Parties argue whether Porter Ranch criminal settlement required restitution

Do victims in a criminal case have the right to appeal a restitution order? Those affected by the 2015 Porter Ranch leak who didn't receive compensation under a criminal plea deal between Los Angeles County and Southern California Gas Co.y argue they do, but both the county and utility agree they don't.

Plaintiffs' attorneys representing victims have turned to the 2nd District Court of Appeal after a Los Angeles Superior Court judge declined to include restitution as part of the deal requiring the utility to plead no contest to failing to timely report the leak.

In his decision, Judge Alan Rosenfield said it was the district attorney's office that dictated the terms of the plea deal, and because probation was not part of that agreement, the county had not abused its discretion.

Under the deal, SoCalGas agreed to spend $4 million to upgrade its infrastructure, including installing new methane monitors, as well as pay the county fire department for its responding costs to the massive leak. People v. Southern California Gas Company, 6SC00433 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Feb. 2, 2016).

The trial court's appellate division found victims did not have grounds for restitution. Now a 2nd District panel has given victims a chance to argue restitution after granting their petition for writ of mandate.

Victims represented by Brian Panish of Panish, Shea & Boyle LLP, as well as R. Rex Parris of the Parris Law Firm, said they have a constitutional right to seek restitution.

Parris

"The Constitution says that all persons who suffer losses from criminal activity have the right to seek and secure restitution," said Parris, alleging the utility and county aligned together to save the utility from paying victims by shutting them out over the terms of the agreement. "It is very rare to see a situation where the DA is so vehemently in support of the criminal."

Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey declined to comment but said in briefs filed last week that the claim is meritless and instead governed by statute that doesn't apply in this case.

"The initiation of a criminal appeal is purely statutory and the applicable statutes limit the right to the people or to the defendant only. No statute exists which entitles victims of crime to initiate an appeal," the DA argued.

The DA further argued that allowing victims to enforce restitution would contravene the separation of powers doctrine and hinder the office from doing its job.

Victims argued a separate, dismissed count for releasing toxins into the air allows them to receive restitution. The DA disagreed, arguing there is no causal link between the reporting delay and claimed injuries.

Citing Marsy's Law, an amendment passed by voters in 2008 that expanded victims' rights as they pertain to criminal proceedings, victims' attorneys said the county could not shut them out of the terms of the agreement. The district attorney's office, meanwhile, said there is no law requiring prosecutors to consult with victims regarding the components of a plea agreement.

SoCalGas, represented by James Dragna of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP and Manuel Abascal of Latham & Watkins LLP, said in their brief that victims are not victims under the three-day reporting delay.

"Standing aside, petitioners have no right to restitution under any theory," according to the utility's brief.

Parris said the ruling was the first time this Penal Code section has been applied to an environmental crime.

"They are setting a precedent here that people can commit environmental crimes," said Parris.

The DA said SoCalGas has already spent over $500 million for plaintiffs' housing, school relocation and home cleaning.

"The plea agreement protected not just individual victims, but also protected the greater public interest in providing more safety for all residents of the San Fernando Valley, and did so without costly and protracted litigation," the DA's office said.

No date for oral arguments has yet been.