(questions fielded by attorney Christopher Dort) _____________________________
The Woodland Preservation Group. I have amended the complaint to add Plaintiffs. We now have eight, and they are listed on the title block of the "Complaint."
The purpose of a declaration, signed under penalty of perjury, is to provide the court with evidence. It's the same as testifying in court.
Anyone.
Yes, but it's easy for me or Jamyrson, or Jane to format plain text, and even handwriting.
Click here to see a sample template for such a declaration.
Everything in the declaration should be true, but that's about it. The judge will just ignore whatever is irrelevant, if anything.
Yes. Contact Jane Cavanaugh <janecava@earthlink.com>, Jamyrson Pittori <jamyrson@cruzio.com> or myself, Christopher Dort,<cbd@bvsllp>.
Christopher Dort ![]() No, as long as everything you say is true, to the best of your knowledge.
Retaliation from the contractors and/or PG&E is all I can think of.
It's free.
Anyone who has been harmed in some way by the defendants. The harm can be to property, or something completely different, like experiencing emotional distress because the Defendants have misrepresented the extent of the damage they were causing by marking the backs of trees (or anything in-between). If you tell us what harm they've caused you, we'll probably be able to find a legal theory for recovery.
1) Protection from the cutting until
the 29th, and longer if we win the hearing.
Christopher Dort, Esq cbd@bvsllp ![]() It is possible but very unlikely that PG&E could request that named plaintiffs pay for their legal fees. They would have to convince the judge that our filing of the lawsuit was meritless. In order to file the lawsuit, we have to have a good faith belief that the claims we make are true. If PG&E is the prevailing party and they are able to convince the judge our lawsuit is meritless, then the judge could order us to pay their legal fees. However, in my professional opinion, we have overwhelming evidence to support a good faith belief that PG&E has committed wrongs complained of in this suit.
Retaliation.
No, as long as the other plaintiffs agree. Payment of the fees can be worked out amongst yourselves in any fashion. The bills will come once a month and will be payable in 30 days.
The earlier the better, because the more Plaintiffs we have, the more likely it is that the Defendants will consider settlement.
Yes, Plaintiffs can be removed when ever they want, but if their entry into the law suit was not in good faith to follow the claims through, it would be easier for the Defendants to ask for their attorneys frees from that Plaintiff.
I have been working most closely with Jane and Jamyrson, but I'll talk and meet with anyone. After the hearing on the 29th, the day to day decisions will be minimal. For several months, the focus will be on investigation and evidence collections.
Anyone who has a PG&E easement is in danger.
Although many people have generously contributed, this effort will be ongoing, so yes, please!
I can't answer that at this point, and I wish I could. In large part, it depends on the goals and determination of the Plaintiffs. Billing will slow down after the hearing on the 29th. My firm will pursue claims on behalf of many of the property owners who have had their properties cut already on a contingency fee basis. That means if these people lose, there is no cost to them.
Absolutely.
Rural Bonny Doon Association ![]() None at all on that basis.
None that I am aware of.
A TRO has been issued for all of the named plaintiffs, except Jane. That means the Defendants can not engage in "Vegetation Management" activities on their properties until the 29th, when a full hearing will be held to get more permanent relief. A second TRO was issued today to protect the Anderson's manzanita. It is in the form of a court order that the Defendants "mark and avoid" all individuals of the Andersonii species.
Only the properties of the six plaintiffs (original 7 minus Jane) I can get others covered if they get me some written notification stating "Under penalty of perjury, I declare I wish to join case #CV137086 as a plaintiff." Then there must also be statements as to how the plaintiff's property is affected by the cutting.
Discovery - The formal process of investigation ![]() I will send docs to post on the web. Check back here.
The questions are not intended to, and do not, form a privileged attorney/client relationship, and should be considered "consultation", rather than formal, confidential advice. But I do have malpractice insurance. :)
You can talk to any of the attorneys at my firm (831) 425-5023, and if I'm not busy and you want answers quick because you want your property covered by the TRO, you can also contact Tim Schmal, of my firm, Burton, Volkman and Schmal. He is my boss.
Christopher Dort, Esq cbd@bvsllp Click here to see the text of the Temporary Restraining Order petition _____________________________
|