered significant ‘CLASS ACTION AND REPRESENTATIVE 2 ACTION COMPLAINT27 28 economic harm. 6. The explosion released dangerous compounds into the atmosphere surrounding the City of Torrance, was not a freak accident or a chance occurrence. It was an inevitable byproduct of DEFENDANTS? willful and conscious disregard of public safety. In the aftermath of the explosion, copious evidence regarding the multiple health and safety violations at the refinery all point to one conclusion: it was only a matter of time until the poor decisions made by DEFENDANTS’ officers, directors, and managing agents allowed such an incident to occur. 7. Following the explosion California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) ordered Defendant ExxonMobil to shut down the unit until it could demonstrate safe operation. 8. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and therefore allege that DEFENDANTS ‘were aware of safety concems, including those of Cal/OSHA, regarding the ESP since as early as 2007, but did not act to resolve those concerns. 9. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and therefore allege that DEFENDANTS ‘were aware of safety concerns, including those of Cal/OSHA, regarding FCC unit since as early as 2006, but did not act to resolve those concems. 10. In addition to ignoring the dangers from lack of proper maintenance, DEFENDANTS’ officers, directors, and managing agents did so while operating the refinery using a specific process that utilizes the highly toxic substance known as modified hydrofluoric acid (“MHF”). 11. Hydrofluoric acid which was previously banned in the 1990s by the Air Quality Management District (“AQMD”), until challengers overturned the ban in court. 12. Following the general ban on hydrofluoric acid, the Refinery began using a MHF substitute in its refining process. 13, The Refinery's MHF storage tanks lies within the blast radius of the ESP that exploded on February 12, 2015. Thousands of pounds of equipment and large pieces of debris hit the scaffolding and general area that was surrounding a tank containing a MHF. If the equipment had hit the tank it likely would have caused a catastrophic release of MHF into the surrounding ‘CLASS ACTION AND REPRESENTATIVE 3 ‘ACTION COMPLAINT27 28 neighborhood. 14, PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and therefore allege that just within a short 3.mile radius distance of the Refinery there are over 330,000 residents, 71 schools, and 8 hospitals. 15. Following the February 18, 2015 explosion, the Refinery underwent repairs, but did not change its use of MHF or location of the storage tanks. 16. On or about May 10, 2016 approximately 15 months after the February 18, 2015 explosion, the refinery began a re-start process where it would once again begin operating. During the initial period of this restart process the refinery operated without pollution-control devices until the ESP began operation. 17. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and therefore allege, that during the time period that the Refinery began operations without pollution-control devices hundreds of pounds of excess particulate emissions were released 18. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and therefore allege, that the restart of the Refinery was rushed so that it would be operating prior to Defendant EXXON’s sale to the PBF Defendants. 19. On or about July 1, 2016 the PBF Defendants completed the purchase of the Refinery through a subsidiary company, for a price of approximately $537.5 million, plus working capital. 20. DEFENDANTS have and/or continue to operate the Refinery in a manner that creates a nuisance and additional pollutants, including multiple flaring events — the burning off of gas during a malfunction — that have occurred multiple times since the restart of the refinery. 21. Flaring events include, but are not limited to, a September 19, 2016 and an October 11, 2016 flaring event caused by power outages and a July 11, 2016 flaring event caused by a software malfunction. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and therefore allege, that these flaring events are avoidable and cause an increase in the emission of pollutants near the refinery. 22. DEFENDANTS have and/or continue to operate the Refinery in a manner that CLASS ACTION AND REPRESENTATIVE 4 ACTION COMPLAINT27 28 creates ultrahazardous conditions, including continued volatile and potentially explosive processes near MHF storage tanks. 23. Immediately following the February 18, 2015 explosion ARNOLD GOLDSTEIN watched as ash fell from the sky like snow, covering the area around him and obscuring vision on the street. Since the time of his exposure to the fallout of the explosion ARNOLD GOLDSTEIN has developed and suffers from a persistent cough and diagnosed asthma. 24, Immediately following the February 18, 2015 explosion GISELA JANETTE LA BELLA was jogging with her dog when the fallout and ash began to land around them both. Since the time of GISELA JANETTE LA BELLA’s exposure to the fallout of the explosion she has suffered damage to her larynx, causing her great pain in her second job as a singer. Since the time of GISELA JANETTE LA BELLA’s exposure to the fallout of the explosion her dog became seriously ill and required expensive veterinary intervention. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 25. The Superior Court of the State of California has jurisdiction in this matter because PLAINTIFFS are residents of the State of California, and Defendant EXXON, the PBF Defendants, Defendant STEACH; and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive (collectively “DEFENDANTS”), are qualified to do business in California and regularly conduct business in California. Further, no federal question is at issue because the claims are based solely on California law. 26. Venue is proper in this judicial district and the County of Los Angeles, California because PLAINTIFFS, and other persons similarly situated, reside in the County of Los Angeles, DEFENDANTS maintain offices and facilities and transact business in the County of Los Angeles, and because DEFENDANTS: illegal and wrongful actions which are the subject of this, action occurred to PLAINTIFFS, and other persons similarly situated, in the County of Los Angeles. PLAINTIFFS 27. PLAINTIFF ARNOLD GOLDSTEIN, is a male resident of the State of California and the City of Torrance as well as a small business owner in Torrance who has suffered physical CLASS ACTION AND REPRESENTATIVE 5 ‘ACTION COMPLAINT27 28 and economic harm as a result of DEFENDANTS’ actions and inactions. 28. PLAINTIFF JOHN COVAS, is a male resident of the State of California and the City of Torrance as well as a licensed realtor doing business in the City of Torrance who has suffered economic harm as a result of DEFENDANTS’ actions and inactions. 29. PLAINTIFF GISELA JANETTE LA BELLA, is a female resident of the State of California and is employed within the City of Torrance who has suffered physical and economic harm as a result of DEFENDANTS? actions and inactions. 30. _ PLAINTIFFS bring this case as a class action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals who reside and/or are employed within a three mile radius of the Refinery (“CLASS MEMBERS”) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 382. 31. This action is perfectly suited for class action treatment since a well-defined community of interest in the litigation exists and the class is easily ascertainable. The aforementioned class definition identifies a group of unnamed plaintiffs by a set of shared characteristics adequate for an individual to identify him or herself as a member of the group with the right to recover. The class members may receive proper and sufficient notice directly or through publication. 32. Commonality and Predominance: Defendants’ conduct and the scope of its impact raise common issues of fact and law among all members of the class, and common questions of law or fact are substantially similar and predominate over questions that may affect only individual class members. Defendants’ unreasonable repairs, operation, and maintenance of the Refinery is a common nucleus of operative fact linking every class member. Each member of the proposed class claims that Defendants negligently repaired, operated and/or maintained the Torrance Refinery, which resulted in the release of harmful pollutants, noxious odors, and excessive noise invading CLASS MEMBERS" land, causing diminished use and enjoyment of their properties, pollution of the land and air in and around CLASS MEMBERS’ properties, and/or caused adverse health effect. Additionally, DEFENDANTS have intentionally, recklessly, and/or negligently failed to abate these pollutants, noxious odors, and excessive noises. While slight variations in individual damages ‘CLASS ACTION AND REPRESENTATIVE 6 ‘ACTION COMPLAINT27 28 may occur, common questions of law and fact regarding DEFENDANTS’ liability substantially predominate over any questions affecting only individual CLASS MEMBERS such that class treatment should be permitted for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. 33. | Numerosity: The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members would be impracticable. PLAINTIFFS estimate, according to public information available from the City of Torrance, that the population of the City of Torrance is estimated to be approximately 150,000 with a peak day time population of over 200,000 people. Inclusion of all residents in a 3-mile radius distance of the Refinery increases the number to approximately 330,000 residents with additional commuting employees. While the exact number of members of | the Class is presently unknown to PLAINTIFFS and can only be only be determined through discovery, PLAINTIFFS believe the class includes hundreds of thousands of members. 34. Typicality: PLAINTIFFS’ claims are typical of the claims of the CLASS MEMBERS. PLAINTIFFS and all putative class members were and are subject to the same unsafe conditions, pollutants, noxious odors, and excessive noise by the DEFENDANTS” refinery. DEFENDANTS? course of conduct in violation of law as alleged herein has caused PLAINTIFFS and CLASS MEMBERS to sustain the same or similar injuries and damages, including economic injuries, physical injuries, and injury to pets. 35. Adequacy of Representation: PLAINTIFFS and all putative CLASS MEMBERS do not have any conflicts of interest with other CLASS MEMBERS due to the great degree of | commonality, and will prosecute the case vigorously on behalf of the class. Counsel representing PLAINTIFFS and the class are competent and experienced in litigating large class actions. PLAINTIFFS will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the CLASS MEMBERS. Thus, the named PLAINTIFFS are committed to deliver relief for the class and have retained experienced class action counsel. 36. Superiority of class action: A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Individual joinder of all class members is not practicable, and questions of law and fact common to the class predominate over any ‘CLASS ACTION AND REPRESENTATIVE 7 ‘ACTION COMPLAINT27 28 questions affecting only individual members of the class. Each class member has been damaged and is entitled to recovery as a direct result of DEFENDANTS’ conduct with respect to the unsafe conditions, pollutants, noxious odors, and excessive noise by the DEFENDANTS” refinery. Moreover, the complexity of this litigation and potential of recovery for individuals renders separate adjudication impracticable. Thus, class action treatment provides optimal resolution of | all the class members claims in a manner most efficient and economical for both the parties and the judicial system, DEFENDANTS 37. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a New Jersey corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey. PLAINTIFFS are further informed and believe, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION is authorized to conduct business in the State of California, and does conduct business in the State of California. Specifically, DEFENDANT EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION maintains offices and facilities and conducts business in, and engages in illegal practices in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, 38. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT PBF ENERGY, INC. is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a Delaware corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. PLAINTIFFS are further informed and believe, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT PBF ENERGY, INC. is authorized to conduct business in the State of California, and does conduct business in the State of California. Specifically, DEFENDANT PBF ENERGY, INC. maintains offices and facilities and conducts business in, and engages in illegal practices in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 39. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT TORRANCE REFINING COMPANY, LLC is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a Delaware. Limited Liability Company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. PLAINTIFFS are further informed and believe, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT TORRANCE REFINING COMPANY, LLC is authorized to conduct business in the State of ‘CLASS ACTION AND REPRESENTATIVE 8 ACTION COMPLAINT.Scars HuR wn 1 ll 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 California, and does conduct business in the State of California. Specifically, DEFENDANT TORRANCE REFINING COMPANY, LLC maintains offices and facilities and conducts business in, and engages in illegal practices in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 40. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT PBF HOLDING COMPANY, LLC is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a Delaware Limited Liability Company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. PLAINTIFFS are further informed and believe, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT PBF HOLDING COMPANY, LLC is authorized to conduct business in the State of California, and does conduct business in the State of Califomia. Specifically, DEFENDANT PBF HOLDING COMPANY, LLC maintains offices and facilities and conducts business in, and engages in illegal practices in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 41. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT PBF ENERGY COMPANY, LLC is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a Delaware Limited Liability Company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. PLAINTIFFS. are further informed and believe, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT PBF ENERGY COMPANY, LLC is authorized to conduct business in the State of California, and does conduct business in the State of California. Specifically, DEFENDANT PBF ENERGY COMPANY, LLC ‘maintains offices and facilities and conducts business in, and engages in illegal practices in the County of Los Angeles, State of California 42. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and thereon alleges, that DEFENDANT STEVEN STEACH is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a resident and citizen of the State of California and the County of Los Angeles. 43. The true names and capacities of DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, are unknown to PLAINTIFF at this time, and PLAINTIFF therefore sues such DOE Defendants under fictitious names. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each Defendant designated as a DOE is in some manner highly responsible for the occurrences alleged herein, and that PLAINTIFF and CLASS MEMBERS" injuries and damages, as alleged herein, were proximately caused by the conduct of such DOE Defendants. PLAINTIFF will seek leave of the ‘CLASS ACTION AND REPRESENTATIVE 9 ACTION COMPLAINT27 28 court to amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities of such DOE Defendants when ascertained. 44, PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and thereon allege, each of the DEFENDANTS were the agent, servant, employee, partner, aider and abettor, co-conspirator, joint venturer, predecessor and/or successor in interest of each of the remaining DEFENDANTS named herein and were at all times operating and acting within the purpose and scope of said agency, service, employment, partnership, conspiracy, alter ego, joint venture, predecessor and/or successor relationship. Each of the DEFENDANTS has rendered substantial assistance and encouragement to the other DEFENDANTS, knowing that their conduct was wrongful and/or unlawful, and each of the DEFENDANTS has ratified and approved of the acts of each of the remaining DEFENDANTS. 45. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believes, and thereon allege, that each and every one of the acts and omissions alleged herein were performed by, and/or attributable to, all DEFENDANTS, each acting as agents and/or employees, and/or under the direction and control of, each of the other DEFENDANTS, and that said acts and failures to act were within the course and scope of said agency, employment and/or direction and control. 46. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFFS and CLASS MEMBERS have suffered, and continue to suffer, from injuries to themselves and/or to personal property in amounts as yet unascertained, but subject to proof at trial, and within the jurisdiction of this Court. CLASS ACTION DESIGNATION 47. This action is appropriately suited for a Class Action because: a. The potential class is a significant number. Joinder of all effected persons individually would be impractical. b. This action involves common questions of law and fact to the potential class because the action focuses on DEFENDANTS? systematic course of improper maintenance, practices and policies, which effected. CLASS ACTION AND REPRESENTATIVE 10 ‘ACTION COMPLAINT27 28 c. The claims of PLAINTIFFS are typical of the class because DEFENDANTS subjected all residents and commuting employees within 3 miles to identical exposure to toxic substances. d. PLAINTIFFS are able to fairly and adequately protect the interests of all members of the class because it is in their best interests to prosecute the claims alleged herein to obtain greatest award possible. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence (Against all DEFENDANTS) 48. _ PLAINTIFFS incorporates and re-alleges, as though fully set forth above, each of the preceding paragraphs. 49. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at the time of the explosion, Defendant Exxon owned, operated, controlled, managed, and/or maintained the Torrance Refinery, as described above. 50. _ PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that shortly following the restart of the Refinery, Defendant PBF owned, operated, controlled, managed, and/or maintained the Torrance Refinery, as described above, 51. Atall relevant times, DEFENDANTS were required to exercise the utmost care and diligence in the ownership, operation, management, supervision, inspection, maintenance, repair, and/or control of the Refinery, so as to not cause harm to public property, the environment, public resources, public health, and/or the comfortable use and enjoyment of life and liberty by the public. 52. Atall relevant times, DEFENDANTS failed to exercise care in its ownership, operation, management, supervision, inspection, maintenance, repair, and/or control of the Refinery, including, but not limited to, failing to properly inspect and replace equipment, continued use of dangerous MHF near volatile processing units, and failing to comply with applicable safety standards. iff have suffered 53. As further direct and legal result of the aforesaid premises, Plai ‘CLASS ACTION AND REPRESENTATIVE n ‘ACTION COMPLAINT27 28 damages, including but not limited to costs for emergency response, clean up of debris, medical bills, and loss of use and enjoyment of property in an amount, according to proof at trial, beyond the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. 54. Asa further direct and legal result of the aforesaid allegations, PLAINTIFFS” property has suffered a loss of its fair market property values as a result of the February 18, 2015 explosion and the continued release of toxins and noise into the atmosphere throughout the operation of the Refinery. 58. Asa further direct and legal result of the aforesaid allegations, PLAINTIFFS have suffered damage to environmental resources. 56. Asa further direct and legal result of the aforesaid allegations, PLAINTIFFS have suffered harm to the public health, obstruction of the free passage and use of property of public property, and/or the interference with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property. 57. PLAINTIFFS did not consent to DEFENDANTS’ conduct, which required and continues to require the public to shelter-in-place for extended periods to avoid immediate harm and has created long-lasting, continuing, and/or permanent harm to public health, the environment, and property valuations. 58. The wrongful acts of DEFENDANTS were done maliciously, oppressively, fraudulently, and in conscious disregard of the safety and health of the community. PLAINTIFFS are entitled to punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be ascertained according the proof, which is appropriate to punish or set an example of Defendant and deter such behavior. 59. Asa direct and legal cause of the wrongful acts herein set forth, PLAINTIFFS suffered damages as described above pursuant to paragraphs | through 46. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Strict Liability — Ultrahazardous Activity (Against all DEFENDANTS) 60. _ PLAINTIFFS incorporates and re-alleges, as though fully set forth above, each of the preceding paragraphs. 61. Atalll times relevant herein, DEFENDANTS: activities in operating, controlling, ‘CLASS ACTION AND REPRESENTATIVE 12 ACTION COMPLAINToar anne on 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ‘managing, and/or maintaining the Refinery constitutes an ultrahazardous and abnormally dangerous activity, as maintenance of an outdated Refinery, particularly one using MHF, in a densely populated area poses serious risk of harm, regardless of the amount of care exercised. 62. Asalleged herein, PLAINTIFFS were seriously harmed which was a direct result of DEFENDANTS’ ultrahazardous activities in operating and maintaining the Refinery. 63. PLAINTIFFS” harm, as outlined above, was the kind of harm that would be anticipated as a result of the risk created by DEFENDANTS” abnormally dangerous activities, i.e., maintenance of an oil refinery, especially an old, dangerous, and poorly maintained refinery using MHF, in a densely populated area. 64. DEFENDANTS? ultrahazardous activities resulted in an explosion that emitted debris, ash, toxins, smoke, and other dangerous chemicals into the air, and was therefore a substantial factor causing PLAINTIFFS’ harm. 65. Asa direct and legal cause of the wrongful acts herein set forth, PLAINTIFFS suffered damages as described above in the preceding paragraphs. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: Private Nuisance - Cot ing (Against all DEFENDANTS) 66. PLAINTIFFS incorporates and re-alleges, as though fully set forth above, each of the preceding paragraphs. 67. PLAINTIFFS owned, leased, occupied, and/or controlled property at or near the Refinery. PLAINTIFFS have the inalienable right to own, enjoy, and use its property without interference by DEFENDANTS’ conduct. 68. PLAINTIFFS continue to own, lease, occupy, and/or controlled property at or near the Refinery. PLAINTIFFS have the inalienable right to own, enjoy, and use its property without interference by DEFENDANTS’ conduct. 69. DEFENDANTS by reason of their failure to exercise care in their operation and maintenance of the refinery, created a condition that harmed PLAINTIFFS and interfered with PLAINTIFFS’ free use and enjoyment of its land, as Plaintiff, along with numerous other (CLASS ACTION AND REPRESENTATIVE 13 ‘ACTION COMPLAINT27 28 neighbors, have suffered the loss of the use and enjoyment of its property, in the form of damage to buildings and personal property and/or a significant decrease in the value of the property, and/or exposure to an array of toxic substances on the land, and/or a lingering malicious odor, noise, soot, ash, and dust in the air. 70. — Anordinary person of reasonable sensibilities would reasonably be annoyed and/or disturbed by the conditions created by DEFENDANTS. 71. PLAINTIFFS did not consent to the DEFENDANTS’ conduct. To the extent PLAINTIFFS gave any express or implied permission for the maintenance of an oil refinery near their property, such permission extended only to a properly maintained, up-to-date, and safe refinery, and DEFENDANTS exceeded the scope of any such consent by operating a poorly maintained, dangerous, aging, and ultimately faulty refinery near the PLAINTIFFS. 72. The aforementioned conduct of Defendant constitutes a nuisance within the meaning of section 3479 of the Civil Code in that it is injurious and/or offensive to the sense of the Plaintiff and/or the unreasonably interferes with the conformable enjoyment of its property and/or unlawfully obstructs the free use, in the customary manner, of PLAINTIFFS” property. 73. The seriousness of the injuries to PLAINTIFFS outweighs the social utility of DEFENDANTS’ conduct, as DEFENDANTS could have taken steps to prevent the harm while still refining oil 74, Asa direct and legal cause of the wrongfil acts herein set forth, PLAINTIFFS suffered damages as described above in the preceding paragraphs. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTI Private Nuisance Permanent (Against all DEFENDANTS) 75. _ PLAINTIFFS incorporates and re-alleges, as though fully set forth above, each of the preceding paragraphs. 76. _ PLAINTIFFS owned, leased, occupied, and or controlled the property. 71. DEFENDANTS by reason of their failure to exercise care in its operation and maintenance of the refinery, creates a condition that permanently harmed PLAINTIFFS and ‘CLASS ACTION AND REPRESENTATIVE 14 ACTION COMPLAINT27 28 interfered with PLAINTIFFS" free use and enjoyment of their land, as PLAINTIFFS, along with numerous other neighbors, have suffered the loss of the use and enjoyment of their property, in the form of damage to buildings and personal property and/or a significant decrease in the value of the property, and/or exposure to an array of toxic substances on the land, and/or a lingering malicious odor, noise, soot, ash, and dust in the air. 78. — Anordinary person of reasonable sensibilities would reasonably be annoyed and/or disturbed by the conditions created by DEFENDANTS. 79. _ PLAINTIFES did not consent to the DEFENDANTS" conduct, which was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFFS" harm. 80. The seriousness of the harm to PLAINTIFFS outweighs the public benefit of DEFENDANTS’ conduct. 81. Asa direct and legal cause of the wrongful acts herein set forth, PLAINTIFFS. suffered damages as described above in the preceding paragraphs. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Public Nuisance - Continuing (Against all DEFENDANTS) 82. PLAINTIFFS incorporates and re-alleges, as though fully set forth above, each of the preceding paragraphs. 83. DEFENDANTS by reason of their failure to exercise care in operation and ‘maintenance of the Refinery, created a condition that harmed the public and interfered with the public’s free use and enjoyment of public land, as PLAINTIFFS, along with numerous residents and surrounding neighbors, have suffered the loss of the use and enjoyment of their property, in the form of damage to buildings and personal property and/or a significant decrease in the value of the property, and/or exposure to an array of toxic substances on the land, and/or a lingering malicious odor, noise, soot, ash, and dust in the air. 84. An ordinary person of reasonable sensibilities would reasonably be annoyed and/or disturbed by the conditions created by DEFENDANTS. 85. The conditions affected a substantial number of people at the same time. ‘CLASS ACTION AND REPRESENTATIVE 15 ‘ACTION COMPLAINTCor annnron 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 86. The seriousness of the harm outweighs the social utility of DEFENDANTS’ conduct 87. _ PLAINTIFFS did not consent to DEFENDANTS’ conduct. 88. As direct and legal cause of the wrongful acts herein set forth, PLAINTIFF suffered damages as described above in the preceding paragraphs. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Public Nuisance — Permanent (Against all DEFENDANTS) 89. PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFFS incorporates and re-alleges, as though fully set forth above, each of the preceding paragraphs. 90. _ DEFENDANTS by reason of their failure to exercise care in operation and ‘maintenance of the Refinery, created a condition that harmed the public and interfered with the public's free use and enjoyment of public land, as PLAINTIFFS, along with numerous residents and surrounding neighbors, have suffered the loss of the use and enjoyment of their property, in the form of damage to buildings and personal property and/or a significant decrease in the value of the property, and/or exposure to an array of toxic substances on the land, and/or a lingering malicious odor, noise, soot, ash, and dust in the air. 91. Anordinary person of reasonable sensibilities would reasonably be annoyed and/or disturbed by the conditions created by DEFENDANTS. 92. The conditions affected a substantial number of people at the same time. 93. The seriousness of the harm outweighs the social utility of DEFENDANTS’ conduct. 94, PLAINTIFFS did not consent to DEFENDANTS’ conduct. 95. As direct and legal cause of the wrongful acts herein set forth, PLAINTIFF suffered damages as described above in the preceding paragraphs. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Trespass (Against all DEFENDANTS) ‘CLASS ACTION AND REPRESENTATIVE 16 ‘ACTION COMPLAINT27 28 96. PLAINTIFFS incorporate and re-allege, as though fully set forth above, each of the preceding paragraphs. 97. DEFENDANTS were engaged in an extrahazardous activity and/or intentionally, recklessly, and/or negligently caused an array of toxic substances, a lingering malicious odor, noise, soot, ash, and/or dust to enter PLAINTIFFS" property. 98. _ PLAINTIFFS did not give permission for this direct and/or indirect entry. 99. _ PLAINTIFFS, along with numerous residents and surrounding neighbors, have been harmed by DEFENDANTS’ conduct, as PLAINTIFFS’ have suffered the loss of the use and enjoyment of their property, in the form of damage to buildings and personal property and/or a significant decrease in the value of the property, and/or exposure to an array of toxic substances on the land, and/or a lingering malicious odor, noise, soot, ash, and dust in the air, 100. An ordinary person of reasonable sensibilities would reasonably be annoyed and/or disturbed by the conditions created by DEFENDANTS. 101. As direct and legal cause of the wrongful acts herein set forth, PLAINTIFF suffered damages as described above in the preceding paragraphs. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, respectfully prays for relief against DEFENDANTS and DOES | through 100, inclusive, and each of them, as follows: 1, For compensatory damages in an amount to be ascertained at trial; 2. For economic damages due to emergency response and permitting costs according to proof; 3. For past and future damages related to environmental remediation and incidental costs according to proof, 4. For diminution in property value according to proof; 5S. For damages related to harm to public health, obstruction of the free passage and use of property of public property, and/or the interference with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property according to proof; ‘CLASS ACTION AND REPRESENTATIVE 7 ‘ACTION COMPLAINT27 28 6. For pre- and post-judgment interest on all damages as allowed by the law; 7. For attorneys and expert /consultant fees under existing law; 8. For punitive damages in an amount according to proof or taking some measure to ensure that an example is made of DEFENDANTS to deter similar future conduct; 9. For costs of suit incurred herein; and 10. For such other and future relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DD eran 2 Respectfully submitted, MATHRN LAW GROUP, PC By: Tagore Subramaniam Daniel J. Bass Attomeys for Plaintiffs. | ARNOLD GOLDSTEIN, JOHN COVAS, and GISELA JANETTE LA BELLA, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated ‘CLASS ACTION AND REPRESENTATIVE 18 ‘ACTION COMPLAINT1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 2 PLAINTIFFS hereby demand a jury trial with respect to all issues triable of right by jury. 3 4 | DATED: February 17, 2017 Respectfully submitted, 5 MATERN LAW GROUP, PC ‘ By: 7 Matthew J. Matern 8 Tagore Subramaniam Daniel J. Bass 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs ARNOLD. 10 GOLDSTEIN, JOHN COVAS, and GISELA. JANETTE LA BELLA, individually, and on WW behalf of others similarly situated 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “annostcnans ‘CLASS ACTION AND REPRESENTATIVE Avene Ea0 19 ‘ACTION COMPLAINT‘SUM-100 SUMMONS oe (CITACION JUDICIAL) ow " NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: Defendants EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): New Jersey corporation; PBF ENERGY INC, Delaware corporation; TORRANCE REFINING COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; PBF ENERGY WESTERN REGION, LLC, a Additional Parties Atachment form is attached, YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: ARNOLD GOLDSTEIN, an (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): individual, JOHN COVAS, an individual, and GISELA JANETTE LA BELLA, an individual, individuslly and on behalf ofall others similarly situated, TNOTICET You ave been sued. The court may decide againel you wihout your being heard unless you respond wihin 30 daye. Read the formation bebw. ‘You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this surmmone and legal papers are served on you to fe a vt response at his court and have 2 copy served onthe pail A letrox phone cal wal not protect you, Your writen response must be in proper legal form you want the cour to hear Your ‘case, There may be a court form tat you ean use for your response. You can fndthess cout forms and more information atthe Cakfomla Courts nine Self-Help Center (www.courtnfo.ce govise/etp, your county law ibrery.o the courthouse nearest youl you cannot pey the fling fee, ak the court clerk fora fee waver form. If you do not le your responce on ime, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning fom tye cour. “Tere ae cer legal requirements. You may wart to call anatomy right away. you donot know an atlorney you may wantto cal an attomey reteral service. Ifyou cannot aford an atl, you may be eigie fo ee legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locale ‘hese nonprofit groups atthe Calforia Legal Services Web sits (wr Jawhelpcaifomia org), the Caiforia Courts Online Sel Help Center (wns courtnfo.ca.gowselhelp), oF by contacting your local court or counly bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory len for waved fees and ‘costs on any setlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a ci case, The courte len must be paid before the cout wil mise the oa JAVISOI Lo han demandado, Sine responde dento de 30 las, a corte puede decid en su conra sin escuchar su version, Lea a Informacion 8 Eantnuaain, Tione 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entreguen esa olacién y pepeleslegees para presentar une respuesta por esc on este carte y hacer que se entrague una copa al demendante. Una carta oun lamada elefénica no protegen. Su respuesta por eset one que estar 00 formato legal corecto 3 desea que proceson su caso en la carte. Es posible que haya un ormulario que usted pueda usar para Sy respuesta ‘Puede encontrar ests famularoe do la corte y mae informacion an el Cento de Ayuda de las Cates do Calon (ww eucore.ca.g0¥), 2 bibioteca de leyes desu condado o en la corte que le quede més cerca Si no puede pager la cute de presentacén, pia a secretario de f corte ‘que le db un formulaio de exencién de pago de cuctas. Sino presenta su respuesta a fempo, puede perder e caso por incumplmionto la corte le odré quar su sueid, dno y bienes sin mas advertencia "Hay aos requstos legals. recomendable que llame a un abogado inmedatamente, Sino conoce aun abogado, puede lamar aun sanvicio de ‘remision a sbogedos. Sino puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumple con los requis para obtener servicios legales gratutos de un ‘Programa de seriios legals sn nes de ler Puede encontrar ests grupos sin nes delucro en e silo web de Calforia Legal Serdces, fsa lvielpcalfmia org), en el Centro de Ayuda de as Cortes de Calfoma, (ww sucorte.ca gov 0 poniéndose en contacto con la corte 0 el ‘alegio de abogadcs locales. AVISO: Porley, la cot ne derecho @reciamar ls evotasy los costs exentos por Impaner un gravemen sobre ‘ualgulerrecuperacin de $10,000 6 mis de valor recbide medante un acuerdo o una concesién de arbiraje enn caso de derecho cl. Tlene que agar e ravamen dela corte antes de que la carte pueda desechar al caso, The name and address ofthe courts: ease nova (Elnombre y direccién de Ia corte es): nino Superior Court of Califomis, County of Los Angeles 111 North Hill Street Los Angeles, California, 90012 The name, address, and telephone number of plant's attorney, o plant without an attorney is: Matthew J. Matern (Elnombre, la direccién y el nimero de teléfono del abogado de! demandante, 0 de! demandante que no tiene abogado, es): ‘Matern Law Group, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 (310) 531-1900 DATE: Clerk, by Deputy (Fecha) (Socretario) (Aahunto) (For proof of service ofthis summons, use Proat of Service of Summons (form POS-070)) (Para prueba de entraga de esta citatién use o! formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)). NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served Ser 1: Leal es aninvidual defender. 2. [=] as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): 3 CT onenat of rspaciny under: 2} coP 416 10 (corporation) cee 416.0 (minor Scop 416.20,detunct coporaton) =]. CoP 418.70 conservatee) [a cop 4i6.40 (association or partnership) [=] CCP 416 90 (authorized person) ) other (specity): 4. (1) by personal delivery on (date): age toes Face Cowie Cole SUnONS) oe nbc rs‘SUM-200(A) SHORT TITLE: Amold Golstein, et al. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al. ose naser INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE > This form may be used as an attachment io any summons if space does not permit the listing ofa pares on the summons. > If this attachment is used, insert the following statement inthe plantf or defendant box on the summons: “Addiional Parties [Attachment form is attached.” List additional parties (Check only one bor. Use a separate page for each ype of party): Prainit Defendant [7] Cross-Complainant [] Cross-Defendant Delaware Limited Liability Company; PBF HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; PBF ENERGY COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; STEVEN STEACH, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Pogo jf 4 panne eieemoa ‘ADDITIONAL PARTIES ATTACHMENT wre ‘stacey 207 ‘Attachment to Summonscu-o1 [[artoimev on panty witnGUT ATOMEY na Ser aber aaa FOR COURT USE ONLY Matthew J. Matern ‘SBN: 159798 Mate Law Group, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 reveprone no:(310) 531-1900 axn0:(310) 531-1901 Arronney ron ware!Amold Goldstein [SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES stneer aponess-11] North Hill Street wax aooness:111 North Hill Street cirvanoz cove: Los Angeles, 90012 nnascune: Stanley Mosk Courthouse on Mill St ‘CASE NAME: Amold Goldstein, etal. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, etal CIVIL CASE, Ge ‘SHEET ‘Complex Case Designation lle Unlimited Limited a ae) counter singer | — demanded demanded is | Filed with frst appearance by defendant exceeds $25,000) _ $25,000 or ess) (Cal. Rules of Cour, rulo 3.402) | oern Tiems 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2)- ‘Gheck one box below for the case type that best describes this case: fam tor ‘anes ‘rovondyCongis Ce orton [J Auto (22) J Breach of contractwarranty (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403) Chard rt 8 (fw concn] Antrtndeeten Come PuPON PesonalnyProneey — [=] Otmreaecer FE conucin ott) ‘Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort 1 insurance coverage (18) J mass ton (40) CY Asbestos 04) TF otter contract 7) ‘Securiis gation (28) Product liability (24) Real Property Environmental/Toxic tort (30) Medel mare 5) ennen doreiinene aa cenen TE onereveom ey OF geeeroe wees crear for ‘Non-PUPDIWD (Other) Tort 1 wrongtut eviction (33) types (41) Business tuna business practice (07) L] Other real eroperty (26) Enforcement of Judgment eae) Saige Seamer ES tnocerent et hooray Detention) Py comer) scetanous Ct Compton Prt) 1 ence 2 C5 neon [| irwse pope) 7 ove cere pected tore 2) Proton esas ‘adel nee aes ‘Other non-PUPDAWD tor (35) LD Asset forteture (05) [1 Partnership and corporate govemance (21) Employment [ Petionre:arraton anars(1) =] otner ptton (0 specie’ above) (3) ‘Wrongful termination (38) 2) writ ot mandate (02) [1 otteremploment (5) [Ed caner jai revi 30) 2 Thiscase LXJis [isnot — complex under rule 3.400 ofthe California Rules of Court. the case is complex, mark the factors requifing exceptional judicial management: a.) Large number of separately represented parties d. [X] Large number of witnesses. b.[-] Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel__e. [_] Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts Issues that will be time-consuming to resolve In other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court, ¢. [] Substantial amount of documentary evidence +t. [1 Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision Remedies sought (check all hat apply): a. ‘Number of causes of action (specity): Seven (7) 3 4 5. This case is (Jisnot aciass action suit. 6. Ifthere are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related| jonetary b.[_] nonmonetary; deciaratory or injunctive relief ¢. [XJpunitive Date: February 17,2017 Matthew J. Mate » NOTICE + Piainttt must fle this cover sheet withthe frst paper filed inthe action or proceeding (except smal claims cases or cases fled Lnder the Probate Cade, Family Code, or Welfare and Insitutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Falure to fle may result in sanctions. * File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. «= Ifthis case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq, of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy ofthis cover sheet on all ‘other partes tothe action or proceeding, + Uniess thsi a collections case under ule 3.740 or a complex case, tis cover sheet wl be used fr statistical pupOSeS Only. asus CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET 4 Re Serotec heen 210 ‘aa St Cnecsonicenanarma M-010 INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET i To Plaintifs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are fling a fist paper (for example, a complain) in a civil case, you must ‘Complete and file, long with your fst paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet cortained on page 1. This Information willbe used to compile statistics about the types and numbers of cases fled. You must complete Items 1 through 6 on the sheet. In item 1, you must check ‘one box for the case type that best describes the case. Ifthe case fits both a general and a more specific type of case listed in item 1, Check the more specific one. If the case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action. To assist you in completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A cover sheet must be fled only with your inal paper. Fallure to file a cover sheet with the fist paper fled in a civil case may subject a party, its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 ofthe California Fules of Court To Patties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A “collections case" under rule 3.740 ts defined as an action for recovery of money ‘owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorney's fees, arising from a transaction in \which property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: (1) tort damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real propery, (4) recovery of personal property, or (6) a prejudgment wit of attachment. The Identiiation of a case as a rule 2.740 collections case on this form means that t wll be exempt from the general time-for-service requirements and case management rues, unless a defendant fies a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections ‘case willbe subject tothe requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740, To Parties in Complex Cases._ In complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the case is complex. It a plaintif believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Fules of Court, this must be indicated by Completing the appropriate boxes in tems 1 and 2. Ifa plaintif designates a caso as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the Complaint on all paties to the action. A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of its fist appearance a joinder in the Plainti's designation, a counter-designation thatthe case is not complex, or, ifthe plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that the case is complex. ‘Auto Tort “Rul (22}-Personl njury/Propery Damage/Wrongil Death Uninsured Motorist (46) (i the ase involves an uninsured ‘motorist claim subject 0 26 13_ASItO Peto Change of Namerchangeof Gender ee 16170 Pett for Rote rom Late Ca Law aa 12.6100 Cine Ci Peton ef Thaw i09 Rev 36) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 23 LASC Approved 9-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page Sof 4‘SORT IME Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al CASE Step 4: statement of Reason and Address: Check the appropriate boxes for the numbers shown under Column C for the type of action that you have selected. Enter the address whichis the basis forthe fling location, including zip code. (No address required for class action cases). REASON: 01.02.03.04.05.06.07. 08.0 9.010.011, ‘Step 5: Certification of Assignment: | certiy that this case is propery filed in the __Central District of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles [Code Civ. Proc., §392 et seq., and Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(E)}. Dated: February 17, 2017, PLEASE HAVE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS COMPLETED AND READY TO BE FILED IN ORDER TO PROPERLY COMMENCE YOUR NEW COURT CASE: 1. Original Complaint or Petition. 2. Iffing a Complaint, a completed Summons form for issuance by the Clerk. 3. Civil Case Cover Sheet, Judicial Council form CM-010. 4. Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location form, LACIV 109, LASC Approved 03-04 (Rev. o2ite).. Payment in full ofthe filing fee, unless there is court order for waiver, partial or scheduled payments. A signed order appointing the Guardian ad Litem, Judicial Council form CIV-010, ithe plaintifor petitioners a minor under 18 years of age will be required by Court in order to issue a summons. 7. Additional copies of documents to be conformed by the Clerk. Copies of the cover sheet and this addendum. ust be served along with the summons and complaint, or other initiating pleading in the case. LAcIV 108 (Rev 276) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.3 LASC Approved 03.04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 4 of 4