Dissenting attorney battles with other plaintiffs' lawyers in fire litigation

LOS ANGELES -- A battle over the proposed leadership of plaintiffs' lawyers in the Woolsey Fire litigation is heating up.

For weeks, Gerald Singleton of Singleton Law Firm in San Diego has claimed the proposed leadership was not needed. Southern California Fires, JCCP 5000. The structure gives "Draconian-power" to one group, which would delay discovery and the setting of trial dates, he argued. Instead, plaintiff attorneys should be allowed to proceed on their own with discovery, he said.

The Woolsey Fire, believed to have been sparked at a Rocketdyne facility in Simi Valley in November, charred more than 96,000 acres in Los Angeles and Ventura counties, destroyed more than 1,500 structures and resulted in three deaths. Southern California Edison, whose equipment has been blamed for the fire, is being sued by thousands of plaintiffs.

The proposed plaintiff firm leadership -- Panish Shea & Boyle LLP, Robertson & Associates LLP and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP -- argued the structure is necessary in complex mass tort cases because it avoids duplicative discovery and allows equal work among attorneys.

In recent filings, plaintiffs' attorneys warned Superior Court Judge William F. Highberger that Singleton would derail the Woolsey Fire process in the way he did in the Butte and North Bay fire litigation.

"It was only after Singleton wasn't selected to be co-lead in the SoCalFires JCCP4965 [Thomas] that this group's constant attacks on lead counsel began in earnest," according to a May 24 motion filed by the proposed leadership firms.

The Thomas Fire litigation stems from a separate blaze in Santa Barbara and Ventura counties.

Declarations filed by Amanda L. Riddle of Corey, Luzaich, De Ghetaldi & Riddle LLP and Steven M. Campora of Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood Campora LLP support the Woolsey Fire leadership structure while recalling Singleton's behavior in the Northern California fire litigation against Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

Twelve law firms voted to remove Singleton from a leadership position in the North Bay Fire cases. They said he repeatedly communicated with PG&E counsel without knowledge or consent of other plaintiffs' attorneys and entered into agreements that were counter to other plaintiffs, according to Riddle, who isn't in the Woolsey Fire case but was part of the plaintiffs' leadership in the Butte, Camp and North Bay fire litigations.

Singleton didn't take part in any discovery or deposition but "unfairly benefited from the work of others" and refused to make contributions toward a common cost fund to pay liability experts, Campora wrote.

Campora criticized Singleton for settling a case with PG&E in the Butte litigation, which allowed the utility to file an appeal on the issue of inverse condemnation. Ultimately, plaintiffs prevailed on a motion establishing inverse condemnation, but Singleton didn't assist in those efforts either, he wrote.

In a phone interview Friday, Singleton maintained the proposed leadership plaintiffs' counsel in the Thomas Fire litigation created a virtual monopoly delaying discovery and preventing plaintiffs they don't personally represent, including elderly and terminally ill victims, from going to trial. He said they are only working to maximize their argument for a "common benefit" attorney fund.

The fund, which would come from settlements if any were reached with Southern California Edison, would provide for a sharing of costs and expenses incurred by plaintiffs' attorneys.

The proposed leadership has sought to create a 3% fee assessment to be paid by individual plaintiffs and 1% costs assessment from public entity plaintiffs in Woolsey.

"We've been pushing for trial dates and to start discovery which they oppose, and they're doing this to get the common benefit fund set up," Singleton argued. "It's a conflict of interest. What's offensive is that they're going to charge our clients a fee for hampering with their cases."

He didn't address other accusations raised by plaintiffs' counsel but said "it's unfortunate they stoop to this level."

At a May 30 hearing, Highberger said to plaintiffs' lawyers there had been "lots of new alleged dirt brought in with reply briefs."

A decision to establish leadership structure was supposed to be made during a June 7 status conference but that was canceled.