Details in works for PG&E trials

Attorneys representing PG&E and more than 100 San Bruno residents who have sued the utility over the Sept. 9 gas line explosion are expected to meet for the first time to begin planning court proceedings Thursday.

At least 35 separate lawsuits from eight firms have been filed against PG&E in connection with the disaster, which killed eight people and destroyed or seriously damaged 55 homes.

Almost all the plaintiffs accuse PG&E of negligence for failing to properly maintain or inspect the San Bruno pipeline that exploded. Also, many seek damages for physical or emotional injuries.

All but a couple suits were filed in San Mateo County Superior Court, which assigned Judge Steven Dylina to handle those cases. PG&E and the plaintiffs’ lawyers are expected to pick a date today for a future status conference with Dylina to hash out how the cases will be handled, including a timeline for trial dates.

But at least two cases were filed in San Francisco, prompting PG&E to ask the state’s judicial council to assign all the cases related to the blast to a single San Mateo County judge. The council has yet to rule on that request.

Michael Danko, a San Mateo attorney who has filed seven lawsuits in San Mateo County on behalf of victims, said it is somewhat unusual to ask a judge to consolidate cases from multiple counties.

“It’s kind of a big deal because generally plaintiffs are entitled to pick the venue,” Danko said. “Somebody’s going to be disappointed.”

PG&E spokeswoman Katie Romans said the request was simply an effort to streamline the process.

“Certainly we respect the plaintiffs’ rights to file the lawsuits,” Romans said. “We’ll work with each of those plaintiffs to try to resolve their concerns.”

sbishop@sfexaminer.com

Bay Area NewsPG&ESan BrunoSan Bruno explosion

If you find our journalism valuable and relevant, please consider joining our Examiner membership program.
Find out more at www.sfexaminer.com/join/

Just Posted

Superintendent Vincent Matthews said some students and families who want to return will not be able to do so at this time. “We truly wish we could reopen schools for everyone,” he said. (Kevin N. Hume/S.F. Examiner)
SFUSD sets April reopening date after reaching tentative agreement with teachers union

San Francisco Unified School District has set April 12 as its reopening… Continue reading

José Victor Luna and Maria Anabella Ochoa, who cite health reasons for continuing distance learning, say they have been enjoying walking in Golden Gate Park with their daughters Jazmin, a first grader, and Jessica, a third grader. (Kevin N. Hume/S.F. Examiner)
Some SFUSD families prefer distance learning

Health issues, classroom uncertainties among reasons for staying home

Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed legislation intended to help California schools reopen. (Kevin N. Hume/S.F. Examiner)
Newsom signs $6.6 billion school reopening legislative package

By Eli Walsh Bay City News Foundation Gov. Gavin Newsom and state… Continue reading

Recology executives have acknowledged overcharging city ratepayers. (Mira Laing/2017 Special to S.F. Examiner)
Recology to repay customers $95M in overcharged garbage fees, city attorney says

San Francisco’s waste management company, Recology, has agreed to repay its customers… Continue reading

Most Read