In Copyright Since September 11, 2000
This web site is in no manner affiliated with any Kaiser entity and the for profit Permanente
Link for Translation of the Kaiser Papers 

PATHFINDER(search)  |   ABOUT US  |  CONTACT  |  WHY THE KAISERPAPERS  |  
RESEARCH GUIDES BY SUBJECT  |    A READER'S GUIDE    |    

downey.kaiserpapers.info

LEONARD JAMES MARTIN, IN PROPRIA PERSONA

, California 

Telephone: 

Facsimile: 

Plaintiff, In Propria Persona

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

CENTRAL CIVIL WEST

PLAINTIFF LEONARD J. MARTIN submits the following Opposition to the Demurrer of DREAMWORKS PRODUCTIONS as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

Forty-two Plaintiffs have brought suit against twelve Defendants asserting the following ten causes of action: (1) negligence, (2) negligence per se, (3) strict liability-failure to warn, (4) strict liability for ultra-hazardous activities, (5) fraudulent concealment, (6) negligent misrepresentation, (7) premises liability, (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (9) dangerous condition of public property, and (10) fraudulent concealment per California Labor Code section 3602(b)(2). Plaintiff worked on the premises located at 12214 Lakewood Boulevard, Downey, California 90242. Defendants owned the subject premises at various periods of time during a time frame of sixty years. Plaintiff first time working on subject premises was on or about June 12, 2002, on DareDevil for DareDevil Production and Twentieth Century Fox. Plaintiff second time working on subject premises were on or about November 10, 2004, on The Island for DreamWorks Productions in the 1, and 290 Buildings. At all times, Plaintiff was exposed to toxic/hazardous materials, resulting in physical and emotional injuries.

II. DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER LACKS MERIT AND SHOULD BE OVERRULED

For the purpose of ruling on a demurrer, a judge must treat a demurrer as an admission for all material facts that are property pleaded in the challenged pleading or that reasonably arise by implication, however improbable those fact may be. (Gervase v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1218; Yue v. City of Auburn (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 751,756.)

A judge must overrule a demurrer if the allegations of the complaint adequately state a cause of action under any legal theory. (Cellular Plus v. Superior Court (1979) 14 Cal.App.4th

1224, 1231.) Thus, a complaint survives a demurrer if it states facts disclosing some right to relief. (Longshore v. County of Ventura (1979) 25 Cal.3d 14, 22; Parada v. City of Colton (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 356, 362.) This is in Accordance with the general rule that in ruling on a pleading, a judge must liberally construe the pleading’s allegations with a view to ensuring substantial justice for both parties. (California Code of Civil Procedure Section 452.)

Plaintiff operative Complaint alleges key facts that readily defeats this Demurrer.

III. CEQA CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

Title 14. California Code of Regulations Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act.

Article 1. General:

Sections 15000 to 15007:

15000. Authority:

“The regulations contained in this chapter are prescribed by the Secretary for Resources to be followed by all state and local agencies in California in the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. These Guidelines have been developed by the Office of Planning and Research for adoption by the Secretary for Resources in accordance with Section 21083. Additional information may be obtained by writing:

Secretary for Resources 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311 Sacramento, CA 95814.

These Guidelines are binding on all public agencies in California.

Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; Reference: Sections 21082 and 21083, Public Resources Code; City of Santa Ana v. City of Garden Grove, (1979) 100 Cal. App. 3d 521.

15001. Short Title

These Guidelines may be cited as the "State CEQA Guidelines." Existing references to the "State EIR Guidelines" shall be construed to be references to the State CEQA Guidelines.

Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; Reference: Section 21083, Public Resources Code.

15002. General Concepts

(a) Basic Purposes of CEQA. The basic purposes of CEQA are to:

(1) Inform governmental decision-makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities.

(2) Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.

(3) Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible.

(4) Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved.

(b) Governmental Action. CEQA applies to governmental action. This action may involve:

(1) Activities directly undertaken by a governmental agency,

(2) Activities financed in whole or in part by a governmental agency, or

(3) Private activities which require approval from a governmental agency.

(c) Private Action. Private action is not subject to CEQA unless the action involves governmental participation, financing, or approval.

(d) Project. A "project" is an activity subject to CEQA. The term "project" has been interpreted to mean far more than the ordinary dictionary definition of the term. (See: Section 15378.)

(e) Time for Compliance. A governmental agency is required to comply with CEQA procedures when the agency proposes to carry out or approve the activity. (See: Section 15004.)

(f) Environmental Impact Reports and Negative Declarations. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is the public document used by the governmental agency to analyze the significant environmental effects of a proposed project, to identify alternatives, and to disclose possible ways to reduce or avoid the possible environmental damage.

(1) An EIR is prepared when the public agency finds substantial evidence that the project may have a significant

effect on the environment. (See: Section 15064(a)(1).)

(2) When the agency finds that there is no substantial evidence that a project may have a significant environmental effect, the agency will prepare a "Negative Declaration" instead of an EIR. (See: Section 15070.)

(g) Significant Effect on the Environment. A significant effect on the environment is defined as a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions which exist in the area affected by the proposed project. (See: Section 15382.) Further, when an EIR identifies a significant effect, the government agency approving the project must make findings on whether the adverse environmental effects have been substantially reduced or if not, why not. (See: Section 15091.)

Article 9. Contents of Environmental Impact Reports

Sections 15120 to 15132

15120. General

“(a) Environmental Impact Reports shall contain the information outlined in this article, but the format of the document may be varied. Each element must be covered, and when these elements are not separated into distinct sections, the document shall state where in the document each element is discussed.

(b) The EIR may be prepared as a separate document, as part of a general plan, or as part of a project report. If prepared as a part of the project report, it must still contain one separate and distinguishable section providing either analysis of all the subjects required in an EIR or, as a minimum, a table showing where each of the subjects is discussed. When the Lead Agency is a state agency, the EIR shall be included as part of the regular project report if such a report is used in the agency's existing review and budgetary process.

(c) Draft EIRs shall contain the information required by Sections 15122 through 15131. Final EIRs shall contain the same information and the subjects described in Section 15132.

(d) No document prepared pursuant to this article that is available for public examination shall include a "trade secret" as defined in Section 6254.7 of the Government Code, information about the location of archaeological sites and sacred lands, or any other information that is subject to the disclosure restrictions of Section 6254 of the Government Code.

Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; Reference: Sections 21100, 21105 and 21160, Public Resources Code.

15121. Informational Document

(a) An EIR is an informational document which will inform public agency decision-makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effect of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. The public agency shall consider the information in the EIR along with other information which may be presented to the agency.

(b) While the information in the EIR does not control the agency's ultimate discretion on the project, the agency must respond to each significant effect identified in the EIR by making findings under Section 15091 and if necessary by making a statement of overriding consideration under Section 15093.

(c) The information in an EIR may constitute substantial evidence in the record to support the agency's action on the project if its decision is later challenged in court.

Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; Reference: Section 21061, Public Resources Code; Carmel Valley View, Ltd. v. Board of Supervisors, (1976) 58 Cal. App. 3d 817.

15122. Table of Contents or Index

An EIR shall contain at least a table of contents or an index to assist readers in finding the analysis of different subjects and issues.

Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; Reference: Section 21061, Public Resources Code.

15123. Summary

(a) An EIR shall contain a brief summary of the proposed actions and its consequences. The language of the summary should be a clear and simple as reasonably practical.

(b) The summary shall identify:

(1) Each significant effect with proposed mitigation measures and alternatives that would reduce or avoid that effect;

(2) Areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency including issues raised by agencies and the public; and

(3) Issues to be resolved including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate the significant effects.

(c) The summary should normally not exceed 15 pages.

Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; Reference: Section 21061, Public Resources Code.”

IV. DOWNEY LANDING SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

On or about February 2002, a Final Program Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse Number 2001031096 was Prepared for: The City of Downey, located at 11111 Brookshire Avenue, Downey, California 90241-7016. The Final Program Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse Number 2001031096 was Prepared by: EIP Associates, located at 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430, Los Angeles, California 90025, on or about February 2002. Also Prepared by: Stevens-Garland Associates and MCE Consulting Engineers.

3.1 Aesthetics/Lighting

“Few sources of nighttime lighting internal to the project site currently exist. While portions of Building 1, 288, and 6/290 are currently used for motion picture production, most of this activity occurs during daylight hours, with the exception of an active motion picture set in a portion of the existing parking lot in proposed Area II (the central portion of the site).” Page 3.1-1

3.2 Air Quality

3.2.1 Introduction: “This section addresses the air quality setting and impacts related to the construction and operation of the proposed project. Air pollutants are defined, and the framework of federal, state, regional, and local air quality requirements is described in section 3.2.2 (Regulatory Framework). Section 3.2.3 (existing Conditions) provides descriptions of the climate and meteorology, and an overview of the region’s air quality characteristics and existing air quality in the project area, including the impact on ambient air quality on a regional and local basis. Air quality calculation data is provided in Appendix C of this document.” Page 3.2-1

Mitigation Measure 3.2-1: “Develop and implement a construction management plan, as approved by the City of Downey, which includes the following measures recommended by the SCAQMD, or equivalently effective measures approved by the SCAQMD.” Page 3.2-15

Mitigation Measure 3.2-2: “Implement all rules and regulations by the Governing Board of the SCAQMD which are applicable to the development of the project (such as Rule 402 – Nuisance and Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust) and which are in effect at the time of development. The following measures are currently recommended to implement Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust). These measures have been quantified by the SCAQMD as being able to reduce dust generation between 30 and 85 percent depending on the source of the dust generation.” Page 3.2-16

3.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

3.3.1 Introduction: “The Initial Study prepared for this project (which is included as Appendix A of this document) determined that project-related impacts regarding hazards and hazardous materials associated with the proposed hospital and medical office uses could be potentially significant. Therefore, this section considers the potential effects of project-related increases in the risk of exposure of persons to soil contaminants. The information included in this section has been compiled from a soil Investigation Report prepared by SCS Engineers for the City of Downey in 1998, an Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared for the project site by NASA in 2000, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Law / Crandall for Kaiser Permanente, and a Human Health Risk Assessment prepared by Kaiser Permanente: each of these documents is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety. Some information has also been obtained from consultation with involved parties. Full bibliographic entries to reports cited in this section are provided in Chapter 7.0 (References) of this EIR.” Page 3.3-1

Known and Potential Contamination Sites on the Project Site: “The following discussion is based on descriptions of sites investigated as part of NASA’s site remediation effort, as well as the Phase I ESA prepared by Law / Crandall in 2001. Parcel 1 Chemical Contamination, Soil samples from 12 borings contained detectable concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Borings that reached groundwater also yielded detectable concentrations of VOCs.” page 3.3-3

“Groundwater samples from Parcels 1 and 2 also exhibited detectable concentrations of trichloroethene (TCE), which exceed Maximum Contaminant Levels of the California Primary Drinking Water Standards.” Page 3.3-4

“Building 244 was used for chemical mill operations in the late 1950s and early 1960s.” Page 3.3-4

Radiation Contamination: “The northeastern portion of Building 1, where the loading dock is now located, once housed a 4-watt nuclear reactor, which was used by the Atomic Energy Research Department of North American Aviation from 1948 to 1955. In December of 1955, all work was moved to Canoga Park under a new division (Atomics International) of North American Aviation. The reactor was moved in 1956, and available information from the 1950s indicated that the facility was not left in a contaminated condition. All isotopes stored on-site after this period were disposed of in the early 1990s. Because information regarding these early activities is highly incomplete, Boeing agreed that a Radiation Safety Survey be conducted for the project site. The study, which was completed in March 2001, was designed to demonstrate compliance with applicable regulatory release criteria by measuring the residual radioactivity from radiological operations on the site during the period described above. Detailed data for each measurement are available in the appendix of the report. Thereport is on file and available for review at the City of Downey Planning Department.” Page 3.3-5

Parcel 2: “Samples from soils borings and groundwater penetration borings contained detectable concentrations of VOCs. As of August 2001, TEC and tetrachloroethene (PCE) were detected in groundwater beneath Parcel 2. TCE ranged in concentration from 26micrograms per liter…to 170… PCE ranged in concentration from 8.4…to16… The concentrations of both PCE and TCE exceeded the State of California Department of Health Services Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) of…for these compounds; however, the groundwater monitoring wells located upgradient from Parcel 1 (which is also upgradient fromParcel 2) indicate PCE concentrations ranging from <7.5…to 14… TCE concentrations in the upgradient monitoring wells ranged from 120…to 1,200… The VOC levels in the soil sample did not exceed the PRGs of the EPA or the RWQCB SCSLs, but groundwater penetration samples near Building 6 and 290 contained detectable VOC concentrations that likely resulted from the use of solvents both an above- and a below-ground storage tank are located near and within Building 289, respectively.” Page 3.3-5

Asbestos: “Renovation or demolition of buildings with asbestos-containing material (ACM) can potentially release asbestos fibers into the air (NASA 2000). ACM includes materials such as pipe and boiler insulation, acoustical ceilings, sprayed-on fireproofing, and other soundproofing or insulation. NASA policy during its ownership of the project site consisted of managing ACM in place, and ACM is removed only when a potential exists for a release of asbestos that could affect human health or the environment (NASA 2000, p. 3-16).”

“NASA contracted for an asbestos survey in 1986 of structures on the project site. The survey identified ACM in Buildings 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 11, 14, 41, 56, 61, 119, 128, 229, 239, 244, 246, 276, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 299, 305, and 999 (NASA 2000, pp. 3-16, 3-17).” Page 3.3-8

Lead-Based Paint: “NASA has conducted no specific studies with regard to lead-based paint, because no high-priority facilities (housing, elementary schools) are present on-site. However, many of the buildings on-site were constructed prior to 1978 and are therefore considered likely to contain lead-based paint.” Page 3.3-8

See attached 647 page Environmental Impact Report, a hard copy will be provided for the Court and a CD will be provided for all Parties and their Attorneys of record.

V. Downey Studios Downey Landing Park and Learning Center Area Timeline (condensed)

1929-1936

Early aircraft production.

1929-1932

EMSCO Aircraft Corporation

1932-1933

Champion Aircraft Corporation

Curtis Manufacturing Company

1933

Security National Aircraft Corporation

1933-1936

Baker Oil Tolls Company

1936-1941

The Vultee Aircraft Company

1942-1948

Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation (Convair)

1948-1953

North American Aviation

1953-1957

U.S. Air Force Plant 16 (Navaho)

North American Rockwell

1961-1972

The Race for Space

North American Aviation Inc.

North American Rockwell

1961-1975

Saturn S-II, Apollo, Skylab, Apollo Soyuz

1972-1999

The Space Shuttle Orbiter Program

Rockwell International

VI. Downey Audio Report By Adolfo Guzman – Lopez 89.3 KPCC Radio Reporter And

Jerry Blackburn

(? Speaker) A page in Southern California Aerospace History turned last month, NASA transferred it over to the City, the plant in Downey, that turned out, the Apollo Space Craft, and parts of the Space Shuttle. The 160 acre site will be the new home for a complex of movie sound studios, stores, a hospital, and a museum, focusing on the sites role of air and space exploration, KPCC Adolfo Guzman – Lopez, took a tour of the site.

(Adolfo Guzman – Lopez) 80 years ago the site was a caster bean farm next to orange groves, but since than the plant, owned by NASA, since the 1960’s has seen everything from Barn Stormmer to Space Shuttles, and housed companies from North American Aviation to Rockwell, and Boeing, in fact doing the Rockwell era the Apollo Command Modular was assembled here.

(Jerry Blackburn) The one that looks like a big Hershey kiss. That was the Vehicle that came in here…

(Adolfo Guzman – Lopez) Jerry Blackburn had top secret clearance at the plant.

(Jerry Blackburn) It came in, in pieces and components as set assemblies and then it would go….

(Adolfo Guzman – Lopez) …Assembly line was flooded with lights and Engineers walking around in so called bunny suits to avoid contamination. He said the space race made workers fill anything was possible. But today the electricity is shut off in the Cabinets room and things aren’t as clean and well lighted as they use to be.

(Jerry Blackburn) When, …when I look at this room, …mentally I can see the days when,..a.. their were people all over the place and hardware, …and… bright lights from the ceiling and so forth, and so now its, its like visiting a… maybe a home that you had live in all your childhood, and now its vacant and you walk through and you can smell the,..you know the dust and the mold….

(? Speaker) 7, 6, 5, we have main engine start 3, 2, 1, lift off…..

(Adolfo Guzman – Lopez) Blackburn remembers most of the Space Shuttle Launches too. That’s because parts of the Discovery were assembled here, after the Apollo program was cancelled.

(? Speaker) Tower cleared the Vehicle now turning around to the proper….

(Adolfo Guzman – Lopez) Blackburn’s retired now but he’s researching the plants history for a new museum that will be at the site. He points to one of the oldest buildings a 1929 brick structure designed by the Architect of Hoover Dam and the Santa Anita Race Track.

(Jerry Blackburn) This area you see here where the trees are along the fence here back in the early Aircraft days they used to have a small stage and a boxing ring there and the story that I was told by some of the old aircraft employees is that doing lunch hour they used to come out here and have boxing matches I don’t know if they were using that to resolve management differences or if it was just the sport and the fun of it….

(Adolfo Guzman – Lopez) Jerry Blackburn says the depression was tough on early aircraft builder in southern California, only at the beginning of World War II did The Vultee Aircraft Corporation then based at the site benefit from President Franklin Roosevelt Pledge.

(President Franklin Roosevelt) The United States must build Planes …and Tanks …and Guns …and Ships, to the up most limits …of our national capacity. We must raise our sites all …along …the production line.

(Adolfo Guzman – Lopez) And in deed the Downey plant was the first to employ Rose the “Riveter” and other female aircraft workers. The war ended and things slowed at the facility, even as housing grow up around it. But President Kennedy’s call to put a man on the moon got the plants assembly line rolling again at full steam.

(Jerry Blackburn) Right about here, on this spot,… is where Ronald Regan came in and spoke to all of the employees in the facility….

(Adolfo Guzman – Lopez) Doing that speech a Rockwell worker asked if the President was going to increase the space budget. (?unknown person) didn’t give a definite yes. The plant closed four years ago after Boeing moved operations to Huntington Beach. Today the site is not entirely empty, film crews build sets here and shoots scenes for films such as Terminator III and Catch Me If You Can.

(Jerry Blackburn) With people back on the site doing things and creating things especially something new and different which it should be, we’ve had our time from the Aerospace side, now it’s time for…

(Adolfo Guzman – Lopez) So far he found photographs signed by Astronauts, Video tapes, models and reams of reports, while it was open Blackburn says most people even those living across the street didn’t know what went on here, but soon he ads, their learn once and for all how significant that work was. In Downey Adolfo Guzman – Lopez 89.3 KPCC.

VII. PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT DREAMWORKS PRODUCTIONS

As to Negligence:

Plaintiff became very sick doing the periods of employment at 12214 Lakewood Boulevard, in the City of Downey, California 90242. As to the DreamWorks Productions’ Negligence, Plaintiff became very sick.

As to Negligence Per Se:

Plaintiff became very sick doing the periods of employment at 12214 Lakewood Boulevard, in the City of Downey, California 90242. As to the DreamWorks Productions’ Negligence Per Se, Plaintiff became very sick.

As to Strict Liability: Failure to Warn:

“Products liability is the area of law in which manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, retailers, and others who make products available to the public are held responsible for the injuries those products cause.”

“Strict liability in tort is the concept that in certain situations a defendant is liable for plaintiff's damages without any requirement that the plaintiff prove that the defendant was negligent.”

Plaintiff became very sick doing the periods of employment at 12214 Lakewood Boulevard, in the City of Downey, California 90242. As to the DreamWorks Productions’ Strict Liability: Failure to Warn:, Plaintiff became very sick.

As to Strict Liability for Ultra-Hazardous Activities:

Transportation, storage, and use of dynamite and other explosives

Transportation, storage, and use of radioactive materials

Transportation, storage, and use of certain hazardous chemicals.”

Plaintiff became very sick doing the periods of employment at 12214 Lakewood Boulevard, in the City of Downey, California 90242. As to the DreamWorks Productions’ Strict Liability for Ultra-Hazardous Activities, Plaintiff became very sick.

As to Fraudulent Concealment:

“Concealment or hiding is obscuring something from view or rendering it inconspicuous, the opposite of exposure. A military term is CCD: camouflage, concealment and deception (looks the same as the surroundings, can not be seen, looks like something else, respectively); in a wider sense the other two are also forms of hiding.

The objective of hiding is often to keep the presence of an object or person secret, but in other cases not the presence is a secret, but only the location.

More generally an object may be hidden from view, either purposely, or as a side effect; in this case the presence of the object is not necessarily a secret. Examples:

Clothing hiding the skin or body shape from view; see also modesty

Wall

Door of a cupboard

Window covering”

Plaintiff became very sick doing the periods of employment at 12214 Lakewood Boulevard, in the City of Downey, California 90242. As to the DreamWorks Productions’ Fraudulent Concealment, Plaintiff became very sick.

As to Negligent Misrepresentation:

Plaintiff became very sick doing the periods of employment at 12214 Lakewood Boulevard, in the City of Downey, California 90242. As to the DreamWorks Productions’ Negligent Misrepresentation, Plaintiff became very sick.

As to Premises Liability:

“Premises liability law is the body of law which makes the person who is in possession of land or premises responsible for certain injuries suffered by persons who are present on the premises. Although some premises cases, such as so-called "slip and fall" cases, can seem simple, in some states the law now very much favors the premises owner.”

Plaintiff became very sick doing the periods of employment at 12214 Lakewood Boulevard, in the City of Downey, California 90242. As to the City of Downey’s Premises Liability, Plaintiff became very sick.

As to Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress:

“Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) is a tort claim of recent origin for intentional conduct that results in extreme emotional distress. Some courts and commentators have substituted mental for emotional, but the tort is the same. Some jurisdictions refer to IIED as the tort of outrage.”

Plaintiff became very sick doing the periods of employment at 12214 Lakewood Boulevard, in the City of Downey, California 90242. As to the DreamWorks Productions’ Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Plaintiff became very sick.

As to Dangerous Condition of Public Property:

GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 835-835.4

835. “Except as provided by statute, a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition

at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a reasonably forseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred,and that either:

(a) A negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or

(b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous

condition.

835.2. (a) A public entity had actual notice of a dangerous condition within the meaning of subdivision (b) of Section 835 if it had actual knowledge of the existence of the condition and knew or should have known of its dangerous character.

(b) A public entity had constructive notice of a dangerous condition within the meaning of subdivision (b) of Section 835 only if the plaintiff establishes that the condition had existed for such a period of time and was of such an obvious nature that the public entity, in the exercise of due care, should have discovered the condition and its dangerous character. On the issue of due care, admissible evidence includes but is not limited to evidence as to:

(1) Whether the existence of the condition and its dangerous character would have been discovered by an inspection system that was reasonably adequate (considering the practicability and cost of inspection weighed against the likelihood and magnitude of the potential danger to which failure to inspect would give rise) to inform the public entity whether the property was safe for the use or uses for which the public entity used or intended others to use the public property and for uses that the public entity actually knew others were making of the public property or adjacent property.

(2) Whether the public entity maintained and operated such an inspection system with due care and did not discover the condition.”

Plaintiff became very sick doing the periods of employment at 12214 Lakewood Boulevard, in the City of Downey, California 90242. As to the DreamWorks Productions’ Dangerous Condition of Public Property, Plaintiff became very sick.

As to Fraudulent Concealment Per Labor Code section 3602(b)(2):

“Where the employee's injury is aggravated by the employer's fraudulent concealment of the existence of the injury and its connection with the employment, in which case the employer's liability shall be limited to those damages proximately caused by the aggravation. The burden of proof respecting apportionment of damages between the injury and any subsequent aggravation thereof is upon the employer.”

Plaintiff became very sick doing the periods of employment at 12214 Lakewood Boulevard, in the City of Downey, California 90242. As to the DreamWorks Productions’ Fraudulent Concealment Per Labor Code section 3602(b)(2), Plaintiff became very sick.

///

///

As to Defendant DreamWorks Productions taking responsibility:

815.2. (a) A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee or his personal representative.

Defendants knew of the existence of hazardous contaminants on the subject property. Defendants intentionally withheld from Plaintiff that contaminants and toxic substance contaminated the subject property and never provided any warning. Defendants knew that Plaintiff was exposed to hazardous levels of contaminants as a result of the Defendants environmental test. And Defendants concealed material facts regarding contamination of surface, subsurface, and groundwater on the subject property. Plaintiff alleged that. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants advertised and represented that their activities were safe at the subject premises. Defendants had a duty to disclose by clear and reasonable warning prior to exposing them to hazardous contamination. Plaintiff alleged that this duty was imposed by Federal and State Statutes.

Given the above allegations in the First Amended Complaint, the Defendants make the Plaintiffs’ case for “particularity in pleading.” Plaintiff Opposes Defendants Demurrer in its entirety.

VIII. LETTER TO: ISLAND CAST AND CREW FROM: JIM ECONOMOS - DREAMWORKS PRODUCTION SAFETY

As to DreamWorks SKG letter,

“To: Island Cast and Crew Date: 03/24/05

From: Jim Economos – DreamWorks Production Safety Extension: (818) 733-6239

Subject: Downey Studios Stage Issues

We hired an independent testing company to conduct a series of environmental tests at the Downey Studios on March 03, 2005. In the buildings known as the mill, stage 1, and 290 we tested for the presence of mold spores. The tests came back positive for several kinds of mold.

We have attached a copy of the report we received on March 23, 2005 from Minte Corporation, the independent testing company, which specifies which specific molds were present and the levels at which they were found. Minte informed us that a normal healthy individual, with this period of exposure, should not have been adversely affected by potential exposure of this type. However if you have a compromised immune system, are pregnant, or have any other concerns, you may want to consult with your physician.

I am available to answer any questions that you may have. If you think you have been affected by this exposure please inform the production and consult your physician.”

IX. LETTER FROM AFFILIATED PROPERTY CRAFTSPERSONS LOCAL 44 OF

THE INTERNATION ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES AND MOVING PICTURE MACHINE OPERATORS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA

“May 4, 2005

Dear Local 44 Member,

For those of you who worked at the Downey Studios in the last year, possibly for Dreamworks, air and mold testing has shown toxins, molds, and other things you may have been exposed to. These are symptoms of mold and other toxic exposure injuries which you should be concerned about:

1. Higher incidence of infection

2. Dermatitis/rash

3. Headaches

4. Memory or verbal problems

5. Dizziness

6. Depression

7. Gall Bladder-like pain

8. Diarrhea

9. Laryngitis

10. Irritant cough

11. Shortness of breath

12. Chest Tightness

13. Constant sinus infections that do not respond to antibiotics or return after you have finished taking antibiotics

14. Sore throat

15. Headaches that do not respond to pain killers

16. Congestion, head and chest

17. Pimple like bumps that look like a pimple but have clear fluid in them and pop up just about any place on the body

18. Canker sores in the mouth – usually more than one at a time

19. Red raised solid rash on arms and legs or bumpy rash any place on the body

20. Loss of balance – can’t walk straight and bump into walls or objects

21. Crying for no reason – depression – severe emotional distress

22. Extreme irritability

23. Lack of concentration, memory loss, difficulty speaking, you lose track of what is being said or forget what was said before you can write it down, find yourself staring at the computer, unable to remember what you were doing, forget what you were saying or slurred speech.

We are having a meeting at Local 44 on May 25^th at 7:00P.M. and we will have an attorney here to talk to us. Please come if you are having any of these symptoms

Sincerely,

Ronnie Cunningham

Business Agent, I.A.T.S.E., Local 44

/drk

12021 Riverside Drive, North Hollywood, California 91607 (818) 769-2500 Fax (818) 769-1739”

X. PLAINTIFF’S DOCTOR REPORTS

As to Doctor Roger Lind’s report, “NASAL & SINUS DIS NEC…PHARYNGITIS… Mr. Martin is a 41 year-old gentleman. Was exposed several weeks ago to an irritant…Report dated December 17, 2004

As to Doctor Burton Roseman’s report, “PHARYNGITIS…FLU W RESP MANIFEST NEC…TEMP 101.4…throat is red…Report dated February 28, 2005.

As to Doctor Eugene Palliccia’s report, “Sinusitis, Acute…mild sinusitis…underlying allergic rhinitis…” Report dated April 02, 2005.

As to Doctor Eugene Palliccia’s report, “I am going to give him a referral to pulmonary medicine, Dr. Garb… I also gave him a referral to Dr. Belafsky…” Report dated May 28, 2005.

As to Doctor Melvin A. Belafsky’s report, “…one error in intermediate memory… IMPRESSION: 1) Mild short-term memory loss and inattention, suspect mild form of add… Report dated June 07, 2005.

As to Doctor Keith Garb’s report, “Nasal turbinates are mildly erythema.” “IMPRESSION: Rhinitis, reactive airway dysfunction. This appears to be related to airborne contaminants that were at the Downey Studios. The patient brought an air quality report for my review that found a number of molds.”

“At this point the patient appears to have some residual reactive airways dysfunction and nasal symptoms.”

“PLAN: Nasacort AQ. I have also ordered Advair 100/50 one inhalation b.i.d. I have ordered a spirometry before and after bronchodilator. Report dated June 07, 2005, at 17:31:25.

As to Doctor Helen Mawhinney’s Report, “HEENT: Moderate nasal mucosal swelling. Moderate pharyngeal. IMPRESSION: Allergic rhinitis, bronchial asthma. I think some of his symptoms today are related to allergic rhinitis.” Report dated June 11, 2005, at 17:58:01.

As to LabCorp’s Blood Report,

Date and Time Collected: September 21, 2005, at 14:48

Date Entered: September 22, 2005

Date and Time Reported: October 10, 2005, at 16:05 ET

“Aflatoxin Abs, IgG AflAtoxins 2419 High, IgM Aflatoxins 2225 High, Trichothecene Abs, IgM Trichothecene 2146 High, Satratoxin Abs, IgG Satratoxins 2412 High, IgM Satratoxins 1835 High, Thyroid Peroxidase (TPO) Ab High.”

As to Doctor Richard Goldman’s Report,

“CT Sinus without contrast

EXAMINATION DATE AND TIME: October 07, 2005, at 08:34A.M.

COMPARISON: Brain MRI report dated September 09, 2005

REASON FOR STUDY: CHRONIC SINUSITIS

FINDINGS: Axial and coronal scans were done through the paranasal sinuses. There is a 6 x 7 mm left maxillary sinus retention cyst or polyp on image 27. The right maxillary sinus is normal. The osteomeatal complexes are patent bilaterally. The nasal turbinates are normal. There is very minimal rightward deviation to the anterior nasal septum. The frontal, ethmoid and sphenoid sinuses are normal. The facial bones are normal. The nasopharynx is normal. The inner ear, middle ear cavities and mastoid air cells are normal.

IMPRESSION:

6 X 7 MM LEFT MAXILLARY SINUS RETENTION CYST OR POLYP.

MINIMAL RIGHTWARD DEVIATION TO THE ANTERIOR NASAL SEPTUM.”

///

XI. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully request that Defendants’ Demurrer be overruled as herein prayed. In the alternative, should this Court sustain Defendants’ Demurrer, Plaintiff respectfully asked that it do so, with leave to amend.

Dated: October 11, 2007 Respectfully Submitted

LEONARD JAMES MARTIN, IN PROPRIA PERSONA

By: _________________________________________________

LEONARD JAMES MARTIN, IN PROPRIA PERSONA