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...