Excerpt: ...tiffs' MIL No. 2 Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence of or reference to two 2013 orders precluding Plaintiffs' expert Barry Horn from testifying as irrelevant and prejudicial. The 2013 orders are more prejudicial than probative and will consume an undue amount of time explaining the context of those orders. Therefore, the motion is granted. However, if Horn testifies that his opinions have never been excluded, testifies his opinions have always b...

Excerpt: ...orts were due three days before the deposition. All expert discovery was to be completed by September 8, 2023. Plaintiffs state they retained Robert Johnson as an expert on June 16, 2023, and designated him as an expert on August 4, 2023. (Seitz Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. 4.) His office said he was available for a deposition on September 6, 2023. (Seitz Decl., ¶ 6.) Apparently, Plaintiffs never offered that deposition date to Defendants. Instead, on Augus...

Excerpt: ...0, 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 interest in not bein...

Excerpt: ...here 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 need not, present evidence th...

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. (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 shall be no continuance beyond 120 day...

Excerpt: ...in December 1976; otherwise overruled. 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 cannot establish an element of a cause of action, a defendant must make the in...

Excerpt: ...equest for punitive damages, so the motion for summary adjudication is moot. 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 defendan...

Excerpt: ...ert testimony to be excluded. In addition, the motion would exclude arguments about the standard for proving causation and what “substantial factor” means. Under the July 8, 2022 CMO, motions to exclude expert opinion about the term “substantial factor” are deemed made and denied without prejudice to objections at trial. Defendant did not show good cause to depart from this order. Defendant also argues OSHA and EPA reports are hearsay. Th...

Excerpt: ...pothesis 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 need not, presen...

Excerpt: ....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 interest in not be...

Excerpt: ... 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10.) “The Due Process C...

Excerpt: ...gh his work for contractor defendants, such as Metalclad, and was also exposed to asbestos from locations contractor defendants, including Metalclad, were responsible for while not working for them.” (Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 15.) It alleges Nikolaus Marcher was exposed to Defendant's products when he was employed at Owens Corning, Shell Oil, and Bechtel, and for himself, as well as while employed at Metalclad. (Second Amended Complaint, ¶...

Excerpt: ... father was exposed to asbestos while on the job, and the father bought the asbestos home to David Rosenberg who then developed mesothelioma. (Complaint, ¶¶ 72-74.) A. Fourth Cause of Action – Section 835 The fourth cause of action is for premise liability under Government Code section 835. Defendant argues it is not responsible under a take-home theory of exposure, citing to City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 129. Th...

Excerpt: ...laintiffs' MIL No. 2 No motion was filed. Plaintiffs' MIL No. 3 No motion was filed. Plaintiffs' MIL No. 4 Plaintiffs move to exclude argument about the lack of an autopsy. Plaintiffs argue that under Walsh v. Caidin (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 159, evidence of a lack of an autopsy is inadmissible. In that case, the defendants filed a cross-complaint for spoliation of evidence based on the plaintiff's failure to have an autopsy conducted after her husb...

Excerpt: ...y.” (Motion at p. 5.) This is too vague. The motion does not identify any specific exhibit or testimony to be excluded. The motion seeks to exclude all documents not dated between 1976 and 1999 because any documents before or after those dates would not include knowledge that is “reasonably scientifically knowable.” (Motion at p. 5.) This makes little sense. Why wouldn't documents written in 1974 or 1975 be scientifically knowable in 1976? ...

Excerpt: ...rial.” (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 element of the plaintiff's cause ...

Excerpt: ...MIL No. 1 Plaintiffs move to exclude evidence about the Asbestos Worker magazine as irrelevant to showing Plaintiff's knowledge about asbestos because Plaintiff was not a member of the union, did not read the magazine and did not know about it. The court cannot determine on a motion in limine whether in fact Plaintiff was or was not a member of the union and whether or not he read the magazine. If Defendants seek to admit the magazine before esta...

Excerpt: ...ntific articles or other documents may mention former defendants no longer involved in this case, and reference to former defendants may be permissible for purposes of allocation of fault. And experts may testify they relied on the complaint. Also, unless a defendant was granted summary judgment, a defendant no longer in this case may still be relevant for allocation of fault under Proposition 51. Plaintiffs move to preclude Defendants from showi...

Excerpt: ... with California. A defendant 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...

Excerpt: ...f evidence in the same objection. Also, Plaintiffs do not quote the piece of evidence accurately. Instead, Plaintiffs paraphrase or rewrite the piece of evidence. For example, Objection No. 15 states the objectionable piece of evidence is: “If Todd's bid was selected, the Navy and Todd would enter into a contract that was written and prepared by the Navy . . . .” Objection No. 15 states that that objectionable evidence is in paragraph 15 of t...

Excerpt: ...nder 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 need n...

Excerpt: ...is a party under Section 2025.23, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear . . . or to produce for inspection any document . . . described in the deposition notice, the party giving notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for any inspection any documents . . . described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) The movi...

Excerpt: ...ation and Daimler Truck North America LLC state they were not served until June 22, 2023 and have not had sufficient time to take discovery. Hale Products says it needs a continuance because Plaintiffs just identified new witnesses. The court also notes that Plaintiffs recently added yet another defendant to this old case – Meritor Inc. The court grants the trial continuance requested by Detroit Diesel Corporation and Daimler Truck North Americ...

Excerpt: ...ific articles or other documents may mention former defendants no longer involved in this case, and reference to former defendants may be permissible for purposes of allocation of fault. And experts may testify they relied on the complaint. Also, unless a defendant was granted summary judgment, a defendant no longer in this case may still be relevant for allocation of fault under Proposition 51. Plaintiffs move to preclude Defendants from showing...

Excerpt: ...sed in discovery. Pursuant to the July 8, 2022 CMO, such a motion is deemed made and denied. Defendant did not show good cause to depart from that order. Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial. Defendant's MIL No. 2 Defendant Longs Drug Stores California, LLC moves to exclude all references to news reports about talc litigation to establish notice as lacking foundation, hearsay, irrelevant and prejudicial. Defend...