Excerpt: ...off Plaintiff's Motion for Order Granting Preference in Setting Case for Trial, and Extending Discovery Cutoff is GRANTED under C.C.P. section 36(a). No opposition filed. 1. The trial date is August 5, 2024 at 11:15 a.m. in Department 206. a. Last da y pursuant to C.C.P. section 36(f) is August 13, 2024. b. The parties shall follow the California Rules of Court, San Francisco Local Rules, and Local Rule 20. 2. The last day for hearing summar...

Excerpt: ...ly co nditional non-opposition filed. 1. The trial date is July 29, 2024 at 11:15 a.m. in Department 206. a. Last day pursuant to C.C.P. section 36(f) is August 6, 2024. b. The parties shall follow the California Rules of Court, San Francisco Local Rules, and Lo cal Rule 20. 2. The last day for hearing summary judgment/adjudication motions is July 23, 2024. a. Summary judgment/adjudication motions shall be brought on regular notice pursuant to t...

Excerpt: ....m. in Department 206. a. Last day pursuant to C.C.P. section 36(f) is July 30, 2024. b. The parties shall follow the California Rules of Court, San Francisco Local Rules, and Local Rul e 20. 2. The last day for hearing summary judgment/adjudication motions is July 16, 2024. a. Summary judgment/adjudication motions shall be brought on regular notice pursuant to the relevant provisions of the C.C.P., unless the parties stipulate otherwise. b. Befo...

Excerpt: ...t to C.C.P. section 36(f) is July 30, 2024. b. The parties shall follow the California Rules of Court, San Francisco Local Rules, and Local Rule 20. 2. The last day for hearing sum mary judgment/adjudication motions is July 16, 2024. a. Summary judgment/adjudication motions shall be brought on regular notice pursuant to the relevant provisions of the C.C.P., unless the parties stipulate otherwise. b. Before a party files and serves a summary jud...

Excerpt: ... filed. 1. The trial date is July 15, 2024 at 11:15 a.m. in Department 206. a. Last day pursuant to C.C.P. section 36(f) is July 23, 2024. b. The parties shall follow the California Rules of Court, San Francisco Local Rules, and Local Rule 20. 2. The last day for hearing summary judgment/adjudication motions is July 9, 2024. a. Summary judgment/adjudication motions shall be brought on regular notice pursuant to the relevant provisions of the C.C...

Excerpt: ... of the recipients served but rather refers the Court to "SEE TRANSACTION RECEIPT ON FILE & SERVEXPRESS WEBSITE." Even if a proper POS was on file, the motion would be denied on the merits . Plaintiff failed to provide clear and convincing medical documentation demonstrating that Plaintiff suffers from an illness or condition raising substantial medical doubt of survival beyond six months. (C.C.P. Section 36(d).) Counsel refers to the De...

Excerpt: ...at 11:15 a.m. in Department 206. a. Last day pursuant to C.C.P. section 36(f) is July 16, 2024. b. The parties shall follow the California Rules of Court, San Francisco Local R ules, and Local Rule 20. 2. The last day for hearing summary judgment/adjudication motions is July 2, 2024. a. Summary judgment/adjudication motions shall be brought on regular notice pursuant to the relevant provisions of the C.C.P., unless the parties stipulate otherwise...

Excerpt: ...th respect to Defendant's motion for summary judgment, Defendant relies on the three deposition transcripts (enclosed as Exhibits B, C, and D to the Hoover Declaration) to show there are no triable issues of material fact reg arding the asbestos contents of its Dex -O -Tex product line. The Court sustains Plaintiffs' objections to the exhibits as hearsay. As such, Defendant presents no evidence on this matter. Defendant fails to meet its ...

Excerpt: ...ts initial burden of showing Plaintiffs do not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence of asbestos exposure and causation. (See Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 855.) Defendant enclosed excerpts of Volume 5 of the Deposition of Plaintiff Joseph Fare, taken on November 27, 2023, in its moving evidence. (See Hollingsworth Decl. at 2:16 -17 [par. 6].) Defendant also enclosed Plaintiffs' Answers to Standard Int...

Excerpt: ...ded evidence of asbestos exposure and causation. (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 855.) 1. With respect to Plaintiffs' special discov ery responses as factually devoid, Defendant meets its initial burden. a. The Court did not consider the following responses from Plaintiffs to Defendant's separate statement of undisputed material facts ("UMFs"). (i) Plaintiffs' response to UMF No. 3 (dis puting the charac...

Excerpt: ...y Defendant Golden Gate Drywall and Defendant Westburne Supply, Inc. Joinder to Golden Gate Drywall's opposition filed by Frederick Meiswinkel, Inc. Reply filed by Plaintiff. 1. The trial date is May 6, 2024 at 11:15 a.m. in Department 206. a. Last day pursuant to C.C.P. section 36(f) is May 17, 2024. b. The parties shall follow the California Rules of Court, San Francisco Local Rules, and Local Rule 20 except as noted below. 2. The last day for ...

Excerpt: ...efendant's separate statement. The following fail to unequivocally state whether Defendant's stated material facts are disputed or not: Nos. 5; 7; 8; 10; 11; 14; and 16. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1350, subd. (f)(2).) The following fail to unequivocally state whether Defendant's stated material facts are disputed or not and, if disputed, fail to cite to evidence supporting that position: Nos. 16 through 24. (Ibid.) The following confound the natu...

Excerpt: ...idence of asbestos exposure and causation. (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 855.) Plaintiffs identified the deposition transcript of Decedent Arthur Hawkins, Jr., taken in In re Petition of Candy Knight, Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2018-00230424, as a defendant-specific document in this wrongful death case. (Ohlsen Dec„ Ex. C [Plaintiffs' Amended Response to Defendant's Special Interrogatories, Set One] at 10:17-1...

Excerpt: ...n is procedurally defective. Defendant fails to sustain its initial burden of showing Plaintiffs do not possess and cannot reasonably obtain needed evidence of asbestos exposure and causation. (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. 25 Cal.4th 826, 855.) Melvin Rodrick stated that he "installed asbestos-containing GARLXK gaskets and worked with asbestos-cement pipe, plumber's putty, gaskets, and other asbestos-containing materials that were supplied by CA...

Excerpt: ...r of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority a...

Excerpt: ...ain needed evidence of causation for the following reasons. (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 825, 855.) First, Defendant does not show Decedent's deposition testimony is inadmissible in this case. (See Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 851 [discussing role of trial burden of proof on summary judgment); Berroteran v. Super. Ct. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 867, 895 [discussing trial burden of proof regarding admissibility of deposition testimo...

Excerpt: ...or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication is DENIED. Defendant fails to sustain its initial burden of showing its moving evidence conclusively negates the essential element of causation in the survival and wrongful death causes of action. (Brantley v. Pisaro (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1598; Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2W1) 25 Cal.4th 826, 855.) With regard to asbestos as the cause of death, Defendant's moving evidence ordinarily would be s...

Excerpt: ...tion. Plaintiffs' objection to Paragraph 8 of the Haran Declaration on lack of foundation/personal knowledge and hearsay grounds is OVERRULED. The Court considered Exhibits A through B of the Rose Declaration. Defendant's objections to Exhibit A on prejudice, lack of foundation, and improper lay opinion grounds and to Exhibit B on prejudice, lack of foundation, improper lay opinion, and improper expert designation grounds are OVERRULED. Defendant...

Excerpt: ...notice of Exhibit 1 (Plaintiff's Complaint) in the Weglarz Declaration. The Court considered Exhibit 2 (Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories, Set One), Exhibit 3 (Plaintiff's Responses to Standard Asbestos Case Interrogatories), Exhibit 4 (Plaintiff's Deposition, June 7, 2023), Exhibit 5 (Plaintiff's Deposition, Aug. 30, 2017, Taken in Case No. CGC-15-276397), and Exhibit 6 (Plaintiff's Deposition, Nov. 7, 1996, Taken in C...

Excerpt: ...r Declaration. The Court sustains Plaintiffs' objections to Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Htnver Declaration on hearsay grounds. As such, the Court did not consider Undisputed Material Facts Nos. 6 and 7 in Defendant's Separate Statement of undisputed Material Facts, which rely on Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Hoover Declaration as evidentiary support. Defendant fails to sustain its initial burden of showing that Plaintiff does not possess, and cannot re...

Excerpt: ...Motion: Exhibit A (Decedent's Personal Injury Complaint); Exhibit B (Plaintiffs' Wrongful Death Complaint); and Exhibit C (Amendment to First Amended Wrongful Death Complaint to Substitute Defendant's True Name for Does 2 and 254). The Court considered Exhibits D through K in Defendant's Index of Evidence in Support of the Motion. The Court declines to rule on Defendant's objections to Decedent's deposition submitted in Plaintiffs' opposing evide...

Excerpt: ...ie Declaration: Exhibit A (Plaintiff's Complaint); Exhibit B (Plaintiff's Preliminary Fact Sheet); and Exhibit C (Defendant's Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint). The Court considered Exhibits D through I and Exhibits K through L in the Ketchie Declaration. The Court sustains Plaintiff's objections to Exhibit J in the Ketchie Declaration (relevant portions of the Deposition Transcripts of Richard Bergeron, Defendant's Corporate Representative) and P...

Excerpt: ...rvice demonstrates that it properly served Plaintiffs. As to the survival claims under Decedent's personal injury action, dismissal is mandatory under C.C.P. secton 583.360. After commencing the achon against Defendant in 2014, and accounting for tolling during appeal, Plaintiffs failed to bring the achon to trial within five years and six months under C.C.P. section 583.310 and C.R.C. emergency rule IO(a). After the filing of remittitur by the c...

Excerpt: ...iled by Defendant. Reply filed by Plaintiff Plaintiffs have shown an exceptional circumstance of the deteriorating health of designated expert: Charles Ayz from a terminal disease for the Court to permit the motion to be made under C.C.P. section 2034.610(b) after the expert discovery cutoff date. (Morse Decl. parm 6.) All four conditions are satisfied for the Coun to grant leave to augment under CCP section 2034_620_ Pursuant to CCP section the ...

Excerpt: ...A to Defendant's Index of Exhibits. The Court considered Exhibits B (Plaintiffs Responses to Standard Interrogatories) and Exhibit C (relevant portions of the Deposition Transcripts ofPlamtiff William Frayne) to Defendant's Index of Exhibits submitted in support of the motion. The Coult sustains Plaintiff s objections to Exhibits D through H (relevant portions ofthe Deposition Transcripts of George Kirk: Defendant's Corporate Representative) on l...