1 MATERN LAW GROUP, PC

Matthew J. Matern (SBN 159798)

2 Joshua D. Boxer (SBN 226712)
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
3
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
4 Tel: (310) 531-1900
Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
5
Attorneys for Plaintiffs HENRY EPHRIAM,
6 ALISIA RAMIREZ, GLORIA MAPP-
PARKER, YOLANDA PETTY, RANDAL
7 ODUMS, SERGIO BALLON, RICARDO
RAMIREZ, and CRESCENCIO PERERA,
8 individually and as representatives of all
others similarly situated
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE
11

12
HENRY EPHRIAM, ALISIA RAMIREZ, CASE NO.: 20STCV25845
13
GLORIA MAPP-PARKER, YOLANDA
PETTY, RANDAL ODUMS, SERGIO [Assigned to the Honorable Carolyn B.
14 Kuhl, Dept. 12]
BALLON, RICARDO RAMIREZ, and
15 CRESCENCIO PERERA, individually and on PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE
behalf of others similarly situated, APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
16 RESTRAINING ORDER, OR, IN THE
Plaintiffs, ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER
17 SHORTENING TIME IN WHICH TO
vs. HEAR A MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
18 RESTRAINING ORDER;
RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, FOOD 4 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
19 LESS OF CALIFORNIA, INC., and DOES AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
1–50, THEREOF
20
Defendants.
21 Hearing Date: July 22, 2020
Time: 8:30 a.m.
22 Department: 12
23
Action Filed: July 8, 2020
24

25

26
27

28
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS
1 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN RESTRAINING ORDER
BEACH, CA 90266
 1 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 22, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 12 of the

2 above-entitled Court, located at 312 N Spring St, Los Angeles, CA 90012, Plaintiffs will and

3 hereby do respectfully move ex parte for an order granting a temporary restraining order

4 (“TRO”), or, in the alternative, for an order shortening time to hear a motion for retraining order.

5 Plaintiffs respectfully move for an order requiring Defendants to implement immediate remedial

6 measures at Defendants’ Compton facility because, as a result of Defendants’ inaction, over one

7 hundred employees have already contracted the virus, and have spread it to untold numbers of

8 family members and members of the community at large. The spread of COVI-19 attributable to

9 Defendants’ employees has already claimed at least two lives and many more are at risk if

10 immediate remedial measures are not implemented.

11 This ex parte application is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”)

12 section 1005, CCP section 437(c), and California Rules of Court rules 3.1200-3.1207 and

13 3.1332(c)(d). Counsel gave notice of this ex parte application as outlined in the Boxer Decl., ¶ 4.

14 Good cause exists to grant this motion because Defendants have failed, and continue to

15 fail, to take sufficient steps to curb the spread of COVI-19 in their facility, including the failure to

16 provide appropriate protective equipment, failure to provide appropriate and sufficient sanitizers,

17 the failure to implement effective social distancing protocols, the failure to train employees on

18 disease prevention, as well as the availability of various leaves for employees who are sick, have

19 been in contact with those known or suspected to be positive, and the failure to implement

20 appropriate contact tracing to notify all employees when they have been endangered.

21 This ex parte application is based on this application, the accompanying memorandum of

22 points and authorities, the declarations of Joshua D. Boxer (“Boxer Decl.”), Alisa Ramirez

23 (“Ramirez Decl.”), Henry Ephriam (“Ephriam Decl.”), Melvin Dunklin (“Dunklin Decl.”),

24 Crescencio Perera (“Perera Decl.”), Randal Odums (“Odums Decl.”), Jomarr Rankin (“Rankin

25 Decl.”), and Adrien Hobbs (“Hobbs Decl.”).

26 \\

27 \\

28 \\
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN
2 RESTRAINING ORDER
BEACH, CA 90266
 1 Dated: July 21, 2020 MATERN LAW GROUP, PC

3 By:
Matthew J. Matern
4 Joshua D. Boxer
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
5

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21

22

23

24

25

26
27

28
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN
3 RESTRAINING ORDER
BEACH, CA 90266
 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

2
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 6
3
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. 7
4
1. COVID-19................................................................................................................................. 7
5
2. Defendants Fail to Implement Basic Safety Measures ............................................................. 8
6
3. The COVID-19 Outbreak at Defendants’ Warehouse Is Contributing to
7 Community Spread of COVID-19 and Presents a Danger to the Public .................................. 9

8 4. Defendants’ Operations Violate Minimum COVID-19 Health and Safety

Standards ................................................................................................................................. 10
9
III. ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................ 12
10
1. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Their Claim That
11 Defendants’ Operations Are a Public Nuisance ......................................................... 12

12 2. The Balance of Harms Tips Strongly in Plaintiffs’ Favor .......................................... 14

13 IV. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 16

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21

22

23

24

25

26
27

28
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN
4 RESTRAINING ORDER
BEACH, CA 90266
 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2 Cases
3 Birke v. Oakwood Worldwide,
169 Cal.App.4th 1540 (2009) .................................................................................................... 13
4

5 Butt v. California,
4 Cal.4th 668 (1992) ............................................................................................................ 12, 14
6
County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co.,
7 137 Cal.App.4th 292 (2006) ...................................................................................................... 13

8 Family Record Plan, Inc. v. Mitchell,

172 Cal.App.2d 235 (1959) ....................................................................................................... 14
9
People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna,
10
14 Cal.4th 1090 (1997) .............................................................................................................. 12
11
People v ConAgra Grocery Prod. Co.,
12 17 Cal.App.5th 51 (2017) .......................................................................................................... 12

13 Statutes
14 Civil Code § 3479 ...................................................................................................................... 7, 12
15 Civil Code § 3480 ...................................................................................................................... 7, 12
16 Civil Code § 3493 .................................................................................................................... 12, 13
17
Code of Civil Procedure § 437(c) .................................................................................................... 2
18
Code of Civil Procedure § 731 ....................................................................................................... 12
19
Code of Civil Procedure § 1005 ....................................................................................................... 2
20
Rules
21
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1200-3.1207 ............................................................................... 2
22
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c)(d) .................................................................................. 2
23

24 Other Authorities

25 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 821B .......................................................................................... 13

26
27

28
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN
5 RESTRAINING ORDER
BEACH, CA 90266
 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2 I. INTRODUCTION

3 As the COVID-19 pandemic raged through Los Angeles, Defendants Ralphs Grocery

4 Company and Food 4 Less of California, Inc. (“Defendants”) failed to implement even the

5 simplest safety measures at their Compton distribution center. As a result, over one hundred

6 employees have contracted COVID-19 to date.1 Many of these workers have in turn inadvertently

7 passed the virus on to their family members or the community at large. At least two family

8 members of Defendants’ employees have since died.2

9 From the outset, as cases increased at an alarming rate among its workforce, Defendants

10 failed to take measures to protect their employees and the community from the disease.3 Instead,

11 Defendants falsely claimed that infections were “isolated incidents,” failed to provide employees

12 with information about their exposure to others with this deadly virus so they could get tested or

13 self-isolate, and failed to provide sufficient gloves, masks, or basic sanitization supplies.4 Even

14 now, Defendants have failed to provide sufficient sanitizers to keep surfaces clean; failed to

15 implement effective social distancing protocols; failed to provide training that adequately informs

16 employees of their risks of COVID-19 exposure and effective prevention techniques; and failed to

17 train employees regarding the available leaves, including paid leaves, for individuals who become

18 infected, who care for those who contracted the virus, or who need to self-quarantine.5 In sum,

19 Defendants have put their employees’ lives—and the lives of their families—on the line by

20 forcing them to work in dangerous conditions where they risk contracting COVID-19 and

21 bringing it home every day.

22 1
View LA County Daily COVID-19 Data, LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEP’T OF PUBLIC HEALTH (last updated
23 July 20, 2020), http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/coronavirus/locations.htm.
2
24 See Dunklin Decl., ¶ 10, Perea Decl., ¶ 5.
3
COVID-19 has an R0 of 5.7, meaning that each person who contracts the virus is likely to infect five or
25 six others without preventative measures in place. Steven Sanche et al., “High Contagiousness and
Rapid Spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2,” CDC (Apr. 7, 2020),
26
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0282_article
27 4
See Ephriam Decl., ¶ 3.
5
28 See Ramirez Decl., ¶ 13-14; Odums Decl., ¶ 12-17; Rankin Decl., ¶ 6-7.
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN
6 RESTRAINING ORDER
BEACH, CA 90266
 1 Plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order requiring Defendants to immediately

2 implement minimum COVID-19 health and safety standards. Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on

3 their public nuisance claim because Defendants’ business operations created or assisted in the

4 creation of the spread and transmission of a dangerous disease, a substantial and unreasonable

5 interference with the public health. See Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3479, 3480 (West 2020). Without

6 immediate injunctive relief, Plaintiffs risk serious, irreparable physical and emotional harm as

7 COVID-19 continues to spread through their workplace. Therefore, the Court should issue a

8 temporary restraining order.

9 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

10 1. COVID-19

11 COVID-19 is the infectious disease caused by the novel coronavirus. Common symptoms

12 of COVID-19 include fever, chills, dry cough, fatigue, muscle or body aches, headaches, loss of

13 taste or smell, sore throat, congestion, nausea or vomiting, and diarrhea.6 In severe cases,

14 COVID-19 causes difficulty breathing and chest pain, requiring emergency medical care. 7

15 According to the World Health Organization (“WHO”), approximately one in five COVID-19

16 patients becomes seriously ill.8 COVID-19 can result in serious, long-lasting complications and

17 condition. including pneumonia, organ failure, heart problems, acute respiratory distress, blood

18 clots, acute kidney injury, and additional viral and bacterial infections. 9 Complications also

19 include multisymptom inflammatory syndrome, a condition that is appearing in children who

20 have tested positive for COVID-19 or the COVID-19 antibodies. At the moment, there is no cure

21 for COVID-19, and the long-term health consequences for those who recover from it are still not

22 yet well understood. As of July 15, 2020, there have been 140,307 COVID-19 cases in Los

23

24 6
CDC, “Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Frequently Asked Questions
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html#Basics
25 7
Id.
26
8
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, “Q&A on Coronaviruses (COVID-19),” Apr. 17, 2020,
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/question-and-answers-hub/q-
27 a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses.
9
MAYO CLINIC, “Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19),” https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-
28 conditions/coronavirus/symptoms-causes/syc-20479963 (last visited June 26, 2020).
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN
7 RESTRAINING ORDER
BEACH, CA 90266
 1 Angeles County, and 3,894 deaths.10 The infection and mortality rates disproportionately affect

2 Black and Latino populations.

3 The deadly disease is highly contagious. It mainly spreads through person-to-person

4 contact through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks.

5 The risk of person-to-person spread increases when people are in close contact with each other,

6 called “community spread.” 11

COVID-19 is spreading quickly and easily in communities in

7 many areas, including Los Angeles.

8 2. Defendants Fail to Implement Basic Safety Measures

9 Defendants have been aware of the grave danger of COVID-19 for many months. Yet,

10 they have continually failed to implement sufficient safety precautions to protect their employees

11 from the virus, resulting in the tragic consequence detailed herein. For example, before Plaintiff

12 Ephriam tested positive in early May, Defendants assured him that the positive tests in the facility

13 were merely isolated incidents, rather than letting him know that a coworker he was in close

14 contact with had contracted the virus. Ephraim Decl.¶ 3. After he informed Defendants that he

15 had tested positive for COVID-19, Defendants did not ask him to get tested again upon returning

16 to work or ask for a doctor’s note confirming that he was no longer contagious. Rather, Mr.

17 Ephraim provided Defendants with a list of about twenty coworkers he had come into close

18 contact with so that they could inform these individuals that they had been exposed to COVID-

19 19. But, Defendants did nothing to alert those coworkers. About ten of that group later tested

20 positive for COVID-19. Ephraim Decl.¶5. Other employees report the exact same failure on the

21 part of management to notify affected workers. See, e.g. Rankin Decl.¶ 6. As a result of

22 Defendants’ failures to track exposures, Plaintiff Ramirez was cleared to come back to work, only

23 to get her positive test results while on company property. Ramirez Decl.¶ 3-6.

24 Even though the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (“LADPH”) now

25
10
LA County Daily COVID-19 Data, LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEP’T OF PUBLIC HEALTH,
26 http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/Coronavirus/data/index.htm
(last visited July 15, 2020).
27 11
CDC, “Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Frequently Asked Questions,
28 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html#Basics (last updated June 24, 2020).
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN
8 RESTRAINING ORDER
BEACH, CA 90266
 1 reports that 105 people have tested positive at Defendants’ warehouse, and another 6 show

2 symptoms12, Defendants still have not adequately improved health and sanitation measures to

3 stop this disease’s spread. Employees still need to come into close contact with one another on

4 many occasions throughout their shifts. In addition, computer terminals are located right next to

5 one another, all receivers need to use the same terminals without plastic shielding or proper

6 cleaning, and employees need to use the same scanner guns. Ephraim Decl. ¶ 7; see also Odums

7 Decl. ¶ 8, 15-16; Hobbs Decl. ¶ 7. Furthermore, employees have still not received training about

8 COVID-19 prevention or about employees’ rights to seek leave when exposed to the virus.

9 Ephraim Decl. ¶8.

10 Employees also report that a continuing failure to provide adequate sanitizers, spray

11 bottles, wipes, or proper cleaning chemicals. Ramirez Decl.¶ 10, Odums Decl.¶ 10-11, Hobbs

12 Decl., ¶ 7. Rather than adding more sanitizers in more locations, Defendants appear to be

13 removing them. Ramirez Decl.¶ 8. Other employees report the company apparently watering

14 down the sanitizer. Odums Decl. ¶ 7. Gloves and masks appear to be in short supply and only

15 available on request. Odums Decl.¶ 9, Ramirez Decl.¶ 10. Further, while Defendants instituted

16 some temperature checks, they did not uniformly check employees or vendor’s temperatures

17 consistently or from all entrances to the facility. Dunklin Decl., ¶ 12, Odums Decl.¶ 12.

18 3. The COVID-19 Outbreak at Defendants’ Warehouse Is Contributing to

19 Community Spread of COVID-19 and Presents a Danger to the Public

20 Defendants’ policies and procedures have caused 105 confirmed COVID-19 cases among

21 their employees to date, and have also exposed many more employees and their families to the

22 virus. Employee Melvin Dunklin, for example, contracted the virus at work and then spread it to

23 his pregnant wife, his children, and his mother. Unfortunately, his mother than passed the virus

24 on to her husband, who died from it. Dunklin Decl. ¶ 10. Likewise, Plaintiff Perera contracted

25 COVID-19 at Ralphs, and transmitted it to his wife, daughter, brother, and nephew. Perera Decl.,

26 ¶ 5. His wife in turn transmitted the virus to her father, who passed away. Id.

27 12
View LA County Daily COVID-19 Data, LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEP’T OF PUBLIC HEALTH, supra note
28 1.
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN
9 RESTRAINING ORDER
BEACH, CA 90266
 1 The Plaintiffs who have contracted COVID-19 because of Defendants’ actions have

2 suffered and continue to suffer from painful and even life-threatening symptoms, including fever,

3 nausea, coughing, and prolonged difficulty breathing. They have had to endure lengthy hospital

4 stays and time away from their families. Ephraim Decl. ¶5, 6. They have also had to undergo the

5 trauma of contracting this virus and knowing that they may be endangering the health of their

6 loved ones by inadvertently exposing them to it.

7 4. Defendants’ Operations Violate Minimum COVID-19 Health and Safety

8 Standards

9 Defendants’ operations at their Compton warehouse violate the minimum health and

10 safety standards around COVID-19 set by medical experts. The CDC’s recommendations for

11 businesses in responding to COVID-19 include actively encouraging sick employees to stay

12 home; considering conducting daily in-person or virtual health checks; identifying where and how

13 workers might be exposed to COVID-19 at work; taking immediate action if an employee is

14 suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19 by disinfecting contaminated surfaces and notifying

15 employees who have been exposed; and educating employees about steps they can take to protect

16 themselves at work and at home.13

17 The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) has also guidance on safe

18 workplace operations during the present pandemic. OSHA instructs that “it is important for all

19 employers to plan now for COVID-19,” by developing an infectious disease preparedness and

20 response plan; implementing basic infection prevention measures like promoting frequent and

21 thorough hand washing and sanitization and encouraging workers to stay home if they are sick;

22 developing policies and procedures for prompt identification and isolation of sick people;

23 developing, implementing, and communicating about workplace flexibilities and protections; and

24 implementing workplace controls such as installing high-efficiency air filters and providing

25 personal protective equipment.14

26 13
CDC, “Plan, Prepare and Respond to Coronavirus Disease 2019,”
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/guidance-business-response.html.
27 14
“Guidance on Preparing Workplaces for COVID-19,” OSHA,
28 https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3990.pdf.
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN
10 RESTRAINING ORDER
BEACH, CA 90266
 1 Local experts and leaders have also released COVID-19 instructions to employers. For

2 example, LADPH’s Order on COVID-19 specifies that when a case is reported among

3 employees, anyone who may be infected should be sent home to self-isolate. Any of their close

4 contacts should do the same. Yet, Defendants have consistently failed to provide such

5 information to employees. Rankin Decl.¶ 6. Further, once a COVID-19 case has been identified

6 among employees, employers should conduct an investigation to identify all close contacts

7 associated with the workplace who were exposed to the virus. This guidance also includes

8 similar strategies to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in the workplace as the CDC and OSHA

9 recommended, as described above. LADPH has also released an Order requiring businesses to

10 limit the number of people who may enter into their facilities at any given time to ensure that

11 people inside can easily maintain a six-foot distance from others at all times; provide hand

12 sanitizer, soap and water, or effective disinfectant at or near the entrance of the facility and in

13 other appropriate areas; and provide for the regular disinfection of high-touch services, among

14 other requirements.15

15 Defendants have fallen far short of the above-mentioned public health directives in their

16 Compton warehouse, leading to a severe COVID-19 outbreak at the distribution center and public

17 spread of the virus among employees, their family members, and close contacts. Defendants’

18 inaction continues to facilitate the spread of COVID-19 in the community. Los Angeles County is

19 a major COVID-19 hotspot. Defendants have surely contributed to these tragic figures through

20 their reckless failure to take even the most basic steps to protect their employees from the virus.

21 Prior to filing suit, Plaintiffs engaged in a good faith effort to resolve this dispute by

22 giving Defendant the opportunity to implement immediate corrective action. Boxer Decl. ¶ 3,

23 Exh. A. While Defendants responded to counsel’s letter, their response falls short of providing

24 the necessary assurances that would obviate the needs for such a motion, and their representations

25 of compliance are flatly contradicted by the accounts from multiple witnesses as described herein.

26
15
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEP’T OF PUBLIC HEALTH, REOPENING SAFER AT WORK AND IN THE
27 COMMUNITY FOR CONTROL OF COVID-19 14 (July 14, 2020),
http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/coronavirus/docs/HOO/2020.07.14_HOO_Safer%20at%20Home_
28 Cessation%20of%20Indoor%20Ops.pdf.
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN
11 RESTRAINING ORDER
BEACH, CA 90266
 1 In addition, the mere fact that local authorities have visited the facility, or the fact that Defendants

2 have attempted voluntarily remedial measures does not mean that its workplace does not

3 constitute a public nuisance. See People v. ConAgra Grocery Products Co., 17 Cal.App.5th 51,

4 113 (2017) (rejecting the notion it “cannot be a public nuisance because it does not violate any

5 regulatory standards.”). Further, a judicially enforceable order will ensure compliance with any

6 voluntary measures Defendants have taken or have planned.

7 III. ARGUMENT

8 When deciding whether to issue a temporary restraining order, “a court must weigh two

9 ‘interrelated’ factors: (1) the likelihood that the moving party will ultimately prevail on the merits

10 and (2) the relative interim harm to the parties from issuance or nonissuance of the injunction.”

11 Butt v. California, 4 Cal.4th 668, 677–78 (1992). The court’s determination is “guided by a ‘mix’

12 of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff’s showing on one, the less

13 must be shown on the other to support an injunction.” Id. at 678.

14 1. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Their Claim That

15 Defendants’ Operations Are a Public Nuisance

16 Defendants’ manner of operating their Compton warehouse constitutes a public nuisance

17 because it substantially and unreasonably interferes with the health and safety of the public by

18 contributing to community spread of COVID-19. A “nuisance” is “[a]nything which is injurious

19 to health . . . or is indecent or offensive to the senses . . . so as to interfere with the comfortable

20 enjoyment of life or property.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3479. A nuisance is “public” if it “affects at the

21 same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons.” Id.

22 § 3480. “A public nuisance cause of action is established by proof that a defendant knowingly

23 created or assisted in the creation of a substantial and unreasonable interference with a public

24 right.” People v ConAgra Grocery Prod. Co., 17 Cal.App.5th 51, 79 (2017); see also People ex

25 rel. Gallo v. Acuna, 14 Cal.4th 1090, 1103 (1997). A private party may bring an action to abate a

26 public nuisance if the nuisance is “specially injurious” to the plaintiff. Cal. Civil Code § 3493; see

27 also id. §§3491, 3495; C.C.P. § 731. Contributing to the spread of a transmission of a disease, or

28 the risk of the spread or transmission of a disease, constitutes an actionable public nuisance. See,
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN
12 RESTRAINING ORDER
BEACH, CA 90266
 1 e.g., Restatement (Second) of Torts § 821B, cmt.g. (“[T]he threat of communication of smallpox

2 to a single person may be enough to constitute a public nuisance because of the possibility of an

3 epidemic.”); Birke v. Oakwood Worldwide, 169 Cal.App.4th 1540, 1549 (2009); County of Santa

4 Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 306 (2006).

5 Here, Defendants’ acts and omissions, including failing to provide adequate personal

6 protective equipment (PPE), allow for effective social distancing, perform standardized wellness

7 and consistent and accurate temperature checks of all employees and visitors, or implement

8 effective contact tracing have substantially, unreasonably created or assisted in the creation of the

9 spread and transmission of grave, life-threatening disease and infection, the risk of spread and

10 transmission of grave, life-threatening disease and infection disease or infection, and the actual

11 and real fear and anxiety of the spread and transmission of grave, life-threatening disease and

12 infection, all of which constitutes an actionable public nuisance.

13 Absent an enforceable court order, the public nuisance will continue to cause special

14 injury to Plaintiffs within the meaning of Civil Code section 3493, due to the illness Plaintiffs

15 have suffered and/or feared, and the heightened risk of exposure they face. Those harms are

16 different from the types of harms suffered by members of the general public who did not work or

17 have direct contact with employees who worked at the Compton distribution center.

18 Defendants’ failure to comply with health and safety standards in their distribution center

19 has caused, and is reasonably certain to cause, further community spread of COVID-19. Indeed,

20 many family members have already become sickened by the virus being transmitted by Ralphs’

21 employees, resulting in at least two deaths. Dunklin Decl., ¶ 10, Perea Decl., ¶ 5. Such

22 community spread has not been, and will not be, limited to the physical location of the

23 distribution center only or to employees there, as infected workers have gone home and will go

24 home to interact with their family members, co-residents, neighbors, and others with whom they

25 must necessarily interact as they undertake essential daily activities such as shopping, doctor’s

26 visits, and childcare. This community spread has resulted in increased disease and will continue

27 to result in increased disease. Defendants’ conduct unreasonably interferes with the common right

28 to public health and safety, and is therefore a public nuisance.

MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN
13 RESTRAINING ORDER
BEACH, CA 90266
 1 2. The Balance of Harms Tips Strongly in Plaintiffs’ Favor

2 Due to Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits, they need only demonstrate that a

3 denial of injunctive relief will result in greater harm to Plaintiffs than to Defendants. See Butt, 4

4 Cal.4th at 693–94. “[T]he trial court must determine which party is the more likely to be injured

5 by the exercise of its discretion and it must then be exercised in favor of that party.” Family

6 Record Plan, Inc. v. Mitchell, 172 Cal.App.2d 235, 242 (1959) (citation omitted).

7 As Defendants have indicated that they have complied with many of the requested

8 measures, there should be no burden on Defendants whatsoever by imposing such an order.

9 Specifically, Plaintiffs request an order enjoining Defendants from continuing to operate this

10 warehouse unless they comply with health and safety standards, and:

11 1. Provide all reasonably necessary personal protective equipment, including face

12 coverings and sturdy disposable gloves that will withstand the rigors of the job, and enforce their

13 use, and make them widely available to ass;

14 2. Develop, institute, and enforce a rigorous sanitization regimen;

15 3. Provide training to managers and employees regarding signs and symptoms of

16 COVID-19 and effective mechanisms for its prevention;

17 4. Institute contact tracing protocols of all persons known or suspected to have been

18 infected with the COVID-19 virus while physically present at the facility;

19 5. Perform a deep cleaning by professional cleaners of the facility, and regularly

20 perform adequate deep cleaning and sanitization of the warehouse and all equipment going

21 forward;

22 6. Train all employees and managers on the availability of all paid sick leave due to

23 COVID-19 under applicable law, and pay employees for self-quarantining in accordance with

24 such law;

25 7. Institute employee wellness checks and consistent and accurate temperature

26 checks;

27 8. Institute and enforce sufficient handwashing and other sanitizations procedures at

28 regular intervals during, before and after work shifts;

MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN
14 RESTRAINING ORDER
BEACH, CA 90266
 1 9. Provide detailed training and instruction to all managers and employees that all

2 employees must stay home when experiencing COVID-19 symptoms or while positive for the

3 virus, and not return until they are verifiably negative and symptom-free;

4 10. Enact and enforce reasonably safe physical distancing between workers, including

5 high traffic areas;

6 11. Develop and maintain a protocol for proper cleaning and disinfection of

7 equipment, workstations, and other physical spaces, including eliminating the use of shared

8 equipment such as finger scanners and separating computer terminals.

9 If Defendants continue to operate without adequate safeguards, Plaintiffs will be further

10 physically and emotionally injured. Their family and community members will also be exposed to

11 COVID-19 and risk serious illness. Because this virus is highly contagious and the outbreak at the

12 Compton warehouse has already been so devastating, a temporary restraining order is necessary

13 pending the determination of a preliminary injunction.

14 Any burden to Defendants as a result of the requested temporary restraining order would

15 be minimal, especially given Defendants’ representations of compliance, and pale in comparison

16 to the harm Plaintiffs will continue to suffer without injunctive relief. The sought relief is

17 consistent with public health orders that similar businesses already follow.16 Defendants do not

18 risk losing business because they could continue to operate as long as they put these basic safety

19 measures in place. Therefore, the balance of harms weighs solidly in Plaintiffs’ favor.

20 \\

21 \\

22 \\

23 \\

24 \\

25 \\

26 \\

27 16
See, e.g. Hernandez v. VES McDonald’s, Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG20064825,
28 granting temporary restraining order against McDonald’s franchisee.
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN
15 RESTRAINING ORDER
BEACH, CA 90266
 1 IV. CONCLUSION

2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court should enter Plaintiffs’ requested temporary

3 restraining order or, in the alternative, an order shortening the time in which such a motion may

4 be filed and heard.

5 DATED: July 21 2020 Respectfully submitted,

6
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
7

8
By:
9
Matthew J. Matern
10 Joshua D. Boxer
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21

22

23

24

25

26
27

28
MATERN LAW GROUP
1230 ROSECRANS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY
AVENUE, STE 200
MANHATTAN
16 RESTRAINING ORDER
BEACH, CA 90266