1 Timothy S. Blackford (Bar No.

190900)
BEHMER & BLACKFORD LLP
2 12526 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92130
3 Tel: 858-792-3420
Fax: 858-792-3422
4
Attorneys for Plaintiff
5 Patisserie Melanie

6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO – CENTRAL DIVISION
10
PATISSERIE MELANIE, a California CASE NO.
11 limited liability company;
COMPLAINT FOR:
12 Plaintiff,
(1) NEGLIGENCE
13 v.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
14 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC
COMPANY; and DOES 1-10,
15
Defendants.
16
17

18

19
20

21
22

23

24
25

26
27

28

COMPLAINT
1 THE PARTIES

2 Plaintiff

3 1. Plaintiff Patisserie Melanie (“Patisserie Melanie” or “Plaintiff”) is a California

4 limited liability company with its principal place of business at 3750 30th Street, San Diego, CA
5 92104.

6 Defendant
7 2. Plaintiff is informed and believe that Defendant San Diego Gas & Electric
8 Company (“SDG&E”) is a California company with its principal place of business in San Diego,
9 California.

10 Doe Defendants

11 3. Plaintiff is not aware of the true names and identities of the fictitiously named
12 (Doe) defendants. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and on that basis alleges, that each Doe

13 defendant was responsible in some manner for the acts alleged herein, and/or is a necessary party

14 who will be named when his/her/its true identity is discovered so that the Court may grant
15 complete relief to Plaintiff. All defendants, including Doe defendants, are collectively referred to

16 herein as “Defendants.”
17 Agency, Aiding and Abetting, and Conspiracy

18 4. Each of the Defendants named in this Complaint were at all times mentioned

19 herein the co-conspirator, director, officer, agent, contractor, consultant or employee of, or
20 predecessor or successor to one or more of the other Defendants, and in doing the things

21 hereinafter alleged was acting within the course and scope of such conspiracy, agency or
22 employment, and with the permission or consent of one or more of the other Defendants, such

23 that each Defendant is liable for the acts and omissions of every other Defendant, unless

24 otherwise indicated.
25 5. As members of the conspiracies alleged more fully below, each of the Defendants

26 participated and acted with or in furtherance of said conspiracy, or aided and assisted in carrying
27 out the purposes of the conspiracy, and have performed acts and made statements in furtherance

28 of the conspiracy and other violations of California law.

-1-
COMPLAINT
1 6. Each Defendant acted individually and in alignment with the other Defendants

2 with full knowledge of their respective wrongful conduct. As such, Defendants conspired

3 together, building upon each other’s wrongdoing, in order to accomplish the acts outlined in this
4 Complaint.
5 7. Defendants are individually sued as principals, participants, aiders and abettors,

6 and co-conspirators in the wrongful conduct complained of and the liability of each arises from
7 the fact that each has engaged in all or part of the improper acts, plans, schemes, conspiracies, or
8 transactions complained of herein.
9 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10 8. Jurisdiction and venue are appropriate in this Court because the acts of Defendants

11 were directed to, and damages and other harm were incurred in, this county. The damages and
12 other harm suffered are well in excess of the $35,000 jurisdiction requirements for an unlimited

13 civil action.

14 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
15 9. Patisserie Melanie seeks damages for the harm that is the direct result of SDG&E’s

16 incompetence, mismanagement, and gross and reckless negligence. Patisserie Melanie leased out
17 the property located at 3750 30th Street, San Diego, CA 92104, and started construction on a

18 bakery/restaurant. Patisserie Melanie requested an electrical upgrade from SDG&E on October 8,

19 2019. It did not receive that upgrade until March 20, 2023, nearly three and a half years later.
20 10. Unfortunately, the process included a litany of gross errors, long periods of little to

21 no communication or work, misinformation, and an unwillingness to communicate forthrightly by

22 SDG&E. The failures at SDG&E were not merely isolated incidents by a handful of employees,

23 but rather a systemic failure throughout the company. What should have been a simple request for

24 a work order that took a month or two, turned into an absolute nightmare that took almost three
25 and a half years.

26 11. Plaintiff put in the initial request for an electrical upgrade on October 8, 2019.
27 When Plaintiff discovered the landlord had provided a shell with no gas, Plaintiff added gas to the

28 request to SDG&E. What followed was a seemingly endless amount of assurances it was being
-2-
COMPLAINT
1 worked on from Plaintiff’s first planner Robyn McBride. For example, in an email from her dated

2 June 2020, she stated she received Plaintiff’s electrical plans and things were seemingly

3 progressing. Nonetheless, it took SDG&E until March of 2021 to inform Plaintiff that it had been
4 reviewed and was ready to be released.
5 12. The delays with Ms. McBride became so bad, Plaintiff reached out to Pauline Ma,

6 an SDG&E community relations manager. Ms. Ma helped Plaintiff get a new planner at SDG&E
7 assigned in September of 2021, but that was almost two years after the initial request for an
8 electrical update had been made.
9 13. The new planner was Kat Kong. Understandably, Ms. Kong had to get up to speed

10 before finalizing designs, so it took her a few weeks to finalize the designs, but her designs still

11 needed to be approved. Time estimates for completion kept getting pushed back: first 4 – 6
12 weeks, then 8 – 10 weeks, then 16 – 20 weeks. Ms. Kong was eventually able to push things

13 through so Plaintiff could apply for City permits by November 2021. That was over two years

14 from the initial request for an upgrade.

15 14. SDG&E delays continued. Ms. Kong was able to push approval of the design, but

16 that didn’t happen until March 2022. In May 2022, Plaintiff finally received the electrical service
17 order from SDG&E, but it still had no word on gas from SDG&E even though it was almost two

18 years from when SDG&E received the plans, and over two-and-a-half years since the initial

19 request.
20 15. Plaintiff again reached out to Ms. Ma and Ms. Kong at SDG&E in June 2022. Ms.

21 Kong was able to get everything going once again, but then the project was assigned to a new
22 planner, Jennifer Burke, in September 2022. As soon as Ms. Burke took over, there was another

23 long period of waiting. Plaintiff tried to schedule a disconnect/reconnect, over and over, for

24 months. Nothing happened. Ms. Burke went on leave without telling Plaintiff or assigning
25 someone to take her place. Plaintiff reached out to Ms. Burke about the delays in the gas meter in

26 January of 2023, again with no response.

27 16. Someone else eventually responded in her stead, but Plaintiff was now being told

28 it couldn’t have gas until it obtained a municipal inspection on the gas lines. After talking to the
-3-
COMPLAINT
1 City Inspector, he said he wouldn’t pass the gas lines until we’d received the electrical upgrade.

2 In other words, SDG&E’s failure to install the electrical upgrades was preventing the City from

3 inspecting and passing the gas lines.

4 17. In addition to the foregoing, SDG&E caused further delays to the project. The
5 technical information Plaintiff received from SDG&E about the electrical service kept changing

6 until literally the day service was connected. Initially, Plaintiff was told three-phase was
7 available. Then Plaintiff was told it wasn’t, and Plaintiff would need to install single-phase. Then
8 after some more time, Plaintiff was told three-phase was available. This flip flopping by SDG&E
9 prevented Plaintiff from ordering the correct panel for the business, pushing the project out even

10 further.

11 18. When at last SDG&E came out on March 8, 2023 to disconnect service, SDG&E
12 had the wrong paperwork. The crew refused to do work without the proper paperwork. They

13 called their superior, who wouldn’t approve the work. The next day, Plaintiff met Jennifer Burke

14 on site. She said the initial paperwork was wrong. She said she needed to send someone out to
15 check the wiring for the correct phase and voltage and required us do load calculations all over

16 again. It was as if the project were starting from scratch. Ms. Burke promised this was her only
17 project, and that she would move quickly to resolve these issues.

18 19. On March 14, 2023, after encountering further delays and runaround, Plaintiff

19 again reached out to Ms. Kong and Ms. Ma. Ms. Ma said Ms. Burke was out of the office, so Ms.
20 Ma set about attempting to move the job forward. In these attempts, Plaintiff encountered

21 multiple SDG&E personnel who refused to take responsibility or even respond. They would
22 obfuscate and blame other people within SDG&E for the delays. SDG&E employees even called

23 Plaintiff’s contractor a liar to his face, saying the meetings he had with people never occurred,

24 even though they were recorded on video.

25 20. Ms. Ma spent hours over several days simply trying to figure out who belonged to

26 what department, and who was in charge of what. When Plaintiff observed that SDG&E had “no
27 semblance of organization,” and that this was “a pervasive, systemic problem,” Ms. Ma said, “I

28 agree with you.” In response to a comment from Plaintiff that dealing with SDG&E was like
-4-
COMPLAINT
1 “fighting a hydra,” Ms. Ma said that was “an apt analogy.”

2 21. SDG&E finally came out to do a disconnect on Thursday, March 16, 2023.

3 Plaintiff’s electricians were ready to reconnect the next day. But SDG&E kept giving various
4 reasons why they couldn’t come out. That meant the business was without power for the
5 weekend.

6 22. On the following Monday, March 20, 2023, SDG&E came out to reconnect, but
7 when they reconnected the lines, they realized the voltage was wrong yet again. Only then, did
8 SDG&E discover that the voltage was 208 C-Phase. In other words, almost three and a half years
9 from the initial request, Plaintiff still did not have the correct information about what lines were

10 going into the building. As SDG&E is well aware, that information is the starting point of any

11 project, upon which all the work and equipment purchases are based. Plaintiff didn’t receive the
12 correct information until the day SDG&E reconnected the electricity.

13 23. The consequence was that Plaintiff had to scramble to change the panels within the

14 business and redo all the circuits. While some of the work was finished, there was only power to
15 the lights in the front of the business. There was no power to the cameras, alarms or any other

16 security or lighting. The municipal inspection and subsequent gas meter installation were
17 completed by the end of that week.

18 24. Plaintiff has been damaged as a direct result of SDG&E’s negligence, which

19 include but are not limited to at least the following:

20 a. Building Expenses $819,688.45

21 b. Equipment Costs $104,402.10

22 c. Insurance $13,600.28

23 d. Loan Payments $100,602.51

24 e. Rent $186,708.83
25 f. Start Up Costs $3,777.66

26 g. Utilities Costs $3,879.03

27 h. Remaining Debt Obligations $1,108,181.49

28 i. Lost Revenues $683,963.28

-5-
COMPLAINT
1 j. Total Monetary Damages $3,024,803.63

2 25. The exact amount of damages incurred by Plaintiff will be according to proof at

3 the time of trial.

4 26. If Plaintiff had known it would take SDG&E employees over three and a half
5 years to carry out the basic functions of their job, Plaintiff would not have signed the lease or

6 incurred other costs for the business. Because SDG&E is the only choice for utilities,
7 unaccountable to any competition of the free market, Plaintiff was forced to use only SDG&E.
8 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
9 Negligence – Against All Defendants

10 27. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 26, as if

11 stated here in full.

12 28. Defendants had a duty to Plaintiff to perform gas and electric utilities connection,

13 disconnection, and installation in a reasonable, competent, and timely manner.

14 29. Defendants breached these duties by, among other things, mismanagement, project
15 delays, incompetent services, incomplete services, inadequate workmanship, and other acts and

16 omissions as alleged herein.

17 30. Defendants’ conduct was a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damages and injuries.

18 31. Defendants’ negligence was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.

19 32. Defendants were grossly and recklessly negligent as alleged herein. Furthermore,
20 Defendants conducted their business in an abusive, oppressive, and harassing manner.

21 33. Defendants acted with reckless, willful or callous disregard for Plaintiff’s rights
22 and with malice, fraud or oppression toward Plaintiff, thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of

23 punitive damages in accordance with proof at trial.

24 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

25 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:

26 1. For all compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial;

27 2. For all consequential and incidental damages in an amount to be proven at trial;

28 4. For pre-judgment interest on all such damages at the maximum rate allowed by
-6-
COMPLAINT
1 law from the time Plaintiff incurred the loss, costs and damages;

2 5. For punitive damages according to proof at trial;

3 6. For costs and attorneys’ fees;

4 7. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem proper.
5 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

6 Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues triable by a jury.

7 Dated: April 5, 2023 BEHMER & BLACKFORD LLP
8
9
TIMOTHY S. BLACKFORD
10 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Patisserie Melanie
11
12

13

14
15

16
17

18

19
20

21
22

23

24
25

26
27

28
-7-
COMPLAINT