Plaintiffs’ lawyer in fire litigation faces possible sanctions

LOS ANGELES -- A superior court judge overseeing the consolidated Thomas Fire civil cases will decide next month whether to impose $4,500 in sanctions on a plaintiffs' attorney accused of violating court orders to not communicate with defense counsel representing the Southern California Edison Co.

The utility has been blamed for the wildfire that scorched more than 280,000 acres in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties in December 2017.

The dispute appears to be between a plaintiffs' counsel who only has fire damage cases and other counsel who have cases from a resulting mudslide that tore through the tony enclave of Montecito destroying multi-million-dollar mansions and killing more than 20 people. The mudslide cases are potentially worth much more money but are more complicated to litigate, some lawyers say.

Gerald B. Singleton of Singleton Law Firm in San Diego represents fire victims and is accused of violating a court order issued July 2018 that spelled out rules for plaintiff attorneys not appointed as leadership counsel. All plaintiffs' counsel actions must go through the appointed leadership, including any communication with Edison's lawyers with any and all items that apply to all plaintiffs according to the order signed by Los Angeles County Judge Daniel J. Buckley.

Buckley on March 11 issued a tentative order imposing sanctions against Singleton for three separate email correspondences with Ellen C. Kenney of Hueston Hennigan LLP, one of the counsel defending Edison. The emails include an exchange in December 2018 between Kenney and Singleton regarding special interrogatories regarding damages, and a subsequent discussion about a joint request to Buckley to lift the stay on damages discovery.

The third email exchange was on Jan. 5 when Singleton emailed both defense counsel and leadership to notify them he intended to object to leadership's refusal to issue a subpoena to Cal Fire for evidence and all documents obtained by the agency from both alleged ignition sites.

Cal Fire's report blaming Edison's equipment for the blaze wasn't released until mid-March.

"I'm hoping they don't impose sanctions, but I'm doing what I believe needs to be done for my clients," Singleton said on Monday.

Leadership counsel from Panish, Shea & Boyle LLP and Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP accused Singleton in their filings of trying to set up trial dates for a small group of his "preference clients" to try to use them as a way to opt out of the coordinated proceedings.

While Singleton and his co-counsel, John F. Maguire, represent more than 800 plaintiffs, he has sought to have nine of his plaintiffs be designated for preferential trial status. They are all over age 70 and in need of a speedy trial, he said.

Attorney John C. Lemon, who is representing Singleton in his sanctions matter, argued his client's emails with Kenney "were in compliance with the case management order issued July 2018, which authorizes individual plaintiffs' counsel to respond to discovery initiated by the defendants and to object to the actions (or inactions) of lead plaintiffs' counsel," Lemon wrote in his opposition.

"In my twenty-something years of practice I've never seen a judge actually issue a tentative order sanctioning a lawyer to not speak with opposing counsel, for returning emails and trying to do his job," Lemon said in an interview Monday.

Rahul Ravipudi of Panish, Shea & Boyle, one of the leadership counsel, argued in his April 18 response to Lemon's opposition that since August, "Singleton has engaged in a persistent pattern of contacting defense counsel directly, in some cases, without advising or copying lead counsel on issues affecting all plaintiffs and on matters that fall squarely within the duties assigned to lead counsel."

Singleton filed a motion on April 5 to have his case remanded to Ventura County Superior Court and separated from the consolidated case. He argued that leadership counsel exploited their power to control discovery and prevent Singleton's plaintiffs from obtaining the evidence they need for speedy trial and preventing plaintiffs involved in a fire-only cases from going to trial, despite the fact that fire-only cases would be ready within the next year, earlier than the mudslide cases.

Both defense and leadership counsel have opposed Singleton's motion for remand and transfer of the case to Ventura County.

John C. Hueston of Hueston Hennigan LLP, Edison's lead defense counsel, said in a court motion that Singleton's complaints with the coordination system are not a basis to remand his cases, nor for making any material change.

Lexi J. Hazam, of Lieff Cabraser, denied that leadership counsel is pushing for the mudslide cases to go first as a way of generating publicity and driving up settlement numbers.

"We indicated in our papers that the initial case to be tried will be a fire-only case, which may be heard at the end of this year or early next year," said Hazam in a phone interview Tuesday.