Excerpt: ... filed. 1. The trial date is August 19, 2024 at 11:15 a.m. in Department 206. a. Last day pursuant to C.C.P. section 36(f) is August 27, 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 August 13, 2024. a. Summary judgment/adjudication motions shall be brought on regular notice pursuant to the relevant provisions of t...

Excerpt: ...scripts of Anthony Piazza) is sustained. Even if the testimony was considered, the Court does not find that Piazza's former testimony flatly contradicts Plaintiff's respons e to Special Interrogatory No. 1 enough to shift the burden. The evidence is not what Defendant purports it to be. Piazza's failure in 1994 to recall the names of suppliers of "asbestos containing products" does not establish that he lacks or lacked infor...

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: ... 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: ... 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: ...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...