PlainSite :: Richard F Sowinski Dr v. Amerigas Propane Lp et al, Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco Case No. CGC-08-480871 Document 1: Complaint

Page 1

WOR

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet Oct-15-2008 11:41 am

Case Number: CGC-08-480871 Filing Date: Oct-1 5-2008 11:32 Juke Box: 001 Image: 02283256 COMPLAINT

RICHARD F SOWINSKI DR VS. AMERIGAS PROPANE LP et al

001002283256

Instructions:

Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.

Page 2

01/06/2007 00:42 FAX 17148509392
SUM-190

SUMMONS psollg Pana Uae BE LA CORTE) (CITACION JUDICIAL) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:

(AVISO AL DEMANDADO):
SEE ADDITIONAL PARTIES ATTACHMENT
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
DR. RICHARD F, SOWINSKI, IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

GRAHAMandMARTINLLP 006 | C : C

attorney referral sarvice. If you program. You can locate these pueda user para eu respuesta.

puede pagar ia cucts de

You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after thie summons end legal paperé are served on you fo file a written respones at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff, A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must ba In proper legal form If you want the court to hear your case, There may 66 a court form that you oan use for your response. You can find these court forme and more Information ai the Callformla Courts Online Self-Help Canter (www,courtinto.ca.gov/eelmalp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. i you cannot pay the fillng fee, eek the court clerk for a fee walver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may toes the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court, There are other [egal requirements. You may want to call an storney right eway. ¥ you do not know an stiomey, you may want te call an Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/setthelp), or by contacting your local caurt or county bar association. Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO despute de que fe eritrequen esta citecién y papetes legales para presenter una respuests por escrito en este Corte y hacer que ee entregue una copls al demandante. Una carts o una tlamada telefdnica no lo protegen. Su respuests por excrito tone que eater en formate legs! correcto al desea que procesen sti Canc #n la corte, Es posible que haya un formulario que usted Californta (www,courtinto.ca, gov/selthelpespanol), en ta biblioteca de leyes de su condada o an [a corte que le queds mda corce. Sino su reapueste 8 tempo, puede perder of caso por Incumplimienta y ia corte fe podré quitar su sueldo, dinero y blenes sin més advertencia. Hay otros requisitos legaies, Ea recomendeble que lame # un abogado Inmediataments. Bi na condos # un abogado, puede Hamar aun servicio de remisién a abogados. $1 no puede pager a un abogado, ee posible que cumpia con los requisiios para obtener servicios fogales gratultoe de un programa de servicios legales sin fines c6 lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fince da lucro en st aitio web de Caltfornia Legal Services, (jwww.lawhelpealifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes da California, {www courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelpespanol) & ponléndose en contacto con fe corte o ef colegio de abogades locales, é a The name and address of ine count is; -.0 lL (El nombre y direccién de Is corte 3): eee San Francisco Superior Court 400 Mcallister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services fram a nonprofit legal services nonprofit groupe at the California Legal Services Web site (www Jawhalpcalifornis.org}, the Callfornia

Puede encontrar estos formutarice de is corte y més informacién en ef Centro de Ayuda da las Cortes d@ pide al xecretario de ia corte que te dé un formutario de exencién de pego de cuotas. SI no presents

The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's sttorney, or ptalntitt without an attomey, Is: (El nombre, la direcekin y ef nimero de teléfono del abogade del demandante, o de! demandante que no tlone abogado, es): Anthony G, Graham, Graham & Martin LLP, 950 South Coast Drive, Ste,220

Costa Mesa, CA 92626. Tel, (714) 850-9390 | t awed GQ. Qaaskixe, pate: OCT 1 5 2008 (Fecha) \ GORDOYPARE » Deputy (Secretario) (Adjunto) (For proof of service of nis summona, use Proot of Service of Summons (form POS-O10).)

(Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el formufario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)).

Ceounes SUM-100 (Rev. January 1, 2004] NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are eervad 1, (__] as an Individual defendant.

2. [[_] #8 tha paraon sued under the fictitious name of (specify):

a. CJ] on behatt of (speci):

under: [] CCP 416.10 (corporation) CCP 416.60 (minor) _] CCP 416.20 (datunet corporation) CCP 416.70 (conservetes) [—] CCP 416.40 (association of partnership) [—] CCP 416.90 (authorized person} [__] other {epecify):

4. [] by personal daltvery on (date): puget elt Code af ChE Procedure $4 412.26, 466 SUMMONS (Gerear praeivet na. )farew Ue corr ome se)

Page 3

2007 00:42 FAX 17148509992 GRAHAMandMARTINLLP 007 C C 01/06 a SUM-200(A)

SHORT TITLE: CASE AMBER:

Dr. Richard F. Sowinski v. Amerigas et al

INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE

-> This form may be used as an attachment to any summons if space doas not permit the listing of all parties on the summons, +> If this otachment fs used, Insert the following statement In the plaintiff or defendant box on the summons: “Additional Panies Attachment form ts attached.” List additionat parties (Check only one box, Usa a separate page for each type of party.): CC] piaintt = [7] Defendant [_] Cross-Compisinant [J Crose-Defendant AMERIGAS PROPANE L.P.; ALL STAR GAS CORPORATION (FORMERLY EMPIRE GAS CORPORATION); CAMPORA WHOLESALE PROPANE, INC.; CORNERSTONE PROPANE, L.P. (FORMERLY COAST GAS); FERRELLGAS, L.P.; FERRELLGAS PARTNERS, L.P.; HERITAGE PROPANE/NORTHERN ENERGY; KAMPS PROPANE, INC.; PROFLAME, INC.; SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON; SUBURBAN PROPANE GAS CORPORATION; U-HAUL CO. OF CALIFORNIA AND DOES 1 - 500 Pago | of 1 ——

Pege iat FON eda ADDITIONAL PARTIES ATTACHMENT FUM-200(A) [Flev, Fanvery 1. 2007] Attachment to Summons maton Lapaels PE were Fara Vorkilow tom

Page 4

01/06/2007 00:41 PAX 17148509392

.. ° ~

GRAHAYandMARTINLLP oos

C C cuor -Kethony Cy Graham Ses Bar R148CRS ene oe Cee Grohem & Martin LLP F fT 950 South Coast Drive, Suite 220 Suceriog E D Costa Mesa, CA 9262 County of age alifornia TELEPHONE NO.: (714) 850-9390 . gg Faxno: (714) 850-9392 rancisog attorney Fon wae: Dr, Richard F, Sowinski orr SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Francisco OCT 1 5 200 TTR ra emnerranonren: 400 Mcallister Street 8 lao ON mama aporess; 400 McAllister Street BY : PA Li Clerk cryanozecove: San Francisco, CA 94102-4514 , 4.

erunca save: Central Civil 8puty Cle, CASE NAME:

Dr. Richard F, Sowinski v. Amerigas et al CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation CASE MUMBER: - gf i Untimited CJ fanited, Cc Counter Cl Joinder Coo . 0 8 - 48 0 .

demanded damanded le Filed with first appearance by defendant | VOCE ---+exceeds $25,000) — $25.000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT: liema 1=6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2).

1, Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case: Auto Tert Contract Auto (22)

Provisionatly Complex Chvi! Ligation

S Breach of contraciwarranty (06) (Cal. utes of Court, rules 3.400-3.409) Uninsured motorist (48) Rule 3.749 collections (09) Antitrust/Trade regulation (03) Other PUPD/WD (Parsonal tnfury/Property Other colfactions (05) Construction defect (10) Damage/Wrongtul Death) Tort insurance coverage (18} Masa tort (40) *% Asbestos (04) Other contract (37) Securities Iitigation (28) = Product Habiltty (24) Real Property Environmental/Toxle tort (90) a Medical malpractice (45) Eminent domain/inverse insurance coverage claims erising from the A CJ Other PUPD/WD (23} condemnation (14) above Iisted provisionalty complex case a Hon-PUPD/WD (Other) Tort Wrongful eviction (33) types (41) a Business toryuntalr business practice 7 Other seal property (28) Enforcement of Judgment be CM1 rights (06) nlewtul Detainer Enforcement of Judgment (20) Defamation (13) Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Compleint Fraud (16) Residential (32) RiGo (27) intattectual property (19} Bruges (38) Other complaint (net specified above) (42) Profasatonal negtigence (25) Juciclal Review Miscellanacue Civil Petition = omet Dorr PURO tort (35) one See ward (11) Parinerehip and corporate governance (21) jayme eUUOn re: ari on a’ Wrengful termination (96) Writ of mandate (02) CJ Other petition (hot spacified above) (43) Other employment (15) Other judicial review (39) 2, Thisease L¥Jis [_Tisnot complex under rule 3.400 of the California Fiules factors requiring exceptional Judicial management:

a. CZ] Large number of separately represented partien b. Extensive motion practice ralalng difficult or novel issues that will be tlme-conauming to resolve ¢. (J Substantial amount of documentary evidence i.

e of Court, If the case is complex, mark the 41 Large number of witnesses Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts In other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court Substantial postiudgment judicial supervision

3. Remedies sought (check aif that epply): a{7] monetary 6.7] honmenetary; declaratory or injunctive reflef _. [__I punitive

4. Number of causes of action (specify): 1 Proposition 65 violation

8. Thiscase C_]ts Is not a class action euit.

6. iftheve are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You may use form CM-078,) Date: October 8, 2008 Anthony G. Graham SS IRE OF PARTY GA ATTiRhiEY FOR PAR “NOTICE # Plainttf must file this cover sheat with the first paper filed in the action of proceeding (except smelyclalrng cases or cases filed inder re Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rutes of Court, na 312 .) Failure to file may resutt sanctions.

formla Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all = cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only. vere

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

CM010 Rev, July 1, 2007] Cal, Paton of Court, dae 2.30, 5.220, 3.400-3.40), 4740; Cat. Stenderde of Judicial Admingstration, ald. 8.19 Amencen LagsiNet, ine.

wiew F orn YY orkiiow.com.

Page 5

01/08/2007 00:42 FAX 17148509392 =, we wood aA tv & YN

it _FILED BY FAX

PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER

GRAHAM & MARTIN, LLP

Anthony G, Graham (State Bar No.148682) Michael J. Martin (State Bar No. 171757) 950 South Coast Drive, Suite 220 Costa Mesa, California 92626

(714) 850-9390 Attorneys for Plaintiff DR. RICHARD F, SOWINSKI GRAHAMandMARTINLLP gcT1 5 nat ny de 7 all ‘omia GT San Er Aeleen” Oct 15 2089

MAR 2 0 2009 - 9m Aus DEPARTMENT 212 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO DR. RICHARD F, SOWINSKI, IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, Plaintiff, VS, AMERIGAS PROPANE LP.; ALL STAR GAS CORPORATION (FORMERLY EMPIRE GAS CORPORATION); CAMPORA WHOLESALE PROPANE, INC.; CORNERSTONE PROPANE, L.P. (FORMERLY COAST GAS); / FERRELLGAS, L.P.; FERRELLGAS PARTNERS, L.P.; HERITAGE PROPANE/NORTHERN ENERGY; KAMPS PROPANE, INC.; PROFLAME, INC.;" SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON;!

SUBURBAN PROPANE GAS ,’

CORPORATION; U-HAUL CO. OF CALIFORNIA AND DOES 1 - 500 Defendants.

case RS. 08-48 0871 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 25249,5 ET SEQ

Page 6

PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PATER

01/06/2007 00:42 FAX 17148509302 GRAHAMandMARTINLLP Boog

As and for his cause of action against AMERIGAS PROPANE LP; ALLSTAR GAS CORPORATION (FORMERLY EMPIRE GAS CORPORATION); CAMPORA WHOLESALE PROPANE, INC.; CORNERSTONE PROPANE, L.P. (FORMERLY COAST GAS); FERRELLGAS, LP.; FERRELLGAS PARTNERS, LP.; HERITAGE PROPANE/N ORTHERN ENERGY; KAMPS PROPANE, INC.; PROFLAME, INC.; SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON; SUBURBAN PROPANE GAS CORPORATION; U-HAUL CO. OF CALIFORNIA AND DOES 1 - 500, plaintiff Dr. Richard F. Sowinski alleges as follows:

oO USE OF N

A. PARTIES

1, Plaintiff Dr. Richard F. Sowinski is and has been at all relevant times a resident of the State of California, and brings this action in the public interest on behalf of the People of the State of California as defined under Health & Safety Code § 25249.7 (d).

2. Defendants AMERIGAS PROPANE LP.; ALL STAR GAS CORPORATION (FORMERLY EMPIRE GAS CORPORATION); CAMPORA WHOLESALE PROPANE, INC.; CORNERSTONE PROPANE, L.P, (FORMERLY COAST GAS); FERRELLGAS, LP.; FERRELLGAS PARTNERS, L.P.; HERITAGE PROPANE/NORTHERN ENERGY; KAMPS PROPANE, INC.; PROFLAME, INC.; SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON; SUBURBAN PROPANE GAS CORPORATION; U-HAUL CO. OF CALIFORNIA AND DOES 1 - 500 (hereinafter referred to collectively as Defendants") are and at all times mentioned herein have been qualified to do business in the State of California.

3. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued as DOES 1-500, inclusive, and therefore sue these defendants by such fictitious names, The fictitious defendants named in this Complaint are sued pursuant to the provisions of C.C.P. § 474. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon that ground, alleges that each fictitious defendant is in some way responsible for, participated in, or contributed to the matters and things of which

Plaintiff complains herein, and in some fashion, has legal responsibility therefor. When the exact

Page 7

wo aon a vn & VN

PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER

01/08/2007 00:42 FAX 17148509392 CRAHAVandYARTINLLP 010 C nature and identity of such fictitious defendants’ responsibility for, participation in, and contribution to the matters and things alleged herein are ascertained by Plaintiff, Plaintiff will seek to amend this Complaint and all proceedings herein to set forth the same,

4. At all times mentioned herein each of the Defendants was a person within the meaning of Business & Professions Code § 17201 and a person doing business within the meaning of Health & Safety Code § 25249.11 (a). Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times mentioned herein, each of the Defendants has had 10 or more employees. > The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California Constitution Asticle VI, Section 10, which grants the Superior Court original jurisdiction in all causes except those piven by statute to other trial courts, The statutes under which this action is brought do not specify any other basis of jurisdiction.

CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
AND DOES 1- 500

(Violation of California Health & Safety Code)

6. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 5 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

7. Plaintiff is informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants and DOES 1- 500 knowingly and intentionally exposed consumers, their customers and/or the general public to chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects and reproductive toxicity, as set forth in Health & Safety Code §§ 25249.5, et seq. and 22 California Code of Regulations §§ 12000 through 14000 (“Proposition 65”) without giving clear and reasonable warnings of that fact to the exposed persons prior to exposure.

8. Proposition 65 states that when parties, such as Defendants, entities with more than ten employees, have been or are knowingly and intentionally exposing their customers and users of the products they sell to a detectable level of any chemical designated by the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity (the “Designated Chemical”), it has violated the statute unless, prior to such exposure, it provides clear and reasonable warming of the exposure to the potentially exposed persons (Health & Safety Code § 25249.6).

Page 8

—_

wan an vA & WN

PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER

01/06/2007 00:42 FAX 17148509392 GRAHAMandMARTINLLP Moi

9. Defendants knowingly and intentionally exposed consumers, Customers, visitors, Employees and/or the general public to chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects and reproductive toxicity, as set forth in Health & Safety Code § 25249.5, et seq. and 22 California Code of Regulations §$ 12000 through 14000 through the sale and distribution of propane gas in California.

10. ‘Inthe ordinary course of business, Defendants, since at least April 11, 2004 through the present date, have sold and distributed propane gas throughout California for use by consumers. When propane gas is burned it produces, in the ordinary course of usage, hazardous emissions in significant amounts that pose a serious health risk to unsuspecting people. The burning of propane gas produces benzene levels that exceed the allowable threshold exposure level set forth in California Health & Safety Code § 95249.6. Defendants now and for at least the four years prior to this Notice have failed to provide its customers and the general public with a clear and reasonable warning of this potential exposure.

11. | When propane gas is burned it emits vapors, gases and particles containing the following Designated Chemical: benzene, a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer and reproductive toxicity. Persons using propane gas distributed and sold by Defendants will be exposed to this Designated Chemical primarily via inhalation, that is, by breathing in the chemical. Defendants have however not provided to those persons a clear and reasonable warming that use of propane gas will expose the user to the Designated Chemical, Benzene. Defendants are therefore violating Health & Safety Code Section 25249.6.

