Excerpt: ...n of fault under Proposition 51. A motion to exclude evidence about the liability of tortfeasors not present at trial is deemed made and denied. Therefore the motion is granted and and denied in part in accordance with the July 8, 2022 CMO. Plaintiffs' MIL No. 2 Plaintiffs seek to exclude evidence concerning the sophisticated user defense because it does not apply in this case and there is no evidence supporting the defense. This motion is too va...

Excerpt: ... that order. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial. Plaintiff's MIL No. 2 Plaintiff seeks to preclude Defendants and defense counsel from having any contact with prospective jurors. This is impossible. Defense counsel have to have contact with prospective jurors – how else are they supposed to participate in voir dire and the trial if they cannot ask prospective jurors questions and speak to the jury? As for contact outs...

Excerpt: .... . demonstrate[] that under no hypothesis is there a material issue of fact that requires the process of trial.” (Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334.) To show that a plaintiff cannot establish an element of a cause of action, a defendant must make the initial showing “that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854.) “The d...

Excerpt: ...echtel Nat. Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334.) To show that a plaintiff cannot establish an element of a cause of action, a defendant must make the initial showing “that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854.) “The defendant may, but need not, present evidence that conclusively negates an element of the plaintiff's cause of action. The def...

Excerpt: ...ining to the Regulation of Asbestos, dated April 1979; (3) 38 FR 8820-01, Apr. 6, 1973; (4) 39 FR 38064-01, Oct. 25, 1974; (5) 40 C.F.R. Pt. 61; 40 FR 48292, Oct. 14, 1975; (6) EPA Asbestos Materials Bans: Clarification § II.B; and (7) Defendant JM Manufacturing Company, Inc.'s Responses to Standard Interrogatories. Plaintiff did not object. The court takes judicial notice of the documents in accordance with Evidence Code section 452, subds. (b)...

Excerpt: ...very. After those continuances, Plaintiff did not file a substantive opposition. A defendant seeking summary judgment must “conclusively negate[] a necessary element of the plaintiff's case, or . . . demonstrate[] that under no hypothesis is there a material issue of fact that requires the process of trial.” (Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334.) To show that a plaintiff cannot establish an element of a cause of action, a defe...

Excerpt: ...ition. A defendant seeking summary judgment must “conclusively negate[] a necessary element of the plaintiff's case, or . . . demonstrate[] that under no hypothesis is there a material issue of fact that requires the process of trial.” (Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334.) To show that a plaintiff cannot establish an element of a cause of action, a defendant must make the initial showing “that the plaintiff does not possess...

Excerpt: ...sue of fact that requires the process of trial.” (Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334.) To show that a plaintiff cannot establish an element of a cause of action, a defendant must make the initial showing “that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854.) “The defendant may, but need not, present evidence that conclusively ne...

Excerpt: ...fendant seeking summary judgment must “conclusively negate[] a necessary element of the plaintiff's case, or . . . demonstrate[] that under no hypothesis is there a material issue of fact that requires the process of trial.” (Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334.) To show that a plaintiff cannot establish an element of a cause of action, a defendant must make the initial showing “that the plaintiff does not possess, and canno...

Excerpt: ... defendant may move to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).) The court may dismiss without prejudice the complaint in whole, or as to that defendant, when dismissal is made pursuant to Section 418.10. (Code Civ. Proc., § 581, subd. (h).) “A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this s...

Excerpt: ...not enough time before trial to obtain the documents from the VBA. Defendant argues the documents are relevant because they will reveal whether Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos while serving in the Navy. Defendant contends that the prior authorization form that Plaintiffs signed was a Veteran's Administration (“VA”) form, not a VBA form, and that the VBA form seeks information different from the information sought in the VA form. Plaintiffs ...

Excerpt: ...art without prejudice to objections at trial. Plaintiffs' MIL No. 18 No motion was filed. Plaintiffs' MIL No. 19 Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence that Marni Regan filed for a restraining order against her husband before they were married as irrelevant and prejudicial. Plaintiffs state they were married in 2018, the request for a restraining order was in 2017, and therefore the request is irrelevant to the state of their marriage. Defendant con...

Excerpt: ...lky grayish- white fibrous material” contradicts his deposition testimony in violation of D'Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1. In the deposition, Plaintiff stated the insulation looked like grayish-white material. That does not contradict the declaration's statement that the material was chalky grayish-white and fibrous. The objection is overruled. Defendant's Objections to Renken Declaration No. 1: Overruled. Nos. 2-21: Th...

Excerpt: ... . . . demonstrate[] that under no hypothesis is there a material issue of fact that requires the process of trial.” (Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334.) To show that a plaintiff cannot establish an element of a cause of action, a defendant must make the initial showing “that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854.) “Th...

Excerpt: ... on chrysotile asbestos or the reasons why the foreign governments banned it. Allowing that evidence will consume an undue amount of trial time exploring the bases for and legislative history of the foreign bans. The evidence would have little probative value because foreign bans did not apply to workplaces in the United States and would be confusing to the jury. The motion to exclude evidence about US federal and state regulations is too vague. ...

Excerpt: ...ernment regulations as irrelevant, confusing, and requiring an undue amount of time. An expert may be able to show that government regulations about permissible exposure limits are the type of information experts in the field rely upon. In that case, Plaintiffs can cross-examine the expert about whether the regulations are applicable to the exposures alleged in this case. The issues raised by Plaintiffs, such as regulations applying to the workpl...

Excerpt: ...r one or more issues of duty, if that party contents that the cause of action has no merit or that there is no affirmative defense thereto, . . . or that there is no merit to a claim for damages. . . A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) A defendant seeking summary judgmen...

Excerpt: ..., or . . . demonstrate[] that under no hypothesis is there a material issue of fact that requires the process of trial.” (Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334.) To show that a plaintiff cannot establish an element of a cause of action, a defendant must make the initial showing “that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854.) �...

Excerpt: ...ce of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).) The court may dismiss without prejudice the complaint in whole, or as to that defendant, when dismissal is made pursuant to Section 418.10. (Code Civ. Proc., § 581, subd. (h).) “A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” (...

Excerpt: ...iction of the court over him or her. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).) The court may dismiss without prejudice the complaint in whole, or as to that defendant, when dismissal is made pursuant to Section 418.10. (Code Civ. Proc., § 581, subd. (h).) “A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10.) “The Due Proce...

Excerpt: ...U.S. 460, attached as Exhibit G to the Declaration of Bartek R. Rejch. Plaintiffs did not object. Therefore, the Court takes judicial notice of the document in accordance with Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (e). The court has discretion to grant a motion for trial preference accompanied by clear and convincing medical documentation concluding that one of the parties suffers from an illness or condition raising substantial medical doubt of...

Excerpt: ...ue regarding whether the decedent would have followed warnings about products containing asbestos. The motion is otherwise denied as the evidence may be relevant Plaintiff's life expectancy. The motion is granted in part and denied in part without prejudice to objections at trial. Defendants' MIL Nos. 1-3 No motions were filed. Defendants' MIL No. 4 Defendant NL Industries moves to exclude non-expert opinion about asbestos content. Pursuant to th...

Excerpt: ...ntiffs move to exclude Supreme Court rulings on OSHA standards, including 448 U.S. 607 which was about benzene, as more prejudicial than probative. While benzene is not at issue in this case, this motion is too vague with regard to other rulings. For example, a ruling about OSHA standards for asbestos exposure could be relevant to notice or knowledge. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial. Plaintiffs' MIL No. 14 No motion ...

Excerpt: ...issal is made pursuant to Section 418.10. (Code Civ. Proc., § 581, subd. (h).) “A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10.) “The Due Process Clause protects an individual's liberty interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which he has established no meaningful ‘contacts, ties, or rela...

Excerpt: ...ng summary judgment must “conclusively negate[] a necessary element of the plaintiff's case, or . . . demonstrate[] that under no hypothesis is there a material issue of fact that requires the process of trial.” (Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334.) To show that a plaintiff cannot establish an element of a cause of action, a defendant must make the initial showing “that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably ...