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: ...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 ...

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: ...s both of the following 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 subdivision (a) of Section 36 may be signed by the attorney for the party seeking preference based upon informa...

Excerpt: ...e, 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: ...ction 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 Proces...

Excerpt: ...ffs amended their complaint to substitute Master Industries Worldwide, LLC as successor-in-interest to Master Industries, Inc., and Storm Products, Inc. for DOE 13 and DOE 12, respectively. Defendants Master Industries Worldwide, LLC and Storm Products, Inc. (“Defendants”) filed motions to quash service of summons on them for lack of personal jurisdiction. DISCUSSION A defendant may move to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of ju...

Excerpt: ... the court makes both of the following 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 subdivision (a) of Section 36 may be signed by the attorney for the party seeking preference bas...

Excerpt: ...' motion goes beyond section 437c, subdivision (l) by seeking to eliminate all reference to those defendants' products. There could be evidence that refers to or mentions other the defendants' products and is relevant to the remaining defendants' case (and not for attributing fault to or commenting on the defendants no longer in the case). Without knowing the specific evidence to be excluded, the court cannot determine that it is inadmissible. Th...

Excerpt: ...at time. Plaintiffs also argue the documents are hearsay, and Defendants cannot establish they are business records. If at trial Defendants fail to establish they are business records or that they are being offered for a non-hearsay purpose, Plaintiffs can object to their admission at that time. Finally, Plaintiffs argue the documents are prejudicial and confusing because Defendant failed to produce the documents earlier and because Defendants wi...

Excerpt: ...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, needed evidence.” (Aguilar v. A...

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: ...iv. 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 i...

Excerpt: ... warn/concealment; and (5) premises owner/contractor liability. On November 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed this motion for trial preference under Code of Civil Procedure sections 36, subdivision (d) and subdivision (e). On November 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed the amended motion. 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 illn...

Excerpt: ... agents of Defendant. Defendant objects the request is overbroad and burdensome, that only the parent of The Scotts Company (not a party in this case) files annual reports, the predecessor to the parent company become a public entity in 1992 and did not start filing annual reports until that time, and there is no central repository for annual reports. The motion is denied. If this request seeks annual reports from Defendant, Defendant showed that...

Excerpt: ..., cannot prove their fraud and conspiracy causes of action, and have no evidence supporting punitive damages. A. Objections Plaintiffs' Objections Plaintiffs did not consecutively number their objections. The court rules on them in the order they were presented: Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4: Overruled. See below. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. The court did not rely on this evidence. Defendant's Objections No. 1: Sustained. Nos. 2, 3: Overruled. ...

Excerpt: ...he decedent to asbestos, and Plaintiffs responded in a conclusory manner without citing any specific evidence. (Undisputed Material Facts (“UMF”) 6, 7; Ex. C at pp. 4-5.) The only product identification witness testified he has no knowledge of Defendant or its related companies and no knowledge whether the decedent ever worked around Defendant's products. (UMF 10, 11, 12; Ex. G at pp. 365-367.) This evidence was sufficient to shift the burden...

Excerpt: ...panied by clear and convincing medical documentation concluding that 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (d).) “Upon the granting of such a motion for preference, the court shall set the matter for trial not more than 120...

Excerpt: ...ode 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 libe...

Excerpt: ... On October 5, 2022, Defendant filed this motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiffs cannot prove Defendant supplied any asbestos-containing products to which Decedent was exposed. EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS Plaintiffs filed Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of Todd M. Thacker proffered by Defendant, which the court rules on below: Nos. 1, 2: Sustained. No. 3: Overruled. DISCUSSION A defendant seeking summary judgment must “...

Excerpt: ...ia Leon Solis and Leon Solis Jr. who worked with asbestos-containing products supplied by Defendant to the Solis family business, Solis Transport. (Complaint, ¶ 11; Opposition p. 2.) On September 29, 2022, Defendant filed this motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiffs cannot prove Defendant supplied asbestos-containing products to Solis Transport. Defendant also seeks summary adjudication of the third and fourth causes of action...

Excerpt: ...he ground that Plaintiffs' claims are preempted by the workers' compensation exclusivity remedy rule. Defendant failed to file a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subd. (a)(2). Failure to file the required declaration in the future may result in the motion being placed off calendar. Defendant filed a request for judicial notice. Because the court did not rely on any of those documents, it does not ...

Excerpt: ...e 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., §...

Excerpt: ... medical documentation concluding that 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (d).) “Upon the granting of such a motion for preference, the court shall set the matter for trial not more than 120 days from that date and there...

Excerpt: ...ortium. Defendants American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) each filed a demurrer to the fourth and fifth causes of action for false representation and intentional torts. Each also filed a motion to strike the request for punitive damages. Because the two demurrers and motions to strike are almost identical, the court's analysis and rulings below apply equally to Honda and Toyota. As an ...

Excerpt: ...he 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., �...

Excerpt: ...eck cannot prove she obtained any asbestos-containing product from Defendant. 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 defenda...

Excerpt: ...h are sources of talc in the products in this case. The motion is too vague and overbroad in seeking to exclude all studies of talc from mines in France, Austria, and Norway, especially if some of those studies also analyze talc from mines that supplied talc at issue here. Plaintiff can cross examine the experts about differences between the mines in France, Austria and Norway and can argue to the jury that they should give little or no weight to...

Excerpt: ...position if Defendants want it. According to the correspondence, one of the defendants sent a letter stating they would depose Brody at least three business days before his trial testimony. Trial is not until December 12, 2022. Therefore, there is still time to take the deposition according to Defendants' proposed schedule. The parties should have been able to resolve this by having a phone call to set the deposition date. Indeed, Defendants fail...

Excerpt: ...ourt 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 Clause prote...

Excerpt: ...AC”). Also on November 1, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion for trial preference pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 36 (a) and (e). A party who is over 70 years old may petition the court for a preference, which the court shall grant if the court makes both of the following 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 prejud...

Excerpt: ...2) to estop Defendant from asserting it is not liable for Chief Auto Parts' acts; and (3) for discovery sanctions. Also on November 21, 2022, Defendant filed an opposition to the motion to estop. Through a chain of transactions, Defendant acquired at least some of the assets and liabilities of Chief Auto Parts. According to Defendant's interrogatory responses, until 1988 Chief Auto Parts was an unincorporated division of Southland Corporation. (R...

Excerpt: ...AC”). Also on November 1, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion for trial preference pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 36 (a) and (e). A party who is over 70 years old may petition the court for a preference, which the court shall grant if the court makes both of the following 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 prejud...

Excerpt: ...t 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 cannot reas...

Excerpt: ...longer in the case, as well as the contents of the complaint. The request to exclude mention of the contents of the complaint is impossible – the trial is about the allegations in the complaint. Therefore, this part of the motion is denied. The request to exclude evidence about exposure to other products is too vague. Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, a motion to modify the caption on documents that may be presented to the jury to refer only to...

Excerpt: ...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 obt...

Excerpt: ...ties continue to file proforma motions (the same motions the parties file in every case with just the plaintiff's name changed) already addressed in the CMO. Plaintiffs' MIL re Alcohol Plaintiffs seek to exclude evidence of Marcher's use of alcohol and other substances as not relevant and unduly prejudicial. The motion is denied to the extent an expert relies on the evidence as relevant to Plaintiff's life expectancy or showing causes of his dise...

Excerpt: ...ings: (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 subdivision (a) of Section 36 may be signed by the attorney for the party seeking preference based upon information and belief as to the me...

Excerpt: ...laintiffs' counsel asked questions. (Ibid.) At the end of the deposition, counsel for Water Applications Distribution Group stated, “I'm going to invoke the five-day break permitted by the July 8th, 2022 Case Management Order.” (Id. at p. 47.) Plaintiffs' counsel responded that Defendants should ask their questions that day and that Plaintiffs could not promise the witness would be available on a later date. Defense counsel asked if the witne...

Excerpt: ...e testimony of defense expert Gary Paoli that Hernandezcueva was not exposed to asbestos as too speculative. Plaintiffs argue that because Paoli has no personal knowledge of the construction activities at Fluor and because he bases his opinion on hearsay documents, his conclusion that Hernandezcueva was not exposed to asbestos is speculative. Experts can rely on evidence other than their personal experience. For example, they can rely on admitted...

Excerpt: ...ode 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 libe...

Excerpt: ...l grant if the court makes both of the following 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 subdivision (a) of Section 36 may be signed by the attorney for the party seeking pref...

Excerpt: ...respirator from Defendant, the respirator was defective, and Freeman was exposed to asbestos while using a respirator from Defendant. I. 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 ...

Excerpt: ...ment, § 9.2.) Plaintiff argues that Chattem also assumed certain liabilities for personal injuries arising from the use of products occurring before the closing date, citing to Chattem's 1996 SEC filings. The SEC filings state Chattem “assumed certain liabilities of approximately $500,000.” The filing do not state what those liabilities were. The court continued the hearing on this motion to allow further briefing. Chattem filed a supplement...

Excerpt: ...taining products to which she was exposed, cannot prove her fraud cause of action, and has no evidence supporting punitive damages. 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: ...t filed a motion for summary judgment and summary adjudication on the grounds that Plaintiffs have no evidence Bobby Williams was exposed to asbestos in a product from Defendant, the fraud cause of action fails because Bobby Williams was not aware of any statements from Defendant, and Plaintiffs have no evidence to support an award of punitive damages. A defendant seeking summary judgment must “conclusively negate[] a necessary element of the p...

Excerpt: ...r and convincing medical documentation concluding that 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (d).) In addition, the court in its discretion may grant a motion for preference supported by a showing that satisfies the court tha...

Excerpt: ...ation during their meet and confer process. Defendants' Covid response is irrelevant to the issues in dispute in this case and would consume an undue amount of time. The motion is granted. Plaintiffs' MIL No. 4 Plaintiffs move to exclude the deposition testimony from Arnold Eric Anderson as hearsay and certain deposition exhibits as hearsay. Objections to depositions and deposition exhibits are handled through the page/line designation process. P...

Excerpt: ... of the following 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 subdivision (a) of Section 36 may be signed by the attorney for the party seeking preference based upon information a...

Excerpt: ...hat 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 elem...

Excerpt: ...ntiff's Objections to Reply Evidence: The court did not rely on this evidence. Defendant's Objections: Defendant did not number its objections, making it more difficult to rule on the objections. The court did not rely on most of the objected-to evidence and therefore does not rule on those objections. Objection Nos. 9, 10, 21, 24, 28 are overruled. B. Summary Adjudication of Punitive Damages Claim Defendant argues Plaintiffs have no evidence sup...

Excerpt: ... both of the following 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 subdivision (a) of Section 36 may be signed by the attorney for the party seeking preference based upon informat...

Excerpt: ...date. Plaintiff argues Hubbard started working at Defendant in 1978 and therefore has no personal knowledge about Defendant before that date. Plaintiff argues that anything George and Hubbard heard from other people is hearsay. This motion is too vague. The court cannot rule as a matter of law that anything a person learns from another person is automatically hearsay. Sometimes an out-of-court statement is not offered for the truth of the matter ...

Excerpt: ... lack of personal jurisdiction. The hearing on the motion was continued multiple times to allow discovery. A. Objections The court did not rely on much of the evidence presented and therefore is not ruling on all of the objections in the 61 pages of unnumbered objections to evidence filed by Akebono. The objection to Exhibit A is overruled. Exhibit A is a deposition transcript of George Sweikhart taken in this case after Akebono had been served w...

Excerpt: ... 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 subdivision (a) of Section 36 may be signed by the attorney for the party seeking preference based upon information and belief as to t...

Excerpt: ...conduct discovery. 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 inconsistent with the Co...

Excerpt: ...prepare someone else to serve as its PMQ. Triple A argues it filed for bankruptcy in 2010, in 2014 the bankruptcy court issued a decree discharging the trustee and closing out Triple A, and the company no longer exists. Triple A contends that because the company no longer exists, it has no officer, director, managing agent, employee or agent to testify on its behalf. Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.230 requires a corporation that is a party ...

Excerpt: ...orts another cause of the mesothelioma. This is an improper motion for summary adjudication of a defense. The motion is denied without prejudice to an objection at trial. Plaintiffs' MIL No. 2 Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence that any of the defendants' businesses closed or products lost money as a result of discontinuing asbestos-related products. This motion is too vague. Plaintiffs do not identify any specific defendant who will make this a...

Excerpt: ...ourt orders about him as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. The expert's religious practices and beliefs are irrelevant to this case and unduly prejudicial. If the expert testifies about providing the medical treatments based on the writings of L. Ron Hubbard, then he may be cross-examined about the basis for those medical treatments. Likewise, the expert's past association with BWell Clinic, which does not appear to have treated for asbestos exp...

Excerpt: ...n August 6, 2019, Plaintiffs obtained entry of default against Daniel Chiu, Rebecca Chiu, ARC-III Limited Partnership, Oasis Growth Partners, LLC, and The Bassist Corporation. On October 22, 2019, Plaintiffs added ARC-1 Limited Partnership as Doe 1 and Winston Liu as Doe 2. On January 9, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint naming as defendants Daniel Chiu, Rebecca Chiu, ARC-III Limited Partnership, ARC-1 Limited Partnership, Oasis G...

Excerpt: ...“One who agrees to waive or forego a right is precluded from afterwards asserting the right waived. . . . A valid release conclusively estops the parties from reviving and relitigating the claim released.” (Faye v. Feldman (1954) 128 Cal.App.2d 319, 327.) “In general, a written release extinguishes any obligation covered by the release's terms, provided it has not been obtained by fraud, deception, misrepresentation, duress, or undue influe...

Excerpt: ....” (Notice of Motion at p. 2.) Defendant seeks adjudication of “the survivorship action (including medical expenses and loss of income by the estate of Mr. William Phipps), the wrongful death action loss of consortium claim by Mrs. Linda Phipps, wrongful death medical expenses, and loss of income claims by all remaining Plaintiffs.” (Ibid.) This motion for summary adjudication is defective in several ways. First, “[i]f summary adjudicatio...

Excerpt: ...on July 19, 2022 Plaintiffs Michael Karmon, Galit Rubin, and Adina Kraus filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging Daniel Karmon died from asbestosis. The FAC was not substantively different from the original complaint except (a) the FAC removed one defendant, (b) the FAC was brought by Michael Karmon (rather than Judith Karmon) as the successor-in-interest to Daniel Karmon, (c) Michael Karmon alleged he was the successor-in-interest t...

Excerpt: ... 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., § 410.10....

Excerpt: ...efendant 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 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 ...

Excerpt: ...022, Defendant filed a motion to quash service of summons on the ground that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over it. Plaintiffs' objections are overruled. Plaintiffs did not file an opposition. Although there is a document in the court file labeled opposition, it is actually a proof of service. Plaintiffs did file a declaration of Roger Gold in opposition to the motion. A defendant may move to quash service of summons on the ground of lac...

Excerpt: ...uspended and to contest Kondor's alleged liability and amount of damages alleged by Plaintiffs. The motion is unopposed. The request for judicial notice is granted. Under California law, an insurance carrier who is not a party to an action can intervene on behalf of its insured when the insurance carrier could be subject to a subsequent action under Insurance Code section 11580. (Reliance Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 383, 386....

Excerpt: ...he 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 subdivision (a) of Section 36 may be signed by the attorney for the party seeking preference based upon information and belief as to the medical diagn...

Excerpt: ..., the evidence may be relevant and may be admissible even if hearsay. Plaintiffs also state FDA has never determined talc is safe. If there is no evidence the FDA has found talc to be safe, then there is nothing to exclude. If a party in opening statement refers to evidence that does not exist, the other side can point out to the jury that the party promised to show evidence on an issue and then failed to deliver on that promise at trial. Plainti...

Excerpt: ...derbilt filed a motion to quash service of summons on the ground that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over it. 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: ... the party promised to show the jury evidence on an issue and then failed to fulfill that promise at trial. Otherwise this is too vague. More specifically, Plaintiffs are concerned about a FDA survey in 2009-2010, which Plaintiffs contend is irrelevant because the survey addressed talc from different mines than the talc at issue here. This survey may be the type of material experts rely on. If an expert is relying on this survey, Plaintiffs can c...

Excerpt: ...laintiffs also state the FDA has never determined talc is safe. If there is no evidence that the FDA has found talc to be safe, then there is nothing to exclude. If a party in opening statement refers to evidence that does not exist, the other side can point out to the jury that the party promised to show evidence on an issue and then failed to deliver on that promise at trial. Plaintiffs argue evidence of GRAS should be excluded because this is ...

Excerpt: ...this order does not affect any allocation of fault under Proposition 51. Plaintiffs' MIL No. 2 This motion seeks to exclude evidence and arguments about “but for” causation. Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, this motion is deemed made and denied so long as the trial court intends to use CACI 435. Plaintiffs did not show good cause to depart from this order. Therefore the motion is denied so long as the trial court intends to use CACI 435, wit...

Excerpt: ...rd Amended Complaint alleges causes of action for negligence and products liability. “[P]unitive damages may be recovered in a products liability case [citation] and in a negligence action” if the plaintiff can “establish that the defendant was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of its conduct and that it willfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences.” (Hilliard v. A.H. Robins Co. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 374, 395.)...

Excerpt: ...The Court denied Plaintiffs' first motion because Plaintiffs did not file the settlement agreement at issue. Plaintiffs then re-filed the motion with a copy of the email chain Plaintiffs contend constitute the settlement. The party seeking to enforce a settlement “must first establish the agreement at issue was set forth ‘in a writing signed by the parties' (§ 664.6) or was made orally before the court. [Citation.]” (Harris v. Rudin, Richm...

Excerpt: ...t. The Court denied Plaintiffs' first motion because Plaintiffs did not file the settlement agreement at issue. Plaintiffs then re-filed the motion with a copy of the email chain Plaintiffs contend constitute the settlement. The party seeking to enforce a settlement “must first establish the agreement at issue was set forth ‘in a writing signed by the parties' (§ 664.6) or was made orally before the court. [Citation.]” (Harris v. Rudin, Ri...

Excerpt: ...ections 1708 through 1710. In addition, Farshadnia alleged a cause of action for loss of consortium. On July 22, 2022, Defendants CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (“CVS”), Safeway, Inc. (“Safeway”), and Walgreen co. (“Walgreen”) (collectively, “Defendants”) each filed a demurrer to the third and fourth causes of action for false representation and intentional torts. Each also filed a motion to strike the request for punitive damages. Because th...

Excerpt: ...states the court may determine that a trial on an issue shall precede the trial of other issues. Section 1048 allows a court to order a separate trial of an issue to avoid prejudice or when it will be conducive to expedition and economy. The provision of the contract at issue concerns the liabilities Ultramar assumed when it took over the refinery. Under that provision, the purchaser of the refinery assumed (i) all liabilities, claims, losses, da...