LAKEPORT >> After beefing up its cross complaint, Lake County is awaiting at least half a dozen law firms representing the Lakeside Heights Homeowners Association (HOA) and individual homeowners” insurance companies to be added to the case. The lawsuit seeks to attribute responsibility for a landslide that damaged multiple homes in a northern Lakeport subdivision in March 2013.
“I think the court is going to be surprised when it finds out how many new law firms are coming in,” attorney Adam Abel, representing the county, said.
After the county defendants filed the cross-complaint in August, the original 40-plus plaintiffs of the case, who were represented as a whole by attorney Michael Green, also became cross-defendants, prompting them to hire law firms to defend each insurance company used by the Lakeside Heights HOA and the individual homeowners.
The court has received one to two responses to the cross-complaint but most of the law firms have requested an extension, according to Abel. The next case management conference is scheduled for Nov. 17, but Abel said he would be surprised if a trial date would be set at that time and expects to see at least one more case management conference in addition to the one to be held Nov. 17.
In the original lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege that water from the public water system located upland of the subdivision and maintained by the county leaked into the soil under the homes and destabilized the land in the area, causing land movement. It located responsibility for the landslide and destruction of homes in the county for its improper maintenance and control of the public water system. The plaintiffs ask for attorney fees, appraisal fees and engineering fees.
However, in the first amended cross-complaint, the defendants denied “any and all liability” in connection with the landslide, citing the plaintiffs” lack of evidence to support their allegations that breaks occurred in the public water system prior to March 2013, the date of the first noticed land movement. “The same cannot be said for the private irrigation system owned and controlled by cross-defendants,” the complaint continued, listing alleged leaks in the private system as early as 2006 and cross-defendants alleged failure to address a malfunctioning storm drain, among other problems.
Additionally, the county indicated the cross-defendants were at fault for negligence in developing the Lakeside Heights property in a manner inconsistent with the recommendations of geotechnical engineers.
The amount of damages suffered by the county is yet to be determined, but the complaint seeks indemnity for damages, attorneys” fees and court costs in an amount to be proved at trial.