12. Atall times relevant to this action Defendants knew that their customers, consumers, and/or the general public could be and/or were being exposed, through inhalation, to benzene, a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects and reproductive toxicity, as set forth in Health & Safety Code § 25249.5, et seq. and 22 California Code of Regulations §§ 12000 through 14000.

13. Eachof the Defendants knew these facts because they are in the business of distributing and selling propane gas.

Page 9

01/06/2007 a PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

00:42 FAX 17148509382 GRAHAWandwARTINLLP (o12 C 14, Bach of the Defendants knew these facts because they elther entered into or knew about a settlement agreement dated April 9, 1997 in a case entitled Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation v. Amerigas Propane L.P. et al, San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. 979957, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. In that settlement agreement a number of the Defendants specifically agreed to provide warnings complying with Proposition 65 relating to exposures to the Designated Chemical, benzene, as well as carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, all of which are byproducts from the buming of propane.

15, Plaintiff has investigated each of the Defendants and has determined that do not provide any warning which even mentions California Health & Safety Code section 25249.6 et seq of Proposition 65

16. Despite having a consent judgment entered which mandates that distributors and sellers of propane gas provide a warming, Defendants and DOES 1- 500 have not and do not provide the warnings called for by that consent judgment or by Proposition 65 and thus have knowingly and intentionally exposed their customers, consumers and/or the general public to benzene without providing prior clear and reasonable wamings to those customers, consumer and/or the general public that use of the Product could expose them and others to a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects and reproductive toxicity, as Set forth in Health & Safety Code §§ 25249.5, et seq. and 22 California Code of Regulations §§ 12000 through 14000.

17. The route of exposure for the said chemical has been primarily through inhalation, that is, via the breathing of the said chemical.

146. More than sixty (60) days prior to filing this action Plaintiff mailed to each of the Defendants a Sixty (60) Day Notice of Intent to Sue (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the Notices") for violations of Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (commencing with Health & Safety Code § 25249.5) by knowingly and intentionally exposing consumers, thelr customers and/or the general public to benzene, a chemical designated by the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects and reproductive toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable warning of that fact to the exposed persons as required by Health & Safety

Page 10

01/06/2007 00:43 FAX 17148509322 GRAHAMand¥ARTINLLP oo —_ wo wa aA vA & WY YD

a1 »

PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER

ae ee eens (013 C Code § 24249.6, The Notices specifically identified that the Defendants offered for sale and distributed throughout California propane gas, and that thereby Defendants had exposed consumers, their customers and/or the general public to a Designated Chemical without providing a warning. The Notices identified the time period wherein such exposures had occurred, and also identified the route of exposure for the chemicals as inhalation. Included with the Notices was a copy of "The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65): A Summary."

17. Copies of the Notices referred to in paragraph 16 were mailed to the California Attomey General, the relevant County District Attorneys and City Attomeys for each city containing a population of at least 750,000 people (hereinafter referred to collectively as the *Prosecutors") where the Defendants had violated Health & Safety Code §§ 25249.5, et seg. and 92, California Code of regulations §§ 12000 through 14000.

18. No response was ever received from any of the Prosecutors. None of the Prosecutors is prosecuting an action against any Defendant herein for the violations set forth above.

19, Individuals exposed to the listed chemicals suffered and continue to suffer harm due to their exposure to said chemicals without prior clear and reasonable warning.

20. This action for injunctive relief and penalties for violation of Health & Safety Code $§ 25249.5, et seq. is specifically authorized by Health & Safety Code § 25249.7.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request against Defendants and DOES 1 - 500:

1. A permanent injunction pursuant to California Health & Safety Code § 25249,7(a), and the equitable powers of the court;

2. Penalties pursuant to California Health & Safety Code § 25249.7(b) in the amount of $2,500.00 per day per violation at each of the locations listed in Exhibit A;

3. Costs of suit; fl Ml

Page 11

(91/06/2007 00:43 FAX 17148509392 GRAHAMand¥ARTINLLP fie14 oOo orn vA wv & WY NHN eto NyppPeBBRRBSBEARAA FH NY SD 28 ‘RINTED ON sECYCLED PALER

C C

4. Reasonable attorneys fees and costs; and,

5. Any further relief that the court may deem just and equitable. DATED: October 8, 2008 GRAHAM & MARTIN, LLP mL nvbom Goh Anthony G.

Attorneys for Plaintiff DR. RICHARD F. S$ SKI

Page 12

01/06/2007 00:43 FAX 17148509392 CRAHAMandWARTINLLP (fi015

EXHIBIT A

Page 13

01/06/2007 00:43 FAX 17148509992 ery ood aun &® WN PF wN NY FPF P PF PP BF FP P PF Pr 03 3 in a oN PrPow’ aN a WP ww NY PF Go C PILLSBURY MADISON & SUTRO MICEAEL J. STEEL #4107492 PATRICK C. MARSHALL #112996 225 Sush Street Post Office Box 7880 San Francisco, CA 94120-7880 Telephone: (415) 983-1000 Attorneys for Defendant AMERIGAS PROPANE, L.P.

" GRAHAMandMARTINLLP ore PTE ean Frelaiete Keats APR «9 1997 ALAN CARLSON, Clerk x 8. DOUGLAS | Deputy clo SUPERIOR COURT OF THER STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

MATEEL ENVIRONMENTAD JUSTICE
FOUNDATION,

PlaintLfé, Vs. ° AMERIGAS PROPANE, U.P., et al..

Defendants.

1. Intzoduction.

* hee eet te eee head eit nae tenet Mae Share ee? See .

No. 979957 CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANTS AMERIGAS PR U.P ALL ST AS CO ORMERL EMPIRE GAS CORPORATION) , N co STO PROPANE, .P, (PORMERLY ST G LLG P,,. HERITAGE P.

NORTHERN ENERGY, KAMPS
PROPANE, ING, , PROFLAME
INC. URE
PROP P.

1-1 On July 29, 1996, Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation ("Mateel" or "Plaintiff"), on bahalf of the: general public, filed a Complaint for Civil’ Penalties and Injunctive Relief (*Complaint*) in the Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco (‘Action"). . For purposes of thie Consent Judgment, - Plaintiff acts on behalf of the People of the: State of California only as to those 12343206 -l1-

Page 14

01/06/2007 00:43 FAX 17148809982

af ‘.

Y) F

wow owHyn nm & 42

193 al GRAHAWand¥ARTINLLP . choi?

C C

matters described in the letter dated May 10, 1996, a copy ‘of which is attached as Exhibit A, which Plaintiff sent to Defendant and to public enforcers as required by Health and Safety Code section (25249. 7. AmeriGas Propane, L.P., All Star Gas Corporation (formerly Empire Gas Corporation), Campora, Inc., Cornerstone Propane, L.P. (formerly Coast Gas), Ferrellgas, L.B., Heritage Propane/Northern Energy, Kamps Propane, Ine., Proflame, Inc. and Suburban Propane, L.P., are among the defendants named in ‘the Complaint, and are hereinafter referred to as “Settling Defendants." 1.2 Settling Defendants are entities that sell propane for use in the State of California.

1.3 The Complaint alleges that defendants have

(a) sold propane, which is burned in stoves, ovens, hot water heaters, refrigerators and other devices ‘and that the burning of this fuel creates carbon monoxide, benzene, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde; and (b) violated thea Safe Drinking Water and fexic Enforcement Act of 1986, Health and Safety Code section 25245.6. ("Proposition 65") and Business and Professions Code sections 17200,. et seq. ("Unfair Competition Act*"}, by Jmowingly and intentionally exposing persons to chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects and other raproductive haxm, without first providing a clear and reasonable warning to such individuals...

1.4 For, purposes of this Consent Judgment only, the parties stipulate that this Court has jurisdiction over the allegations of viclations contained in the Complaint and L2IAS7a8 -2=

Page 15

01/06/2007 00;

” wow nw & YW N PF 10:

il 12 13 14 is 16 17:

18 13 20 21 22 _ 23 24 25 26.

27 28 43 FAX 17148509392 GRAHAMand¥ARTINLLP o1s C C .

personal jurisdiction over each Settling Defendant as to the acts alleged in the Complaint, that venue is proper in the County of San Francisco, and that this Court has jurisdiction to enter this consent Judgment as a resolution of all claims which’ were or could have been raised in the Complaint based on the facts alleged therein.

1.5 For the purpose of avoiding prolonged litigation, the parties enter into this Consent Judgment as a full settlement of all claims that were xaised in the Complaint based on the facts alleged therein, or which could have been raised in the Complaint ariging out of the facts alleged therein. By execution‘of this Consent Judgment, Settling

Defendants do not admit any violations of Proposition 65 or - the Unfair Competition Act or any other law ‘and spécifically deny that “they have. committed any such violations. Nothing..~_ tn this Consent Judgment shall be construed as a decision by the Court on any issue of law or ‘fact or as an admission by any party of any fact, issue of law or violation of law, nor shall compliance with the Consent Judgment constitute or be construed as an admission by any party of any fact, Lasue of law, ox violation of law. Nothing in this Consent Judgment shall prejudice, waive or impair any right, remedy or defense the Plaintiffs and Settling Defendants may have as to each other in any other’or future Legal: proceedings unrelated to these proceedings, the facts alleged in the Complaint, or matters covered by this Consent Judgment. However, this paragraph shall not diminish or otherwise 12307208 , ‘ -3~

Page 16

yE/Ub/ 2007 0u:43 FAX 17148509392 CRABAMandYARTINLLP (019 ~ 4 Noe lo ao WY A uM fF Y HF

.16

21:

C C

affect the obligations, responsibilities and duties of the parties under this’ Consent Judgment.

2. Clear and Reasonable Warnings.

2.1 Each Settling Defendant shall provide warnings in the manner set forth in this Consent Judgment for any propane it sells for uge in California. These warning requirements shall take effect 50 days after entry of this Congert Judgment by the Court.

2.2 Warning Language.

The warning shail state either:

Warning Chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm are created by combustion of propane.

Warning .

Byproducts of the combustion of propane contain chemicals knewn to the State of California to cause cancer or: other reproductive harm.

2.3 Dispensing Stations. Propane dispensing stations located at facilitids owned or operated by a Settling Defendant shail be posted with a sign as provided for in Exhibit B to this Consent Judgment. In addition, esach Settling Defendant shall provide a copy of the warning sign to each o£ its customers that operates a dispensing station in California, The warning sign shall be posted either on the dispensing unit, on the fence {if any) surrounding the tank, or in such other manner so as to be clearly readable by a customer bringing a propane container for refilling.

23G3208 -4-

Page 17

91/06/2007 00:44 FAX 17148509302 GRAHAMandMARTINLLP 020 2.4 Billing Insert. Each Settling Defendant shall provide in its customer billing statements, on a quarterly basis or with eath billing statement at the sole option of such Settling Defendant, the warning set forth in Exhibit ¢ te this Consent Judgment.

2.5 Letter to Purchasers Who Buy Directly From Settling Defendants. No later than three (3} months after the date this Consent Judgment is entered, each Settling wo aw An Pe YN OF Defendant shall send the letter attached hereto as Exhibit DB ‘to every commercial or industrial customer that purchases 1i propane for use in California directly from a Settling Defendant. " £3 2.6 Alternative Warning Requirements. If, with ‘14 respect to propane, the People of the State of California or the plaintiff permit any other warning standard or vary the See” permissible manner, form, size oz content of warning, as to any particular class of ‘potentially exposed persons, by way. of settlement or compromise with any other person in the course of doing business, or any other entity, or LE another warning standard, manner, form, size or content of warning is incorporated by way of a final judgment as to any other person in the course of doing business, or any other entity, then any Settling Defendant may, at its sole option, give | warnings on the same terms as provided in those- settlements, compromises or judgments. In the event that Proposition 65 is repealed, Settling Defendants shall: havea no further obligations pursuant to this Consent Judgment.

22763280 -S-

Page 18

01/06/2007 00:44 FAX 17148509392 CRAHAMand¥ARTINLLP Wo2z1

* a .

a .

+ V2yeyrea -6- C : Ci

3. Duties Limited to california.

This Consent Judgment shall have no effect on propane sold by Settling Defendants for use outside the State of California.

"A, Payment Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 25249.7.

Settling Defendants shall, within 30 days after entry of this Consent Judgment, collectively pay the sum of $15,000 to the Office cf the Attorney General of the State of California, pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 38249.7. Settling Defendants shall collectively pay to. Mateal Environmental Justice Foundation the sum ef $5,000 pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 25249.7.

5. o tion’ for ic ucat and . ent roposition 65.

No later than 39 days after entry of this Consent Judgment, Settling Defendants collectively shall pay the sum of $60,000 to non-profit antitiea to be designated by Plaintiff. These funds shall be used for purposes of, educating the publie about Proposition 65 and enforcing ‘the requirements of the law.

6. Litiqation Costs.

No later than 30 days after entry ‘of this Consent Judgment, Settiing Defendants collectively shall pay the sum. of $145,000 as reimbursement for a portion of the plaintiff's costs and fees in investigating and prosecuting this action. Said payment shall be made by delivery of certified funds payable to Pacific Justice Center. Except

Page 19

91/06/2007 00:44 FAX 17148509392 GRAHAMandWARTINLLP

ii C C oz2 as specifically provided in this Consent Judgment, each side shall bear its own costs and attorhey'’s fees.

7. Modification of Consent Judgment. 1 This Consent Judgment may be modified by written agreement of the Plaintiff and the Settling Defendant to whom the modification applies, after noticed motion, and upon entry of a modified Consent Judgment by the Court thereon, ox upon motion of the Plaintiff or any Settling Defendant as provided by law and upon entry of a modified Consent Judgment by the ‘Court.:

8. Additional Parties.

B.1 This Consent Judgment is executed with. the understanding that additional parties not named ‘in -the Complaint have sold propane for use in the State of” California since February 27, 1988, and that those paxties . are subject either to separate suit, or to be added to this . Complaint as a defendant sued under the fictitious names of / Does 1 through 100.° i3 8.2 Any person or antity that employs ten or more persons, or which reasonably believes that at some time since February 27, 1988, it has employed ten or more persons, and which sold propane for use in the State of California since February 1988, and which has not recelved a notice of intent to sue in conection with this case, may become a defendant in this case and a party to this Consent Judgment by undertaking the following steps:

i 12701768 : -7<- —

Page 20

01/06/2007 06:44 FAX 17148509392 GRAHAMandwARTINLLP Wo23 " ve .

‘10 C C (a} Not later than 90 days after this Consent Judgment is approved by the Court, executing an "Opt-in" Stipulation in which it agrees:

(1) that it ‘is an entity that ‘gold propane for use in the State of California since February 1988;

(2) that it accepts garvice of the summons and complaint as a Doa defendant to be designated by the Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation, acting on behalf of the general public; ‘ :

, (3) that it has-read and agrees to be bound by all terms and conditions of this Consent Judement, except paragraphs 4, S, and 6. A copy of the “Optsin® Stipulation as it shall be provided to such persons and entities is attached as Exhibit F.

(b) Thereafter, mailing the original aigned "Opt-in" Stipulation and check in the amount of its share (if any) plus court filing fees, fully postage pre-paid, to the designated trustee, who shall file the *opt-in® stipulation with the court and pay the court filing fee.

(c) Any Opt-in Defendant who gold 700,000 gallons or less of propane for use in the State of California in calendar year 1995 shall be allowed to execute this Amendment without payment of any penalties, fees or costs, ether than its own fees and costs. Any Opt-in Defendant who gold more than 700,000 gallons, but less than 1,500,000 gallons of propane for use 4n the State of California in calendar year 1995 shall pay to the Trustee the sum of $2,000. Any Opt-in Defendant who sold 1,500,000 gallons of 12983248 -8-

PDF Page 1	PlainSite Cover Page

PDF Page 2	WOR SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Oct-15-2008 11:41 am Case Number: CGC-08-480871 Filing Date: Oct-1 5-2008 11:32 Juke Box: 001 Image: 02283256 COMPLAINT RICHARD F SOWINSKI DR VS. AMERIGAS PROPANE LP et al 001002283256 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.

PDF Page 3	01/06/2007 00:42 FAX 17148509392 SUM-190 SUMMONS psollg Pana Uae BE LA CORTE) (CITACION JUDICIAL) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): SEE ADDITIONAL PARTIES ATTACHMENT YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): DR. RICHARD F, SOWINSKI, IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST GRAHAMandMARTINLLP 006 \| C : C attorney referral sarvice. If you program. You can locate these pueda user para eu respuesta. puede pagar ia cucts de You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after thie summons end legal paperé are served on you fo file a written respones at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff, A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must ba In proper legal form If you want the court to hear your case, There may 66 a court form that you oan use for your response. You can find these court forme and more Information ai the Callformla Courts Online Self-Help Canter (www,courtinto.ca.gov/eelmalp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. i you cannot pay the fillng fee, eek the court clerk for a fee walver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may toes the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court, There are other [egal requirements. You may want to call an storney right eway. ¥ you do not know an stiomey, you may want te call an Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/setthelp), or by contacting your local caurt or county bar association. Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO despute de que fe eritrequen esta citecién y papetes legales para presenter una respuests por escrito en este Corte y hacer que ee entregue una copls al demandante. Una carts o una tlamada telefdnica no lo protegen. Su respuests por excrito tone que eater en formate legs! correcto al desea que procesen sti Canc #n la corte, Es posible que haya un formulario que usted Californta (www,courtinto.ca, gov/selthelpespanol), en ta biblioteca de leyes de su condada o an [a corte que le queds mda corce. Sino su reapueste 8 tempo, puede perder of caso por Incumplimienta y ia corte fe podré quitar su sueldo, dinero y blenes sin més advertencia. Hay otros requisitos legaies, Ea recomendeble que lame # un abogado Inmediataments. Bi na condos # un abogado, puede Hamar aun servicio de remisién a abogados. $1 no puede pager a un abogado, ee posible que cumpia con los requisiios para obtener servicios fogales gratultoe de un programa de servicios legales sin fines c6 lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fince da lucro en st aitio web de Caltfornia Legal Services, (jwww.lawhelpealifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes da California, {www courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelpespanol) & ponléndose en contacto con fe corte o ef colegio de abogades locales, é a The name and address of ine count is; -.0 lL (El nombre y direccién de Is corte 3): eee San Francisco Superior Court 400 Mcallister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services fram a nonprofit legal services nonprofit groupe at the California Legal Services Web site (www Jawhalpcalifornis.org}, the Callfornia Puede encontrar estos formutarice de is corte y més informacién en ef Centro de Ayuda da las Cortes d@ pide al xecretario de ia corte que te dé un formutario de exencién de pego de cuotas. SI no presents The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's sttorney, or ptalntitt without an attomey, Is: (El nombre, la direcekin y ef nimero de teléfono del abogade del demandante, o de! demandante que no tlone abogado, es): Anthony G, Graham, Graham & Martin LLP, 950 South Coast Drive, Ste,220 Costa Mesa, CA 92626. Tel, (714) 850-9390 \| t awed GQ. Qaaskixe, pate: OCT 1 5 2008 (Fecha) \ GORDOYPARE » Deputy (Secretario) (Adjunto) (For proof of service of nis summona, use Proot of Service of Summons (form POS-O10).) (Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el formufario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)). Ceounes SUM-100 (Rev. January 1, 2004] NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are eervad 1, (__] as an Individual defendant. 2. [[_] #8 tha paraon sued under the fictitious name of (specify): a. CJ] on behatt of (speci): under: [] CCP 416.10 (corporation) CCP 416.60 (minor) _] CCP 416.20 (datunet corporation) CCP 416.70 (conservetes) [—] CCP 416.40 (association of partnership) [—] CCP 416.90 (authorized person} [__] other {epecify): 4. [] by personal daltvery on (date): puget elt Code af ChE Procedure $4 412.26, 466 SUMMONS (Gerear praeivet na. )farew Ue corr ome se)

PDF Page 4	2007 00:42 FAX 17148509992 GRAHAMandMARTINLLP 007 C C 01/06 a SUM-200(A) SHORT TITLE: CASE AMBER: Dr. Richard F. Sowinski v. Amerigas et al INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE -> This form may be used as an attachment to any summons if space doas not permit the listing of all parties on the summons, +> If this otachment fs used, Insert the following statement In the plaintiff or defendant box on the summons: “Additional Panies Attachment form ts attached.” List additionat parties (Check only one box, Usa a separate page for each type of party.): CC] piaintt = [7] Defendant [_] Cross-Compisinant [J Crose-Defendant AMERIGAS PROPANE L.P.; ALL STAR GAS CORPORATION (FORMERLY EMPIRE GAS CORPORATION); CAMPORA WHOLESALE PROPANE, INC.; CORNERSTONE PROPANE, L.P. (FORMERLY COAST GAS); FERRELLGAS, L.P.; FERRELLGAS PARTNERS, L.P.; HERITAGE PROPANE/NORTHERN ENERGY; KAMPS PROPANE, INC.; PROFLAME, INC.; SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON; SUBURBAN PROPANE GAS CORPORATION; U-HAUL CO. OF CALIFORNIA AND DOES 1 - 500 Pago \| of 1 —— Pege iat FON eda ADDITIONAL PARTIES ATTACHMENT FUM-200(A) [Flev, Fanvery 1. 2007] Attachment to Summons maton Lapaels PE were Fara Vorkilow tom

PDF Page 5	01/06/2007 00:41 PAX 17148509392 .. ° ~ GRAHAYandMARTINLLP oos C C cuor -Kethony Cy Graham Ses Bar R148CRS ene oe Cee Grohem & Martin LLP F fT 950 South Coast Drive, Suite 220 Suceriog E D Costa Mesa, CA 9262 County of age alifornia TELEPHONE NO.: (714) 850-9390 . gg Faxno: (714) 850-9392 rancisog attorney Fon wae: Dr, Richard F, Sowinski orr SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Francisco OCT 1 5 200 TTR ra emnerranonren: 400 Mcallister Street 8 lao ON mama aporess; 400 McAllister Street BY : PA Li Clerk cryanozecove: San Francisco, CA 94102-4514 , 4. erunca save: Central Civil 8puty Cle, CASE NAME: Dr. Richard F, Sowinski v. Amerigas et al CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation CASE MUMBER: - gf i Untimited CJ fanited, Cc Counter Cl Joinder Coo . 0 8 - 48 0 . demanded damanded le Filed with first appearance by defendant \| VOCE ---+- exceeds $25,000) — $25.000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT: liema 1=6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2). 1, Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case: Auto Tert Contract Auto (22) Provisionatly Complex Chvi! Ligation S Breach of contraciwarranty (06) (Cal. utes of Court, rules 3.400-3.409) Uninsured motorist (48) Rule 3.749 collections (09) Antitrust/Trade regulation (03) Other PUPD/WD (Parsonal tnfury/Property Other colfactions (05) Construction defect (10) Damage/Wrongtul Death) Tort insurance coverage (18} Masa tort (40) *% Asbestos (04) Other contract (37) Securities Iitigation (28) = Product Habiltty (24) Real Property Environmental/Toxle tort (90) a Medical malpractice (45) Eminent domain/inverse insurance coverage claims erising from the A CJ Other PUPD/WD (23} condemnation (14) above Iisted provisionalty complex case a Hon-PUPD/WD (Other) Tort Wrongful eviction (33) types (41) a Business toryuntalr business practice 7 Other seal property (28) Enforcement of Judgment be CM1 rights (06) nlewtul Detainer Enforcement of Judgment (20) Defamation (13) Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Compleint Fraud (16) Residential (32) RiGo (27) intattectual property (19} Bruges (38) Other complaint (net specified above) (42) Profasatonal negtigence (25) Juciclal Review Miscellanacue Civil Petition = omet Dorr PURO tort (35) one See ward (11) Parinerehip and corporate governance (21) jayme eUUOn re: ari on a’ Wrengful termination (96) Writ of mandate (02) CJ Other petition (hot spacified above) (43) Other employment (15) Other judicial review (39) 2, Thisease L¥Jis [_Tisnot complex under rule 3.400 of the California Fiules factors requiring exceptional Judicial management: a. CZ] Large number of separately represented partien b. Extensive motion practice ralalng difficult or novel issues that will be tlme-conauming to resolve ¢. (J Substantial amount of documentary evidence i. e of Court, If the case is complex, mark the 41 Large number of witnesses Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts In other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court Substantial postiudgment judicial supervision 3. Remedies sought (check aif that epply): a{7] monetary 6.7] honmenetary; declaratory or injunctive reflef _. [__I punitive 4. Number of causes of action (specify): 1 Proposition 65 violation 8. Thiscase C_]ts Is not a class action euit. 6. iftheve are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You may use form CM-078,) Date: October 8, 2008 Anthony G. Graham SS IRE OF PARTY GA ATTiRhiEY FOR PAR “NOTICE # Plainttf must file this cover sheat with the first paper filed in the action of proceeding (except smelyclalrng cases or cases filed inder re Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rutes of Court, na 312 .) Failure to file may resutt sanctions. © File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required ® If this case le complex under rule 3.400 at seq, of the Cali other partios to the action or proceeding. © Uniess this Is a collections case under rule 3.749 er a complex casa, thi Form Adapted tor Mandatory Vee Judeaial Councl of by local court rule, formla Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all = cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only. vere CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET CM010 Rev, July 1, 2007] Cal, Paton of Court, dae 2.30, 5.220, 3.400-3.40), 4740; Cat. Stenderde of Judicial Admingstration, ald. 8.19 Amencen LagsiNet, ine. wiew F orn YY orkiiow.com.

PDF Page 6	01/08/2007 00:42 FAX 17148509392 =, we wood aA tv & YN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 it _FILED BY FAX 24 26 27 28 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER GRAHAM & MARTIN, LLP Anthony G, Graham (State Bar No.148682) Michael J. Martin (State Bar No. 171757) 950 South Coast Drive, Suite 220 Costa Mesa, California 92626 (714) 850-9390 Attorneys for Plaintiff DR. RICHARD F, SOWINSKI GRAHAMandMARTINLLP gcT1 5 nat ny de 7 all ‘omia GT San Er Aeleen” Oct 15 2089 MAR 2 0 2009 - 9m Aus DEPARTMENT 212 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO DR. RICHARD F, SOWINSKI, IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, Plaintiff, VS, AMERIGAS PROPANE LP.; ALL STAR GAS CORPORATION (FORMERLY EMPIRE GAS CORPORATION); CAMPORA WHOLESALE PROPANE, INC.; CORNERSTONE PROPANE, L.P. (FORMERLY COAST GAS); / FERRELLGAS, L.P.; FERRELLGAS PARTNERS, L.P.; HERITAGE PROPANE/NORTHERN ENERGY; KAMPS PROPANE, INC.; PROFLAME, INC.;" SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON;! SUBURBAN PROPANE GAS ,’ CORPORATION; U-HAUL CO. OF CALIFORNIA AND DOES 1 - 500 Defendants. case RS. 08-48 0871 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 25249,5 ET SEQ

PDF Page 7	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PATER 01/06/2007 00:42 FAX 17148509302 GRAHAMandMARTINLLP Boog C As and for his cause of action against AMERIGAS PROPANE LP; ALLSTAR GAS CORPORATION (FORMERLY EMPIRE GAS CORPORATION); CAMPORA WHOLESALE PROPANE, INC.; CORNERSTONE PROPANE, L.P. (FORMERLY COAST GAS); FERRELLGAS, LP.; FERRELLGAS PARTNERS, LP.; HERITAGE PROPANE/N ORTHERN ENERGY; KAMPS PROPANE, INC.; PROFLAME, INC.; SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON; SUBURBAN PROPANE GAS CORPORATION; U-HAUL CO. OF CALIFORNIA AND DOES 1 - 500, plaintiff Dr. Richard F. Sowinski alleges as follows: oO USE OF N A. PARTIES 1, Plaintiff Dr. Richard F. Sowinski is and has been at all relevant times a resident of the State of California, and brings this action in the public interest on behalf of the People of the State of California as defined under Health & Safety Code § 25249.7 (d). 2. Defendants AMERIGAS PROPANE LP.; ALL STAR GAS CORPORATION (FORMERLY EMPIRE GAS CORPORATION); CAMPORA WHOLESALE PROPANE, INC.; CORNERSTONE PROPANE, L.P, (FORMERLY COAST GAS); FERRELLGAS, LP.; FERRELLGAS PARTNERS, L.P.; HERITAGE PROPANE/NORTHERN ENERGY; KAMPS PROPANE, INC.; PROFLAME, INC.; SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON; SUBURBAN PROPANE GAS CORPORATION; U-HAUL CO. OF CALIFORNIA AND DOES 1 - 500 (hereinafter referred to collectively as Defendants") are and at all times mentioned herein have been qualified to do business in the State of California. 3. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued as DOES 1-500, inclusive, and therefore sue these defendants by such fictitious names, The fictitious defendants named in this Complaint are sued pursuant to the provisions of C.C.P. § 474. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon that ground, alleges that each fictitious defendant is in some way responsible for, participated in, or contributed to the matters and things of which Plaintiff complains herein, and in some fashion, has legal responsibility therefor. When the exact

PDF Page 8	wo aon a vn & VN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 01/08/2007 00:42 FAX 17148509392 CRAHAVandYARTINLLP 010 C nature and identity of such fictitious defendants’ responsibility for, participation in, and contribution to the matters and things alleged herein are ascertained by Plaintiff, Plaintiff will seek to amend this Complaint and all proceedings herein to set forth the same, 4. At all times mentioned herein each of the Defendants was a person within the meaning of Business & Professions Code § 17201 and a person doing business within the meaning of Health & Safety Code § 25249.11 (a). Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times mentioned herein, each of the Defendants has had 10 or more employees. > The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California Constitution Asticle VI, Section 10, which grants the Superior Court original jurisdiction in all causes except those piven by statute to other trial courts, The statutes under which this action is brought do not specify any other basis of jurisdiction. CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS AND DOES 1- 500 (Violation of California Health & Safety Code) 6. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 5 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 7. Plaintiff is informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants and DOES 1- 500 knowingly and intentionally exposed consumers, their customers and/or the general public to chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects and reproductive toxicity, as set forth in Health & Safety Code §§ 25249.5, et seq. and 22 California Code of Regulations §§ 12000 through 14000 (“Proposition 65”) without giving clear and reasonable warnings of that fact to the exposed persons prior to exposure. 8. Proposition 65 states that when parties, such as Defendants, entities with more than ten employees, have been or are knowingly and intentionally exposing their customers and users of the products they sell to a detectable level of any chemical designated by the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity (the “Designated Chemical”), it has violated the statute unless, prior to such exposure, it provides clear and reasonable warming of the exposure to the potentially exposed persons (Health & Safety Code § 25249.6). -3-

PDF Page 9	—_ wan an vA & WN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 26 27 28 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 01/06/2007 00:42 FAX 17148509392 GRAHAMandMARTINLLP Moi C 9. Defendants knowingly and intentionally exposed consumers, Customers, visitors, Employees and/or the general public to chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects and reproductive toxicity, as set forth in Health & Safety Code § 25249.5, et seq. and 22 California Code of Regulations §$ 12000 through 14000 through the sale and distribution of propane gas in California. 10. ‘Inthe ordinary course of business, Defendants, since at least April 11, 2004 through the present date, have sold and distributed propane gas throughout California for use by consumers. When propane gas is burned it produces, in the ordinary course of usage, hazardous emissions in significant amounts that pose a serious health risk to unsuspecting people. The burning of propane gas produces benzene levels that exceed the allowable threshold exposure level set forth in California Health & Safety Code § 95249.6. Defendants now and for at least the four years prior to this Notice have failed to provide its customers and the general public with a clear and reasonable warning of this potential exposure. 11. \| When propane gas is burned it emits vapors, gases and particles containing the following Designated Chemical: benzene, a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer and reproductive toxicity. Persons using propane gas distributed and sold by Defendants will be exposed to this Designated Chemical primarily via inhalation, that is, by breathing in the chemical. Defendants have however not provided to those persons a clear and reasonable warming that use of propane gas will expose the user to the Designated Chemical, Benzene. Defendants are therefore violating Health & Safety Code Section 25249.6. 12. Atall times relevant to this action Defendants knew that their customers, consumers, and/or the general public could be and/or were being exposed, through inhalation, to benzene, a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects and reproductive toxicity, as set forth in Health & Safety Code § 25249.5, et seq. and 22 California Code of Regulations §§ 12000 through 14000. 13. Eachof the Defendants knew these facts because they are in the business of distributing and selling propane gas.

PDF Page 10	01/06/2007 a 26 27 28 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 00:42 FAX 17148509382 GRAHAWandwARTINLLP (o12 C 14, Bach of the Defendants knew these facts because they elther entered into or knew about a settlement agreement dated April 9, 1997 in a case entitled Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation v. Amerigas Propane L.P. et al, San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. 979957, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. In that settlement agreement a number of the Defendants specifically agreed to provide warnings complying with Proposition 65 relating to exposures to the Designated Chemical, benzene, as well as carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, all of which are byproducts from the buming of propane. 15, Plaintiff has investigated each of the Defendants and has determined that do not provide any warning which even mentions California Health & Safety Code section 25249.6 et seq of Proposition 65 16. Despite having a consent judgment entered which mandates that distributors and sellers of propane gas provide a warming, Defendants and DOES 1- 500 have not and do not provide the warnings called for by that consent judgment or by Proposition 65 and thus have knowingly and intentionally exposed their customers, consumers and/or the general public to benzene without providing prior clear and reasonable wamings to those customers, consumer and/or the general public that use of the Product could expose them and others to a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects and reproductive toxicity, as Set forth in Health & Safety Code §§ 25249.5, et seq. and 22 California Code of Regulations §§ 12000 through 14000. 17. The route of exposure for the said chemical has been primarily through inhalation, that is, via the breathing of the said chemical. 146. More than sixty (60) days prior to filing this action Plaintiff mailed to each of the Defendants a Sixty (60) Day Notice of Intent to Sue (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the Notices") for violations of Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (commencing with Health & Safety Code § 25249.5) by knowingly and intentionally exposing consumers, thelr customers and/or the general public to benzene, a chemical designated by the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects and reproductive toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable warning of that fact to the exposed persons as required by Health & Safety -5-

PDF Page 11	01/06/2007 00:43 FAX 17148509322 GRAHAMand¥ARTINLLP oo —_ wo wa aA vA & WY YD 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 a1 22 » 26 27 28 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ae ee eens (013 C Code § 24249.6, The Notices specifically identified that the Defendants offered for sale and distributed throughout California propane gas, and that thereby Defendants had exposed consumers, their customers and/or the general public to a Designated Chemical without providing a warning. The Notices identified the time period wherein such exposures had occurred, and also identified the route of exposure for the chemicals as inhalation. Included with the Notices was a copy of "The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65): A Summary." 17. Copies of the Notices referred to in paragraph 16 were mailed to the California Attomey General, the relevant County District Attorneys and City Attomeys for each city containing a population of at least 750,000 people (hereinafter referred to collectively as the *Prosecutors") where the Defendants had violated Health & Safety Code §§ 25249.5, et seg. and 92, California Code of regulations §§ 12000 through 14000. 18. No response was ever received from any of the Prosecutors. None of the Prosecutors is prosecuting an action against any Defendant herein for the violations set forth above. 19, Individuals exposed to the listed chemicals suffered and continue to suffer harm due to their exposure to said chemicals without prior clear and reasonable warning. 20. This action for injunctive relief and penalties for violation of Health & Safety Code $§ 25249.5, et seq. is specifically authorized by Health & Safety Code § 25249.7. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request against Defendants and DOES 1 - 500: 1. A permanent injunction pursuant to California Health & Safety Code § 25249,7(a), and the equitable powers of the court; 2. Penalties pursuant to California Health & Safety Code § 25249.7(b) in the amount of $2,500.00 per day per violation at each of the locations listed in Exhibit A; 3. Costs of suit; fl Ml

PDF Page 12	(91/06/2007 00:43 FAX 17148509392 GRAHAMand¥ARTINLLP fie14 oOo orn vA wv & WY NHN eto NyppPeBBRRBSBEARAA FH NY SD 28 ‘RINTED ON sECYCLED PALER C C 4. Reasonable attorneys fees and costs; and, 5. Any further relief that the court may deem just and equitable. DATED: October 8, 2008 GRAHAM & MARTIN, LLP mL nvbom Goh Anthony G. Attorneys for Plaintiff DR. RICHARD F. S$ SKI

PDF Page 13	01/06/2007 00:43 FAX 17148509392 CRAHAMandWARTINLLP (fi015 EXHIBIT A

PDF Page 14	01/06/2007 00:43 FAX 17148509992 ery ood aun &® WN PF wN NY FPF P PF PP BF FP P PF Pr 03 3 in a oN PrPow’ aN a WP ww NY PF Go C PILLSBURY MADISON & SUTRO MICEAEL J. STEEL #4107492 PATRICK C. MARSHALL #112996 225 Sush Street Post Office Box 7880 San Francisco, CA 94120-7880 Telephone: (415) 983-1000 Attorneys for Defendant AMERIGAS PROPANE, L.P. " GRAHAMandMARTINLLP ore PTE ean Frelaiete Keats APR «9 1997 ALAN CARLSON, Clerk x 8. DOUGLAS \| Deputy clo SUPERIOR COURT OF THER STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO MATEEL ENVIRONMENTAD JUSTICE FOUNDATION, PlaintLfé, Vs. ° AMERIGAS PROPANE, U.P., et al.. Defendants. 1. Intzoduction. * hee eet te eee head eit nae tenet Mae Share ee? See . No. 979957 CONSENT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANTS AMERIGAS PR U.P ALL ST AS CO ORMERL EMPIRE GAS CORPORATION) , N co STO PROPANE, .P, (PORMERLY ST G LLG P,,. HERITAGE P. NORTHERN ENERGY, KAMPS PROPANE, ING, , PROFLAME INC. URE PROP P. 1-1 On July 29, 1996, Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation ("Mateel" or "Plaintiff"), on bahalf of the: general public, filed a Complaint for Civil’ Penalties and Injunctive Relief (Complaint) in the Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco (‘Action"). . For purposes of thie Consent Judgment, - Plaintiff acts on behalf of the People of the: State of California only as to those 12343206 -l1-

PDF Page 15	os 01/06/2007 00:43 FAX 17148809982 af ‘. Y) F wow owHyn nm & 10 11 42 13 14 15 16 17 18 193 20 al 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GRAHAWand¥ARTINLLP . choi? C C matters described in the letter dated May 10, 1996, a copy ‘of which is attached as Exhibit A, which Plaintiff sent to Defendant and to public enforcers as required by Health and Safety Code section (25249. 7. AmeriGas Propane, L.P., All Star Gas Corporation (formerly Empire Gas Corporation), Campora, Inc., Cornerstone Propane, L.P. (formerly Coast Gas), Ferrellgas, L.B., Heritage Propane/Northern Energy, Kamps Propane, Ine., Proflame, Inc. and Suburban Propane, L.P., are among the defendants named in ‘the Complaint, and are hereinafter referred to as “Settling Defendants." 1.2 Settling Defendants are entities that sell propane for use in the State of California. 1.3 The Complaint alleges that defendants have (a) sold propane, which is burned in stoves, ovens, hot water heaters, refrigerators and other devices ‘and that the burning of this fuel creates carbon monoxide, benzene, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde; and (b) violated thea Safe Drinking Water and fexic Enforcement Act of 1986, Health and Safety Code section 25245.6. ("Proposition 65") and Business and Professions Code sections 17200,. et seq. ("Unfair Competition Act*"}, by Jmowingly and intentionally exposing persons to chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects and other raproductive haxm, without first providing a clear and reasonable warning to such individuals... 1.4 For, purposes of this Consent Judgment only, the parties stipulate that this Court has jurisdiction over the allegations of viclations contained in the Complaint and L2IAS7a8 -2=

PDF Page 16	01/06/2007 00; ” wow nw & YW N PF 10: il 12 13 14 is 16 17: 18 13 20 21 22 _ 23 24 25 26. 27 28 43 FAX 17148509392 GRAHAMand¥ARTINLLP o1s C C . personal jurisdiction over each Settling Defendant as to the acts alleged in the Complaint, that venue is proper in the County of San Francisco, and that this Court has jurisdiction to enter this consent Judgment as a resolution of all claims which’ were or could have been raised in the Complaint based on the facts alleged therein. 1.5 For the purpose of avoiding prolonged litigation, the parties enter into this Consent Judgment as a full settlement of all claims that were xaised in the Complaint based on the facts alleged therein, or which could have been raised in the Complaint ariging out of the facts alleged therein. By execution‘of this Consent Judgment, Settling Defendants do not admit any violations of Proposition 65 or - the Unfair Competition Act or any other law ‘and spécifically deny that “they have. committed any such violations. Nothing..~_ tn this Consent Judgment shall be construed as a decision by the Court on any issue of law or ‘fact or as an admission by any party of any fact, issue of law or violation of law, nor shall compliance with the Consent Judgment constitute or be construed as an admission by any party of any fact, Lasue of law, ox violation of law. Nothing in this Consent Judgment shall prejudice, waive or impair any right, remedy or defense the Plaintiffs and Settling Defendants may have as to each other in any other’or future Legal: proceedings unrelated to these proceedings, the facts alleged in the Complaint, or matters covered by this Consent Judgment. However, this paragraph shall not diminish or otherwise 12307208 , ‘ -3~

PDF Page 17	yE/Ub/ 2007 0u:43 FAX 17148509392 CRABAMandYARTINLLP (019 ~ 4 Noe lo ao WY A uM fF Y HF 10 11 12 13 14 15 .16 17 18 19 20 21: 22 23 24 25 26 27 23 C C affect the obligations, responsibilities and duties of the parties under this’ Consent Judgment. 2. Clear and Reasonable Warnings. 2.1 Each Settling Defendant shall provide warnings in the manner set forth in this Consent Judgment for any propane it sells for uge in California. These warning requirements shall take effect 50 days after entry of this Congert Judgment by the Court. 2.2 Warning Language. The warning shail state either: Warning Chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm are created by combustion of propane. Warning . Byproducts of the combustion of propane contain chemicals knewn to the State of California to cause cancer or: other reproductive harm. 2.3 Dispensing Stations. Propane dispensing stations located at facilitids owned or operated by a Settling Defendant shail be posted with a sign as provided for in Exhibit B to this Consent Judgment. In addition, esach Settling Defendant shall provide a copy of the warning sign to each o£ its customers that operates a dispensing station in California, The warning sign shall be posted either on the dispensing unit, on the fence {if any) surrounding the tank, or in such other manner so as to be clearly readable by a customer bringing a propane container for refilling. 23G3208 -4-

PDF Page 18	91/06/2007 00:44 FAX 17148509302 GRAHAMandMARTINLLP 020 2.4 Billing Insert. Each Settling Defendant shall provide in its customer billing statements, on a quarterly basis or with eath billing statement at the sole option of such Settling Defendant, the warning set forth in Exhibit ¢ te this Consent Judgment. 2.5 Letter to Purchasers Who Buy Directly From Settling Defendants. No later than three (3} months after the date this Consent Judgment is entered, each Settling wo aw An Pe YN OF Defendant shall send the letter attached hereto as Exhibit DB 10 ‘to every commercial or industrial customer that purchases 1i propane for use in California directly from a Settling 12 Defendant. " £3 2.6 Alternative Warning Requirements. If, with ‘14 respect to propane, the People of the State of California or 15 the plaintiff permit any other warning standard or vary the See” 16 permissible manner, form, size oz content of warning, as to 17 any particular class of ‘potentially exposed persons, by way. 18 of settlement or compromise with any other person in the 19 course of doing business, or any other entity, or LE another 20 warning standard, manner, form, size or content of warning 21 is incorporated by way of a final judgment as to any other 22 person in the course of doing business, or any other entity, 23 then any Settling Defendant may, at its sole option, give \| 24 warnings on the same terms as provided in those- settlements, 25 compromises or judgments. In the event that Proposition 65 26 is repealed, Settling Defendants shall: havea no further obli- 27 gations pursuant to this Consent Judgment. 28 22763280 -S-

PDF Page 19	01/06/2007 00:44 FAX 17148509392 CRAHAMand¥ARTINLLP Wo2z1 * a . a . + V2yeyrea -6- C : Ci 3. Duties Limited to california. This Consent Judgment shall have no effect on propane sold by Settling Defendants for use outside the State of California. "A, Payment Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 25249.7. Settling Defendants shall, within 30 days after entry of this Consent Judgment, collectively pay the sum of $15,000 to the Office cf the Attorney General of the State of California, pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 38249.7. Settling Defendants shall collectively pay to. Mateal Environmental Justice Foundation the sum ef $5,000 pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 25249.7. 5. o tion’ for ic ucat and . ent roposition 65. No later than 39 days after entry of this Consent Judgment, Settling Defendants collectively shall pay the sum of $60,000 to non-profit antitiea to be designated by Plaintiff. These funds shall be used for purposes of, educating the publie about Proposition 65 and enforcing ‘the requirements of the law. 6. Litiqation Costs. No later than 30 days after entry ‘of this Consent Judgment, Settiing Defendants collectively shall pay the sum. of $145,000 as reimbursement for a portion of the plaintiff's costs and fees in investigating and prosecuting this action. Said payment shall be made by delivery of certified funds payable to Pacific Justice Center. Except

PDF Page 20	91/06/2007 00:44 FAX 17148509392 GRAHAMandWARTINLLP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 3 10 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 C C oz2 as specifically provided in this Consent Judgment, each side shall bear its own costs and attorhey'’s fees. 7. Modification of Consent Judgment. 1 This Consent Judgment may be modified by written agreement of the Plaintiff and the Settling Defendant to whom the modification applies, after noticed motion, and upon entry of a modified Consent Judgment by the Court thereon, ox upon motion of the Plaintiff or any Settling Defendant as provided by law and upon entry of a modified Consent Judgment by the ‘Court.: 8. Additional Parties. B.1 This Consent Judgment is executed with. the understanding that additional parties not named ‘in -the Complaint have sold propane for use in the State of” California since February 27, 1988, and that those paxties . are subject either to separate suit, or to be added to this . Complaint as a defendant sued under the fictitious names of 18 / Does 1 through 100.° i3 20 22 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8.2 Any person or antity that employs ten or more persons, or which reasonably believes that at some time since February 27, 1988, it has employed ten or more persons, and which sold propane for use in the State of California since February 1988, and which has not recelved a notice of intent to sue in conection with this case, may become a defendant in this case and a party to this Consent Judgment by undertaking the following steps: i 12701768 : -7<- —

PDF Page 21	01/06/2007 06:44 FAX 17148509392 GRAHAMandwARTINLLP Wo23 " ve . . L 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ‘10 C C (a} Not later than 90 days after this Consent Judgment is approved by the Court, executing an "Opt-in" Stipulation in which it agrees: (1) that it ‘is an entity that ‘gold propane for use in the State of California since February 1988; (2) that it accepts garvice of the summons and complaint as a Doa defendant to be designated by the Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation, acting on behalf of the general public; ‘ : , (3) that it has-read and agrees to be bound by all terms and conditions of this Consent Judement, except paragraphs 4, S, and 6. A copy of the “Optsin® Stipulation as it shall be provided to such persons and entities is attached as Exhibit F. (b) Thereafter, mailing the original aigned "Opt-in" Stipulation and check in the amount of its share (if any) plus court filing fees, fully postage pre-paid, to the designated trustee, who shall file the *opt-in® stipulation with the court and pay the court filing fee. (c) Any Opt-in Defendant who gold 700,000 gallons or less of propane for use in the State of California in calendar year 1995 shall be allowed to execute this Amendment without payment of any penalties, fees or costs, ether than its own fees and costs. Any Opt-in Defendant who gold more than 700,000 gallons, but less than 1,500,000 gallons of propane for use 4n the State of California in calendar year 1995 shall pay to the Trustee the sum of $2,000. Any Opt-in Defendant who sold 1,500,000 gallons of 12983248 -8-

AI text generation	None
AI document summarization	None
AI-augmented search	None
AI-generated images	None
AI chat or Q&A interface	Linkable via MCP
Third party AI contribution in government documents	Possible

Richard F Sowinski Dr v. Amerigas Propane Lp et al Document 1: Complaint