Motion-Secondary: HAROLD KOEPKE et al VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Lake Mi

14999 Harrison

LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP.

Oakland, CA 94)

wes DB nH

o

10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

JOHN W. RANUCCLI, State Bar No. 184801
jwr@llcilp.com

MARIA M. LAMPASONA, State Bar No. 259675

mlampasona@lcllp.com

LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP
Lake Merritt Plaza

1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2600
Oakland, CA 94612-3541

Telephone: (510) 433-2600
Facsimile: (510) 433-2699

Attorneys for Defendant
THE HERTZ CORPORATION

ELECTRONICALLY
FILED

Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco

JUN 17 2014

Clerk of the Court
BY: ROMY RISK
Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

HAROLD KOEPKE and NANCY
KARIDIS-KOEPKE,

Plaintiffs,
v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY; A.B.C.
MOBILE SYSTEMS, individually and as
successor in interest, parent, alter ego, and
equitable trustee of ASSOCIATED BRAKE
COMPANY and WESTERN STATES
BRAKE MANUFACTURING;
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. INC.;
BELL INDUSTRIES INC., individually
and as successor in interest, parent, alter
ego, and equitable trustee of ROX
AUTOMOTIVE; BELNORTEL
CORPORATION, d.b.a. A.B.C. MOBILE
BRAKE OF SAN FRANCISCO;
BORGWARNER MORSE TEC INC.,
individually and as successor in interest,
parent, alter ego and equitable trustee of
BORG-WARNER CORPORATION;
BURLINGAME AUTO SUPPLY;
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE
SYSTEMS, INC., individually and as
successor in interest, parent, alter ego and
equitable trustee of CONTINENTAL
TEVES, INC.; COOPER INDUSTRIES,
LLC, individually and as successor in
interest, alter ego and equitable trustee of
PNEUMO ABEX, LLC and ABEX
CORPORATION; DON L. MORRIS, INC.;
FMC CORPORATION-JOHN

__ 00925-43319 IWR 656326.1

Case No. CGC-13-276217

DECLARATION OF JOHN W RANUCCI IN
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT THE HERTZ
CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT THE
HERTZ CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION AS TO ISSUES 1, 4, 5, 6,7
AND 8

Date: — July 10, 2014

Time: 9:30 a.m.

Dept: 503

Judge: Hon. Teri L. Jackson
Action Filed: | December 3, 2013
Trial Date: June 19, 2014

1

DECL., OF JWR 1SO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

'a
a
a
C
z
<
Zz
9
9

oe
me

ui
a
°
a
a
g
<
a
2
°
a

2
S
&
S
®

=
é
=
s

Oakiand, CA 94612-3544

BEAN AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT
SERVICE DIVISION of FMC
CORPORATION; FOLSOM AUTO
SUPPLY; GENUINE PARTS
COMPANY; H.M. ROYAL, INC.;
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
fka ALLIED SIGNAL, INC., as Successor-
In-Interest to the BENDIX.
CORPORATION; KELSEY-HAYES
COMPANY; LEAR SIEGLER
DIVERSIFIED HOLDINGS CORP.,
individually and as successor in interest,
parent, alter ego and equitable trustee of
ROYAL INDUSTRIES, INC.; LES
VOGEL CHEVROLET COMPANY;
MORTON INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
individually and as successor in interest,
parent, alter ego and equitable trustee of
THIOKOL CORPORATION; NATIONAL
AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ASSOCIATION;
PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION;
individually and as successor in interest,
parent, alter ego and equitable trustee of
EIS BRAKE PARTS AND INDUSTRIAL
& AUTOMOTIVE ASSOCIATES, INC.,
d.b.a. CALL-BLOCK, PNEUMO ABEX
LLC, individually and as successor in
interest, parent, alter ego and equitable
trustee of ABEX CORPORATION; ROX
AUTOMOTIVE; SHELL OIL
COMPANY; SPECIALTY FOREIGN
AUTO PARTS, INC. individually and as
successor in interest, parent, alter ego and
equitable trustee of SPECIALTY
FOREIGN AUTO PARTS; THE BUDD
COMPANY; THE HERTZ
CORPORATION; VOLK WAGEN
GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.; TOYOTA
MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.; W.
BERRY HURLEY CORPORATION,
dib.a. FEDERAL AUTO PARTS;
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY; FIRST DOE through FOUR
HUNDREDTH DOE, inclusive,

Defendants.

fff
itt
‘it
fii

00925-43319 TWR 656326.1 2

DECL. OF JWR ISO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONOakland, CA 94672-:

1999 Harrison Str

LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP

I, John W. Ranucci, declare as follows:

1 1am an attorney licensed to practice before all courts in the State of California and
a partner at the law firm of Lombardi, Loper & Conant LLP, attorneys of record for defendant
The Hertz Corporation.

2. On June 10, 2014, before the Hon. Teri L. Jackson, department 503, the Court
heard oral argument regarding defendant Hertz’s motion for summary judgment or in the
alternative, summary adjudication. At the hearing, the Court denied the motion for summary
judgment and denying the motion for summary adjudication as to issues 1 (negligence/duty), 4
(Fraud / Failure To Warn), 5 (sophisticated user), 6 (Conspiracy To Defraud / Failure To Warn), 7
(Loss Of Consortium) and 8 (Punitive Damages). The Court granted the motion as to issue 2
(breach of implied warranty) and took under submission issue 3 (strict products liability). That
same day, the court issued its minute order confirming the same. A true and correct copy of the
Minute Order, is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

3. On June 12, 2014, the Court issued an Order Denying Defendant The Hertz
Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Summary Adjudication as to Issues 1, 4, 5, 6,
7 and 8. A true and correct copy of that Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A. In essence, the
Court determined that Hertz was outside the “chain of distribution” of the asbestos-related
products and therefore, cannot be strictly liable. A true and correct copy of the June 12, 2014
Order is attached hereto as exhibit B.

4. Defendant Hertz seeks reconsideration of the Court’s June 10, 2014 order denying
the motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication, because the subsequent Order of June
12, 2014, presents a changed circumstance, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. All
of the plaintiffs’ remaining causes of action against Hertz, including the negligence cause of
action, are based on allegations that Hertz was part of the chain of distribution and that Hertz :
“produced, sold and otherwise put (asbestos) into the stream of commerce.” Because the June 12,
2014, Order has determined to Hertz was not part of the chain of distribution, the denial of the
motion for summary judgment/adjudication must be reconsidered,

5. A true and correct copy of plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is attached hereto

00925-43319 JWR 686326.1 3

DECL. OF JWR ISO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION1 |) as exhibit C.

3 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

4 | foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Oakland, California on June 16, 2014.

. Ranucei

vite 2600

ast
nN

Lake Merritt Plaza

Qakland, CA 94642.

4999 Herrison Street,

LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP

(00925-43319 JWR 6563261 4
DECL. OF JWR ISO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONLake Mercitt Plaza
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2500

LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP

Oakland, CA 94812-3641

PROOF OF SERVICE
Harold Koepke, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, et al.
San Francisco County Superior Court Case No.: CGC-13-276217

I, Maria M. Lampasona, hereby declare:

I am a citizen of the United States, over 18 years of age and not a party to the within
action. I am employed in the county of Alameda; my business address is Lake Merritt Plaza,
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2600, Oakland, CA 94612-3541,

On June 16, 2014, I electronically served the document(s) via Lexis Nexis File & Serve
described below:

DECLARATION OF JOHN W RANUCCI IN SUPPORT OF
THE HERTZ CORPORATION’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT THE HERTZ CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AS TO ISSUES 1, 4, 5, 6,7 AND 8

on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the Lexis Nexis File & Serve
website. I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to theilaws of the State of California that

and, California.

the foregoing is true and correct and was execut

M. LAMPASONA

X

00925-43319 IWR 656326.1 5

DECL. OF JWR ISO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONExhibit AExhibit B#1315631

Me Seite

P sete \
Jun 42 2014 1 9
07M

Same Grar ie
JUN 22 2014,
CLERK OF THE COURT
By — taba ho a
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
ASBESTOS LAW AND MOTION DEPARTMENT
HAROLD KOEPKE and NANCY No, CGC-13-276217
KARIDIS-KOEPKE, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT THE
Plaintitts HERTZ CORPORATION'S MOTION
° FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
vs, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AS TO.
a ISSUES ht a a aN AND
0 TOR C GRANTING 8}
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al. ADJUDICATION AS TO ISSUES 2
Defendants. AND3
The Mation of Defendant The Hertz Corporation ("Hertz") for Summary Judgment or
alternatively Summary Adjudication was set for hoaring on June 10, 2014 at 9:30 am. in

Department 503 before the Honorable Teri L. Jackson. The matter was argued and
submitted, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Defendant The Hertz Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied and iis
alternate Motion for Summary Adjudication is denied as to issues 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, granted
as to iysue 2 (breach of implied warranty) and issue 3 (strict liability),
As to Summary Judgment and Summary Adjudication issues 1, 4, 6, 7 and 8,

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT THE HERTZ CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION AS TO ISSUBS 1.4, 5, 6,7 AND 8, AND GRANTING SUMMARY ADIUDICATION AS TO ISSUES 2 AND 3.

COCAS-TIGIET
exnipir ASOA A A Ow oP

defendant failed 10 sustain its initial burden under either prong of Aguilar. Defendant failed
fo sustain its initial burden of demonstrating that plaintiffs do not possess and cannot
reasonably obtain evidence supporting these claims, Defendant is precluded from
successfully invoking the factually devoid proug of Aguilar because it did not demonstrate
that plaintiffs failed to provide meaningfal responses to comprehensive discovery designed to
elici( all the evidence plaintiffs have to support their contention of liability against defendant,
Defendant also jailed to sustain its initial burden as to these issues because it failed to negate
an essential element of plaintiffs' claims.

As to Summary Adjudication issue 5, defendant failed to sustain its burden of
demonstrating thal the sophisticated user defense applics to bar plaintiff’ claims against it.

As to Summary Adjudication issue 2 (breach of implied warranty), defendant
sustained its initial burden and plaintiffs’ opposition did not oppose adjudication of this cause
of action nor did plaintiffs submit admissible evidence creating a triable issue whether
defendant is liable for breach of implied wartanty.

As to issue 3 (strict liability) defendant sustained its initial burden and plaintiffs did
hot submit admissible evidence creating a triable issue whether defendant is Hable under
strict Hability. Public policy limits imposition of lability under the cireumstances in this
cage,

TP 18 SO ORDERED,

Dated: bf Laff Y By:

fonorable Ter?L. Jackson
Judge of the Superior Court

ORDER DENYING UCFENDANT THE HERTZ CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION AS TO ISSUES 1, 4,5, 6, 7 AND 8, AND GRANTING SUMMARY ABJITICA TION AS TO IS8CX5 2 AND 3
GCL 276217Exhibit CKazan, MOCLA,
SaTTerLey &

Ano Lonnon MARAT

SB HARRISON STREET,

UTE,
‘Oneatie, CA 84607
4840) 802-1000
FIX (G10) 895-4913

CBOSCHMIOI736.1

27
28

Joseph D, Satterley, Esq. (C.S.B. #286890)
jsatterley@kazanlaw.com

Carole M. Bosch, Esq. (C.8.B. #239790)
ebosch@kazanlaw.com

KAZAN, McCLAIN, SATTERLEY & GREENWOOD
A Professional Law Corporation

Jack London Market

55 Harrison Street, Suite 400

Oakland, California 94607

Telephone: (510) 302-1000

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
HAROLD KOEPKE and NANCY KARIDIS-~ No, ©GC13276217
KOEPKE,
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, FOR PERSONAL INJURIES;
NEGLIGENCE; BREACH OF
vs. WARRANTIES; STRICT
LIABILITY; FRAUD;
FORD MOTOR COMPANY; A.B.C. MOBILE CONSPIRACY; PREMISES
SYSTEMS, individually and as successor in interest, | LIABILITY; NEGLIGENT
parent, alter ego, and equitable trustee of UNDERTAKING; AND LOSS OF

ASSOCIATED BRAKE COMPANY and WESTERN | CONSORTIUM
STATES BRAKE MANUFACTURING:
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. INC.; BELL Code of Civil Procedure §36(d)
INDUSTRIES INC., individually and as successor in
interest, parent, alter ego, and equitable trustee of
ROX AUTOMOTIVE; BELNORTEL
CORPORATION, d.b.a, A.B.C, MOBILE BRAKE
OF SAN FRANCISCO; BORGWARNER MORSE
TEC INC.,, individually and as successor in interest,
parent, alter ego and equitable trustee of
BORG-WARNER CORPORATION;
BURLINGAME AUTO SUPPLY; CONTINENTAL
AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, INC, individually and
as successor in interest, parent, alter ego and equitable
trustee of CONTINENTAL TEVES, INC.; COOPER
INDUSTRIES, LLC, individually and as successor in
interest, alter ego and equitable trustee of PNEUMO
ABEX, LLC and ABEX CORPORATION; DON L,
MORRIS, INC, FMC CORPORATION-JOHN
BEAN AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT SERVICE
DIVISION; FMC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
individually and as successor in interest, parent, alter
ego, and equitable trustee of JOHN BEAN
AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT SERVICE DIVISION
of FMC CORPORATION; FOLSOM AUTO
SUPPLY; GENUINE PARTS COMPANY; H.M.
ROYAL, INC, HONEY WELL INTERNATIONAL,

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIESKAZAN, MCCLARN,
SATTERLEY &
Greenwoon

PROFESSIONAL LAW

Sonroraion

Rox tonooreNines
86 Hantesox Sreezr,

‘Sure 400
Onan, CA 94607
{o70) 302-4000
Fax (510) 835.0919

CROSCHI3N1 738.1

10

iL

26
27
28

INC., fka ALLIED SIGNAL, INC., as Successor-In-
Interest to the BENDIX CORPORATION;
KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY; LEAR SIEGLER.
DIVERSIFIED HOLDINGS CORP, individually and
as successor in inierest, parent, alter ego and equitable
trastee of ROYAL INDUSTRIES, INC.; LES VOGEL
CHEVROLET COMPANY; MORTON
INTERNATIONAL, LLC, formerly known as
MORTON INTERNATIONAL, INC., individually
and as successor in interest, parent, alter ego and
equitable trustee of THIOKOL CORPORATION;
NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
ASSOCIATION; PARKER HANNIFIN
CORPORATION, individually and as successor in
interest, parent, alter ego and equitable trustee of EIS
BRAKE PARTS AND INDUSTRIAL &
AUTOMOTIVE ASSOCIATES, INC.,, d.b.a, CALI-
BLOCK; PNEUMO ABEX LLC, individually and as
successor in interest, parent, alter ego and equitable
trustee of ABEX CORPORATION; ROX.
AUTOMOTIVE; SHELL OIL COMPANY;
SPECIALTY FOREIGN AUTO PARTS, INC.
individually and as successor in interest, parent, alter
ege and equitable trustee of SPECIALITY POREIGN
AUTO PARTS; THE BUDD COMPANY; THE
HERTZ CORPORATION; VOLKSWAGEN GROUP
OF AMERICA, INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR SALES,
ULS.A,, INC; W. BERRY HURLEY
CORPORATION, d.b.a, FEDERAL AUTO PARTS;
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
FIRST DOE through FOUR HUNDREDTH DOE,
inclusive,

Defendants,

Plaintiff HAROLD KOEPKE alleges:

KIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligence

[Against All Products Defendants]

1

” Plaintiff Harold Koepke brings this action on his own behalf. ‘The masculine form as used

in this complaint, if applicable as shown by the context hereof, applies to a female person or a

corporation,
it
i

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIESKAZAN, MCCLAIN,
SATTERLEY &
GREENWOOD

A PROFESSIONAL LAW

‘CoxPorarion
hex LeanoON MARKET

86 Hanmeson SiReeT,

‘Sure 400
OnKLAND, GA 94807

{510} 302-1000
Fax (340) 835-4013

CSOSCHN3ONIE

13

15

25
26
27
28

I.

Plaintiff does not know the true names and capacities, whether corporate, associate or
individual of defendants sued herein as FIRST DOE through TWO HUNDRED TENTH DOE,
inclusive, and each of them, and for that reason prays leave to insert the trac names and capacities
of said defendants when the same are ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore
alleges that each of the defendants designated herein as a DOE is negligently, intentionally and/or
strictly liable or responsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein referred to, and
proximately caused injury and damages to plaintiff thereby as herein alleged.

TH.

At all times herein mentioned, each of the defendants was the agent and employee of each
of the remaining defendants, and was at al! times acting within the purpose and scope of said
agency and employment, and each defendant has ratified and approved the acts of the remaining
defendants.

Iv.

Defendants FORD MOTOR COMPANY; A.B.C. MOBILE SYSTEMS, individually and
as successor in interest, parent, alter ego, and equitable trustee of ASSOCIATED BRAKE
COMPANY and WESTERN STATES BRAKE MANUFACTURING; AMERICAN HONDA
MOTOR CO. INC.; BELL INDUSTRIES INC,, individually and as successor in interest, parent,
alter ego, and equitable trustee of ROX AUTOMOTIVE; BELNORTEL CORPORATION, ¢.b.a.
A.B.C. MOBILE BRAKE OF SAN FRANCISCO; BORGWARNER MORSE TEC INC.,
individually and as successor in interest, parent, alter ego and equitable irustee of
BORG-WARNER CORPORATION; BURLINGAME AUTO SUPPLY; CONTINENTAL
AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, INC., individually and as successor in interest, parent, alter ego and
equitable trustee of CONTINENTAL TEVES, INC.; COOPER INDUSTRIES, LLC, individually
and as successor in interest, alter ego and equitable trustee of PNEUMO ABEX, LLC atid ABEX
CORPORATION; DON L. MORRIS, INC.; FMC CORPORATION--JOHN BEAN
AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT SERVICE DIVISION; FMC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

individually and as successor in interest, parent, alter ego, and equitable trustee of JOHN BEAN

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIESKazan, MCOLAIN,
SATTERLEY &
{GREENWOOD

APROFESSIONAL LAW

CoRPaRATOW

sei Loncenc Mire
68 Harrason Sree,
6400

‘sum
Oaxgann, CA $4807
{819} 302-1900
Pax (610) 836-4013

CBOSCH/1I01738.4

26
27
28

AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT SERVICE DIVISION of FMC CORPORATION; FOLSOM.
AUTO SUPPLY; GENUINE PARTS COMPANY; H.M. ROYAL, INC.; HONEYWELL
INTERNATIONAL, INC., fka ALLIED SIGNAL, INC., as Successor-In-Interest to the BENDIX.
CORPORATION; KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY; LEAR SIEGLER DIVERSIFIED HOLDINGS
CORP., individually and as successor in interest, parent, alter ego and equitable trustee of ROYAL
INDUSTRIES, INC.; LES VOGEL CHEVROLET COMPANY; MORTON INTERNATIONAL,
LLC, formerly known as MORTON INTERNATIONAL, INC., individually and as successor in
interest, parent, alter ego and equitable trustee of THIOKOL CORPORATION; NATIONAL
AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ASSOCIATION; PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION, individually

and as successor in interest, parent, alter ego and equitable trustee of EIS BRAKE PARTS AND
INDUSTRIAL & AUTOMOTIVE ASSOCIATES, INC,, d.b.a, CALL-BLOCK; PNEUMO ABEX
LLC, individually and as successor in interest, parent, alter ego and equitable trustee of ABEX
CORPORATION; ROX AUTOMOTIVE; SHELL Of. COMPANY; SPECIALTY FOREIGN
AUTO PARTS, INC. individually and as successor in interest, parent, alter ego and equitable
trustee of SPECIALITY FOREIGN AUTO PARTS; THE BUDD COMPANY; THE HERTZ
CORPORATION; VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR SALES,
ULS.A., INC.; W. BERRY HURLEY CORPORATION, d.b.a. FEDERAL AUTO PARTS;
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; FIRST DOE through FIFTIETH DOE,
inclusive, were at all times herein and still ate corporations authorized to and doing business in the
State of California.

v. /

Defendants’ products at issue in this complaint consist of asbestos and asbestos-containing
products, or products as to which defendants knew or should have known that reasonably
foreseeable uses of the products would expose persons such as plaintiff who worked with or
around the products to friable asbestos. These products were defective in their design,
manufacture, labeling, marketing and/or warning and are referred to throughout this complaint as
“asbestos” or “asbestos-containing products.”

i

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIESKAZAN, MCCLAIN,
SATTERLEY &
GREENWOOD

APROFESSIONAL LAYE

GoaPORATION
hase Loxton MARY
SS HARRISON STREET,
188 400

‘OnKeANo, CA 94607
(630) 302-5000

Fx (610) 835-401

‘CBOSCHII01 736.4

26
27
28

Vi.

of mining, manufacturing, assembling, supplving, packaging, installing and labeling asbestos, and

other parties fort use of the id routs to manufacture and a spol prods therefrom.

vi
At all times herein mentioned, defendants FIFTY-FIRST DOE through TWO HUNDRED
TENTH DOE were Officers and Directors of named defendants herein as FIRST DOE through
FIFTIETH DOE.
VL

The defendants, and each of them, acting through their agents, servants and/or employees,

cause and have caused in the past, certain asbestos-containing products and asbestos-related

placed i in the stream of commence with the result that 8

came € into contact and/or use by plaintiff and his co-workers which caused exposure t to plait,

products and materials

Plaintiff Harold Koepke was a worker who, from approximately 1971 until 2002 worked
with and was exposed to asbestos, asbestos products and asbestos-related building materials
mined, manufactured, processed, imported, designed, specified, converted, compounded, sold
and/or installed by the defendants, and each of them. During the course of his career, plaintiff was
exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing materials at the following employments and sites:

(1) From approximately 1971 through 1980, while working at Shell Service Station in

San Francisco, California;
@) From approximately 1980 through 2002, while working at Harold’s Automotive in
San Mateo, California;

Plaintiff was also exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing products through repair,
maintenance and servicing.of motor vehicles,
i
uf

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIESKazan, MCCLAIN,
SATTERLEY &
GREENWOOD

A PROFESSIONAL LAW

ConPORATON
shes Lontow Maree

88 Hagnison Saer,

‘Suse 400
Onwurne, CA 94607
#610) 302-1008
Fax (510) 835-4015

CROSCHH120¢799.4

26
27
28

XxX,

During the course and scope of his attendance and work, plaintiff was exposed to asbestos
ptoducts and asbestos-related materials of defendants, which exposure directly and proximately
caused him to develop an iliness known and designated as mesothelioma.

Xi

The illness and disability of plaintiff is the direct and proximate result of the negligence of

the defendants, and each of them, in that they produced, sold and otherwise put into the stream of

eons tna SENNA Carina

commerce, the foregoing materials which the said defendants, and each of them, knew, or in the

exercise of ordinary care should have > known, were deleterious, poisonous and highly harmful to

sannetohartiesmanetau onsen sete

plaiatifts ‘body, lungs, respiratory system, skin and health,

XI.

Plaintiff, exercising reasonable diligence, discovered the aforealieged conduct, misconduct
and culpability of defendants, and each of them, on or about or after August 10,2013, when
informed of his diagnosis by a physician. Plaintiff could not have discovered such condition
sooner because such condition was brought about without noticeable trauma until it had advanced
to such a point that diagnosis could be made. Such a diagnosis required the services of an expert,
and since plaintiff did not possess such expertise, he could not know, in the exercise of reasonable
care, of the cause of his injury until such time as he was diagnosed and advised. Plaintiff could not
know, until such advice, of the culpability of the defendants, and each of them.

XU

As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the defendants, and each of them,
plaintiff experienced and continues to experience prolonged pain and suffering, the necessity for
medical treatment, injuries including, but not limited to, mesothelioma, severe shock fo his
nervous system, and other injuries, the exact extent of which are unknown to plaintiff,

XIV.

By reason of the aforesaid allegations, it has been necessary for plaintiff to engage the
services of physicians, surgeons, and hospitals; plaintiff does not know the reasonable value of

if

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIESKAZAN, MGCLAIN,
SaTTERLEY &
GREENWOOD

APHOFERSIONNL LAW

Conmonarion

sok Lonnon Mate
65 Hannison Street,
‘Sense 400
Onn. ann, CA 94607
(610) 302-1000
Fc (810) 495-4813

CROSCHNSOTI8.+

said services which were and are still reasonably required and requests leave to amend this
complaint to insert said sum when it is ascertained.
XY.

By reason of the aforesaid allegations, plaintiffhas been unable to follow his normal
gainful occupation for certain periods after the date of said events, and plaintiff has been disabled
for an indefinite time; plaintiff does not now know the value of the employment which has been
lost to him, and requests leave to amend this complaint to insert the reasonable value thereof when
such is ascertained.

XVI.

By reason of the aforesaid negligence of defendants, and each of them, plaintiff has been
damaged to his health, strength, and activity in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 in addition to
special damages herein alleged.

XVI

The foregoing acts of the defendants, and each of them, were done wantonly, willfully,
oppressively and in conscious disregard of the safety of plaintiff herein, in that the defendants, and
each of them, prior to and at the time of the sale of the aforementioned products to plaintiff's
employers or to those entities that installed and/or handled the asbestos products to which plaintiff
was exposed, knew that the foregoing materials released invisible, undetectable respirable asbestos
fibers when installed or handled and that said fibers were exiromely dangerous when inhaled. The
defendants, and each of them, either did not warn or insufficiently warmed regarding the dangerous
nature of said materials, nor placed a sufficient warning on the said material or package thereof
tegarding said dangerous nature, nor took any action to protect those persons who foreseeably
would be exposed to said asbestos products, despite knowing that persons who had no knowledge

of the dangerous and hazardous nature thereof, such as plaintiff, would be exposed to and inhale

25 | asbestos fibers, and plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages hereunder.

26
27
28

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment as is hereinafter set forth.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIESon

KAZAN, MCCLAIN, 25

Sarreriey &
GREENWOOD
APROFESRONAL LAW
ConPoRArON

LONCON MART

shes
88 Hlannison StneET,

‘Surre 400
‘OaxLaND, CA 94607
(640) 392-4000
BAK (840) 835-4915,

CBOSCHII01738-4

26
27
28

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Breach of Implied Warranty
[Against All Products Defendants}

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION, plaintiff complains of defendants, and
each of them, and alleges:

1

Plaintiff by this reference hereby incorporates and makes a part hereof as though fully set
forth herein at length all and singular the allegations contained in the First Cause of Action herein,
excepting therefrom allegations pertaining to negligence. :

i

The defendants sold and/or supplied asbestos and asbestos-related materials to plaintiff or
plaintiff's employers, and each defendant impliedly warranted that the said materials were of good
and merchantable quality and fit for their intended use.

1.

‘The implied warranty made by the defendants, and each of them, that the asbestos and
asbestos-related materials were of good and merchantabie quality for the particular intended use
was breached in that certain harmful, poisonous and deleterious matter and particles were given off
into the atmosphere wherein plaintiff and others in his position carried out their duties as workers
working with such materials and other related materials.

W.

As a direct and proximate result of the breach of implied warranty of good and
merchantable quality and fitness for the particular intended use, plaintiff developed an illness, to
wit: mesothelioma, which caused great disability, as previously set forth.

Vv.

By reason of the aforesaid, plaintiff has been damaged io his health, strength, and activity
in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 in addition to special damages herein alleged.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment as is hereinafter set forth.
it

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INTURIESKAZAN, MCCLAIN, 25

‘SATTERLEY &
GREENWOOD
APRORESSIONAL LAW
Conecramion
ke Lennon: Marit

8S Haanison SrReey,

sure 409
Onstano, GA 94807
£510} 402-1000
FAX (510) 895-4043

CBOSCHASOI738.1

26
27
28

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Striet Product Liability
Manufacturing Defect/Design Defect/Failure to Warn.
{Against All Products Defendants]

AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION, plaintiff complains of defendants, and
each of them, and alleges: ,
L

Plaintiff by this reference hereby incorporates and makes a part hereof as though fully set
forth herein at length all and singular the allegations contained in the First Cause of Action herein,
excepting therefrom allegations pertaining to negligence.
IL
At all times herein mentioned, plaintiff's employers or those entities that installed and/or

handied the products to which plaintiff was exposed purchased from defendants, and each of them,

asbestos and asbestos products hereinafter referred to as products that were defective in design,

manufacturing, labeling, marketing and/or warning.
UW.

Defendants, and each of them, knew that the aforementioned products would be used
without inspection for design, manufacturing, labeling, marketing and/or warning defects by the
user thereof,

Iv.

At all times mentioned herein, plaintiff reasonably was unaware of the dangerous nature of
the aforementioned products.

Vv.

At ali times mentioned herein, defendants, and each of them, were aware of the dangerous
and defective nature of the design, manufacturing, labeling and/or marketing of the
aforementioned products, when said products were used in the manner for which they were
intended, and were aware that persons who foreseeably would be exposed to the asbestos
containing products were not aware of the dangerous and defective nature of the design,

manufacture, labeling and/or marketing of the products, yet defendants took no action to warn or

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIESazau.Miccsan, 2°
SAYTERLEY &
GREENWOOD

somoreanemtae 20
Conporstion

roc Loswon Meas

so Hanwuson Stacer, 27

Sure 880

‘Onkiaio, CA 94007
(sic) 02-1000 9g

ax (610) 095-4813

BOSCH 301798,1

otherwise protect those who foreseeably would be exposed to said defective and improperly
labeled products.
vi.

Defendants manufactured, distributed, and sold asbestos-containing products. The
asbestos-containing products contained a manufacturing defect when they left defendants’
possession, and plaintiff used those asbestos-containing products in a way that was reasonably
foreseeable to defendants.

Vi.

The aforementioned products were defective in design because they did not perform as
safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected them to perform. At the time plaintiff used
the asbestos-coutaining products, they were substantially the same as when they left defendants’
possession; any change made to the asbestos-containing products after they left defendants’
possession was reasonably foreseeable to defendants; the asbestos-containing products did not
perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected at the time of use; and plaintiff
used the products in the way that was reasonably foreseeable to defendants.

VIEL

The aforementioned products lacked sufficient instructions and warnings of potential
dangers. Defendants manufactured, distributed, and sold asbestos-containing products; those
asbestos-containing products had potential dangers that were known or knowable by the use of
scientific knowledge available at the time of the manufacture, distribution, and sale of the
products; the potential hazards presented a substantial danger to plaintiff ordinary consumers
would not have recognized the potential dangers; defendants failed to adequately warn or instruct
of the potential dangers; and these asbestos-containing products were used in a way that was
reasonably foreseeable to defendants.

x.

The aforementioned products were used by plaintiff in the manner for which they were

intended, or plaintiff foresceably was exposed to said products when they were used in the manner

for which they were intended.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 10KAZAN, MCCLAIN,
SATVERLEY &

‘Ongeand, CA 84807
(19) 392-2000
Fax (540) 895-4913

CBOSCHHI0I736.1

28

X.

As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing conduct, plaintiff developed an illness, to

wit: mesothelioma, which caused great disability, as previously set forth.
xi.

As a proximate result of the defective design, manufacturing, labeling, marketing and/or
warning of those aforementioned materials and products, plaintiff was generally damaged as is
niore fully set forth herein and in addition has sustained special damages hereinabove alleged.

XIE

The foregoing acts of the defendants, and each of them, were done wantonly, willfully,
oppressively and in conscious disregard of the safety of plaintiff herein, in that the defendants, and
each of them, prior to and at the time of the sale of the aforementioned products to plaintiff's
employers or to those entities that installed and/or handled the asbestos products to which plaintiff
was exposed, knew that the foregoing products and materials released invisible, undetectable
respirable asbestos fibers when installed or handled and that said fibers were extremely dangerous
when inhaled. ‘The defendants, and each of them, either did not warn or insufficiently warned
regarding the dangerous nature of said materials, nor placed a sufficient warning on the said
material or package thereof regarding said dangerous nature, nor took any action to protect those
persons who foreseeably would be exposed #0 said asbestos products, despite knowing that persons
who had no knowledge of the dangerous and hazardous nature thereof, such as plaintiff, would be
exposed to and inhale asbestos fibers, and plaintiffis entitled to punitive damages hereunder.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment as is hereinafter set forth.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Fraud/Failure to Warn
{Against All Products Defendants]

AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION, plaintiff complains of defendants, and
each of them, and alleges:
i
if

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIESKAZAN, MCCLAIN, 25

SAVTERLEY &
GREENWOOD
APROTERSIONAL LAN
Conboratran
nek Loon Maree
6 Hagaison StRtET,

Sua de

waa Ga sato?
4510) 302-1060
Fax (540) 035-4019

OBOSCHASOT B.A

26
27
28

L

Plaintiff by this reference > hereby i incorporates and makes a part hereof as though fally set

setae

forth herein at length al and singular the all

i rst Cause of Action hein,

excepting therefrom allegations pertaining to negligence,

I.

At all times pertinent hereto, the defendants, and each of them, owed plaintiff a duty, as
provided for in Sections 1708 and 1710 of the Civil Code of the State of California, to abstain
from injuring the person, property or rights of the plaintiff. In violation of that duty, the
defendants, and each of them, did do the acts and omissions, when a duty to act was imposed, as
set forth herein, thereby proximately causing injury to the plaintiff as is more fully set forth herein.
Such acts and omissions consisted of acts falling within Section 1710, and more specifically were
suggestions of fact which were not true and which the defendants did not believe to be true,
assertions of fact of that which was not true, which the defendants had no reasonable ground for
believing it to be true, and the suppression of facts when a duty existed to disclose it, all as are
more fully set forth herein, and the violation of which as to any one such item gave rise to a cause
of action for violation of the rights of the plaintiff as provided for in the aforementioned code
sections.

HL

Since 1924, the defendants, and each of them, have known and have been possessed of the
truc facts consisting of medical and scientific data and other knowledge which clearly indicated .
that the materials and products referred to herein were and are hazardous to the health and safety

of the plaintiff, and others in plaintiffs position working in close proximity with such materials

and have known of the dangerous propensities of other of the aforementioned materials and
products prior to that time and with intent to deceive plaintiff, and others in his position and with
intent that he and such others should be and remain ignorant of such facts and with intent to induce
plaintiff and such others to alter their positions to their injury and/or risk and in order to gain
advantages did de the following acts:

i

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES RBKazan, MCCLAIN,
SATTERLEY &
GREENWOOD

NPROFESSIONN LAW

CORPORATION

ACK LONDON MARKT

85 Hannison, Srecr,
Sure 401

OnisLAN, CA Sogn
510) 302-1008

Fax (810) Bees

CROSCHM 307384

26
27
28

Defendants, and each of them, did not label any of the aforementioned asbestos-
containing materials and products as to the hazards of such materials and products
to the health and safety of plaintiff and others in his position working in close
proximity with such materials until 1964, when certain of such materials were
labeled by some, but not all, of the defendants herein, when the knowledge of such
hazards was existing and known to defendants, and each of them, since 1924, By
not labeling such materials as to their said hazards defendants, and each of them,
caused to be suggested as a fact to plaintiff and plaintiff's employers that it was safe
for plaintiff to work in close proximity to such materials when in fact it was not
true and defendants did not believe it to be true;

Defendants, and each of them, suppressed information relating to the danger of use
of the aforementioned materials by requesting the suppression of information to
plaintiff and the general public concerning the dangerous nature of the
aforementioned materials to workers by not allowing such information to be
disseminated in a manner which would give general notice to the public and
knowledge of the hazardous nature thereof when defendants were bound to disclose

such information;

Defendants, and each of they sold the aforementioned products and materials to

nO an IE asians siti A USIPSMATR DASA REET ARE RESET

plaintiff's employers and others without t advising such employers and others of the

fus Use cof ‘such materials to pers Sons WO:

had a uty to disclose such dangers. ‘Thereby, defendants caused t to be: positively

asserted to plaintiff's employers of that which was not true and which defendants

had no reasonable ground for believing it to be true, in a manner not warranted by
the information possessed by said defendants, and each of them, of that which was
and is not true, to wit, that it was safe for plaintiff to work in close proximity to

such materials;

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES BKazan, MCCLAtN,
SATTERLEY &

rox Lonoon Maviset

S95 Hannigon StREET,

‘Sure a0
Caw.An, CA 94607
(610) 302-1000
nx (S10) 8354613

CROSCHAIOITIS 4

27
28

Defendants, and cach of them, suppressed from everyone, including plaintiff and
plaintiffs employers, and continue fo suppress, medical and scientific data and
knowledge of the accurate results of studies including, but not limited to,
suppressing information contained in the unpublished Lanza report by participating
in the influencing of A.J. Lanza to change his report, which altered version was
published in Public Health Reports, Volume 50 at page 1 in 1935, when they were
bound to disclose it unaltered, and by causing Asbestos Magazine, a widely
disseminated trade journal, to omit any mention of the dangers of inhaling asbestos
dust, thereby lessening the probability of notice of danger to those exposed to

asbestos, and thereby caused plaintiff to be and remain, ignorant thereof;

‘Defendants, and each of them, belonged to, participated in, and financially

supported the Asbestos Textile Institute and other industry organizations which
actively promoted the suppression of information of danger to users of the
aforementioned products and materials for and on behalf of defendants, and cach of
them, thereby misleading plaintiff and plaintiff's employers to their prejudice
through the suggestions and deceptions set forth above in this cause of action. The
Dust Control Committee, which changed its name to the Air Hygiene Committee,
of the Asbestos Textile Institute was specifically enjoined to study the subject of
dust control; discussions in such committee were held many times of (i) the dangers
inherent in asbestos and the dangers which arise from the lack of control of dust
and (ii) the suppression of such information from 1946 to a date unknown to
plaintiff at this time;

Commencing in 1930 with the study of mine and mill workers at the Thetford
asbestos mines in Quebec, Canada, and the study of workers at Raybestos-
Manhattan plants in Manheim and Charleston, South Carclina, defendants knew
and possessed medical and scientific information of the connection between

inhalation of asbestos fibers and asbestosis, which information was disseminated

through the Asbestos Textile Institute and other industry organizations to all other

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 14Kazan, MCCLAIN, 25

SaTTERLEY &
GREENWOOD:
APROFESBIONAL L/W
ConpoRnnoN
JACK LONOGN MICEY
55 Hargoon Sine,

‘SUITE,
nmuatos 0h 94807

{10} 302-1000
ax (S10) Bam a8 8

CBOSCHITI01738.4

27
28

defendants, and each of them, herein. Between 1942 and 1950 the defendants, and
each of them, knew and possessed medical and scientific information of the
connection between inhalation of asbestos fibers and-cancer, which information
was disseminated through the Asbestos Textile Institute and other industry
organizations to all other defendants herein. Thereby, defendants suggested as a
fact that which is not true and disseminated other facts likely to mislead plaintiff
and plaintiff's employers and which did mislead them for want of communication of
true facts which consisted of the aforedescribed medical and scientific data and
other knowledge by not giving plaintiff or plaintiff's employers the true facts
concerning such knowledge of danger, when defendants were bound to disclose it;
Failed to warn plaintiff and plaintiff's employers of the nature of the said materials,
to wit: dangerous when breathed, causing pathological offects without noticeable
trauma, when possessed with knowledge that such material was dangerous and a
threat to the health of persons coming into contact therewith and under a duty to
disclose it;

Failed to provide plaintiff with information concerning adequate protective masks
and devices for use with and application and installation of the products of the
defendants, and each of them, when they knew that such protective measures were
necessary, when they were under a duty to disclose such information, and if not
advised as to use would result in injury to the plaintiff and others applying and
installing such materials;

Concealed from plaintiff the true nature of the industrial exposure of plaintiff, the
fact that they and each of them, know that plaintiff and anyone similarly situated,
upon inhalation of asbestos would, in time develop irreversible conditions of either
pneumoconiosis, asbestosis or cancer, or all, and such person, would immediately be
in not good health, the fact that he had in fact been exposed to harmful materials
and the fact that the materials to which he was exposed would cause pathological

effects without noticeable trauma, when under a duty to and bound to disclose it;

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 1sKazan, MoCLaa,
SATTERLEY &
GREENWOOD

APROSEEGIONAL LAY

‘CORPORATION
bea Loncon MaARieT
SS FawRison STREET,
Surts 460

‘Oneant, CA $4607
(610) 362-5000

Fax (510) 835-4013

CBOSOHNI0726.1

23
24

26
27
28

i. Failed to provide information to the public at large and buyers, users and physicians
employed by plaintiff and plaintiff's employers for the purpose of conducting
physical examinations of plaintiff and others working in contact with asbestos as to
the true nature of the hazards of asbestos, in order for such physicians to diagnose,
and treat workers coming into contact with asbestos, in that the materials to which
plaintiff had been exposed would cause pathological effects without noticeable
trauma, when under a duty to supply such information and such failure is likely to
mislead for want of communication of such facts; and

kk. Defendants, and each of them, affirmatively misrepresented that asbestos
containing products were safe to use and handle, when they knew such statements
were false when made, or made said false statements recklessly and without regard
for whether the statements were true,

Iv.

Each of the foregoing acts, suggestions, assertions and forbearances to act when a duty
existed to act, the said defendants, and each of them, having such knowledge, knowing plaintiff
did not have such knowledge and would breathe such material innocently, was done falsely and
fraudulently and with full intent to induce plaintiff to. work in a dangerous environment and to
cause plaintiff to remain unaware of the true facts, all in violation of Section 1710 of the Civil
Code of the State of California.

v.

Plaintiff relied upon the said acts, suggestions, assertions and forbearances; had plaintiff

known the true facts, plaintiff would not have continued to work in the said environment.
Vi.

By reason of the aforesaid premises, plaintiff has been damaged in his health, strength and

activity in addition to special damages hereinabove alleged.
VIL.
Each of the said acts and forbearances to act were caused by false, fraudulent and malicious

motives of the defendants, and cach of them, and plaintiff is entitled to exemplary and punitive

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 16KAZAN, MCCLAIN, as

SATTERLEY &
GREENWOOD
APROPESSIONAL LAW

COnktati, CA 94607
4840} 302-1900
Fax (510) 895-4943

OBOSCHA304738,.4

26

28

damages. The foregoing conduct of the defendants, and each of them, was done wantonly,
willfully, oppressively and in conscious disregard of the safety of plaintiff herein, in that the
defendants, and each of them, prior to and at the time of the sale of the aforementioned products to
plaintiff's employers or to those entities that installed and/or handled the asbestos products to
which plaintiff were exposed, knew that the foregoing materials released invisible, undetectable
respirable asbestos fibers when installed or handled and that sald fibers were extremely dangerous
when inhaled. In addition to the unlawful conduct described above, the defendants, and each of «
them, either did not warn or insufficiently warned regarding the dangerous nature of said materials,
nor placed a sufficient warning on the said material or package thereof regarding said dangerous
nature, nor took any action to protect those persons who foreseeably would be exposed to said
asbestos products, despite knowing that persons who had no knowledge of the dangerous and
hazardous nature thercof, such plaintiff, would be exposed to and inhale asbestos fibers, and
plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages hereunder.
VILL
Plaintiff had no knowledge that the foregoing acts were actionable at law when they were

committed, and cannot be charged with knowledge or inquiry thereof.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment as is hereinafter set forth.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Conspiracy

[Against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
and Does 211-250, Inclusive]

L
Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation of the preceding causes
of action herein,
I.
‘The term “conspirators” as used in this cause of action includes, but is not limited to,
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (“MET LIFE”), Anthony Lanza, M.D.,
Johns-Manville Corporation (“Manville”), Raybestos-Manhattan Corporation (“Raybestos”) and

the otlier entities and individuals identified in this cause of action.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIESKazan, MCCLAIN,
SATTERLEY &
GREENWOOD

APROSESSONAL LAW

‘ConnoRaTICN,

shox Lonpon truer
SG Hanrcon Street,
‘Suine 400

‘Onuata, CA 84007
1510) 902-1060
Fax (510) 835-4943,

CBOSCHI301738.41

25
26
27
28

iy.

Plaintiff does not know the true names and capacities, whether corporate, associate or
individual of defendants sued herein as TWO-HUNDRED AND ELEVENTH DOE through TWO
HUNDRED TWENTY-FIFTH DOE, inclusive, and each of them, and for that reason prays leave
to insert the true names and capacities of said defendants when the same are ascertained, Plaintiff
is informed and believes and therefore alleges that each of the defendants designated herein as a
DOE is negligently, intentionally and/or strictly liable or responsible in some manner for the
events and happenings herein referred to, and proximately caused injury and damages to plaintiff
thereby as herein alleged. At all times herein mentioned, defendants TWO-HUNDRED AND
TWENTY-SIXTH DOE through TWO HUNDRED FIFTIETH DOE were Officers and Directors
of named defendants herein as TWO-HUNDRED AND ELEVENTH DOE through TWO
HUNDRED TWENTY-FIFTH DOE. At ali times herein mentioned, each of the defendants was
the agent and employee of each of the remaining defendants, and was at all times acting within the
purpose and scope of said agency and employment, and each defendant has ratified and approved
the acts of the remaining defendants.

NW,

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein mentioned
defendant METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY was and is a corporation organized
and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York or the laws of some other
state or foreign jurisdiction, and that this defendant was and is authorized to do and/or was and is
doing business in the State of California, and regularly conducted or conducts business in the

County of Alameda, State of California. At times relevant to this cause of action, MET LIFE was

an insurer of Manville and Raybestos.
Vv.
Decedent was exposed to asbestos-containing dust created by the use of the asbestos
products manufactured, distributed and/or supplied by one or more of the conspirators named
below. The exposure to the asbestos or asbestos-related products supplied by the conspirator(s)

caused