Preview
1 Gary D. Sharp, Esq. SBN 116216
T. Eric Sun, Esq. SBN 187486
2 Andrew L. Sharp, Esq. SBN 292541 ELECTRONICALLY
3
Jocelyn M. Soriano, Esq.
FOLEY & MANSFIELD, PLLP
SBN 201169 F I L E D
Superior Court of California,
2185 N. California Blvd., Suite 575 County of San Francisco
4 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 09/15/2020
Telephone (510) 590-9500 Clerk of the Court
5 Facsimile (510) 590-9595 BY: JUDITH NUNEZ
Email: jsoriano@foleymansfield.com Deputy Clerk
6
Attorneys for Defendant
7 CROSBY VALVE, LLC as Doe 5
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
11
12 DOROTHY A. LARSON, Individually and as Case No. CGC-17-276562
Successor-in-Interest to CHARLES H.
13 LARSON, Decedent, PAUL LARSON, “Asbestos-Related Case”
DAVID LARSON, BARBARA CHARLENE
14 MELTON, ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CROSBY
VALVE, LLC AS DOE 5 TO PLAINTIFFS’
15 Plaintiffs, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
16 vs. DAMAGES – ASBESTOS (NEGLIGENCE,
STRICT LIABILITY, LOSS OF
17 ASBESTOS COMPANIES, et al., CONSORTIUM, SURVIVAL); REQUEST
FOR JURY TRIAL
18 Defendants.
19
First Amended Complaint Filed: August 29, 2017
20 PI Complaint Filed: February 17, 2017
Trial Date: Not Set
21
22 COMES NOW defendant CROSBY VALVE, LLC as Doe 5 (hereinafter “Defendant”)
23 herein on its own behalf and on behalf of no other defendant or entity and answering Plaintiffs’ First
24 Amended Complaint on file herein, admits, denies, and alleges as follows:
25 GENERAL DENIAL
26 Under the provisions of Section 431.30(d), California Code of Civil Procedure, this
27 answering Defendant denies each and every allegation of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and the whole
28 thereof, and denies that Plaintiffs have been damaged in any sum or amount whatsoever, or at all.
1
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CROSBY VALVE, LLC AS DOE 5 TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES –
ASBESTOS (NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, LOSS OF CONSORTIUM, SURVIVAL); REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
4487113 v2
1 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 1. That any and all events and happenings in connection with the allegations contained
3 in Plaintiffs’ Complaint and the resulting injuries and damages, if any, referred to therein, were
4 proximately caused and contributed to by the negligence of the Plaintiffs thereby barring or reducing
5 Plaintiffs’ recovery herein.
6 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 2. CHARLES H. LARSON (hereinafter “Plaintiffs’ Decedent”) voluntarily assumed the
8 risk of any then-existing conditions alleged in the Complaint with full knowledge thereof, thereby
9 proximately causing the injuries and damages, if any, complained of by Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs are
10 thereby barred from recovery herein.
11 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 3. Plaintiffs’ Decedent acknowledged, ratified, consented to, and acquiesced in the
13 alleged acts or omissions, if any, of this answering Defendant, thus barring Plaintiffs from any relief
14 as prayed for herein.
15 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 4. Plaintiffs’ action, and each alleged cause of action, is barred by the applicable statute
17 of limitations, including but not limited to California Code of Civil Procedure, Sections 338, 339,
18 340, 340.2, 343, 361, 583.210, 583.310 and 583.410, and California Commercial Code, Section
19 2725.
20 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 5. Any loss, injury or damage to Plaintiffs were proximately caused or contributed to by
22 the negligent or other tortious acts, omissions, conduct or products of persons, entities or parties
23 other than this answering Defendant, and that each, any, and all damages recoverable by Plaintiffs
24 must be diminished in proportion to the amount of fault attributable to said other persons, entities or
25 parties, and there must be apportioned among all such persons, entities and parties the amount of
26 damages attributed to them as an offset against damages, if any, awarded against this answering
27 Defendant.
28 ///
2
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CROSBY VALVE, LLC AS DOE 5 TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES –
ASBESTOS (NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, LOSS OF CONSORTIUM, SURVIVAL); REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
4487113 v2
1 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 6. Plaintiffs are barred from recovery herein by virtue of the application of the Doctrine
3 of Laches (inexcusable delay and prejudice to Defendant).
4 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5 7. The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matters alleged in the Complaint
6 because the Complaint and each alleged cause of action against Defendant is barred by the
7 provisions of California Labor Code, Sections 3600, et seq.
8 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 8. Any loss, injury, or damage, if any, incurred by Plaintiffs were the result of
10 superseding or intervening causes arising from the negligent or willful acts or omissions of other
11 parties which Defendant neither controlled nor had the right to control, and that said loss, injury or
12 damage was not proximately or legally caused by any act, omission, or other conduct of Defendant.
13 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 9. Plaintiffs are barred from recovery herein by virtue of the fact that all products sold
15 by this Defendant were produced in conformity with specifications provided to this answering
16 Defendant by the government of the United States of America pursuant to its war powers. Any
17 defect in said products was caused by deficiencies in the specifications supplied to Defendant, which
18 deficiencies were neither known to Defendant nor discoverable by Defendant with the exercise of
19 reasonable care.
20 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 10. The Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this
22 answering Defendant.
23 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 11. The Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, which is admittedly based upon a
25 lack of identification of the manufacturer of the alleged injury-causing product, fails to state facts
26 sufficient to constitute a cause of action in that Plaintiffs have asserted a claim for relief which, if
27 granted, would contravene Defendant's constitutional rights to substantive and procedural due
28 process of law as preserved for Defendant by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
3
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CROSBY VALVE, LLC AS DOE 5 TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES –
ASBESTOS (NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, LOSS OF CONSORTIUM, SURVIVAL); REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
4487113 v2
1 Constitution and by Article I, Section 7, of the Constitution of the State of California.
2 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3 12. The Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, fails to state facts sufficient to
4 constitute a cause of action in that Plaintiffs have asserted claims for relief which, if granted, would
5 constitute a denial by this Court of Defendant's constitutional right to equal protection of the laws as
6 preserved by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and by Article I, Section
7 7, of the Constitution of the State of California.
8 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 13. The Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, which is admittedly based upon a
10 lack of identification of the manufacturer of the alleged injury-causing product, fails to state facts
11 sufficient to constitute a cause of action in that Plaintiffs have asserted claims for relief which, if
12 granted, would constitute the taking of private property for public use without just compensation in
13 contravention of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and
14 Article I, Sections 7 and 19, of the Constitution of the State of California, and the applicable
15 California statutes.
16 FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 14. If Defendant has purportedly been named or served in this action as a Doe Defendant,
18 such effort by Plaintiffs is invalid on the grounds that Plaintiffs knew, or should have known, of the
19 identity of Defendant and of his alleged causes of action against Defendant at the time of the filing
20 of the Complaint.
21 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 15. If Plaintiffs’ Decedent sustained any injury or illness attributable to the use of any
23 product manufactured by Defendant, which allegations are expressly denied, the injuries were solely
24 caused by and attributable to the unreasonable and improper use which was made of said products,
25 and each of them.
26 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
27 16. Plaintiffs’ Decedent was advised, informed, and warned of any potential hazards
28 and/or dangers, if any there were, associated with the normal or foreseeable use, handling, and
4
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CROSBY VALVE, LLC AS DOE 5 TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES –
ASBESTOS (NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, LOSS OF CONSORTIUM, SURVIVAL); REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
4487113 v2
1 storage of the products, substances, and equipment described in the Complaint.
2 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3 17. The product involved was materially altered or changed by a party or parties other
4 than, and without the permission of, this answering Defendant, its employees, servants, or other
5 agents, and such alteration or change created the alleged defect, if any, which was the proximate or
6 legal cause of Plaintiffs’ Decedent and thereby Plaintiffs’ injuries, or damages, if any.
7 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 18. The products, substances, and equipment referred to in the Complaint were properly
9 designed and manufactured, and safe for the purpose intended. Said products, substances, and
10 equipment were modified, altered, misused, abused and/or improperly maintained by Plaintiffs’
11 Decedent or others, and said conduct was not reasonably foreseeable to Defendant and proximately
12 caused or contributed to the injuries, losses, and damages complained of, if any there were, thus
13 barring Plaintiffs’ recovery herein.
14 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 19. Plaintiffs failed to give Defendant reasonably prompt notice of the breaches of
16 warranty, if any, alleged in the Complaint.
17 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 20. Plaintiffs were not in privity of contract with Defendant and said lack of privity bars
19 Plaintiffs’ recovery herein upon any theory of warranty.
20 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 21. Plaintiffs’ Decedent failed to mitigate his damages, if any, in that he failed to use
22 reasonable diligence in caring for his injuries and reasonable means to prevent their aggravation or
23 to accomplish their healing.
24 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 22. Any exposure of Plaintiffs’ Decedent to products sold or distributed by this
26 Defendant was so minimal as to be insufficient to establish by a reasonable degree of probability that
27 any such product caused any alleged injury, damage, or loss to Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ Decedent.
28 ///
5
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CROSBY VALVE, LLC AS DOE 5 TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES –
ASBESTOS (NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, LOSS OF CONSORTIUM, SURVIVAL); REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
4487113 v2
1 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 23. Products sold or distributed by this Defendant were not a substantial factor in
3 bringing about the injuries and damages complained of by Plaintiffs, and, therefore, this Defendant
4 may not be held liable to Plaintiffs as alleged.
5 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 24. The state of the medical, scientific, and industrial knowledge and practice was at all
7 material times such that Defendant neither breached any alleged duty owed Plaintiffs’ Decedent or
8 thereby Plaintiffs, nor knew, nor could have known, that its product(s) presented a foreseeable risk
9 of harm to Plaintiffs’ Decedent in the normal and expected use of such product(s).
10 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 25. Any products, substances, or equipment manufactured, formulated, sold or distributed
12 by this answering Defendant were made consistent with the state of the art applicable to said
13 products, substances, or equipment at the time of their manufacture, sale, formulation, or
14 distribution.
15 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 26. If this Defendant is responsible to Plaintiffs, which responsibility is expressly denied,
17 this Defendant shall be liable to Plaintiffs only for the amount of non-economic damages allocated to
18 this Defendant in direct proportion to this Defendant's percentage of fault, if any. (California Civil
19 Code, Sections 1431, et seq.)
20 TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 27. At the time and place of the happening of the occurrences and injuries alleged in the
22 Complaint, and all times material thereto, Plaintiffs’ Decedent was employed by various employers,
23 the names of which are unknown to this Defendant, and working within the course and scope of
24 Plaintiffs’ Decedent’s employment and/or employments. Said employer and/or employers and
25 Plaintiffs’ Decedent were subject to the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of
26 California and Plaintiff was entitled to receive Workers' Compensation benefits from his employers.
27 Certain sums have been paid to or on behalf of Plaintiffs’ Decedent herein under the applicable
28 provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California. Said employer and/or employers and each
6
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CROSBY VALVE, LLC AS DOE 5 TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES –
ASBESTOS (NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, LOSS OF CONSORTIUM, SURVIVAL); REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
4487113 v2
1 of them were negligent, careless, and at fault in and about the matters referred to in the Complaint
2 and such negligence, carelessness, and fault proximately and concurrently contributed to and caused
3 the happening of the incidents complained of by Plaintiffs, if any there were. By these premises, any
4 judgment rendered in favor of Plaintiffs herein must be reduced by any benefits or payments made or
5 to be made to Plaintiffs by Plaintiffs’ Decedent employer's or employers' compensation carrier under
6 the authority of Rosales v. Thermex-Thermatron, Inc. (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 187.
7 TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 28. Plaintiffs have received, or in the future may receive, Workers' Compensation
9 benefits from Defendant under the Labor Code of the State of California as a consequence of the
10 alleged industrial injury referred to in the Complaint, and, in the event Plaintiffs are awarded
11 damages against Defendant, Defendant claims a credit against this award to the extent that
12 Defendant is barred from enforcing its rights to reimbursement for Workers’ Compensation benefits
13 that Plaintiffs have received or may in the future receive.
14 TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 29. The Plaintiffs’ Decedent’s employer or employers, by reason of the advise,
16 information, warnings and use, handling, and storage information given to them, and by reason of
17 their own long standing and continuous experience with the products, substances, and equipment
18 referred to in the Complaint, are and were sophisticated users, handlers, and storers of any and all
19 such products, substances, and equipment, and thereby acquired a separate and affirmative duty to
20 warn, advise, and inform Plaintiff of any potential harmful effects from the mishandling, misstorage,
21 and/or misuse of the subject property, if any. Said employer failed to so warn Plaintiffs’ Decedent
22 and thereby breached said duty, and said failure and breach did directly and proximately cause all
23 damages, injuries, and losses complained of, if any there were.
24 THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 30. At all times relative to matters in the Complaint, all of Plaintiffs’ Decedent’s
26 employers were sophisticated users of asbestos-containing products, and said employers' negligence
27 in providing the product to their employees in a negligent, careless, and reckless manner was a
28 superseding and intervening cause of Plaintiffs’ Decedent’s injuries, if any there were.
7
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CROSBY VALVE, LLC AS DOE 5 TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES –
ASBESTOS (NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, LOSS OF CONSORTIUM, SURVIVAL); REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
4487113 v2
1 THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 31. As between Plaintiffs and Defendant, the law applicable to this action is the law as it
3 existed during the period this Defendant engaged, if at all, in the manufacture, sale, or distribution of
4 asbestos-containing products to which the Plaintiffs claim exposure. It is unlawful, inequitable, and
5 in violation of Defendant's contractual, statutory, and constitutional rights to apply principles of law
6 other than or in a manner different from those which existed for the period in which Defendant
7 manufactured, sold, or distributed products to which Plaintiffs claim exposure.
8 THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 32. Defendant denies any and all liability to the extent that Plaintiffs assert Defendant's
10 alleged liability as a successor in business, successor in product line, or a portion thereof; assign,
11 predecessor, predecessor in business, predecessor in product line, or a portion thereof; parent, alter
12 ego, subsidiary, wholly or partially owned by, or the whole or partial owner of or member in an
13 entity researching, studying, manufacturing, fabricating, designing, labeling, assembling,
14 distributing, leasing, buying, offering for sale, selling, inspecting, servicing, installing, contracting,
15 or installation, repairing, marketing, warranting, re-branding, manufacturing for others, packaging
16 and advertising a certain substance, the generic name of which is asbestos.
17 THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 33. To the extent the Complaint asserts Defendant's alleged "alternative," "market share,"
19 or "enterprise" liability, the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action
20 against this Defendant.
21 THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 34. The Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, fails to state facts sufficient to
23 constitute a cause of action against this answering Defendant, in that Plaintiffs have failed to join a
24 substantial market share of the producers of the product or products to which Plaintiffs’ Decedent
25 was allegedly exposed.
26 THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
27 35. The Defendant did not and does not have a substantial percentage of the market for
28 the asbestos-containing products which allegedly caused Plaintiffs’ Decedent injuries. Therefore,
8
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CROSBY VALVE, LLC AS DOE 5 TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES –
ASBESTOS (NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, LOSS OF CONSORTIUM, SURVIVAL); REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
4487113 v2
1 Defendant may not be held liable to Plaintiffs based on this Defendant's alleged percentage share of
2 the applicable market.
3 THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4 36. Plaintiffs’ alleged cause of action seeking punitive damages against this Defendant
5 does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering Defendant.
6 THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 37. The causes of action asserted herein by Plaintiffs fail to state facts sufficient to
8 constitute a cause of action in that Plaintiffs have asserted claims for punitive damages which, if
9 granted, would violate the prohibition against laws impairing the obligation of contracts set forth in
10 Article I, Section 10, of the United States Constitution.
11 THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 38. Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive or exemplary damages, if any, alleged by Plaintiffs is
13 barred by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
14 THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15 39. Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive or exemplary damages, if any, alleged by Plaintiffs are
16 barred by the proscription of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to
17 the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibiting the imposition of excessive fines.
18 FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 40. Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive or exemplary damages, if any, alleged by Plaintiffs is
20 barred by the "double jeopardy" clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as
21 applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
22 FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 41. This Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action or alternatively
24 this Court lacks jurisdiction over Defendant by reason of improper service of process and/or
25 improper venue.
26 FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
27 42. Plaintiffs herein have failed to join indispensable parties (California Code of Civil
28 Procedure, Section 389) and the Complaint is thereby defective, and Plaintiffs are thereby precluded
9
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CROSBY VALVE, LLC AS DOE 5 TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES –
ASBESTOS (NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, LOSS OF CONSORTIUM, SURVIVAL); REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
4487113 v2
1 from any recovery whatsoever as prayed for herein.
2 FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3 43. Plaintiffs have no standing or right to sue for fraud and conspiracy, breach of
4 warranty, deceit, or any cause of action under California Civil Code, Sections 1708-1710, and
5 therefore the Complaint and each cause of action thereof fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a
6 cause of action against this answering Defendant.
7 FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 44. Plaintiffs herein lack legal capacity to sue and are not a real party in interest and are
9 thereby precluded from any recovery whatsoever as prayed for herein.
10 FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 45. Fraud and conspiracy do not constitute a separate and distinct form of damages from
12 general damages, and, therefore, the prayer for fraud and conspiracy in addition to general damages
13 does not sufficiently support or constitute a separate claim for damages against this answering
14 Defendant, but is simply cumulative and included in general damages.
15 FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 46. Defendant alleges that at all times relevant to the matters alleged in Plaintiffs’
17 Complaint, Plaintiffs’ Decedent knew or should have known the hazards of asbestos-containing
18 products, and therefore Plaintiffs were a sophisticated user of asbestos-containing products within
19 the meaning of William Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. (2008) 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 108.
20 FORTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 47. Defendant alleges that at all times relevant to the matters alleged in Plaintiffs’
22 Complaint, the manufacturers of the end user products allegedly used by Plaintiffs’ Decedent were
23 sophisticated users of asbestos-containing products and said manufacturers’ conduct within the
24 meaning of William Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. (2008) 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 108 was a
25 superseding and/or intervening cause of Plaintiff’s injuries, if any there were.
26 FORTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
27 48. Defendant alleges that all times relevant to the matters alleged in Plaintiffs’
28 Complaint, Defendant had no duty to warn of the hazards of asbestos-containing products
10
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CROSBY VALVE, LLC AS DOE 5 TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES –
ASBESTOS (NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, LOSS OF CONSORTIUM, SURVIVAL); REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
4487113 v2
1 manufactured or supplied by third parties within the meaning of Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery
2 Co. Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 564 and is not liable for any injury caused by a design defect in
3 asbestos-containing products manufactured or supplied by third parties. Merrill v. Leslie Controls,
4 Inc. 2009 WL 3824383 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.)
5 FORTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 49. This answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant is barred
7 because Defendant owed Plaintiff no duty of care under the holding of Campbell v. Ford Motor Co.,
8 (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 15. Defendant further alleges it had no duty to warn of the hazards of
9 asbestos-containing products manufactured or supplied by third parties within the meaning of O’Neil
10 v. Crane Co. (2012) 53 Cal. 4th 335 and is not liable for any injury caused by a design defect in
11 asbestos-containing products manufactured or supplied by third parties.
12 FIFTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13 50. This answering Defendant reserves the right to allege further affirmative defenses as
14 they become known through the course of discovery.
15 FIFTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 51. Defendant is immune from liability for injuries allegedly caused by Plaintiffs’
17 exposure to the products that Plaintiff alleges were defective and attributable to Defendant because
18 Defendant was a government contractor that manufactured the products according to and in
19 conformance with detailed specifications provided by the United States Government.
20 FIFTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 52. This Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action or alternatively
22 this Court lacks jurisdiction over Defendant by reason of improper service of process and/or
23 improper venue.
24 PRAYER
25 WHEREFORE, Defendant prays:
26 1. That Plaintiffs take nothing by reason of the Complaint herein;
27 2. That judgment be entered in favor of Defendant;
28 3. For costs of suit incurred herein;
11
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CROSBY VALVE, LLC AS DOE 5 TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES –
ASBESTOS (NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, LOSS OF CONSORTIUM, SURVIVAL); REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
4487113 v2
1 4. For appropriate credits and set-offs arising out of any payment of Workers’
2 Compensation benefits as alleged above;
3 5. For a judicial determination of the amount of non-economic damages, if any,
4 allocated to Defendant in direct proportion to Defendant’s percentage of fault, if any,
5 and a separate judgment in conformance therewith;
6 6. For appropriate credits and set-offs arising from allocation of liability to other named
7 and unnamed tortfeasors; and
8 7. For such other and further relief as this court may deem just and proper.
9 NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
10 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 631, Defendant CROSBY VALVE,
11 LLC hereby asserts its Demand for Trial by Jury.
12
13 DATED: September 15, 2020 FOLEY & MANSFIELD, PLLP
14
15 By:
Gary D. Sharp, Esq.
16
T. Eric Sun, Esq.
17 Andrew L. Sharp, Esq.
Jocelyn M. Soriano, Esq.
18 Attorneys for Defendant
CROSBY VALVE, LLC as Doe 5
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CROSBY VALVE, LLC AS DOE 5 TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES –
ASBESTOS (NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, LOSS OF CONSORTIUM, SURVIVAL); REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
4487113 v2
1 Dorothy A. Larson, et al. vs. Asbestos Companies, et al.
San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC-17-276562
2
3
PROOF OF SERVICE
4 BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
5
6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA:
7 I am employed in the County of Contra Costa, State of California. I am over the age of 18
and not a party to the within action; my business address is 2185 N. California Blvd., Suite 575,
8 Walnut Creek, CA 94596.
9
On the date executed below, I served the foregoing document(s) on the interested parties in
10 this action described as follows:
11 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CROSBY VALVE, LLC AS DOE 5 TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – ASBESTOS (NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY,
12 LOSS OF CONSORTIUM, SURVIVAL); REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
13
☒ BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Pursuant to San Francisco Court General
14 Order No. 158, 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
15
eserved through File & ServeXpress and caused the document(s) to be sent to the
16 person(s) at the email addresses designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the
File & ServeXpress website. To the best of my knowledge, at the time of the
17 transmission, the transmission was reported as complete and without error.
18 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is
true and correct.
19
20 Executed on September 15, 2020, Walnut Creek, California.
21
22
23
24 Norma R. Villanueva
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE