37-2013-00078268-Cu-Bt-Ctl Roa-1 12-04-13 Complaint 1386637937306

E
Mrk of0w sup.dor Coon
I t,
OF FICE. .\ 1 iVISION
Michael McGrath in Pro Per 415 Summerhill Terrace Alpine, CA 91901 mmhd911@gmail.com
DEC 0 4 2013
2013 DEC -4 APIlli 01

CLERK-SW-I IOR COURT SAN DIEGO C UNTO: CA ,
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE-OF CALIFORNIA" COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACCUSER: Michael McGrath Plaintiff,

VS.
IN
LicpUty
ase No.:
37-2013-009713268:CU-BT -CTL
OMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION DRESTITUTION RELIEF- -
HOME DEPOT USA., Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 99, inclusive, Defendants
us. & Prof. Code 17200, et seq.; 17205, 17500. al. Gov. Code 12948 and 16721 (a), (b)., alifornia Fire Code, Labor Code 6300 et seq., PAGA, Unruh Act, Cal. Civ. Code 51 et seq.: 54.1, al. Civ. Code 1709 and 1710, Health & Safety Code 11955 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ("People"), by and through
Plaintiff, Michael McGrath, in pro per, brings this representative action to protect the public from the alleged unlawful, unfair, fraudulent and misrepresentations by the conduct of defendant's alleged violations of California Fire Codes, Cal OHSA Regulations and Common Decency by Obstructing the Means of Egress (Emergency Fire Exits), and discriminating by failure to provide public accommodations brings this action in the public interest by way of private enforcement, to enjoy Defendant in prohibiting the continuing violations of the People's Inalienable Civil Rights of California's and plaintiffs rights to Pursue and Obtain Safety, Liberty and Privacy under the California State Constitution, Laws, Statutes, Codes, and Regulations for the enjoyment of safety and in defense of human lives of all the people of the State of California.
COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF
1
2.
Pursuant to California's Unfair Competition Law (the UCL), Business and
Professional Code 17200, beginning with Part Two of Division Seven of the Business and Professional Codes, and deals with unfair competition and forbids "unfair, unlawful and fraudulent" conduct in connection with virtually any type of business activity. (Used in this chapter), unfair competition shall mean and include any unlawful business act or practice, unfair or fraudulent business act or practices and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any acts prohibited by Chapter 1, commencing with 17500 of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professional Code. 3. Pursuant to California Business and Professional Code 17204, civil action for any relief pursuant to this chapter shall be prosecuted exclusively in a court of competent jurisdiction, by any person who has suffered injury in fact, and has lost money or property as a result of a violation of such unlawful competition. Any person may pursue representative claims or relief on behalf of others, only if the claimant meets the standing requirements of this Section and complies with 328 of Code of Civil Procedure, Competition. ("Complies with 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure. .. This statute provides that") "When the question is one of a common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties are numerous, and it is impracticable to bring them all before the court, one or more may sue or defend for the benefit of all." 4. Pursuant to California Business and Professional Code (the UCL) 17200 et seq. 17205, a private attorney general may bring an action for unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices in the name of the People of the State of California to enjoy violation and discrimination. California's and plaintiffs civil rights, as adapted in the CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 1- DECLARATION OF RIGHTS Section 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among those are enjoying and Defending Life and Liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and Pursuing and Obtaining Safety, Happiness, and Privacy.
COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 2
5. Pursuant to California Business and Professional Code (the UCL) 17200 et seq.17205, a private attorney general may bring an action in the name of the People of the State of California in a Superior Court for an injunction against any person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair competition for any act of unfair competition. 6. As adapted in Part 9, of Title 24, of the California Codes of Regulations, the California Fire Code sets forth Fire Safety Regulations consistent with nationallyrecognized good practices for the safeguarding, to a reasonable degree, life and property from the hazards of fire, explosions, and dangerous conditions arising from the storage, handling, and use of hazardous materials and devices, and from conditions hazardous to life or property in the use of occupancy of the building or the premises. The provisions of the California Fire Code may supplement any and all Laws relating to fire safety including city, local authority, or municipal ordinance, and County codes and ordinance. 7. Pursuant to California Business and Professional Code (the UCL) 17200 et seq. 17205, a private attorney general may bring an action for unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent, business practices in the name of the People the State of California to enjoy any violation of California Fire Codes and seek injunction relief for violations of the provisions of CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE Title 24, Part 9, Chapter 4 - Emergency Planning and_Preparedness, Chapter 5 - Fire Service Features, Chapter 6 Building Services and Systems, Chapter 10 - MEANS OF EGRESS, Chapter 33 - Fire Safety During Construction and Demolition, Part VII APPENDIX D, Fire Apparatus Access Roads. 8. Pursuant to California Business and Professional Code (the UCL) 17200 et seq. 17205, a private attorney general may bring an action for unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices in the name of the People the State of California to enjoy any violation of CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODES and seek injunction relief for violations of the provisions of California Building Code Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 9 Fire Protection Systems, Section 912.3, Access - 912.3.2 , 912.5, Backflow Protection, Chapter 10COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF
Means of Egress, Section 1003 - General Means of Egress, Section 1006 - Means of Egress Illumination, Section 1003.6- Means of Egress Continuity, Section 1007.1 Accessible Means of Egress, Section 1020 - Exits, 1020.1. General - Section 0276.6 Access to Public Way. Chapter 6.- Section 605 - Electrical equipment, wiring and hazards, 605.3 Working Spacing Clearances, 605.2 Illumination. 9. Pursuant to California Business and Professional Code (the UCL) 17200 et seq. 17205, a private attorney general may bring an action for unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices in the name of the People of the State of California to enjoy a violation of STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (Cal OHSA) Title 8, Subchapter 7. General Industrial Safety Orders, General Industrial Standards, CCR 3220 - Emergency Action Plan (e), 3215 Means of Egress (a)(e)(f)(g), Section 1920General Requirements (b), Section 3227 Discharge from Exits (a)(c), Section 3225 Maintenance and Access Exits (a)(1)(2), Section 3216 Electrical Equipment Wires and Hazards. Title 24, Part Two, Section 2 3301(e), Section 23312(f)(g). 10. Pursuant to California Business and Professional Code (the UCL) 17200 et seq. 17205, a private attorney general may bring an action for unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent acts, and 17500 for false, misleading business practices and representation made to the public in the name of the People of the State of California to enjoy any violation of CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 51. This section shall be known and may be cited as the Unruh Civil Rights Act and generally guarantees full and equal access and prohibit general behaviors that constitute discrimination against business patrons. 11. Pursuant to California Business and Professional Code (the UCL) 17200 et seq. 17205 and 17500, a private attorney general may bring an action for unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices in the name of the People of the State of California to enjoy any violation of CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 54.1 "California Public Accommodations Law" Prohibits discrimination in a broad range of enumerated public accommodations. Individuals with disabilities shall be entitled to full
4
and equal access, as other members of the general public, places of public accommodation and other places to which general public is invited. 12. As adapted in California Government Code 16721, 16721(a), Recognizing that California Constitution prohibits a person from being disqualified from acting or pursuing a business, profession, vocation, or employment.., and recognize that these and other basic, fundamental constitutional principles are directly affected and denigrated by certain ongoing practices in the business and commercial world, it is necessary that provisions protecting and enhancing a person's rights to enter or pursue business and to freely exercise and enjoy... Consistent with Law be established. 13. Pursuant to the California Business and Professional Code 17203, and 17204, a private attorney general (plaintiff who has suffered injury in fact, and has lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition) may bring action in the name of the People of the State of California in a Superior Court for INJUNCTION RELIEF - Court Orders: Any person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair competition may be enjoyed in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court may make such orders or judgments, including the appointment of a receiver, as may be necessary to prevent the use or employment by a person or any other practices which constitute unfair competition, as defined under 17200, or as may be necessary to restore to a person in interest any money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of such unfair competition. Any person may pursue representative claims or relief on behalf of others only if the claimant meets the standing requirement of 17204 and complies with Section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 14. Pursuant to 17204, actions for injunctions by Attorney General, Dist. Atty., County Council and City Attorneys, actions for relief pursuant to this chapter shall be prosecuted exclusively in a court of competent jurisdiction by the Attorney General or a District Attorney or by a County Counsel authorized by agreement with the District Attorney in actions involving violation of a county ordinance or by a City Attorney of a city having a population in excess 750,000, or by a City Attorney in a city and county or,
with the consent of the District Attorney, by a city prosecutor in a city having a full-time city prosecutor in the name of the People of the State of California upon their own complaint or upon the complaint of the board, officer, person, corporation or association, or by a person who has suffered injury in fact, and has lost money or property as a result ' of the unfair competition. 15. California and plaintiff, brings this action for prohibitory injunction relief by way of Court Order in granting a permanent injunction that prohibits Defendant's alleged Unlawful, unfair, fraudulent and misleading conduct, from doing that which ought not to be done. (a) California's, plaintiffs legal remedies will be shown to be inadequate. (b) The irreparable injury suffered that ought not be submitted to on one hand and/or inflicted on the other, that is repeated and continuing character that dominates over the rights of others is actionable. (c) The likelihood of success of California in plaintiff's action throughout the balance of the litigation will be supported by the preponderance of evidence to build on the tier of facts in support of the reasonable probability of California in plaintiffs ultimate success in the likelihood of the injunction relief will be granted by order of the court. (d) The balance of hardship outweighed by that of California's and plaintiffs damages is significantly greater than that of Defendant's burden, if any, because their hardship is only that which they should already be required to bear as a responsible publicly traded Corporation, and to which their corporate speech implies that they do and are required to do each day by being in compliance with all laws, regulations, codes, and standards that their business operations are subject to. California's and plaintiffs hardship, burden and risk, by defendant's alleged discrimination and alleged continuous violation of laws, regulatory compliance responsibilities, codes and standards, and disregard to safety laws that unlawfully put human lives at risk in defendants pursuit of profit outweighs the disadvantage of their hardship, if any.
(e) Plaintiffs mental and physical disabilities would be aggravated and amplified if plaintiff did not have injunction relief to mitigate the unlawful, alleged conduct, and discrimination by defendant. Plaintiff only wants reasonable accommodation and the right to shop within the Home Depot Stores now and in the future. Until the court orders the defendant to stop the unlawful conduct will plaintiff again be allowed to partake of his invited status as a customer and will no longer have to expose himself to risk and injury and be denied reasonable accommodation because of defendant's inability to act in a lawful manner. 16. For the reasons stated above (a,b,c,d,e), California and plaintiff should be granted permanent injunction relief for the enjoyment of denying defendant's alleged unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business acts and/or practices and false representation to the public with a prohibitory injunction, with an effect and duration now and in the future to enforce the rule of law. Defendant must be immediately and permanently enjoyed from further violations of California Fire Codes, California Building Codes, Cal/OSHA Regulations, and California Public Accommodation Laws. Prohibitory injunction would allow relief and remedy to enjoy defendant's ability to discriminate and violate the Inalienable Rights to Pursuing and Obtaining Safety in an effort to Defend Life and Liberty for all the people of the State of California and plaintiff 17. Restitution - California, Plaintiff asserts, Restitution is available if the defendant's alleged unlawful, unfair, fraudulent and misleading conduct wrongfully acquired funds or property in which California and plaintiff has ownership or vested interest in and were improperly "acquired." 18. Pursuant to California Business and Professional Code 17500, False or Misleading Statements; penalties. It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, or association or any employee thereof with intent directly or indirectly to dispose of real or personal property or to perform services professional or otherwise or anything of any nature whatsoever or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating thereto, to make or disseminate, will cause to be made or disseminate, because the public in this
7
state, or to make or disseminate or caused to make or disseminate from this state before the public in any state, in any newspaper or other publication or any advertising device or by public outcry or proclamation or in any other manner or means whatsoever, including over the Internet, any statement, concerning that real or personal property or those services, professional or otherwise, or concerning any circumstance or matter of fact connected with the proposed performance or deposition, thereof, of which is untrue or misleading and which is known, or which by exercise of reasonable care should be known to be untrue or misleading, or for any person, firm or corporation to make or disseminate, will cause to be made or disseminate any such statement as part of a plan or a scheme with the intent not to sell the personal property or those services, professional or otherwise, so advertised at a price stated therein or as so advertised. Any violation of this provision of this section is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the County jail not exceeding six months, or by fme not exceeding $2500 or by both that of imprisonment and fine. 19. This action also seeks attorney's fees for the necessity and financial burdens of private enforcement to defend civil rights of the People of the State of California and plaintiff and that serves the public interest in the significant benefit of those civil rights concurred on the general public and/or a large class of persons with the return of monies and profits improperly acquired by defendant's alleged unlawful, unfair, fraudulent, and misleading conduct. This action also serves as a catalyst for change to prevent future alleged conduct by defendant's unlawful and pernicious business practices and the hazards and risk to human lives by their unlawful practices, conduct, actions and inactions. 20. Plaintiff has engaged in good faith attempts multiple times and reasonably attempted to settle the dispute at all levels of the Home Depot USA. Inc., including Demand Letters for Safety and provided photographic evidence to substantiate claims to Frank Blake, CEO of the Home Depot USA Inc., prior to this litigation of these alleged unlawful conditions that jeopardizes the emergency preparedness system for a rapid, controlled, and complete evacuation of the facility, be it a fire, earthquake, acts of
8
violence, terrorism, or simple panic. This unlawful conduct also impedes and delays first responders' ingress into the facility in an emergency. This overall lack of emergency preparedness jeopardizes the health and safety of everyone including workers, employees, customers, first responders, vendors, the handicapped, the elderly, children and the community that the defendant operates in. Plaintiffs Demand Letter fell on deaf ears. There was no written response to the letter, no response to the alleged unlawful activity, no response to the lack of safety and risk and dangers imposed upon its customers. Most of all, there was no change in the unlawful conditions, which still persists to date (11/29/2013). The equitable tolling period started back in a 10/08/2008 complaint letter sent to Frank Blake, CEO of the Corporation. 21. Plaintiff brings this action, without prejudice to any other action or claim which plaintiff may have based on separate, independent and unrelated violations arising out of matters or allegations that are not set forth in this complaint. Jurisdiction and Venue 22. Venue is proper in this county. Pursuant to Business and Professional Code 17200 , in that the violations alleged of (California Constitutional Law, California Fire Code, California Building Code, California Labor Code, Cal/OSHA, Unruh Act and California Public Accommodation Law), codified under California State Constitution and California State Laws in this complaint occurred in the County of San Diego and City of San Diego. San Diego Superior Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 10, of the California Constitution and Section 393 of the Codes of Civil Procedure. DEFENDANT HOME DEPOT USA, INC. 23. Defendant, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (hereafter Home Depot) is now and at all times mentioned in this complaint is a Delaware corporation which does or did business in the State of California, which is incorporated herein by reference (The Home Depot USA Inc.) that operates retail warehouse outlet facilities throughout the State of California. Home Depot's principal address is 2544 Paces Ferry Road, Atlanta, Georgia. The People are informed and believe, and therefore alleges, that the Home Depot owns and/or
9
operates in California over 200 stores that sell building materials and hazardous materials, including pesticides, fertilizers, paints, ignitable fluids, aerosol products, and other flammable, corrosive materials. 24. Home Depot is a person as defined in the Business and Professional Code 17201 and 17535 and Health and Safety Code 390647 pursuant to Health and Safety Code 191213. 25. Home Depot is at all times relevant to the claims in this complaint and was legally responsible for compliance with Health and Safety Codes, Cal Fire Regulations, California Building Codes and Standards, California Labor Code Regulations, Cal/OSHA Safety Requirements, general duty clause, Unruh Act (nondiscrimination in public accommodations) and/or any orders, rules, regulations, injunctions, including, but not limited to all laws governing its operation. The Home Depot is aware of alleged unlawful violations at its facilities. 26. The people are informed and believe and therefore allege that the Home Depot is responsible for the operations of their retail outlet facilities in California and that the Home Depot controls operations at these facilities and provide management of these facilities. Home Depot is aware of the alleged violations and fails to take action that causes some or all of the violations. The Home Depot authorities controls operations, management, and all actions at these retail facilities when conducting business in California and are such that the Home Depot could have taken action to prevent some or all of the violations alleged in herein. 27. The identity of DOES 1 through 99 is unknown to plaintiff at this time, and at such time when the identity of DOES becomes known to plaintiff, this complaint will be amended accordingly. At all times relevant hereto, DOES 1 through 24 were in a position of responsibility allowing them to influence corporate policies or activities with respect to Home Depot's compliance with all California laws, regulations, codes, standards, and court orders pertaining to safety including California Fire laws, California OSHA Regulations, California Labor Laws, California Building Codes, California Environmental
10
Laws, public accommodation laws, electrical codes and regulations, and codes and standards at its facilities and in the conduct of its business practices in the State of California, and has by reason of their position in the Corporation, responsibilities and authority either to prevent in the first instance, or promptly correct the violation complaint of herein, and fails to do so. In addition to any direct personal liability of these individuals, DOES 1-24 also are personally liable under the responsible corporate official doctrine for violation of the laws committed by Home Depot as alleged herein. In this complaint when reference is made to any act of defendants, Home Depot, such allocation shall include those of the owners, officials, directors, agents, employees, contractors, affiliates or representatives of the defendant, Home Depot, that supervise, control or direct its employees and agents while engaging in the management, directions and operations that control the affairs of the Home Depot organization and do so while acting within the course and scope of the employment or agents of Home Depot. DOES 25 through 50 are and at all times relevant to the claims in this complaint and were legally responsible for compliance with Health and Safety Codes, California Fire Codes, California Building Codes, California Labor Laws, Cal/OSHA requirements or any other order, rule, or regulation of state authorities where any safety issues pursuant thereto include but not limited to any willful injunction. 28. The people are informed and believe and thereon allege that the Home Depot is responsible for all the operations and control of their retail warehouse facility operations in the State of California. The Home Depot was notified and is aware of unsafe conditions at its facilities and is responsible to manage those unsafe activities at their retail warehouse facilities. The Home Depot took actions that caused some or all of the violations alleged, and the Home Depot authorities were in control of action at these retail warehouse facilities and in conducting business in California. Home Depot has failed to take action regarding unsafe and unlawful activities, conditions, practices, and adherence and compliance to regulatory responsibility. Home Depot could have taken actions to prevent many of the violations, unlawful activities, fraudulent activities, unfair business
11
practices, and failure to comply with regulatory compliance, discriminatory behaviors that endangered the lives of its customers, employees, workers and first responders needlessly. 29. Complaint reference is made to any acts of defendant Home Depot, such allegations shall include, acts, inactions, conduct, discrimination, failure to heed warnings, omissions, duty of care, negligence, duty of preparation, premises liability, obligation, business law obligation; strict liability of the owners, officers, directors, district managers, operational managers, store managers, assistant managers, loss prevention/asset protection personnel, safety personnel, agents, employees, contractors, affiliates, vendors, subcontractors, or representatives of the defendant Home Depot that supervise, control or direct its employees, creating employees, controlling employer, correcting employer, agents, vendors, subcontractors, and any and all individuals while engaged in management, direction, or operation or control of the affairs of the business organization and activities, including maintenance and repairs, remodeling and construction of its facilities; those individuals that plan, direct, coordinate, conduct, supervise construction and remodeling of their facilities, and those individuals responsible for the decision of keeping the Home Depot facility open for business during the course of construction and remodeling when hazardous conditions existed; those responsible for providing safety controls, systems and adherence to regulatory compliance of the laws during this time, and those responsible with the duty to notify the fire department officials when the automatic sprinkler system was out of service, personnel responsible for oversight of fire watches and documentation during a fire watch; recordkeeping of all safety compliance, training, and incident reporting at each facility at all times, including those charged with the responsibility of safety training of the employees, including management, associates, and personnel; those responsible for regulatory compliance to the laws, statutes, regulations and codes that govern the operation of the Home Depot, including those responsible for the automatic sprinkler systems, best management practices, including Home Depot's subcontractors, vendors, suppliers and all others while acting and that had any possibility of playing a role
12
in this case in the course and scope of operations of the employment of the agents of the Home Depot business operations. 30. The nature of the Home Depot retail outlet facilities' business model has inherent safety risks with a business model that utilizes large retail warehouse style operations including high racking systems, the movement of bulk materials of all sizes, utilizing several types of moving methodologies that facilitates materials moving in, around, and out of the store by the means of rolling carts, forklifts, shopping wagons, dollies, rolling ladders, pallets, U-boats, trucks, and pallet jacks. The Home Depot business model also uses many other systems on wheels that are positioned around the store as needed that include rolling displays on casters, dumpsters, mechanized floor cleaning equipment, and rolling inventory computer workstations. The Home Depot business model also uses several types of storage systems that are not on wheels. These include materials on pallets, bulk materials in large reinforced storage bags, drafts of lumber, plywood, drywall, pipe, reinforcing rod, large appliances, and miscellaneous boxes which include both large and small boxes, roles of carpet, floor covering, crates, and bins. Home Depot also handles propane cylinders for retail sale and propane cylinders for fuel for operational equipment. On the exterior of the facilities, there are delivery supply trucks entering the property, offloading, parking, storing, handling of cargo, placement of cargo, including drivers, forklift operators, maintenance personnel, and any and all individuals and companies that do business and supply product to the Home Depot.
DEFINITIONS
31. SAFETY- is the state of being "safe" (from French sauf), the condition of being protected against physical, social, spiritual, fmancial, political, emotional, occupational, psychological, educational or other types or consequences of failure, damage, error
,
accidents harm or any other event which could be considered non-desirable. Safety can also be defined to be the control of recognized hazards to achieve an acceptable level of risk. Safety is the condition of a "steady state" of an organization or place doing what it is supposed to do. "What it is supposed to do" is defined in terms of public codes and
13
standards, associated architectural and engineering designs, corporate vision and mission statements, and operational plans and personnel policies. For any organization, place, or function, large or small, safety is a normative concept. It complies with situation-specific definitions of what is expected and acceptable. 32. AUTOMATIC - As applied to fire protection devices, a device or system providing an emergency function without the necessity for human intervention and activated as a result of a predetermined temperature rise, rate of temperature rise or combustion products. 33. AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM - An automatic sprinkler system, for fire protection purposes, is an integrated system of underground and overhead piping designed in accordance with fire protection engineering standards. The system includes a suitable water supply. The portion of the system above the ground is a network of specially sized or hydraulically designed piping installed in a structure or area, generally overhead, and to which automatic sprinklers aie connected in a systematic pattern. The system is usually activated by heat from a fire and discharges water over the fire area. 34. MEANS OF EGRESS - A continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal egress travel from any occupied portion of a building or structure to a public way. A means of egress consists of three separate and distinct parts: the exit access, the exit, and the exit discharge. 35. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS - It shall be unlawful to alter the building or structure in a manner that will reduce the number of exits and capacity of the means of egress to less than required by these codes. 36. ACCESSIBLE MEANS OF EGRESS - A continuous and unobstructed way of egress travel from any accessible point in a building or facility to public way. 37. EXIT - The portion of the means of egress system which is separated from the other interior surface of the building or structure by fire resistant rated construction and opening protected as required to provide a protected path of egress travel between the exit access and the exit discharge. Exits include exterior exit doors at ground level, exit enclosures,
14
exit passageways, exterior exit stairs, exterior exit ramps, horizontal exits. No person shall install or place any combustible materials or equipment or expose at any exit. No person shall install, place or permit the installation or placement of any storage materials of any kind in any exit regardless of the required width of such exit. 38. EXIT ACCESS - That portion of the means of egress system that leads from any occupied portion of the building within the structure to the exit. 39. EXIT DISCHARGE - That portion of the means of egress system between the termination of the exit to the public way. The capacity of the exit discharge shall not be less than the required discharge capacity of the exits being served. Exit discharge component shall be sufficiently open to the exterior so as to minimize the accumulation of smoke and toxic gas. Exit shall discharge directly to the exterior of the building. 40. MEANS OF EGRESS - A continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal egress travel from any occupied portion of the building or structure to the public way. A means of egress consists of three separate and distinct parts: the exit access, the exit, and exit discharge. 41. PUBLIC WAY - A street alley or other parcel of land open to the outside air leading to a street that has been deeded dedicated or otherwise permanently or appropriated for the public for public use and which has a clear width and height of no less than 10 feet. 42. GENERAL MEANS OF EGRESS - General requirement specified in Section 103 through 113 shall apply to all three elements of the means of egress in addition to those specified for exit access, the exit, and the exit discharge. Exit shall not be used for any purpose that interferes with the function of the means of egress. Once a level of exit protection is achieved, such level of protection shall not be reduced until arrived at the exit discharge. 43. MEANS OF EGRESS CONTINUITY - The path of travel along means of egress shall not be interrupted by any building element other than the means of egress components. Obstructions shall not be placed in the required width of the means of egress
15
except objections permitted by law. The means of egress system shall not be diminished along the path of travel. 44. MEANS OF EGRESS ILLUMINATION - Illumination requirements - The means of egress including the exit discharge shall be illuminated at all times when the area serves by such exits are occupied. 45. ILLUMINATION LEVEL - The means of egress illumination level shall not be less than one foot-candle (11 lux) at the walking surface. 46. EXIT DISCHARGE CAPACITY - The capacity of the exit discharge shall not be less than the required discharge capacity of the exit being served. 47. EXIT DISCHARGE COMPONENT - Exit discharge component shall be
.
sufficiently open to the exterior so as to minimize the accumulation of smoke and toxic gas. 48. MAINTENANCE OF MEANS OF EGRESS - The means of egress for building or partitions therefore shall be maintained at all times. 49. RELIABILITY - Required exit access, exit, and exit discharge shall be continually maintained free from obstacles or impediments to fill and instant use in the case of fire or other emergencies when the area serves by such exits are occupied. 50. OBSTRUCTIONS - A means of egress shall be free from obstructions that would prevent its use including the accumulation of snow and ice. 51. EXIT SIGNS - Exit signs shall be posted at all exits and visible from all locations in the store and supplemental signage adequate to provide occupants with clear direction to the means of egress. Exit signs shall be illuminated. 52. DECORATIONS AND FURNISHINGS - Equipment or adjacent signage that impairs the visibility of exit signs, creates confusion or prevents identification of the exit shall not be allowed. 53. FURNISHINGS AND DECORATIONS - Furnishings, decorations and other objects shall not be placed so that as to obstruct exits, access therefore, or visibility thereof.
16
CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND
54. The State of California has enacted a comprehensive constitutional, statutory, and regulatory framework designed to protect the rights, safety, health, and welfare of all the people of the State of California. 55. As adapted in the CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS Section 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among those are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. 56. CAL. CIV. CODE 51: California Code Section (a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the "Unruh Civil Rights Act". (b) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the fill and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever. (c) This section shall not be construed to confer any right or privilege on a person that is conditioned or limited by law or that is applicable alike to persons of every sex, color, race, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation. (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require any construction, alteration, repair, structural or otherwise, or modification of any sort whatsoever, beyond that construction, alteration, repair, or modification that is otherwise required by other provisions of law, to any new or existing establishment, facility, building, improvement, or any other structure, nor shall anything in this section be construed to augment, restrict, or alter in any way the authority of the State Architect to require construction, alteration, repair, or modifications that the State Architect otherwise possesses pursuant to other laws. (e) For purposes of this section: (1)"Disability" means any mental or physical disability as defmed in Sections 12926 and 12926.1 of the Government Code.
17
(2)"Medical condition" has the same meaning as defmed in subdivision (h) of Section 12926 of the Government Code. (3)"Religion" includes all aspects of religious belief, observance, and practice. (4)"Sex" has the same meaning as defmed in subdivision (p) of Section 12926 of the Government Code. (5)"Sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation" includes a perception that the person has any particular characteristic or characteristics within the listed categories or that the person is associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any particular characteristic or characteristics within the listed categories. (6)"Sexual orientation" has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (q) of Section 12926 of the Government Code. (a) Whoever denies, aids or incites a denial, or makes any discrimination or distinction contrary to Section 51, 51.5, or 51.6, is liable for each and every offense for the actual damages, and any amount that may be determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury, up to a maximum of three times the amount of actual damage but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000), and any attorney's fees that may be determined by the court in addition thereto, suffered by any person denied the rights provided in Section 51, 51.5, or 51.6. (b) Whoever denies the right provided by Section 51.7 or 51.9, or aids, incites, or conspires in that denial, is liable for each and every offense for the actual damages suffered by any person denied that right and, in addition, the following: (1) An amount to be determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury, for exemplary damages. (2) A civil penalty of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to be awarded to the person denied the right provided by Section 51.7 in any action brought by the person denied the right, or by the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city attorney. An action for that
18
penalty brought pursuant to Section 51.7 shall be commenced within three years of the alleged practice. (3) Attorney's fees as may be determined by the court. (c) Whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in conduct of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights described in this section, and that conduct is of that nature and is intended to deny the full exercise of those rights, the Attorney General, any district attorney or city attorney, or any person aggrieved by the conduct may bring a civil action in the appropriate court by filing with it a complaint. 57. California Civil Code Section 54.1 (a) (1) Individuals with disabilities shall be entitled to full and equal access, as other members of the general public, to accommodations, advantages, facilities, medical facilities, including hospitals, clinics, and physicians' offices, and privileges of all common carriers, airplanes, motor vehicles, railroad trains, motorbuses, streetcars, boats, or any other public conveyances or modes of transportation (whether private, public, franchised, licensed, contracted, or otherwise provided), telephone facilities, adoption agencies, private schools, hotels, lodging places, places of public accommodation, amusement, or resort, and other places to which the general public is invited, subject only to the conditions and limitations established. 58. California Civil Code Section 54.3 (a) Any person or persons, finn or corporation who denies or interferes with admittance to or enjoyment of the public facilities as specified in Sections 54 and 54.1 or otherwise interferes with the rights of an individual with a disability under Sections 54, 54.1 and 54.2 is liable for each offense for the actual damages and any amount as may be determined by a jury, or the court sitting without a jury, up to a maximum of three times the amount of actual damages but in no case less than one thousand dollars ($1,000), and attorney's fees as may be determined by the court in addition thereto, suffered by any person denied any of the rights provided in Sections 54, 54.1, and 54.2. "Interfere," for
19 -
purposes of this section, includes, but is not limited to, preventing or causing the prevention of a guide dog, signal dog, or service dog from carrying out its functions in assisting a disabled person. 59. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 19953 and 19954 authorized any person who is aggravated or potentially aggravated by a violation of the accessibility provisions, or the Dist. Atty., City Attorney, County Council or the Attorney General may bring an action to enjoy any violation of the accessibility provisions provided by the Health and Safety Code or Title 24 Health and Safety Code Section. Health and Safety Code Section 11955 establishes that public accommodations (in short, privately owned buildings open to the public) must be designed and constructed to provide for accessibility. Health and Safety Code Section 19958.6 establishes that a person who violates Section 11955 discussed above in number one is liable for a civil penalty of $2500. As discussed above in number one, Health and Safety Section 19953 and 11954 authorizes any person who is aggravated or potentially aggravated by a violation of these provisions or the Dist. Atty., City Attorney, County Counsel, or the Attorney General may bring an action to enjoy any violations of the accessibility provision provided by the Health and Safety Code or Title. 60. As adapted in California Fire Code, Title 24, Part 9, is known as the California Fire Code (CFC). The California Building Standards Code (CBC) is published in its entirety every three years by order of the California legislature, which supplements publishing in intervening years. The California legislature delegated authority to various state agencies, boards or commissions and departments to create building regulations to implement the state statutes. These building regulations and standards have the same force of law and are to take effect 180 days after their publication unless otherwise stipulated. The California Building Standards Code applies to occupancies in the State of California as annotated. A County or City may establish more restrictive building standards reasonably necessary because of local climate, geological or topographical conditions.
20
61. California Fire Code (CFC) and California Building Code (CBC) Regulations Title 24, Part 9, Chapter 10, MEANS OF EGRESS, Section 1001.2 Minimum Requirements. It shall be unlawful to alter a building or structure in a manner that will reduce the number of exits or the capacity of the means of egress to less than required by this code. 62. As adapted in California Fire Code (CFC) and Building Codes, Title 24, Part 9, Chapter 10, Section 1001.3 Maintenance. Means of egress shall be maintained in accordance with the California Fire Code 63. As adapted in (CFC) Section [b] 1006 Means of Egress Illumination, 1006.1 Illumination Requirements, the means of egress including the exit discharge shall be illuminated at all times when the building served by the means of egress is occupied. 64. As adapted in (CFC), Section[b] Section 1003 GENERAL MEANS OF EGRESS. 1003.1. The general requirements specified in Section 103 through 1013 shall apply to all three elements of the means of egress system in addition to those specified requirements for the exit access, the exit, and the exit discharge. 65. As adapted in (CFC), [B] section 1020 EXITS, 1020.1 General. Exit shall comply with Section 1020 through 1026 and the applicable requirements of Section 1003 through 1013. An exit shall not be used for any purpose that interferes with its function as the means of egress. Once a given level of exit protection is achieved, such level of protection shall not be reduced until arrived at the exit discharge. 66. As adapted in (CFC), [B] Section 1003.6 MEANS OF EGRESS continuity. The path of travel along the means of egress shall not be interrupted by any building element other than a means of egress component as specified in this chapter. Obstructions shall not be placed in the required width of the means of egress except projections permitted by this chapter. The requirement capacity of the means of egress system shall not be diminished along the path of egress travel. 67. As adapted in (CFC), [B] Section 1028, Maintenance of The Means of Egress, 1028.1, General - The Means of Egress for buildings or portions thereafter shall be maintained in accordance with this section.
68. As adapted in (CFC) [Et] Section 1028.2, Reliability - Required exit access, exit, or exit discharge shall be continuously maintained free from obstructions or impediments to full incident use in a case of fire or other emergencies when the areas served by such actions are occupied. 69. As adapted in (CFC), [13] Section 1028.3 Obstructions - The means of egress shall be free from obstructions that would prevent its use including the accumulation of snow and ice. 70. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 6300 - The California Occupational Safety And Health Act of 1973 is hereby enacted for the purpose of assuring safe and healthful working conditions for all California working men and women by authorizing the enforcement of effective standards, asserting and encouraging employers to maintain safe and healthful working conditions and by providing research, information, education, training and enforcement in the field of occupational safety and health. 71. Pursuant to California Fire Code (CFC) Chapter 4 Emergency Planning and Preparedness, Section 401- General - Interfering with Fire Department Operations. It shall be unlawful to interface with, attempt to interface with, or conspire to interfere with, obstruct, or restrict the mobility of or block the path of travel of a fire department emergency vehicle in any way, or to interfere with, attempt to interfere with or conspire to interfere with, obstruct, or hamper any fire department operation. 72. Pursuant to California Fire Code (CFC) Chapter 4 Section 403 - Public Assembly and Event, 403.1. Emergency Evacuation Drill and exercise performed to train staff and occupants and to evaluate their efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out emergency evacuation procedures. 73. Pursuant to California Fire Code (CFC) Chapter 5 Fire Service Features Section 503 - Fire Apparatus Access Road, 503.1 - Building and Facility - Approved fire apparatus access road shall be provided for every facility building or portion of the building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction and the fire apparatus access road shall comply with all requirements of this section and shall extend
22
within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first floor story of the building as measured or by an approved route around exterior of the building or the facilities. 74. Pursuant to (CFC) Chapter 5, Section 101. 501.4- Timing of installation when fire apparatus access routes or water supply for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternative methods of protection are provided. Temporary street signs shall be installed on each feed intersection construction of new roadways are allows passenger by vehicles in accordance with Section 505.2. 75. Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, 3.05(a) Fire Department Access and Egress. (Roads) (a). Required access roads from every building to a public street shall be all-weather hard-surfaced (suitable for use by fire apparatus) rightof-way not less than 20 feet (6096 mm) in width. Such right-of-way shall be unobstructed and maintained only as access to the public street. Exception: The enforcing agency may waive or modify this requirement if in his opinion such all-weather hard-surfaced condition is not necessary in the interest of public safety and welfare. 76. Pursuant to (CFC) Chapter 5, Section 101, 503.2.1 Dimensions. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (6096 mm), exclusive of shoulders, except for approved security gates in accordance with Section 503.6, and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches (4115 mm) 77. Pursuant to (CFC) Chapter 5, Section 101, 503.2.2 Authority. The fire code official shall have the authority to require an increase in the minimum access widths where they are inadequate forfire or rescue operations. 78. Pursuant to (CFC) Chapter 5, Section 101, 503.2.4 turning radius. The required turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be determined by the fire code official. 79. Pursuant to (CFC) Chapter 5, Section101, 503.2.5 Dead ends. Dead-end fire apparatus acce ss roads in excess of 150 feet (45 720 mm) in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus.
23
78. Pursuant to (CFC) Chapter 5, Section 101, 503.3 Marking. Where required by the fire code official, approved signs or other approved notices or markings that include the words NO PARKING -FIRE LANE shall be provided for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads or prohibit the obstruction thereof. The means by which fire lanes are designated shall be maintained in a clean and legible condition at all times and be replaced or repaired when necessary to provide adequate visibility. (California C.V.0 - 22500.1. No Parking- Fire Lanes.) 79. Pursuant to (CFC) Chapter 5, Section 101, 503.4- Obstruction of fire apparatus access roads. Fire apparatus access roads shall not be obstructed in any manner, including the parking of vehicles. The minimum widths and clearances established in Section 503.2.1 shall be maintained at all times. 80. Pursuant to (CFC) Chapter 5, Section 101, 507.5.4 Obstruction. Unobstructed access to fire hydrants shall be maintained at all times. The fire department shall not be deterred or hindered from gaining immediate access to fire protection equipment or fire hydrants. 81. California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 9 California Building Standards Commission Based on the 2009 International Fire Code. FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS-SECTION 901 GENERAL: 82. Pursuant (CFC), Section 901.1 Scope. The provisions of this chapter shall specify where fire protection systems are required and shall apply to the design, installation, inspection, operation, testing and maintenance of all fire protection systems. 83. Pursuant (CFC), Section 901.2 Construction Documents. The fire code official shall have the authority to require construction documents and calculations for all fire protection systems and to require permits be issued for the installation, rehabilitation or modification of any fire protection system. Construction documents for fire protection systems shall be submitted for review and approval prior to system installation. 84. Pursuant (CFC), Section 901.2.1 Statement of compliance. Before requesting final approval of the installation, where required by the fire code official, the installing
24
contractor shall furnish a written statement to the fire code official that the protection system has been installed in accordance with approved plans and has been tested in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications and the appropriate installation standard. Any deviations from the design standards shall be noted and copies of the approvals for such deviations shall be attached to the written statement. 85. Pursuant (CFC), Section 901.3 - Permits. Permits shall be required as set forth in Section 105.6 and 105.7. 86. Pursuant (CFC), Section 901.4 - Installation. Fire protection systems shall be maintained in accordance with the original installation standards for that system. Required systems shall be extended, altered or augmented as necessary to maintain and continue protection whenever the building is altered, remodeled or added to. Alterations to fire protection systems shall be done in accordance with applicable standards. 87. Pursuant (CFC), Section 901.4.1 - Required fire protection systems. Fire protection systems required by this code or the California Building Code shall be installed, repaired, operated, tested and maintained in accordance with this code. 89. Pursuant (CFC), Section 901.4.3 - Additional fire protection systems. In occupancies of a hazardous nature, where special hazards exist in addition to the normal hazards of the occupancy, or where the fire code official determines that access for fire apparatus is unduly difficult, the fire code official shall have the authority to require additional safeguards. Such safeguards include, but shall not be limited to, the following: automatic fire detection systems, fire alarm systems, automatic fire-extinguishing systems, standpipe systems, or portable or fixed extinguishers. Fire protection equipment required under this section shall be installed in accordance with this code and the applicable referenced standards. 90. Pursuant (CFC), Section 901.4.4 - Appearance of equipment. Any device that has the physical appearance of life safety or fire protection equipment but that does not perform that life safety or fire protection function shall be prohibited.
25
91. Pursuant (CFC), Section 901.5 - Installation acceptance testing. Fire detection and alarm systems, fire-extinguishing systems, fire hydrant systems, fire standpipe systems, fire pump systems, private fire service mains and all other fire protection systems and appurtenances thereto shall be subject to acceptance tests as contained in the installation standards and as approved by the fire code official. The fire code official shall be notified before any required acceptance testing. 92. Pursuant (CFC), Section 901.5.1 - Occupancy. It shall be unlawful to occupy any portion of a building or structure until the required fire detection, alarm and suppression systems have been tested and approved. 93. Pursuant (CFC), Section 901.6 - Inspection, testing and maintenance. Fire detection, alarm and extinguishing systems shall be maintained in an operative condition at all times, and shall be replaced or repaired where defective. Non required fire protection systems and equipment shall be inspected, tested and maintained or removed. 94. California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, 1.14 - Maintenance: Every fire alarm system or device, sprinkler system, fire extinguisher, fire hose, fire resistive assembly or any other fire safety assembly, device, material or equipment installed and retained in service in any building or structure subject to California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1 regulations shall be maintained in an operable condition at all times in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1 regulations and with their intended use. 95. California Code of Regulations Title 19, Division 1, 3.24 - Maintenance of Equipment: All fire alarm systems, fire detection systems, automatic sprinkler or extinguishing systems, communication systems, and all other equipment, material or systems required by California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1 shall be maintained in an operable condition at all times. Upon disruption or diminishment of the fire protective qualities of such equipment, material or systems, immediate action shall be instituted to effect a reestablishment of such equipment material or systems to their original normal and operational condition.
26
96. California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, 904(a) - Required Inspection, Testing and Maintenance Frequencies. (a) All automatic fire extinguishing systems, including systems installed as an alternate to other building requirements, shall be inspected, tested, and maintained in accordance with the following frequencies. Local authorities may require more frequent inspection, testing and maintenance and additional procedures. 97. California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, 904(a) (1) - Required Inspection, Testing and Maintenance Frequencies. 1 - Water-based fire protection systems shall be inspected, tested and maintained in accordance with the frequencies required by NFPA 25 (2002 edition) including Annexes A, B, C, D and E as amended by the State of California. (Published as NFPA, 2006 California Edition). 98. California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, 904 (a) Required Inspection, Testing and Maintenance Frequencies - (b) When proof of the installation date of standpipe systems or automatic fire sprinlder systems cannot be furnished, such systems shall receive initial testing and maintenance by July 1, 1985. 99. California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, 904.2 (a) Testing and Maintenance Requirements 7 All testing and maintenance on automatic fire extinguishing systems in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 13195 shall be performed by those licensed in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 13196.5. Exceptions: 1. The State Fire Marshal may waive in writing licensing of fire departments which conduct fire sprinkler and standpipe system testing and maintenance. 2. Service on fire alarm systems and industrial systems as specified in 13196.5(b) and (c) Health and Safety Code may be conducted without a license. 3.Testing and maintenance on automatic fire extinguishing systems exempted in writing by the State Fire Marshal, when the building owner or occupant has the staff and equipment to conduct testing and maintenance.
100. California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, 904.2(b) Testing and Maintenance Requirements - Any testing and maintenance of automatic fire extinguishing systems shall be performed in accordance with these requirements. Exceptions: 1. The State Fire Marshal may waive in writing the requirement that testing and maintenance be performed in accordance with these requirements when a licensee can demonstrate that a system cannot functionally be tested and maintained in accordance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, Chapter 5 2. If at any time a licensee encounters a specialized or modified system which cannot be tested and maintained in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, Chapter 5 the licensee shall contact the State Fire Marshal and test and maintain the system as directed. (a) The intent of this section is to cover automatic fire extinguishing systems as originally designed, installed and approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction. It is not, however, intended to require that such systems be upgraded to current adopted standards. 101. California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, 904.2(h) - Testing and Maintenance Requirements -At the time of testing and maintenance, building management shall be consulted to avoid unnecessary disturbance of normal building operation. 102. California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, 904.2(i) -Testing and Maintenance Requirements - The licensee shall contact the local fire authority having jurisdiction prior to testing and maintenance of a system when required by the local fire authority having jurisdiction to do so. (901.6.1) Standards - Fire protection systems shall be inspected, tested and maintained in accordance with the referenced standards listed in Table 901.6.1 and California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, Chapters 3 and 5. 103. California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, 904.1(a) - Inspection Requirements - A license shall not be required to perform inspections. Inspections may be
28
conducted by any person designated by the building owner or occupant who has developed competence through training and experience. 104. California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, 904.2(g) - Testing and Maintenance Requirements - Prior to activating any fire alarm component of an automatic fire extinguishing system, the license shall insure that the licensee is capable of restoring the fire alarm system. 105. 901.6.2 Records - Records of all system inspections, tests and maintenance required by the referenced standards shall be maintained on the premises for a minimum of three years and shall be copied to the fire code official upon request. 106. California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, 904.1(b) - Inspection Requirements - Records of all inspections shall be retained on the premises by the building or system owner for a period of five years after the next required inspection. 107. California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, 904.2(c) - Testing and Maintenance Requirements - Records of all testing and maintenance shall be retained on the premises by the building or system owner for a period of five years after the next required test or maintenance. 108. California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, 904.2(j) - Testing and Maintenance Requirements - It is the responsibility of the contractor, company or licensee to provide a written report of the test and maintenance results to the building owner and the local fire authority having jurisdiction at the completion of the testing and maintenance. 109. 901.6.2.1 Records information - Initial records shall include the name of the installation contractor, type of components installed, one of the components, location and number of components installed per floor. Records shall also include the manufacturers' operation and maintenance instruction manuals. Such records shall be maintained on the premises. 110. 901.7 Systems Out of Service - Where a required fire protection system is out
of service, the fire department and the fire code official shall be notified immediately
29
and, where required by the fire code official, the buildinE shall either be evacuated or an approved fire watch shall be provided for all occupants left unprotected by the shutdown until the fire protection system has been returned to service. Where utilized, fire watches shall be provided with at least one approved means for notification of the fire department and their only duty shall be to perform constant patrols of the protected premises and keep watch for fires.
111. California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, 904.1(c) - Inspection Requirements. 112. California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, 904.2 - Testing and Maintenance Requirements (d) The building or system owner shall insure immediate correction of any deficiencies noted during the service. A tag or label shall be affixed to a system only after all deficiencies have been corrected. The owner or occupant shall promptly correct or repair deficiencies, damaged parts or impairments found while performing the inspection, test and maintenance requirements of this standard. Recalled products shall be replaced or remedied. Such replacement or remedial product shall be installed in accordance with the listing requirements, the manufacturer's instructions and the appropriate NFPA installation standards. A recalled product is a product subject to a statute or administrative regulation specifically requiring the manufacturer, importer, distributor, wholesaler, or retailer of a product, or any combination of such entities, to recall the product, or a product voluntarily recalled by a combination of such entities. 113. California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, 904.2 - Testing and Maintenance Requirements - (e) At the time of testing and maintenance, or at any time parts are replaced, an itemized invoice showing work performed and parts replaced shall be provided by the licensee to the system owner. If testing and maintenance is performed more than thirty (30) days prior to the next required testing and maintenance date, the invoice shall bear a statement indicating the system was tested and maintained early. 114. California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, 904.2 - Testing and Maintenance Requirements - (f) The licensee shall offer to return all replaced parts to the
30
system owner or owner's representative, except those parts that are required to be returned to the manufacturer under conditions of warranty. 115. 901.7.1 Impairment coordinator. The building owner shall assign an impairment coordinator to comply with the requirements of this section. In the absence of a specific designee, the owner shall be considered the impairment coordinator. 116. 901.7.2 Tag required. A tag shall be used to indicate that a system, or portion thereof, has been removed from service. 117. 901.7.3 Placement of tag. The tag shall be posted at each fire department connection, system control valve, fire alarm control unit, fire alarm annunciator and fire command center, indicating which system, or part thereof, has been removed from service. The fire code official shall specify where the tag is to be placed. 118. Pursuant 901.7.4 Pursuant (CFC) Preplanned Impairment Programs - Preplanned impairments shall be authorized by the impairment coordinator. Before authorization is given, a designated individual shall be responsible for verifying that all of the following procedures have been implemented: (1) The extent and expected duration of the impairment have been determined. (2)The areas or buildings involved have been inspected and the increased risks determined. (3)Recommendations have been submitted to management or building owner/manager. (4)The fire department has been notified. (5)The insurance carrier, the alarm company, building owner/manager, and other authorities having jurisdiction have been notified. (6)The supervisors in the areas to be affected have been notified. (7) A tag impairment system has been implemented. (8)Necessary tools and materials have been assembled on the impairment site. 119. 901.7.5 Emergency impairments. When unplanned impairments occur, appropriate emergency action shall be taken to minimize potential injury and damage. The impairment coordinator shall implement the steps outlined in Section 901.7.4. 120. 901.7.6 Restoring systems to service. When impaired equipment is restored to normal working order, the impairment coordinator shall verify that all of the following
31
procedures have been implemented: (1) Necessary inspections and tests have been conducted to verify that affected systems are operational.(2)Supervisors have been advised that protection is restored.(3)The fire department has been advised that protection is restored.(4)The building owner/manager, insurance carrier, alarm company and other involved parties have been advised that protection is restored.(5)The impairment tag has been removed. 121. 901.8 Removal of or tampering with equipment. It shall be unlawful for any person to remove, tamper with or otherwise disturb any fire hydrant, fire detection and alarm system, fire suppression system, or other fire appliance required by this code except for the purpose of extinguishing fire, training purposes, recharging or making necessary repairs, or when approved by the fire code official. 122. 901.8.1 Removal of or tampering with appurtenances. Locks, gates, doors, barricades, chains, enclosures, signs, tags or seals which have been installed by or at the direction of the fire code official shall not be removed, unlocked, destroyed, tampered with or otherwise vandalized in any manner. 123. 901.9 Recall of fire protection components. Any fire protection system component regulated by this code that is the subject of a voluntary or mandatory recall under federal law shall be replaced with approved, listed components in compliance with the referenced standards of this code. The fire code official shall be notified in writing by the building owner when the recalled component parts have been replaced.. 124. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 13195 through 13199, 13195 regulations and building, 13195.5 service, testing and maintenance, 13196 enforcements of regulations. 125. 13199- Violations and penalties. Any person who violates any provision of this chapter or any regulation or building standard adopted by the state fire marshal pursuant to Section 13195 is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than six months or by both such fme and imprisonment. The person is guilty of a separate offense each day during which he or she
32
commits, continues or permits a violation of this chapter or any regulation of building standards adapted pursuant to this chapter. 126. CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE - SECTION 386. Fire Protection System. (a)Any person who willfully or maliciously constructs or maintains a fire protection system in any structure with the intent to install a fire protection system which is known to be inoperable or to impair the effective operation of the system so as to threaten the safety of the occupants or use of the structure in the event of a fire shall be subject to imprisonment in the state prison for two, three or four years. (c) As used in this section, fire protection system includes but is not limited to an automatic fire sprinlder system, standpipe system, automatic fixed fire extinguisher system and fire alarm system. (d) for purposes of this section the following definitions shall control: (1) "automatic fire sprinkler system" means an integrated system of underground or overhead piping design in accordance with fire protection engineering standards. The automatic sprinlder system is the work of specially sized hydraulically designed piping, school, building, structure or area generally overhead and to which sprinklers are attached in a systematic pattern. The valves controlling each system riser is located in the system riser and its supply piping. Each sprinkler system riser includes a device for activating an alarm when the system is in operation. The system is normally activated by heat from the fire and discharges water throughout the fire area. (2) "Standpipe System" means an arrangement of piping, valves and hose connections and aligned equipment installed in a building or structure with the hose connection located in a manner that water can be discharged in streams or spray pattern throughout the attached hoses and nozzles. The purpose of the system is to extinguish the fire thereby protecting the building or structure and its contents and occupants. This system relies upon connections to water supply systems or pumps, trucks or other equipment necessary to provide adequate supply of water to the hose connectors. (4) "Fire alarm systems" means a control unit and a combination of electrical interconnecting devices designed and intended to cause an alarm or warning of a fire in a building or structure by manual or
automatic activation, or both, and includes a system installed throughout the building or portion thereof. 127. Pursuant to LABOR CODE SECTION 6300-6332, Section 6300 - The California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973 is hereby enacted for the purpose of assuring safe and healthful working conditions for all California working men and women by authorizing the enforcement of effective standards, assisting and encouraging employers to maintain safe and healthful working conditions, and by providing for research, information, education, training, and enforcement in the field of occupational safety and health. 6301. The definitions set forth in this chapter shall govern the construction and interpretation of this part. 128. 6302. As used in this division: (a) "Director" means the Director of Industrial Relations (b) "Department" means the Department of Industrial Relations. (c) "Insurer" includes the State Compensation Insurance Fund and any private company, corporation, mutual association, and reciprocal or inter-insurance exchange, authorized under the laws of this state to insure employers against liability for compensation under this part and under Division 4 (commencing with Section 3201), and any employer to whom a certificate of consent to self-insure has been issued. (d) "Division" means the Division of Occupational Safety and Health. (e) "Standards board" means the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, within the department. (f) "Appeals board" means the Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board, within the department. (g) "Aquaculture" means a form of agriculture as defined in Section 17 of the Fish and Game Code. (h) "Serious injury or illness" means any injury or illness occurring in a place of employment or in connection with any employment which requires inpatient hospitalization for a period in excess of 24 hours for other than medical observation or in
34
which an employee suffers a loss of any member of the body or suffers any serious degree of permanent disfigurement, but does not include any injury or illness or death caused by the commission of a Penal Code violation, except the violation of Section 385 of the Penal Code, or an accident on a public street or highway. (i) "Serious exposure" means any exposure of an employee to a hazardous substance when the exposure occurs as a result of an incident, accident, emergency, or exposure over time and is in a degree or amount sufficient to create a substantial probability that death or serious physical harm in the &tire could result from the exposure 128. 6303. (a) "Place of employment" means anyplace, and the premises appurtenant thereto, where employment is carried on, except a place where the health and safety jurisdiction is vested by law in, and actively exercised by, any state (b) "Employment" includes the carrying on of any trade, enterprise, project, industry, business, occupation, or work, including all excavation, demolition, and construction work, or any process or operation in any way related thereto, in which any person is engaged or permitted to work for hire, except household domestic service. (c) "Employment," for purposes of this division only, also includes volunteer firefighting when covered by Division 4 (commencing with Section 3200) pursuant to Section 3361. (d) Subdivision (c) shall become operative on January 1, 2004. 129. 6304. "Employer" shall have the same meaning as in Section 3300. 130. 6304.1. (a) "Employee" means every person who is required or directed by any employer to engage in any employment or to go to work or be at any time in any place of employment. (b) "Employee" also includes volunteer firefighters covered by Division 4 (commencing with Section 3200) pursuant to Section 3361. (c) Subdivision (b) shall become operative on January 1, 2004. (d) This act does not affect claims that arose pursuant to Division 5 of this code between January 1, 2002, and the effective date of this act. 131. 6304.5. It is the intent of the Legislature that the provisions of this division, and the occupational safety and health standards and orders promulgated under this code, are
35
applicable to proceedings against employers for the exclusive purpose of maintaining and enforcing employee safety. Neither the issuance of, or failure to issue, a citation by the division shall have any application to, nor be considered in, nor be admissible into, evidence in any personal injury or wrongful death action, except as between an employee and his or her own employer Sections 452 and 669 of the Evidence Code shall apply to this division and to occupational safety and health standards adopted under this division in the same manner as any other statute, ordinance, or regulation. The testimony of employees of the division shall not be admissible as expert opinion or with respect to the application of occupational safety and health standards. It is the intent of the Legislature that the amendments to this section enacted in the 1999-2000 Regular Session shall not abrogate the holding in Brock v. State of California (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 752. 132. 6305. (a) "Occupational safety and health standards and orders" means standards and orders adopted by the standards board pursuant to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 140) of Division 1 and general orders heretofore adopted by the Industrial Safety Board or the Industrial Accident Commission. (b) "Special order" means any order written by the chief or the chiefs authorized representative to correct an unsafe condition, device, or place of employment which poses a threat to the health or safety of an employee and which cannot be made safe under existing standards or orders of the standards board. These orders shall have the same effect as any other standard or order of the standards board, but shall apply only to the employment or place of employment described in the written order of the chiefs authorized representative. 134. 6306. (a) "Safe," "safety," and "health" as applied to an employment or a place of employment mean such freedom from danger to the life, safety, or health of employees as the nature of the employment reasonably permits. (b) "Safety device" and "safeguard" shall be given a broad interpretation so as to include any practicable method of mitigating or preventing a specific danger, including the danger of exposure to potentially injurious levels of ionizing radiation or potentially injurious quantities of radioactive materials.
36
135. 6307. The division has the power, jurisdiction, and supervision over every employment and place of employment in this state, which is necessary adequately to enforce and administer all laws and lawful standards and orders, or special orders requiring such employment and place of employment to be safe, and requiring the protection of the life, safety, and health of every employee in such employment or place of employment 136. 6307.1. The State Department of Health Services shall assist the division in the enforcement of Section 25910 of the Health and Safety Code in the manner prescribed by a written agreement between the State Department of Health Services and the Department of Industrial Relations, pursuant to Section 144. 138. 6308. The division, in enforcing occupational safety and health standards and orders and special orders may do any of the following: (a) Declare and prescribe what safety devices, safeguards, or other means or methods of protection are well adapted to render the employees of every employment and place of employment safe as required by law or lawful order. (b) Enforce Section 25910 of the Health and Safety Code and standards and orders adopted by the standards board pursuant to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 140) of Division 1 of the Labor Code, for the installation, use, maintenance, and operation of reasonable uniform safety devices, safeguards, and other means or methods of protection, which are necessary to carry out all laws and lawful standards or special orders relative to the protection of the life and safety of employees in employments and places of employment. (c) Require the performance of any other act which the protection of the life and safety of the employees in employments and places of employment reasonably demands. An employer may request a hearing on a special order or action ordered pursuant to this section, at which the employer, owner, or any other person may appear. The appeals board shall conduct the hearing at the earliest possible time. All orders, rules, regulations, findings, and decisions of the division made or entered under this part, except special orders and action orders, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court and the courts of appeal as may be provided by law.
37
139. 6308.5. Hearings conducted by the division pursuant to this part hall give any affected employer or other affected person the opportunity to submit facts or arguments, but may be conducted informally, either orally or in writing. 140. 6309. If the division learns or has reason to believe that an employment or place of employment is not safe or is injurious to the welfare of an employee, it may, on its own motion, or upon complaint, summarily investigate the same with or without notice or hearings. However, if the division receives a complaint from an employee, an employee's representative, including, but not limited to, an attorney, health or safety professional, union representative, or government agency representative, or an employer of an employee directly involved in an unsafe place of employment, that his or her employment or place of employment is not safe, it shall, with or without notice or hearing, summarily investigate the complaint as soon as possible, but not later than three working days after receipt of a complaint charging a serious violation, and not later than 14 calendar days after receipt of a complaint charging a non-serious violation. The division shall attempt to determine the period of time in the future that the complainant believes the unsafe condition may continue to exist, and shall allocate inspection resources so as to respond first to those situations in which time is of the essence. For purposes of this section, a complaint is deemed to allege a serious violation if the division determines that the complaint charges that there is a substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a condition which exists, or from one or more practices, means, methods, operations, or processes which have been adopted or are in use in a place of employment. When a complaint charging a serious violation is received from a state or local prosecutor, or a local law enforcement agency, the division shall summarily investigate the employment or place of employment within 24 hours of receipt of the complaint. All other complaints are deemed to allege non-serious violations. The division may enter and serve any necessary order relative thereto. The division is not required to respond to a complaint within this period where, from the facts stated in the complaint, it determines that the complaint is intended to willfully harass an employer or is without any
38
reasonable basis. The division shall keep complete and accurate records of all complaints, whether verbal or written, and shall inform the complainant, whenever his or her identity is known, of any action taken by the division in regard to the subject matter of the complaint and the reasons for the action, within 14 calendar days of taking any action. The records of the division shall include the dates on which any action was taken on the complaint, or the reasons for not taking any action on the complaint. The division shall pursuant to authorize regulations, conduct an informal review of any refusal by a representative of the division to issue a citation with respect to an alleged violation. The division shall furnish the employee or the representative of employees requesting the review a written statement of the reasons for the division's final disposition of the case. The name of a person who submits to the division a complaint regarding the unsafe condition of an employment or place of employment shall be kept confidential by the division, unless that person requests otherwise. The division shall annually compile and release on its Web site data pertaining to complaints received and citations issued. The requirements of this section do not relieve the division of its requirement to inspect and assure that all places of employment are safe and healthful for employees. The division shall maintain the capability to receive and act upon complaints at all times. 141. 6310. (a) No person shall discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because the employee has done any of the following: (1) Make any oral or written complaint to the division, other governmental agencies having statutory responsibility for or assisting the division with reference to employee safety or health, his or her employer, or his or her representative. (2) Instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or relating to his or her rights or has testified or is about to testify in the proceeding or because of the exercise by the employee on behalf of himself, herself, or others of any rights afforded him or her. (3) Participated in an occupational health and safety committee established pursuant to Section 6401.7 (b) Any employee who is discharged, threatened with discharge, demoted, suspended, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment by his or her employer
39
because the employee has made a bona fide oral or written complaint to the division, other governmental agencies having statutory responsibility for or assisting the division with reference to employee safety or health, his or her employer, or his or her representative, of unsafe working conditions, or work practices, in his or her employment or place of employment, or has participated in an employer-employee occupational health and safety committee, shall be entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by the acts of the employer. Any employer who willfully refuses to rehire, promote, or otherwise restore an employee or former employee who has been determined to be eligible for rehiring or promotion by a grievance procedure, arbitration, or hearing authorized by law, is guilty of a misdemeanor 142. 6311. No employee shall be laid off or discharged for refusing to perform work in the performance of which this code, including Section 6400, any occupational safety or health standard or any safety order of the division or standards board will be violated, where the violation would create a real and apparent hazard to the employee or his or her fellow employees. Any employee who is laid off or discharged in violation of this section or is otherwise not paid because he or she refused to perform work in the performance of which this code, any occupational safety or health standard or any safety order of the division or standards board will be violated and where the violation would create a real and apparent hazard to the employee or his or her fellow employees shall have a right of action for wages for the time the employee is without work as a result of the layoff or discharge. 143. 6312. Any employee who believes that he or she has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against by any person in violation of Section 6310 or 6311 may file a complaint with the Labor Commissioner pursuant to Section 98.7. 144. 6313. (a) The division shall investigate the causes of any employment accident that is fatal to one or more employees or that results in a serious injury or illness, or a serious exposure, unless it determines that an investigation is unnecessary. If the division determines that an investigation of an accident is unnecessary, it shall summarize the facts
40
indicating that the accident need not be investigated and the means by which the facts were determined. The division shall establish guidelines for determining the circumstances under which an investigation of these accidents and exposures is unnecessary. 145. Mail or submit the OSHA Complaint Form Download the OSHA complaint form from our website (or request a copy from your local OSHA regional or area office), complete it and then fax or mail it back to your nearest OSHA regional or area office. Written complaints that report a serious hazard and are signed by a current worker or representative and submitted to the closest OSHA area office are given priority and are more likely to result in on-site OSHA inspections. A worker or their representative can request (on the form) that OSHA not let their employer know who filed the complaint. Please include your name, address and telephone number so we can contact you to follow up. This information is confidential. 146. WORKERS' RIGHTS - If There is a Dangerous Situation at Work. If you believe working conditions are unsafe or unhealthful, we recommend that you bring the conditions to your employer's attention, if possible. You may file a complaint with OSHA concerning a hazardous working condition at any time However, you should not leave the worlcsite merely because you have filed a complaint. If the condition clearly presents a risk of death or serious physical harm, there is not sufficient time for OSHA to inspect, and, where possible, you have brought the condition to the attention of your employer, you may have a legal right to refuse to work in a situation in which you would be exposed to the hazard. If a worker, with no reasonable alternative, refuses in good faith to expose himself or herself to a dangerous condition, he or she would be protected from subsequent retaliation. The condition must be of such a nature that a reasonable person would conclude that there is a real danger of death or serious harm and that there is not enough time to contact OSHA and for OSHA to inspect. Where possible, the employee must have also sought from his employer, and been unable to obtain, a correction of the condition.
