Excerpt: ...uments And Further Responses To Sca'S 1st Sets Of Discovery Requests. (PART ONE OF THREE) Pro Tem Judge Philip Ward, a member 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 mot...

Excerpt: ...endant 1625 Leavenworth Street Llc To Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories Set One And Request For Monetary San ctions Against Defendant 1625 Leavenworth Street Llc And Its Attorney. (PART ONE OF THREE) Pro Tem Judge Philip Ward, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigne d to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked...

Excerpt: ...orm Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests For Production Of Documents, Compliance With Requests For Production Of Documents And For Monetary Sanctions. (PART ONE OF TWO) Pro Tem Judge Philip Ward, a member 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 he ar this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipula...

Excerpt: ...2,000 Monetary Sanction. (PAR T ONE OF TWO) Pro Tem Judge Philip Ward, a member 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...

Excerpt: ...ements 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 as a Superior Court Judge. If a party appears by teleph...

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...

Excerpt: ...dant. The Court considered Exhibits A and B to the Hopwood Declaration submitted in support of the motion. The Court also considered Exhibits B, C, and D to the Rose Declaration submitted in opposition to the motion. (See C.C.P. section 437c(c).) Defendant fails to sustain its initial burden of showing that Plaintiffs do not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence that Decedent was exposed to asbestos-containing products attributab...

Excerpt: ... Defendant in support of its motion. Plaintiffs lodged two objections to portions of Exhibit L, Deposition of Charles Ay from Harry Transue v. Asbestos Defendants, on hearsay, lack of foundation, personal knowledge, relevance, and speculation grounds. Plaintiffs' objections are overruled. Defendant fails to sustain its initial burden of showing that Plaintiffs' negligence cause of action has no merit on the ground that the affirmative evidence co...

Excerpt: ...er Defendant's undisputed material fact No. 6 and No. 7 because they constitute argument, and the separate statement should include only material facts. (CRC 3.1350(d)(2).) The Court took judicial notice of Plaintiff's complaint enclosed as Exhibit A in Defendant's Initial Index of Exhibits. The Court considered Exhibits B through F of Defendant's Initial Index of Exhibits. The Court also considered Exhibits A through E of Defendant's Reply Index...

Excerpt: .... Defendant has shown an exceptional circumstance of the death of its designated expert before trial set for May 8, 2023 for the Court to permit the motion to be made under C.C.P. section 2034.610(b) after the expert discovery cutoff date. (Hopwood Decl. para. 4.) All conditions are satisfied for the Court to grant leave to augment under C.C.P. section 2034.620. The Court considered the minimal extent to which Plaintiffs have relied on Defendant'...

Excerpt: ... of the complaint and request for dismissal filed by Defendant in support of the motion as Exhibits A and B, respectively, in the Kelly Declaration. The Court considered Exhibit C and citations to Exhibit C that included reference to the exhibit, title, page, and line numbers. (CRC 3.1350(d)(3).) The Court did not consider undisputed material fact #11 and Exhibit D because it is argument, and the separate statement should include only material fa...

Excerpt: ...s serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings, and states what allegations regarding wrongful death are proposed to be added to the previous pleading in the personal injury action and where the additional allegations are located. (CRC 3.1324(a).) Plaintiff submitted a declaration specifying the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovere...

Excerpt: ...Plaintiffs in their response to Defendant's separate statement. Defendant sustained its burden of showing that Plaintiffs do not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence that decedent was exposed to asbestos containing products attributable to Defendant. (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 855.) Between 1969 and 1972, Decedent recalled three jobsites where he saw Oltmans employees working. (Defendant's Index, Ex. ...

Excerpt: ...tain, needed evidence that decedent was exposed to asbestos containing products attributable to Defendant. (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 855.) Plaintiff Robert Brown testified that he accompanied his father to Scherba's Auto Store "30, maybe 40 times" and that his father purchased Fel Pro gaskets. (Hopwood Declaration, Ex. F (June 8, 2021 Robert Brown Deposition) at 37:3‐ 8; 41:12‐15.) He further testified that his fa...

Excerpt: ...sustained its burden of showing that Plaintiffs do not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence that decedent was exposed to asbestos containing products attributable to Defendant. (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 855.) James Haines's testimony as to what decedent told him about his experience in the bonding shop in the late 1970s is hearsay. (Haran Declaration, Ex. O at 23:21‐24:4; 25:21‐26:9; 26:13‐16; ...

Excerpt: ...ng that Plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence that she was exposed to asbestos containing products attributable to Defendant. (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 855.) Defendant failed to address its response to Standard Asbestos General Order 129 Interrogatories or the deposition transcripts of James Rickey and Max Taliaferro, identified in Plaintiff's response to Defendant's special interro...

Excerpt: ...d evidence that decedent was exposed to asbestos containing products attributable to Defendant. (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 855.) Defendant failed to address Plaintiffs' interrogatory responses identifying Defendant's Fire‐Rated drywall as containing asbestos. (Defendant's Exhibit D [Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Special 'Interrogatories, Set One] at 14:15‐23.) Plaintiffs' objection to the declaration of Dr. C...

Excerpt: ...os containing products attributable to Defendant. (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 855.) Co‐worker witness Paul Schulz testified that he and decedent were present when Defendant's employees removed one to two feet of pipe insulation from a six to eight diameter pipe. (Undisputed Material Fact 16 [Hopwood Declaration, Ex. H at 317:21‐318:19].) He also testified that it took 15 minutes at most to take the insulation off. (...

Excerpt: ...estos containing products attributable to Defendant. (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 855.) Defendant fails to address testimony from Charles Willert that he and decedent would eat lunch in the houses while the drywallers were performing their work and they would pull out after a half hour if it got really dusty in there. (Smith Declaration, Ex. E at 28:25‐29:14.) Mr. Willert also testified that defendant's employees would...

Excerpt: ...t failed to sustain its burden of showing that Plaintiffs do not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence that decedent Robert Schindler was exposed to asbestos containing products attributable to Defendant. (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 855.) Defendant failed to address decedent's testimony that the head gaskets he removed from the Continental engines were made of copper and fiber gray in color and likely h...

Excerpt: ... asbestos containing products attributable to Defendant. (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 855.) Defendant fails to address Plaintiff's work for Bay Area Controls part‐time while he was in the Navy between 1971 and 1974. (Gage Decl. Ex. C at 3:16‐14:16.) At Plaintiff's deposition, Defense counsel only asked questions pertaining to Plaintiff's work after the Navy. (Gage Decl. Ex. E at 433:1‐13; Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Con...

Excerpt: ... Bruce Hiell was exposed to asbestos containing products attributable to Defendant. (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 855.) Defendant failed to propound any "state all facts" interrogatories regarding Defendant's product. (Weber v. John Crane, Inc. (2006) 143 Cal. App. 4th 1433, 1440.) Defendant also failed to establish that Gerry Bowden, decedent's co‐worker, lacks information supporting Plaintiffs' claims. Although Mr. Bo...

Excerpt: ...Set Aside Default and Default Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Intervenor's request for judicial notice is granted as to Exhibits A and B (secretary of state documents). (Evidence Code section 452(c).) Plaintiffs' objections to Intervenor's request for judicial notice is sustained as Exhibit N (the trial court order in James Greely v. Asbestos Defendants, San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC‐10‐275502). The trial court ord...

Excerpt: ...nts Cerego, Inc. and Eric Young's "Motion To Strike False And Irrelevant Words And Phrases From Plaintiff Paul Henry's Second Amended Complaint" is decided as follows: Defendants' motion to strike references to Defendant Young and "Defendants" is moot. In the companion ruling on Defendants' demurrers, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend regarding Young's liability under the alter ego doctrine. Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's prayer...

Excerpt: ... Alternatively, Summary Adjudication" that attacks the First Amended Complaint by January 10, 2022. Per the conditions agreed to in this court's order of September 9, 2021 granting leave to amend the complaint, plaintiff shall file and serve its opposition to the revised motion by February 10, 2022. Defendants' reply shall be filed and served by February 16, 2022. Defendant is advised to reformat its separate statement to include only material an...

Excerpt: ...trating that Plaintiffs do not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence that Defendant acted with the requisite malice, fraud or oppression to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. Defendant failed to propound a separate all facts interrogatory as to punitive damages. Notwithstanding this omission, Defendant failed to provide the Court with Plaintiffs' complete response to special interrogatory no. 1, which seeks all facts supporting l...

Excerpt: ...t possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence that he was exposed to asbestos containing products attributable to Defendant. (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 855.) Defendant failed to address Plaintiff's deposition testimony that between 1983‐1985, he unloaded and stacked bags of Durabond on Union Pacific Railcars and cleaned out the cars after unloading them, creating visible dust. (Gold Declaration, Ex A. at 1...

Excerpt: ...Defendant failed to sustain its burden of showing that Plaintiffs do not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence that decedent Robert Mingram was exposed to asbestos containing products attributable to Defendant. (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 855.) Robert Cantley's testimony that he worked with decedent at one job site in the early 1960s versus the declaration of Valerie Howerton Miller stating that Defenda...

Excerpt: ...laint‐In‐Intervention is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Proposed Intervenor's request for judicial notice is granted as to Exhibits A and B. (Evidence Code section 452(d).) Plaintiff's objection to Intervenor's request for judicial notice is denied as to Exhibits J and M based on relevance. (Evidence Code section 352.) Intervenor's objection to Plaintiff's Exhibit A to its opposition is sustained based on relevance. (Evidence Code 352.) ...

Excerpt: ...ng product for which Defendant may be liable. Defendant has failed to shift the burden on this ground. Based on Plaintiff's deposition testimony, which is the only evidence Defendant offers, Defendant has not shown that Plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence that he was exposed to asbestos containing products attributable to Defendant. (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 855.) Plaintiff testif...

Excerpt: ...NIED. Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of showing that service on PCNA was effective service on Porsche AG as CT Corporation is not the agent for service of process for Porsche AG. Further, Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the requirement of Code of Civil Procedure section 416.10(b) for service on Porsche AG. Even after being given the opportunity to conduct jurisdictional discovery, Plaintiff has failed to present sufficient evidence that ...

Excerpt: .... Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 855.) As to asbestos content, Defendant failed to show that Plaintiff would not have been able to recognize Defendant's product had he been shown a photograph. (Huie Declaration, Ex. G at 227:12‐228:20; Weber v. John Crane, Inc. (2007) 143 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1439; Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Const. Co. (1999) 69 Cal. App. 4th 64, 81 (courts "can infer nothing at all with respect to questions which were nei...

Excerpt: ...ctional discovery. Plaintiff's objections to paragraphs 5, 8, 9 and 12 to the declaration of George Feygin are sustained based on lack of foundation. Plaintiff's objection to Exhibit A attached to Defendant's request for judicial notice is sustained based on relevance. Defendant's supplemental request for judicial notice is denied as to Exhibits A and B based on relevance. Discovery is limited to the issue of jurisdiction. Supplemental opposition...

Excerpt: ...that Plaintiffs do not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence that James Carmichael, and thereby decedent, was exposed to asbestos containing products attributable to Defendant. (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 855.) Defendant failed to attach Plaintiffs Brenda Geisinger and James Carmichael's complete responses to Defendant's special interrogatories nos. 1-3 and 5, as well as responses to interrogatories nos...

Excerpt: ...nce. Defendant has not shown that Plaintiffs do not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence that deceased plaintiff Raymond Byrum was exposed to asbestos containing products attributable to Defendant. (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 855.) Defendant failed to address co-workers identified in Plaintiffs' special interrogatory responses. (Defendant's Index of Exhibits, Ex. F at 3:8-13.) Plaintiff Stephen Byrum w...

Excerpt: ...wn that Plaintiffs do not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence that Plaintiff Roberto Elorreaga was exposed to asbestos containing products attributable to Defendant. (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 855.) Defendant has not provided the Court with a complete set of standard interrogatory questions and responses. (Follett Declaration, Exs. A-B.) Defendant has not demonstrated that it propounded "all facts" s...

Excerpt: ... 855. Plaintiffs' responses to Defendant's special interrogatories demonstrate that Plaintiffs do not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence that Defendant acted with the requisite malice, fraud or oppression to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. (Defendant's Index of Exhibits, Exs. B and C [Plaintiff Roberto Elorreaga's responses to rogs. 1, 13‐25; Exs. D and E [Plaintiff Rosemary Elorreaga's responses to rogs 1, 16‐18]; see ...

Excerpt: ...concurrently with Defendant's Reply. (Bellow Decl. Ex. A; San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 308, 316.) Defendant sustained its initial burden under Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 855. Defendant presents evidence that none of the HVAC wall mount products Defendant manufactured utilized gaskets except the WAG Series Wall Mount Products, which were first manufactured in the late 19...

Excerpt: ...o sustain its initial burden via the factually devoid prong of Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 855. Defendant failed to address Plaintiff's deposition testimony that he was exposed to asbestos caused by components and equipment manufactured and supplied by Defendant. Plaintiff testified that he worked many many times with Allen-Bradley equipment and recognized it with a big A-B, and by the model number and serial number (...

Excerpt: ... deposition testimony identifying Joe Ubeda, Fred Sherwood, and John De La Rosa as co‐worker witnesses with knowledge. (Declaration of Jason Rose [Exhibit A at 83:20‐84:8; 86:9‐ 86:24].) Defendant failed to question Plaintiff about his exposure to asbestos from the installation of new gaskets and removal of old gaskets. Defendant's inability to name the brand name, manufacturer, or supplier of old gaskets is insufficient to shift the burden...

Excerpt: ...to Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854‐855. (Williams Decl. Ex. 4, 13:1‐24, 14:5‐15:23; and Ex. 6, 100:21‐101:23; Williams Decl. Ex. 2, response to special interrogatories no. 1 and no. 2.) Defendant has failed to produce evidence proving that "plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence" to establish that Defendant's products exposed Plaintiff to asbestos. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfi...

Excerpt: ... (Code of Civ. Proc., 437c(a)(2) ["Notice of the motion and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing."].) Defendant Whip‐Mix Corporation attempted to file their Motion for Summary Adjudication on February 11, 2021. However, the Clerk's Office rejected the filing as the hearing date in the body of the motion did not match the hearing date in the caption. Defendant...

Excerpt: ...gment is denied. USC fails to burden shift, even under the presumption that Plaintiff Dr. David Springer ("Dr. Springer") was an employee. USC produced Plaintiffs' responses to interrogatories, excerpts from Plaintiffs' depositions, and Dr. Springers' USC dental school transcript. (Schultz Decl., Exs. B-I, M-O.) First, Dr. Springer participated in a mandatory on-campus clinic, received a grade for his clinic work, was supervised by USC dental sch...

Excerpt: ...(Sibiger Decl., Ex. D, Response to Special Interrogatories No. 7.) Defendant failed to produce evidence proving that "plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence" to establish that Defendant's products exposed Plaintiff to asbestos. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 854.) Plaintiffs' Verified Responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatories, Set One, specify the evidence that would be used i...

Excerpt: ...ment of causation for any cause of action. Plaintiff David Springer is the only witness against Defendant Douglass Insulation. (Index of Exhibits Ex. K, Plaintiffs' Witness Statement.) Further, it is undisputed that neither of the Plaintiffs will provide product identification evidence against Defendant Douglass Insulation. (Index of Exhibits Ex. J, Deposition of David Springer p.422:11‐17; 450:8‐ 15; Motte Decl. at 1:24 ‐ 2:2.) Plaintiffs'...

Excerpt: ...t of Undisputed Material Facts, Nos. 19, 23, 24, 30-31.) Defendant has failed to produce evidence proving that "plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence" to establish that Defendant's products exposed Plaintiff to asbestos. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 854.) Plaintiff's verified Response to ATKN's Special Interrogatories, Set One, No. 5 cites evidence in support of Plaintiff's allega...

Excerpt: ...failed to produce evidence showing that "plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence" to establish that Defendant's products exposed Plaintiff to asbestos. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 854.) Plaintiffs' Responses to Defendant's Requests for Production, Set One, specify the evidence that would be used in support of Plaintiff's allegations. (Scheffy Decl., Ex. G, Response to Request for P...

Excerpt: ...any of Pittsburgh, PA, TIG Insurance Company, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, and Certain London Market Insurance Companies ("Intervenors") have failed to sustain their initial burden of production pursuant to Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854-855. It is undisputed between the parties that Plaintiff was present while J&H Marine & Industrial Engineering Company employees ("J&H employees") removed and installed al...

Excerpt: ...Company of Pittsburgh, PA, TIG Insurance Company, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, and Certain London Market Insurance Companies ("Intervenors") have failed to sustain their initial burden by making an affirmative showing that Plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence to support the element of causation. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854-855.) Initially, it is undisputed between t...

Excerpt: ...any of Pittsburg and TIG Insurance Company ("Intervenors") failed to sustain their initial burden pursuant to the factually devoid prong of Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826. Plaintiffs' responses to Intervenors' Special Interrogatories include specific facts about the late Ronald Brown's exposure to asbestos‐containing products based on J&H Marine & Industrial Company's activities. Additionally, Intervenors' reliance on A...

Excerpt: ...vidence Code section 452(b) as to Exhibits L and M, and DENIED as to Exhibits N and O. Defendant failed to meet its initial burden of demonstrating that Plaintiff does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence that Decedent was exposed to asbestos‐ containing products or materials attributable to Defendant. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 855.) The testimony of James Greely is insufficient to show that Defendan...

Excerpt: ...tlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826.) The declaration of Captain Margaret McCloskey is insufficient because it sets forth generalities and does not preclude the possibility that decedent could have employed precautionary measures to protect himself from asbestos dust even if the Navy prescribed his duties. Decedent's co-worker Benjamin Harris testified that OBAs were available on the Enterprise in case they had to fight a fire and respira...

Excerpt: ...m 2003 is not inconsistent with Plaintiffs' allegations in the FAC that Decedent "worked in close proximity to other plumbers cutting and installing JOHNS MANVILLE (MANVILLE TRUST until 1/1/1983, J‐M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. after 1/1/1983) Transite asbestos‐cement pipe." (Ex. 2 to Request for Judicial Notice [FAC, Ex. A at 59].) Decedent testified that while he did not cut the transite pipe himself, he observed others cutting the pipe wit...

Excerpt: ...ative Means is DENIED without prejudice. No opposition filed. Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently show a common question of law or fact as required for consolidation and joinder. (C.C.P. 1048(a) and 378(a)(1).) Plaintiffs fail to satisfy the Malcolm factors of common worksite, similar occupation, similar time of exposure, and type of disease. (Malcolm v. Nat'l Gypsum Co. (1993) 995 F.2d 346, 350‐51.) Regarding Plaintiffs' request for the Court to o...

Excerpt: ...t asserting one of those causes of action must allege ultimate facts of the defendant's oppression, fraud, or malice"].) Page 12, line 20 through page 13, line 4 of the complaint are stricken in their entirety. Page 13, item 2 under Prayer for Damages is also stricken. Plaintiffs have ten days to amend the complaint from the date of this Order. If a hearing is requested, it will be on September 24, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. In light of the current public...

Excerpt: ...eference Cases or, In the Alternative, Motion for Joinder of Cases Pursuant to C.C.P. 378, and to Proceed with Trial by Alternative Means is DENIED. Per Plaintiffs, Reid et al. v. Asbestos Corporation Limited et al. (276734) and Rideaux et al. v. General Electric Company et al. (276777) have been withdrawn from the motion. No opposition filed. Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently show a common question of law or fact as required under C.C.P. 1048 and ...

Excerpt: ...burden via the factually devoid prong of Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 855. Plaintiffs' interrogatory responses restate their allegations and simply provide laundry lists of people and/or documents. (Andrews v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2006) 138 Cal. App. 4th 96, 107.) As to Plaintiffs' claim for false representation, Plaintiffs fail to provide specific evidence showing that a misrepresentation was made. As to Plaintiffs' ca...

Excerpt: ...2001) 25 Cal.4th 826 by demonstrating that Plaintiffs do not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, evidence that Mr. Van Tassell was exposed to asbestos‐containing products or materials attributable to Defendant. Plaintiffs concede in their interrogatory responses that they "do not currently allege Plaintiff Fred Van Tassell suffered any asbestos exposures while serving in the Navy between the years 1960 to 1980." (Hoye Declaration, Ex. D at 4...

Excerpt: ...posed to asbestos‐containing products or materials attributable to Defendant. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 855.) Plaintiff testified that Meeks Lumber trucks delivered materials including joint compound to his jobsites in the 1970s, including a tavern/motel in Grenada, California, a Yreka High School project, a tract home project off Turre Street and the Camel tract project off Oberlin Street. (Darrell Grace Deposit...

Excerpt: ...t possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence that he was exposed to asbestos‐containing products or materials attributable to Defendant. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 855.) Defendant failed to ask follow up questions about Bob Johnson, who Plaintiff testified made purchases with him at the Pacific Coast Building Supply Store. (Triplett Declaration, Ex. B at 667; Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Constr. Co. (1999) 6...

Excerpt: ...dence that he was exposed to asbestos‐containing products or materials attributable to Defendant. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826.) Plaintiff testified that insulation dust would fall from the boards when the scaffolding was dismounted and dismantled and dust would float through the air while employees were walking around the process. (Defendant's Ex. E [Houchins Deposition at 746].) Plaintiff also testified that indust...

Excerpt: ...s or materials attributable to Defendant. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826.) Defendant does not address Plaintiff's interrogatory response indicating that he purchased asbestos‐containing plumbers putty at O'Connor Lumber Company in Vallejo, California. (Defendant's Ex. B at 3; Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Constr. Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 81 [the court "can infer nothing at all with respect to questions which were neither...

Excerpt: ...annot reasonably obtain evidence that he was exposed to asbestos‐containing products or materials attributable to Defendant. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826.) Defendant failed to show that it conducted comprehensive written discovery designed to elicit all the evidence Plaintiff has to support his claim of exposure. (Weber v. John Crane, Inc. (2006) 143 Cal. App. 4th 1433, 1442.) Plaintiff's objection to Exhibits B and ...

Excerpt: ...burden of demonstrating that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted by transfer. Defendant also failed to post the transfer fees at the time of the filing of the motion under C.C.P. § 399(a). The motion is denied under C.C.P. § 397(a) as Defendant was dilatory in bringing this motion. If a hearing is requested, it will be at 9:30 a.m. A court reporter will not be provided by the court. If any party wishes to have ...

Excerpt: ...th the requisite malice, fraud or oppression to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826.) Plaintiff's responses to Defendant's special interrogatories preclude Defendant from successfully invoking the factually devoid prong under Aguilar. The declaration of Donald Trueblood is insufficient to establish that no reasonable jury could find Plaintiff's evidence to constitute cle...

Excerpt: ...ouglas Bell does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence that he was exposed to asbestos‐containing products or materials attributable to Defendant. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826.) Defendant does not address Plaintiff's interrogatory responses identifying witnesses Pat Tillman and Robert Lee, or his deposition testimony identifying classmates Pat Tillman, Brenda and Tom Mock, Mel Friedman, and Lee Boek. ...

Excerpt: ...onably obtain evidence that he was exposed to asbestos‐ containing products or materials attributable to Defendant. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826.) Defendant does not address Plaintiff's interrogatory response indicating that he purchased asbestos‐containing plumbers putty at Foster Lumber in Vallejo, California. (Defendant's Ex. C at 2; Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Constr. Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 81 [the co...

Excerpt: ...f California, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. Defendant withdrew its motion as to summary adjudication on punitive damages. Defendant failed to sustain its initial burden of demonstrating that plaintiff does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence that Plaintiff Richard Travalini was exposed to asbestos‐containing products or materials attributable to Defendant. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 82...

Excerpt: ...tiffs do not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence that Plaintiff Rosalyn Johnston was exposed to asbestos‐containing products or materials attributable to Defendant. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826.) That Plaintiff Roderick Johnston's co‐ workers Thomas O'Mahoney, Timothy O'Mahoney, and Leonard Williams lack personal knowledge regarding the asbestos content of gaskets, packing, and valves they tes...

Excerpt: ...in its initial burden of demonstrating that plaintiffs do not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence that decedent Robert Douglas was exposed to asbestos‐containing products or materials attributable to defendant. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826.) It cannot be inferred that Plaintiff Steven Douglas would have been unable to recognize F.W. Spencer where no follow up questions were asked. (see Weber v. John Crane, ...

Excerpt: ...e Default and Default Judgment Against Defendant Associated Insulation of California is denied. U.S. Fire lacks standing to bring this motion or appear in the action at this time. (W. Heritage Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2011) 199 Cal. App. 4th 1196, 1205 n. 12 ["Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 387, the trial court has discretion to permit a nonparty to intervene where?the nonparty has a direct and immediate interest in the action...

Excerpt: ...taining products or materials attributable to Defendant. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826.) For instance, Patricia Glavin's deposition testimony indicates that she identified a photograph of a metal can of Georgia Pacific Joint Compound as the product she saw her father‐in‐law use. (Declaration of Deborah Smith, Ex. G at 76‐77; Errata to Declaration of Jason Rose, Ex. V at Ex. A.) Evidence that UCC was not the on...

Excerpt: ...ecause it did not show that all defendants are subject to jurisdiction there. (See Stangvik v. Shiley, Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744; American Cemwood Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 431.) Defendants also failed to show that the balance of private and public interest factors makes it "just" that the litigation proceed in the alternative forum. If a hearing is requested, it will be at 9:30 a.m. A court reporter will ...

Excerpt: ...s‐containing products or materials attributable to defendant. (Weber v. John Crane, Inc. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1442.) The burden of production "should not shift without stringent review of the direct, circumstantial and inferential evidence." (Sheiding v. Dinwiddie Construction Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 83.) Defendant cannot rely on a plaintiff's factually devoid discovery responses in the absence of conducting comprehens...

Excerpt: ...r Gypsum Company, Inc. and Hanson Permanente Cement, Inc. formerly known as Kaiser Cement corporation, into the following subgroups: 1) wrongful death/mesothelioma; 2) living/lung cancer: 3) wrongful death/lung cancer; 4) living/other cancer; 5) wrongful death/other cancer; 6) living/asbestosis; 7) wrongful death/asbestosis; 8) living/pleural disease, is denied. The actions do not involve sufficient common questions of law or fact, economy and co...

Excerpt: ...iffs, Defendant ConocoPhillips failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating that Plaintiffs do not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence regarding Plaintiffs' cause of action for premises liability, Plaintiffs' cause of action for loss of consortium, and Plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages. (CCP § 437c(p)(2); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843, 850‐51.) The burden of production "should not ...