Excerpt: ...d not rely on this material. Defendant's Objection Nos. 1- 10, 13: Overruled. Defendant's Objection Nos. 11, 12, 14, 15: Sustained. See below. B. Summary Judgment 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.)...

Excerpt: ...ve 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 is granted. Defendants' MIL No. 2 Defendant Honeywell seeks to preclude a 1986 EPA document entitled “Guidance for Preventing Asbestos Disease Among Auto Mechanics” as irrelevant, hearsay, unscientific, and unduly prejudicial. If Defendant contends i...

Excerpt: ...ive damages. A. Fraudulent Concealment The First Amended Complaint alleges all defendants “intentional failed to disclose certain facts . . . regarding the existence of hazardous asbestos that became airborne.” (FAC, ¶ 16.) This allegation is too vague. For example, it does not specify the facts Defendant failed to disclose. “ ‘[T]he elements of a cause of action for fraud based on concealment are “ ‘(1) the defendant must have conce...

Excerpt: ...lement 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 obtain, needed evidence.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co....

Excerpt: ...efendant 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 cann...

Excerpt: ...diction it has over a transitory cause of action when it believes that the action may be more appropriately and justly tried elsewher e.” (Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 751.) When a court finds “in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in a forum outside this state,” it “shall stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.30(a).) Under...

Excerpt: ...ndant. 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 posses...

Excerpt: ...rely upon. Plaintiff can cross -examine the expert about whether the regulations are applicable to the exposures alleged in this case. The issues raised by Plaintiff, such as regulations applying to the workplace, go to the weight to be given the evidence, and Plaintiff can argue the jury should give the exposure limits no weight. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial. Plaintiff's MIL No. 2 Plaintiff moves to exclude argum...

Excerpt: ...on 51. To the extent the motion seeks to exclude any evidence of other defendants not at trial, the motion is denied as too vague. For example, a deposition testimony of a witness of another defendant may be admissible, or evidence may be relevant for Proposition 51 purposes. “ ‘The admission of fact in a pleading is a “judicial admission.” ' [Citation.] A judicial admission in a pleading is not merely evidence of a fact; it is a conclusi...

Excerpt: ...ncer and corporations: The trial court determines the scope of voir dire and will give the attorneys the rules for that trial court. If any attorney asks inappropriate questions during voir dire, the other side should object at that time. A motion in limine is not the proper place to define the questions that can and cannot be asked in voir dire. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial. (b) Sympathy: Plaintiffs cite no law p...

Excerpt: ... 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 obtain, needed evidence.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co . (2001) ...

Excerpt: ...or wrongful death and survival action of Gregory Lee. On January 25, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this motion for leave file a third amended complaint to allege a cause of action under Section 905(b) of the Longshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act against Defendant City of Long Beach as vessel owner of the RM S Queen Mary. Plaintiffs' counsel states he became aware of the possible application of maritime while preparing for the deposition of Defe...

Excerpt: ...fing. Plaintiffs did not file a supplemental brief. On December 13, 2024, Defendant filed a supplemental reply. A 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).)...

Excerpt: ...ign bans on the importation of chrysotile asbestos. Plaintiffs did not show any defendant was aware of a foreign ban 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 ...

Excerpt: ...iable reliance on false advertising.” (Westlye v. Look Sports, Inc. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1715, 1750.) Under this section “ ‘[o]ne engaged in the business of selling chattels who, by advertising, labels, or otherwise, makes to the public a misrepresentation of a material fact concerning the character or quality of a chattel sold by him is subject to liabili ty for physical harm to a consumer of the chattel caused by justifiable reliance upo...

Excerpt: ...scovery. The court continued the hearing for three month to allow for such discovery. The parties filed supplemental briefs. A 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...

Excerpt: ...he 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 Process Cl...

Excerpt: ...iled supplemental briefs. In Plaintiff's supplemental brief, Plaintiff stated she needed yet more time because depositions scheduled for December 2023 would be relevant to the motion, so at the December 8, 2023 hearing the court continued the hearing to January 24, 2023. The parties then stipulated to continue the hearing to February 16, 2024. The parties filed second supplemental briefs. A defendant may move to quash service of summons on the gr...

Excerpt: ...rty has a substantial interest in the action as a whole; and (2) the health of the party is such tha t a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party's interest in the litigation. (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (a).) An affidavit submitted in support of a motion for preference under this subdivision may be signed by the attorney for the party seeking preference based upon information and belief as to the medical diagnosis and prognosi...

Excerpt: ...r punitive damages. A. Objections 1. Plaintiffs' Objections No. 1: The court did not rely on this declaration. B. Summary Judgment 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 canno...

Excerpt: ...raud and conspiracy causes of action and request for punitive damages. A. Objections 1. Plaintiffs' Objections The Court did not rely on the Netherton Declaration. 2. Defendant's Objections Nos. 1- 3: Sustained. Nos. 4- 11: The Court did not rely on this evidence. B. Summary Judgment A defendant seeking summary judgment must “conclusively negate[] a necessary element of the plaintiff's case, or . . . demonstrate[] that under no hypothesis is th...

Excerpt: ...s not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Also, the contents of the document may be admissible at trial via an expert if the expert establishes that it is general background information of the type relied upon by experts in the field. That the document was based on unscientific sources can be the subject of cross-examination and goes to the weight to be given the document and whether an expert can establish it is the type of information...

Excerpt: ...ments to the effect that everyone would have mesothelioma if cosmetic talcum powder caused the disease. This motion is too vague. In addition, pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, motions to exclude evidence and arguments about causation are deemed made and denied. Plaintiffs did not show good cause to depart from that order. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial. Plaintiffs' MIL No. 3 Plaintiffs seek to exclude evidence that...

Excerpt: ...act 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 negates an...

Excerpt: ...mary 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 obtain...