First filing - CASE NO. : VC 046 716 -12214 Lakewood Boulevard, Downey, Los Angeles County, CA

Page buttons:

Introduction Main Index History Purpose Contact Notices

The Kaiser Papers A Public Service Web Site In Copyright Since September 11, 2000This web site is in no manner affiliated with any Kaiser entity and the for profit Permanente Link for Translation of the Kaiser Papers PATHFINDER(search) | ABOUT US | CONTACT | WHY THE KAISERPAPERS | RESEARCH GUIDES BY SUBJECT | A READER'S GUIDE | ton">div>

kaiserpapers.com/downey

Andrew C. Bryman, Esq. (CSB#:97457)

Mark D. Apelian, Esq. (CSB#:146960)

BRYMAN & APELIAN

24025 Park Sorrento, Suite 220

Calabasas, California 91302

Tel.: (818) 225-5151

Fax: (818) 225-5155

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

BARRY BERNSON, BRUCE NORRBOM, AZALIA O’NEAL, AMANDA SERINO, LEONARD MARTIN, DUANE RUSSELL, DEREK G. NORRBOM, NORMAN ALATORRE, ROBERT LAPRELL, STEVEN BASILE, TOM MCELROY, LEE SFORZA, FRANCIS WHITE, RANDY INGRAHAM, FRILL HANSEN, PAUL MUELLER, JR., JAMES PEATTIE, JESUS GONZALEZ, RODNEY HIGGINS, ERIC DRESSOR, MICHAEL ROWEN, SKYE ASHLEY BASILE, DEREK CHRISTENSEN, ANTHONY INEZ, JAMES H. JONES, WILLIS NEARHOOD, RICHARD A. NEIGHBOURS, JOHN RANSDELL, FRANK P. SERRAO, GREGORY DEAN SMITH, KEVIN POSTEL, MIKE ADAMS, JACK B. JENNINGS, LESTER BAYS, DAAN VAN TAMELEN, WAYNE BURNES, JAMIE L. LITWAK, JOHN IZUMI, DONALD F. POWER, DAVID SLATTERY, JEFF M. HILL, PATRICK W.J. RUDDELL, DANIEL MUSTOE, JEFFREY LEWIS OSTRAY;

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CITY OF DOWNEY; DOWNEY STUDIOS, LLC; INDUSTRIAL REALTY GROUP, LLC; LOS ANGELES CENTER STUDIOS; EZRALOW COMPANY; DREAMWORKS PICTURES; ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS; NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION; BOEING NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT; STATE OF CALIFORNIA; and DOES 1-1000, Inclusive,

Defendants. ______________________________

)

CASE NO. : VC 046 716

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:

1. NEGLIGENCE

2. NEGLIGENCE PER SE

3. STRICT LIABILITY: FAILURE TO WARN

4. STRICT LIABILITY FOR ULTRA-HAZARDOUS ACTIVITIES

5. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT

6. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

7. PREMISES LIABILITY

8. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

9. DANGEROUS CONDITION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY

10. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT PER LABOR CODE §3602(b)(2)

Plaintiffs, BARRY BERNSON, BRUCE NORRBOM, AZALIA O’NEAL, AMANDA SERINO, LEONARD MARTIN, DUANE RUSSELL, DEREK G. NORRBOM, NORMAN ALATORRE, ROBERT LAPRELL, STEVEN BASILE, TOM MCELROY, LEE SFORZA, FRANCIS WHITE, RANDY INGRAHAM, FRILL HANSEN, PAUL MUELLER, JR., JAMES PEATTIE, JESUS GONZALEZ, RODNEY HIGGINS, ERIC DRESSOR, MICHAEL ROWEN, SKYE ASHLEY BASILE, DEREK CHRISTENSEN, ANTHONY INEZ, JAMES H. JONES, WILLIS NEARHOOD, RICHARD A. NEIGHBOURS, JOHN RANSDELL, FRANK P. SERRAO, GREGORY DEAN SMITH, KEVIN POSTEL, MIKE ADAMS, JACK B. JENNINGS, LESTER BAYS, DAAN VAN TAMELEN, WAYNE BURNES, JAMIE L. LITWAK, JOHN IZUMI, DONALD F. POWER, DAVID SLATTERY, JEFF M. HILL, PATRICK W.J. RUDDELL, DANIEL MUSTOE, JEFFREY LEWIS OSTRAY (hereinafter collectively referred to as “PLAINTIFFS”), allege as follows:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiffs are all individuals who, at all times relevant herein, were and/or are residents of the State of California. Plaintiffs, at the time of sustaining the injuries complained of herein, were employed in various capacities within the motion picture/television industries and worked upon the premises/property known as the Downey Studios, located at 12214 Lakewood Boulevard, Downey, California 90242 (hereinafter referred to as “PREMISES”), which, at all times relevant herein, was created, owned, used, possessed, maintained, controlled, had the right to control, and/or were responsible for maintaining by the defendants, and each of them.

2. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Defendant DOWNEY STUDIOS, LLC is a California Limited Liability Company, and, at all times relevant herein, was and is authorized to do business and is doing business in State of California.

3. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Defendant INDUSTRIAL REALTY GROUP, LLC (hereinafter referred to as “IRG”) is a California Limited Liability Company, and, at all times relevant herein, was and is authorized to do business and is doing business in State of California.

4. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Defendant LOS ANGELES CENTER STUDIOS is an entity of unknown form, and, at all times relevant herein, was and is authorized to do business and is doing business in State of California.

5. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Defendant EZRALOW COMPANY is an entity of unknown form, and, at all times relevant herein, was and is authorized to do business and is doing business in State of California.

6. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Defendant DREAMWORKS PICTURES (hereinafter referred to as “DREAMWORKS”) is an entity of unknown form, and, at all times relevant herein, was and is authorized to do business and is doing business in State of California.

7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Defendant ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS (hereinafter referred to as “EP”) is an entity of unknown form, and, at all times relevant herein, was and is authorized to do business and is doing business in State of California.

8. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Defendant BOEING NORTH AMERICA (hereinafter referred to as “BOEING”) is an entity of unknown form, and, at all times relevant herein, was and is authorized to do business and is doing business in State of California.

9. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based upon such information and belief allege that defendants, CITY OF DOWNEY (hereinafter referred to as “CITY”) and DOES 101 through 200, inclusive, were at all times herein relevant, governmental and/or public entities, governmental and/or public employees, agents and/or independent contractors, and, at all times herein relevant, created, owned, used, possessed, maintained, controlled, had the right to control, and/or were responsible for maintaining the PREMISES.

10. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based upon such information and belief allege that defendants, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (hereinafter referred to as “NASA”) and DOES 201 through 300, inclusive, were at all times herein relevant, governmental and/or public entities, governmental and/or public employees, agents and/or independent contractors, and, at all times herein relevant, created, owned, used, possessed, maintained, controlled, had the right to control, and/or were responsible for maintaining the PREMISES.

11. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based upon such information and belief allege that defendants, UNITED STATES GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (hereinafter referred to as “USGSA”) and DOES 301 through 400, inclusive, were at all times herein relevant, governmental and/or public entities, governmental and/or public employees, agents and/or independent contractors, and, at all times herein relevant, created, owned, used, possessed, maintained, controlled, had the right to control, and/or were responsible for maintaining the PREMISES.

12. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based upon such information and belief allege that defendants, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (hereinafter referred to as “BLM”) and DOES 401 through 500, inclusive, were at all times herein relevant, governmental and/or public entities, governmental and/or public employees, agents and/or independent contractors, and, at all times herein relevant, created, owned, used, possessed, maintained, controlled, had the right to control, and/or were responsible for maintaining the PREMISES.

13. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based upon such information and belief allege that defendants, STATE OF CALIFORNIA (hereinafter referred to as “STATE”) and DOES 501 through 600, inclusive, were at all times herein relevant, governmental and/or public entities, governmental and/or public employees, agents and/or independent contractors, and, at all times herein relevant, created, owned, used, possessed, maintained, controlled, had the right to control, and/or were responsible for maintaining the PREMISES.

14. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon alleges that Defendants, CITY and STATE are governmental and/or public entities, all of which were duly put on timely notice of the claims asserted herein pursuant to California Government Code §911.2, for injuries and damages sustained as a result of the herein-described acts/occurrences/ omissions. Defendants, CITY and STATE, have duly denied/rejected Plaintiffs’ said Government Claim.

15. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon alleges that Defendants, NASA, USGSA and BLM are Federal governmental and/or public entities, and were duly put on timely notice of the claims asserted herein pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, for injuries and damages sustained as a result of the herein-described acts/occurrences/ omissions. It is believed that Defendants, NASA, USGSA and BLM have duly denied/rejected Plaintiffs’ said Claim.

16. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based upon information and belief allege, that defendant DOES 1 through 1000, inclusive, and each of them (hereinafter all said defendants will collectively and singularly be referred to as “DOEs”), are corporations or other entities and/or individuals, public and/or private, organized and existing under and by virtue of one of the states of the United States and authorized to do business and is doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names and capacities whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of DOEs sued herein as DOES 1 through 1000, inclusive, and therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will seek leave of court to amend this complaint to allege the true names and capacities of said fictitiously named defendants when the same have been ascertained. Said defendants are sued as principals, and all of the acts performed by them as agents, servants and employees were performed within the course and scope of the authority and employment.

17. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege that each of the Defendants named herein is the agent, employee, employer, partner, manager, or controlling entity of the other Defendants, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged, each were and are acting within the course and scope of such agency, employment, partnership, management or control with the full knowledge and consent of the other Defendants, and that at all times all employees and agents of Defendants acted with the advanced knowledge and/or under the direction or with the ratification of corporate officers who had the ability to bind the corporation.

18. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that Defendants, and each of them, are responsible, negligently, intentionally and/or in some actionable manner, for the events and happenings referred to herein, and caused and continue to cause injuries and damages legally thereby to PLAINTIFFS, as alleged, either through each Defendant’s own conduct or through the conduct of its agents, servants or employees, or due to the ownership, maintenance or control of the instrumentality causing them injury, or in some other actionable manner.

19. At the time of each Defendant’s acts complained of herein, and as a direct consequence thereof, PLAINTIFFS, at all relevant times, were employed in various capacities within the motion picture/television industries and worked upon the PREMISES.

ACTS OF EACH AND ALL DEFENDANTS, LOCATION AND OPERATION

20. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that the PREMISES, formally known as the NASA Industrial Plant Site, consists of approximately 160 acres of land located in the City of Downey, County of Los Angeles, State of California, and generally bound by Lakewood Boulevard, Stewart and Gray Road, Bellflower Boulevard, Imperial Highway and Clark Avenue. The PREMISES is and has been owned, operated, possessed, controlled, in part or in whole by NASA and BOEING since the 1960s. Said PREMISES were used for World War II aircraft manufacturing, the invention, testing, and patenting of the chemical milling process, research, production, and assembly of Cold War era rockets and missile components, and the design, production, assembly and testing of the equipment and materials for the Apollo Program and the Space Shuttle Orbiter Program. During its history, various hazardous substances/chemicals, as outlined herein-below, were released, disposed of and stored for one year or more on the PREMISES. In partaking in such activities, the Defendants, used, tested, stored, transported, released and disposed of vast amounts of hazardous chemicals, products and other various hazardous waste materials. These substances are hazardous to human health and damaging to property.

21. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that prior to the transfer of ownership and control of the PREMISES to the CITY in or about the year 2000, NASA entered into a series of agreements which provided for the clean up of portions of the PREMISES to be accomplished by the International Risk Assumption - Downey (IRAD) pursuant to that certain Environmental Responsibility Assumption Agreement, between the CITY and IRAD, which provides IRAD to assume certain specified environmental remedial obligations.

22. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that NASA, USGSA and BLM also entered into certain environmental services agreements in which they acknowledged that they remained legally responsible under CERCLA §120(h) for conducting all necessary remedial action on the PREMISES.

23. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that at all times herein relevant, The CITY adapted the Downey Landing Specific Plan (DLSP) which regulated the use and development of the NASA site permitting retail, office, commercial, industrial, film production, hospital and other non-residential uses thereon. The CITY did declare and did establish a general plan for the remediation, development, maintenance, care, improvement, protection, use, occupancy, management, and enjoyment of the PREMISES and that any such lease, use, occupancy or improvement of the area would be subject to the covenants, conditions, restrictions and rights set forth by the CITY, all of which were found to be reasonably necessary to protect present and future human health and safety in the environment as a result of the presence in, on, under or emanating from the PREMISES (NASA site) of hazardous materials and for the purpose of uniformly enhancing and protecting the usefulness, functionality and desirability of the PREMISES in furtherance of a general plan for the remediation, development, maintenance, care improvement, protection, use, occupancy, management, enjoyment, subdivision, lease, and sale of the PREMISES or any portion thereof. In addition, this plan was to be binding upon all persons having or acquiring any right, title, or interest in the PREMISES on any part thereof.

24. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that at all times herein relevant, up to and including the present, each Defendant named herein, including Defendants named herein as DOEs, in whole or in part, created, owned, used, possessed, maintained, controlled, had the right to control, and/or were responsible for maintaining the PREMISES, and knew, or in the exercise of due care, should have known that vast quantities of hazardous materials, chemicals, and waste, were and continue to be present thereupon, including but not limited to Chromium, Hexavalent Chromium, Trimethylbenzene, Benzene, Isopropylbenzene, N-Propylbenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, n–Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, Toluene, Tetrachloroethylene, Tricholoroethane, 1,2-Dichloroethylene, Trichloroethylene, Methylene Chloride, Barium, 1,2-dichloroethane, Ethylbenzene, Hydrochloric Acid, Asbestos, Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether, O-Xylene, M-Xylene, Molybdenum Trioxide, Ammonia, Aluminum Oxide, Naphthalene, Nickel Compounds, Cyclohexane, Acetone, Methylethyl Ketone, Beryllium, mycotoxins, mold, and various other toxic chemicals/substances, so that when the said premises were used in a foreseeable manner, that hazard could and would result in a consequence, including, but not limited to, hazardous and/or toxic exposure, resulting in serious injuries and damages to the Claimants and others. Negligent disposal, handling, storage, use and maintenance of these hazardous substances and chemicals has substantially contaminated and continues to contaminate the soils, soil gas, water, air and ground water underlying the PREMISES and the persons, such as the PLAINTIFFS, near or upon it.

25. These substances cause a variety of serious short-term and long-term health problems including, but not limited to, dermatitis, cold and flu symptoms, headache, sore throat, fatigue, diarrhea, impaired immune function, infections, coughing, asthma, allergy attacks, bronchitis, depression, dizziness, memory loss, nausea, pneumonia, restlessness, loss of balance, nose bleeds, breathing problems, Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis, Pulmonary disease, respiratory disease, heart disease, cancer, genetic damage, immune system impairment, thyroid disease, reproductive disorders, birth defects, liver damage, kidney damage, neurological disorders, learning disabilities, all of which said injuries have caused and continue to cause PLAINTIFFS great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and based thereon allege that their injuries and damages, as herein described, are continuous and progressive, and have resulted in some permanent disability to said PLAINTIFFS, all to their general damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum ($25,000.00) of the unlimited (general) jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, according to proof.

DEFENDANTS’ NEGLIGENT AND WANTON POLLUTION

26. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, in their respective ownership, use, operation, possession, and/or control of the PREMISES generally, each Defendant negligently, wantonly and recklessly allowed the herein described hazardous and toxic substances to enter the soil, ground, air and groundwater by, among other things, using, storing, disposing, failing to properly dispose and remediate, and allow to remain of the herein described hazardous and toxic chemicals at the PREMISES, for excessive periods which allowed them to contaminate the soil, ground, air, and groundwater. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and based thereon allege that at all times relevant herein, Defendants, and each of them, either themselves and/or by and through their employees, agents and/or independent contractors, have:

A. Caused the deposit and/or accumulation of hazardous and/or toxic substances identified herein-above on the PREMISES, and its immediate surroundings;

B. Allowed the presence of hazardous and/or toxic substances/chemicals identified herein-above on the PREMISES, without proper disclosure, contamination removal and cleanup or other remediation actions;

C. Allowed the development and/or building of various facilities, including, but not limited to, the PREMISES, without proper disclosure, contamination removal and cleanup of hazardous and/or toxic chemicals/substances identified herein-above, or taking any other remediation actions;

D. Allowed the PLAINTIFFS, and others, to become exposed to various doctor/physician/agency verified toxic chemicals/substances identified herein-above while they worked at or upon the PREMISES;

E. Failed to take appropriate, proper and necessary measures to have disclosed, protected and warned the PLAINTIFFS, and others, against exposure to said toxic and hazardous conditions and/or to have corrected, remedied and/or eliminated it completely.

THE DEFENDANTS KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT

THEY WERE POLLUTING THE ENVIRONMENT

27. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that Defendants, at all times that they were possessing, using, operating, controlling, and/or maintaining the PREMISES, knew or reasonably should have known that improper storage, disposal, handling of the hazardous and toxic chemicals, and the presence of the same upon the PREMISES would contaminate the ground, air, soil and groundwater on the PREMISES and all persons, such as the PLAINTIFFS upon it. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and based thereon allege that Defendants, and each of them, at all times that they were possessing, using, operating, controlling, and/or maintaining the PREMISES, knew or reasonably should have known that PLAINTIFFS and others would be present and working upon the PREMISES and would be subject to contact and exposure to the contaminated ground, soil, air and groundwater.

28. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that at all times herein relevant, as early as the 1950’s and 1960’s, it was generally accepted in the sanitation, sanitary engineering, hydrogeology, and industrial engineering fields that industrial wastes and chemicals should not be discharged onto bare grounds, should be contained and properly disposed of, and should not be released into the environment. It was also generally accepted that industrial waste posed a serious threat to the environment and human health.

29. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that in the course of doing business and conducting operations upon the PREMISES, the Defendants, and each of them, violated industry standards on hazardous and toxic waste handling and disposal.

In the course of doing business and conducting operations upon the PREMISES, the Defendants, and each of them, violated Federal and State waste discharge permits and/or discharged regulated wastes and contaminants into the ground upon the PREMISES and adjoining environment without a permit.

DEFENDANTS CONCEALED THEIR POLLUTION FROM THE PLAINTIFFS AND THE REST OF THE PUBLIC

30. Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that the nature and extent of the Defendants’ contamination of the PREMISES was kept secret from the PLAINTIFFS and the public.

31. Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that at all times herein relevant, the defendants were negligently disposing, storing, handling, retaining the hazardous and toxic chemicals and waste in such a manner that they were polluting the ground, air, soil, and water upon the PREMISES and in the adjacent environment.

32. Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that at all times herein relevant, the Defendants sampled the soil, ground and groundwater upon the PREMISES and discovered the presence of substantial contamination of the PREMISES and adjoining environment with chemicals used and disposed thereupon. Defendants failed to disclose this information to the public.

33. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that due to each Defendants’ concealment and misrepresentations of the on-site contamination, and the potential connection between the contamination and adverse health risks, PLAINTIFFS did not and could not have reasonably known or become aware that their injuries were the result of their exposure to toxic contaminants, as herein set forth, as a result of Defendants’ wrongdoing, but, nevertheless, well within the statutory time limitations established by Code of Civil Procedure Section 340.8.

34. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that Defendants, and each of them, have engaged in a campaign of misinformation and suppression of material information that quieted PLAINTIFFs’ and others’ suspicions and discouraged inquiries. As more fully alleged herein, Defendants, and each of them, intentionally misled PLAINTIFFs, consumers and others about the extent of the toxic emissions and contamination resulting from the activities upon the PREMISES, so as to effectively prevent discovery of the facts identified herein.

35. Plaintiffs had no knowledge of such unlawful conduct or fact which might have led to the discovery thereof with the exercise of due diligence until some time shortly before filing of this Complaint. Plaintiffs did not know, nor in the exercise of reasonable diligence could they have known, of the matters contained in this complaint. Due to the fraudulent concealment by all Defendants, and each of them, that their injuries and/or damages may have been caused by exposure to toxic contaminants until within one year of the filing of their complaints, Plaintiffs did not know, nor could they have reasonably known, that the activities of the Defendants caused contamination to which they were exposed.

DEFENDANTS’ OPERATION AND

USE OF THE FACILITY IN A MANNER CAUSING DAMAGE TO

PLAINTIFFS’ PERSONS

36. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, the presence of the contaminants and toxic and hazardous materials and substances upon the PREMISES and Plaintiffs’ work environment has resulted in permanent harm and continuing harm to PLAINTIFFs’ persons.

37. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, and due to the herein described contamination of the PREMISES and the presence of toxic and acutely hazardous materials, and Defendants’ failure to avoid releases of toxic and hazardous substances upon the PREMISES and into the PLAINTIFFs’ work environment, Defendants, and each of them, are obligated to institute reasonable care and compensation plans to halt, prevent and correct injuries to all Plaintiffs, their physical and mental well-being, and their economic interests. Due to their proximity to the PREMISES, plaintiffs would be, and are, foreseeably and unnecessarily injured by the discharge of the herein described toxic substances upon the PREMISES and Plaintiffs’ work environment thereon.

38. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, Defendants, and each of them, knowingly and negligently allowed the release and thereafter continued to allow presence of hazardous and toxic contaminants upon the PREMISES. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, they were and are exposed to these hazardous and toxic contaminants by ingestion, inhalation, and dermal exposure. Plaintiffs have been and continue to be exposed to these toxic contaminants through dust dispersing through the air, among other means.

39. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, the Defendants, and each of them, intentionally and negligently failed to adequately warn or advise Plaintiffs and others as to the nature and the extent of the contamination upon the PREMISES, the fact that Plaintiffs and others were being exposed to the contamination upon the PREMISES, and that exposure to the contamination upon the PREMISES could cause adverse health effects.

40. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, there were and are numerous egregious incidents occurring at or upon the PREMISES due to each Defendant’s intentional and/or negligent breach of their duty of reasonable care, their violations of state law, environmental and workplace safety regulations. Defendants, through their negligent and/or reckless acts, have repeatedly and unreasonably invaded each Plaintiffs’ rights to a safe work environment, and have repeatedly invaded Plaintiffs’ rights of privacy by way of excessive emissions of contaminants, have caused continuing damage to Plaintiffs’ persons.

41. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, and as a direct consequence and result of each Defendant’s herein-described intentional/negligent act and/or omission, each and every Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer various types of physical and emotional injuries including, but not limited to, dermatitis, cold and flu symptoms, headache, sore throat, fatigue, diarrhea, impaired immune function, infections, coughing, asthma, allergy attacks, bronchitis, depression, dizziness, memory loss, nausea, pneumonia, restlessness, loss of balance, nose bleeds, breathing problems, Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis, Pulmonary disease, respiratory disease, heart disease, cancer, genetic damage, immune system impairment, thyroid disease, reproductive disorders, birth defects, liver damage, kidney damage, neurological disorders, learning disabilities, all of which said injuries have caused and continue to cause PLAINTIFFS great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering. Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer losses of earnings due to the debilitating, injurious and unhealthy effects of all of the above-mentioned injuries inflicted upon their persons.

42. Plaintiffs, due to the herein-described acts of each of the Defendants, have suffered, and continue to suffer, from the damage to the ground, soil, air, water and subterranean soils around the PREMISES. This dilemma further concerns Plaintiffs in light of the anticipated risk of potentially injurious and unhealthy emissions and vapors escaping through the surface of the grounds and adjacent areas upon the PREMISES.

43. In order to compensate each Plaintiff for the physical and mental injuries and damages suffered due to Defendant’s acts, each plaintiff requires, among other things, that Defendants, and each of them, pay the past and future costs of obtaining medical care, respiratory therapy, toxicological examinations and diagnoses, and any other medical monitoring necessary in order to ascertain and treat the nature and extent of the injuries suffered due to the contamination emanated from the PREMISES, with Plaintiffs retaining freedom of choice relative to choosing their experts. Many of these costs would not be covered by Plaintiffs’ health care insurers, and if covered, may unfairly result in increased premiums. Further, each Plaintiff seeks compensation for any loss of income or earning capacity resulting from the acts and/or omissions of Defendants, and each of them.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AS TO DEFENDANTS DOWNEY STUDIOS, LLC, IRG, LOS ANGELES CENTER STUDIOS, EZRALOW COMPANY, DREAMWORKS, EP, BOEING, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 1000, INCLUSIVE

(Negligence)

44. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as if set forth in full, each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 43, inclusive, hereinabove..

45. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, the Defendants, and each of them, subject to this cause of action, owed and continues to owe a duty to Plaintiffs to conduct their use, testing, storage, handling, and/or disposal of hazardous products and toxic substances, including, but not limited to Chromium, Hexavalent Chromium, Trimethylbenzene, Benzene, Isopropylbenzene, N-Propylbenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, Toluene, Tetrachloroethylene, Tricholoroethane, 1,2-dichloroethylene, Trichloroethylene, Methylene Chloride, Barium, 1,2-Dichloroethane, Ethylbenzene, Hydrochloric Acid, Asbestos, Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether, O-Xylene, M-Xylene, Molybdenum Trioxide, Ammonia, Aluminum Oxide, Naphthalene, Nickel Compounds, Cyclohexane, Acetone, Methylethyl Ketone, Beryllium, mycotoxins, mold, and various other toxic chemicals/substances, in/around the PREMISES in a reasonable manner, exercising ordinary care and skill to avoid causing injury to Plaintiffs’ persons, their mental, emotional and physical health, and their economic interests. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that at all times mentioned herein, Defendants were responsible for keeping the PREMISES which they owned, possessed, controlled, maintained, cared for and/or managed, in a safe and hazard-free condition so as to protect from injury all foreseeable users of the PREMISES, including, but not limited to, persons such as the Plaintiffs. Said Defendants, and each of them, are further responsible for the actions of those individuals they either employed or contracted with to provide any maintenance, inspections, management, remediation and disposal of toxic contaminants of the PREMISES.

46. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times relevant herein, Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known that their failure to use a reasonable degree of care in their management, use, possession, control and/or operation and testing at the PREMISES, including the improper use, storage, remediation and disposal of toxic chemicals, did cause and continues to cause the ground, soils, groundwater, surface water, surface and subsurface soil and adjoining environment surrounding the PREMISES to be contaminated with toxic chemicals. Defendants never warned Plaintiffs about any of their tortious conduct nor of the fact that the water, soil, ground and air were contaminated with toxic chemicals, despite Defendants’ superior knowledge.

47. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, Defendants, and each of them, subject to this cause of action, negligently possessed, controlled, leased, owned, tested, maintained, repaired, used, operated, stored, remediated and otherwise conducted their business affairs, including the improper generation, use, storage, transport, treatment, remediation and disposal of hazardous wastes at the PREMISES as follows, among others:

(a) In testing and releasing dangerous and hazardous products and toxic chemicals in and around the PREMISES and Plaintiffs’ work environs;

(b) In failing to take adequate measures to prevent the contamination of the PREMISES from occurring and in failing to promptly detect the same after they occurred;

and the policies and regulations of the State of California at the PREMISES;

(d) In failing to adequately train and educate its personnel in the areas of preventing toxic pollution and the cleaning up or proper remediation of toxic pollution;

(e) In failing to adequately supervise its employees or authorized agents to determine to what extent they were complying with: a) its own policies, procedures, and recommended practices that deal with the protection of the PREMISES from toxic contamination; and b) the policies and regulations of the State of California;

(f) In failing to allocate sufficient money and manpower to adequately prevent, guard against, or minimize the contamination of the PREMISES, or when such contamination of the PREMISES occurred, to promptly and adequately clean up and properly remediate the toxic pollution and contamination;

(g) In failing to take all reasonable and necessary precautions to ensure that dangerous, hazardous, carcinogenic, and toxic substances and waste products could not, and did not, escape from storage and disposal areas, or remain upon the PREMISES thereafter, whether or not such methods for storage and/or disposal were lawful at the time;

(h) In negligently remediating, disposing of, and/or intentionally storing and/or disposing of hazardous chemicals/substances at the PREMISES;

(I) In failing to take reasonable and necessary precautions to ensure that the contamination did not reach the soil, air, ground, and/or groundwater, whether or not the methods and/or procedures used for said protection were administratively sufficient at the time;

(j) In failing to undertake adequate environmental assessments in the course of their ongoing business operations;

(k) In failing to undertake adequate environmental assessments at a time when they knew, or by the exercise of ordinary care should have known, that their operations posed serious risks of injury to the health of the Plaintiffs and others;

(l) In failing to take all reasonable and necessary measures to monitor for the escape of dangerous, hazardous, carcinogenic, and toxic contaminant, and to further monitor the concentration and migration of areas known to be contaminated, whether or not such monitoring methods were administratively required at the time;

(m) In failing to competently police the PREMISES and surrounding areas so as not to make it a hazard to human health;

(n) In failing to clean up, and with conscious indifference, allowing contamination known to be detrimental to human health to remain upon and in dangerous proximity to the PREMISES;

(o) In failing to take all reasonable and necessary precautions to prevent bodily/personal injury to the Plaintiffs and others as a result of contamination, present or past, whether or not such precautions were administratively required at the time;

(p) In failing to warn, or adequately warn, the past, present, or prospective occupants, visitors, or employees upon the PREMISES, of the presence of contaminants;

(q) In conscious or negligent misrepresentation of the character, quality and safety of both current and past operations upon the PREMISES so as to prevent the avoidance of physical injury and damages;

® In failing to warn or notify at any time, appropriate regulatory authorities and potentially affected individuals, such as the Plaintiffs, of the presence of contamination in, under, on and around the PREMISES; as well as the dangers of each of the contaminating products known to have been present upon the PREMISES;

48. The acts of the Defendants, and each of them, subject to this cause of action, as herein alleged in detail, constitutes a violation of the duty of ordinary care and skill owed by Defendants, and each of them, to each of the Plaintiffs. As a proximate result of such breaches of the duty of ordinary care and skill, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer injuries to their persons, their mental, emotional and physical health, past and future pain and suffering, past and future mental anguish, physical, psychological and/or emotional injuries, loss of enjoyment of life, past and future medical bills, lost wages and future income, temporary and permanent physical impairment, permanent disfigurement, medical monitoring, their earning capacities, their economic interests, and have suffered and continue to suffer further mental and emotional distress. All of the above damages will be established according to proof.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AS TO DEFENDANTS DOWNEY STUDIOS, LLC, IRG, LOS ANGELES CENTER STUDIOS, EZRALOW COMPANY, DREAMWORKS, EP, BOEING, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 1000, INCLUSIVE

(Negligence Per Se)

49. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference, as if set forth in full, each of the

allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 43, inclusive, hereinabove..

50. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, during the time of the acts and/or omissions of Defendants, and each of them, subject to this cause of action, various statutes, ordinances and regulations existed regarding the use, testing, storage, handling, release and disposal of hazardous materials including, but not limited to, state standards as set forth in and/or enforced by the California Department of Health Services (DHS), as well as additional statutory provisions in the Civil Code, including section 1709, 1710, 3479, et. seq. through 3580, and in Business and Professions Code section 17200.

51. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, during the time of the acts and/or omissions of Defendants, and each of them, subject to this cause of action, Defendants, and each of them, failed to comply with or adhere to, and therefore breached and violated their statutory duty of care regarding the use, testing, storage, handling, release and disposal of such hazardous materials. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, each Defendant’s failure to comply with the statutory duty of care constitutes negligence per se, causing injury to each Plaintiff’s person, mental, emotional and physical health, and economic interests.

52. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that each Defendant’s acts and omissions and failure to use reasonable diligence constitutes numerous and repeated violations of the aforementioned federal and state standards. Plaintiffs are in the class of persons that these statutes were designed to protect. The aforementioned legislative enactments placed mandatory duties upon Defendants. Accordingly, defendants' actions are negligent as a matter of law.

53. Specifically, Health & Safety Code section 5411 provides: “No person shall discharge sewage or other waste, or the effluent of treated sewage or other waste, in any manner which will result in contamination, pollution or a nuisance.” The Defendants discharged industrial wastes in a manner which they knew or should have known would cause, and did cause, contamination, pollution, and nuisance.

54. Water Code sections 13000, et. seq., provide that any person “who, without regard to intent or negligence, causes or permits any hazardous substance to be discharged in or on any waters of the state where it creates a condition of pollution or nuisance…shall be strictly liable civilly [for enumerated penalties.]” The Defendants caused and permitted hazardous substances, as outlined herein, to be discharged onto bare ground where defendants knew or should have known that they would reach the groundwater, and directly injected into the underground waters, the waters of the Stated, where it created a condition of pollution and nuisance.

55. The state RCRA, Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5, sections 25100, et. seq., provides a comprehensive regulatory scheme requiring permits to dispose of hazardous waste, and prohibiting discharge of hazardous waste into the environment without an appropriate permit. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that the Defendants repeatedly violated these regulations, and their discharge permits and/or discharged hazardous waste without a permit.

56. Health and Safety Code section 25249.6 provides: “No person in the course of doing business shall knowingly and intentionally expose any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity…without first giving clear and reasonable warning to such individual.” Defendants knew that Plaintiffs were exposed to their chemicals that they had released into the environment or allowed to remain upon the PREMISES that cause cancer and reproductive harm, yet failed to provide a clear and reasonable warning to Plaintiffs.

57. In addition, Defendants breached and violated the following state laws among others: Civil Code sections 1709, 1710, 3479, 3490, 3501, et. seq., and Health and Safety Code section 25249.5.

58. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times relevant herein, Defendants' breach of mandatory duties and negligence per se readily permitted chemicals to be released into the Plaintiffs’ environs and caused Plaintiffs to be exposed to extremely high amounts of toxic and carcinogenic substances. As a result of each of the Defendants’ activities, the PREMISES has caused and continues to cause the contamination to Plaintiffs persons, as alleged hereinabove, causing plaintiffs to suffer the injuries to their persons, their mental, emotional and physical health, their earning capacities, and their economic interests. All of the above will be established according to proof.

59. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, the aforementioned conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, in intentionally and recklessly releasing hazardous and toxic substances with the knowledge that it was in the immediate vicinity of Plaintiffs’ persons and knowingly allowing and continuing to allow the presence of the same upon the PREMISES and emissions of these hazardous materials and substances into Plaintiffs’ environs, was and is intended to cause injury to Plaintiffs, or in the alternative, was and is willful, wanton and despicable conduct carried out with a conscious disregard to Plaintiffs’ rights and well-being and subjected and continues to subject Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages in a sum to be determined at time of trial. The Defendants engaged in the activities described herein above with the realization that harm to the Plaintiffs would result. The Defendants were aware of Plaintiffs’ work and close proximity to and upon the PREMISES, yet continued to knowingly emit dangerous toxins and chemicals, willfully jeopardizing each Plaintiff’s health. The aforementioned conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, was and is intended to cause injury to Plaintiffs, or in the alternative, was and is willful, wanton and despicable conduct carried out with a conscious disregard to Plaintiffs’ rights and well-being and subjected and continues to subject Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages in a sum to be determined at time of trial.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AS TO DEFENDANTS DOWNEY STUDIOS, LLC, IRG, LOS ANGELES CENTER STUDIOS, EZRALOW COMPANY, DREAMWORKS, EP, BOEING, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 1000, INCLUSIVE

(Strict Liability: Failure to Warn)

60. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference, as if set forth in full, each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 43, inclusive, hereinabove.

61. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, Defendants knew, or should have known, that their operation upon the PREMISES would create and has created actual harm to the persons from the resulting toxic contamination of the ground, soil, air, surface and subsurface soil, groundwater and environment upon the PREMISES with toxic substances and chemicals, as herein before previously identified.

62. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, Defendants knew, or should have known, that a high degree of harm existed to Plaintiffs and others from Defendants’ use, operation, possession, control, management of the PREMISES, including the continued retention, use, storage, disposal, and remediation of toxic chemicals, and the resulting contamination of the soil, air, ground, ground water, surface, surrounding surface and subsurface soil, and environment upon the PREMISES.

63. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, Defendants failed to warn Plaintiffs of the risks of injury to Plaintiffs’ health associated with Defendants’ use, operation, possession, control, management of the PREMISES, including the retention, use, storage, disposal and remediation of toxic chemicals and resulting contamination of the soil, air, ground, ground water, surface, surrounding surface and subsurface soil, and environment upon the PREMISES.

64. The improper use, storage, retention, disposal and remediation of toxic chemicals and substances known to contain the toxic and hazardous substances set forth hereinabove, by defendants in such a way as to readily permit such chemicals to be released in the soil, air, ground, groundwater, surface and subsurface soil and environment is not a matter of common usage or practice.

65. The improper use, storage and disposal of toxic chemicals known to contain the toxic and hazardous substances set forth hereinabove, or other contaminants, by Defendants in such a way as to readily permit such chemicals to be released in the soil, air, ground, groundwater, surface and subsurface soil and the environment is inappropriate in any area, but especially in an area which would and, in fact, did cause exposure to Plaintiffs of extremely high amount of toxic and carcinogenic substances.

66. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, the acts of the Defendants, and each of them, as herein allege in detail, constitute violation of the duty of ordinary care and skill owed by Defendants to Plaintiffs. As a proximate result of such breaches of the duty of ordinary care and skill, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer to their persons, their mental, emotional and physical health, past and future pain and suffering, past and future mental anguish, psychological and/or emotional injuries, loss of enjoyment of life, past and future medical bills, lost wages and future income, temporary and permanent physical impairment, permanent disfigurement, medical monitoring, their earning capacities, their economic interests. All of the above damages will be established according to proof.

67. The aforementioned conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, in intentionally and recklessly maintaining, retaining, or otherwise allowing the release of toxic substances with knowledge that it was in the immediate vicinity of Plaintiffs’ persons and intentionally and recklessly allowing and continuing to allow emissions of these hazardous materials and substances into Plaintiffs’ environs was and is intended to cause injury to Plaintiffs, or in the alternative, was and is willful, wanton and despicable conduct carried out with a conscious disregard to Plaintiffs’ rights and well-being and subjected and continues to subject Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages in a sum to be determined at time of trial.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AS TO DEFENDANTS DOWNEY STUDIOS, LLC, IRG, LOS ANGELES CENTER STUDIOS, EZRALOW COMPANY, DREAMWORKS, EP, BOEING, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 1000, INCLUSIVE

(Strict Liability for Ultra-Hazardous Activity)

68. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference, as if set forth in full, each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 43, inclusive, hereinabove.

69. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, the Defendants used, stored, handled, discharged, retained and continue to allow the presence of vast quantities of industrial and toxic chemicals, and other substances, known to be toxic. These toxic chemicals and substances include, but are not limited to, Chromium, Hexavalent Chromium, Trimethylbenzene, Benzene, Isopropylbenzene, N–Propylbenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, Toluene, Tetrachloroethylene, Tricholoroethane, 1,2-dichloroethylene, Trichloroethylene, Methylene Chloride, Barium, 1,2-Dichloroethane, Ethylbenzene, Hydrochloric Acid, Asbestos, Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether, O-Xylene, M-Xylene, Molybdenum Trioxide, Ammonia, Aluminum Oxide, Naphthalene, Nickel Compounds, Cyclohexane, Acetone, Methylethyl Ketone, Beryllium, mycotoxins, mold, and various other toxic chemicals/substances, upon the PREMISES.

70. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, Defendants knew or should have known that the disposal and discharge of toxic substances into the ground and environment would create and has actually created harm to persons, such as the Plaintiffs, from the resulting toxic contamination of the surface and subsurface soils, air, groundwater and environment. Defendants knew or should have known that there existed, and still exists, an absolute certainty of harm to others that would result from the discharge of these toxic chemicals into the surrounding surface and subsurface soils, groundwater and environment.

71. Defendants’ improper use and disposal of these toxic substances into the ground and environment, especially in light of the vast quantities of toxic chemicals used, stored, handled and disposed of by the Defendants, was and is an ultrahazardous activity.

72. The Defendants’ activities at the PREMISES including, but not limited to, the knowing release of, and continued allowance of the presence of toxic substances in the vicinity of Plaintiffs as described hereinabove in detail, with knowledge of Plaintiffs’ presence, created and continues to create a high degree of risk of great harm to Plaintiffs’ persons, which could not and cannot be eliminated by the exercise of reasonable care, no action by the Defendant, and each of them, could make the toxic substances emitted by the Defendants safe; further, the Defendants’ activities were and are not a matter of common usage, were and are inappropriate to the place where they were and are carried on, and the dangerous attributes of those activities outweighed and continue to outweigh their value to the community.

73. As a result of each of the Defendants’ activities, the PREMISES has caused and continues to cause contamination to the ground, air, surface and subsurface soils, groundwater and environment, as alleged hereinabove, causing Plaintiffs to suffer the injuries to their persons, their mental, emotional and physical health, their earning capacities, and their economic interests, as alleged herein. All of the above will be established according to proof.

74. The aforementioned conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, in intentionally and recklessly releasing hazardous and toxic substances, as well as allowing said toxic substances to be present upon the PREMISES with the knowledge that it was in the immediate vicinity of Plaintiffs’ persons, and intentionally and recklessly allowing and continuing to allow emissions of these hazardous materials and substances into the ground, soil, air, groundwater, and environs of the Plaintiffs upon the PREMISES was and is intended to cause injury to Plaintiffs, or in the alternative, was and is willful, wanton and despicable conduct carried out with a conscious disregard to Plaintiffs’ rights and well-being and subjected and continues to subject Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages in a sum to be determined at time of trial. The Defendants engaged in the activities described herein above with the realization that harm to the Plaintiffs would result. The Defendants were aware of Plaintiffs’ presence upon the PREMISES or close proximity to the PREMISES, yet continued to knowingly emit dangerous toxic chemicals and substances, willfully jeopardizing Plaintiffs’ health.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION AS TO DEFENDANTS DOWNEY STUDIOS, LLC, IRG, LOS ANGELES CENTER STUDIOS, EZRALOW COMPANY, DREAMWORKS, EP, BOEING, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 1000, INCLUSIVE

(Fraudulent Concealment)

(Civil Code §§1709, 1710)

75. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference, as if set forth in full, each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 43, inclusive, hereinabove.

76. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, Defendants, and each of them, inclusive, were aware, since the 1960’s through the present, of environmental testing, and knew that hazardous levels of contaminants such as those set forth in this Complaint were present upon, emanated and continue to emanate from the PREMISES, had and continue to contaminate the surface and subsurface soil, groundwater and environs upon and surrounding the PREMISES.

77. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, Defendants, and each of them, intentionally withheld from Plaintiffs the knowledge that said contaminants, and other toxic substances, had contaminated the PREMISES as herein set forth, and have never provided any warning to Plaintiffs regarding said contamination.

78. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, Defendants, and each of them, knew that plaintiffs were exposed to hazardous levels of contaminants such as those set forth in this Complaint as a result of Defendants' own environmental and toxicological tests, and that Plaintiffs have continued to be so exposed. Defendants, and each of them, fraudulently concealed these material facts regarding their contamination of the ground, surface and subsurface soil, groundwater and environment in and around the PREMISES from Plaintiffs. Defendants, further, misrepresented these material facts to Plaintiffs and the public.

79. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, Defendants, and each of them, had a duty to disclose by a clear and reasonable warning, reasonably calculated to give Plaintiffs notice prior to exposing them to one or more of the chemicals set forth in this Complaint, all of which are known to cause cancer and/or other debilitating diseases as set forth in this Complaint. Such duty was also placed upon defendants by myriad of federal and state statutes and regulations cited herein and all implementing regulations thereto.

80. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, Defendants, and each of them, fraudulently concealed and intentionally suppressed material facts from plaintiffs regarding the toxic contamination of and upon the PREMISES, including, but not limited to, the presence, release, and continued release of hazardous contaminants at concentration levels in excess of acceptable standards. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, Defendants, and each of them, advertised and/or represented the safety of their activities at and/or upon the PREMISES, and the quality and safety to Plaintiffs’ persons. Defendants, and each of them, were aware or reasonably should have been aware of the hazardous condition upon the PREMISES, and were aware of the improper provision, use, testing, releasing and disposal of toxic chemicals and products were not safe to human health because Defendants, and each of them, contaminated the PREMISES and the environment upon and surrounding the PREMISES with hazardous and toxic chemicals and substances such as those set forth in this Complaint.

81. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, Defendants, and each of them, and their agents, representatives, employees and management, intentionally misrepresented and suppressed material facts concerning Defendants’ contamination of the surface and subsurface soil, groundwater and environment on the PREMISES and its adjacent surroundings, including Plaintiffs environs upon the PREMISES. Defendants, and each of them, through their officers, agents, directors and employees made affirmative misrepresentations regarding the contamination and its potential harm to Plaintiffs persons by affirmatively and falsely representing, concealing and failing to disclose material facts regarding the contamination and its potential health and other risks to Plaintiffs in violation of California Civil code section 1709 and 1710 as herein alleged, including but not limited to: failing to disclose to Plaintiffs and the public the true nature of the contamination on its site; asserting to the public through various statements to the press that the on-site contamination is minimal, despite Defendants’ knowledge that this is not true, or that Defendants have no reasonable grounds for believing it to be true, and with the intent of misleading the public and Plaintiffs; making statements to the public and the press, that there can be no possible link between any of Plaintiffs’ health problems as outlined herein and the contamination on and around the PREMISES. Defendants, and each of them, have maintained, and continue to maintain, these material misrepresentations of fact, and suppressed critical facts from Plaintiffs and the public despite their knowledge of them or their reasonable grounds for knowing them, with the effect of misleading Plaintiffs and the public at large concerning their wrongful acts.

82. Defendants’ failure to disclose information and suppression of information herein alleged were made with the fraudulent intent to induce plaintiffs to act in reliance thereon, to prevent plaintiffs from reporting the contamination to governmental agencies, and to prevent plaintiffs from seeking compensation from defendants for damages and, as a result, defendants have not been ordered to properly remediate, clean up, or abate the contamination.

83. Plaintiffs, at the time these failures to disclose and suppression of facts and misrepresentations occurred, and at the time Defendants took the actions herein alleged, were ignorant of the existence of the facts which Defendants suppressed and failed to disclose. Plaintiffs had no reason to be aware of said facts that were fraudulently concealed by Defendants. Had Plaintiffs been aware of the existence of the facts not disclosed and actively suppressed by Defendants, Plaintiffs would have taken measures to prevent inhalation of and exposure to surface, soil, groundwater, and air, containing the hazardous and toxic chemicals and substances set forth in this Complaint.

84. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing acts by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs have sustained injury to their person and financial interests in an as yet undetermined amount.

85. Defendants’ actions in fraudulently misrepresenting and deceiving Plaintiffs about the existence of the toxic and hazardous chemicals and substances set forth in this Complaint in the ground, surface and subsurface soils, air, groundwater and environment upon the PREMISES, were willful, wanton, malicious, and intentional from which Plaintiffs have suffered great harm. Moreover, Defendants consistently failed to disclose to Plaintiffs, although required to do so, that ingestion, inhalation and exposure to toxic substances was hazardous, harmful and carcinogenic. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover punitive or exemplary damages.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION AS TO DEFENDANTS DOWNEY STUDIOS, LLC, IRG, LOS ANGELES CENTER STUDIOS, EZRALOW COMPANY, DREAMWORKS, EP, BOEING, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 1000, INCLUSIVE

(Negligent Misrepresentation)

(Civil Code Section 1710)

86. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference, as if set forth in full, each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 43, inclusive, hereinabove.

87. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, Defendants, and each of them, inclusive, were aware, since the 1960’s through the present, of environmental testing, and knew that hazardous levels of contaminants such as those set forth in this Complaint were present upon, emanated and continue to emanate from the PREMISES, had and continue to contaminate the surface and subsurface soil, groundwater and environs upon and surrounding the PREMISES.

88. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, Defendants, and each of them, intentionally withheld from Plaintiffs the knowledge that said contaminants, and other toxic substances, had contaminated the PREMISES as herein set forth, and have never provided any warning to Plaintiffs regarding said contamination.

89. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, Defendants, and each of them, knew that plaintiffs were exposed to hazardous levels of contaminants such as those set forth in this Complaint as a result of Defendants' own environmental and toxicological tests, and that Plaintiffs have continued to be so exposed. Defendants, and each of them, fraudulently concealed these material facts regarding their contamination of the ground, surface and subsurface soil, groundwater and environment in and around the PREMISES from Plaintiffs. Defendants, further, misrepresented these material facts to Plaintiffs and the public.

90. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, Defendants, and each of them, had a duty to disclose by a clear and reasonable warning, reasonably calculated to give Plaintiffs notice prior to exposing them to one or more of the chemicals set forth in this Complaint, all of which are known to cause cancer and/or other debilitating diseases as set forth in this Complaint. Such duty was also placed upon defendants by myriad of federal and state statutes and regulations cited herein and all implementing regulations thereto.

91. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, Defendants, and each of them, fraudulently concealed and intentionally suppressed material facts from plaintiffs regarding the toxic contamination of and upon the PREMISES, including, but not limited to, the presence, release, and continued release of hazardous contaminants at concentration levels in excess of acceptable standards. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, Defendants, and each of them, advertised and/or represented the safety of their activities at and/or upon the PREMISES, and the quality and safety to Plaintiffs’ persons. Defendants, and each of them, were aware or reasonably should have been aware of the hazardous condition upon the PREMISES, and were aware of the improper provision, use, testing, releasing and disposal of toxic chemicals and products were not safe to human health because Defendants, and each of them, contaminated the PREMISES and the environment upon and surrounding the PREMISES with hazardous and toxic chemicals and substances such as those set forth in this Complaint.

92. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, Defendants, and each of them, and their agents, representatives, employees and management, intentionally misrepresented and suppressed material facts concerning Defendants’ contamination of the surface and subsurface soil, groundwater and environment on the PREMISES and its adjacent surroundings, including Plaintiffs environs upon the PREMISES. Defendants, and each of them, through their officers, agents, directors and employees made affirmative misrepresentations regarding the contamination and its potential harm to Plaintiffs persons by affirmatively and falsely representing, concealing and failing to disclose material facts regarding the contamination and its potential health and other risks to Plaintiffs in violation of California Civil code section 1709 and 1710 as herein alleged, including but not limited to: failing to disclose to Plaintiffs and the public the true nature of the contamination on its site; asserting to the public through various statements to the press that the on-site contamination is minimal, despite Defendants’ knowledge that this is not true, or that Defendants have no reasonable grounds for believing it to be true, and with the intent of misleading the public and Plaintiffs; making statements to the public and the press, that there can be no possible link between any of Plaintiffs’ health problems as outlined herein and the contamination on and around the PREMISES. Defendants, and each of them, have maintained, and continue to maintain, these material misrepresentations of fact, and suppressed critical facts from Plaintiffs and the public despite their knowledge of them or their reasonable grounds for knowing them, with the effect of misleading Plaintiffs and the public at large concerning their wrongful acts.

93. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times relevant herein, Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known at the time they made the foregoing representations, material omissions and concealment’s that they were in fact false.

94. Defendants’ failure to disclose information and suppression of information herein alleged were made with the fraudulent intent to induce plaintiffs to act in reliance thereon, to prevent plaintiffs from reporting the contamination to governmental agencies, and to prevent plaintiffs from seeking compensation from defendants for damages and, as a result, defendants have not been ordered to properly remediate, clean up, or abate the contamination.

95. Plaintiffs, at the time these failures to disclose and suppression of facts and misrepresentations occurred, and at the time Defendants took the actions herein alleged, were ignorant of the existence of the facts which Defendants suppressed and failed to disclose. Plaintiffs had no reason to be aware of said facts that were fraudulently concealed by Defendants. Had Plaintiffs been aware of the existence of the facts not disclosed and actively suppressed by Defendants, Plaintiffs would have taken measures to prevent inhalation of and exposure to surface, soil, groundwater, and air, containing the hazardous and toxic chemicals and substances set forth in this Complaint.

96. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing acts by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs have sustained injury to their person and financial interests in an as yet undetermined amount.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AS TO DEFENDANTS DOWNEY STUDIOS, LLC, IRG, LOS ANGELES CENTER STUDIOS, EZRALOW COMPANY, DREAMWORKS, EP, BOEING, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 1000, INCLUSIVE

(Premises Liability)

97. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference, as if set forth in full, each of the

allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 43, inclusive, hereinabove.

98. Plaintiff are informed and believe and based thereon allege that at all times mentioned herein, defendants were responsible for keeping, operating, managing, and/or controlling the PREMISES, which they owned, controlled, maintained, cared for and/or managed, in a safe and hazard-free condition so as to protect from injury and unreasonable risks of harm all foreseeable users of the premises and/or persons thereupon, including, but not limited to, persons such as the plaintiffs, from dangerous conditions, substances and hazards upon said premises of said defendants, and each of them. Said defendants, and each of them, are further responsible for the actions of those individuals they either employed or contracted with to control and/or manage the PREMISES, or otherwise to manage, secure, control or otherwise operate the herein-described PREMISES.

99. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, the Defendants, and each of them, subject to this cause of action, owed and continues to owe a duty to Plaintiffs to conduct their use, testing, storage, handling, and/or disposal of hazardous products and toxic substances, including, but not limited to Chromium, Hexavalent Chromium, Trimethylbenzene, Benzene, Isopropylbenzene, N-Propylbenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, Toluene, Tetrachloroethylene, Tricholoroethane, 1,2-dichloroethylene, Trichloroethylene, Methylene Chloride, Barium, 1,2-Dichloroethane, Ethylbenzene, Hydrochloric Acid, Asbestos, Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether, O-Xylene, M-Xylene, Molybdenum Trioxide, Ammonia, Aluminum Oxide, Naphthalene, Nickel Compounds, Cyclohexane, Acetone, Methylethyl Ketone, Beryllium, mycotoxins, mold, and various other toxic chemicals/substances, in/around the PREMISES in a reasonable manner, exercising ordinary care and skill to avoid causing injury to Plaintiffs’ persons, their mental, emotional and physical health, and their economic interests. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that at all times mentioned herein, Defendants were responsible for keeping the PREMISES which they owned, possessed, controlled, maintained, cared for and/or managed, in a safe and hazard-free condition so as to protect from injury all foreseeable users of the PREMISES, including, but not limited to, persons such as the Plaintiffs. Said Defendants, and each of them, are further responsible for the actions of those individuals they either employed or contracted with to provide any maintenance, inspections, management, remediation and disposal of toxic contaminants of the PREMISES.

100. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times relevant herein, Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known that their failure to use a reasonable degree of care in their management, use, possession, control and/or operation and testing at the PREMISES, including the improper use, storage, remediation and disposal of toxic chemicals, did cause and continues to cause the ground, soils, groundwater, surface water, surface and subsurface soil and adjoining environment surrounding the PREMISES to be contaminated with toxic chemicals. Defendants never warned Plaintiffs about any of their tortious conduct nor of the fact that the water, soil, ground and air were contaminated with toxic chemicals, despite Defendants’ superior knowledge.

101. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that, at all times herein relevant, Defendants, and each of them, subject to this cause of action, negligently possessed, controlled, leased, owned, tested, maintained, repaired, used, operated, stored, remediated and otherwise conducted their business affairs, including the improper generation, use, storage, transport, treatment, remediation and disposal of hazardous wastes at the PREMISES as follows, among others: