1 the nature of the harm is the deprivation of the right to use and enjoy natural 2 resources held in the public trust, as well as potential physical injury to 3 consumers, rather than mere annoyance; 4 c. the interference borne by Plaintiff is the deprivation of the right to obtain 5 and use natural resources held in the public trust, deprivation of the right to 6 use commercial fishing privileges, the loss of normal and expected revenue 7 from the use of those resources and privileges, and the deprivation of a 8 livelihood that depends on those resources; 9 d. The natural resources contaminated with domoic acid as a direct 10 consequence of Defendants’ conduct are not suitable for such 11 contamination because those resources are consumed by humans and other 12 organisms; 13 e. the burden on Plaintiff to mitigate and prevent the interference with the 14 natural resources held in the public trust, fishing privileges, and the right to 15 use and enjoy those resources and privileges to pursue fishing community 16 livelihoods, is significant and severe, as costs associated with preventing 17 such interference or contamination are prohibitive; 18 SHER EDLING LLP b. f. the social benefit of placing fossil fuels into the stream of commerce, if any, 19 is outweighed by the availability of other sources of energy that could have 20 been placed into the stream of commerce that would not have caused 21 increased mean sea surface temperature, marine heatwaves, harmful algal 22 blooms, and domoic acid contamination; Defendants, and each of them, 23 knew of the external costs of placing their fossil fuel products into the 24 stream of commerce, and rather than striving to mitigate those externalities, 25 instead acted affirmatively to obscure them from public consciousness; and 26 Defendants’ over-promotion and over-marketing of their products with 27 knowledge of the harm that would result, and their long-standing efforts to 28 sow doubt about the science surrounding the effects of their products on the COMPLAINT 78