41
147. PENAL CODE SECTION. 273a. (a) Any person who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any child, willfully causes or permits the person or health of that child to be injured, or willfully causes or permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison for two, four, or six years. (b) Any person who, under circumstances or conditions other than those likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any child, willfully causes or permits the person or health of that child to be injured, or willfully causes or permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health may be endangered, is guilty of a misdemeanor. 148. Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act, California Penal Code - PENAL CODE SECTION 11164-11174.3-11164. (a) This article shall be known and may be cited as the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act. (b) The intent and purpose of this article is to protect children from abuse and neglect. In any investigation of suspected child abuse or neglect, all persons participating in the investigation of the case shall consider the needs of the child victim and shall do whatever is necessary to prevent psychological harm to the child victim. 11165. As used in this article "child" means a person under the age of 18 years. 149. SECTION 105 PERMIT - 105.1.1 - Permits required. Permits required by code shall be obtained from the fire code officials. Permits, fees, if any shall be paid prior to issuance of permits. Issued permit shall be kept on premise designated therein at all times and shall be readily available for inspection by fire code officials.105.1 .2 Types of permit (1) Operational permit (2) Construction permit. The construction permit allows an applicant to install or modify system and equipment for which permit is required by section 105.7 - 105.3 Conditions of Permit. Permit shall constitute permission to maintain,
42
store or handle materials; or to conduct processes which produce conditions hazardous to life or property; or to install equipment utilized in connection with such activities; or to install or modify any fire protection system or equipment or any other construction, equipment installation or modification in accordance with the provisions of this code. Work permit is required by section 105.6 or 105.7. Such permission shall not be construed as authority to violate, conceal or set aside any provisions of this code or applicable regulations of the jurisdiction. 150. 105.3.3 - Occupancy prohibited before approval of the building or structure shall not be occupied prior to fire code official issuing permits and conducting associated inspection indicating that applicable provisions of the code have been met. 151. 105.3.6 - Compliance with Code. The issuance or granting of a permit shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of this code or any other ordinance on the jurisdiction. Permits presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid. The issuance of a permit based on construction documents or other data shall not prevent the fire code official from requiring the correction of errors in the construction document or other data. Any addition to or alteration of approved construction documents shall be approved in advance by the fire code officials, as evidence by the issuance of a new amended permit 152. Section 1401 GENERAL 1401.1 Scope. This chapter shall apply to structures in the course of construction or alteration or demolition including those underground locations, compliance with NFPA 241 is required for items not specifically addressed therein. 153. 1401.2 - Purpose. This chapter describes the minimum safeguards for construction, alteration and demolition operation to provide reasonable safety to life and property from fire during such operations. 154. Best Management Practices (B.M.P.). Site Management Requirements Construction is a dynamic operation where changes are expected. Storm water BMPs for
43
construction sites is typically temporary measures that require frequent maintenance to maintain effectiveness. These facilities may require relocation, revision and re-installation, particularly as project grading progresses. Therefore, owner/contractor self-inspections are required. They shall be performed by the owners/contractor's Qualified Contact Person specifically trained in storm water pollution prevention site management and storm water BMPs, including the installation and maintenance of sediment and erosion control measures. Additional qualified persons may assist with the inspection activities under the direction of the Qualified Contact Person. A Qualified Contact Person is required for all sites during both wet and dry weather conditions. The four primary purposes of selfinspections conducted by owners and contractors include the following: To ensure that the owner/contractor takes full responsibility for managing storm water pollution caused by the project site's construction activities. To ensure that storm water BMPs are properly documented, implemented, and functioning effectively. To identify maintenance (e.g., sediment removal) and repair needs. To ensure that project proponents implement sitespecific storm water pollution prevention plans. A self-inspection checklist, noting date, time, conditions and inspection date, must be kept on-site and made available for inspection upon request (Note: the State General Construction Permit has additional inspection requirements that must be met to comply with the Permit).
CASE BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
155. People of the State of California, accuser plaintiff Michael McGrath in Pro per filed an original action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, case number: 37- 2013-000598536 - CU-BT-CTL, file date 7/22/2013 at 10:37 a.m. with the clerk of the Superior Court. Defendant Home Depot USA, Inc.'s legal counsel Gregory Francis Hurley, at the firm Greenberg Traurig, LLP, filed a Notice of Removal under 28 USC1441(a)(federal question) in the United States District Court, Southern Division of California, civil docket case number 3:13-cv-01804-WQH-KSC, filed on 08/02/1013.
44
156. Plaintiff, Michael McGrath in Pro per, filed Motion to Remand and later Plaintiff filed an additional motion for Voluntary Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice with the United States District Court, Southern District Court of California. 157. On November 4, 2013, by orders of the Hon. Judge William Q. Hayes (United States District Judge) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (ECF No. 18 is granted, and the Motion to Remand (ECF No. 9) is DENIED. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a) (2), this action is dismissed without prejudice; the clerk shall close this case, DATED November 4, 2013. 158. California, Plaintiff, Michael McGrath in Pro per, now brings this representative action in his pursuit of justice under the Constitution, laws, regulations, codes and standards of the State of California in pursuit of California's and plaintiffs inalienable rights granted in the California State Constitution for the benefit of all People of the State of California. 159 Plaintiff now files an amended complaint within the tolling period provided under USC Title 28, part five, chapter 85 1367(d) (a) "shall be tolled while the claim is pending and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless State law provides for longer tolling period." This complaint has been filed in a timely manner to meet the tolling period as defined above and also falls under the principle doctrine of equitable tolling adapted by the California Courts. All claims within this action also fall under the Equitable Tolling Doctrine by the fact that many of the alleged causes of action are relevant, un-remedied, and still persist to this day pertaining to the unlawful, unfair, fraudulent misrepresentations, and discrimination by defendant's alleged conduct.
Plaintiffs Michael McGrath's previous history with the defendant Home Depot USA, Inc.
160. Plaintiff, Michael McGrath, had been a long time customer of the Home Depot stores since early 1994. Plaintiff had purchased materials at Home Depot over the years as
45
an employee for the company which he works for and also for personal purchases. Plaintiff is employed as a project manager for a general contractor, and one of his major responsibilities is the acquisition of materials for projects using multiple vendors and uses different sources to obtain materials for projects. Plaintiff used Home Depot for several reasons, including business hours of operation, the price of products, the availability of multiple items at one location, quantities of materials available, and unique products only available at their stores. Home Depot provided plaintiff with a source for general needs for procurement of materials for projects as one of the vendors that the company has an account with which also allows them to track expenses and purchases. Plaintiffs status and responsibilities as a project manager also includes training, enforcement and adherence to lawful safety practices, both on and off the jobsites, where company employees may be working and performing their duties. Plaintiff and the employees were directed to shop at Home Depot by the company to purchase items necessary for the purpose of both residential and commercial construction projects that the company needed for building materials and supplies. Plaintiff has purchased materials at almost all of the Home Depot facilities in the County of San Diego. Plaintiff has conducted hundreds of transactions and made purchases with the defendants, both for business use, and personal use. Plaintiff always expects reasonable safety practices, whether on the job or in any places of business where company employees conduct affairs and also expects safety when in any business or location that provides public accommodation. 161. Plaintiff is always concerned about safety. Plaintiff had observed that many of the Home Depot retail facilities had serious safety hazards that potentially could affect plaintiff, store employees, and customers of the stores by the observations of the obstruction to the means of egress and other safety concerns observed by plaintiff. Plaintiff had made hundreds of requests for compliance to the rules of safety and requested that safety conditions be improved. He had voiced his concerns at many times to store associates, employees, managers, asset protection associates, assistant managers, general managers, complaint letters to the corporation, CEO Frank Blake, Board of
46
Directors, Western regional manager, and Home Depot's senior legal counsel for safety and environmental protection, or anyone else that would listen to plaintiffs concerns about the lack of safety, unlawful conditions, lack of egress and emergency preparedness which Plaintiff had observed and witnessed while shopping at many of the Home Depot store facilities. 162. Plaintiff does not single out Home Depot's failure to provide safety, but actually complains to many other businesses that do not comply with reasonable safety pertaining to the means of egress, obstructed fire lanes, and any deficiencies in safety, including Walmart, Scripps Community Hospital, San Diego Gas & Electric, and suppliers the plaintiff does business with, including restaurants and any place of business where businesses are in noncompliance to the rule of law pertaining to the means of egress. Most businesses, upon request for reasonable accommodation to the means of egress, comply and remove the hazard'and willingly accommodate the concerns and comply without more than one or two requests being made to the employees or management to achieve safety compliance. 163. Plaintiff alleges Home Depot, on the other hand, has continued to ignore repeated requests for reasonable accommodation to the means of egress and to the right to obtain safety for himself and others. Plaintiff's pursuit to obtain safety at the Home Depot stores on some occasions have been addressed, but only reappear in a short time. Many of plaintiff's requests are ignored and laughed at and were ridiculed by store associates and was questioned several times, "Why I care." Plaintiff was banished from a store for taking photographs of obstructed fire exits, has been accused of always seeking money in his quest to safety, and has been denied reasonable accommodation requests to have the means of egress unobstructed, available, maintained, and kept in a condition of full and ready use in case of emergency and necessity for evacuation of the facility and a way to freedom and just kept in a lawful condition. Plaintiff started taking photographs of obstructed fire exits and fire lanes at Home Depot Store after the tragic 'events of 9/11. Plaintiff has spent considerable time and effort addressing the lack of safety at these
47
facilities on many occasions. Plaintiff suffers from both physical and mental disabilities that plaintiff should not have to forfeit and disclose his right to privacy about his disabilities in exchange for his right to reasonable accommodation, right to pursue safety, and right to obtain safety for the benefit of himself and the general public. 164. Plaintiffs employment responsibilities required him to shop at these stores for materials for many reasons. Plaintiff's employer would still like him to shop at these facilities and purchase materials for the benefit of the company and the company's customers. Plaintiff would like to be a shopper at the Home Depot stores but can no longer subject himself and assume risk and the associated anxiety and agitation of plaintiffs PTSD symptoms and the effects of Parkinson's Disease. Plaintiff can no longer subject himself even though his employer requires him to do so. Plaintiffs employer has made a reasonable accommodation by not requiring plaintiff to shop at the store any longer at plaintiffs request. This consideration by plaintiffs employer has placed economic burdens on his business and that of the clients by refusal to shop there and the loss of benefits to the company and customers as a result of inability to shop there. Plaintiff feels so strongly that it still affects him daily that he is denied reasonable accommodations by the Home Depot and places him in a situation that causes fmancial hardship on the company because of plaintiff's handicap and limitations that he deals with daily. Plaintiff still refuses to be exposed to the unsafe and unlawful hazardous conditions of the Home Depot stores because of defendant's unlawful conduct pertaining to obstructing the means of egress, obstructing fire lanes, lack of emergency preparedness, and their inability to act in a lawful manner that still persists even to this present day. 165. Plaintiffs health does not afford him the luxury of assuming these risks and discrimination by subjecting himself to defendant's unlawful conduct. Therefore, the plaintiff will no longer shop at the Home Depot stores even though it is one of his rights as a customer to shop there as an invitee, until conditions improve and the Home Depot complies with its obligations and to the rule of law and provides plaintiff reasonable accommodation.
40
166. Plaintiff does not seek anything more than the right to safety, the right to egress, and the right to freedom in the event of a disaster. Plaintiffs reasonable expectations are nothing more than what the Home Depot's duty of care should provide to its customers, employees, and first responders in the community. There is an unspoken contention between my employer and me about my refusal to shop at the store because of safety, and now it is part of my permanent employment record that I refused shop there and purchase products for the company. Plaintiff turned in his Home Depot credit card to the office with the notice that would no longer shop there because of the lack of safety. Plaintiffs employer has made concessions and accommodations because of plaintiff's handicaps and is not making him go back into the stores against his will. Plaintiff enjoys his place of employment and would not do anything to compromise this, but there are limitations and this limitation is that plaintiff will not shop at Home Depot stores until safety conditions improve. 167. Plaintiff's employer appreciates the job he does for the company and the clients. Plaintiffs employer does not fully understand the personal, physical, and mental reasons for him not shopping there, but nevertheless respects him for his overall job performance and understands that plaintiff greatly respects safety and will do nothing to compromise safety. Even though plaintiff no longer provides his employer with the opportunity of utilizing the Home Depot facilities for the value and the availability of materials, his employer and his clients have to pay and bear the burden of plaintiff not shopping at Home Depot and having to provide procurement of materials from other sources which takes time, effort, expense, and multiple resources which places additional burden and expense upon the company, their clients, and upon plaintiff As a project manager, plaintiff refuses to direct or solicit any of the company employees under my direction to shop at Home Depot stores. Plaintiff cannot refuse any direction from my employer to have his employees to stop or deny any personnel under my direction who want to shop at Home Depot stores. They all know how plaintiff strongly feels about safety and they all
49
know that plaintiff thinks Home Depot stores lack of safety. Plaintiff has no legal right to stop them from shopping anywhere. 168. Plaintiff sent a complaint letter to Frank Blake, CEO, of Home Depot Corporation back in October 2008 with photographic documentation depicting the unlawful activity at several stores in the San Diego area. This letter was sent in an attempt to improve safety and to complain about being banished from the store for taking a photograph of an obstructed fire exit while on their property, which is against their company rules of taking photographs on the property without permission. Home Depot sent plaintiff a letter saying that he could shop in the store so long as he did not take photographs on the property of the Home Depot to which plaintiff complied. 169. There was no written response from the corporation that addressed any of the issues pertaining to the lack of safety, the unlawful activity, the obstructions to the means of egress, and lack of safety at many of their facilities in my complaint letter and photographic evidence presented to them. Their senior legal counsel at the time, Mr. Michael Dalton from Atlanta, Georgia, had called me and e-mailed on several occasions. He stated that the Home Depot Corporation is and always is in compliance with the law. This is in the face of the fact that plaintiff had filed two Cal/OSHA complaints for the Sports Arena store and the Genesee store. This, with the direct evidence of photographs to substantiate the obstruction to the means of egress, and this was at the time the Home Depot Corporation had a court-ordered injunction, which required superior fire protection at all their facilities. Mr. Dalton's attempt and effort to deny the truth, obstructed rule of law, and failed to comply with regulations, codes, and standards and/or obligations of a publicly traded corporation illustrated the fact that this corporation will never succumb to any evidence and facts of their unlawful, unfair, fraudulent, and misleading conduct. 170. Home Depot will never, ever, accept or admit to their alleged unlawful, fraudulent, negligent, and misrepresentations of the truth of the alleged unlawful conduct now or in the future. These denials are in the face of the facts of the truth and substantiated with photographic evidence, all illustrate their attempt to hide the facts of their guilt to their
50
alleged unlawfulness. At the time Plaintiff continued to shop within many of the Home Depot stores and still voiced opposition and his right to obtain safety to store management about the lack of means of egress at many facilities. Plaintiff respected defendant's property rights by not photographing on their property at that time. 171. Plaintiff has the right to continue to photograph the unlawful acts from the public right-of-way. To date, plaintiff has photographed thousands of unlawful acts and continuous unlawful conduct by defendant's operations in violation of California Fire Codes, California Building Codes, and Cal/OHSA Safety Regulations. Since 2009, Plaintiffs physical health condition has deteriorated because of the effects of Parkinson's and a car accident that plaintiff had in 2010, the effects of which required partial fusion of plaintiffs neck. Plaintiff also has been treated for many years the major depression, anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress, and obsessive-compulsive (OCD) that has affected plaintiff most of his life. Plaintiff also has dyslexia for which he has not been treated. This has not stopped plaintiff from being gainfully employed throughout this time, but plaintiffs heath has limited his ability to perform his employment responsibilities, and his employer has made concessions to accommodate plaintiffs handicaps. 172. Plaintiff has an obsessive-compulsive, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder that directly affects him each day. It is aggravated by the lack of means of egress. Plaintiffs childhood experience consisted of an event on a New York City street corner that traumatized plaintiff because of the stampede. Plaintiff always reviews the means of egress upon entering any place, i.e., business, theaters, restaurants, parks, or any places where the public assembles. Plaintiff is obsessed with past disasters from the Triangle Shirt Waist Fire and all fire disasters, especially 9/11, and all of the disasters to the present date. In many of these situations, means of egress was not available, the means of egress was not durable, and innocent people died because of that. Plaintiff feels that all the fire codes and building codes that exist today were established in direct response to the loss of innocent lives in these past disasters. For this reason, plaintiff has a genuine respect and regard for the rule of law to the means of egress.
51
173. Identifiable events at the Fairmount Home Depot store that caused plaintiff's interaction with defendant's place of business, Home Depot, and the culmination of years of unlawful conduct and discrimination has caused the plaintiff additional injuries and illnesses and forces plaintiff to no longer shop and be a customer of the Home Depot facilities. These events occurred on and after July 21, 2013 and July 22, 2013 and still persist to the present date. Because of the lack of safety by Home Depot with failure to maintain the means of egress by having it obstructed, (emergency fire exits) and the interaction with the assistant store manager (Jim) and associates about reasonable accommodation to the means of egress, this aggravated and contributed to the plaintiff's anxiety and PTSD. Plaintiff was denied reasonable accommodations to safety and the right to obtain safety. The interaction in pursuit of safety aggravated plaintiff Plaintiff was discriminated in his pursuit for safety by the hostility and was challenged by Jim's statement, "Are you a business owner?" Plaintiff answered, "No." Jim asks, "How would you like it if I came to your job and challenged your safety?" "Do you expect me to have someone watching the doors all the time?" Plaintiff answered, "No, I just want you to comply with the law." Jim states, "If there is nothing else, I have no time for this." Although I had previously spoke to Jim about my concerns about the lack of egress and the blocked fire lanes at this facility, he was very aggravated at me because he had to clear the door which was obstructed, and when I had told him that the path from the door to the public was still obstructed, he informed me that he was trained in industrial safety and knew what was required of him. In the interaction with the assistant store manager, Jim, about obstruction of the means of egress and the later inability of plaintiff to remedy the problem the next day with the store manager who was unavailable and only left plaintiff with the remedy to speak with the assistant manager (Jim). Plaintiff at that time realized that his efforts were futile in his attempt to his right to obtain safety, his right to pursue safety, his right to reasonable accommodation, and thereby abandoned all hope of remedying any solution at that time and in the future by being shopper of the Home Depot stores. Plaintiff refuses to walk away and leave everyone else vulnerable to unlawful
52
activity that plaintiff is sensitive to. The plaintiff is knowledgeable and aware of the unlawful conduct that customers and employees do not know of, in that many limes the means of egress is obstructed at Home Depot facilities, including obstructed fire lanes and an overall lack of emergency preparedness. For this reason, plaintiff stands up, speaks out, is vigilant, and continues to investigate the unlawfulness, and has sent additional demand letters, filed complaints with Cal/OSHA, and put up a website exposing risks and dangers to shopper of the Home Depot, filed a complaint with city fire marshals, water officials (both potable and storm water). 174. Plaintiff is compelled to bring forth private enforcement remedy for the enforcement to the rule of law and again files this action to protect the rights, defend the lives, and to stop the unlawful conduct and discrimination by Home Depot in preparation for any future disaster. 175. Plaintiff has also attempted to seek remedy by those in authority, including the State Atty. General Office, Public Inquiry Unit - PIU: 493054. Plaintiff filed several formal complaint letters to Cal/OSHA Industrial Health and Safety Department. Reference No: 201461837 -325e, 326e, 327; g, 208888610-252-e, d, g, j, with an additional formal request about the hearing about my complaint status review. There was no review and no on-site inspection of the facilities during the course of construction and parallel business operations during the course of the alleged violations to safety. 176. Plaintiff had no remedy with Cal/OSHA. Plaintiff personally stopped at the City of San Diego Fire Marshal's Office and spoke with Mr. Willis, Fire Marshal for the City of San Diego, and voiced my concerns about the lack of safety at many of the Home Depot facilities in the San Diego area and provided photographs to illustrate the unlawful violations of Fire Codes. Mr. Willis responded that the fire department tries to conduct annual inspections, but that the city fire services have insufficient staffing to accommodate all annual inspections at all business facilities, and because of lack of staff, inspections do not happen annually. Plaintiff telephoned Mr. Willis again and told him about obstructed means of egress and blocked fire lanes at the Genesee store. Mr. Willis
53
e-mailed the store and that e-mail facilitated the fire lanes to be an unobstructed for about a week and a half, but then the fire lanes again became obstructed in an unlawful manner again. 177. Plaintiff e-mailed Mr. Willis a formal complaint violation of fire codes at the Genesee store. The formal complaint was forwarded to Juvilyn Alegre, fire prevention supervisor for the City San Diego Fire Rescue Department. She dispatched a deputy fire marshal who went to the store to address my concerns, and actions were taken by her office to ensure compliance is achieved. A fire watch was issued by the fire marshal. Even with the fire marshal dispatched to the store to investigate, the means of egress still continued to be obstructed on many occasions. During the course of construction and at the same time the automatic sprinkler system was out of service, the means of egress were obstructed, fire lanes were obstructed, and the business was still open as though nothing was compromising the safety and health of the occupants of the facility. This was at the time when the City of San Diego Deputy fire marshal ordered a fire watch at the facility. This remedy had little effect because the means of egress was obstructed and compromised during the fire watch during construction activity and during a period when the building was occupied. 178. Plaintiff also notified the City of San Diego Water Department Cross Connection Control Program because of no obvious required backflow device located at the Genesee Home Depot facility that was directly tied into the city water main and connected into the automatic sprinlder system of the facility. Again, the regulatory authorities responsible for the protection of the potable water system did not seem to address this problem, a problem that could affect the potable water system because of maintenance and fire system events at this facility. 179. The inability by those charged with public enforcement of the laws, regulatory compliance, codes and standards may not be available and/or adequate to regulate and police business activity for compliance. Whether political, economic, and for other social deficiencies, agencies responsible are stretched to their limits and thereby manifest in
54
understaffed and inadequate resources to police, regulate and oversee the duty of enforcement of business activities. Then the necessity for private enforcement remedies may be appropriate at providing needed oversight over alleged unlawful business practices that are not addressed by public authority in an attempt to provide protection and welfare of the general public and the People of the State of California. 180. For that reason, this action for private enforcement by remedy of injunction in the name of and on the behalf of all the People of the State of California and plaintiff, it becomes necessary for the enforcement of the rule of law for the preservation of the inalienable rights of all California citizens the right to pursue and obtain safety for the benefit of Emergency Preparedness and in Defense of life and liberty, for all workers, employees, customers, first responders, the disabled, elderly, minors and the general public. 181. Because of the alleged lack of regulatory compliance and contempt shown by the defendant's past actions and interactions in their disregard to regulatory enforcement and insufficient regulatory enforcement, California and plaintiff moves for PRIVATE ENFORCEMENT and takes action to enjoy defendant from their alleged unlawful business practices and the social harm that can result when business enterprises place profit over human life.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
182. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Home Depot has discriminated against plaintiff by violating plaintiff's rights to public accommodation and inalienable rights to safety, the inalienable right to obtain safety, and inalienable the right to defend life and liberty, enacted under the California State Constitution. 183. Plaintiff was denied rights to public accommodations to the means of egress on many occasions by defendant's unlawful, unfair, fraudulent, and misrepresentation. On July 18, 2011, and through July 22, 2011, plaintiff was shopping at the Fairmount Home Depot store where plaintiff made several reasonable requests to defendant for equal access to public accommodations (to the means of egress) that were obstructed.
55
184. Defendant failed to provide reasonable accommodation to the means of egress, failed to keep them in a lawful manner and did not heed plaintiff's request to keep emergency fire exit unobstructed, maintained, and ready for instant usage by plaintiff and store occupants. After defendant failed to act in a lawful timely manner, plaintiffs health conditions could no longer allow plaintiff to assume the effects of the unlawful conduct and to assume the needless risk it imposed upon plaintiff and others. Plaintiff could no longer shop and purchase materials, provide for his job responsibilities, (economic loss) and the affects and aggravation to plaintiffs mental health with anxiety and PTSD symptoms (injury in fact). 185. Because of defendant's continued unlawful conduct of obstructing the fire exits and plaintiff being denied reasonable requests to the means of egress, plaintiff was discriminated by defendant's unlawful denial of plaintiffs right to public accommodation, and plaintiffs right to pursue and obtain safety by repeated requests pertaining to the means of egress being maintained and unobstructed. 186. Plaintiff alleges and claims that the defendant Home Depot has violated California Fire Codes, California Building Code, California Public Accommodations, Cal/OSHA requirements, and violated laws of the California Constitution regarding the right to safety. All claims in this action against the Home Depot occurred during times relevant to the allegations set forth in this complaint. Home Depot has created unlawful conditions, failing to operate and maintain its facilities in a reasonable manner and lawful manner. These claims also consist of alleged misrepresentation of the conditions of store safety and that of the stores' emergency preparedness system that were made on the inside of the facility. These representations being made by posted exit signs at emergency fire exit access locations (emergency fire exit doors) were visible to customers from the inside and this was a misrepresentation of the facts on many occasions by the fact that the means egress (exit discharges outside the exit doors) were being obstructed and unavailable for customers and employees.
56
187. Any reasonable person would assume that the means of egress (emergency fire exit doors) would be available and durable for instant use as represented by the defendant's required exit signage. But in fact was actually misleading and misrepresented the means of egress by the unlawful, fraudulent, and negligent conditions behind the exit doors that were not visible to the occupants within the facility. 188. The following facilities are those where plaintiff has shopped and/or has personally witnessed and documented the unlawful acts set forth in this complaint and plaintiff can and will provide a preponderance of evidence to substantiate these allegations of the unlawful conduct that has gone on for many years because of defendant's failure to comply either with their minimum responsibility under the law. Plaintiff again alleges and claims each Home Depot facility listed below were within the fast past four years, and on many occasions prior to that, and still are in violation of California Fire Codes and California Building Codes, Cal/OSHA, regulations, codes, and standards and fails to provide for public accommodation laws to this day. 189. ENCEVITAS - 1001 El Camino Real Alleged violations: Obstruction of the
-
means of egress (exit discharge) and fire lanes on multiple occasions, multiple times. In violation of the CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE Title 24, Part 9, Chapter 10- Means of Egress, Section 1030 Maintenance of the Means of Egress, 1030.1 General. The means of egress for buildings and portions thereof shall be maintained in accordance with this section - California codes of regulations Title 19 Division one, 3.11(a) through (d) exits, isles, ramps, corridors, and passageways. (a) no person shall install, place or permit the installation or replacement of any bed, chair, equipment, concession, turnstile, ticket office or anything whatsoever in a manner which would block or obstruct the required width of any exit. 190. Violation of the State of California Department of Industrial relations (Cal OHSA) Title 8, Subchapter 7 - General Industrial Safety Orders, General Industrial Standards, CCR 3220- Emergency Action Plan (e) , 3215 Means of Egress (a)(e)(f)(g), section 1920
57
general requirements (b) section 3227 discharge from exits (a)(c) section 3225 maintenance, and access to exits. 191. Oceanside 3838 - West. Vista Way - Alleged violation: Obstruction of the means of egress exit discharge, Section 1030 Maintenance of the Means of Egress. 1030.1 General. The means of egress for buildings and portions thereof shall be maintained in accordance with this section - California codes of regulations title 19 division one, 3.11(a) through (d) exits, isles, ramps, corridors, and passageways. (a) no person shall install, place or permit the installation or replacement of any bed, chair, equipment, concession, turnstile, ticket office or anything whatsoever in a manner which would block or obstruct the required width of any exit, obstruction automatic sprinkler control valves, obstruction fire hydrants, obstruction fire lanes, obstruction of exit discharge corridors. Alleged violation of the CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE Title 24, part- 9, Chapter 10 - Means of Egress Section 1003 - General Means of Egress, Section Chapter 5 - Fire Service Features, Chapter 6 - Building Services and Systems. Alleged violation Pursuant to CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE TITLE 24 Part 9 Chapter 9 Fire Protection System. Section 912 Fire Department Connection, 912.1 With respect to hydrants, driveways, buildings and landscaping, fire department connection shall be located that fire apparatus and hose connected to supplies of the system will not obstruct access to the building or other fire apparatus. 912.2.1 Visible location fire department connection shall be located on a street side of the building, fully visible and recognizable from the street or nearest point of fire department vehicle access or is otherwise approved by fire chief. 912.3 Access. Immediate access to fire department connection shall be maintained at all times and without obstructions by fences, brushes, trees, walls or any other fixed or removable objects. Alleged violation 401.8 Interferes with fire department operations. It shall be unlawful to interfere with, attempt to, interfere with, conspire to interfere with, or obstruct or restrict mobility of or block the path of travel of the fire department emergency vehicle in any
58
way or to interfere with, attempt to interfere with, conspire to interfere with, obstruct or hamper any fire department operation. 192. State of California Department of Industrial Relations (Cal OHSA) Title 8, Subchapter 7. General Industrial Safety Orders, General Industrial Standards, CCR 3220Emergency Action Plan (e) , 3215 Means of Egress (a)(e)(0(g), section 1920 general requirements(b) section 3227 discharge from exits(a)(c) section 3225 maintenance, and access to exits.
193. Mira Mesa 10604 Westview Pkvvv - Alleged violation: Obstruction to the means
of egress, obstruction of exit discharge corridor - Alleged violation of Section 1030 Maintenance of the Means of Egress. 1030.1 General. The means of egress for buildings and portions thereof shall be maintained in accordance with this section - California codes of regulations title 19 division one, 3.11(a) through (d) exits, isles, ramps, corridors, and passageways. (a) no person shall install, place or permit the installation or replacement of any bed, chair, equipment, concession, turnstile, ticket office or anything whatsoever in a manner which would block or obstruct the required width of any exit. Failure to provide illumination in the exit discharge corridor and obstruction a fire lanes, alleged violation of the CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE Title 24, part 9, Chapter 10 - Means of Egress Section 1003General Means of Egress, Section Chapter 5- Fitt Service Features, and Chapter 6 Building Services and Systems. 194. Alleged violation of State of California Department of Industrial Relations (Cal OHSA) Title 8, Subchapter 7. General Industrial Safety Orders, General Industrial Standards, CCR 3220- Emergency Action Plan (e), 3215 Means of Egress (a)(e)(f)(g), section 1920 general requirements (b) section 3227 discharge from exits (a)(c) section 3225 maintenance, and access to exits.
195. SAN DIEGO - 12185 Carmel Mountain Road Alleged violation: Obstruction
-
to the means of egress (exit discharge corridor), failure to provide illumination the exit discharge in Section 1030 Maintenance of the Means of Egress.
59
1030.1 General. The means of egress for buildings and portions thereof shall be maintained in accordance with this section - California codes of regulations title 19 division one, 3.11(a) through (d) exits, isles, ramps, corridors, and passageways. (a) no person shall install, place or permit the installation or replacement of any bed, chair, equipment, concession, turnstile, ticket office or anything whatsoever in a manner which would block or obstruct the required width of any exit, failure to provide illumination at the Means of Egress. Alleged violation of the CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE Title 24, part 9, Chapter 10 - Means of Egress, 1003 - General Means of Egress, Section1006. - Means of Egress Illumination, California Building Code Title 24, section 1003.6 - Means of egress Continuity, section 1007.1 - Accessible Means of Egress, section 1020 - Exits, and 1020.1. General. 196. Alleged violation State of California Department of Industrial Relations (Cal OHSA) Title 8, Subchapter 7. General Industrial Safety Orders, General Industrial Standards, CCR 3220 - Emergency Action Plan (e), 3215 Means of Egress (a)(e)(0(g), section 1920 general requirements (b) section 3227 discharge from exits (a)(c) section 3225 maintenance, and access to exits. 197. SAN DIEGO - 4255 Genesee Ave. NOTE: A building permit does not give license to violate the law and disregard safety and putting others at risk - Alleged violation: (a) Obstruction of the means of egress (exit discharge) Section 1030 Maintenance of the Means of Egress. 1030.1 General. Alleged violation of the means of egress for buildings and portions thereof shall be maintained in accordance with this section - California codes of regulations title 19 division one, 3.11(a) through (d) exits, isles, ramps, corridors, and passageways. (a) no person shall install, place or permit the installation or replacement of any bed, chair, equipment, concession, turnstile, ticket office or anything whatsoever in a manner which would block or obstruct the required width of any exit, (b) obstruction of the fire lanes, (c) failure to provide illumination at the means of egress multiple locations, (d) failure to provide minimum clearance at electrical transformer, (e) failure to provide
60
illumination at electrical disconnect room, (f) automatic sprinkler system out of service without a fire watch, (g) failure to conduct proper fire watch order by the fire department, (h) failure to provide backfill prevention to the automatic sprinkler system, (i) obstruction with the fire department connections and control valves, 0) failure to provide best management practices, (k) failure to provide truthful and accurate information regarding Cal OSHA complaint filed by plaintiff regarding the lack of safety at this facility during course of construction the remodeled this facility, (1) unlawful drainage and discharge of the automatic sprinlcler system and to the storm water system. The alleged violation of unlawful activity stated above in this facility and the risk it imposed was compounded by the fact that the store was undergoing a major remodel. Plaintiff alleges and asserts that this store should not have been open during the course of construction. The construction activities and unlawful conduct placed all occupants in the facility under extreme risk because of Home Depots failure to provide reasonable means of egress and emergency preparedness during this period of construction, and failed to provide fire protection system during the course of construction. Alleged violation of the CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE Title 24, part 9, Chapter 4 - Emergency Planning and Preparedness, Chapter 5Fire Service Features, Chapter 6 Building Services and Systems, Chapter 10 - Means of Egress - As adapted in California fire code (CFC) and California building codes (CBC), regulations title 24, Part 9, chapter 10, Means of Egress, section 1001.2 Minimum Requirements. It shall be unlawful to alter a building or structure in a manner that will reduce the number of exits or the capacity of the means of egress to less than required by this code. 198. Alleged violation of 401.8 - Interferes with fire department operations. It shall be unlawful to interfere with, attempt to, interfere with, conspire to interfere with, or obstruct or restrict mobility of or block the path of travel of the fire department emergency vehicle in any way or to interfere with, attempt to interfere with, conspire to interfere with, obstruct or hamper any fire department operation. Pursuant to CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE TITLE 24 Part 9, chapter 9, Fire Protection System. Section 912 - Fire Department
61
Connection. 912.1 Installation. Fire department connection shall be installed in accordance with the NFPA standard applicable to the system design and shall comply with sections 912.2 through 912.6, 912.2. Location - With respect to hydrants, driveways, buildings and landscaping, fire department connection shall be located so that fire apparatus and hose connected to supplies of the system will not obstruct access to the building or other fire apparatus. 912.2.1 Visible location fire department connection shall be located on a street side of the building, filly visible and recognizable from the street or nearest point of fire department vehicle access or is otherwise approved by fire chief. 912.3 Access. Immediate access to fire department connection shall be maintained at all times and without obstructions by fences, brushes, tees, walls or any other fixed or removable objects. 199. Alleged violation - Chapter 33- Fire Safety During Construction and Demolition, Part WI, APPENDICES - D - Fire Apparatus Access Roads. SECTION 1410 - ACCESS FOR FIREFIGHTING. Alleged violation of 1410.1 Required access - approved vehicle access for firefighters shall be provided at all construction and demolition sites. Vehicle access shall be provided within 100 feet of temporary or permanent fire department connections. Vehicle access shall be provided by either temporary or permanent road, capable of supporting vehicle load under all weather conditions. Vehicle access shall be maintained until permanent fire apparatus access roads are available. 200. Alleged violation of 912.5 - Backflow Protection. The potable water supply to automatic sprinklers and standpipe systems shall be protected against backflow as required by health and safety code section 13114.7. 201. Alleged violation of Chapter 6 - Section 605 - Electrical equipment, wiring and hazards - 605.3 Working Spacing Clearances. 605.2 Illumination. 202. Alleged violation of the State of California Department of Industrial Relations (Cal OHSA) Title 8, subchapter 7, General Industrial Safety Orders, General Industrial Standards, CCR 3220- Emergency Action Plan (e) 3215 Means of Egress (a)(e)(f)(g),
62
section 1920 general requirements (b) section 3227 discharge from exits (a)(c) section 3225 maintenance, and access to exits - (a)(1)(2) section 3216, Electrical Equipment Wires and Hazards. Title 24, Part two, section 2 - 3301(e), section 2-3312(f)(g) 203. Alleged violation of FIRE SAFETY DURING CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION. This chapter outlines general fire safety precautions for all structures and all occurrences during construction and demolition operation. In general, these requirements seek to maintain required levels of fire protection, limit fire spread, establish the appropriate operation of equipment, prompt response to fire emergencies. Features regularly include fire protection systems, firefighting access to site and building, means of egress, hazardous material storage and use of temporary heating equipment and other sources of ignition sources. 204. Alleged violation of SECTION 1414 AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM. 1414.1 Completion before occupancy. In buildings where an automatic sprinkler system is required by code or, the California building code, it shall be unlawful to occupy any portion of a building or structure until the automatic sprinkler system installation has been tested and approved. 205. Alleged violation of SECTION 109, 109.1 Unlawful acts. It shall be unlawful for a person, firm or a corporation, to erect, construct, altar, repair, remove, demolish or utilize the building, occupancy, premises or system regulated by this code, will cause same to be done in conflict with or in violation of any of the provisions of this code. 206. SECTION 110 UNSAFE BUILDINGS 110.1 General. If during the inspection of the premises, a building or structure or any building system, in which or in part constitute a clear and imminent threat to human life, safety or health, the fire code official shall issue such notice or orders to remove or remedy the conditions as shall be deemed necessary in accordance with this section and shall refer the building to the building department for any repairs, alterations, remodeling, removal or demolition required. 207. Alleged violation of 110.1.1 Unsafe Conditions. Structures or existing equipment that hereafter become unsafe or defective because of inadequate means of egress or which
63
constitute a fire hazard, or are otherwise dangerous to human life or the public welfare, or which involve illegal or improper occupancy or an adequate maintenance, shall be deemed as unsafe conditions. 208. Plaintiff is aware and informed and therefore alleges that during the course of construction at the Genesee store adequate best management practices were not used on the west side of the building for several months during the course of construction. This allowed for pollutants and sediment to run off the property and down into the public catch basins and waterways. This happened on several occasions and was both documented with photographs and video. 209. Alleged violation of State of California Department of Industrial Relations (Cal OHSA) Title 8, Subchapter 7. General Industrial Safety Orders, General Industrial Standards, CCR 3220- Emergency Action Plan (e), 3215 Means of Egress (a)(e)(f)(g), section 1920 general requirements(b) section 3227 discharge from exits (a)(c) section 3225 maintenance, and access to exits. 210. Alleged violation of California Building Code Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 9 - Fire Protection Systems, section 912.3, Access - 912.3.2 , 912.5, Backflow Protection - The potable water supply to automatic sprinklers and standpipe systems shall be protected against backflow as required by health and safety code section 13114.7. 211. SAN DIEGO - 3555 Sports Arena Blvd. - Alleged violation: Means of Egress obstructed and obstruction to fire lanes, Alleged violation of SECTION 1030 MAINTENANCE OF THE MEANS OF EGRESS. 1030.1 General. The means of egress for buildings and portions thereof shall be maintained in accordance with this section - California codes of regulations title 19 division one, 3.11(a) through (d) exits, isles, ramps, corridors, and passageways. (a) no person shall install, place or permit the installation or replacement of any bed, chair, equipment, concession, turnstile, ticket office or anything whatsoever in a manner which would block or obstruct the required width of any exit.
64
212. Alleged violation of unlawful discharge of the automatic sprinlder system and to the public storm drain. Failure to provide fire watch during the time when the automatic sprinkler system was out of service and the means of egress were obstructed. Failure to provide backflow prevention to the automatic sprinkler system. 213. Alleged violation of CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE Title 24, part 9, Chapter 10 Means of Egress. As adapted in California fire code (CFC) and California building codes (CBC), regulations title 24, Part 9, chapter 10, Means of Egress, section 1001.2 Minimum Requirements. It shall be unlawful to alter a building or structure in a manner that will reduce the number of exits or the capacity of the means of egress to less than required by this code. 214. Alleged violation of CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 9 - Fire Protection Systems, section 912.3, Access - 912.3.2 , 912.5, Backflow Protection. The public potable water supply to automatic sprinklers and standpipe systems shall be protected against backflow as required by health and safety code section 13114.7., Chapter 10 - Means of Egress, Section 1003 - General Means of Egress, Section 1006. Means of Egress Illumination, Section 1003.6 - Means of Egress Continuity, Section 1007.1 - Accessible Means of Egress, Section 1020 - Exits, 1020.1. General- Section 0276.6 - Access to Public Way. 216. Alleged violation of State of California Department of Industrial Relations (Cal OHSA) Title 8, Subchapter 7. General Industrial Safety Orders, General Industrial Standards, CCR 3220- Emergency Action Plan (e) , 3215 Means of Egress (a)(e)(0(g), section 1920 general requirements (b) section 3227 discharge from exits (a)(c) section 3225 maintenance, and access to exits.
217. SAN DIEGO 5920 - Fairmount Ave. Alleged violation: Obstruction of means of
-
egress and obstruction of fire lanes multiple times, multiple locations. SECTION 1030 Maintenance of the Means of Egress. 1030.1 General. The means of egress for buildings and portions thereof shall be maintained in accordance with this section - California codes of regulations title 19 division one, 3.11(a) through (d) exits,
65 '
isles, ramps, corridors, and passageways. (a) no person shall install, place or permit the installation or replacement of any bed, chair, equipment, concession, turnstile, ticket office or anything whatsoever in a manner which would block or obstruct the required width of any exit. 218. Obstruction of the fire lanes on multiple occasions and denial of plaintiffs rights to public accommodations by discriminating and failing to provide plaintiffs rights pursuing and obtaining safety to the means of egress. 219. Alleged violation of discrimination of plaintiffs INALIENABLE RIGHTS CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 1- DECLARATION OF RIGHTS Section 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
INALIENABLE RIGHTS. Among those are ENJOYING AND DEFENDING LIFE
AND LIBERTY, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, AND PURSUING AND OBTAINING SAFETY, HAPPINESS, AND PRIVACY. 220. Alleged violation of CAL. CIV. CODE 4 51: California Code - Section (a) this section shall be known, and may be cited, as the "Unruh Civil Rights Act." 221. Alleged violation of CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 54.1 Provides specific protection to disabled individuals in attaining full and equal access to all public accommodations and their advantages, facilities, and privileges to places of accommodation, amusement, resort, and to other places to which the general public is invited. 222. Alleged violation of the CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE Title 24, part 9, Chapter 4 Emergency Planning and Preparedness, Chapter 5- Fire Service Features, Chapter 6 Building Services and Systems, Chapter 10 - Means of Egress Section 1003- General Means of Egress, Part VII APPENDICES - D Fire Apparatus Access Roads. 223. Alleged violation of the State of California Department of Industrial Relations (Cal OHSA) Title 8, subchapter 7. General Industrial Safety Orders, General Industrial Standards, CCR 3220- Emergency Action Plan (e), 3215 Means of Egress (a)(e)(0(g), section 1920 general requirements (b) section 3227 discharge from exits (a)(c) section
66
3225 maintenance, and access to exits. 401.8 Interferes with fire department operations. It shall be unlawful to interfere with, attempt to, interfere with, conspire to interfere with, or obstruct or restrict mobility of or block the path of travel of the fire department emergency vehicle in any way or to interfere with, attempt to interfere with, conspire to interfere with, obstruct or hamper any fire department operation.
224. EL CAJON - 298 Fletcher Pkwv. Alleged violation of obstructed means of
Egress and obstructed fire lanes, multiple times, multiple locations. Section 1030 Maintenance of the Means of Egress. 1030.1 General. The means of egress for buildings and portions thereof shall be maintained in accordance with this section - California codes of regulations title 19 division one, 3.11(a) through (d) exits, isles, ramps, corridors, and passageways. (a) no person shall install, place or permit the installation or replacement of any bed, chair, equipment, concession, turnstile, ticket office or anything whatsoever in a manner which would block or obstruct the required width of any exit. Fire lanes obstructed multiple occasions, failure to provide clearance for electrical transformer service, failure to provide clearance for electrical panel service, storing combustible materials in the exit discharge, obstruction a fire hydrant, and obstruction to emergency gas disconnect. Alleged violation of CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE Title 24, part 9, Chapter 4 - Emergency Planning and_Preparedness, Chapter 5- Fire Service Features, Chapter 6 Building Services and Systems 401.8 Interferes with fire department operations. It shall be unlawful to interfere with, attempt to, interfere with, conspire to interfere with, or obstruct or restrict mobility of or block the path of travel of the fire department emergency vehicle in any way or to interfere with, attempt to interfere with, conspire to interfere with, obstruct or hamper any fire department operation. Chapter 10 - Means of Egress Section 1003- General Means of Egress. 225. Alleged violation of the State of California Department of Industrial Relations (Cal OHSA) Title 8, Subchapter 7. General Industrial Safety Orders, General Industrial Standards, CCR 3220- Emergency Action Plan (e) 3215 Means of Egress (a)(e)(f)(g),
67
section 1920 general requirements (b) section 3227 discharge from exits(a)(c) section 3225 maintenance, and access to exits. No person shall install or place any combustible materials or equipment or expose to any exit. No person shall install, place or permit the installation or placement of any storage materials of any kind in any exit regardless of the required width of such exit. 226. LEMON GROVE - 7530 Broadway Alleged violation: Obstruction to the
-
Means of Egress and Fire lanes. Section 1030 - Maintenance of the Means of Egress. 1030.1 General. The means of egress for buildings and portions thereof shall be maintained in accordance with this section - California codes of regulations title 19 division one, 3.11(a) through (d) exits, isles, ramps, corridors, and passageways. (a) no person shall install, place or permit the installation or replacement of any bed, chair, equipment, concession, turnstile, ticket office or anything whatsoever in a manner which would block or obstruct the required width of any exit and obstruction of structure fire lanes, obstruction of fire sprinkler control valves, failure to maintain fire line signage. 227. Alleged violation of CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE Title 24, part 9, Chapter 4 Emergency Planning and Preparedness, Chapter 5- Fire Service Features, Chapter 6 Building Services and Systems, Chapter 10 - Means of Egress Section 1003 - General Means of Egress - Pursuant to CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE TITLE 24, Part 9, chapter 9 Fire Protection System. Section 912 Fire Department Connection. 912.1 Installation. Fire department connection shall be installed in accordance with the NFPA standard applicable to the system design and shall comply with sections 912.2 through 912.6 912.2. Location - With respect to hydrants, driveways, buildings and landscaping, fire department connection shall be located that fire apparatus and hose connected to supplies of the system will not obstruct access to the building or other fire apparatus. 912.2.1 Visible location fire department connection shall be located on a street side of the building, fully visible and recognizable from the street or nearest point of fire department vehicle access or is otherwise approved by fire chief. 912.3 Access. Immediate access to
68
fire department connection shall be maintained at all times and without obstructions by fences, brushes, trees, walls or any other fixed or removable objects. 228. Alleged violation of the State of California Department of Industrial Relations (Cal OHSA) Title 8, subchapter 7. General Industrial Safety Orders, General Industrial Standards, CCR 3220 - Emergency Action Plan (e) 3215 Means of Egress (a)(e)(f)(g), section 1920 general requirements (b) section 3227 discharge from exits (a)(c) section 3225 Maintenance, and access to exits. 229. San Marcos - 550 San Marcos Blvd. Alleged violations: Obstruction of the means egress (exit discharge). 230. The Plaintiff has accumulated and documented sufficient and ample proof of defendant's alleged conduct with photographic evidence through thorough incremental investigation and by lawful observation over time. The preponderance of evidence will be used to construct a solid foundation upon the bedrock of truth that will substantiate the alleged defendant's unlawful, unfair, fraudulent, and misleading conduct. This evidence will provide confirmation and will build a tier of facts that will substantiate allegations beyond a reasonable doubt of defendant's alleged unlawful business practices. Plaintiff has personally investigated, personally photographed, and has documentation correspondence to Cal/OSHA officials, California Fire Department, and California Attorney General, pertaining to the allegations stated above. Plaintiff alleges that each and every one of these facilities at one time or another in the past four years, and even prior to that has conducted business in an unlawful manner on multiple occasions, in violation of California Fire codes, California Building Codes, Cal/OSHA California Public Accommodations law, and in violation of the rights of all California citizens to pursue and obtain the right of safety.. 231. Plaintiff is aware, plaintiff is informed, and plaintiff therefore alleges that many of the unlawful practices, conduct, and risk associated with these unlawful elements are created by inadequate training, inadequate resources, inadequate effort, inadequate compliance, inadequate regulatory inspection, inadequate corporate governance,
69
inadequate culture of safety, inadequate staffing, inadequate moral fortitude, inadequate social responsibility, and negligent attitude towards duty of care to customers and employees, vendors and workers. All these deficiencies lead to the overall deprivation of trust by those in authority and are not shared and disclosed to the public, customers, employees, and shareholders of this corporation. 232. Plaintiff is aware, plaintiff is informed and therefore plaintiff alleges that the defendant Home Depot solicits children into its stores for its Home Depot Kids Workshop. Plaintiff knows of the danger of defendant's alleged unlawful conduct and is very concerned for the overall welfare of the children who participate in these workshops at the Home Depot facilities, which are not playgrounds. This workshop provides craft activities provided by defendant that includes materials, tools, fasteners (nails/brads) to each of its workshop participants free of charge. Many children that participate in this workshop are not provided with adequate eye protection and safety training for the benefit of themselves and other children around them. Hammers have warning labels on them to educate the user that the tool requires proper eye protection when used. The fasteners should have similar warning labels and the packaging also informs the user of the need to wear proper eye protection when installing these fasteners. Defendant fails to provide support in the matter of safety education, appropriate eye protection, and supervision in the proper use of the tools and fasteners. This lack of duty of care for children and other participants in the Home Depot Kids Workshops put children and others in jeopardy of severe harm. The fraudulent misrepresentation of the corporate speech pertaining to the Kids Workshop stands in contrast to the actual conditions and actions of the participants. Defendant's talk about proper safety in their corporate speech which is not practiced in the Home Depot Kids Workshop programs. The evidence of lack of safety at these workshops is evident from many YouTube videos that illustrate the lack of eye protection by those who participate and those around them. 233. Defendant is aware and plaintiff is informed and therefore alleges that the Home Depot solicits children into its Home Depot Kids Workshop and at the same time neglects
its duty of care to its responsibility to provide emergency egress and emergency preparedness at the facilities where the kids workshops are conducted and where children, families, elderly, handicapped, and individuals are more vulnerable to the risk of an emergency situation. 234. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that during the time period alleged in this complaint, the defendant conducted business at several of its facilities and marketed, advertised, supplied, and offered for sale and/or sold products in a unlawful manner by negligently failing to comply with this duty of care, ordinary care, reasonable care, and its strict liability in maintaining its regulatory responsibility to California Fire Code, Cal/OSHA Standards, Premises Liability, duty of the store or business owner, and duty of preparedness. The people are informed and believe and therefore alleges the defendant has violated and still violates California's Business and Professional Code UCL Unfair Business practices by engaging in conduct that constitutes unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent acts and discriminated and violated plaintiffs, California's, civil rights by failing to provide reasonable care and minimum compliance to safety and disregarded plaintiff's right to seek safety, pertaining to lack of emergency preparedness by: (a) Failing to maintain all components of the MEANS OF EGRESS (emergency fire exits). (b) Obstructing and minimizing fire lane access and fire department connections and control valves. (c) Failing to provide proper fire watch when the automatic sprinlder system was out of service. (d) Failing to provide backflow prevention to the potable water system of the communities (e) Failing to provide minimum clearance from electrical service panel transformers and disconnect equipment. (f) Unlawful dumping of the automatic sprinlder system water into public storm drains. (g) Failing to provide best management practices during construction activity.
71
235. These alleged allegations of unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent conduct placed customers, employees, first responders, communities, and the environment they serve at risk and peril because of their failure to comply with their responsibilities under the law. 236. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that during the period of time the allegations in this complaint (July 22, 2009 through the present date) the defendant and their agents unlawfully conducted business in a reckless, deceitful, and dangerous manner that jeopardized the safety, health and lives of individuals who worked and who were invited into the Home Depot stores. 237. Home Depot solicited, invited, conducted commerce, employed individuals, and invited other workers, homeowners, families, children, and individuals into and upon their property and premises to conduct business in the State of California. Many shoppers, occupants, (including individuals that are handicapped, infants, children and the elderly) were invited into this retail warehouse facility, Home Depot, whose business model already has inherit dangers and risks with its high storage systems, racking, and materials moving in and out in a constant state of flux which exposes individuals to risks. These risks are not readily apparent to them. Then, the Home Depot acts unlawfully by obstructing the means of egress, which places additional needless risk upon the people, which is unbeknownst to them. This is unlawful, dangerous, and reckless conduct., and there is no defense for this unethical and life threatening conduct. 238. Plaintiff alleges that within the last four years Home Depot has failed to comply with its responsibility to emergency preparedness in providing a durable means of egress from their facilities. This failure also violates their obligations to duty of care in providing safety for the customers, regulatory compliance to California Fire Codes, accessibility to public accommodations in providing a lawful and reasonable access to the Means of Egress (emergency fire exits) and even reasonable care to a safe work environment for their employees. The means of egress (emergency fire exits) is a vital part of the building code that has been implemented because of loss of innocent lives in past disasters. Society demands change in laws that are enacted to mitigate future disasters in an attempt to
72
reduce the loss of innocent lives in the future. The Home Depot cannot provide appropriate emergency preparedness in a lawful manner and provide a durable means of egress from their facilities that would be used to evacuate the building in a timely manner to ensure the safety and welfare of the building's occupants and for first responders to gain ingress into the facility in an emergency situation. Fire exit doors are not just used for fire emergencies. They are critical features of the emergency preparedness system for each facility that everyone takes for granted until the moment when they become necessary doors for life and safety. The law requires that the means of egress be unblocked, unlocked, unobstructed and of sufficient amount, and maintained in durable and safe readiness for instant use. 239. This is why private enforcement is necessary because the Home Depot has failed to provide these critical, life-saving components of the emergency preparedness system, be it a fire, an earthquake, an act of terrorism, an act of violence, stampede, natural disaster, or a man-made disaster. The means of egress must be durable and ready for the evacuation of the facility at all times. These large warehouse business facilities are dangerous enough without having a way to escape in an emergency. 240. Plaintiff has photographic and documented evidence culminating over a 10 year history of gross negligence by the Home Depot in many of their San Diego facilities. Photographs and videos show the unlawful conduct of many of the means of egress (and there components) lack of illumination at exit discharges, obstructed fire lanes, obstructed electrical service disconnects, obstructed transformers, obstructed fire department connections, and obstructed fire hydrants and are blocked, unavailable, unmaintained, and in violation of many of the laws, regulations, and codes pertaining to the means of egress under California Fire Codes, Cal/OSHA regulations, California Building Codes, National Electric Codes and in violation of consumer protection laws in many of the stores in the San Diego area on a regular basis. 241. Plaintiff brings this representative action in the name of the People of the State of California seeking plaintiffs rights to safety, right to pursue safety, right to defend lives,
73
right to his privacy, right to his liberty, right to public accommodation, and plaintiffs right to bring this action as a private attorney general in the name of the People of the State of California for permanent injunction remedy to mitigate the unlawful conduct of this Corporation for the benefit of the general population and the citizens of the State of California. People of the State of California and plaintiff also bring this action for restitution of money or property taken in the alleged unlawful conduct presented in this complaint. 242. Plaintiff is aware of the fact that the Home Depot does not respect the rules of law and common decency. Plaintiff will respect the defendant's right to due process. Plaintiff prays for a lawful remedy and justice for a preliminary restraining order and preliminary injunction and a final permanent injunction, and judgment for enforcement of the rule of law. Plaintiff knows that injunction relief most likely will be inadequate in getting the Home Depot to comply to its obligation. Plaintiff intends to have this case certified as a Class Action lawsuit and have the case certified with all classes and sub-classes of individuals including customers, employees, handicapped, workers, all others that step forward to be represented. Plaintiff will allow due process and then proceed to educate and disclose the problem to the public, its stockholders, customers, and the parents of the children of the Home Depot Kids Workshop. This will expose the true corrupt power of this Corporation and its hypocrisy and overall contempt for the law by those who sit on the board of directors and reside as CEO of this Corporation. 243. The defendants and their agents of the Home Depot already had injunction judgments against them in California pertaining to noncompliance with California Fire Codes that have expired. Plaintiff knows this Corporation does not care about anything but its bottom line pursuit for profit. Plaintiffs action is intended to expose the corrupt, unlawful, fraudulent, negligent, and unfair conduct of this publicly traded Corporation. Plaintiff will bear witness and evidence to defendant's conduct to its shareholders and the general public and expose the unethical actions and inactions that jeopardize human lives
74
on a daily basis regarding the lack safety and trust for the employees and customers of the Home Depot. 244. Plaintiff has been so emotionally affected and damaged by the reckless and negligent conduct of the Home Depot because of plaintiffs inability in procuring any durable remedy or accommodations by either working with the Home Depot or working with those in authority to enforce regulatory compliance. Plaintiff is still unable to shop at the Home Depot stores because of their continued alleged unlawful conditions at their stores that still persist to this day. For this reason, plaintiff takes this legal action to stop the discrimination and to obtain reasonable accommodations by stopping the defendant's unlawful conduct of obstruction the means of egress. 245. Plaintiff also has put in place the websites homedepot911.com and homedepoticidsworkshop911.com in an attempt to seek remedy through social media to disclose the negligent, reckless, and unlawful conditions that are unbeknownst to the customers, employees, and the community that the Home Depot operates. The website documents years of photographic evidence of blocked emergency exits, obstructed fire lanes, violations of California Fire Codes, unsafe practices, and the life-threatening conditions that have gone on for years and continues to expose risk to the occupants of the stores needlessly. By defmition, negligence constitutes the failure to exercise the care that a reasonable, prudent person would take in like circumstances and the harm caused by this carelessness. The evidence on the website homedepot911.com clearly illustrates the failure of the Home Depot and their agents to provide reasonable care. The website also shows the lack of duty of care that this Corporation is supposed to provide under the law, and the failure of this Corporation, which breaches that duty to their customers, employees and individuals that patronize these establishments. 246. Plaintiffs posttraumatic stress disorder has been assaulted and aggravated to a point that emotional pain and suffering has been done to him as a result of their breach of duty and discrimination by the Home Depot and their agents. Plaintiffs repeated exposure to the unlawful reckless conditions of blocked fire exits and failure to comply with
75
emergency preparedness is the proximal cause of damages and injury and the reason for this action is taken by plaintiff For years, plaintiff has been dealing with his posttraumatic stress disorder since the tragic events of 9/11. Plaintiff does not need to personally assume risk of these dangerous environments and expose himself to stressful situations by the unlawful conduct of the Home Depot. Plaintiff feels he has a duty and responsibility to society, and Plaintiff cannot not just walk away from the unlawful conduct of this Corporation, which would leave others in peril unbeknownst to them. Plaintiff also attempts to inform stockholders of their investment in a Corporation whose leadership allows this business to operate in an unlawful, reckless and dangerous manner. Plaintiffs efforts repeatedly expose him to this stress in his attempts to abate the problem. Plaintiff fears that history will again repeat itself and that a disaster will happen, be it a fire, earthquake, act of violence, or man-made or natural disaster if it was to occur in one of these Home Depot stores. The loss of innocent lives and the sorrow that would surround such a tragic event would in hindsight expose the reckless conduct of the Home Depot, illustrating the failure and negligence of the Home Depot to provide emergency preparedness and regulatory compliance to emergency fire exits, fire lanes, and other components to the emergency preparedness system which are not ready, not durable and nonexistent when needed in an evacuation of these facilities. The Home Depot's deep pockets do not mean anything to plaintiff; loss of innocent human lives should not be bought off and looked at as a cost of business. We have laws, we have regulations, we have codes, we have standards, we have rights that are intended to protect the weak, the innocent and that of all citizens from harm or death. This is America! This is not a third world country! Our citizens demand and expect higher duty of care that meets at least minimum requirements instituted under these laws. Plaintiffs physical and psychological condition compel plaintiff to act for the benefit of all citizens and in the memory of past innocent victims that have perished in disasters. 247. Plaintiff, in the last several months, has filed complaints with the Home Depot Corporation, Cal/OSHA, the Department of Justice, State Atty. Gen. of California, the
76
City Fire Marshal of San Diego, the Dist. Atty. for the City of San Diego, and the Attorney for the City of San Diego. This problem has persisted for way too long, and the reasons for it are very dynamic in the fact that those responsible to enforce compliance to regulatory rules are overwhelmed, lack resources, lack personnel, are underfunded, and fail to police the Home Depot adequately and thus the Home Depot Corporation takes advantage of the situation. With no action being taken, it will be a matter of time before disaster strikes once again and society will have to repeat the loss of human lives and suffer because of the indifference to the human condition and the greed of this corporation. Fire officials have admitted to me that that they do not perform regular inspection of the Home Depot facilities. Plaintiff is not looking for perfection, but just the minimum compliance to the obligations, responsibility, and duty of care to the citizens of the State of California 248. Home Depot fails to provide even minimal compliance to laws, regulations, and codes and fails to provide even minimal compliance pertaining to emergency preparedness and safety. It is in denial of the fact that it does not provide proper duty of care, denies it is in noncompliance to its obligation to provide means of egress. It denies failure to provide adequate training, resources, and compliance to meet its regulatory obligations. Because this Corporation has a failed organizational safety culture, and this corporation does not care to provide needed training resources and discipline to employees, management, and those responsible in their present safety culture, be it asset protection loss control or In Focus training system, it is all dysfunctional and ineffective and a fraud and just represents a false faade of safety. 249. Plaintiff is informed and believes and hereby alleges that during the period of the allegations in this complaint, the defendant's actions and/or omissions are part of a continuous course of fraudulent, negligent conduct and business practices and is the cause of this legal action being taken for violations alleged herein. Defendants and each of them are responsible and could have taken actions to prevent the unlawful actions, conditions, and/or omissions.
77
250. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that during the period of time alleged in the allegations in the complaint, defendant knowingly knew and/or should have known of the unlawful conduct and continued failure to be in compliance with laws and regulations covering its business activity. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereby alleges that during the past several months the Home Depot facility located at 4255 Genesee Ave. had gone under a major remodel that lasted for several months. 251. Plaintiff has witnessed and documented and has informed authorities of the unlawful conduct that happened when the Home Depot decided to stay open for business over a period of time when the facility was under a course of construction. This activity presented additional inherent risk unbeknownst to customers. Many of the means of egress on multiple sides of the store were obstructed, blocked and not available for emergency evacuation, and for a period of time when the automatic sprinkler system was under repair (water supply and supply pipes to the facility were disconnected and turned off over 48 hours). The building had no automatic sprinkler system available for the protection of the facility during that time unbeknownst to the occupants, many employees, and anyone that was in the store at that time. Those in responsibility failed to notify fire officials and there was no fire watch that was readily apparent, because at the same time many of the means of egress on multiple sides of the building were unavailable, obstructed, blocked and grossly unmaintained under the situation when the automatic sprinkler system was off-line and unavailable to protect the occupants of the facility. All this while the course of construction continued that left the facility in the state of disarray and fire lanes compromised and obstructed. Fire department connections were inaccessible. Those in authority that operate the facility should have had the decency to shut the store down during this unlawful, risky and dangerous time All this was and is reckless and unlawful activity in the pursuit of profit. All commenced in a deceitful manner with the objective to keep the store open and to conduct business, and at the same time exposing risk and peril to the store's employees, customers, construction workers, and first responders without their knowledge.
78
252. This type of activity at this facility had been going on for several months and defendant unlawfully violated regulations pertaining to the means of egress (emergency fire exit) systems, blocked, obstructed, and altered fire lanes, fire department connections and compromised emergency preparedness by obstructing electrical disconnects, gas shutoff valves, and automatic sprinkler control valves and failed to provide means of illumination at the exit discharge of the many means of egress. 253. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that during the time of period alleged in the complaint, defendant unlawfully removed the means of egress pertaining to California Fire Codes and Cal/OSHA Standards and Regulations to facilitate construction activity. 254. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that during the time period alleged in the complaint, defendant unlawfully failed to maintain the means of egress, exit access, exit, and exit discharge. 255. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that during the alleged complaint defendant failed to maintain the components of the means of egress pertaining to illumination and other components of the emergency egress system. 256. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that during the period alleged in the complaint, defendants made false and misleading statements and/or omitted material facts implying that unlawful conditions pertaining to Cal Fire, Cal/OSHA and building code regulations were maintained and existing conditions were in compliance at a time when the noncomplying and unlawful activity persisted. Defendants and their agents attempted to minimize and deny alleged violations of lack of safety pertaining to components and the means of egress systems in a formal complaint to the Department of Industrial Relations. 257. Defendant's actions, inactions and omissions in response to the complaint provided misinformation and false statements as to the actual conditions and practices and noncompliance to the regulations in its perjured response statement to the California Department of Industrial Relations. Plaintiff's complaints were unjustly trivialized by the
79
defendant, and their false response convinced the Department of Occupational Health and Safety that it did not warrant an onsite inspection. Defendant's action violated the plaintiff's right to a formal investigation into the complaint and denial of plaintiff's due process and rights in seeking safety and justice. 258. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that during the period of time alleged in the complaint defendant and their agents unlawfully, obstructed, removed, altered and blocked the means of egress including the exit access, the exit, the exit discharge, and exit signage in a fraudulent and deceptive manner unbeknownst to the occupants of the facility. 259. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that during the period of the time alleged in the complaint the defendant and their agents acted in a fraudulent manner and practice in an attempt to mitigate complaints with deceptive and misleading statements and misrepresented the availability, durability, reliability and the use of the components (illumination) and means of egress during the course of business and the readiness of the components of the emergency preparedness system unbeknownst to the occupants. 260. Plaintiff is informed and alleges that during the period of the time alleged in the complaint the defendant acted in a manner exhibiting negligence by operating the business located at 4522 Genesee Ave., San Diego, CA, by conducting business within the facility without the required protection of the an automatic fire sprinlder system (off-line on 0521-13 at 11.15 am to 05-23-13 at 12:45 pm. - over 48 hours undergoing repair and maintenance) pursuant to Chapter 5 Public Safety, Morals and Welfare San Diego Municipal Code 55.0901 FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM (b) 901.7 problematic systems and systems out of service. Where a required fire protection system is out of service for any reason, or experiences an excessive number of accidental activations, the fire department and fire code officials shall be notified immediately and are required by fire code officials that the building shall either be evacuated and appropriate fire watch shall be provided for all occupants left unprotected by the shutdown until the fire protection
80
system has returned to service. During the alleged time, the facility was without the required implementation and benefit of a fire watch and without proper notification of fire officials. Plaintiff also alleges that at the same time many of the means of egress system doors and exit discharges were obstructed, blocked, unavailable and unmaintained on the north side, west side and south side of the facility. Fire Lanes and fire department connections were unavailable or assessable and minimized. This negligent conduct was also compounded during a time with additional inherent risk of construction activity was commencing simultaneously. 261. Plaintiff alleges this unlawful, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive and discriminating conduct by Home Depot officials was unbeknownst to the occupancy, many employees and customers during the time, all in an attempt to conduct business during an extremely risky period of construction activity for the benefit of the Home Depot. 262. Plaintiff is informed and believes that recent maintenance to the existing facility consisting of a new supply valve and underground pipe failed to bring the existing potable water system in compliance with the City of San Diego cross connection program by providing a backflow prevention valve at the property line to protect the community's potable water system from cross contamination. 263. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore contends that defendant's agents turned off the water supply system to the facility in the public right-of-way and failed to contact water authorities with jurisdiction in control and function over these valves that are public property. Plaintiff is unaware if there was any permit issued by the City Building Developmental Services Department, or department or controlling agency to conduct the maintenance operation to the automatic sprinkler system at this facility and the necessity for compliance to the City of San Diego Cross Connection Program requirements.

81
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER CALIFORNIA BUS. & PROF. CODE 417200 & 4 17500 Unlawful, Unfair, Fraudulent, Misrepresentation
(For Violation of California Civil Code 1708) Every person is bound, without contract, to abstain from injuring the person or property of another, or infringing upon any of his or her rights. 264. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference, as those set forth in full herein and re-alleges allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 263, inclusive in this complaint. 265. Plaintiff is informed and believes that within four years of commencement of this action, defendant and each of them have engaged and continue to engage in unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business acts, omissions, and/or practices that constitute unfair competition within the meaning of the Business and Professional Code 17200 including but not limited to: 266. Violation California Civil Code 1708 Every person is bound, without contract, to abstain from injuring the person or property of another, or infringing upon any of his or her rights. 267. Defendant and each of them by this first cause of action under California Civil Code 1708, has discriminated and denied plaintiffs inalienable rights to safety and obtain safety and to defend life, liberty, happiness and privacy. As adapted in the CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 1- DECLARATION OF RIGHTS Section 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among those are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. 268. Plaintiff has repeatedly requested the right to safety pertaining to emergency preparedness and adherence to California Fire Codes (pertaining to the Means of Egress) commencing thereafter the tragic terrorist attack of September 11, 2001. Defendant, and
82
each of them, have repeatedly denied plaintiffs reasonable request for accessible accommodations, compliance and adherence to the rules of law, duty of care, duty of preparation pertaining to safety in many of the Home Depot retail warehouse facilities. Plaintiff was an invited customer and shopper. Defendant has denied plaintiff and the rights of all California citizens the inalienable civil rights granted under California State Constitution. Defendant acted negligently and with reckless indifference in exercising care to plaintiff upon plaintiffs request for reasonable care. Defendant ignored, challenged, questioned, and discriminated against the right of plaintiffs safety request, which was readily achievable under California Fire Codes pertaining to emergency preparedness and maintenance of Means of Egress from the facilities. Plaintiff's reasonable request for the right to obtain safety was denied on several occasions and at multiple facility locations. 269. Plaintiff brings this first cause of action under California Civil Code 1708 that constitutes a legally recognized wrong that creates the right to bring this suit and that of other wrongs by infringing upon the rights of plaintiff, employees, customers, first responders and the general public by failing to comply with additional rights to safety as a worker, as a customer, as a citizen, and as one who acts in defense of life and liberty. Defendant's alleged unlawful violation infringes upon: (a) CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 1- DECLARATION OF RIGHTS Section 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among those are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. (b) Cal/OSHA 3215 - Means of Egress (a)(e)(f)(g). (c) California Labor Code (Section 6300), right to safety in the workplace. (d) California Fire Codes (Title 24 Part 9 Chapter 10, (Means of Egress). (e) California Building Code (Title 24 Part 9 Chapter 10, (Means of Egress). (f) Civil Code 51 et seq., 54.1 Public Accommodation Law.

83
270. Serious invasion of inalienable rights of all California citizens by infringement and denial of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. 271. Three elements of the course of action are (1) a legally protected right of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness and privacy. (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy and safety on the plaintiffs part and (3) invasion of privacy, reasonable expectation of safety, defending of life and liberty interests that is serious rather than slightly or trivial. 272. The California Supreme Court concluded that an unfair business practice occurs when that practice "offends an established public policy or when the practice is immoral, unethical, unscrupulous or substantially dangerous to consumers." 273. Unless enjoyed by court order, defendant, each of them, may and will continue the course of their conduct alleged herein. 274. Each and every separate act constitutes an unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent business practice each day. The defendant in each event engages in separate unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent acts, omissions or practices and is a separate and distinct violation of Business and Professional Code 17200. 275. As adapted in the CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 1DECLARATION OF RIGHTS Section 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among those are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. 276. To state a cause of action under the Business and Professional Code 17200 and 17500 UCL, for injunction relief, it is necessary only to show that "members of the public are likely to be deceived." Allegations of actual deception, reasonable reliance, and damages are unnecessary. Members of the public would likely to be deceived if upon the necessity to evacuation of the building in an emergency, and relying upon the representation of the exit signs and emergency exit doors to egress, whereupon necessary
84
views find them to be blocked, obstructed, and unavailable for egress because of the defendant's alleged unlawful, unfair, fraudulent, misrepresentation of the means of egress and their failure to maintain and keep durable and ready for instant use under the law. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Under 417200 - Unfair, Unlawful, and Fraudulent (For Violations of California CIV. CODE 51 et seq., 54.1 Unruh Civil Rights Act and California Public Accommodation Law) 277. Plaintiff alleges, re-affirms accusations, and incorporates reference paragraphs 1 through 276, as is fully set forth herein in this second cause of action for plaintiff and the general public rights to public accommodation. CAL. CIV. CODE 51: California Code Section (a) This Section shall be known, and may be cited, as the "Unruh Civil Rights Act". (b) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever. (c) This Section shall not be construed to confer any right or privilege on a person that is conditioned or limited by law or that is applicable alike to persons of every sex, color, race, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation. (d) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to require any construction, alteration, repair, structural or otherwise, or modification of any sort whatsoever, beyond that construction, alteration, repair, or modification that is otherwise required by other provisions of law, to any new or existing establishment, facility, building, improvement, or any other structure, nor shall anything in this Section be construed to augment, restrict, or alter in any way the authority of the State Architect to require construction, alteration, repair, or modifications that the State Architect otherwise possesses pursuant to other laws. 278. Plaintiff, Michael McGrath, is a disabled individual who meets the applicable definition of this disability as defined under Government Code Section 12926 and
85
12926.1. Plaintiff has multiple medical comorbidities of both physical and psychological disorders, conditions, diseases, afflictions, anatomical limitations, and impairments that affect one or more of the following body systems, 279. (1) Physical disabilities: (a) Neurological: Parkinsonism. Medical diagnosis and treatment since July 2009. (b) Musculoskeletal: Cervical dystonia, arthritis, facet abnormalities, fractures, misalignments and spondylolisthesis requiring cervical laminotomy with instrumentation of metal screws and rods. Congenital sacroiliac deformity. Medical diagnosis and treatment March 2010. 280. (2) Psychological disease: (a)Bipolar/2.vs. Major diagnosis 1998 hospitalization April 2001 (involuntary admissionsuicidal watch, posttraumatic stress disorder flare-up from the September 11 terrorist attack in New York and Washington, major depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive behavior, hyperactivity and OCD. Over 15 years of medical treatment, including multiple drug therapies. (b)Posttraumatic stress disorder: lifelong problem from traumatic childhood and lifelong events that manifested themselves in panic disorder, panic attack, avoiding going into areas of large crowds and uncontrollable events, OCD, anger and irritability problems, antisocial behaviors, trouble concentrating, trouble adhering to major life activities. Essential functions at work, dealing with stress, anxiety, guilt, fears, weaknesses and dealing with feelings of hopelessness, chronic sleep disorders, chronic reincarnate traumatic nightmares. Re-occurring disturbing thoughts of disasters that reflect the loss of human life and the sorrow that surrounds it. NOTE: Several years of one-on-one therapy with several psychologists rationalize, control, and support re-occurrence of anxiety, obsessive-compulsive behavior and flashbacks that are triggered by visual and traumatic events that occur periodically, (fire, disasters, and the loss of innocent human life trigger profound sadness, hopelessness profound empathy, sleep problems and focusing our lives needs).
86
281. Learning disabilities. Plaintiff is colorblind - predominately to red and green. Plaintiff have has had several learning disorders, including, attention deficit, dyslexia, and inability to spell words correctly. Plaintiff handles these disabilities by using voice activation technology, and the assistance of coworkers and that of his wife to facilitate deficiencies in speaking, writing and reading. 282. Plaintiff is a hard-working, gainfully employed individual with over 40 years in construction job experience. Plaintiffs handicaps afflict him each day, sometimes more than others. Many symptoms are brought on, aggravated by, and flare-up with both environmental and personal interactions with daily life, work, stress, commuting, essential functions, and life's events each day. Plaintiffs physical handicaps are overcome by the accommodation of his employer and coworkers who help him and accommodate him during work. Plaintiffs psychological disorders and conditions are known by the employer who makes accommodations as needed. Plaintiffs work record documents that he refuses to shop at any of the Home Depot stores and had turned in his company credit card for Home Depot into the office and complained that he would no longer shop there because of lack of safety at these facilities, and all coworkers know how plaintiff feels about the Home Depot stores being a dangerous environment where safety is not adequately provided. Plaintiff refuses to put himself at risk in entering these environments. Plaintiff would like to shop at the Home Depot stores and have the resources, the availability of materials and take advantage of cost savings, and have access to shop there, and the freedom to be a customer of the stores because of their locations. Plaintiff refuses to assume the risk to his personal mental health and his overall physical health which has started to deteriorate over the past few years, and therefore limits plaintiff's ability to assume these risks of being a customer. 283. The defendant, Home Depot is a publicly traded Corporation and operates over 200 retail warehouse facilities in California and is required to conduct business and adhere to all California Laws, Regulations, Codes, and Standards during the course of its operation and business activities including public accommodation laws.
87
284. (a) Whoever denies, aids or incites a denial, or makes any discrimination or distinction contrary to Section 51, 51.5, or 51.6, is liable for each and every offense for the actual damages, and any amount that may be determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury, up to a maximum of three times the amount of actual damage but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000), and any attorney's fees that may be determined by the court in addition thereto, suffered by any person denied the rights provided in Section 51, 51.5, or 51.6. (b) Whoever denies the right provided by Section 51.7 or 51.9, or aids, incites, or conspires in that denial, is liable for each and every offense for the actual damages suffered by any person denied that right and, in addition, the following: (1) An amount to be determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury, for exemplary damages. (2) A civil penalty of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to be awarded to the person denied the right provided by Section 51.7 in any action brought by the person denied the right, or by the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city attorney. An action for that penalty brought pursuant to Section 51.7 shall be commenced within three years of the alleged practice. (3) Attorney's fees as may be determined by the court. (c) Whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in conduct of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights described in this Section, and that conduct is of that nature and is intended to deny the full exercise of those rights, the Attorney General, any district attorney or city attorney, or any person aggrieved by the conduct may bring a civil action in the appropriate court by filing with it a complaint. The complaint shall contain the following: (1) The signature of the officer, or, in his or her absence, the individual acting on behalf of the officer, or the signature of the person aggrieved. (2) The facts pertaining to the conduct. (e) Actions brought pursuant to this Section are independent of any other actions, remedies, or procedures that may be available to an aggrieved party pursuant to any other law. 285. California Civil Code Section 54.1 (a) (1) Individuals with disabilities shall be entitled to full and equal access, as other members of the general public, to accommodations, advantages, facilities, medical
88
facilities, including hospitals, clinics, and physicians' offices, and privileges of all common carriers, airplanes, motor vehicles, railroad trains, motorbuses, streetcars, boats, or any other public conveyances or modes of transportation (whether private, public, franchised, licensed, contracted, or otherwise provided), telephone facilities, adoption agencies, private schools, hotels, lodging places, places of public accommodation, amusement, or resort, and other places to which the general public is invited, subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, or state or federal regulation, and applicable alike to all persons. (b) Any person renting, leasing, or otherwise providing real property for compensation shall not refuse to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when those accommodations may be necessary to afford individuals with a disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy the premises. 286. 21. California Civil Code Section 54.3 (a) Any person or persons, firm or corporation who denies or interferes with admittance to or enjoyment of the public facilities as specified in Sections 54 and 54.1 or otherwise interferes with the rights of an individual with a disability under Sections 54, 54.1 and 54.2 is liable for each offense for the actual damages and any amount as may be determined by a jury, or the court sitting without a jury, up to a maximum of three times the amount of actual damages but in no case less than one thousand dollars ($1,000), and attorney' s fees as may be determined by the court in addition thereto, suffered by any person denied any of the rights provided in Sections 54, 54.1, and 54.2. "Interfere," for purposes of this Section, includes, but is not limited to, preventing or causing the prevention of a guide dog, signal dog, or service dog from carrying out its functions in assisting a disabled person. (b) Any person who claims to be aggrieved by an alleged unlawful practice in violation of Section 54, 54.1, or 54.2 may also file a verified complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing pursuant to Section 12948 of the Government Code.
89
(c) A person may not be held liable for damages pursuant to both this Section and Section 52 for the same act or failure to act. 287. The cause of action stated in the above action against alleged defendant, and each of them of the Home Depot is brought by plaintiff Michael McGrath, who is handicapped, seeks relief under California Business and Professional Code 17200 "unlawful competition law" for the alleged wrongs committed by defendant for unlawful business acts and practices (discrimination) CAL. CIV. CODE 5P California Code - Section (a) This Section shall be known, and may be cited, as the "Unruh Civil Rights Act", unfair business acts and practices (discrimination), fraudulent business acts and practices of the defendants' business activities. The defendants' action and inactions also breached unlawful discrimination by denial of plaintiff's inalienable constitutional civil rights to safety and privacy, under the California State Constitution. Article 1, Section 1, to the right of safety. The Home Depot has denied plaintiffs civil rights to safety with its alleged negligent, reckless, and self-serving disregard to regulatory compliance pertaining to safety laws, codes, standards, regulations. Plaintiff has repeatedly requested the implementation and adherence to safety requirements by many of the Home Depot store employees, associates, managers, asset control/loss prevention/safety personnel. Plaintiff has sent certified mail to the CEO, Frank Blake, of the Home Depot USA, Inc. and also the Board of Directors and senior legal counsel for the Home Depot USA, Inc. voicing complaint and opposition to lack of safety in compliance to laws, regulations, codes, and standards and also informed them of my posttraumatic stress disorder in pursuit of reasonable accommodation in compliance to the rule of law to little or no avail as recently as 05/27/2013. Plaintiff sent an additional Demand Letter for Safety and compliance to the Home Depot USA, Inc. Attn: Frank Blake CEO of the Home Depot USA, Inc. This letter was also cc'd to the California District Attorney's Office, City of San Diego Fire Marshal, City of San Diego Attorney, City of San Diego Dist. Atty., and Cal/OSHA. Plaintiff has not heard back at this time from any recipients of the letter.
90
288. Plaintiff brings this action for discrimination that occurred on arid between 07/18/11 and 07/22/11. Plaintiff tended the purchase of product at the purchased price and asked the sales clerk to talk to the store manager. Plaintiff was a long-time business and private customer of the Home Depot Stores and that was the last transaction. Plaintiff has never shopped again at the Home Depot stores because of the lack of safety and the unlawful conditions at the stores. Plaintiff can no longer assume the risk associated with the unlawfulness and will no longer expose himself to the discrimination of not having reasonable accommodation to the means of egress. This action was filed on 07/22/2013 at 10:37 a.m. within the two-year statute of limitations of the occurrence of the cause of action (causation) and also falls under the Equitable Tolling Doctrine because of defendant's continued discriminatory practices that still persist to this day. On 07/18/13, plaintiff asked the checkout person if he could speak to the store manager pertaining to the problem with two front emergency fire exit door locations (the means of egress) from the facility being obstructed. The assistant manager was called to hear the complaint. Plaintiff spoke to the assistant manager, Jim, (whom he had spoken to previously on several occasions about the concern about the store's safety pertaining to egress problems at the Fairmount facility). Plaintiff again repeated the request that the fire lanes in the means of egress be kept in a lawful manner. Plaintiff requested Jim's intervention to correct the problem of the fire lane at the rear of the store being obstructed with pallets of material. Upon request for reasonable and rightful compliance to safety at the facility, Jim, the assistant manager, informed plaintiff that he was trained in industrial safety and that the problems were minor and anyone could get out of the store if they wanted to. When plaintiff informed Jim that it was unlawful to block fire lanes at the back of the store, he started to get upset with plaintiff. His response pertaining to plaintiffs accusation of the obstruction of the fire lane was that, "Any of the fire trucks could easily push the material out of the way in an emergency situation." Plaintiff explained to Jim that the fire lanes must be maintained in an unobstructed manner at all times and that anything less was unlawful and dangerous. At that time, Jim asked plaintiff if he was a business owner.
Plaintiff answered that he was not a business owner. Jim started to become upset and confrontational about the request for safety. Jim asked, "How would I like it if someone came to my job and questioned my safety practices at my workplace?" Plaintiff told him he would have no problem with that. Jim informed plaintiff that he was very busy at the time and asked if there was anything else. Plaintiff answered "Yes," and requested that he look at the emergency egress doors at the front of the facility. Upon reaching the first egress door (single door), Jim looked at plaintiff and said that he did not believe that this was an egress door. In disbelief, plaintiff reassured him that it was part of the emergency egress system within the facility. Plaintiff found it hard to believe that this assistant manager did not even know that this was emergency egress door. The fact of the matter was that there was a section of metal fence approximately 3' x 6' that was placed in front of the door. Directly in front of that was a garden hose reel of which the hose was pulled out and not reeled up. Jim moved the section of fence and the hose reel. He looked at me and said, "That was easy enough, no problem." At that point, plaintiff informed Jim that now that the emergency exit door was clear of obstructions there was still a problem with the exit discharge off that door that was obstructed. The exit discharge corridor had been narrowed down to less than required with pallets of potted trees placed in the exit discharge corridor. At that time, plaintiff requested Jim to look further down to the next emergency egress door on the front of the facility. This time it was a double door that had the same problem in that the exit discharge corridor was compromised with pallets of planting material stored in the area which was for sale. This material also encroached upon the overhead fire sprinlder system in the exit discharge corridor. Jim was not happy at all with plaintiffs interpretation and request of removal of the obstructions to meet compliance with California Fire Code Regulations pertaining to the means of egress. Plaintiff informed him that he would be happy to provide him with a copy of the requirements to the minimum standards pertaining to the means of egress if they were not available to him. Jim informed plaintiff that he was very busy and needed to get back to business and did I have any other requests. Plaintiff told him that the only request was that
92
this facility should meet the minimum requirements under the California Fire Codes pertaining to means of egress within the facility. On July 21 and 22, 2011, plaintiff returned to the Fairmount store to do some shopping. Upon seeing that nothing had changed (other than the removal of the section of fence and the hose reel by Jim the other day), the exit discharges from the store were still obstructed and unmaintained and still obstructed by pallets of material which was for sale. Plaintiff again asked the register checkout person if he could talk to the store manager about a safety problem with blocked fire exists, and that plaintiff would like to speak to him about his concerns. Plaintiff was informed the store manager was not available and that the only person available was Jim the assistant manager of the store. Upon hearing this, plaintiff told the checkout person that he did not want to speak with him and that he had previously spoken with him the day before and was already upset with him for ignoring the previous request days before to widen the exit discharge corridors at the front exits in the front of the building. The salesperson said there was no one else that could help me other than Jim. Plaintiff did not know the reason why Jim did not accommodate the request to widen the exit discharge corridor to at least its minimum requirements under the law. Plaintiff did not want to upset himself any more by speaking with Jim again. On 07/22/11, plaintiff left the store extremely upset over the event that had occurred on both days that left him without any remedy and left him feeling discriminated against by requesting and being denied reasonable public access to the means of egress at this facility. Plaintiff left in frustration, swearing never to shop at any Home Depot store from that period on. Plaintiff left humiliated with the fact that even with rational requests, the defendant's continued negligence and disregard to plaintiffs repeated lawful, reasonable request for access to public accommodations regarding the means of egress led to a confrontation and left plaintiff with a feeling of discrimination by the Home Depot and its associates. Plaintiff felt he did not have to have a confrontation over his rights to reasonable accommodation that should already have been readily available to him if the store would just have been in compliance with California Fire Code Regulations pertaining to the means of egress.
93
289. Plaintiff felt he did not have to explain his reasoning for access to the means of egress and expose his psychological condition of posttraumatic stress and its effects on him. Psychological problems would no longer allow plaintiff to assume risk in these dangerous environments that would not afford him a means of escape if he was to succumb to a panic attack or be overwhelmed by the store's condition and lack of safety. It greatly upset plaintiff and left him with a feeling of helplessness because of his present physical and mental health conditions that had been deteriorating recently because of Parkinsonism and a neck injury that left plaintiff dealing with pain both physically and emotionally. Many tragic events keep happening through history from 9/11, the station fire, the recent fire in Brazil, fires in Pakistan factory, the building collapse in Bangladesh, the recent explosion in Texas, the recent terrorist attack in Boston, the violence in Colorado, and the Connecticut school shootings which suggests we must be prepared for tragedy. Even though plaintiff suffers from mental illness over the course of his life, he still feels that even a reasonable, normal, healthy individual would still believe that the alleged unlawful conduct of obstruction of fire exits is unacceptable. Those who risk and play with the lives of others have no right in doing so. Plaintiff is saddened, depressed, and this aggravates and affects plaintiffs posttraumatic stress disorder and leaves plaintiff with no remedy and no hope and in despair. It is upsetting to see the callous indifference of the attitudes of the individuals that get away with leaving these vital components to emergency preparedness systems unavailable. Plaintiff's years of psychological therapy and coping skills are instantly rendered impotent by the gross negligence of duty of care to human life and the individuals that needlessly perish because emergency remedies are not available at the time they are needed. Plaintiff feels weak and helpless against this oppressive Corporation that takes advantage of the failures of those responsible for regulatory compliance of state regulations and those authorities who are responsible to investigate, inspect, regulate and write violations. Plaintiff therefore takes legal actions to do whatever is necessary to provide remedy for the rights, laws, regulations, codes and standards in respect to emergency preparedness. Because of the innocent victims' lives
94
lost in past disasters, plaintiff acts in their memory. This is what the plaintiff is obsessed with all the time. Plaintiff is obsessed with mitigating future victims and has contempt for those that put themselves before innocent victims needlessly. 290. The plaintiff seeks a prohibitive injunction relief, including an application for a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting defendant's unlawful conduct of obstructing emergency exits so that plaintiff and the People of the State of California can enjoy the rights to public accommodation. 291. Defendant and agents have engaged in a pattern and continue to engage in practices of discrimination by failing to comply with their regulatory responsibility, duty of care, duty or preparation, and duty to foresee, and duty to be in compliance with California Fire Code Title 24, Part 9, Chapter 10 (MEANS OF EGRESS). The unlawful conditions and the resulting discriminative and abusive business practices, all deny plaintiff and individuals with handicaps the right to public accommodations, including the means of egress. Defendant's and agents' unlawful disregard to conform to even minimum code requirements of fire code regulations pertaining to emergency egress has been witnessed and documented and photographed in evidence showing a pattern of violations of California Fire Codes. 292. Health and Safety Code Section 19993 - Any person who is aggravated or potentially aggravated by a violation of this part, Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 4450) of Division 5 Title 1 of the government code, or Part 5.5 (commencing with Section 19955) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code may bring an action to enjoy the violation. The prevailing party in the action shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees. 293. Section 1030 of the California Fire Code - Maintenance of the Means of Egress 1030.2. - Reliability requires exit routes, exits, or exit discharge shall be continually maintained free from obstructions or impediments to full and instant use in the case of fire or other burdens when the area serviced by such exits are occupied. 1030.3 Obstructions. A means of egress shall be free from obstructions that would prevent its use.
95
294. 1003. General means of egress shall comply with Section 1003.6 means of egress continuity. The path of egress traveled along the means of egress shall not be interrupted by any building element other than the means of egress components as specified in this chapter. Structures shall not be placed in the required width of the means of egress except projections permitted by this chapter. The required capacity of the means of egress systems shall not be diminished along the path of egress travel. 295. Even under the most minimal adherence to the rule of law pertaining to the emergency egress systems within a building, handicapped individuals are already at several disadvantages in an emergency situation. The lack of maintenance, the lack of durability, and the lack of availability add to the many objects and conditions that compromise their access to the emergency egress system. Added failures in providing preparations for emergency preparedness systems of facilities place additional risk upon handicapped individuals' disadvantaging them in seeking other means of egress from the facility in an emergency. Defendant has no right to remove, alter, obstruct or compromise the means of egress once established and do anything less than comply with the minimal standards pertaining to the emergency preparedness under the California Fire Code. Defendant fails to comply with even the minimal standard of duty of care pertaining to the means of egress and the means of egress components. This also constitutes a violation of unlawful practices under the Business and Professional Code 17200 pertaining to unlawful activity and practices. Plaintiff was discriminated against by denying plaintiff's inalienable right to obtain safety pertaining to the lack of maintenance to the means of egress. Plaintiffs request to obtain safety had been denied and ignored. The right to safety and the right to obtain safety are both inalienable rights of all California citizens which includes all disabled individuals. This action is being taken because of defendant's failure to recognize, provide, and make durable the right to pursue and obtain safety for plaintiff and California as granted in the California State Constitution. 296. Discrimination is prohibited by defendant's unlawful, unfair and fraudulent conduct by blocking the means of egress. By representing egress for emergency use,
96
which unbeknownst to occupants of the building is obstructed in a manner leaving it useless in and emergency, is fraudulent and misleading. California law prohibits defendant's business practices from discriminating against clients and customers with disabilities. Defendant must provide necessary auxiliary aid and service, unless it would result in fundamental alterations or an undue burden, i.e., significant difficulty or expense. Plaintiffs request for reasonable access to emergency preparedness system (means of egress) falls well within the intent and scope of the remedy provided by equity under the law. Defendant's burden of providing reasonable accommodation is no heavier than the burden of complying with existing laws for the benefit of safety and requires no additional cost or expense upon the business because the business should already be providing this duty. This is stated in Home Depot's own corporate speech. 297. Plaintiff brings this action in the Superior Court of the State of California in seeking remedy and relief from defendant's unlawful, unfair and fraudulent discriminatory act on behalf of both plaintiff and the People of the State of California. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Under 4 17200 - Unfair, and Fraudulent (Violation of Cal. Civil Code 1709 Tortious Fraud) 298. Plaintiff alleges and re-alleges in paragraphs 1 through 297, inclusive. California Civil Code 1709 - Defines "deceit" generally: "One who willfully deceives another with intent to induce him to alter his position to his injury or risk, is liable for any damages which he thereby suffers." (Loss of remedy to investigation pertaining to lack of safety.) 299. Defendant intended to induce Ms. Derham, district manager for the Department of Industrial Labor Division of Occupational Safety and Health, to alter her position to plaintiffs complaint filed with her office over safety issues that could have produced injury or risk of physical harm.

97
300. Plaintiff alleges that defendant made untrue written representations as to the past existence of matters of fact that constitute intentional misrepresentation of fact, negligent misrepresentation of facts, and concealment or suppression of facts by defendant's deceit. 301. Plaintiff was reliant on truthful information in an attempt to reduce the unlawful activity at the Home Depot facility pertaining to the means of egress and its components. Plaintiff depended on truthful representations by the defendant to the officials at the Department of Industrial Relations in plaintiff's official complaint pertaining to the matters below. 302. Plaintiff asserts that on October 3, 2012, plaintiff filed an e-mail complaint reference number 208888610 252e. Complaint was sent to the Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational Safety and Health located at 7575 Metropolitan Dr., Suite 207 San Diego, CA 92108. 303. Plaintiffs complaint alleged violations of safety orders founded in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations. 304. Complaint included allegations of violations pertaining to the emergency fire exit door on the rear west side of the store that was obstructed by materials. This is in violation of Title 8, CCR 3215, Means of Egress. (a) These regulations contained general fundamental requirements essential to provide a safe means of egress from buildings in the event of fire or other emergencies. Nothing in these regulations shall constitute or prohibit a better type of building construction, more exits, or otherwise safe conditions than the minimum required specified in these regulations. 305. Defendant and defendant's agents responded back to my original complaint of October 3, 2012 to Ms. Derham, district manager for the Department of Industrial Labor Division of Occupational Safety and Health located at 7575 Metropolitan Dr., San Diego, CA 92108. 306. Defendant and their agents responded back to OSHA, complaint number 208888610 252-d via e-mail on October 15, 2012 and provided a 2 page response: "Upon receipt of this complaint, store manager immediately investigated the alleged
98
hazards carefully. These are four emergency exit doors immediately adjacent to each other in the rear west side of the building. The store is currently undergoing a remodel to freshen up the building and 2 of these doors are behind a wall that is a construction barrier and is not open for access. These two doors provide an emergency exit from an upstairs office area which has been removed and no longer exists. The 2 remaining doors are always functional, unblocked, usable, and easily accessible from the sales floor." 307. Plaintiff asserts this is an untrue response on behalf of the Home Depot provided by Tom Wroblewski, regional compliance manager, and was also cc'd to Mr. Mike Dalton (legal), Richard Timm, (district operations manager), Brian Suomi (regional district operations), Armando Peralta (store manager), and Brian Korhummel (assistant store manager). 308. Plaintiff has investigated, is aware, and is informed and therefore makes allegations that the last sentence of the response by the Home Depot stating "the 2 remaining doors are always functional, unblocked, usable, and easily accessible from the sales floor" is a fraudulent statement and misrepresents ongoing unlawful conditions. 309. Plaintiff alleges this represents fraudulent misrepresentation of conditions by defendant and the defendant's agents by affirmative misrepresentation which suggests, as a fact, of that which is not true, but one who does not believe it to be true. The suppression of a fact, by one who is bound to disclose it or who gives information of other facts which are likely to mislead for want of communication of the facts, concealment or half-truth. A promise made without any intentions to perform it (false promise). Cal. Civ. Code Section 1710. 310. Plaintiff alleges the misrepresentation of the facts. Plaintiff has provided the Department of Occupational Safety and Health evidence contrary to the statements of defendant and defendant's agent with multiple photographic evidence illustrating the true ongoing conditions and unlawful conduct, documenting that the doors in question were blocked and unusable on many occasions prior to and after response from defendant.
99
311. Plaintiff Thrther alleges that additional cotrespondence was sent to Ms. Kathy Derham, district manager of the Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational Safety and Health located at 7575 Metropolitan Dr., Suite 207 San Diego, CA 92108, dated November 6, 2012, informing her of the perjury, deception and negligence involved in the response letter to the office complaint number 208888610-252d. Plaintiff also amended original complaint to include lack of illumination at the exit discharge to the original allegation dated in complaint reference 208888612-252-e. 312. Defendant and their agent responded to a second OSHA complaint issued on October 24, 2012 from The Department of Industrial Relations Division and Occupational Safety and Health located at 7557 Metropolitan Dr., Suite 207 San Diego, CA 921084424. The response letter from the Home Depot store number 0680 located at 4255 Genesee Ave., San Diego, CA 92117 addressed to the store in response to alleged condition #1 emergency exits located on the west side of the store have no illumination at the exterior exit discharge. Alleged conditions#2 emergency exits on the west side of the building are being obstructed on an ongoing basis. Alleged condition #3, employees provided with inadequate emergency action plan training. 313. Response from defendant to second complaint dated October 28, 2012. RESPONSE from Home Depot and defendant's agents on November 6, 2012: "Upon receipt of this complaint the store manager immediately investigated the alleged hazard carefully. Store manager checked all emergency exits around the facility and have found that all are properly illuminated, and/or all free, accessible, and unobstructed." This response was on behalf of the Home Depot by Tom Wroblewski, Regional Compliance Manager and was cc' d to Richard Timm, District Operational Manager, Brian Korhummel, Regional District Operations, and Armando Peralta Store Manager. 314. NOTE: The lack of notification to the list of cc to second complaint. Response letter dated October 28, 2012 was for some reason not also cc' d to Mr. Michael Dalton (legal) as was done in previous response from the Home Depot (Genesee store), dated October 15, 2012. Plaintiff is unaware why Mr. Michael Dalton, (senior attorney-legal,
100
environmental, health and safety for the Home Depot) whose office is located at Home Depot, Corporate facilities at 2455 Pasces Ferry Rd., Atlanta, GA 30339 was an omission, oversight, or intentional disconnect from the fraudulent responses from the defendants and their agents. 315. The response from defendant and their agents to second complaint dated October 28, 2012, again constitute fraudulent, deceptive and untrue responses to willfully deceive plaintiffs attempt in seeking remedy for unlawful and unsafe conduct that exposes everyone to risk, harm, and even death if at emergency situation were to arise and the fraudulent and unlawful conditions became apparent in an emergency situation. Plaintiff has the right to pursue safety on others' behalf, and plaintiff has been psychologically and emotionally damaged by defendant's continued fraudulent deception to their unlawful, negligent, and reckless conduct. 316. Plaintiff again attempted to mitigate safety hazards by contacting The Home Depot in a letter dated November 18, 2012 that illustrated lack of egress and lack of illumination in previous complaint letters validating a false response from Home Depot's agents on October 28, 2012 in reply to the complaint. 317. Defendant and their agents corresponded with Ms. Kathy Derham in a response email with photographs sent to her office in an e-mail correspondence dated December 5, 2012 from Thomas Wroblewski, asset protection, environmental protection and regulatory compliance. Correspondence read, "Kathy-as requested, I was able to get some pictures from the ops manager at store 680, which provided additional clarity around the complainant's claims, please see description below of pictures attached. 1). North Side back of building (pic 6): This is a picture of the outside of the building at the North Side where there is a four-door exit. This picture was taken at night and looks fairly dim. There is some light in the general area, but nothing specific for these doors. The store has existed since 1986 and there never have been any additional lights in this area since the store was originally built. The store manager is probably going to add some additional light near the doors just to make sure there is enough light in the area at night.
101
But we are waiting on your recommendation based on OSHA requirements before moving forward with any work. 2). West side of the building, garden center (pic7). This is a pic of the exit on the west side of the building in the garden center. There is light that comes through from the interior of the garden center but nothing specifically lighting the outside area. As you can see, it is not entirely dark here and there is still a decent amount of light that gets through the gate from the inside as well as light coming from the parking lot lamps. There has never been
any additional lighting on this side of the building since the store was built. As a side note,
this garden center is being entirely demolished and this area will not exist in a couple of weeks (will become parking lot space). 3). Four door exit on West side (pic. 3 and 4). These pictures illustrate that these doors are not blocked and have free access to enter and exit the building to get to the construction trailer. You can see that these exits are also well illuminated." 318. Plaintiff again alleges fraud, deception, negligence and defendant's reckless disregard for the truth in the response statements by defendant's and defendant's agents in the correspondence letter to Ms. Kathy Derham, district manager for the Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational Safety and Health dated December 5, 2012. In item 1). North Side back of building, defendant's statements: "The store has existed since 1986 and there never have been any additional lights in this area since the store was originally built." This statement is false, misleading and deceptive. Plaintiff has photographed the facility in this area in question for several years and has a substantial evidence of pre-existing light fixtures that provided for illumination in this area prior to the recent remodel and present construction activity going on in the facility. Again a statement is made by defendant and defendant's agents in an attempt to mitigate plaintiffs remedy in pursuing his rights and the rights of others. Defendant and their agents have perjured themselves in an attempt to hide the truth and attempt to deny justice in plaintiffs pursuit for safety for himself and others.
102
319. Plaintiff again alleges fraud, deception, negligence by defendant's reckless disregard for the truth. The response from defendant and defendant's agents in response correspondence letter to Kathy Derham, district manager for the Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational Safety and Health dated December 5, 2012. In item 2) West side of building, garden center (pic 7). Defendant and defendant's agent's statement "There has never been any additional lighting on this side of the building since the store was built!' This statement is false, misleading and deceptive. Plaintiff has photographed the facility in this area in question for several years and has a substantial evidence of preexisting light fixtures that provided for illumination in this area. There are total of three exterior light fixtures that provided for illumination of the fire lane in the exit discharges on the west side of the building at the garden center. The existing fixtures were there and existed when defendant and defendant's agents made the statement that there's never been any additional lighting on this side of the building since the store was built. Defendant and agents failed to provide maintenance and allowed vegetation to overgrow these fixtures and failure to have them in operation because of negligent maintenance of the facility and lack of illumination at the exit discharges. Again, a deceitful statement is made by defendant and defendant's agents in an attempt to mitigate plaintiffs remedy in pursuing his rights and the rights of others. Defendant and their agents have perjured themselves in an attempt to hide the truth and attempt to deny plaintiffjustice in his pursuit for safety for himself and others. 320. There is a note to Brian Korhummel (ops manager) from Tom Wroblewski at the bottom of the page in the e-mail dated December 5, to Ms. Kathy Derham from Tom Wroblewski which was also cc'd to Brian Korhummel. There is a sentence at the bottom of that e-mail that said "Brian- please let me know if missing anything or if my descriptions were in any way inaccurate." This statement in the form of a question requests validation and confirmation of facts that were represented by Toni Wroblewski in the December 5, 2012 email to Ms. Kathy Derham. This e-mail correspondence was graded in importance: "High." Plaintiff has no additional knowledge of any further
103
correspondence to either Tom Wroblewski or Ms. Kathy Derham at the Department of Occupational Health and Safety. Brian's lack of further correspondence and intervention in this matter to correct any inaccuracies reflects confirmation of Tom's statements. 321. Brian is referred to in the past e-mails as Brian Korhummel, the assistant store manager of the Home Depot warehouse facility located at 4255 Genesee Ave., San Diego, CA 92117. Brian's responsibility and position as assistant store manager should have given him the knowledge or he should have known, with some degree of accuracy, the factual and relevant facts pertaining to all functioning facility operations and functioning systems of the components, operation, maintenance and elements to the Means of Egress components throughout the facility and their importance and functioning as an essential element in the emergency preparedness system of the facility. All are relevant to the duty of care in the operation of this facility. Brian's failure to correct the inaccuracies in the correspondence relating to the facts presented and his obligation to correct all inaccurate information presented in the letter dated December 5, 2012, illustrates the level of deception and fraud presented in an effort to fend off alleged complaints by plaintiff to the Department of Industrial Relations Department of Occupational Health and Safety. Further evidence of negligence is a disregard for the truth. If Brian was truly unaware of the previously existing components to the means of egress (illumination) in question, then the Home Depot Corporation is also negligent in training and preparing its management to its duties of the assistant manager in his obligations to comply with regulations pertaining to safety and emergency preparedness. If Brian was aware of unlawful conditions alleged in plaintiffs complaint to the Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational Safety and Health of the conditions at the facility, this constitutes negligence, fraud, deception and violation of plaintiff's rights and that of all customers, employees and occupants of the building. 322. Both Tom and Brian's failure to properly investigate plaintiffs original and ongoing complaints about lack of egress and lack of illumination at the exit discharge hindered and interfered with plaintiffs rights in his complaints to Cal/OSHA, and the right
104
to pursue and obtain safety for the employees and the customers of the store at that facility. Their deceitful, dishonest and fraudulent actions and inactions constitute negligent misrepresentation of the facts and breach of duty on their part in conducting a thorough investigation and providing accurate statements to the conditions that were under their control. The defendants and their agents have minimized such a serious matter pertaining to safety and risk to others. Their reckless statements provided were a misrepresentation and inaccurate information with the intent to deceive and deny plaintiff and others the right to be heard and correct the wrongs to seek remedy and justice under the law. 323. Plaintiff alleges fraud, deception, negligence and obstruction ofjustice by defendants and their statement to the Department of Industrial Relations Division of Safety and Health. Plaintiffs efforts at seeking the right to pursue and obtain safety was trivialized and denigrated to a constant game of whack-a-mole with defendant in control of the conditions and plaintiff at a disadvantage in constantly providing evidence to the defendant's fraudulent conduct, misrepresentations in regard to durability and compliance to the means of egress and their components. Defendant provided photograph evidence to Ms. Derham regarding, "Four door exits on west side (pics 3 and 4). These pictures illustrate the doors are not blocked and have free access to enter and exit the building to get to the construction trailer. You could see that these exits are also well illuminated." 324. Plaintiff again alleges that defendant and defendant's agents acted in a manner that is deceptive, dishonest, misleading, and negligent to their responsibilities to the duty of care pertaining to safety. Plaintiff has photographed, videotaped, investigated, witnessed and documented the alleged violations as evidence to be used at trial against the Home Depot and its agents. Plaintiff has documented several years of violations pertaining to safety at the Home Depot store located at 4255 Genesee Ave., San Diego, CA 92117. Plaintiffs evidence will be quite adequate to contradict defendant and defendant's agents' statements. Plaintiff also alleged that defendants' photographic exhibits that were sent to the Department of Occupational Health and Safety were staged for the purpose and intent
105
to deceive. Plaintiff will provide photographic evidence that will be presented to illustrate both prior and after procurement conditions of defendants' exhibits. Plaintiffs photographs will illustrate the unlawful, fraudulent, and deceptive conditions alleged in plaintiff's complaint and denied in defendant's and their agents' response and statements as presented to the Department of Industrial Health and Safety by the Home Depot USA, Inc. and their representatives. Plaintiff's last request to Ms. Derham regarding the matter above consisted of a formal review of plaintiffs complaint which was presented to her in a letter. Plaintiff did not hear back from Ms. Derham and called her to inquire about the lack of correspondence from her office regarding my request and my right to a review of my complaint by her office. She had no explanation other than to say that she had spoken with Mr. Dalton, senior legal counsel in charge of safety. Between the two of them, she stated that all plaintiffs issues had been addressed without plaintiffs knowledge and in complete disregard to the facts and conditions that jeopardized human life and safety at this facility. Plaintiff who is a worker has rights under the law that provide for filing safety complaints. In the matter above, the Department of Industrial Health and Safety had no affect at providing any remedy to plaintiff's original complaints, and for that reason, plaintiff is entitled to pursue private enforcement action on behalf of himself, the employees of Home Depot and the People of the State of California. Plaintiff will definitely provide illumination into the conditions of lack of illumination and the lack of egress at this facility to shine the light on the truth. 325. Tortious fraud or deceit occurs when a party willfully deceives another with intent to induce him to alter his position to his injuries or risk. Cal. Civ. Code 1709. (a) An affirmative misrepresentation-the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true by one who does not believe it to be true. (b) A false promise - a promise made without any intention of performing it. (c) The concealment or half-truths - the suppression of a fact by one who is bound to disclose it or who gives information of other facts which are likely to mislead for want of communication of the fact.
106
326. Intent to Induce Reliance - The defendant must intend to induce plaintiff to alter his or her position to his or her own injury or risk - CAL.CIV. CODE 1710 327. The California Supreme Court concluded that an unfair business practice occurs when that practice "offends an established public policy or when the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers" the language of 17200 demonstrates a clear intent by the legislature to protect consumers as well as competitors by its final clause, permitting any member of the public to sue on behalf of his or her own behalf or on behalf of the public generally. Right of the public to protection from fraud and deceit further the UCL's prohibition of unfair competition is not restricted to deceptive or fraudulent conduct, but extends to any unlawful business practice. 328. Anyone convicted of making a false statement or certification on records or other documents required under the Cal/OSHA program is subject to a fine of up to $70,000 or imprisonment up to six months, or both. The law also contains misdemeanor provisions relating to matters such as knowingly or negligently violating a workplace safety and health regulation, repeatedly violating a regulation, or refusing to comply with a regulation, and thereby creating an employee hazard. Criminal penalties are enforced by the local district attorney. 329. Pursuant to California Business and Professional Code 17203, 17204 and 17500. Anyone who has suffered injury in fact and has been injured by loss of money or property may bring action in the name of the People of the State of California in a superior court for an injunction against any person who engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unlawful competition and for civil penalties for each act of unfair competition. 330. To state a cause of action the UCL for injunction relief, it is necessary only to show that members of the public are likely to be deceived; allegations of actual deception reasonable reliance and dangers are unnecessary.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of California unfair competition law 17200 & 17207 Unlawful, Violation of final judgment order by the court) 331. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that during the time, from September 11, 2007 until October 5, 2012, defendants and the Home Depot had an existing entry of final judgment brought by the Atty. Gen. of the State of California, Edmund G. Brown. Action was brought in the name of the People of the State of California as plaintiff- Case No: BC 376095 - Complaint for permanent injunction civil penalties and other equitable relief under health and safety code, Chapter 6.95; Business and Professional Code 17200 et seq., Labor Code Section 6300 et seq., California Fire Code. 332. Plaintiff alleges that this constitutes an unfair business act that was perpetrated upon the citizens of the State of California. Plaintiff attempted to resolve violations of fire code standard noncompliance to California fire codes in a letter to The Home Depot back on October 20, 2008 addressed to Frank Blake, CEO of The Home Depot and another copy to the Home Depot USA, Inc. Board of Directors and the Western regional manager for the Home Depot Corporation. Plaintiff spoke with Mr. Michael Dalton, senior legal counsel for the Home Depot Corporation, to seek compliance to California Fire Codes and other safety regulations because of their failure to comply with the rule of law in the State of California. They all denied any allegations that the Home Depot Corporation failed to be in compliance with the law, at which time plaintiff knew the Home Depot Corporation was violating many laws, codes, and regulations pertaining to California Fire Code, Cal/OSHA and denying rights to safety. At that time, plaintiff felt there was a cover-up by the Home Depot Corporation of my alleged allegations of blocked fire exits and violations of standards pertaining to the means of egress. Even with substantial photographic documentation of the alleged violations that was sent to the CEO and Board of Directors, Mr. Dalton refused to come to San Diego and address my concerns and instead ignored my pleading for compliance to the rules pertaining to fire codes.
108
333. Unbeknownst to plaintiff at the time of my complaints to the Home Depot Corporation, the Atty. Gen. of the State of California had a final judgment under 17200, case number BC 376095 brought in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, plaintiffs, People of the State of California v. Home Depot USA, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, permanent injunction and final judgment order, original file date October 2, 2007, Los Angeles Superior Court. 334. The stipulation entry for final judgment is hereby ordered judgment and decree 314. 3.7 Fire Code Program (a) except as provided in subdivision (c) of this paragraph, prior to the execution of the stipulation for the entry of final judgment. The Home Depot shall have provided the people a proposed Fire Code Program, that has been adapted to comply with applicable local, state, and uniform fire code (hereinafter " the fire code"). Home Depot shall adapt and begin to administer this fire code program at all covered facilities that are "Home Depot" brand retail stores prior to the entry of this final judgment by the court. At all covered facilities that are not Home Depot brand retail stores, The Home Depot shall have delivered to each facility a communication that requires each facility to comply with the fire codes prior to the entry of this final judgment. The Home Depot shall adapt an enhanced version of the existing fire code procedures "an interim fire code program" and adapt and begin to administer the interim fire code program at all covered facilities that are not "Home Depot" retail stores prior to the entry of the fmal judgment by the court. Home Depot shall promptly review and evaluate compliance with the fire codes at all covered facilities that are not Home Depot brand retail stores to identify whether any modification to the interim fire code program may be necessary. Home Depot shall adapt and begin to administer and provide fire code programs at all covered facilities that are not Home Depot brand retail stores by January 15, 2008 as used in this parable grant equivalent program means a program that achieves equitable compliance with the fire codes in all material respects. (b) The Home Depot shall initiate the process of applying for a variance or opinion from the state fire marshal relating to the issues described in exhibit H, attached hereto within
109
60 days after entry of the fmal judgment and thereafter promptly exhausted all administrative and legal remedies relating to such variances. (d) By January 15, 2008, The Home Depot shall submit a certification of the people that Home Depot has adapted and is administering a fire code program in the state of California and all covered facilities that are subject to the fire code. For the duration of this permanent injunction, the Home Depot shall also annually submit a certification to the people that the Home Depot administrates for the duration of the previous year the fire code program in the state of California at all covered facilities that are subject to fire code. As used in this paragraph, "fire code program" shall mean a program that achieves equipment compliance with the fire codes in all material respects for the duration of the permanent junction, at the close of each quarter of each year. The Home Depot shall provide in accordance with this notice provision of paragraph 5 a copy of the most current version of the program, administered pursuant to this paragraph. The copies shall provide electronically redline to specifically identify any additions or deletions needed to each program as compared to the last version of the program provided to the people. 315. Plaintiff is informed and has knowledge of and therefore alleges that during the time that the permanent injunction and final judgment order was in place, The Home Depot conducted business in an unlawful manner in violation of many California fire codes under Title 24 Part Nine, California building codes based on international fire code 2007 through 2010 revisions. Plaintiff was a previous shopper of the Home Depot retail warehouse facilities throughout the San Diego area. Plaintiff complained to management and corporate officials back in 2008 and continued to complain and take photographic evidence over that period of time documenting and exhibiting evidence of noncompliance to California fire codes. Plaintiffs inalienable civil right under California law to pursue and obtain safety was violated by the Home Depot Corporation in their attempt deny my rights and protect their interest with the court ordered injunction in place. Plaintiff realizes that the injunction provides estoppel protection for the Home Depot Corporation with
no
their court agreement and issuance of injunction. That did not give them the right to deny plaintiffs inalienable rights to pursue and obtain safety under the laws of California. 316. UCL 17207 - (a) Any person who intentionally violates any injunction prohibiting unfair competition issued pursuant to 17203 shall be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed six thousand dollars ($6,000) for each violation. Where the conduct constituting a violation is of a continuing nature, each day of that conduct is a separate and distinct violation. In determining the amount of the civil penalty, the court shall consider all relevant circumstances, including, but not limited to, the extent of the harm caused by the conduct constituting a violation, the nature and persistence of that conduct, the length of time over which the conduct occurred, the assets, liabilities, and net worth of the person, whether corporate or individual, and any corrective action taken by the defendant. (b) The civil penalty prescribed by this Section shall be assessed and recovered in a civil action brought in any county in which the violation occurs or where the injunction was issued in the name of the People of the State of California by the Attorney General or by any district attorney, any county counsel authorized by agreement with the district attorney in actions involving violation of a county ordinance, or any city attorney in any court of competent jurisdiction within his or her jurisdiction without regard to the county from which the original injunction was issued. An action brought pursuant to this Section to recover civil penalties shall take precedence over all civil matters on the calendar of the court except those matters to which equal precedence on the calendar is granted by law (c) If such an action is brought by the Attorney General, one-half of the penalty collected pursuant to this Section shall be paid to the treasurer of the county in which the judgment was entered, and one-half to the State Treasurer. If brought by a district attorney or county counsel the entire amount of the penalty collected shall be paid to the treasurer of the county in which the judgment is entered. If brought by a city attorney or city prosecutor, one-half of the penalty shall be paid to the treasurer of the county in which the judgment was entered and one-half to the city, except that if the action was brought by a city
111
attorney of a city and county the entire amount of the penalty collected shall be paid to the treasurer of the city and county in which the judgment is entered. (d) If the action is brought at the request of a board within the Department of Consumer Affairs or a local consumer affairs agency, the court shall determine the reasonable expenses incurred by the board or local agency in the investigation and prosecution of the action. Before any penalty collected is paid out pursuant to subdivision (c), the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred by the board shall be paid to the State Treasurer for deposit in the special fund of the board described in Section 205. If the board has no such special fund, the moneys shall be paid to the State Treasurer. The amount of the reasonable expenses incurred by a local consumer affairs agency shall be paid to the general fund of the municipality or county which funds the local agency. 317. UCL 17208 - Any action to enforce any cause of action pursuant to this chapter shall be commenced within four years after the cause of action accrued. No cause of action barred under existing law on the effective date of this Section shall be revived by its enactment. 318. UCL 17209 - If a violation of this chapter is alleged or the application or construction of this chapter is in issue in any proceeding in the Supreme Court of California, a state court of appeal, or the appellate division of a superior court, each person filing any brief or petition with the court in that proceeding shall serve, within three days of filing with the court, a copy of that brief or petition on the Attorney General, directed to the attention of the Consumer Law Section at a service address designated on the Attorney General's official website for service of papers under this Section or, if no service address is designated, at the Attorney General's office in San Francisco, California, and on the district attorney of the county in which the lower court action or proceeding was originally filed. Upon the Attorney General's or district attorney's request, each person who has filed any other document, including all or a portion of the appellate record, with the court in addition to a brief or petition shall provide a copy of that document without charge to the Attorney General or the district attorney within five days of the request. The time for
112
service may be extended by the Chief Justice or presiding justice or judge for good cause shown. No judgment or relief temporary or permanent, shall be granted or opinion issued until proof of service of the brief or petition on the Attorney General and district attorney is filed with the court.
FIFER CAUSE OF ACTION Under 17200 Unlawful, Unfair, and Fraudulent (Violation of California Labor Code and Title 8 of California Code of Regulations)
319. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 318, inclusive and alleges representative action as PAGA claim Category 2, Health and Safety Violation, Labor Code 6300 et seq. Pursuant to California Labor Code Section 6300 et seq. and solely with respect to the health and safety of all employees in the workplace. In regards emergency preparedness, and maintaining procedures, maintenance, training and requirements to workplace safety regarding the "means of egress," every employer must furnish a place of employment that is safe and healthful for its employees, and must furnish appropriate safety devices and data safety practices and programs, and comply with regulations, requirements, orders, special orders, injunctions, judgments, and workplace safety standards such as those adapted in title 8 of the California code of regulations and California fire code. Defendant is liable for civil penalties, as set forth in California labor code Section 6427et seq. for each and every separate violation which occurred within five years after discovery of the facts constituting grounds for commencement of the action on these claims, exclusively of any applicable tolling and those set forth and limited by any statute of limitation of the cause of action against the Home Depot Corporation that may have arisen out of claims covered by any other tolling agreement. 320. Defendant must immediately and permanently be enjoyed from further violation of California Labor Code Sections 6300 et seq., and the applicable regulations upon thereunder. 32L Pursuant to private attorney general act of 2004 (PAGA) plaintiffs claim is for health and safety violations predicated by any Section of the labor law. Section 6300
113
plaintiff brings a health and safety based PAGA claim and has notified the division of occupational safety and health and requested an investigation into plaintiffs complaint about violations of employees' safety and working conditions at the Home Depot facility on Genesee Avenue in San Diego, California, to the Division of Industrial Safety and Health but they did not conduct an on-site inspection, did not issue any citations, and did not respond to the plaintiffs request for the review process of several complaints filed with the Office Division of Occupational Safety and Health from the time period of October 3, 2012 to the present. Since the Division of Occupational Safety and Health did not do so, plaintiff as a representative agent of aggravated employees can proceed to Superior Court for remedy. 322. Pursuant to the California Supreme Court 2009 decision and held, that plaintiff is not required to have any class certification in order to pursue PAGA claim on behalf of aggravated third parties, the court in Ariasv v. Superior Court in 2000 decided that a class certification requirement need not be met when an employee representative action against an employer is seeking civil penalties under the labor code Private Attorney General Act of 2004. 323. Under the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (PAGA), an aggrieved employee can bring a lawsuit to recover civil penalties against an employer personally and on behalf of other current and former employees for violations of the Labor Code. The employee must give written notice to both the employer and the Labor and Workforce Development Agency of the alleged Labor Code violation, along with supporting facts and theories. If the Agency fails to respond within 33 days, chooses not to issue a citation or fails to issue a citation within 158 days of the employee's notice, the employee may commence the civil action. Where civil penalties are recovered, the Agency receives 75 percent, and the remaining 25 percent goes to the aggrieved employees. Recently, the California Supreme Court held that an aggrieved employee who brings a representative action under PAGA may recover civil penalties without satisfying class action certification requirements. In Arias v. Superior Court, the plaintiff alleged
114
various wage and hour violations under the California Business & Professions Code 17200, California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and claimed he was entitled to civil penalties under PAGA. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal's decision that determined that although claims brought under the UCL are subject to class action requirements due to Proposition 64, claims under PAGA are not. The court pointed to the language of PAGA in support of its decision. The Supreme Court disagreed with the defendant's assumption that class action requirements apply generally to any type of representative action. The court also dismissed the concern that other plaintiffs would not be bound by a PAGA finding in favor of the defendant, allowing non-party aggrieved employees to continually sue until one prevailed. The court determined that collateral estoppel would apply to all non-parties for whom the plaintiff was acting as a proxy. Thus, with respect to civil penalties, a PAGA action is akin to an action brought by the government, in which a decision would bind both the government and non-party employees.
Prayer for Relief 1. A Prohibitory injunction for injunction relief for the enjoyment of denying defendant's alleged unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business acts and/or practices and false representation to the public with a prohibitory injunction, with an effect and duration now and in the future to enforce the rule of law. Defendant must be immediately and permanently enjoyed from further violations of California Fire Codes, California Building Codes, Cal/OSHA Regulations, and California Public Accommodation Laws. Prohibitory injunction would allow relief and remedy to enjoy defendant's ability to discriminate and violate the Inalienable Rights to Pursuing and Obtaining Safety in an effort to Defend Life and Liberty for all the People of the State of California and plaintiff. 2. Plaintiff requests class certification of class action to the classes including customers, employees, workers, disabled, and any and all subclasses of injured individuals both physically and economically and to any and all citizens of the State of California affected by the defendant, Home Depot's, unlawful conduct. 3. Restitution The return of all monies and properties unlawfully obtained by the defendant's unlawful, unfair, fraudulent, and misrepresentative conduct to all individuals who have forfeited money while being exposed to the Home Depot USA, Inc.'s alleged unlawful, unfair, fraudulent and misleading business activities. 4. All cost associated with private enforcement of constitutional laws, statutes, regulations, and codes for the benefit of the common general public and to the rule '15T law. 5. Such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.

116
Date: December 2, 2013 Respectfully submitted,
1110,1 1&( MichaelGrata pio per

Acting private attorney general in a Representative Action taken on behalf of the People of the State of California.

117
The Declaration of Michael McGrath

I, Michael McGrath, declare as follows: 1. I am a citizen of the State of California and resident in San Diego, California. Plaintiff is not an attorney and does this action in pro per as a representative action in the name of THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 2. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States in the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed in San Diego, California. This 2nd day of December 2013. 3. Plaintiff asserts factual contentions made in support of Motion to Remand.
Date: December 2, 2013
*tad
mi Gra in pr per, P aintiff Representative for the People of the State of California 415 Summerhill Ter., Alpine, CA 91901 E-mail: mmhd9110,zmail.com Telephone: 619.445.7418
People of the State of California

110

37-2013-00078268-Cu-Bt-Ctl Roa-1 12-04-13 Complaint 1386637937306

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

37-2013-00078268-Cu-Bt-Ctl Roa-1 12-04-13 Complaint 1386637937306

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

E

Mrk of0w sup.dor Coon

2013 DEC -4 APIlli 01

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE-OF CALIFORNIA" COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACCUSER: Michael McGrath Plaintiff,

OMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION DRESTITUTION RELIEF- -

1. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ("People"), by and through

Pursuant to California's Unfair Competition Law (the UCL), Business and

CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF 101

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF

Date: December 2, 2013 Respectfully submitted,

1110,1 1&( MichaelGrata pio per

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF

The Declaration of Michael McGrath

Date: December 2, 2013

People of the State of California

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF

You might also like