1 world’s climate and oceans, and campaigns to avoid regulation, have no 2 social utility; g. 3 4 total global emissions increase, so that unchecked extraction and 5 consumption of fossil fuel products is more harmful and costly than 6 moderated extraction and consumption; and h. 7 it was practical for Defendants, and each of them, in light of their extensive 8 knowledge of the hazards of placing fossil fuel products into the stream of 9 commerce and extensive scientific engineering expertise, to develop better 10 technologies and to pursue and adopt known, practical, and available 11 technologies, energy sources, and business practices that would have 12 mitigated their greenhouse gas pollution and eased the transition to a lower 13 carbon economy. 14 184. In addition to the harms suffered by the public at large, Plaintiff has suffered, and 15 will continue to suffer, special injuries that are different in kind. Among other harms, Plaintiff 16 suffered economic losses due to the prohibition on harvesting and transacting in Dungeness crabs, 17 which constitute a substantial and significant portion of Plaintiff’s revenue. Additionally, the 18 markets for Plaintiff’s products were artificially depressed because of public health concerns over 19 the potential presence of domoic acid in those products. The public at large has not suffered the 20 same deprivation of a livelihood as has Plaintiff. 21 185. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, in that 22 their conduct was willful, intentional, and in conscious disregard for the rights of others. 23 Defendants’ conduct was so vile, base, and contemptible that it would be looked down upon and 24 despised by reasonable people, justifying an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an 25 amount subject to proof at trial, and justifying equitable disgorgement of all profits Defendants 26 obtained through their unlawful and outrageous conduct. 27 28 SHER EDLING LLP the social cost of each ton of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere increases as 186. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, as set forth above, Plaintiff has been unreasonably interfered with because Defendants knew or should have known that their COMPLAINT 79