Case 3:20-cv-08056 Document 1 Filed 11/16/20 Page 1 of 5

1 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP R. ADAM LAURIDSEN - # 243780 2 [email protected] THOMAS E. GORMAN - # 279409 3 [email protected] TRAVIS SILVA - # 295856 4 [email protected] EMILY A. HASSELBERG - # 326990 5 [email protected] 633 Battery Street 6 , CA 94111-1809 Telephone: 415 391 5400 7 Facsimile: 415 397 7188 8 Attorneys for Defendant CHINA BASIN BALLPARK COMPANY LLC 9

10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 JOHNATHAN “MAC” WILLIAMSON, an Case No. 3:20-cv-8056 13 individual, NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF A CIVIL 14 Plaintiff, ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT 15 v. [Removed from San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CGC20587701] 16 CHINA BASIN BALLPARK COMPANY LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Date Filed: November 16, 2020 17 and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 18 Defendants.

19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF A CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT Case No. 3:20-cv-8056 1537821 Case 3:20-cv-08056 Document 1 Filed 11/16/20 Page 2 of 5

1 TO THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA: 3 Defendant CHINA BASIN BALLPARK COMPANY, LLC, (“Defendant”) hereby 4 removes Case No. CGC20587701 from the Superior Court of the State of California for the 5 County of San Francisco to the United States District Court for the Northern District of 6 California. Removal is authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1441 and 1446 and 29 U.S.C. 7 § 185.

8 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 9 1. On November 10, 2020, Plaintiff Johnathan “Mac” Williamson (“Plaintiff”) 10 initiated this action in the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of San 11 Francisco. Plaintiff’s claims arise from an on-field injury he suffered in the San Francisco 12 Giants’ ballpark while playing for the . Ex. A, Nov. 10, 2020 Complaint 13 (Compl.) at ¶¶ 1-2. Plaintiff’s complaint (Complaint) contains two causes of action: (1) premises 14 liability and (2) negligence. Both claims are brought against Defendant. Compl. at ¶¶ 37-49. 15 2. Plaintiff is a former Major League (“MLB”) player. MLB players are 16 members of the Players Association (“MLBPA”), which is a labor 17 organization within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 185. At the time of the incident described in the 18 Complaint, see ¶ 24, Plaintiff was a member of the MLBPA and a collective bargaining 19 agreement existed between MLB Clubs, including the San Francisco Giants, and the MLBPA. 20 The collective bargaining agreement contains provisions related to working conditions generally 21 and field safety issues specifically. It also sets forth procedures for players’ claims related to on- 22 field injuries and disputes with their clubs. 23 3. Defendant denies all liability but on information and belief alleges that the amount 24 in controversy exceeds $75,000. 25 4. Plaintiff has not yet served the Complaint on Defendant.

26 II. PARTIES 27 5. Plaintiff alleges that he is a resident of North Carolina. Compl. ¶ 3. 28

2 NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF A CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT Case No. 3:20-cv-8056 1537821 Case 3:20-cv-08056 Document 1 Filed 11/16/20 Page 3 of 5

1 6. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company, having its 2 principal place of business in San Francisco. Compl. ¶ 4. 3 7. Defendant is owned by San Francisco Baseball Associates LLC and 4 Baseball, LP, two of the several related entities involved in the ownership and operation of the 5 San Francisco Giants baseball club and the club’s ballpark. No member of San Francisco 6 Baseball Associates LLC or partner of Grand Slam Baseball, L.P., is a citizen of North Carolina.

7 III. JURISDICTION 8 8. A defendant may remove to this Court any state-court civil action over which this 9 Court has original subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 10 9. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over federal questions—that is, 11 “all civil actions arising under the Constitution [or] laws . . . of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 12 § 1331. 13 10. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over actions between citizens of 14 different States. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) does not bar an in-forum 15 defendant from removing a diversity action to federal court if the in-forum defendant has not been 16 “properly joined and served.” Glob. Indus. Inv. Ltd. v. Chung, No. 19-CV-07670-LHK, 2020 WL 17 2027374, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2020) (noting that this District “consistently” allows in-forum 18 defendants to invoke diversity jurisdiction prior to service); accord Gibbons v. Bristol-Myers 19 Squibb Co., 919 F.3d 699, 705 (2d Cir. 2019); Encompass Ins. Co. v. Stone Mansion Rest. Inc., 20 902 F.3d 147, 152 (3d Cir. 2018); see also Texas Brine Co., L.L.C. v. Am. Arbitration Ass’n, Inc., 21 955 F.3d 482, 486 (5th Cir. 2020) (following the reasoning of Gibbons and Encompass). 22 11. This Court also has original subject matter jurisdiction over claims brought under 23 Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185. Furthermore, where a 24 plaintiff artfully pleads what is in fact a Section 301 claim as a tort claim, this Court has exclusive 25 jurisdiction over the claim, making removal from state court proper. See Young v. Anthony’s Fish 26 Grottos, Inc., 830 F.2d 993, 997 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A suit for breach of a collective bargaining 27 agreement is governed exclusively by federal law under section 301. The preemptive force of 28 section 301 is so powerful as to displace entirely any state claim based on a collective bargaining

3 NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF A CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT Case No. 3:20-cv-8056 1537821 Case 3:20-cv-08056 Document 1 Filed 11/16/20 Page 4 of 5

1 agreement, and any state claim whose outcome depends on analysis of the terms of the 2 agreement.”); see also Beneficial Nat. Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 8 (2003) (noting that the 3 LMRA provides for complete preemption and removal jurisdiction).

4 IV. VENUE, INTRA-DISTRICT ASSIGNMENT & RELATED CASES 5 12. This District embraces the Superior Court of the State of California for the County 6 of San Francisco, where Plaintiff originally filed his complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). 7 13. If the Court determines intra-district transfer is appropriate, the case should be 8 assigned to the San Francisco/Oakland Division because a substantial part of the alleged events or 9 omissions contained in the Complaint occurred in the County of San Francisco.

10 V. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 11 14. Defendant files this Notice prior to receiving service of the Complaint. See 28 12 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). 13 15. The Complaint purports to name “Doe defendants” in addition to Defendant. This 14 Court disregards fictitious defendants when analyzing a removal petition. 28 U.S.C. 15 § 1441(b)(1). No other defendant is named. 16 16. Defendant will serve this Notice on Plaintiff’s counsel and on the Clerk of the 17 Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco. See 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1446(d). Additionally, Defendant files as Exhibit A to this Notice a true and correct copy of the 19 Complaint and as Exhibit B to this notice a true and correct copy of “Notice to Plaintiff,”

20 VI. JURY DEMAND 21 Defendant demands trial by jury on any issue so triable.

22 VII. CONCLUSION 23 Defendant respectfully requests that this Court assume jurisdiction over this action. By 24 this Notice of Removal, Defendant does not waive any objections it may have as to service, 25 jurisdiction or venue, or any defenses or objections it may have to this action. Defendant intends 26 no admission of fact, law, or liability by this Notice, and expressly reserves all defenses, motions, 27 and/or pleas.

28

4 NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF A CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT Case No. 3:20-cv-8056 1537821 Case 3:20-cv-08056 Document 1 Filed 11/16/20 Page 5 of 5

1 Dated: November 16, 2020 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 2 3 By: /s/ R. Adam Lauridsen R. ADAM LAURIDSEN 4 THOMAS E. GORMAN TRAVIS SILVA 5 EMILY A. HASSELBERG

6 Attorneys for Defendant CHINA BASIN BALLPARK COMPANY LLC 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

5 NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF A CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT Case No. 3:20-cv-8056 1537821 Case 3:20-cv-08056 Document 1-1 Filed 11/16/20 Page 1 of 13

EXHIBIT A

Case 3:20-cv-08056 Document 1-1 Filed 11/16/20 Page 2 of 13

R. Scott Erlewine, State Bar No. 095106 1 Michael D. Levinson, State Bar No. 271566 PHILLIPS, ERLEWINE, GIVEN & CARLIN LLP 2 39 Mesa Street, Suite 201 – The Presidio 3 San Francisco, CA 94129 Tel: 415-398-0900 4 Fax: 415-398-0911 Email: [email protected] 5 [email protected]

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff

7

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

10 Case No. 11 JOHNATHAN “MAC” WILLIAMSON, an LLP

12 individual, LIN COMPLAINT FOR PREMISES

AR

9 1

C Plaintiff, LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE 0 13 412 &

9

900 v. A 14 0 , Suite 2 IVE N t DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL G

, ree sco, C

i 15 CHINA BASIN BALLPARK COMPANY

sa St LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, e - 398 (415) 16 and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, RLEWINE 39 M San Franc E

, 17 PS Defendants.

HILLI 18

P 19 Plaintiff alleges: 20 INTRODUCTION 21 1. Plaintiff JOHNATHAN “MAC” WILLIAMSON (“Plaintiff”) is a professional 22 baseball player, who played for the San Francisco Giants. In April 2018, Plaintiff was one of the 23 best power hitters in Major League Baseball (“MLB”). On April 24, 2018, Plaintiff was 24 seriously injured when he crashed over an on-field bullpen mound and collided headfirst into the

25 left field line wall while running to catch a fly ball at (then AT&T Park) (“Park”) in 26 San Francisco. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages arising from his concussion-related injuries.

27

28

1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 3:20-cv-08056 Document 1-1 Filed 11/16/20 Page 3 of 13

1 2. These injuries never should have occurred. Defendant CHINA BASIN

2 BALLPARK COMPANY LLC (individually and collectively with DOES 1-20, and each of

3 them, “CBBC”) knew or should have known when it designed the Park that on-field bullpens

4 (especially when located near a wall) presented an unreasonable and unnecessary risk of harm to

5 baseball players but proceeded to incorporate them anyway. Thereafter, despite knowledge of

6 numerous instances of players having fallen over these bullpen mounds, CBBC failed to move

7 the bullpens off the field of play to protect players. It was not until after Plaintiff was seriously

8 injured that CBBC finally took steps to move the bullpens behind the outfield wall where they

9 belonged.

10 PARTIES

11 3. Plaintiff is a resident of North Carolina. LLP

12 4. CBBC is a Delaware limited liability company, having its principal place of LIN

AR

9 1 C 0 13 business in San Francisco, California. 412 &

9

900 A 14 5. The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or 0 , Suite 2 IVE N t G

, ree sco, C

i 15 otherwise, of defendants DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, being unknown, Plaintiff asserts his sa St e - 398 (415) 16 claims against these defendants under fictitious names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § RLEWINE 39 M San Franc E

, 17

PS 474. Plaintiff will amend the Complaint to state such DOE defendants’ true names once they are

HILLI 18 ascertained. P 19 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each defendant named

20 in this Complaint, and each Doe defendant, is in some manner responsible for the wrongs and

21 damages alleged below, and in so acting was functioning, at all relevant times, as the agent,

22 servant, partner, alter ego and/or employee of the other defendants, and in doing the actions

23 described below, was acting within the course and scope of his, her or its authority as such

24 agent, servant, partner and/or employee with the permission and consent of each of the other

25 defendants. All acts herein alleged were approved of and ratified by each and every other

26 defendant.

27

28

2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 3:20-cv-08056 Document 1-1 Filed 11/16/20 Page 4 of 13

1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2 7. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court because the conduct described

3 herein, and the resulting harm suffered by Plaintiff, occurred within the City and County of San

4 Francisco, and Defendant CBBC’s principal place of business is within the City and County of

5 San Francisco.

6 FACTS

7 The Park

8 8. In the mid-1990s, the voters of San Francisco authorized the building of the Park

9 – a new downtown sports and outdoor events venue in San Francisco. On information and

10 belief, CBBC at all times relevant owned, operated, controlled, possessed, leased, managed,

11 maintained, and was involved in the design of, the Park. LLP

12 9. The construction of the Park (which cost more than $357 million) was privately LIN

AR

9 1 C 0 13 financed by CBBC. On information and belief, as part of the financing, CBBC sold personal 412 &

9

900 A 14 Charter Seat Licenses, which permitted the holder to purchase tickets for a specific seat to the 0 , Suite 2 IVE N t G

, ree sco, C

i 15 variety of events held at the Park, both baseball and non-baseball related. sa St e - 398 (415) 16 10. On information and belief, CBBC signed a 66-year lease for the land with the RLEWINE 39 M San Franc E

, 17

PS Port of San Francisco. According to the term sheet for the lease, “CBBC shall be responsible for

HILLI 18 all costs of constructing and operating the ballpark project.” P 19 11. The Giants at all times relevant played their home games at the Park.

20 12. CBBC’s purpose was to operate the Park for multiuse purposes. In addition to

21 Giants games, the Park has hosted numerous football games (including, e.g., an annual college

22 football bowl game (2002-13), home to the XFL’s San Francisco Demons (2001), home of the

23 annual East-West Shrine Game (until 2006), and interim home for Cal’s football team (2011)),

24 professional soccer matches, the AMA Supercross Championship (2003-11), numerous concerts

25 (2001-19), and even Kanye West’s proposal to Kim Kardashian (2013).

26 13. In designing the Park, CBBC decided to include on-field bullpens when used for

27 baseball games.

28

3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 3:20-cv-08056 Document 1-1 Filed 11/16/20 Page 5 of 13

1 14. It has long been known that bullpen mounds on the field of play create an

2 unreasonable risk of harm. For instance, in 1977, Baltimore Orioles’ manager Earl Weaver

3 famously had his team forfeit a game in Toronto during a pennant race due to safety concerns

4 with the on-field bullpen mounds.

5 15. Prior to building the Park, CBBC knew, or at a minimum should have known,

6 that placing bullpens on the field of play was a safety hazard for players. But as the late Peter

7 Magowan, who was Chairman and CEO of CBBC at the time, stated: “We wanted all the seats

8 to face the , like at Wrigley and at Seals . We wanted bullpens on the field, like

9 in Wrigley. Wrigley Field was built in 1912 but it had it all: great seats, seats that faced the

10 pitcher, quirky features.”

11 16. To make matters worse, CBBC located the on-field bullpen mounds so that they LLP

12 were abutting the left field line and right field line walls, increasing the risk that a player who LIN

AR

9 1 C 0 13 fell over either mound would collide with the wall and be seriously injured. CBBC also failed to 412 &

9

900 A 14 incorporate any safety features, such as a warning track around the mounds like there are in 0 , Suite 2 IVE N t G

, ree sco, C

i 15 front of the outfield walls. On information and belief, the bullpen mounds at the Park were also sa St e - 398 (415) 16 higher than normal pitcher’s mounds. RLEWINE 39 M San Franc E

, 17

PS 17. Baseball as a whole recognized the safety hazard: In 1989, there were 15 MLB

HILLI 18 parks that had on-field bullpens; by 2000, there were only eight; and by 2018, CBBC was one of P

19 only three parks. With the exception of San Diego’s Petco Park (built in 2004), Oracle Park was

20 the last park designed with on-field bullpens. (In 2012, Petco Park moved its one on-field

21 bullpen to behind the outfield wall mostly for player safety issues.)

22 18. Consistent with this trend, the Chicago Cubs moved the on-field bullpens at

23 Wrigley Field (which opened in 1914 and is the second oldest ballpark in Major League

24 Baseball) following the 2016 season due to player safety concerns.

25 19. Even after the Park was completed in 2000, CBBC was repeatedly put on notice

26 of the bullpen mound safety hazard each time a player fell over it. Examples prior to Plaintiff’s

27 collision include:

28

4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 3:20-cv-08056 Document 1-1 Filed 11/16/20 Page 6 of 13

• In 2014, Toronto Blue Jays left fielder Michael Saunders falling over the bullpen 1 mound while chasing a fly ball and the ball hitting him in the head; 2 • In 2016, right fielder Bryce Harper falling over the right 3 field bullpen mound while making a catch; 4 • In 2016, the Giants’ own falling over the right field bullpen mound 5 and making a catch while flat on his back;

6 • In 2017, left fielder Stephen Cardullo falling over the left field 7 bullpen mound after making a running catch;

8 • In 2017, the Giants’ own Eduardo Nunez stumbling over the left field bullpen 9 mound while making a catch.

10 20. Despite these multiple red-flag warnings, and in conscious disregard of player

11 safety, CBBC failed to eliminate the on-field bullpens at the Park or take any steps to minimize LLP

12 LIN the risk of injury posed by them.

AR

9 1 C 0 13 412

& The Collision

9

900

A 14 0 , Suite 2 IVE N

t 21. The Giants selected Plaintiff in the third round of the 2012 MLB draft. After G

, ree sco, C i 15 working his way up the minors as one of the Giants’ top outfield prospects and being out for a sa St e - 398 (415) 16

RLEWINE year due to surgery, Plaintiff made his MLB debut in 2015. Over the next two seasons, Plaintiff 39 M San Franc E

, 17 PS split time between the Giants and their Triple-A affiliate in Sacramento.

HILLI 18 P 22. Toward the end of the 2017 season, Plaintiff sought out the services of Doug 19 Latta, one of the foremost hitting instructors in the game today, known throughout baseball as 20 “the swing whisperer.” Mr. Latta has helped remold numerous MLB players (many late in their 21 careers) into All-Stars. 22 23. Mr. Latta dramatically transformed Plaintiff’s swing and the results were 23 immediate and profound. After continuing to work with Mr. Latta in the offseason, Plaintiff 24 emerged in as one of the best hitters in baseball. Due to a crowded roster of 25 veteran , the Giants did not immediately call him up to play. However, after Plaintiff 26 started the year hitting .487 in Triple-A, on April 20, 2018 the Giants promoted him back to the 27 big leagues. During the first five games back with the Giants, Plaintiff hit .316 with three home 28 runs. 5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 3:20-cv-08056 Document 1-1 Filed 11/16/20 Page 7 of 13

1 24. On the fateful day of April 24, 2018, the Giants were playing the Washington

2 Nationals at Oracle Park. Plaintiff went 2-for-4 at the plate. In the fifth inning, with the score

3 tied 3-3, he chased a fly ball heading down the left field foul line, running over 100 feet at a full

4 sprint in an attempt to make and get his team out of the inning. Plaintiff was tracking

5 the ball the entire time it was in the air and unable to look down. As he crossed into foul

6 territory, he crashed over the bullpen mound just as he was about to make the catch, colliding

7 violently headfirst with the left field line wall without the ability to brace himself.

8

9

10

11 LLP

12 LIN

AR

9 1 C 0 13 412 &

9

900

A 14 0 , Suite 2 IVE N t G

, ree sco, C

i 15 sa St e - 398 (415) 16 RLEWINE 39 M San Franc E

, 17 PS

HILLI 18 P

19

20 25. Plaintiff immediately clutched his head with both hands and laid on the ground 21 stunned, dazed, and confused. The impact was so strong that fans seated in the area and the 22 hitter all grimaced in horror. 23 26. Beginning that evening, Plaintiff started feeling groggy. The following day, he 24 also began feeling dizzy, disoriented, and nauseous. The Giants put him through the concussion 25 protocol, which he failed. As a result, he was placed on the 7-day concussion . 26 27. Following a rehab assignment, the Giants recalled Plaintiff in late May. Based 27 upon his pre-injury performance, Plaintiff was promoted to starting left fielder for the Giants, 28

relegating three-time All-Star Hunter Pence to the bench. Unfortunately, with his post- 6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 3:20-cv-08056 Document 1-1 Filed 11/16/20 Page 8 of 13

1 concussion symptoms continuing, Plaintiff was unable to return to form and his numbers were

2 poor. As a result, in late June, the Giants optioned Plaintiff to Triple-A, where he continued to

3 struggle with vision problems, nausea and fatigue. When Plaintiff’s symptoms continued

4 throughout the summer, he was again diagnosed with post-concussion syndrome and took off

5 the rest of the season to rehab. Thereafter, even though many of Plaintiff’s symptoms had

6 dissipated, he continued to experience vision problems, bouts of vertigo-like symptoms, motion

7 sickness, and other symptoms as well.

8 28. The concussion caused a steep decline in Plaintiff’s performance level and

9 effectively ended Plaintiff’s Major League Baseball career.

10 The Aftermath

11 29. Meanwhile, on June 3, 2018 – six weeks after Plaintiff’s collision and resulting LLP

12 concussion – the Giants hosted their annual “Until There’s A Cure Day.” While the players were LIN

AR

9 1 C 0 13 on the field before the game participating in the event, Mr. Magowan, who helped design the 412 &

9

900 A 14 field on behalf of CBBC, apologized to Plaintiff for the collision and said he felt responsible for 0 , Suite 2 IVE N t G

, ree sco, C

i 15 his injuries as well as other injuries due to the on-field bullpen mounds since the Park opened in sa St e - 398 (415) 16 2000. RLEWINE 39 M San Franc E

, 17

PS 30. Despite Plaintiff’s collision in 2018, numerous other prior incidents, and Mr.

HILLI 18 Magowan’s apology, CBBC still failed to move the on-field bullpens after the 2018 season. P

19 Such inaction led to the Giants’ Steven Duggar falling over the right field bullpen mound and

20 injuring his wrist in April 2019, almost exactly a year after Plaintiff’s crash. San Diego Padres

21 Wil Myers and Dodgers outfielder Chris Taylor also fell over the same mound in

22 2019.

23 31. In response to Mr. Duggar’s injury, then Giants’ Manager Bruce Bochy

24 remarked: “It’s dangerous. These guys are focused on catching the ball. They’re running full

25 speed. It was a scary moment, to be honest.” (emphasis added). Giants’ broadcaster Mike

26 Krukow took it a step further and told the Giants’ flagship radio station KNBR: “Oh I was

27 angry. I was hot about it. We all were. We saw a horrific injury last year with what happened to

28 Mac Williamson.”

7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 3:20-cv-08056 Document 1-1 Filed 11/16/20 Page 9 of 13

1 32. The Giants’ own players even acknowledged the unnecessary risk they regularly

2 faced by having the bullpens on the field:

3 • “Getting the bullpens off the field would be a great thing. For 10 years, I’ve seen 4 guys face plant going down the line . . . . It’s just not smart to me to have the bullpens right there by the foul line. If the bullpens went to right center, I 5 personally would not be opposed to it.” Buster Posey, Catcher (emphasis added)

6 • “I’ve seen people get hurt and for me, it’s just a matter of time before we see a 7 more serious injury. So I think it’s probably a good idea to move those out of the way. And if it changes the dimensions … well, obviously, it’s not gonna get any 8 worse.” Brandon Belt, First Baseman (emphasis added) 9 • “We saw it with [Plaintiff Mac Williamson] last year. It can be a safety hazard. I 10 think Triples Alley would be a reasonable place to put it.” Brandon Crawford, Shortstop (emphasis added) 11

LLP

12

LIN 33. In an interview with The Sporting News in 2019, former Giants second baseman

AR

9 1 C 0 13

412 Scooter Gennett was asked what his favorite memory of Oracle Park was prior to joining the &

9

900

A 14 0 , Suite 2 IVE N team in a trade that year. In response, he retorted: “Well it’s definitely not running after a fly t G

, ree sco, C i 15 ball in foul territory, tripping on the bullpen mound and the ball hitting the backside of my sa St e - 398 (415) 16

RLEWINE glove.” In that same article, a Nationals relief pitcher opined: “You see some of these guys go 39 M San Franc E

, 17 PS over there and it gets pretty ugly. It just seems like an unnecessary risk.”

HILLI 18

P 34. Other players echoed similar concerns. Following his fall over the bullpen mound 19 at the Park, Mr. Taylor said: “It would be nice if they got a bullpen like everyone else, behind 20 the outfield.” His teammate and three-time Cy Young award-winner Clayton Kershaw went a 21 step further and exclaimed: “Let’s clean it up out here. It’s a brand-new ballpark, or relatively 22 new. So they should have thought about it.” (emphasis added). 23 35. Immediately after Mr. Cardullo fell over the bullpen mound, the Rockies’ 24 television announcers and former major league players Jeff Huson and Ryan Spilborghs vented: 25 “That’s why you just flat hate that the mounds are in play. This is dangerous, you want to lose a 26 player who’s making a semi-routine play in foul ground?” (emphasis added). 27 36. Following the 2019 season, CBBC finally moved the bullpens to behind the 28 outfield wall. 8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 3:20-cv-08056 Document 1-1 Filed 11/16/20 Page 10 of 13

1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

2 Premises Liability

3 37. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation stated

4 above.

5 38. As the entity that at all times relevant owned, operated, controlled, possessed,

6 managed, leased, maintained, and helped design the Park, CBBC, as such, had a duty to exercise

7 ordinary care to avoid exposing players to an unreasonable risk of harm. CBBC both knowingly

8 and negligently violated that duty by including on-field bullpens, especially after having been

9 warned that they were a safety hazard to players, thus making any resulting injuries obviously

10 foreseeable. CBBC failed to heed that duty both when designing and building the Park.

11 39. CBBC further breached that duty by failing to eliminate the hazard, despite LLP

12 knowing of numerous instances of players falling over the on-field bullpen mounds in the years LIN

AR

9 1 C 0 13 before Plaintiff’s injuries. 412 &

9

900 A 14 40. In further breach of its duty, CBBC also increased the risk of a player getting 0 , Suite 2 IVE N t G

, ree sco, C

i 15 injured by jamming the mounds just inches from the foul lines on one side and abutting the left sa St e - 398 (415) 16 field line and right field line walls on the other side, leaving hardly any room for a player to RLEWINE 39 M San Franc E

, 17

PS break his fall or to avoid hitting the wall. Additionally, CBBC failed to implement a warning

HILLI 18 signal of any type to alert players as to the on-field bullpen mounds when they were running full P

19 speed while looking up to track the ball. The rest of the first and third baselines and the area in

20 the outfield parallel to the wall all have a warning track (a flat dirt area approximately 10 feet

21 wide designed to alert the player to an oncoming wall).

22 //

23

24 //

25 26 //

27 // 28

9 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 3:20-cv-08056 Document 1-1 Filed 11/16/20 Page 11 of 13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 LLP 41. In doing the things described above, CBBC failed to exercise ordinary care to 12 LIN

AR

9 avoid exposing players, such as Plaintiff, to an unreasonable risk of harm, particularly given the 1 C 0 13 412 &

9 high probability and foreseeability of injury. 900

A 14 0 , Suite 2 IVE N t G

, ree 42. CBBC has moral blame given it opted for fan experience over player safety. sco, C

i 15 sa St e - 398 (415) 43. The bullpen mounds were not an open and obvious condition to a player chasing 16 RLEWINE 39 M San Franc E

, down a fly ball. Further, this dangerous condition was unavoidable. 17 PS 44. As a direct result of the conduct described above, Plaintiff suffered damages in

HILLI 18 P the form of lost wages, medical expenses, loss of future earnings, and pain and suffering in an 19 amount according to proof but exceeding the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. 20 45. CBBC’s acts described herein were malicious and oppressive. At all relevant 21 times herein, CBBC acted willfully and with conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s safety as well as 22 the safety of other players. Further, CBBC’s conduct subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust 23 hardship in conscious disregard of his rights. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages 24 against CBBC in an amount appropriate to punish it and set an example. 25 // 26

27 // 28

10 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 3:20-cv-08056 Document 1-1 Filed 11/16/20 Page 12 of 13 Case 3:20-cv-08056 Document 1-1 Filed 11/16/20 Page 13 of 13 Case 3:20-cv-08056 Document 1-2 Filed 11/16/20 Page 1 of 2

EXHIBIT B

CASE NUMBER:Case CGC-20-587701 3:20-cv-08056 WILLIAMSON Document 1-2 JOHNATHAN Filed 11/16/20 "MAC Page" VS. 2CHINA of 2 BASIN BALLPARK COMPANY, LLC ET AL NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF

A Case Management Conference is set for:

DATE: APR-14-2021 TIME: 10:30AM PLACE: Department 610 400 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102-3680 All parties must appear and comply with Local Rule 3.

CRC 3.725 requires the filing and service of a case management statement form CM-110 no later than 15 days before the case management conference. However, it would facilitate the issuance of a case management order without an appearance at the case management conference if the case management statement is filed and served twenty-five days before the case management conference.

Plaintiff must serve a copy of this notice upon each party to this action with the summons and complaint. Proof of service subsequently filed with this court shall so state. This case is eligible for electronic filing and service per Local Rule 2.11. For more information, please visit the Court's website at www.sfsuperiorcourt.org under Online Services. [DEFENDANTS: Attending the Case Management Conference does not take the place of filing a written response to the complaint. You must file a written response with the court within the time limit required by law. See Summons.]

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS

IT IS THE POLICY OF THE SUPERIOR COURT THAT EVERY CIVIL CASE SHOULD PARTICIPATE IN MEDIATION, ARBITRATION, NEUTRAL EVALUATION, AN EARLY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE FORM OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PRIOR TO A TRIAL.

(SEE LOCAL RULE 4)

Plaintiff must serve a copy of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Information Package on each defendant along with the complaint. (CRC 3.221.) The ADR package may be accessed at www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/divisions/civil/dispute-resolution or you may request a paper copy from the filing clerk. All counsel must discuss ADR with clients and opposing counsel and provide clients with a copy of the ADR Information Package prior to filing the Case Management Statement.

Superior Court Alternative Dispute Resolution Administrator 400 McAllister Street, Room 103-A San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 551-3869

See Local Rules 3.3, 6.0 C and 10 B re stipulation to judge pro tem.