Oakland warehouse fire, Ghost Ship fire

Ghost Ship Fire Lawsuit FAQ

Our hearts, and those of the entire Bay Area, go out to the families and friends whose loved ones died in the Ghost Ship fire. The Dolan Law Firm represents several parents/guardians that lost their sons or daughters in in the tragedy.

What was the Ghost Ship fire?

On December 2, 2016, a fire broke out in a “warehouse” located off of Fruitvale Avenue in Oakland, California. At the time of the fire, the “Ghost Ship” was host to a concert promoted by record label 100% Silk.  Thirty-six (36) people died in the blaze. It was the deadliest building fire in California’s history since the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake.

Several individuals have come forward with claims for physical, mental and emotional injuries caused by the fire, and/or on behalf of their loved ones who perished in the fire.

Have lawsuits been filed by families of the deceased in the Ghost Ship fire?

Master Complaint in Ghost Ship Litigation
Master Complaint in Ghost Ship Litigation

Yes. On May 16, 2017, a “Master Complaint” was filed with the Alameda County Superior Court. The Master Complaint lists the common set of claims and allegations against several private entity defendants – including but not limited to 100% Silk, PG&E, Derick Ion Almena (the building’s tenant and “manager”), Max Harris ( aka Max Ohr, the artistic director of the “Ghost Ship”), as well as Chor Nar Siu Ng, the owner of the warehouse.

Specific to PG&E, plaintiffs allege that PG&E owed a duty to exercise the utmost care and diligence in maintaining and operating electrical equipment that supplied power to the Ghost Ship and adjoining structures. PG&E allegedly breached its duty by failing to exercise care in their operation and maintenance of said electrical equipment, including, but not limited to, failing to properly monitor and inspect the electrical equipment, failing to properly repair the electrical equipment and failing to comply with applicable safety standards.

To date, there are thirty-one (31) filed cases, involving forty-seven (47) individual plaintiffs. Each new plaintiff may simply file a short form complaint to adopt the Master complaint.

On June 28, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their First Amended Master Complaint adding as defendants to the case and allegations against the City of Oakland, Alameda County and State of California.

Why is the City of Oakland and other public entities legally responsible for the deadly fire?

We are often asked:  How could such a dangerous condition exist in this building? How could the city of Oakland not have known or done anything about it?

Our answer is the City of Oakland and other public agencies did know. They simply and recklessly disregarded what was their mandatory duty to cure. In fact, not only does the Master Complaint allege that various government employees have actual knowledge of the goings-on and the dangers within the Ghost Ship prior to the incident, they wrote reports referring to them.

What are the specific allegations against the City of Oakland and other public agencies?

The Master Claim against Oakland alleges that the Fire, Police, and Building Departments failed to meet their mandatory duties to protect the public once they became aware that there was a dangerous condition or unlawful use of the facility.  There are documents and evidence that show they knew that there were dangerous conditions blocking the sidewalk and obstructing ingress and egress.

The Oakland Fire Department has records identifying the structure as “residential.” There have also been unconfirmed reports that Fire Department personnel were invited and attended a special event at the “GhostShip” held in their honor after they extinguished a previous fire. The dangerous conditions within the structure would have been apparent to even a casual observer, much less a trained public safety officer.

Various statutes and ordinances require that once the fire and/or building departments are aware of substandard conditions concerning health and safety, they have an affirmative duty to act to shutter the building or cause it to be brought to compliance.

The claims against the County of Alameda stem primarily from the interaction of Child Protective Services with the building manager, Derick Ion Almena. The County, knowing of the substandard and dangerous conditions where people were maintaining an unlawful residence, and hosting concerts and cabarets, should have advised the Oakland authorities.

Finally, the claims against the State are based on the law that the State Fire Marshal has the original authority, and duty, to enforce the Fire Code.

Does the criminal prosecution prevent bringing civil lawsuits?

No. This tragedy invokes not only the civil justice system, but also the criminal justice system. On June 5, 2017, the District Attorney filed criminal charges against Derick Almena and Max Harris. They were arrested and charged with 36 counts of involuntary manslaughter.

The District Attorney, as of this time, has not brought charges against the building owner. It is our belief that there is a basis for charging her given that she knew of the inadequate and unsafe electrical distribution system which she refused to upgrade, and her knowledge that the building was being used for residential and cabaret use without adequate exits and life safety systems.

Based on the District Attorney’s statements, it appears that an effort is being made to deflect liability from the City of Oakland, specifically claiming that the criminal defendants deliberately misled City officials regarding the use of the building.  In essence, the District Attorney claims that the City was prevented from knowing the true use of the building.  This does nothing to explain the documents showing the City’s knowledge that the facility was being used as an unlawful entertainment venue: the very use which led to the tragedy.

Soon, the Master Complaint will be amended to include the claims against the government entities. Once this happens, I am certain that the government defendants will file their challenges against the claims – in particular, citing statutory government immunities for failing to inspect or for conducting inadequate inspections.

In the meantime, our investigation continues.  There must not only be criminal liability for the deaths that occurred, but also civil liability. Even as another fatal building fire brings to light the inadequacies of the City of Oakland’s response to complaints and poor inspection reports, it is clear that until liability is found, nothing will change.

About the Dolan Law Firm

Our firm serves on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee which is charged with directing the litigation for the plaintiffs. Attorney Chris Dolan has undertaken the bulk of the research and drafting of the claims and parts of the complaint addressing the liability of the City of Oakland and PG&E.

If you lost a loved one or suffered an injury in the Ghost Ship fire, please promptly contact our law firm at 510-230-0178 and ask to speak to attorney Isabelle Tan or complete our contact form.

For no charge and without any obligation on your part, we will advise you of your legal rights and applicable deadlines for bringing a lawsuit. Our communications are strictly confidential. If you chose to retain our law firm, we work on a contingency fee meaning we receive no payment, and you incur no expense, unless and until we achieve a monetary recovery on your behalf. 

This will be long and costly ligation and the outcome is far from certain. Having a reputable firm with significant resources is extremely important. One thing you can be sure of is that the Dolan Law Firm will fight in memory of the deceased until every measure of justice has been achieved. 

The Fruitvale District on Sunday, December 4, 2016.

Don’t Delay. Contact Us Now.

If you or a family member suffered a serious injury due to the fault of another or were discriminated against, please contact us today for a free, no obligation review of your case.

I have read the disclaimer.    Privacy Policy

The use of the internet or this form for communication with the Dolan Law Firm or any individual attorney does not establish a contract for legal services with the Dolan Law Firm. Please read our full disclaimer.

close