Preview
1 Douglas G. Wah, Esq. SBN 64692
Christine L. Hawkins, Esq. SBN 233502
2 Hanna M. Thompson, Esq. SBN 291653
ELECTRONICALLY
FOLEY & MANSFIELD, PLLP
3 2185 N. California Boulevard, Suite 575 F I L E D
Superior Court of California,
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 County of San Francisco
4 Telephone: (510) 590-9500
Facsimile: (510) 590-9595 09/12/2019
5 Email: hthompson@foleymansfield.com Clerk of the Court
BY: YOLANDA TABO-RAMIREZ
Deputy Clerk
6 Attorneys for Defendant
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 “Asbestos-Related Case”
HAGEN and JOLEEN HAGLER, as Wrongful
13 Death Heirs of JOHN CHULICK, Deceased, DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL
CONTRACTORS, INC.’S SEPARATE
14 Plaintiffs, STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN
SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
15 vs. SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
16 RILEY POWER INC., et al., Date: November 26, 2019
Time: 9:30 a.m.
17 Defendants. Dept.: 503
Judge: Hon. Cynthia Ming-mei Lee
18
Trial Date: December 2, 2019
19 Complaint Filed: January 22, 2019
20
21 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(b), Defendant Columbia Mechanical
22 Contractors, Inc. (“Columbia” or “Defendant”), respectfully submits the following Separate
23 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. These
24 facts contain every essential element that entitles Columbia to a favorable judgment as a matter of
25 law as to Plaintiff’s claim for negligence.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
1
DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
3540489 v6
1 UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT
2
UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE
3 SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
4 1. On January 22, 2019 Plaintiffs filed a 1.
Complaint for Wrongful Death against Columbia,
5 among other defendants, which alleges that
Mr. Chulick was exposed to defendants’ asbestos
6 and/or asbestos-containing products through his
work as an insulator. Plaintiff’s seek a negligence
7 claims against Columbia. The Complaint fails to set
8 forth any facts to form the basis of any claim
against Columbia.
9
See Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Damages attached as
10 Exhibit A to the Declaration of Hanna M.
Thompson (“Thompson Decl.”) in Support of
11
Defendant Columbia’s Motion for Summary
12 Judgment.
13 2. Plaintiffs allege in the Complaint that 2.
Columbia is liable for decedents exposure to
14 asbestos while he was performing work as an
insulator at the Lockheed facility for two days on
15
June 19 and 20, 1967, on June 22, 1971 for work
16 done at the Naval Supply Center in Oakland, for
worked performed at San Francisco General
17 Hospital on February 22 and 23, 1973, March 2
thru 22, 1974, April 16 thru 30, 1975, and April 8
18 to the 9, 1975, and finally on May 4, 1978 for
19 work done at Kaiser Hospital in South San
Francisco.
20
See as Exhibit A at 108:21-109:8
21
3. On February 22, 2002 Decedent John Chulick 3.
22 filed a Personal Injury Complaint in San Francisco
23 County. Columbia was not named as a Defendant in
the original complaint.
24
See John Chulick Personal Injury Complaint
25 attached as Exhibit B to the Thompson Decl.
26
27
28
2
DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
3540489 v6
1
UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE
2 SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
4. On April 4, 2004, Decedent filed an 4.
3 amended complaint adding additional defendants,
4 again Columbia was not named.
5 See John Chulick First Amendment to Personal
Injury Complaint attached as Exhibit C to the
6 Thompson Decl.
7
5. On April 22, 2004, Decedent filed a 2nd 5.
8 amended complaint adding additional defendants,
again Columbia was not named as a Defendant.
9
See John Chulick Second Amendment to Personal
10 Injury Complaint attached as Exhibit D to the
Thompson Decl.
11
12 6. On August 11, 2004, Decedent filed a 3rd 6.
amended complaint adding additional defendants,
13 again Columbia was not named as a Defendant.
14 See John Chulick 3rd Amendment to Personal
15 Injury Complaint attached as Exhibit E to the
Thompson Decl.
16
7. On September 3, 2004, Decedent filed a 4th 7.
17 amended complaint adding additional defendants,
again Columbia was not named as a Defendant.
18
19 See John Chulick 4th Amendment to Personal
Injury Complaint attached as Exhibit F to the
20 Thompson Decl.
21 8. Due to never being a party in the Personal 8.
Injury action, Columbia did not appear Decedent’s
22
deposition.
23
See Paragraph 8 of the Thompson Decl.
24
9. The Decedent was deposed over 14 days from 9.
25 2003 to 2005; not once did Decedent identify
Columbia at his deposition.
26
27 See Paragraph 9 of the Thompson Decl.
28
3
DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
3540489 v6
1
UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE
2 SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
10. On June 2, 2003, Decedent was asked at his 10.
3 deposition ifhe remembered the identity of any of
4 the contractors at the Lockheed facility where he
worked for two days in June of 1967, he did not.
5
See Excerpts from John Chulick’s Deposition taken
6 June 2, 2003, pp. 943:22-24, 946:6-8.attached as
Exhibit G to the Thompson Decl.
7
8 11. On November 7, 2003, Decedent was asked 11.
at his deposition if he remembered the identity of
9 any of the contractors at the Oakland Naval Supply
Center where he worked for one day in June of
10 1971, he did not
11
See Excerpts from John Chulick’s Deposition taken
12 November 17, 2003, pp. 1558:18-1559:8 attached
as Exhibit H to the Thompson Decl.
13
12. On November 18, 2003, Decedent was 12.
14 asked at his deposition if he remembered the
15 identity of any of the contractors at the San
Francisco General Hospital when he worked there
16 in February 1973, he did not.
17 See Excerpts from John Chulick’s Deposition taken
November 18, 2003 pp. 1924:16-24, 1926:16-
18 1927:1 attached as Exhibit I to the Thompson
19 Decl.
20 13. On October 12, 2004, Decedent was asked 13.
at his deposition if he remembered the identity of
21 any of the contractors at the San Francisco General
Hospital when he worked there in April, 1974, he
22
did not
23
See Excerpts from John Chulick’s Deposition taken
24 October 12, 2004 pp. 2018:18-21,2020:17-
2021:1attached as Exhibit J to the Thompson Decl.
25
14. On October 12, 2004 Decedent was asked if 14.
26
he remembered the identity of any of the
27 contractors at the San Francisco General Hospital
when he worked there in 1975, he did not.
28
4
DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
3540489 v6
1
UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE
2 SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
See Excerpts from John Chulick’s Deposition taken
3 October 12, 2004 pp. 2027:25-2028:12. attached as
4 Exhibit J to the Thompson Decl.
5 15. On October 13, 2004, Decedent was asked 15.
at his deposition if he remembered the identity of
6 any of the contractors at the Kaiser Hospital in
South San Francisco when he worked there in
7
1978, he did not.
8
See Excerpts from John Chulick’s Deposition taken
9 October 13, 2004 pp. 2202:3-6, 2205:3-5. attached
as Exhibit K to the Thompson Decl.
10
16. Plaintiff served Responses to Standard 16.
11
Interrogatories, on March 18, 2019 wherein they
12 claim that decedent was an insulator at numerous
job sites. However, Plaintiff’s did not identify
13 Columbia at any job sites over Decedents almost 40
year work history, including the job sites that they
14 initially identified Columbia at in the Complaint.
15
See Standard Interrogatory Discovery Responses
16 attached as Exhibit L to the Thompson Decl.
17 17. On May 10, 2019 Columbia served 17.
comprehensive “state all facts” discovery on
18 plaintiff, which requests she identify the facts,
19 witnesses, and documents that support her claim
Decedent was exposed to asbestos from Columbia.
20
See Columbia’s Request for Production of
21 Documents, Set One, Special Interrogatories, and
Form Interrogatories, attached as Exhibit M to the
22
Thompson Decl.
23
18. On June 28, 2019 Plaintiff served their 18.
24 Responses to Columbia’s Request for Production of
Documents. Plaintiff’s Responses to Columbia’s
25 Special Discovery contain allegations against
Columbia, but no documents or witnesses to show
26
that Columbia actually exposed decedent to
27 asbestos. Plaintiff’s Responses to Columbia’s
Special Discovery therefore confirm plaintiff does
28 not possess and cannot reasonably obtain necessary
5
DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
3540489 v6
1
UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE
2 SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
evidence to support their exposure claims against
3 Columbia.
4
See Plaintiff’s Response to Columbia’s Request for
5 Productions, Set One p. 2:10-3:10, attached as
Exhibit N to the Thompson Decl.
6
19. Plaintiff’s Responses identify Decedent’s 19.
7
co-worker Carl Ramsey deposition that was taken
8 in this matter on January 27, 2004. Mr. Ramsey
also did not identify Columbia at his deposition.
9
See Carl Ramsey Deposition, taken on January 27,
10 2004, attached as Exhibit O to the Thompson Decl.
11
12 ISSUE NO. 1
13 NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFFS LACK EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT
THAT COLUMBIA EVER EXPOSED DECEDENT TO ASBESTOS
14
UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE
15 SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
16 1. On January 22, 2019 Plaintiffs filed a 1.
Complaint for Wrongful Death against Columbia,
17 among other defendants, which alleges that
Mr. Chulick was exposed to defendants’ asbestos
18 and/or asbestos-containing products through his
19 work as an insulator. Plaintiff’s seek a negligence
claims against Columbia. The Complaint fails to set
20 forth any facts to form the basis of any claim
against Columbia.
21
See Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Damages attached as
22 Exhibit A to the Declaration of Hanna M.
23 Thompson (“Thompson Decl.”) in Support of
Defendant Columbia’s Motion for Summary
24 Judgment.
25 2. Plaintiffs allege in the Complaint that 2.
Columbia is liable for decedents exposure to
26
asbestos while he was performing work as an
27 insulator at the Lockheed facility for two days on
June 19 and 20, 1967, on June 22, 1971 for work
28 done at the Naval Supply Center in Oakland, for
6
DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
3540489 v6
1
UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE
2 SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
worked performed at San Francisco General
3 Hospital on February 22 and 23, 1973, March 2
4 thru 22, 1974, April 16 thru 30, 1975, and April 8
to the 9, 1975, and finally on May 4, 1978 for
5 work done at Kaiser Hospital in South
San Francisco.
6
See as Exhibit A at 108:21-109:8
7
8 3. On February 22, 2002 Decedent John 3.
Chulick filed a Personal Injury Complaint in San
9 Francisco County. Columbia was not named as a
Defendant in the original complaint.
10
See John Chulick Personal Injury Complaint
11
attached as Exhibit B to the Thompson Decl.
12
4. On April 4, 2004, Decedent filed an 4.
13 amended complaint adding additional defendants,
again Columbia was not named.
14
15 See John Chulick First Amendment to Personal
Injury Complaint attached as Exhibit C to the
16 Thompson Decl.
17 5. On April 22, 2004, Decedent filed a 2nd 5.
amended complaint adding additional defendants,
18 again Columbia was not named as a Defendant.
19
See John Chulick Second Amendment to Personal
20 Injury Complaint attached as Exhibit D to the
Thompson Decl.
21
6. On August 11, 2004, Decedent filed a 3rd 6.
22
amended complaint adding additional defendants,
23 again Columbia was not named as a Defendant.
24 See John Chulick 3rd Amendment to Personal
Injury Complaint attached as Exhibit E to the
25 Thompson Decl.
26
27
28
7
DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
3540489 v6
1
UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE
2 SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
7. On September 3, 2004, Decedent filed a 4th 7.
3 amended complaint adding additional defendants,
4 again Columbia was not named as a Defendant.
5 See John Chulick 4th Amendment to Personal
Injury Complaint attached as Exhibit F to the
6 Thompson Decl.
7
8. Due to never being a party in the Personal 8.
8 Injury action, Columbia did not appear Decedent’s
deposition.
9
See Paragraph 8 of the Thompson Decl.
10
9. The Decedent was deposed over 14 days 9.
11
from 2003 to 2005; not once did Decedent identify
12 Columbia at his deposition.
13 See Paragraph 9 of the Thompson Decl.
14 10. On June 2, 2003, Decedent was asked at his 10.
15 deposition ifhe remembered the identity of any of
the contractors at the Lockheed facility where he
16 worked for two days in June of 1967, he did not.
17 See Excerpts from John Chulick’s Deposition taken
June 2, 2003, pp. 943:22-24, 946:6-8.attached as
18 Exhibit G to the Thompson Decl.
19
11. On November 7, 2003, Decedent was asked 11.
20 at his deposition if he remembered the identity of
any of the contractors at the Oakland Naval Supply
21 Center where he worked for one day in June of
1971, he did not
22
See Excerpts from John Chulick’s Deposition taken
23 November 17, 2003, pp. 1558:18-1559:8 attached
as Exhibit H to the Thompson Decl.
24
12. On November 18, 2003, Decedent was 12.
25 asked at his deposition if he remembered the
identity of any of the contractors at the San
26
Francisco General Hospital when he worked there
27 in February 1973, he did not.
28 See Excerpts from John Chulick’s Deposition taken
8
DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
3540489 v6
1
UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE
2 SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
November 18, 2003 pp. 1924:16-24, 1926:16-
3 1927:1 attached as Exhibit I to the Thompson
4 Decl.
5 13. On October 12, 2004, Decedent was asked 13.
at his deposition if he remembered the identity of
6 any of the contractors at the San Francisco General
Hospital when he worked there in April, 1974, he
7
did not
8
See Excerpts from John Chulick’s Deposition taken
9 October 12, 2004 pp. 2018:18-21,2020:17-
2021:1attached as Exhibit J to the Thompson Decl.
10
14. On October 12, 2004 Decedent was asked if 14.
11
he remembered the identity of any of the
12 contractors at the San Francisco General Hospital
when he worked there in 1975, he did not.
13
See Excerpts from John Chulick’s Deposition taken
14 October 12, 2004 pp. 2027:25-2028:12. attached as
15 Exhibit J to the Thompson Decl.
16 15. On October 13, 2004, Decedent was asked 15.
at his deposition if he remembered the identity of
17 any of the contractors at the Kaiser Hospital in
South San Francisco when he worked there in
18 1978, he did not.
19
See Excerpts from John Chulick’s Deposition taken
20 October 13, 2004 pp. 2202:3-6, 2205:3-5. attached
as Exhibit K to the Thompson Decl.
21
16. Plaintiff served Responses to Standard 16.
22
Interrogatories, on March 18, 2019 wherein they
23 claim that decedent was an insulator at numerous
job sites. However, Plaintiff’s did not identify
24 Columbia at any job sites over Decedents almost 40
year work history, including the job sites that they
25 initially identified Columbia at in the Complaint.
26
See Standard Interrogatory Discovery Responses
27 attached as Exhibit L to the Thompson Decl.
28
9
DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
3540489 v6
1
UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE
2 SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
17. On May 10, 2019 Columbia served 17.
3 comprehensive “state all facts” discovery on
4 plaintiff, which requests she identify the facts,
witnesses, and documents that support her claim
5 Decedent was exposed to asbestos from Columbia.
6 See Columbia’s Request for Production of
Documents, Set One, Special Interrogatories, and
7 Form Interrogatories, attached as Exhibit M to the
8 Thompson Decl.
18. On June 28, 2019 Plaintiff served their 18.
9 Responses to Columbia’s Request for Production of
Documents. Plaintiff’s Responses to Columbia’s
10 Special Discovery contain allegations against
Columbia, but no documents or witnesses to show
11
that Columbia actually exposed decedent to
12 asbestos. Plaintiff’s Responses to Columbia’s
Special Discovery therefore confirm plaintiff does
13 not possess and cannot reasonably obtain necessary
evidence to support their exposure claims against
14 Columbia.
15
See Plaintiff’s Response to Columbia’s Request for
16 Productions, Set One p. 2:10-3:10, attached as
Exhibit N to the Thompson Decl.
17 19. Plaintiff’s Responses identify Decedent’s co 19.
worker Carl Ramsey deposition that was taken in
18 this matter on January 27, 2004. Mr. Ramsey also
19 did not identify Columbia at his deposition.
20 See Carl Ramsey Deposition, taken on January 27,
2004, attached as Exhibit O to the Thompson Decl.
21
22
23 DATED: September 12, 2019 FOLEY & MANSFIELD, PLLP
24
By:
25 Douglas G. Wah
Christine L. Hawkins
26 Hanna M. Thompson
Attorneys for Defendant
27 COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.
28
10
DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
3540489 v6
Preview
1 Douglas G. Wah, Esq. SBN 64692 Christine L. Hawkins, Esq. SBN 233502 2 Hanna M. Thompson, Esq. SBN 291653 ELECTRONICALLY FOLEY & MANSFIELD, PLLP 3 2185 N. California Boulevard, Suite 575 F I L E D Superior Court of California, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 County of San Francisco 4 Telephone: (510) 590-9500 Facsimile: (510) 590-9595 09/12/2019 5 Email: hthompson@foleymansfield.com Clerk of the Court BY: YOLANDA TABO-RAMIREZ Deputy Clerk 6 Attorneys for Defendant 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 “Asbestos-Related Case” HAGEN and JOLEEN HAGLER, as Wrongful 13 Death Heirs of JOHN CHULICK, Deceased, DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S SEPARATE 14 Plaintiffs, STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR 15 vs. SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 16 RILEY POWER INC., et al., Date: November 26, 2019 Time: 9:30 a.m. 17 Defendants. Dept.: 503 Judge: Hon. Cynthia Ming-mei Lee 18 Trial Date: December 2, 2019 19 Complaint Filed: January 22, 2019 20 21 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(b), Defendant Columbia Mechanical 22 Contractors, Inc. (“Columbia” or “Defendant”), respectfully submits the following Separate 23 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. These 24 facts contain every essential element that entitles Columbia to a favorable judgment as a matter of 25 law as to Plaintiff’s claim for negligence. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 3540489 v6 1 UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT 2 UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE 3 SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 4 1. On January 22, 2019 Plaintiffs filed a 1. Complaint for Wrongful Death against Columbia, 5 among other defendants, which alleges that Mr. Chulick was exposed to defendants’ asbestos 6 and/or asbestos-containing products through his work as an insulator. Plaintiff’s seek a negligence 7 claims against Columbia. The Complaint fails to set 8 forth any facts to form the basis of any claim against Columbia. 9 See Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Damages attached as 10 Exhibit A to the Declaration of Hanna M. Thompson (“Thompson Decl.”) in Support of 11 Defendant Columbia’s Motion for Summary 12 Judgment. 13 2. Plaintiffs allege in the Complaint that 2. Columbia is liable for decedents exposure to 14 asbestos while he was performing work as an insulator at the Lockheed facility for two days on 15 June 19 and 20, 1967, on June 22, 1971 for work 16 done at the Naval Supply Center in Oakland, for worked performed at San Francisco General 17 Hospital on February 22 and 23, 1973, March 2 thru 22, 1974, April 16 thru 30, 1975, and April 8 18 to the 9, 1975, and finally on May 4, 1978 for 19 work done at Kaiser Hospital in South San Francisco. 20 See as Exhibit A at 108:21-109:8 21 3. On February 22, 2002 Decedent John Chulick 3. 22 filed a Personal Injury Complaint in San Francisco 23 County. Columbia was not named as a Defendant in the original complaint. 24 See John Chulick Personal Injury Complaint 25 attached as Exhibit B to the Thompson Decl. 26 27 28 2 DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 3540489 v6 1 UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE 2 SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 4. On April 4, 2004, Decedent filed an 4. 3 amended complaint adding additional defendants, 4 again Columbia was not named. 5 See John Chulick First Amendment to Personal Injury Complaint attached as Exhibit C to the 6 Thompson Decl. 7 5. On April 22, 2004, Decedent filed a 2nd 5. 8 amended complaint adding additional defendants, again Columbia was not named as a Defendant. 9 See John Chulick Second Amendment to Personal 10 Injury Complaint attached as Exhibit D to the Thompson Decl. 11 12 6. On August 11, 2004, Decedent filed a 3rd 6. amended complaint adding additional defendants, 13 again Columbia was not named as a Defendant. 14 See John Chulick 3rd Amendment to Personal 15 Injury Complaint attached as Exhibit E to the Thompson Decl. 16 7. On September 3, 2004, Decedent filed a 4th 7. 17 amended complaint adding additional defendants, again Columbia was not named as a Defendant. 18 19 See John Chulick 4th Amendment to Personal Injury Complaint attached as Exhibit F to the 20 Thompson Decl. 21 8. Due to never being a party in the Personal 8. Injury action, Columbia did not appear Decedent’s 22 deposition. 23 See Paragraph 8 of the Thompson Decl. 24 9. The Decedent was deposed over 14 days from 9. 25 2003 to 2005; not once did Decedent identify Columbia at his deposition. 26 27 See Paragraph 9 of the Thompson Decl. 28 3 DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 3540489 v6 1 UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE 2 SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 10. On June 2, 2003, Decedent was asked at his 10. 3 deposition ifhe remembered the identity of any of 4 the contractors at the Lockheed facility where he worked for two days in June of 1967, he did not. 5 See Excerpts from John Chulick’s Deposition taken 6 June 2, 2003, pp. 943:22-24, 946:6-8.attached as Exhibit G to the Thompson Decl. 7 8 11. On November 7, 2003, Decedent was asked 11. at his deposition if he remembered the identity of 9 any of the contractors at the Oakland Naval Supply Center where he worked for one day in June of 10 1971, he did not 11 See Excerpts from John Chulick’s Deposition taken 12 November 17, 2003, pp. 1558:18-1559:8 attached as Exhibit H to the Thompson Decl. 13 12. On November 18, 2003, Decedent was 12. 14 asked at his deposition if he remembered the 15 identity of any of the contractors at the San Francisco General Hospital when he worked there 16 in February 1973, he did not. 17 See Excerpts from John Chulick’s Deposition taken November 18, 2003 pp. 1924:16-24, 1926:16- 18 1927:1 attached as Exhibit I to the Thompson 19 Decl. 20 13. On October 12, 2004, Decedent was asked 13. at his deposition if he remembered the identity of 21 any of the contractors at the San Francisco General Hospital when he worked there in April, 1974, he 22 did not 23 See Excerpts from John Chulick’s Deposition taken 24 October 12, 2004 pp. 2018:18-21,2020:17- 2021:1attached as Exhibit J to the Thompson Decl. 25 14. On October 12, 2004 Decedent was asked if 14. 26 he remembered the identity of any of the 27 contractors at the San Francisco General Hospital when he worked there in 1975, he did not. 28 4 DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 3540489 v6 1 UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE 2 SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE See Excerpts from John Chulick’s Deposition taken 3 October 12, 2004 pp. 2027:25-2028:12. attached as 4 Exhibit J to the Thompson Decl. 5 15. On October 13, 2004, Decedent was asked 15. at his deposition if he remembered the identity of 6 any of the contractors at the Kaiser Hospital in South San Francisco when he worked there in 7 1978, he did not. 8 See Excerpts from John Chulick’s Deposition taken 9 October 13, 2004 pp. 2202:3-6, 2205:3-5. attached as Exhibit K to the Thompson Decl. 10 16. Plaintiff served Responses to Standard 16. 11 Interrogatories, on March 18, 2019 wherein they 12 claim that decedent was an insulator at numerous job sites. However, Plaintiff’s did not identify 13 Columbia at any job sites over Decedents almost 40 year work history, including the job sites that they 14 initially identified Columbia at in the Complaint. 15 See Standard Interrogatory Discovery Responses 16 attached as Exhibit L to the Thompson Decl. 17 17. On May 10, 2019 Columbia served 17. comprehensive “state all facts” discovery on 18 plaintiff, which requests she identify the facts, 19 witnesses, and documents that support her claim Decedent was exposed to asbestos from Columbia. 20 See Columbia’s Request for Production of 21 Documents, Set One, Special Interrogatories, and Form Interrogatories, attached as Exhibit M to the 22 Thompson Decl. 23 18. On June 28, 2019 Plaintiff served their 18. 24 Responses to Columbia’s Request for Production of Documents. Plaintiff’s Responses to Columbia’s 25 Special Discovery contain allegations against Columbia, but no documents or witnesses to show 26 that Columbia actually exposed decedent to 27 asbestos. Plaintiff’s Responses to Columbia’s Special Discovery therefore confirm plaintiff does 28 not possess and cannot reasonably obtain necessary 5 DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 3540489 v6 1 UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE 2 SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE evidence to support their exposure claims against 3 Columbia. 4 See Plaintiff’s Response to Columbia’s Request for 5 Productions, Set One p. 2:10-3:10, attached as Exhibit N to the Thompson Decl. 6 19. Plaintiff’s Responses identify Decedent’s 19. 7 co-worker Carl Ramsey deposition that was taken 8 in this matter on January 27, 2004. Mr. Ramsey also did not identify Columbia at his deposition. 9 See Carl Ramsey Deposition, taken on January 27, 10 2004, attached as Exhibit O to the Thompson Decl. 11 12 ISSUE NO. 1 13 NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFFS LACK EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT THAT COLUMBIA EVER EXPOSED DECEDENT TO ASBESTOS 14 UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE 15 SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 16 1. On January 22, 2019 Plaintiffs filed a 1. Complaint for Wrongful Death against Columbia, 17 among other defendants, which alleges that Mr. Chulick was exposed to defendants’ asbestos 18 and/or asbestos-containing products through his 19 work as an insulator. Plaintiff’s seek a negligence claims against Columbia. The Complaint fails to set 20 forth any facts to form the basis of any claim against Columbia. 21 See Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Damages attached as 22 Exhibit A to the Declaration of Hanna M. 23 Thompson (“Thompson Decl.”) in Support of Defendant Columbia’s Motion for Summary 24 Judgment. 25 2. Plaintiffs allege in the Complaint that 2. Columbia is liable for decedents exposure to 26 asbestos while he was performing work as an 27 insulator at the Lockheed facility for two days on June 19 and 20, 1967, on June 22, 1971 for work 28 done at the Naval Supply Center in Oakland, for 6 DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 3540489 v6 1 UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE 2 SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE worked performed at San Francisco General 3 Hospital on February 22 and 23, 1973, March 2 4 thru 22, 1974, April 16 thru 30, 1975, and April 8 to the 9, 1975, and finally on May 4, 1978 for 5 work done at Kaiser Hospital in South San Francisco. 6 See as Exhibit A at 108:21-109:8 7 8 3. On February 22, 2002 Decedent John 3. Chulick filed a Personal Injury Complaint in San 9 Francisco County. Columbia was not named as a Defendant in the original complaint. 10 See John Chulick Personal Injury Complaint 11 attached as Exhibit B to the Thompson Decl. 12 4. On April 4, 2004, Decedent filed an 4. 13 amended complaint adding additional defendants, again Columbia was not named. 14 15 See John Chulick First Amendment to Personal Injury Complaint attached as Exhibit C to the 16 Thompson Decl. 17 5. On April 22, 2004, Decedent filed a 2nd 5. amended complaint adding additional defendants, 18 again Columbia was not named as a Defendant. 19 See John Chulick Second Amendment to Personal 20 Injury Complaint attached as Exhibit D to the Thompson Decl. 21 6. On August 11, 2004, Decedent filed a 3rd 6. 22 amended complaint adding additional defendants, 23 again Columbia was not named as a Defendant. 24 See John Chulick 3rd Amendment to Personal Injury Complaint attached as Exhibit E to the 25 Thompson Decl. 26 27 28 7 DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 3540489 v6 1 UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE 2 SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 7. On September 3, 2004, Decedent filed a 4th 7. 3 amended complaint adding additional defendants, 4 again Columbia was not named as a Defendant. 5 See John Chulick 4th Amendment to Personal Injury Complaint attached as Exhibit F to the 6 Thompson Decl. 7 8. Due to never being a party in the Personal 8. 8 Injury action, Columbia did not appear Decedent’s deposition. 9 See Paragraph 8 of the Thompson Decl. 10 9. The Decedent was deposed over 14 days 9. 11 from 2003 to 2005; not once did Decedent identify 12 Columbia at his deposition. 13 See Paragraph 9 of the Thompson Decl. 14 10. On June 2, 2003, Decedent was asked at his 10. 15 deposition ifhe remembered the identity of any of the contractors at the Lockheed facility where he 16 worked for two days in June of 1967, he did not. 17 See Excerpts from John Chulick’s Deposition taken June 2, 2003, pp. 943:22-24, 946:6-8.attached as 18 Exhibit G to the Thompson Decl. 19 11. On November 7, 2003, Decedent was asked 11. 20 at his deposition if he remembered the identity of any of the contractors at the Oakland Naval Supply 21 Center where he worked for one day in June of 1971, he did not 22 See Excerpts from John Chulick’s Deposition taken 23 November 17, 2003, pp. 1558:18-1559:8 attached as Exhibit H to the Thompson Decl. 24 12. On November 18, 2003, Decedent was 12. 25 asked at his deposition if he remembered the identity of any of the contractors at the San 26 Francisco General Hospital when he worked there 27 in February 1973, he did not. 28 See Excerpts from John Chulick’s Deposition taken 8 DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 3540489 v6 1 UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE 2 SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE November 18, 2003 pp. 1924:16-24, 1926:16- 3 1927:1 attached as Exhibit I to the Thompson 4 Decl. 5 13. On October 12, 2004, Decedent was asked 13. at his deposition if he remembered the identity of 6 any of the contractors at the San Francisco General Hospital when he worked there in April, 1974, he 7 did not 8 See Excerpts from John Chulick’s Deposition taken 9 October 12, 2004 pp. 2018:18-21,2020:17- 2021:1attached as Exhibit J to the Thompson Decl. 10 14. On October 12, 2004 Decedent was asked if 14. 11 he remembered the identity of any of the 12 contractors at the San Francisco General Hospital when he worked there in 1975, he did not. 13 See Excerpts from John Chulick’s Deposition taken 14 October 12, 2004 pp. 2027:25-2028:12. attached as 15 Exhibit J to the Thompson Decl. 16 15. On October 13, 2004, Decedent was asked 15. at his deposition if he remembered the identity of 17 any of the contractors at the Kaiser Hospital in South San Francisco when he worked there in 18 1978, he did not. 19 See Excerpts from John Chulick’s Deposition taken 20 October 13, 2004 pp. 2202:3-6, 2205:3-5. attached as Exhibit K to the Thompson Decl. 21 16. Plaintiff served Responses to Standard 16. 22 Interrogatories, on March 18, 2019 wherein they 23 claim that decedent was an insulator at numerous job sites. However, Plaintiff’s did not identify 24 Columbia at any job sites over Decedents almost 40 year work history, including the job sites that they 25 initially identified Columbia at in the Complaint. 26 See Standard Interrogatory Discovery Responses 27 attached as Exhibit L to the Thompson Decl. 28 9 DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 3540489 v6 1 UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE 2 SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 17. On May 10, 2019 Columbia served 17. 3 comprehensive “state all facts” discovery on 4 plaintiff, which requests she identify the facts, witnesses, and documents that support her claim 5 Decedent was exposed to asbestos from Columbia. 6 See Columbia’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Special Interrogatories, and 7 Form Interrogatories, attached as Exhibit M to the 8 Thompson Decl. 18. On June 28, 2019 Plaintiff served their 18. 9 Responses to Columbia’s Request for Production of Documents. Plaintiff’s Responses to Columbia’s 10 Special Discovery contain allegations against Columbia, but no documents or witnesses to show 11 that Columbia actually exposed decedent to 12 asbestos. Plaintiff’s Responses to Columbia’s Special Discovery therefore confirm plaintiff does 13 not possess and cannot reasonably obtain necessary evidence to support their exposure claims against 14 Columbia. 15 See Plaintiff’s Response to Columbia’s Request for 16 Productions, Set One p. 2:10-3:10, attached as Exhibit N to the Thompson Decl. 17 19. Plaintiff’s Responses identify Decedent’s co 19. worker Carl Ramsey deposition that was taken in 18 this matter on January 27, 2004. Mr. Ramsey also 19 did not identify Columbia at his deposition. 20 See Carl Ramsey Deposition, taken on January 27, 2004, attached as Exhibit O to the Thompson Decl. 21 22 23 DATED: September 12, 2019 FOLEY & MANSFIELD, PLLP 24 By: 25 Douglas G. Wah Christine L. Hawkins 26 Hanna M. Thompson Attorneys for Defendant 27 COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. 28 10 DEFENDANT COLUMBIA MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 3540489 v6