On January 22, 2019 a
Trial Materials
was filed
involving a dispute between
Chulick, Carol,
Hagen, Deborah,
Hagler, Joleen,
and
Anheuser-Busch, Llc,
Anheuserbusch, Llc,
Associated Insulation Of California,
Buttner Corp.,
Columbia Mechanical Contractors, Inc.,
Cooper Brothers, Inc.,
Cosco Fire Protection, Inc.,
Does 1 Through 800, Inclusive, As Required By,
D. Zelinksy & Sons, Inc.,
D. Zelinsky & Sons, Incorporated,
Fdcc California, Inc.,
Frank Bonetti Plumbing, Inc.,
George H. Wilson, Inc.,
George Wilson Company, Inc.,
Grinnell Llc,
Grinnell Llc (Fka Grinnell Corporation, Aka,
Johnson Controls, Inc.,
Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.,
Kellymoore Paint Company, Inc.,
Marconi Plastering Company, Inc.,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
Monterey Mechanical Co.,
Riley Power Inc.,
Rosendin Electric, Inc.,
Rudolph And Sletten, Inc.,
Scott Co. Of California,
Texaco Inc.,
W.L. Hickey Sons, Inc.,
Chulick, Carol,
Hagen, Deborah,
Hagler, Joleen,
for ASBESTOS
in the District Court of San Francisco County.
Preview
1 INGRID K. CAMPAGNE, State Bar No. 162164
icampagne@wfbm.com
2 IAN P. DILLON, State Bar No. 203612 ELECTRONICALLY
idillon@wfbm.com
3 WFBM, LLP F I L E D
Superior Court of California,
One Sansome Street, Suite 1800 County of San Francisco
4 San Francisco, California 94104-4461
Telephone: (415) 781-7072 12/28/2021
Clerk of the Court
5 Facsimile: (415) 391-6258 BY: YOLANDA TABO-RAMIREZ
Deputy Clerk
6 Attorneys for Defendant
D. ZELINSKY & SONS, INC.
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10
11 CAROL CHULICK, as Successor-in-Interest Case No. CGC-19-276757
to and as Wrongful Death Heir of JOHN
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104-4461
TEL (415) 781-7072 • FAX (415) 391-6258
12 CHULICK, Deceased; and DEBORAH DEFENDANT D. ZELINSKY & SONS,
ONE SANSOME STREET, SUITE 1800
HAGEN and JOLEEN HAGLER, as Wrongful INC.'S TRIAL BRIEF
Walsworth
13 Death Heirs of JOHN CHULICK, Deceased,
Action Filed: January 22, 2019
14 Plaintiffs, Trial Date: December 27, 2019
15 v.
16 RILEY POWER INC.; et al.,
17 Defendants.
18
19 Defendant D. ZELINSKY & SONS, INC. ("Zelinsky") submits the following Trial Brief
20 pursuant to San Francisco Superior Court Local Rule 20 for consideration by the Court in the
21 above-referenced matter, filed by Plaintiffs Carol Chulick, Deborah Hagen and Joleen Hagler
22 (collectively, "Plaintiffs").
23 I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
24 Plaintiffs claim Zelinsky negligently caused the death of John Chulick (Decedent's) by
25 exposing him to asbestos, which increased risk of developing asbestosis, which at least in part,
26 caused his death. Decedent was a 78 year old, career, union, insulator worked in and around the
27 San Francisco Bay Area. Zelinsky is a painting contractor. Plaintiffs claim that the Decedent
28 worked around Zelinsky employees during a remodel of the 4th and 5th floors of the Fairmount
5852275.1 -1-
3619-3.5057 DEFENDANT D. ZELINSKY & SONS, INC.'S TRIAL BRIEF
1 Hotel in San Francisco California in approximately 1965.
2 Prior to his death, the Decedent had a personal injury action, alleging that he had asbestosis
3 caused by asbestos exposure from a number of different defendants. Zelinsky was not a defendant
4 in that prior action. However, during the prior action, the Decedent had his deposition taken over
5 the course of 14 sessions and produced at his deposition a calendar that included the identification
6 of sites that he worked at during the course of his career. Zelinsky was not identified during the
7 Decedent's prior deposition nor was Fairmount Hotel identified on his calendar.
8 Plaintiffs' sole identification witness is alleged co-worker Robert Cantley. Mr. Cantley is
9 also a career insulator, but did not work for the same company as the decedent. Mr. Cantley had
10 his own prior asbestosis case and has served as an identification witness in dozens of cases filed
11 by the Brayton Purcell office. Mr. Cantley testified during his deposition in this case that he was
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104-4461
TEL (415) 781-7072 • FAX (415) 391-6258
12 present for 4 or 5 days (approximately a total of 36 hours) at the Fairmount Hotel and that the
ONE SANSOME STREET, SUITE 1800
Walsworth
13 Decedent and Zelinsky were both at the site. Of that time, Mr. Cantley testified that Zelinsky
14 painters were painting 80% to 95% of the time and the remaining time (1.8-7.2 hours) was spent
15 doing prep work. Among other things, the prep working, according to Mr. Cantley included re-
16 sanding joint compound that had been installed by the drywall contractor or that had been used to
17 patch certain areas. Mr. Cantley testified that he did not recall the brand or manufacturer of the
18 joint compound sanded by Zelinsky.
19 The Plaintiffs will be unable to establish that Zelinsky exposed the Decedent to asbestos.
20 Even if Plaintiff was able to establish that the actions of Zelinsky employees somehow exposed
21 the Decedent to asbestos, Plaintiffs will be unable to establish that the exposure was a substantial
22 factor in increasing Decedent's risk of developing an asbestos related disease, given the very
23 limited work Decedent performed in the presence of any Zelinsky employees, if any. (See
24 Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois (1977) 16 Cal.4th 953, 975, 977.)
25 Additionally, the Decedent had numerous medical issues including COPD, chronic
26 bronchitis and emphysema caused by smoking. Plaintiffs' own expert pathologist Dr. Sobonya
27 found Decedent had grade I asbestosis and Grade IV COPD (the most severe type of COPD).
28 Decedent also suffered from significant cardiac related issues. Given the substantial medical
5852275.1 -2-
3619-3.5057 DEFENDANT D. ZELINSKY & SONS, INC.'S TRIAL BRIEF
1 issues afflicting the Decedent aside from asbestosis, even if he had a mild form of asbestosis, it did
2 not contribute to his death.
3 Any costs associated with Decedent's care were related to his other numerous medical
4 conditions and therefore any medical damages related to asbestosis, if any, were minimal. Further,
5 given Decedent's other numerous medical conditions, the Decedent had a shortened life
6 expectancy. Plaintiffs are not seeking punitive damages against Zelinsky.
7 II. LEGAL ARGUMENT
8 As a threshold issue, Plaintiffs must establish that the Decedent's cause of death was
9 caused by an asbestos related disease. The medical evidence in this case suggests that even if the
10 Decedent had asbestosis, it did not play a role in causing his death.
11 Additionally, a plaintiff in an asbestos case has the initial burden of establishing
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104-4461
TEL (415) 781-7072 • FAX (415) 391-6258
12 “exposure” to a defendant’s asbestos-containing products. (Lineaweaver v. Plant Insul. Co. (1995)
ONE SANSOME STREET, SUITE 1800
Under Lineaweaver’s two-prong test, a plaintiff must (1) prove his
Walsworth
13 31 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1416.)
14 exposure to a defendant’s product, and then (2) establish that the exposure was a substantial factor
15 in causing the asbestos-related illness. (Id. at 1414-17.) A plaintiff in an asbestos case must also
16 show that exposure to the defendant’s asbestos-containing product was, “in reasonable medical
17 probability, a substantial factor in causing or contributing” to his injuries. (Rutherford v. Owens-
18 Illinois (1997)16 Cal.4th 953, 957-58 (emphasis added).) Exposures that play only an
19 “infinitesimal,” “negligible,” or “theoretical” part in causing the injury are insufficient.
20 (Rutherford, 16 Cal.4th at 969, 978.) It is the plaintiff who bears the burden of proof on this issue,
21 and not the defendant’s responsibility to disprove. (Id. at 977-78.)
22 “Many factors are relevant in assessing the medical probability that an exposure
23 contributed to plaintiff’s asbestos disease.” (Lineaweaver, 31 Cal.App.4th at 1416.) These include
24 the frequency, regularity, and proximity to plaintiff, the type of asbestos product at issue, the type
25 of injury suffered, and other sources of the plaintiff’s injury. (Id. at 1416-17.) Said differently,
26 “[the plaintiff] cannot prevail against [the defendant] without evidence that [the decedent] was
27 exposed to asbestos-containing materials. . . with enough frequency and regularity as to show a
28 reasonable medical probability that this exposure was a factor in causing the … injuries.”
5852275.1 -3-
3619-3.5057 DEFENDANT D. ZELINSKY & SONS, INC.'S TRIAL BRIEF
1 (Whitmire v. Ingersoll Rand (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1078, 1084 (emphasis added).)
2 In this case, the Decedent was deposed in a prior personal injury case and never identified
3 Zelinsky. Further, calendars produced during that deposition did not identify the Fairmount Hotel.
4 Mr. Cantley, the sole identification witness, places the Decedent in the presence of Zelinsky
5 employees at one site for approximately 35 hours in about 1965. Further, Mr. Cantley testified
6 that of the time that Zelinsky was present at this site, 80% to 95% of the time they were painting.
7 The other 5%-15% or 1.8-7.2 hours, was spent, among other things sanding an unknown brand of
8 joint compound. It is Zelinsky's position that without being able to establish the brand or
9 manufacturer of joint compound, the Plaintiffs cannot establish whether it was asbestos
10 containing.
11 If exposure is established, Plaintiffs must also prove that the exposure was a "substantial
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104-4461
TEL (415) 781-7072 • FAX (415) 391-6258
12 factor in producing [Decedent's] injuries." (Lineaweaver v. Plant Insulation Co. (1995) 31
ONE SANSOME STREET, SUITE 1800
Walsworth
13 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1426-27.) In order to support a finding of causation, the exposure must be more
14 than negligible or theoretical. (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., supra, 16 Cal.4th at 978. In this
15 case, if the Decedent ever worked in the presence of Zelinsky employees, and those employees
16 activities exposed the Decedent to asbestos, it was at best, for 1.8 – 7.2 hours, in comparison with a
17 career as an insulator working with asbestos containing insulation. Accordingly, even if Plaintiffs
18 can carry their burden of proof that Decedent worked in the presence of Zelinsky employees, and
19 that those employees exposed the Decedent to asbestos, the evidence will establish than any
20 exposure from Zelinsky was negligible, trivial, and insignificant, particularly when compared to
21 Decedent's other exposures.
22 III. DAMAGES
23 As noted above, Zelinsky disputes that there are medical damages from which Plaintiffs
24 are entitled to recover damages. Further, Zelinsky disputes that the Plaintiffs are entitled to
25 recover any loss income from Decedent's business. Plaintiff Carol Chulick assumed all of the
26 interest in the business and therefore there is no loss.
27 ///
28 ///
5852275.1 -4-
3619-3.5057 DEFENDANT D. ZELINSKY & SONS, INC.'S TRIAL BRIEF
1 IV. CONCLUSION
2 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs' cannot establish that Decedent's death was caused by
3 asbestos exposure related to D. Zelinsky and therefore, Plaintiffs are not entitled to damages.
4
5 Dated: December 28, 2021 WFBM, LLP
6
7
By:
8 INGRID K. CAMPAGNE
IAN P. DILLON
9 Attorneys for Defendant
10 D. ZELINSKY & SONS, INC.
11
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104-4461
TEL (415) 781-7072 • FAX (415) 391-6258
12
ONE SANSOME STREET, SUITE 1800
Walsworth
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5852275.1 -5-
3619-3.5057 DEFENDANT D. ZELINSKY & SONS, INC.'S TRIAL BRIEF
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 CAROL CHULICK, et al. v. RILEY POWER INC., et al.
SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO: CGC-19-276757
3 OUR CLIENT: D. ZELINSKY & SONS, INC.
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am
employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. My business address is One
5 Sansome Street, Suite 1800, San Francisco, CA 94104-4461.
6 On December 28, 2021, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as
7 DEFENDANT D. ZELINSKY & SONS, INC.'S TRIAL BRIEF
8 on the interested parties in this action as follows:
9 Brayton Purcell LLP All Defense Counsel via File &
222 Rush Landing Road ServeXpress
10 P.O. Box 6169
Novato, CA 94945
11
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104-4461
TEL (415) 781-7072 • FAX (415) 391-6258
12 BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: I electronically served the document(s) described above
ONE SANSOME STREET, SUITE 1800
via File & ServeXpress, on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the
Walsworth
13 File & ServeXpress website (https://secure.fileandservexpress.com) pursuant to the Court Order
establishing the case website and authorizing service of documents.
14
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
15 foregoing is true and correct.
16 Executed on December 28, 2021, at San Francisco, California.
17
18
19
Valentine Wirjasatria
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5852275.1 -6-
3619-3.5057 DEFENDANT D. ZELINSKY & SONS, INC.'S TRIAL BRIEF
Preview
1 INGRID K. CAMPAGNE, State Bar No. 162164 icampagne@wfbm.com 2 IAN P. DILLON, State Bar No. 203612 ELECTRONICALLY idillon@wfbm.com 3 WFBM, LLP F I L E D Superior Court of California, One Sansome Street, Suite 1800 County of San Francisco 4 San Francisco, California 94104-4461 Telephone: (415) 781-7072 12/28/2021 Clerk of the Court 5 Facsimile: (415) 391-6258 BY: YOLANDA TABO-RAMIREZ Deputy Clerk 6 Attorneys for Defendant D. ZELINSKY & SONS, INC. 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 11 CAROL CHULICK, as Successor-in-Interest Case No. CGC-19-276757 to and as Wrongful Death Heir of JOHN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104-4461 TEL (415) 781-7072 • FAX (415) 391-6258 12 CHULICK, Deceased; and DEBORAH DEFENDANT D. ZELINSKY & SONS, ONE SANSOME STREET, SUITE 1800 HAGEN and JOLEEN HAGLER, as Wrongful INC.'S TRIAL BRIEF Walsworth 13 Death Heirs of JOHN CHULICK, Deceased, Action Filed: January 22, 2019 14 Plaintiffs, Trial Date: December 27, 2019 15 v. 16 RILEY POWER INC.; et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 Defendant D. ZELINSKY & SONS, INC. ("Zelinsky") submits the following Trial Brief 20 pursuant to San Francisco Superior Court Local Rule 20 for consideration by the Court in the 21 above-referenced matter, filed by Plaintiffs Carol Chulick, Deborah Hagen and Joleen Hagler 22 (collectively, "Plaintiffs"). 23 I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS 24 Plaintiffs claim Zelinsky negligently caused the death of John Chulick (Decedent's) by 25 exposing him to asbestos, which increased risk of developing asbestosis, which at least in part, 26 caused his death. Decedent was a 78 year old, career, union, insulator worked in and around the 27 San Francisco Bay Area. Zelinsky is a painting contractor. Plaintiffs claim that the Decedent 28 worked around Zelinsky employees during a remodel of the 4th and 5th floors of the Fairmount 5852275.1 -1- 3619-3.5057 DEFENDANT D. ZELINSKY & SONS, INC.'S TRIAL BRIEF 1 Hotel in San Francisco California in approximately 1965. 2 Prior to his death, the Decedent had a personal injury action, alleging that he had asbestosis 3 caused by asbestos exposure from a number of different defendants. Zelinsky was not a defendant 4 in that prior action. However, during the prior action, the Decedent had his deposition taken over 5 the course of 14 sessions and produced at his deposition a calendar that included the identification 6 of sites that he worked at during the course of his career. Zelinsky was not identified during the 7 Decedent's prior deposition nor was Fairmount Hotel identified on his calendar. 8 Plaintiffs' sole identification witness is alleged co-worker Robert Cantley. Mr. Cantley is 9 also a career insulator, but did not work for the same company as the decedent. Mr. Cantley had 10 his own prior asbestosis case and has served as an identification witness in dozens of cases filed 11 by the Brayton Purcell office. Mr. Cantley testified during his deposition in this case that he was SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104-4461 TEL (415) 781-7072 • FAX (415) 391-6258 12 present for 4 or 5 days (approximately a total of 36 hours) at the Fairmount Hotel and that the ONE SANSOME STREET, SUITE 1800 Walsworth 13 Decedent and Zelinsky were both at the site. Of that time, Mr. Cantley testified that Zelinsky 14 painters were painting 80% to 95% of the time and the remaining time (1.8-7.2 hours) was spent 15 doing prep work. Among other things, the prep working, according to Mr. Cantley included re- 16 sanding joint compound that had been installed by the drywall contractor or that had been used to 17 patch certain areas. Mr. Cantley testified that he did not recall the brand or manufacturer of the 18 joint compound sanded by Zelinsky. 19 The Plaintiffs will be unable to establish that Zelinsky exposed the Decedent to asbestos. 20 Even if Plaintiff was able to establish that the actions of Zelinsky employees somehow exposed 21 the Decedent to asbestos, Plaintiffs will be unable to establish that the exposure was a substantial 22 factor in increasing Decedent's risk of developing an asbestos related disease, given the very 23 limited work Decedent performed in the presence of any Zelinsky employees, if any. (See 24 Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois (1977) 16 Cal.4th 953, 975, 977.) 25 Additionally, the Decedent had numerous medical issues including COPD, chronic 26 bronchitis and emphysema caused by smoking. Plaintiffs' own expert pathologist Dr. Sobonya 27 found Decedent had grade I asbestosis and Grade IV COPD (the most severe type of COPD). 28 Decedent also suffered from significant cardiac related issues. Given the substantial medical 5852275.1 -2- 3619-3.5057 DEFENDANT D. ZELINSKY & SONS, INC.'S TRIAL BRIEF 1 issues afflicting the Decedent aside from asbestosis, even if he had a mild form of asbestosis, it did 2 not contribute to his death. 3 Any costs associated with Decedent's care were related to his other numerous medical 4 conditions and therefore any medical damages related to asbestosis, if any, were minimal. Further, 5 given Decedent's other numerous medical conditions, the Decedent had a shortened life 6 expectancy. Plaintiffs are not seeking punitive damages against Zelinsky. 7 II. LEGAL ARGUMENT 8 As a threshold issue, Plaintiffs must establish that the Decedent's cause of death was 9 caused by an asbestos related disease. The medical evidence in this case suggests that even if the 10 Decedent had asbestosis, it did not play a role in causing his death. 11 Additionally, a plaintiff in an asbestos case has the initial burden of establishing SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104-4461 TEL (415) 781-7072 • FAX (415) 391-6258 12 “exposure” to a defendant’s asbestos-containing products. (Lineaweaver v. Plant Insul. Co. (1995) ONE SANSOME STREET, SUITE 1800 Under Lineaweaver’s two-prong test, a plaintiff must (1) prove his Walsworth 13 31 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1416.) 14 exposure to a defendant’s product, and then (2) establish that the exposure was a substantial factor 15 in causing the asbestos-related illness. (Id. at 1414-17.) A plaintiff in an asbestos case must also 16 show that exposure to the defendant’s asbestos-containing product was, “in reasonable medical 17 probability, a substantial factor in causing or contributing” to his injuries. (Rutherford v. Owens- 18 Illinois (1997)16 Cal.4th 953, 957-58 (emphasis added).) Exposures that play only an 19 “infinitesimal,” “negligible,” or “theoretical” part in causing the injury are insufficient. 20 (Rutherford, 16 Cal.4th at 969, 978.) It is the plaintiff who bears the burden of proof on this issue, 21 and not the defendant’s responsibility to disprove. (Id. at 977-78.) 22 “Many factors are relevant in assessing the medical probability that an exposure 23 contributed to plaintiff’s asbestos disease.” (Lineaweaver, 31 Cal.App.4th at 1416.) These include 24 the frequency, regularity, and proximity to plaintiff, the type of asbestos product at issue, the type 25 of injury suffered, and other sources of the plaintiff’s injury. (Id. at 1416-17.) Said differently, 26 “[the plaintiff] cannot prevail against [the defendant] without evidence that [the decedent] was 27 exposed to asbestos-containing materials. . . with enough frequency and regularity as to show a 28 reasonable medical probability that this exposure was a factor in causing the … injuries.” 5852275.1 -3- 3619-3.5057 DEFENDANT D. ZELINSKY & SONS, INC.'S TRIAL BRIEF 1 (Whitmire v. Ingersoll Rand (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1078, 1084 (emphasis added).) 2 In this case, the Decedent was deposed in a prior personal injury case and never identified 3 Zelinsky. Further, calendars produced during that deposition did not identify the Fairmount Hotel. 4 Mr. Cantley, the sole identification witness, places the Decedent in the presence of Zelinsky 5 employees at one site for approximately 35 hours in about 1965. Further, Mr. Cantley testified 6 that of the time that Zelinsky was present at this site, 80% to 95% of the time they were painting. 7 The other 5%-15% or 1.8-7.2 hours, was spent, among other things sanding an unknown brand of 8 joint compound. It is Zelinsky's position that without being able to establish the brand or 9 manufacturer of joint compound, the Plaintiffs cannot establish whether it was asbestos 10 containing. 11 If exposure is established, Plaintiffs must also prove that the exposure was a "substantial SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104-4461 TEL (415) 781-7072 • FAX (415) 391-6258 12 factor in producing [Decedent's] injuries." (Lineaweaver v. Plant Insulation Co. (1995) 31 ONE SANSOME STREET, SUITE 1800 Walsworth 13 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1426-27.) In order to support a finding of causation, the exposure must be more 14 than negligible or theoretical. (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., supra, 16 Cal.4th at 978. In this 15 case, if the Decedent ever worked in the presence of Zelinsky employees, and those employees 16 activities exposed the Decedent to asbestos, it was at best, for 1.8 – 7.2 hours, in comparison with a 17 career as an insulator working with asbestos containing insulation. Accordingly, even if Plaintiffs 18 can carry their burden of proof that Decedent worked in the presence of Zelinsky employees, and 19 that those employees exposed the Decedent to asbestos, the evidence will establish than any 20 exposure from Zelinsky was negligible, trivial, and insignificant, particularly when compared to 21 Decedent's other exposures. 22 III. DAMAGES 23 As noted above, Zelinsky disputes that there are medical damages from which Plaintiffs 24 are entitled to recover damages. Further, Zelinsky disputes that the Plaintiffs are entitled to 25 recover any loss income from Decedent's business. Plaintiff Carol Chulick assumed all of the 26 interest in the business and therefore there is no loss. 27 /// 28 /// 5852275.1 -4- 3619-3.5057 DEFENDANT D. ZELINSKY & SONS, INC.'S TRIAL BRIEF 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs' cannot establish that Decedent's death was caused by 3 asbestos exposure related to D. Zelinsky and therefore, Plaintiffs are not entitled to damages. 4 5 Dated: December 28, 2021 WFBM, LLP 6 7 By: 8 INGRID K. CAMPAGNE IAN P. DILLON 9 Attorneys for Defendant 10 D. ZELINSKY & SONS, INC. 11 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104-4461 TEL (415) 781-7072 • FAX (415) 391-6258 12 ONE SANSOME STREET, SUITE 1800 Walsworth 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5852275.1 -5- 3619-3.5057 DEFENDANT D. ZELINSKY & SONS, INC.'S TRIAL BRIEF 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 CAROL CHULICK, et al. v. RILEY POWER INC., et al. SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO: CGC-19-276757 3 OUR CLIENT: D. ZELINSKY & SONS, INC. 4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. My business address is One 5 Sansome Street, Suite 1800, San Francisco, CA 94104-4461. 6 On December 28, 2021, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as 7 DEFENDANT D. ZELINSKY & SONS, INC.'S TRIAL BRIEF 8 on the interested parties in this action as follows: 9 Brayton Purcell LLP All Defense Counsel via File & 222 Rush Landing Road ServeXpress 10 P.O. Box 6169 Novato, CA 94945 11 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104-4461 TEL (415) 781-7072 • FAX (415) 391-6258 12 BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: I electronically served the document(s) described above ONE SANSOME STREET, SUITE 1800 via File & ServeXpress, on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the Walsworth 13 File & ServeXpress website (https://secure.fileandservexpress.com) pursuant to the Court Order establishing the case website and authorizing service of documents. 14 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 15 foregoing is true and correct. 16 Executed on December 28, 2021, at San Francisco, California. 17 18 19 Valentine Wirjasatria 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5852275.1 -6- 3619-3.5057 DEFENDANT D. ZELINSKY & SONS, INC.'S TRIAL BRIEF