On July 20, 2005 a Hearing was filed involving a dispute between First Doe Through Tenth Doe, Inclusive, Scott, Michael Gerald, Scott, Nancy Marie, Scott, Robert David, Scott, Thomas Cary, Sobolik, Mary Denise, Wolfarth, Joanne Marie, and 3M Company (Formerly Named Minnesota Mining And, Abb, Inc., Abb, Inc. Which Will Do Business In California As, Ac And S, Inc., Allied Packing & Supply, Inc., Amchem Products, Inc., Asbestos Corporation Ltd., A.W. Chesterton Company, Babcock Borsig Power, Inc.,As The Parent Alter Ego, Cbs Corporation, A Delaware Corporation,, Coltec Industries, Inc.,, Crane Co., Darcoid Company Of California, Db Riley, Inc., Dee Engineering Co., Douglass Insulation Company, Eaton Electrical Inc., Eleventh Doe Through Three Hundredth Doe,, Enpro Anchor Packaging, Foster Wheeler Llc, Foster Wheeler Llc, Survivor To A Merger With, Garlock, Inc., General Electric Company, Graybar Electric Co., Graybar Electric Company, Inc., Hill Brothers Chemical Company, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Imo Industries Inc., Ingersoll-Rand Company, J.T. Thorpe And Son, Inc., Leslie Controls, Inc., Lucent Technologies, Inc., Lucent Technologies, Inc. As A Successor In, Metalclad Insulation Corporation, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Minnesota Mining Corporation, Aka 3M Company, M. Slayen And Associates, Inc., M.Slayen & Associates, Inc., New Iem, Llc, The, Quintec Industries, Inc., Rapid-American Corporation, Sb Decking, Inc., Sb Decking, Inc., Formerly Known As Selby,, Soco-Lynch Corporation, Soco West, Inc., Square D Company, Sterling Fluid Systems, Inc., Sterling Fluid Systems, Syd Carpenter Marine Contractor, Inc., Syd Carpenter Marine Engineering, T H Agriculture & Nutrition Llc, The Darcoid Company Of California, The New Iem, Llc,, Thomas Dee Engineering Company, Thorpe Insulation Company, Triple A Machine Shop, Inc., Union Carbide Corporation, Viacom Inc., As Sbm To Cbs Corp., Fka Westinghouse, for civil in the District Court of San Francisco County.
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Preview
1 i) LISA L. OBERG (BAR NO. 120139) CAMILLE K. FONG (BAR NO. 113123) ELECTRONICALLY 2 | REBECCA L. WOODSON (BAR NO. 194191) McKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP FILED - 3 107 California Street Superior Court of California 41" Floor County of San Francisco 4 } San Francisco, CA 94111 MAR 28 2007 felephone; (415) 267-4000 GORDON PARK-LI, Clerk S | Facsimile: (413) 267-4198 BY: RAYMOND K. WONG Deputy Clerk 6 | Attorneys for Defendant METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATION 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 10 1] } NANCY MARIE SCOTT, et al., | CASL NO. 443236 12 Plaintiffs, DEFENBANT METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATION’S NOTICE OF MOTION FoR 13 Vv. SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE | ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF 14 | AC and S, INC., ef al, . Issues 15 Defendants. {Filed Concurrently with Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Separate Statement of 16 Undisputed Facts; Declaration of Rebecca L. Woodson with Exhibits; and [Proposed] Order} 17 18 DATE: June 15, 3007 » TIME: 9:30 a.m. 19 Derr: 302 JUDGE: Tlonorable Patrick J, Mahoney 20 TRIAL DATE: July 16, 2007 21 2 a 23 24 j TO ALL PARTIES HEREIN AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 25 PLUASE TARE NOTICE that on une 15, 2007, at $:30 a.m... or as soon thereafter as the 26 j alter may be heard in Department 302 of the above-entitled court, tocated at of the above- 27 4 enutled court, located at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102-4514, Defendant 28 | METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATION (DEFENDANT’) will move this Court for an MCKENNA Lowe & i AEDRIDGE LLP DEFENDANT METALGLAD INSULATION CORPORATION'S NOTICE GE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, INTHE AN TORNEYS ATES | ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES | SAN FRANCISCiD20 28 Mckinia Lose & ALORIDGE LLP Saw Fuancisco order granting summary judgment in favor of DEFENDANT against Plaintiffs NANCY MARIE SCOTT, et al., (“PLAINTIFFS”), and for entry of judgment that PLAINTIFFS take nothing by way of the Complaint, and that DEPENDANT recover its costs of suit incurred herein, in addition to any other relief as may be just. This motion for summary judgment is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §437¢ on the grounds that the action as to this moving defendant has no merit as there is no triable issue of any material fact, thereby entitling DEFENDANT to judgment as a matter of law. Said motion is also based on the grounds that PLAINTIFFS produced no evidence establishing that the decedent, Denzil Scolt, was exposed to any asbestos-containing products manufactured, supplied or distributed by DEFENDANT at any location or at any job site where he worked. If for any reason this Court is unable to grant full summary judament, DEFENDANT moves, in the alternative, for summary adjudication. In that instance, DEFENDANT respectfully requests this Court to issue an order adjudicating that the following issues are established as against PLAINTIFFS. Defendant brings this motion on the grounds that Plaintiffs have provided insufficient evidence as to each of the following individual counts: Issue No.1 Plaintiffs’ first cause of action for Negligence fails as a matter of law because Plaintiffs cannot prove Denzil Scoll was exposed (o an asbestos-containing product for which DEFENDANT is liable. Issue No.2 Plaintiffs’ second cause of action for Strict Liability fails as a matter of law because Plaintiffs cannot prove Denzil Scott was exposed to an asbestos-containing product for which DEFENDANT is liable. Issue No.3 Plaintiffs’ thisd cause of action for Enterprise Liability fails as a matter of law because Plaintiffs cannot prove Denzil Scott was exposed {0 an asbestos-containing product for which DEFENDANT ii fable and because Plaintiffs may nol rely on DEFENDANT ’s market share to establish product identification -2- ~~ DEFENDANT METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATIONS NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR INTHE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUESwee 20 28 Mokena Lows: & ‘ALDRIDGR LL? Arron San FRAREISCO Issue No.4 Plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action for False Representation/Intentional Tort fails as a matter of law because there is insufficient evidence showing that DEPENDANT made any representation to the Denzil Scott nor is there evidence showing that DEFENDANT had any special rela ionship with Mr. Scott. Issue No.5 Plaintiffs’ fifth cause of action for Survival Action fails as a matter of law because Plaintiffs cannot prove Denzil Scott was exposed to an asbestos-containing product for Issue No.6 Plaintiffs’ claim for Punitive Damages is without merit because they have not set forth “clear and convincing” evidence of any act of “malice, oppression, or fraud” committed by DEFENDANT. DEFENDANT bases this motion on this Notice of Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities; the Declaration of Rebecca L. Woodson and the Exhibits filed herewith; the Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts as well as the pleadings, records, and files herein, and on such other oral or documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of this motion. Dated: March 26, 2007 MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATION -3- ‘DEFENDANT METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATION'S NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR INTHE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES