20STCV05062

Assigned for all purposes to: Spring Street Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Daniel Crowley
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 02/07/2020 11:47 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by M. Barel,Deputy Clerk

McNICHOLAS & McNICHOLAS, LLP

1 Matthew S. McNicholas, Esq. – State Bar No. 190249
2 Jeffrey R. Lamb, Esq. – State Bar No. 257648
10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
3 Los Angeles, California 90024
Tel: (310) 474-1582
4 Fax: (310) 475-7871
5
REDEFINE LAW FIRM, INC.
6 Babak Lalezari, Esq. – State Bar No. 261703
4311 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 205
7 Los Angeles, California 90010
Tel: (310) 571-5297
8 Fax: (310) 684-5793
9
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
10 Jesus Angel Rosales, Rita Rosales, and Ramon Rosales

11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

12 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
13
JESUS ANGEL ROSALES, RITA CASE NO.:
14 ROSALES, AND RAMON ROSALES BY
AND THROUGH THEIR GUARDIAN AD
15
LITEM, GINGER ROSALES, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16
Plaintiffs,
17
v.
18
19 DELTA AIR LINES INC., a corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
20
Defendants.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Complaint for Damages
1 Plaintiffs JESUS ANGEL ROSALES, RITA ROSALES, AND RAMON ROSALES BY
2 AND THROUGH THEIR GUARDIAN AD LITEM, hereby demand a jury trial and complain and
3 allege against Defendant DELTA AIR LINES, INC. and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, as
4 follows:
5 THE PARTIES
6 1. JESUS ANGEL ROSALES (hereinafter “ANGEL”) is a minor and at all relevant
7 times was a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
8 2. RITA ROSALES (hereinafter “RITA”) is a minor and at all relevant times was a
9 resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
10 3. RAMON ROSALES (hereinafter “RAMON”) is a minor and at all relevant times
11 was a resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
12 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Defendant DELTA
13 AIR LINES, INC. (hereinafter “DELTA”) is now and at all times relevant herein was a corporation
14 doing substantial business in the County of Los Angeles, California.
15 5. The wrongful acts and omissions alleged hereinafter took place in the County of Los
16 Angeles, California.
17 6. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or
18 otherwise of defendants, DOES 1 through 100, inclusive are unknown to Plaintiffs who therefore
19 sue such defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that
20 each of the defendants designated herein as “DOE” is in some manner, and to some extent, was
21 legally responsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein referred to and caused
22 injury and damage proximately thereby to Plaintiff as herein alleged.
23 7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that at all times relevant
24 herein, Defendant DOES 1 through 20 were the agents and employees of the named Defendant
25 DELTA and, in doing all of the things hereinafter mentioned, were acting within the course and
26 scope of their authority and employment as such agents and employees and with the full
27 knowledge, consent, authority, ratification, permission and/or consent of Defendant. Specifically,
28 at all relevant times herein the Pilots of Delta Flight 89 on January 14, 2020, were acting as
2
Complaint for Damages
1 employees and/or were acting as agents on behalf of Defendant DELTA and were acting in the
2 course and scope of their employment and/or agency in performing all of the work delegated to
3 them by Defendant DELTA and/or Does 1 through 100.
4 8. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that at all times
5 mentioned herein, each of the defendants was the agent, servant, employee, and/or joint venturers
6 of each of the remaining defendants and at all times, was acting within the course and/or scope of
7 such employment, agency, service, or venture.
8 9. Plaintiffs allege that each and every defendant, including each and every DOE
9 defendant, ratified the acts and/or omissions of each and every other defendant named in this
10 matter.
11 10. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that at all times herein
12 mentioned, each of the defendants was the co-tortfeasor of each of the other defendants and
13 responsible for the total harm, damages and wrong suffered by Plaintiffs.
14 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
15 11. The incident, which is the subject of this action, occurred on or about January 14,
16 2020, in the City and County of Los Angeles. Plaintiffs’ claims are within the monetary
17 jurisdiction of this Court.
18 12. Prior to January 14, 2020, DELTA and the other defendants knew or should have
19 known that jet fuel is a toxic and harmful substance. Moreover, these defendants knew or should
20 have known that contact with jet fuel is harmful and dangerous to humans—particularly plaintiffs
21 who are minors.
22 13. DELTA and the other defendants were at all relevant times under a duty to properly
23 train and supervise their employees and personnel—including their pilots—with regard to safe
24 procedures for dumping jet fuel from an aircraft in flight so as to avoid harm to the population and
25 life on the ground under the aircraft.
26 14. Airline pilots, including those employed or otherwise agents of DELTA and the
27 other defendants, were under a duty to adequately notify and communicate with air traffic control
28 personnel of any need or intent to dump fuel so that the aircraft could be directed to areas and
3
Complaint for Damages
1 altitudes that are safer for fuel dumping, and to control their aircraft in a manner so as to avoid
2 harm to the population underneath the aircraft in all cases.
3 15. Among other things, DELTA and the other defendants, and their employees and
4 agents, and each of them, were under a duty to avoid dumping jet fuel from aircraft in flight over
5 populated areas, to avoid dumping fuel unless the aircraft was flying at an appropriate altitude,
6 and/or to avoid dumping fuel over heavily populated areas, particularly when schools (filled with
7 minors) were located in those areas.
8 16. On January 14, 2020, at approximately 11:30 a.m., a Boeing 777-200 flown by
9 DELTA as Flight 89 took off from the Los Angeles International Airport bound for Shanghai,
10 China. Shortly after takeoff, the pilot declared an in-flight situation and caused the aircraft to fly
11 over the heavily populated neighborhood that included the school that each plaintiff attended—
12 Pioneer High School.
13 17. As DELTA Flight 89 flew over plaintiffs’ school (and as Plaintiffs were out on the
14 playground and in other areas of the school) Flight 89 made the conscious decision to dump
15 massive amounts of toxic jet fuel onto plaintiffs, onto the school that plaintiffs attended, and onto
16 the neighborhoods below the jet airplane. To the extent it was intentional, the dumping of the fuel
17 in the manner it was dumped was inadvertent and still negligent.
18 18. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that any engine
19 problem that caused the pilot of DELTA Flight 89 to dump jet fuel on the plaintiffs as alleged
20 herein was or should have been detected before Flight 89 took off, and should have resulted in a
21 decision for the plane not to take off at all. This could implicate all members of the ground crew
22 and well as employees and agents of Delta charged with determining an aircraft is airworthy and
23 safe to fly.
24 19. Flight 89 notified LAX air traffic control personnel of the need for the aircraft to
25 return to Los Angeles International Airport, but did not inform air traffic personnel of any need to
26 dump fuel prior to landing. In fact, the DELTA Flight 89 pilot specifically told air traffic
27 personnel that there was no need to dump any fuel. Had the DELTA Flight 89 pilot notified air
28 traffic personnel of the need to dump fuel, the flight would have been directed to a location and
4
Complaint for Damages
1 altitude from which fuel could be released without danger to the plaintiffs and others.
2 20. To the extent the communications between DELTA Flight 89 and air traffic control
3 was confusing on the issue of dumping fuel, the pilots of DELTA Flight 89 acted negligently in
4 failing to clarify and/or confirm the communications including those communications related to the
5 need or lack of a need to dump fuel.
6 21. Flight 89 caused the plane to release what is believed to be thousands of pounds of
7 jet fuel over the City of Los Angeles and areas under the airplane’s flight path. This was done with
8 no notification to air traffic personnel, no regard for the health and welfare of the populated areas
9 underneath the plane, no regard to the fact that the aircraft was only approximately 2,000 feet
10 above the ground (which is an insufficient altitude to allow the fuel to evaporate or dissipate before
11 it feel on Plaintiffs), no effort to fly to a higher altitude before dumping fuel, and no effort to
12 lighten the plane by flying in an approved holding pattern to burn off fuel at a safe altitude and
13 without any true necessity. This is believed to violate DELTA policy and procedure for the release
14 of jet fuel during flight. This indicates the pilots, and each of them, were negligently trained,
15 and/or that the policies at issue were negligently written and distributed. To the extent the fuel
16 release complied with DELTA policy, the policies were negligent, unsafe, and improper. Either
17 way, DELTA, its pilots, employees, and agents are responsible for the harm.
18 22. Unaware of the dangers posed by the DELTA airplane above them, plaintiffs were
19 coated with jet fuel dumped from Flight 89 and otherwise exposed to the toxic jet fuel. Fuel
20 penetrated their skin, mouths, and noses. The exposure caused them to feel itchy, sick, dizzy, and
21 nauseous and otherwise suffered ill health effects from the exposure. Plaintiffs also suffered severe
22 emotional distress from the knowledge that they had involuntarily ingested toxins. Their severed
23 emotional distress includes the reasonable fear that the exposure to and ingestion of jet fuel might
24 produce serious health consequences—including cancer—in the future.
25 23. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ conduct, the plaintiffs have suffered
26 and will continue to suffer pain and suffering, and extreme and severe mental anguish and
27 emotional distress. Plaintiffs are each entitled to general and compensatory damages in an amount
28 in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of the court and which will be proven at trial.
5
Complaint for Damages
1
2 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
3 NEGLIGENCE
4 (By Plaintiffs Against DELTA and DOES 1 - 20)
5 24. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporates by reference every allegation contained in this
6 Complaint as though set forth herein in full.
7 25. DELTA and DOES 1-20 negligently: (a) communicated with air traffic control; (b)
8 failed to notify air traffic control personnel of any need or intent to dump fuel so that the aircraft
9 could be directed to areas that are safer for fuel dumping; (c) failed to control the aircraft in a
10 manner so as to avoid harm to persons and property on the ground under the aircraft; (d) failed to
11 refrain from dumping fuel at a safe altitude and in a safe location; (e) failed to inform air traffic
12 personnel of any need to dump fuel in order to lighten the plane for landing; (f) said that there was
13 no need to dump jet fuel in response to air traffic personnel regarding whether there was a need to
14 dump fuel; and/or (g) otherwise failed to avoid harm to the plaintiffs in connection with the
15 dumping of fuel from DELTA Flight 89.
16 26. Additionally, Defendant DELTA and DOES 1-20 were also negligent in that they
17 negligently hired, supervised, employed, and/or trained the pilots of Flight 89, including failing to
18 provide proper training and/or ensuring that their agents and employees were adequately trained
19 with respect to the release of jet fuel as part of an unscheduled and/or emergency landing and/or
20 other situational procedure.
21 27. Additionally, Defendant DELTA and DOES 1-20 were also negligent in the
22 management of Flight 89 including allowing it to fly when it was unsafe to do so or otherwise had
23 mechanical issues that should have prevented departure, allowing the pilots to release the jet fuel in
24 the manner they did, failing to tell the pilots not to release the jet fuel at all. OR in the manner that
25 they did, and otherwise managing Flight 89 while on the ground and in the air. This implicates
26 ground crew, maintenance and repair crews, and the employees and agents of DELTA who decide
27 an airplane is safe to fly and that jet fuel should be released.
28 28. Further, Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on this basis allege that DELTA and
6
Complaint for Damages
1 the other defendants failed to properly and adequately train and/or supervise pilots, personnel, and
2 Flight 89 with regard to safe procedures for safely dumping fuel from aircraft.
3 29. At all times relevant herein, Defendants knew or should have known that the
4 conduct, acts, and failures to act of the defendants, as described herein, would cause harm to
5 persons on the ground below DELTA Flight 89 as it dumped fuel.
6
7 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
8 NEGLIGENCE
9 (By Plaintiffs Against DOES 21-100)
10 30. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporates by reference every allegation contained in this
11 Complaint as though set forth herein in full.
12 31. To the extent that entities or persons other than DELTA and DOES 1-20 and
13 DELTA’S agents and employees were responsible for the failure to properly maintain Flight 89,
14 were responsible for allowing Flight 89 to depart LAX, were responsible in training the pilots
15 concerning how and when to release jet fuel, were responsible for making the decision to allow
16 Flight 89 to release jet fuel in the manner it did, such Defendants will be identified as DOES 21-
17 100.
18 32. DOES 21-100 were negligent in allowing Flight 89 to depart LAX, were negligent
19 in the maintenance and repair of the subject aircraft and its constituent parts, were negligent in the
20 training of the pilots and DOES 1-20 on when and how to release jet fuel, and were negligent in
21 allowing or not preventing the release of jet fuel in the manner it was released.
22
23 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
24 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants DELTA and DOES 1
25 through 100 as follows:
26 1. For general damages according to proof;
27 2. For medical expenses;
28 4. For special damages;
7
Complaint for Damages
1 5. For damages for Plaintiffs’ emotional distress and pain and suffering;
2 6. For all past and future damages;
3 7. For all statutorily allowed damages;
4 8. For costs of suit and attorney fees to the extent allowed by law or statute; and
5 8. For such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
6
Dated: February 4, 2020 McNICHOLAS & McNICHOLAS LLP
7

8
By:
9
Matthew S. McNicholas
10 Jeffrey R. Lamb
Babak Lalezari
11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
JESUS ANGEL ROSALES, RITA
12 ROSALES, AND RAMON ROSALES
13

14 DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

15 Plaintiffs JESUS ANGEL ROSALES, RITA ROSALES, AND RAMON ROSALES BY
16 AND THROUGH THEIR GUARDIAN AD LITEM, hereby demand trial of all causes by jury.
17

18 Dated: February 4, 2020 McNICHOLAS & McNICHOLAS LLP

19
20
By:
21 Matthew S. McNicholas
Jeffrey R. Lamb
22 Babak Lalezari
23 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
JESUS ANGEL ROSALES, RITA
24 ROSALES, AND RAMON ROSALES

25

26

27

28
8
Complaint for Damages