No restitution for gas leak victims under criminal plea deal so far

SANTA CLARITA -- Telling a packed courtroom Friday she had a narrow appellate mandate, a superior court judge ruled those affected by the 2015 gas blowout at Aliso Canyon were not due restitution as part of a criminal plea deal between the county and Southern California Gas Co.

But Judge Maria Cavalluzzi stopped short of adopting her tentative ruling, saying there is a possible subset of people who may be entitled to a hearing. She took her ruling under submission.

Area residents who've reported health problems due to the massive gas leak have been seeking restitution in the criminal case for about four years. SoCalGas pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge of failing to report the leak in a timely manner.

A judge originally ruled individual plaintiffs were not entitled to restitution because the three-day reporting delay was not related to the damage caused. The 2nd District Court of Appeal last year ruled plaintiffs deserved a chance to be heard on the issue of that reporting delay.

Cavalluzzi ruled the plaintiffs failed to show the reporting delay played a factor in damages.

"I sympathize with the families, but it seems the damages are from the leak itself and not the reporting of it. The court remanded it for that specific narrow purpose," said Cavalluzzi. "I would have to see some evidence that things would have been different if the report was made on Oct. 23 instead of Oct. 26."

The plaintiffs, represented by R. Rex Parris and Patricia K. Oliver of the Parris Law Firm, Brentford Ferreira of Steve Cooley and Associates, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., argued restitution was due in part because the report itself was not appropriately filed to include emitted toxins, such as benzene.

"The damage that was done was done in those first three days. That's when the biggest emissions occurred," said Ferreira.

"The court of appeal clearly delineated the damages from the leak itself are not what we are talking about here. How would that be different if the report were made on the 23rd instead of 26th?" asked the judge.

"The 23rd would be the proper notice. They pled guilty to not giving proper notice on the 23rd," said Ferreira.

"Nowhere in the complaint does it say 'proper notice,'" responded the judge.

The judge took note, however, of a call to SoCalGas from a resident who reported falling ill as a result of gas. In the call, a representative told him he was experiencing a "non-toxic" "reaction."

"It's normal," the representative said in a call played in court.

"It does impress the court," said the judge. "The person was told a lot of misinformation and couldn't follow up because there was no report at that time. Maybe that person would have taken action."

Parris also presented SoCalGas utility bills stating gas leaks could expose people to benzene and are cause for evacuation.

Parris said the utility failed to mention this in its report.

"Look at the form. You have to list the health effects of this," he told the judge.

SoCalGas defense attorney Manuel A. Abascal of Latham & Watkins LLP said plaintiffs' attorneys were engaging in "broad-scale fact-finding."

"We were not charged with inaccurately reporting the release," he said.

He pointed to cases in which victims were not entitled to restitution, including one where a state agency forced to clean up a meth lab was denied restitution because it was not the target of the crime. People v. Martinez (2005) 36 Cal.4th 384, 393-94.

"The law is very clear that restitution is available only to victims of the offense of the convictions or economic harm resulting from offense of conviction," said Abascal.

The judge also expressed concern about paving the way for the utility to withdraw its plea if the issue of failing to properly submit the report was pursued further.

"This is a significant and unusual case," said the judge.

A final decision is expected in two weeks.

About 40,000 plaintiffs are pursuing claims in civil court against the utility and its parent company, Sempra Energy. Residents said the methane leak caused blindness, fatigue, respiratory problems and ailments as severe as cancer. A trial is expected this summer.