Porter Ranch plaintiff can pursue trespass claim

LOS ANGELES -- A judge presiding over the Porter Ranch gas leak cases against Southern California Gas Co. tentatively ruled Wednesday that a bellwether plaintiff could proceed with claims for trespass and fraudulent concealment.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl granted the utility's defense motions to adjudicate causes of action for inverse condemnation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. However, she denied bids to beat back claims for trespass and fraudulent concealment.

The plaintiff, Kevin Dodge Jr., sued the utility, arguing his Granada Hills home was invaded by the 2015 gas leak at Aliso Canyon without his consent.

Defense attorneys from Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP argued Dodge must prove his property suffered physical damage as to the trespass claim.

Kuhl ruled that Dodge himself presented sufficient evidence to raise the issue as to whether the residence was physically damaged due to the leak. She disagreed with the utility's attorneys that an opinion had to be backed up by a gas expert.

"Defendants' position is not well taken," ruled Kuhl. "Plaintiffs have offered evidence raising an issue of material fact as to whether the gas leak caused the deposit of particulate matter, including well-kill fluids, on the Dodge family home," ruled Kuhl, who took the ruling under submission.

As to the issue of fraudulent concealment, plaintiffs asserted the utility owed a duty to disclose facts about potential injury to persons and property in the vicinity of the gas blowout because it previously made statements about the safety of residents while withholding information about risks.

The defense said the claim failed because there was no fiduciary or transactional relationship between the resident and the utility.

Kuhl agreed with plaintiffs, ruling there was a duty by the utility to disclose because it previously made partial representations about the nature of the gas leak.

"California case law is clear that a misleading representation gives rise to a duty to provide corrective information, regardless of whether the speaker otherwise has a duty to the recipient of the information," ruled Kuhl.

Patricia K. Oliver, an attorney with Parris Lawyers who represents some plaintiffs, said the ruling could be applicable to others.

The case was headed toward trial but disrupted by the court shutdown. No new trial date has been set.