Excerpt: ...ntal briefing before the new hearing date. 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).) “A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not ...

Excerpt: ... thereby did not give Plaintiffs enough time to file an opposition. The court continued the hearing to February 7, 2024, giving Plaintiffs five more days for their opposition. Plaintiffs filed an opposition on February 5, 2024. On May 10, 2023, Defendant requested Judy Ann Golby's pathology materials. (Jenkins Decl., ¶ 2.) It appears that after that date, nothing happened for months. On October 25 and 17, 2023, Defendant stated it wanted to test...

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: ...ing findings: (1) the party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole; and (2) the health of the party is such that 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...

Excerpt: ...he FDA has designated talc in cosmetics as “generally regarded as safe” because, according to Plaintiff, there is no evidence the FDA ever made that designation. If an expert testifies that the FDA in fact has designated talc in cosmetics as “generally regarded as safe,” then Plaintiff can cross-examine the expert about the basis for that assertion. Plaintiffs also argue evidence of GRAS should be excluded because this is not a food case....

Excerpt: ...the motion is too vague. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial. Defendants' MIL No. 1 Defendant Conwed Corporation moves to exclude evidence of working conditions at its facility as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial because Plaintiffs were never employed at the facility. This motion is too vague. If “working conditions” refers to something like wage and hour violations, that would be irrelevant. However, if it refers t...

Excerpt: ...ctional discovery, so the court continued the hearing date. 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, subd. (h).) “A court o...

Excerpt: ...e the motion. 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 ...

Excerpt: ...fraud cause of action and request for punitive damages. Plaintiffs' Objection Nos. 1-6: The court did not rely on this evidence. 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 e...

Excerpt: ...t party beyond six months and satisfying the court that the interests of justice will be served by granting the preference. (Id., § 36, subd. (d).) Moreover, the court in its discretion may grant a motion for preference supported by a showing that satisfies the court that the interests of justice will be served by granting the preference. (Id., § 36, subd. (e).) “Upon the granting of such a motion for preference, the court shall set the matte...

Excerpt: ...urisdiction 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: ...ion and request for punitive damages. Plaintiff's Objection Nos. 1-6: The court did not rely on this evidence. 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 elemen...

Excerpt: ...ould confuse the jury, and would consume an undue amount of time in a trial that is already too long. The motion is granted. Defendants' MIL No. 2 Avon moves to exclude evidence of an article entitled “Asbestos in Commercial Talcum Powder as a Cause of Mesothelioma in Women.” Defendants contend the article is hearsay. An expert may rely on hearsay and tell the jury in general terms that he or she did so. If an expert testifying in this case e...

Excerpt: ...al substance of the expected testimony, and a representation that the expert has agreed to testify and will be familiar with the action to give a meaningful deposition, and (c) information about the expert's fees and costs. Section 2034.260 does not say anything about the exchange of expert reports. Rather, section 2034.270 states that if a demand for an exchange of expert information includes a demand for the production of reports, the parties s...

Excerpt: ...endant may move to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. (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: ...t any exposure to asbestos. The preference trial is February 13, 2024, and the expert discovery cutoff date is in less than two weeks. Defendant gave no reason for waiting so close to trial to seek an IME and genetic testing. Defendant does not explain how the IME can be conducted, the genetic testing can be done, the defense expert can produce a report, the defense expert can be deposed, and then Plaintiffs' expert can be deposed, all in the nex...

Excerpt: ... In Plaintiff's supplemental brief, Plaintiff stated she needed yet more time because depositions scheduled for December would be relevant to the motion, so the court continued the hearing again. The parties then filed more supplemental briefs. A defendant may move to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over the defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).) The court may dismiss without prejudice t...

Excerpt: ...state, the court selects the appropriate state law to apply to the case. (Hurtado v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 574, 579-80.) When there is no choice of law agreement, but the action involves the significant interests of another state, the court may analyze the governmental interests of the various jurisdictions involved to select the most appropriate law. (Washington Mutual Bank, FA v. Superior Court (2001) 24 Cal.4th 906, 915.) Choice-of-l...

Excerpt: ... they did not have adequate notice of the bankruptcy to be barred. The court grants the request for judicial notice of the bankruptcy court orders attached to Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice. For a Chapter 11 corporate debtor, the confirmation of a plan discharges the debtor from any debt that arose before the date of such confirmation even if no claim was filed. (11 U.S.C. § 1141(d)(1)(A).) “If potential future tort claimants have not...

Excerpt: ...round of lack of jurisdiction of the court over the defendant. (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., §...

Excerpt: ... who manufactured Defendant's talc products from 1970 to 2000. Defendant responded with a preliminary statement, which is not permissible. The preliminary statement is stricken. It also responded that it does not know the identity of all of the manufacturers and named only two. The response does not state that Defendant made “a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations” as ...

Excerpt: ...24 to hold an evidentiary hearing in this preference case. The trial court can choose to hold an evidentiary hearing during the trial (for example on jury dark days), or if Fitzgerald does not establish the admissibility and foundation for his conclusions, the trial court can strike his testimony. The motion is deferred to the trial court. Defendant's MIL Re Fragments Colgate-Palmolive seeks to exclude expert testimony about cleavage and mineral ...

Excerpt: ...about background asbestos because there is no evidence of background asbestos. An expert may be able to establish a foundation for the existence and relevance of background asbestos. Also, pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, motions to exclude evidence as speculative or unsubstantiated 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 m...

Excerpt: ...wer of a court to decline to exercise the jurisdiction it has over a transitory cause of action when it believes that the action may be more appropriately and justly tried elsewhere.” (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 j...

Excerpt: ...e ninth affirmative defense alleges someone misused, abused, or altered the products at issue, that misuse, abuse, or alternation was not foreseeable to Defendant, and it caused the injury incurred by Plaintiffs. As alleged, the affirmative defense is vague. It is impossible to tell what Defendant is alleging from reading the answer. This affirmative defense arises when the product was misused or modified after it left the defendant's possession ...

Excerpt: ...e 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 Clause protects an individual's liberty inte...

Excerpt: ...bd. (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 Clause protects an individual's liberty interest in not being subject t...

Excerpt: ...iffs' MIL No. 2 Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence that David Cargill had heart attacks and different cancer as irrelevant and confusing. Defendants contend that their experts will opinion that Cargill's other health conditions caused his death. Defendants also argue that his medical condition is relevant to his life expectancy and damages. The evidence could be relevant to life expectancy and damages. Therefore, the motion is denied without pre...

Excerpt: ...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) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854...

Excerpt: ... not impose on a plaintiff the obligation to “prove” a case for punitive damages at summary judgment [or summary adjudication.' [Citations.] Even so, ‘where the plaintiff's ultimate burden of proof will be by clear and convincing evidence, the higher standard of proof must be taken into account in ruling on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, since if a plaintiff is to prevail on a claim for punitive damages, it will be n...

Excerpt: ...efendant's objections are improper because they do not identify the specific objectionable evidence. For example, Defendant states it objects to “Plaintiff's evidence to Plaintiff's DMF Nos. 5, 6, and 22” (see Objection No. 4), but those disputed facts contain multiple cites to evidence. By not specifically identifying and quoting the objectionable evidence as required by the California Rules o Court, Defendant would require the court to refe...

Excerpt: ...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 defendant may, but ...

Excerpt: ...] 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 defendant may, bu...

Excerpt: ...e damages. A. Objections Defendant's Objection Nos. 1-36, 42: The court did not rely on this evidence. Defendant's Objection Nos. 37-41: Overruled. B. Fourth Cause of Action The fourth cause of action for premises owner/contractor liability alleges Defendant “owned, leased, maintained, managed, and/or controlled the premises at which Plaintiff Kathleen Hiland was exposed to asbestos.” (Complaint, ¶ 51.) Defendant propounded a special interro...

Excerpt: ...continued the hearing to allow Defendants to respond to evidence that Plaintiffs filed shortly before the hearing. . 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. ...

Excerpt: .... When the motion targets a request for punitive damages, a higher standard of proof is at play. “Although the clear and convincing evidentiary standard is a stringent one, ‘it does not impose on a plaintiff the obligation to “prove” a case for punitive damages at summary judgment [or summary adjudication.' [Citations.] Even so, ‘where the plaintiff's ultimate burden of proof will be by clear and convincing evidence, the higher standard...

Excerpt: ...t a proper motion in limine as it does not seek to exclude evidence. Attorney questions during voir dire are not evidence. The trial court will have its own rules about how to conduct voir dire. The motion is denied. Plaintiffs also seek to exclude all evidence about background asbestos because there is no evidence of background asbestos. An expert may be able to establish a foundation for the existence and relevance of background asbestos. Also,...

Excerpt: ...d burdening the court. Also several defendants failed to number their motions in limine. When parties file 47 motions in limine, they need to be numbered. Otherwise, it is very difficult to keep track of so many motions. And defendants filed duplicative motions, again wasting time and resources. The parties should focus on working together to prepare for trial. Plaintiffs' MIL No. 1 Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence about permissible exposure l...

Excerpt: ...r the regulations are applicable to the exposures alleged in this case. The issues raised by Plaintiffs, such as regulations applying to the workplace, go to the weight to be given the evidence, and Plaintiffs can argue the jury should give the exposure limits no weight. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial. Plaintiffs' MIL No. 2 Plaintiffs seek to preclude defense witnesses from testifying that Defendants' products were ...

Excerpt: ...lso moved for summary adjudication of the fraud cause of action and request for punitive damages. A. Objections 1. Plaintiffs' Objections Nos. 1-10: The court did not rely on this evidence. 2. Defendant's Objections Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6: The court did not rely on this evidence. No. 2: Defendant objects that the transcript of the trial testimony of George Kirk is hearsay, citing Berroteran v. Superior Court (2022) 12 Cal. 5th 867, 891. That case add...

Excerpt: ...(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 Clause protects an individual's liberty interest in not being subject...

Excerpt: ...f Plaintiffs' third cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, fourth cause of action for fraud by nondisclosure, and punitive damages claim. In their opposition, Plaintiffs state they waive their third and fourth causes of action against Defendants. Plaintiffs filed a response to Defendant's Separate Statement in which Plaintiffs asserted objections to Defendant's Undisputed Material Facts. This is improper. Objections should be made to ev...

Excerpt: ...ing so that Plaintiff's deposition could finish. 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).) "A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis ...

Excerpt: ... Plaintiffs added J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. as Doe Defendant No. 29. On November 27, 2023, Defendant filed a demurrer. Defendant argues the first amended complaint is uncertain as to Defendant because it does not mention Defendant or state how Stephen Anderson was exposed to asbestos due to Defendant. Plaintiffs argue that the first amended complaint alleges Defendant was in the business of manufacturing, fabricating, designing, assembling,...

Excerpt: ...mmary 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 obtai...

Excerpt: ... conducted by videoconference or in person. The parties are to meet and confer before December 21, 2023 at noon on whether the deposition will be remote or in person. If they cannot agree, Plaintiffs are to immediately (by December 22, 2023) serve a new deposition notice stating whether the deposition will be in person or by videoconference. Second, Defendant argues the notice improperly states the video of the deposition will be used at trial be...

Excerpt: ...ental briefing before the new hearing date. 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).) “A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not...

Excerpt: ...e damages. When the motion targets a request for punitive damages, a higher standard of proof is at play. “Although the clear and convincing evidentiary standard is a stringent one, ‘it does not impose on a plaintiff the obligation to “prove” a case for punitive damages at summary judgment [or summary adjudication.' [Citations.] Even so, ‘where the plaintiff's ultimate burden of proof will be by clear and convincing evidence, the higher...

Excerpt: ...one of the parties suffers from an illness or condition raising substantial medical doubt of survival of that party beyond six months and satisfying the court that the interests of justice will be served by granting the preference. (Id., § 36, subd. (d).) Moreover, the court in its discretion may grant a motion for preference supported by a showing that satisfies the court that the interests of justice will be served by granting the preference. ...

Excerpt: ...o Defendant's Colton gun plastic cement. A. Objections Defendant's Objection Nos. 1, 2, 3: 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 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 th...