arrow left
arrow right
  • CAROL CHULICK ET AL VS. RILEY POWER INC. ASBESTOS document preview
  • CAROL CHULICK ET AL VS. RILEY POWER INC. ASBESTOS document preview
  • CAROL CHULICK ET AL VS. RILEY POWER INC. ASBESTOS document preview
  • CAROL CHULICK ET AL VS. RILEY POWER INC. ASBESTOS document preview
  • CAROL CHULICK ET AL VS. RILEY POWER INC. ASBESTOS document preview
  • CAROL CHULICK ET AL VS. RILEY POWER INC. ASBESTOS document preview
						
                                

Preview

1 Douglas G. Wah, Esq. SBN 64692 Nicole B. Yuen, Esq. SBN 184120 2 FOLEY & MANSFIELD, PLLP ELECTRONICALLY 2185 North California Boulevard, Suite 575 3 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 F I L E D Telephone: (510) 590-9500 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 4 Facsimile: (510) 590-9595 Email: nyuen@foleymansfield.com 01/28/2022 5 Clerk of the Court BY: ERNALYN BURA Attorneys for Defendant Deputy Clerk 6 COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 11 CAROL CHULICK, as Successor-in-Interest to Case No.: CGC-19-276757 and as Wrongful Death Heir of JOHN 12 CHULICK, Deceased; and DEBORAH [Assigned for Trial purposed to Hon. Jeffrey S. HAGEN and JOLEEN HAGLER, as Wrongful 13 Death Heirs of JOHN CHULICK, Deceased, Ross, Dept. 502] 14 Plaintiffs, REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN 15 vs. SUPPORT OF JOINT DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 16 RILEY POWER INC., et al., AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO BIFURCATE ON THE ISSUE OF 17 Defendants. WHETHER PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS FOR SURVIVAL DAMAGES ARE BARRED BY 18 THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 19 Date: February 28, 2022 20 Time: 9:30 a.m. Department: 502 21 22 23 Complaint Filed: January 22, 2019 Trial Date: December 27, 2021 24 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF JOINT DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO BIFURCATE ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS FOR SURVIVAL DAMAGES ARE BARRED BY THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: 2 Defendant COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., hereby requests that this 3 Court take judicial notice in accordance with Evidence Code sections 452(b), 452(c), 452(d), and 453. 4 Pursuant to Evidence Code sections 452(b), (c), and (d): 5 452. Judicial notice may be taken of the following matters to the extent that they are not 6 embraced within Section 451: 7 (b) Regulations and legislative enactments issued by or under the authority of the United 8 States or any public entity in the United States. 9 (c) Official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States 10 and of any state of the United States. 11 (d) Records of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of 12 any state of the United States. 13 Furthermore, the “trial court shall take judicial notice of any matter specified in Section 452 14 if a party requests it” and: 15 (a) Gives each adverse party sufficient notice of the request, through the pleadings or 16 otherwise, to enable such adverse party to prepare to meet the request; and 17 (b) Furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the 18 matter. (Evid. Code § 453.) Columbia therefore requests judicial notice of the following 19 document: 20 1. Defendant Columbia Mechanical Contractors, Inc.’s Answer to the Complaint In this 21 matter. A true and correct copy is attached to the Declaration of Nicole Yuen as Exhibit A. 22 23 DATED: January 28, 2022 FOLEY & MANSFIELD, PLLP 24 By: 25 Douglas G. Wah Nicole B. Yuen 26 Attorneys for Defendant COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, 27 INC. 28 2 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF JOINT DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO BIFURCATE ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS FOR SURVIVAL DAMAGES ARE BARRED BY THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 181 W. Huntington Drive, Suite 210, Monrovia, 4 CA 91016. 5 On January 28, 2022, I served the foregoing document described as: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF JOINT DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS 6 AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO BIFURCATE ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS FOR SURVIVAL DAMAGES ARE BARRED BY THE 7 APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows: 8 Via File & ServeXpress Via File & ServeXpress 9 Alan R. Brayton, Esq. 10 David R. Donadio, Esq. ALL DEFENSE COUNSEL DDonadio@braytonlaw.com 11 James P. Nevin, Esq. Nancy Williams, Esq. 12 BRAYTON PURCELL LLP Attorneys at Law 13 222 Rush Landing Road 14 P.O. Box 6169 Novato, CA 94948-6169 15 Telephone: (415) 898-1555 Attorneys for Plaintiff 16 ☒ (BY ELECTRONIC VERSION) Pursuant to San Francisco Court General Order No. 158, 17 CCP 1010.6 and CRC 2.251, or pursuant to the Stipulation and Order Authorizing Electronic Service, or by an agreement of the parties, I electronically e-served through File & 18 ServeXpress and caused the document(s) to be sent to the person(s) at the email addresses designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the File & ServeXpress website. To the best 19 of my knowledge, at the time of the transmission, the transmission was reported as complete and without error. 20 ☐ (BY MESSENGER SERVICE) I served the documents by placing them in an envelope or 21 package addressed to the persons listed above and provided such document(s) to a professional messenger service for service. 22 23 ☒ [STATE] I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. 24 25 Executed on January 28, 2022, Monrovia, California 26 27 Fabiola Areas 28 3 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF JOINT DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO BIFURCATE ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS FOR SURVIVAL DAMAGES ARE BARRED BY THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS