Preview
Dennis M. Young, Esq. SBN 121178
Jennifer M. McCormick, Esq. SBN 189693
FOLEY & MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P.
300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1900
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 590-9500
Facsimile: (510) 590-9595
Email: dyoung@foleymansfield.com
Attorneys for Defendant,
BELNORTEL CORPORATION, d.b.a.
ABC MOBILE BRAKE OF SAN FRANCISCO
ELECTRONICALLY
FILED
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
MAY 12 2014
Clerk of the Court
BY: VANESSA WU
Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
HAROLD KOEPKE and NANCY KARIDIS-
KOEPKE,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.
Defendants.
Case No. CGC-13-276217
EXHIBITS “A — F” TO THE DECLARATION
OF DENNIS M. YOUNG IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT BELNORTEL’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Date: June 10, 2014
Time: 9:30 am.
Dept.: 503
Judge: Hon. Teri L. Jackson
Complaint Filed: December 3, 2013
Trial Date: June 16, 2014
I
EXHIBITS “A — F° TO THE DECLARATION OF DENNIS M. YOUNG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT BELNORTEL’S MOTION POR SUMMARY,
ADTUDICATIONEXHIBIT A_. SUMMONS - SUM-100
(CITACION JUDICIAL) (609 PARA USO DELACORTE
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.
(Aviso AL DEMANDADO): (See Additional Parties Attachment for list of all
jefendants.)
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: HAROLD KOEPKE and NANCY
{LO ESTA DEMANDANDO. EL DEMANDANTE): KARIDIS-KOEPKE
NOTICE? You have been sued, The covi may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information
below. in
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and hava @ copy
served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will-not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want:the court to hear your
casa. There may be a court.form that you Gan use. ee fesponse: You can find these court forms and mora infarmation at the California Courts
), your county-Jaw library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot ‘pay the filing fee, ask.
tHe.court clerk for a fee waivar form. 1 yourdo-not file your response on‘time, yau may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property
‘There are other Jogat requirements. You may want {o-calt an attorney right away. if you do aot know-an attomey, you may want lo call an attornay
sefarsal Sarvica. Hf you cannot afford anvattorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a vonprofit egal services program. You can locate
Se Favelt I Help Canter:
for waived fees arid
“remisién.a abogados, Sino pueda pedal ‘a.un abogatlo,.es posible que’cumpla con-fos requisitos para ablaner servicios legates gratuitos de un
. | }programa de servicios legalas sin tines da lucro, ‘Puade encontrar estos griipos sin lines de lucro‘en of. sido webda Califomla Legal Services,
|. awe jawnelpcalforsia. om), ‘en al Contre de Ayuda de las Corfes de Califomia, (www.sucarte.ca.gov) o poniéndase on contacto con la: carta.o el.
eb a
| pagar ef gravaman da !a.corte anfas de.quie fa corte puede desdchar al'caso,
SEMBHG ~23-27 6217
se
A913 (Fax)
nm
THE COURT
‘DATE: jerk, by : sre germany DOLLY >
(Fecha) ee (Secratario) SEDAS GUT? cagnuinto) : «
(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (farm POS-OT0).) ce ~—
Para prueba de entréga de ésta‘citalén use et fortatario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-070}). .
< ~~—~nw. NOTIGE TO THE PERSON:SERVED; You are sarved ..
[J] 2s an individual defendant.
E—] as tha person sued under the fletitious name of (spacily): .
tal BELNORTEL CORPORATION, d.b.a. A.B,C, MOBILE BRAKE OF SAN
3. BS on behalf of (speci): ERANCISCO os
| BEAN)
- uiider: BSS) CCP 416:10.(cdrporation) CU] OCP 416.80 (minor)
[=] cer 416.20 (defunct corporation) (| COP 416,70 (conservatée),
[] CP 416.46 (agscciation of partnership) ["] CCP 416.90 (authorized person)
Ls LZ] other(speciy:
4.(]_by personal delivery on (date): . . : Pag ot4
4° feleiat Counet of Gaitornia
1 SUNO0:fRev, Jory 4, 2008)
Talia ag a Waly “SUMMONS: soi ‘Gexto af Civil Praceture 66 412.20, 465SUM-200(A)
SHORT TITLE: HAROLD KOEPKE and NANCY KARIDIS-KOEPKE vs. CASE NUMBER:
[FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE
-» This form may be used as an attachment to any summons if space does not permit the listing of all parties on the summons.
-> If this attachment is used, insert the following statement in the plaintiff or defendant box on the summons: “Additional Parties
Attachment form is attached.”
List additional parties (Check only one box. Use a separate page for each type of party.):
[—) Plaintiff Defendant C_] cross-Complainant [] Cross-Defendant
ql)
@)
6)
@
6)
(6)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(a)
Q2)
(13)
(14)
“(15)
(16)
a7
(18)
(19)
(20)
@1)
22)
(23)
@4)
5)
(26)
QT)
(28)
Q29)
0)
GH
FORD MOTOR COMPANY;
AB.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.;
EMC CORPORATION-JOHIN 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.;
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.
CALI-BLOCK;
PNEUMO ABEX LLC, individually and as successor in interest, parent, alter ego and equitable trustee of ABEX
CORPORATION;
ROX AUTOMOTIVE;
SHELL OfL COMPANY;
SPECIALTY FOREIGN AUTO PARTS, INC. individually and as successor in interest, parent, alter ego and
equitable trustee SPECIALITY FOREIGN AUTO PARTS,
THE BUDD COMPANY;
THE HERTZ CORPORATION;
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.;
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.;
W. BERRY HURLEY CORPORATION, d.b.a. FEDERAL AUTO PARTS;
page J of 2
Page 1.0 4
"dell Ceunes of Gaara ADDITIONAL PARTIES ATTACHMENT sok
Ce Phu.
SUM-200(4) [Rev. January 1, 2007} Attachment to Summons
TUS.SUM-200(A)
SHORTTHLE: HAROLD KOEPKE and NANCY KARIDIS-KOEPKE vs. CASE NUMBER:
| FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE
-> This form may be used as an attachment to any summons if space does not permit the listing of all parties on the summons.
-> If this attachment is used, insert the following statement in the plaintiff or defendant box on the summons: “Additional Parties
Attachment form is attached."
List additional parties (Check only one box. Use a separate page for each type of party.):
[1] Plaintitt ©] Defendant (_] Cross-Compiainant {_] cross-Defendant
G2) METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
(33) FIRST DOE through FOUR HUNDREDTH DOF, inclusive
Page 2 of 2
Page 1of 1
erie Count of Caton ADDITIONAL PARTIES ATTACHMENT
SLIM-200(A) (Rev. January 1, 2007} Attachment to SummonsDoe
i G
we
Li
WOT
S
t
CFR
Dp x
a
wv
24
Kazan, icctan, 25
‘LYONS,
GREENWOOD &
Haney, PLO 28
Jem Lonoon MARKET
3S HARRISON STREET,
(810) 465-7728
Fx (510) 835-1913 28,
BOSCHNETOS384
Joseph D. Satterley, Esq. (C.S.B. #286890) 9
| AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. INC.; BELL
jsatterley@kazanlaw.com se oo
Carole M. Bosch, Esq. (C.S.B. #239790) see
cbosch@kazanlaw.com Ss \ atl
KAZAN, McCLAIN, SATTERLEY, LYONS, See ag «
GREENWOOD & OBERMAN oP Oe
A Professional Law Corporation set Yor ht te
Jack London Market or en
55 Hatrison Street, Suite 400 st a
Oakland, California 94607 e
Telephone: (510) 302-1000 . st
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
HAROLD KOEPKE and NANCY KARIDIS- No. B ee on a4
KOLPKE. Glo4 5-27 6247
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL
Plaintiffs, INJURYES; NEGLIGENCE;
BREACH OF WARRANTIES;
vs. ” STRICT LIABILITY; FRAUD;
° CONSPIRACY; PREMISES
FORD MOTOR COMPANY; A.B.C. MOBILE LIABILITY; AND LOSS OF
SYSTEMS, individually and as successor in interest, | CONSORTIUM
parent, alter ego, and equitable trustee of - .
ASSOCIATED BRAKE COMPANY and WESTERN | Code of Civil Procedure §36(d)
STATES BRAKE MANUFACTURING; .
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.
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES24
Kazan, MoCuan, 29
Lyons,
GREENWOOD &
Harcey, Pic 26
hex Lonbou Weer
SSHARRISON STRESS,
‘Sure 400
Oaxcann, CA 94607
(610) 302-1000
(810) 468-7728,
Fax (510) 828-4013 28
SBOSCHI270838.4
ROYAL, INC.; HONEY WELL 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. 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
ego and equitable trustee of SPECIALITY FOREIGN
AUTO PARTS; THE BUDD COMPANY; THE
HERTZ CORPORATION; VOLKSWAGEN GROUP
OF AMERICA, INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR SALES,
US.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:
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligence
[Against All Products Defendants}
I.
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.
TW
u
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES24
Kazan, MOCLAIN, 25
Lyons,
‘GREENWOOD &
Hanepic 26
rok Levon Woe
eB Hartacon Stacy,
sure 400
ORKLAND, CA 94607
640) 302-1000.
(610) 486.7728
Fax (510) 835-4813 28
SBOSCHITZ70638,1
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 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
sirictly 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.
Ii.
Atall 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.
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, 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--J OHN BEAN
7 | AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT SERVICE DIVISION, FMC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
individually and as successor in interest, parent, alter ego, and equitable trustee of JOHN BEAN
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJGRIES24
Kazan Meciaw, 29
Lyons,
GREENWOOD &
HarLey, PLC 26
hex Lorbow MRT
SS HARRIGON STREET,
SunE4Go 2’
OAKLAND, CA 24607
(510) 302-1000
(510) 465.7728
Fax (6topas6-am13 28
SBOSCHN270638.1
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. CALLBLOCK; 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 SPECIALITY FOREIGN AUTO PARTS; THE BUDD COMPANY; THE HERTZ
CORPORATION; VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR SALES,
US.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 are 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
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES . 4com
24
Kazan, McLain, 25
Lyons,
GREENWOOD & :
Wariev,PLC | 26
ek Lonnod MaRKET
SHARRISON STREET,
Sureqco | OF
(510) 405-7728
swe (510) 855-4013 28
JOSCHN 2706381
VI.
At all times herein mentioned defendants, and each of them, were engaged in the business
of mining, manufacturing, assembling, supplying, packaging, installing and labeling asbestos, and
products produced therefrom, for sale to and use by the members of the general public as well as to
other parties for use of the said products to manufacture and supply products therefrom.
VIL
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,
VII.
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
materials, to be placed in the stream of commerce with the result that said products and materials
came into contact and/or use by plaintiff and his co-workers which caused exposure to plaintiff.
Ix.
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;
(2) 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.
HW
“
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 5wo oN
24
Kazan, MCCLAIN, 25
Lyons,
GREENWOOD &
Hariey, PLO 26
Jes Lanna Meret
35 Hatuson SYREET,
‘Sure 400
OMMAND, CA 94807
(S10) 302-1000
(610) 465-7728
Fax(st0) 895-4913 28,
BOSCHN2 708381
xX.
During the course and scope of his attendancé and work, plaintiff was exposed to asbestos
products and asbestos-related materials of defendants, which exposure directly and proximately
caused him to develop an illness known and designated as mesothelioma.
XL
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
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
plaintiff's body, lungs, respiratory system, skin and health.
XI.
Plaintiff, exercising reasonable diligence, discovered the aforealleged 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.
SIL
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 to 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
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES . : 6
Harvey, PLC 26
pei Lonnon Wari
'BHaRwAsoN SIRE,
‘SUITE 400
DAKLANO, CA 24607
(610) 302-1000
(610) 465-7728
Fax@iossags 28
SOSCHINEI0538.4
specifying, requiring, mandating, or otherwise directing and/or facilitating the use of, or
advertising asbestos brake shoe grinding machines and related products and equipment, for which
each of the herein named ASBESTOS BRAKE SHOR GRINDING MACHINE DEFENDANTS is
liable for the tortious conduct of their ALTERNATE ENTITIES.
Iv.
Atall times herein mentioned, the ASBESTOS BRAKE SHOE GRINDING MACHINE,
DEFENDANTS, and each of them, singularly and jointly, negligently and carelessly
manufactured, fabricated, designed, failed to warn, distributed and sold certain asbestos brake shoe
grinding machines in that said products, while being used in a manner that was reasonable, failed
to protect users, consumers, workers and others, including the plaintiff herein, who were in
proximity to said asbestos brake shoe grinding machines from exposure to and inhalation and
ingestion of asbestos fibers caused to be released from asbestos-containing brake linings by the
intended use of the asbestos brake shoe grinding machines, thereby rendering said devices unsafe
and dangerous for use. The ASBESTOS BRAKE SHOE GRINDING MACHINE DEFENDANTS
‘knew, or should have known, and intended, that the aforesaid asbestos brake shoe grinding
machines would be used by consumers, workers, bystanders, and others, including the plaintiff
herein, in conjunction with asbestos-containing brake linings. During all relevant time periods, all
brake shoe linings used with or on automobiles, light trucks and commercial trucks, as serviced by.
the defendants’ products in the United States, contained asbestos. Some of this asbestos was
friable and present upon the surface of the brake shoe, either from contamination of the
manufacturing airspaces during the manufacturing and packaging processes or due to incomplete
encapsulation. However, the vast majority of the asbestos was non-friable and physically bound or
otherwise attached in a matrix in the asbestos brake lining. Until subjected to defendants’
products, such asbestos fiber bundles would remain physically bound or otherwise attached in a
matvix in the non-friable asbestos brake lining. Defendants' machines ground and abraded that
hard lining, as they were designed to do, and subjected said linings to pressures, temperatures and
force inadequate to convert asbestos into inert forsterite, making portions of it into a fine powder
and releasing the formerly bound-up asbestos into the air as airbome fibers that presented a
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 34Kazan, Mocuamn, 25
Lyons,
GrEeNwoon &
Haney, PLC 26
MART
OnRANO, CA 94607
1610) 802-4000
(510) 485-7728
rex (srajess.dors 28
SBOSCHZ70538.4
significant danger to human health, as they would be breathed in by anyone in the area around the
brake grinding machine during or after its use. These machines' only intended use was for grinding
brake shoe linings, in order to match the size and shape between the shoe and drum for the full
braking efficiency.
Vv.
Thus, the ASBESTOS BRAKE SHOE GRINDING MACHINE DEFENDANTS knew, or
should have known, that their brake shoe grinding machines would be used on asbestos-containing
brake linings and, when used in the manner intended, would cause the release of asbestos fibers
(that otherwise would have remained in the matrix of the brake lining) into the air around the users
and bystanders, and others, including the plaintiff, and create a hazard from defendants’ products'
intended and only use. Further, defendant specifically designed their machines for grinding
asbestos-containing brake linings. In fact, said machines had no other function than to grind
asbestos-containing brake linings. Thus, that was the only "inevitable use" of the machines, within
the meaning of Tellez-Cordova v. Campbell-Hausjield (2004) 129 Cal.App.4th 577. Said
machines, products and equipment, while being used without adequate warning and in a manner
that was reasonably foreseeable, failed to protect plaintiff from exposure to asbestos fibers they
themselves caused to be released fiom asbestos-containing brake linings, resulting in severe and
permanent injury to plaintiff. Said machines could have been designed and built with features that
would have prevented humans from exposure to asbestos made airborne by the machines. These
design failures include, without limitation, failure to have effective dust collection systems that
would have prevented wholesale asbestos fiber release and worksite contamination causing
humans to be exposed to the airbome asbestos fibers caused to be release from their bound matrix
through their use and/or failure to ensure that the abrading mechanism did not come into contact
with the asbestos-containing brake lining until achieving sufficient revolution velocity (RPMs),
temperature and pressure were achieved, so as to immediately convert the asbestos fibers in the
brake lining, permanently and completely, into inert forsterite, which would not have presented
any danger to humans. The actions of said asbestos brake shoe grinding machines themselves
created the asbestos exposure and risk of harm. The asbestos brake shoe grinding machines were
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 35Kazan, Miccian, 25
Lyons,
GREENWOOD &
Hariiy,PLC 26
RC LERCH MARIE
85 Harrason STREET,
suredo OF
(E10) 466-7728
Fax(oio}ea5-4e13 28,
‘BOSCHI270638.1
defective and unsafe for their intended purpose in that these products caused, and failed to prevent,
the inhalation and ingestion of asbestos fibers by plaintiff. The use of defendants’ asbestos brake
shoe grinding machines created the asbestos harm that injured plaintiff. The defect existed in said
products at the time they left the possession of the ASBESTOS BRAKE SHOE GRINDING:
MACHINE DEFENDANTS and released fibers which causes serious disease and/or death. The
defect in said products did, in fact, cause personal injuries, including asbestosis, other lung
damage, and cancer to "exposed persons," including plaintiff herein, while being used in a
reasonably foreseeable manner thereby rendering the same defective, unsafe and dangerous for
use.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against defendants, their ALTERNATE
ENTITIES, and each of them, as hereinafter set forth.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Strict Liability
[Against Asbestos Brake Shoe Grinding Machine Defendants]
AS AND FOR A FURTHER, EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CAUSE OF
ACTION FOR PRODUCTS LIABILITY, PLAINTIFF complains of ASBESTOS BRAKE SHOE
GRINDING MACHINE DEFENDANTS), AND for a cause of action fo product liability alleges:
LL.
Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the allegations
contained in the prior Causes of Action. The asbestos brake shoe grinding machines were defective
and unsafe for their intended purpose in their design and manufacture — and also in the lack of any
adequate warning or instruction the ASBESTOS BRAKE SHOE GRINDING MACHINE
DEFENDANTS gave in the use of the machines in a way that would avoid creation of an asbestos-
dust hazard — in that said products caused, and thereafter also failed to prevent, the indiscriminate
release, citculation, wholesale contamination of products, workspace, breathing zone and worksite,
and thereby the inhalation and ingestion of asbestos fibers by workers, bystanders, occupants and
others, including plaintiff. These defects existed in said products at the time they left the
possession of the defendant. Use of said products did, in fact, lead to inhalation and ingestion of
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 3624
Kazan, Mecuan, 25
Lyons,
GREENWOOD &
HarLey, PLO 26
(oc LONDON MARKET
39 HARRISON STREET,
(610) 465-7728
Fax (510) 885-4013 28,
BOSCHN270639.1
asbestos fibers, which causes serious disease and/or death. The defects in said products did, in
fact, cause personal injuries, including asbestosis, other lung damage, and cancer to "exposed
persons", including plaintiff herein, while being used in a reasonably foreseeable manner thereby
rendering the same defective, unsafe and dangerous for use.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against defendants, their ALTERNATE
ENTITIES, and each of them, as hereinafter set forth.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligence/Failure to Warn
[Against All Premises Defendants]
AS AND FOR A NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION, plaintiff complains of defendants A.B.C.
MOBILE SYSTEM, individually and as successor in interest, parent, alter ego, and equitable
trustee of ASSOCIATED BRAKE COMPANY and WESTERN STATES BRAKE
MANUFACTURING; BELNORTEL CORPORATION, d.b.a. ABC. MOBILE BRAKE OF SAN
FRANCISCO; SHELL OIL COMPANY; and THREE HUNDRED AND FIRST DOE through
THREE HUNDRED FIFTIETH DOE, inclusive. These defendants were at all times herein and
still are corporations authorized to and doing business in the State of California, and are hereafter
designated the PREMISES defendants. Plaintiff alleges against the PREMISES defendants, and
each of them:
I.
Plaintif£, by this reference, hereby incorporates and makes a part thereof, as though fully
set forth herein, each and every allegation contained in the First through Eighth Causes of Action
herein.
I.
Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the defendants sued herein under
the fictitious names of THREE HUNDRED AND FIRST DOE through THREE HUNDRED
FIFTIETH DOE, inclusive, whether corporate, associate or individual, and plaintiff prays leave to
amend this complaint to allege said true names and/or capacities when the same are ascertained.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that each of the defendants designated
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INIURIES . 37Kazan, McCuam, 25
Lyons,
GREENWOOD &
HARLEY, PLC 26
shox Losecai tire
SB HARRISON STREET,
Sureado 27
OAKLAND: CA 94607
(610) 02-1000
(st0) 485-7728
Fax (Siopaasacig 28
BOSCHM270838.4
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 as hereinafter alleged.
Ul.
At all times herein mentioned, defendants THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-SIXTH
DOB through THREE HUNDRED FIFTIETH DOE, were Officers and Directors of named
defendants herein as THREE HUNDRED AND FIRST DOE through THREE HUNDRED
TWENTY-FIFTH DOE. /
Iv.
At all times mentioned herein, the PREMISES defendants cach respectively owned, leased,
maintained, managed, and/or controlled one or more of those premises where plaintiff was present
worked as set forth in Paragraph IX of the First Cause of Action, which is herein incorporated by
reference.
v.
Prior to and at said times and places, cach said PREMISES defendant caused certain
asbestos-containing materials and products and machinery, including but not limited to air
compressors and brake shoe grinding machines, to be specified, manufactured, constructed,
supplied, installed, maintained, used, replaced, and/or repaired and otherwise be present at the
aforesaid premises, by its own workers and/or various independent contractors so as to allow and
cause the release of dangerous quantities of toxic asbestos fibers into the ambient air and thereby
contaminate the entire premises and create a hazardous condition and unreasonable risk of harm
and personal injury to plaintiff and other persons exposed to said asbestos fibers while working on
said premises, or otherwise using or coming on said premises, unless special precautions were
taken. :
VL.
At all relevant times mentioned herein, each said PREMISES defendant had a
nondelegable duty to exercise reasonable care to inspect and make safe the premises it owned,
maintained, managed and/or controlled, and to discover the aforesaid dangerous conditions.
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES : 384
Kazan, MCCLAIN, 25
Lyons,
GREENWOOD & 2
HARLEY, PLC 6
hex bono eRe
SS HARRISON STREER,
sure 400
DaxLand, CA 84607
(610) 302-1000
(510) 465-728
Fak (510) 826-4913 2B
BOSCH/1270638.4
PREMISES defendants, and each of them, also created or contributed to said dangerous
conditions, by specifying, manufacturing, supplying, installing, maintaining, using, replacing,
repairing, and/or requiring the use and/or handling of asbestos-containing materials on said
premises, and by failing to properly supervise their own employees or the employees of others over
whom said defendants had control in performing work which caused the release of asbestos fibers
into the ambient air and the contamination of the entire premise, when defendants knew or in the
exercise of ordinary and reasonable care should have known that the foregoing conditions and
activities were present on said premises and created a dangerous and hazardous condition and
unreasonable risk of harm and personal injury to plaintiff and other persons coming on the
aforesaid premises.
vil.
At all times relevant herein, plaintiff entered said premises and used and occupied said .
premises as intended and for the benefit and advantage of each said PREMISES defendant and at
each said PREMISES defendant's request and invitation. In so doing, plaintiff was exposed to
dangerous quantities of asbestos fibers released into the ambient air by the aforesaid hazardous
conditions and activities managed, maintained, initiated, and/or otherwise created, controled, or
caused by each said PREMISES defendant. :
VIIL
Plaintiff at all relevant times used the premises with due cave and was unaware of and in
the exercise of ordinary care could not have discovered the risk of personal injury and the
hazardous conditions created by the aforesaid presence of asbestos products and materials on said
premises.
x
At all relevant times mentioned herein, each said PREMISES defendant knew, or in the
exercise of ordinary and reasonable care should have known, that the premises that were in its
control would be used as alleged without knowledge of, or inspection for, defects or dangerous
conditions, which were not apparent or obvious, and that persons using said premises would not be
u
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 3024
Kazan, MCCLAIN, 25
Lows,
GREENWOOD &
HaRLey, PLC 26
docx LONDN MARKET
‘SS HARRISOn STREET,
sureo D7
(610) $02-1000
(510) 465-7728
Fax (610) 828-4973 28
SBOSCHN 270638.1
aware of the aforesaid hazardous conditions and contamination on the premises to which they were
exposed.
x
At ail times pertinent hereto, the PREMISES defendants, and each of them, owed plaintiff
a duty, as provided in Section 1708 of the Civil Code of the State of California, to abstain from
injuring the person, property or rights of plaintiff. When a duty to act was imposed, as set forth
herein, the defendants, and each of them, did do the acts and omissions in violation of that duty,
thereby proximately causing injury to the plaintiff as is more fully set forth herein.
XI.
At all relevant times mentioned herein, PREMISES defendants, and each of them, failed to
warn plaintiff and plaintiff's employer that said materials were dangerous when breathed and
caused pathological effects without noticeable trauma, despite the fact that defendants possessed
knowledge and were under a duty to disclose that such material was dangerous and a threat to the
health of persons coming into contact therewith. ,
XI.
At all relevant times mentioned herein, PREMISES defendants, and each of them, failed to
provide plaintiff with information concerning adequate protective masks and devices to be used °
when applying, installing, disturbing, or otherwise working around asbestos-containing products,
and each of them, despite the knowledge of the PREMISES defendants and a duty to disclose that
such protective measures were necessary and would result in injury to the plaintiff and others
applying, installing, disturbing, or otherwise working around such materials if not so advised.
XUL
At all relevant times mentioned herein, PREMISES defendants, and each of them,
concealed from plaintiff the true nature of the industrial exposure of plaintiff, and knew 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 that the materials
to which he was exposed would cause pathological effects without noticeable trauma despite the -
fact that PREMISES defendants were under a duty to and bound to disclose it.
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 40‘GREENWOOD &
Harvey, PLC 26
{8k Lonooh Meroe
SS HARRISON STREET,
Sure 400
‘OAKLAND, CA 94607
(S10)302-1000
(810) 465.728
Fc (510) 835-4013 28
SBOSCHHZ70638.1
XIV,
At all relevant times mentioned herein, PREMISES defendants, and each of them, failed to
provide information of the true nature of the hazards of ashestos materials and that exposure to
these materials would cause pathological effects without noticeable trauma to the public, including
buyers, users, and physicians employed by plaintiff and plaintiff's employers so that said
physicians could examine, diagnose and treat plaintiff and others who were exposed to asbestos,
despite the fact that PREMISES defendants, and each of them, were under a duty to so inform and
said failure was misleading.
XV.
At all relevant times mentioned herein, said PREMISES defendants, and each of them,
negligently failed to take steps to abate or correct the dangerous conditions, or to make the
premises safe or to warn plaintiff of the existence of the aforesaid dangerous conditions and
hazards on said premises, although the risk of plaintiff's injuries was a foreseeable consequence of
the negligence of defendants and each of them.
XVI.
As a legal consequence of the foregoing, plaintiff developed an asbestos-related disease
which caused his illness as previously set forth and has suffered general and special damages as ‘
alleged herein.
: XVIL
The foregoing acts of the PREMISES defendants, and each of them, were done wantonly,
willfully, oppressively and in conscious disregard of the safety of plaintiff herein, by the
defendants, and each of them, in that the defendants, and each of them knew, at the time
defendants manufactured, supplied or required the use and/or handling of asbestos-containing
materials and/or failed to properly supervise their own employees or the employees of others over
whom defendants had control who installed and/or handled the asbestos products to which plaintiff
was exposed, that the foregoing 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
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES aKazan, MoCLAN, 29
Lyons,
GREENWOOD &
HaRLey, FLO 26
(610) 302-1000
(530) 469-728
Fax Gr0)835-4013 2B
“BOSCH1270038.1
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 thereof, such as plaintiff, would be exposed to and inhale
asbestos fibers, and plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages hereunder.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment as is hereinafter set forth.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligent Hiring and Negligent Exercise of Retained Control
[Against AH Premises Defendants} ~ ~~~ ~~
AS AND FOR’A TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION, plaintiff complains of PREMISES
defendants, and each of them, as follows:
L
Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by reference the First through Ninth Causes of
Action of this Complaint,
Il.
At all relevant times herein, the PREMISES defendants and each of them negligently hired,
retained and kept contractors on jobs to perform asbestos related work, and knew or in the exercise
of reasonable care and diligence should have known that the contractors, independent contractors,
subcontractors, employees, manufacturers, suppliers, distributors, workers and others these
defendants employed ot-engaged to or responsible for the manufacture, distribution, installation,
inspection, maintenance, repair, replacement, removal and/or disposing of asbestos and asbestas-
containing materials on the aforementioned premises were incompetent and unfit to perform the
duties for which they were employed, retained, hired or used, and that an unreasonable risk of
harm to plaintiff and other persons on the aforesaid premises would exist as a legal consequence of
such initial and/or continued employment, retention or contract. PREMISES defendants and each
of them failed to exercise reasonable caution in selecting, retaining and continuing to use each of
the employees, contractors, independent contractors and/or subcontractors who performed
asbestos-related work, excluding those that employed plaintiff, even though said PREMISES
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 42Kazan, McCLAI,
Lyons,
GREENWOOD &
HARLEY, PLC
(510) 488-7728.
Fax (520) 835-4813
BOSCH/1270698,1
24
25
26
28
defendants knew or in the reasonable exercise of ordinary and reasonable care should have known
that failure to choose these persons carefully to perform asbestos-related work and/or allow such
persons to continue to perform asbestos-related work after the PREMISES defendants, and each of
them, became aware of the negligent manner in which the work was being performed created a
dangerous and hazardous condition and unreasonable risk of harm and personal injury to plaintiff
and other workers or persons so exposed while working for or in the vicinity of negligent
contractors or exposed to asbestos fibers on such persons’ clothing, shoes and person. PREMISES
defendants, and each of them, also negligently exercised the control they retained of the operative
details — including, without limitation, the asbestos-related details — of plaintiff's work, thereby
negligently exposing plaintiff to asbestos that was a legal cause of plaintiff's mesothelioma.
il.
The foregoing acts of the PREMISES defendants, and each of them, were done wantonly,
willfully, oppressively and in conscious disregard of the safety of plaintiff herein, by the defendants,
and each of them, in that the defendants, and each of them knew — at the time defendants
manufactured, supplied or required the use and/or handling of asbestos-containing materials to which
plaintiff was exposed, and/or failed to properly train, hire and/or supervise their own employees or
the employees of others over whom defendants had control who installed and/or handled the
asbestos products to which plaintiff was exposed, and/or negligently exercised the control they
retained of the asbestos-related details of plaintiffs — that the foregoing 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 these 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 asbestos fibers, and plaintiff is entitled to
punitive damages hereunder.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment as is hereinafter set forth.
“COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 4B
Preview
Dennis M. Young, Esq. SBN 121178 Jennifer M. McCormick, Esq. SBN 189693 FOLEY & MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P. 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1900 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 590-9500 Facsimile: (510) 590-9595 Email: dyoung@foleymansfield.com Attorneys for Defendant, BELNORTEL CORPORATION, d.b.a. ABC MOBILE BRAKE OF SAN FRANCISCO ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco MAY 12 2014 Clerk of the Court BY: VANESSA WU Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO HAROLD KOEPKE and NANCY KARIDIS- KOEPKE, Plaintiffs, VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al. Defendants. Case No. CGC-13-276217 EXHIBITS “A — F” TO THE DECLARATION OF DENNIS M. YOUNG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT BELNORTEL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Date: June 10, 2014 Time: 9:30 am. Dept.: 503 Judge: Hon. Teri L. Jackson Complaint Filed: December 3, 2013 Trial Date: June 16, 2014 I EXHIBITS “A — F° TO THE DECLARATION OF DENNIS M. YOUNG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT BELNORTEL’S MOTION POR SUMMARY, ADTUDICATIONEXHIBIT A_. SUMMONS - SUM-100 (CITACION JUDICIAL) (609 PARA USO DELACORTE NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al. (Aviso AL DEMANDADO): (See Additional Parties Attachment for list of all jefendants.) YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: HAROLD KOEPKE and NANCY {LO ESTA DEMANDANDO. EL DEMANDANTE): KARIDIS-KOEPKE NOTICE? You have been sued, The covi may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below. in You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and hava @ copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will-not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want:the court to hear your casa. There may be a court.form that you Gan use. ee fesponse: You can find these court forms and mora infarmation at the California Courts ), your county-Jaw library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot ‘pay the filing fee, ask. tHe.court clerk for a fee waivar form. 1 yourdo-not file your response on‘time, yau may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property ‘There are other Jogat requirements. You may want {o-calt an attorney right away. if you do aot know-an attomey, you may want lo call an attornay sefarsal Sarvica. Hf you cannot afford anvattorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a vonprofit egal services program. You can locate Se Favelt I Help Canter: for waived fees arid “remisién.a abogados, Sino pueda pedal ‘a.un abogatlo,.es posible que’cumpla con-fos requisitos para ablaner servicios legates gratuitos de un . | }programa de servicios legalas sin tines da lucro, ‘Puade encontrar estos griipos sin lines de lucro‘en of. sido webda Califomla Legal Services, |. awe jawnelpcalforsia. om), ‘en al Contre de Ayuda de las Corfes de Califomia, (www.sucarte.ca.gov) o poniéndase on contacto con la: carta.o el. eb a | pagar ef gravaman da !a.corte anfas de.quie fa corte puede desdchar al'caso, SEMBHG ~23-27 6217 se A913 (Fax) nm THE COURT ‘DATE: jerk, by : sre germany DOLLY > (Fecha) ee (Secratario) SEDAS GUT? cagnuinto) : « (For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (farm POS-OT0).) ce ~— Para prueba de entréga de ésta‘citalén use et fortatario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-070}). . < ~~—~nw. NOTIGE TO THE PERSON:SERVED; You are sarved .. [J] 2s an individual defendant. E—] as tha person sued under the fletitious name of (spacily): . tal BELNORTEL CORPORATION, d.b.a. A.B,C, MOBILE BRAKE OF SAN 3. BS on behalf of (speci): ERANCISCO os | BEAN) - uiider: BSS) CCP 416:10.(cdrporation) CU] OCP 416.80 (minor) [=] cer 416.20 (defunct corporation) (| COP 416,70 (conservatée), [] CP 416.46 (agscciation of partnership) ["] CCP 416.90 (authorized person) Ls LZ] other(speciy: 4.(]_by personal delivery on (date): . . : Pag ot4 4° feleiat Counet of Gaitornia 1 SUNO0:fRev, Jory 4, 2008) Talia ag a Waly “SUMMONS: soi ‘Gexto af Civil Praceture 66 412.20, 465SUM-200(A) SHORT TITLE: HAROLD KOEPKE and NANCY KARIDIS-KOEPKE vs. CASE NUMBER: [FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al. INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE -» This form may be used as an attachment to any summons if space does not permit the listing of all parties on the summons. -> If this attachment is used, insert the following statement in the plaintiff or defendant box on the summons: “Additional Parties Attachment form is attached.” List additional parties (Check only one box. Use a separate page for each type of party.): [—) Plaintiff Defendant C_] cross-Complainant [] Cross-Defendant ql) @) 6) @ 6) (6) (8) (9) (10) (a) Q2) (13) (14) “(15) (16) a7 (18) (19) (20) @1) 22) (23) @4) 5) (26) QT) (28) Q29) 0) GH FORD MOTOR COMPANY; AB.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.; EMC CORPORATION-JOHIN 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.; 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. CALI-BLOCK; PNEUMO ABEX LLC, individually and as successor in interest, parent, alter ego and equitable trustee of ABEX CORPORATION; ROX AUTOMOTIVE; SHELL OfL COMPANY; SPECIALTY FOREIGN AUTO PARTS, INC. individually and as successor in interest, parent, alter ego and equitable trustee SPECIALITY FOREIGN AUTO PARTS, THE BUDD COMPANY; THE HERTZ CORPORATION; VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.; W. BERRY HURLEY CORPORATION, d.b.a. FEDERAL AUTO PARTS; page J of 2 Page 1.0 4 "dell Ceunes of Gaara ADDITIONAL PARTIES ATTACHMENT sok Ce Phu. SUM-200(4) [Rev. January 1, 2007} Attachment to Summons TUS.SUM-200(A) SHORTTHLE: HAROLD KOEPKE and NANCY KARIDIS-KOEPKE vs. CASE NUMBER: | FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al. INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE -> This form may be used as an attachment to any summons if space does not permit the listing of all parties on the summons. -> If this attachment is used, insert the following statement in the plaintiff or defendant box on the summons: “Additional Parties Attachment form is attached." List additional parties (Check only one box. Use a separate page for each type of party.): [1] Plaintitt ©] Defendant (_] Cross-Compiainant {_] cross-Defendant G2) METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, (33) FIRST DOE through FOUR HUNDREDTH DOF, inclusive Page 2 of 2 Page 1of 1 erie Count of Caton ADDITIONAL PARTIES ATTACHMENT SLIM-200(A) (Rev. January 1, 2007} Attachment to SummonsDoe i G we Li WOT S t CFR Dp x a wv 24 Kazan, icctan, 25 ‘LYONS, GREENWOOD & Haney, PLO 28 Jem Lonoon MARKET 3S HARRISON STREET, (810) 465-7728 Fx (510) 835-1913 28, BOSCHNETOS384 Joseph D. Satterley, Esq. (C.S.B. #286890) 9 | AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. INC.; BELL jsatterley@kazanlaw.com se oo Carole M. Bosch, Esq. (C.S.B. #239790) see cbosch@kazanlaw.com Ss \ atl KAZAN, McCLAIN, SATTERLEY, LYONS, See ag « GREENWOOD & OBERMAN oP Oe A Professional Law Corporation set Yor ht te Jack London Market or en 55 Hatrison Street, Suite 400 st a Oakland, California 94607 e Telephone: (510) 302-1000 . st Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO HAROLD KOEPKE and NANCY KARIDIS- No. B ee on a4 KOLPKE. Glo4 5-27 6247 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL Plaintiffs, INJURYES; NEGLIGENCE; BREACH OF WARRANTIES; vs. ” STRICT LIABILITY; FRAUD; ° CONSPIRACY; PREMISES FORD MOTOR COMPANY; A.B.C. MOBILE LIABILITY; AND LOSS OF SYSTEMS, individually and as successor in interest, | CONSORTIUM parent, alter ego, and equitable trustee of - . ASSOCIATED BRAKE COMPANY and WESTERN | Code of Civil Procedure §36(d) STATES BRAKE MANUFACTURING; . 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. COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES24 Kazan, MoCuan, 29 Lyons, GREENWOOD & Harcey, Pic 26 hex Lonbou Weer SSHARRISON STRESS, ‘Sure 400 Oaxcann, CA 94607 (610) 302-1000 (810) 468-7728, Fax (510) 828-4013 28 SBOSCHI270838.4 ROYAL, INC.; HONEY WELL 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. 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 ego and equitable trustee of SPECIALITY FOREIGN AUTO PARTS; THE BUDD COMPANY; THE HERTZ CORPORATION; VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, US.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: FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence [Against All Products Defendants} I. 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. TW u COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES24 Kazan, MOCLAIN, 25 Lyons, ‘GREENWOOD & Hanepic 26 rok Levon Woe eB Hartacon Stacy, sure 400 ORKLAND, CA 94607 640) 302-1000. (610) 486.7728 Fax (510) 835-4813 28 SBOSCHITZ70638,1 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 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 sirictly 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. Ii. Atall 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. 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, 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--J OHN BEAN 7 | AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT SERVICE DIVISION, FMC TECHNOLOGIES, INC., individually and as successor in interest, parent, alter ego, and equitable trustee of JOHN BEAN COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJGRIES24 Kazan Meciaw, 29 Lyons, GREENWOOD & HarLey, PLC 26 hex Lorbow MRT SS HARRIGON STREET, SunE4Go 2’ OAKLAND, CA 24607 (510) 302-1000 (510) 465.7728 Fax (6topas6-am13 28 SBOSCHN270638.1 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. CALLBLOCK; 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 SPECIALITY FOREIGN AUTO PARTS; THE BUDD COMPANY; THE HERTZ CORPORATION; VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, US.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 are 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 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES . 4com 24 Kazan, McLain, 25 Lyons, GREENWOOD & : Wariev,PLC | 26 ek Lonnod MaRKET SHARRISON STREET, Sureqco | OF (510) 405-7728 swe (510) 855-4013 28 JOSCHN 2706381 VI. At all times herein mentioned defendants, and each of them, were engaged in the business of mining, manufacturing, assembling, supplying, packaging, installing and labeling asbestos, and products produced therefrom, for sale to and use by the members of the general public as well as to other parties for use of the said products to manufacture and supply products therefrom. VIL 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, VII. 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 materials, to be placed in the stream of commerce with the result that said products and materials came into contact and/or use by plaintiff and his co-workers which caused exposure to plaintiff. Ix. 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; (2) 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. HW “ COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 5wo oN 24 Kazan, MCCLAIN, 25 Lyons, GREENWOOD & Hariey, PLO 26 Jes Lanna Meret 35 Hatuson SYREET, ‘Sure 400 OMMAND, CA 94807 (S10) 302-1000 (610) 465-7728 Fax(st0) 895-4913 28, BOSCHN2 708381 xX. During the course and scope of his attendancé and work, plaintiff was exposed to asbestos products and asbestos-related materials of defendants, which exposure directly and proximately caused him to develop an illness known and designated as mesothelioma. XL 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 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 plaintiff's body, lungs, respiratory system, skin and health. XI. Plaintiff, exercising reasonable diligence, discovered the aforealleged 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. SIL 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 to 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 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES . : 6 Harvey, PLC 26 pei Lonnon Wari 'BHaRwAsoN SIRE, ‘SUITE 400 DAKLANO, CA 24607 (610) 302-1000 (610) 465-7728 Fax@iossags 28 SOSCHINEI0538.4 specifying, requiring, mandating, or otherwise directing and/or facilitating the use of, or advertising asbestos brake shoe grinding machines and related products and equipment, for which each of the herein named ASBESTOS BRAKE SHOR GRINDING MACHINE DEFENDANTS is liable for the tortious conduct of their ALTERNATE ENTITIES. Iv. Atall times herein mentioned, the ASBESTOS BRAKE SHOE GRINDING MACHINE, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, singularly and jointly, negligently and carelessly manufactured, fabricated, designed, failed to warn, distributed and sold certain asbestos brake shoe grinding machines in that said products, while being used in a manner that was reasonable, failed to protect users, consumers, workers and others, including the plaintiff herein, who were in proximity to said asbestos brake shoe grinding machines from exposure to and inhalation and ingestion of asbestos fibers caused to be released from asbestos-containing brake linings by the intended use of the asbestos brake shoe grinding machines, thereby rendering said devices unsafe and dangerous for use. The ASBESTOS BRAKE SHOE GRINDING MACHINE DEFENDANTS ‘knew, or should have known, and intended, that the aforesaid asbestos brake shoe grinding machines would be used by consumers, workers, bystanders, and others, including the plaintiff herein, in conjunction with asbestos-containing brake linings. During all relevant time periods, all brake shoe linings used with or on automobiles, light trucks and commercial trucks, as serviced by. the defendants’ products in the United States, contained asbestos. Some of this asbestos was friable and present upon the surface of the brake shoe, either from contamination of the manufacturing airspaces during the manufacturing and packaging processes or due to incomplete encapsulation. However, the vast majority of the asbestos was non-friable and physically bound or otherwise attached in a matrix in the asbestos brake lining. Until subjected to defendants’ products, such asbestos fiber bundles would remain physically bound or otherwise attached in a matvix in the non-friable asbestos brake lining. Defendants' machines ground and abraded that hard lining, as they were designed to do, and subjected said linings to pressures, temperatures and force inadequate to convert asbestos into inert forsterite, making portions of it into a fine powder and releasing the formerly bound-up asbestos into the air as airbome fibers that presented a COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 34Kazan, Mocuamn, 25 Lyons, GrEeNwoon & Haney, PLC 26 MART OnRANO, CA 94607 1610) 802-4000 (510) 485-7728 rex (srajess.dors 28 SBOSCHZ70538.4 significant danger to human health, as they would be breathed in by anyone in the area around the brake grinding machine during or after its use. These machines' only intended use was for grinding brake shoe linings, in order to match the size and shape between the shoe and drum for the full braking efficiency. Vv. Thus, the ASBESTOS BRAKE SHOE GRINDING MACHINE DEFENDANTS knew, or should have known, that their brake shoe grinding machines would be used on asbestos-containing brake linings and, when used in the manner intended, would cause the release of asbestos fibers (that otherwise would have remained in the matrix of the brake lining) into the air around the users and bystanders, and others, including the plaintiff, and create a hazard from defendants’ products' intended and only use. Further, defendant specifically designed their machines for grinding asbestos-containing brake linings. In fact, said machines had no other function than to grind asbestos-containing brake linings. Thus, that was the only "inevitable use" of the machines, within the meaning of Tellez-Cordova v. Campbell-Hausjield (2004) 129 Cal.App.4th 577. Said machines, products and equipment, while being used without adequate warning and in a manner that was reasonably foreseeable, failed to protect plaintiff from exposure to asbestos fibers they themselves caused to be released fiom asbestos-containing brake linings, resulting in severe and permanent injury to plaintiff. Said machines could have been designed and built with features that would have prevented humans from exposure to asbestos made airborne by the machines. These design failures include, without limitation, failure to have effective dust collection systems that would have prevented wholesale asbestos fiber release and worksite contamination causing humans to be exposed to the airbome asbestos fibers caused to be release from their bound matrix through their use and/or failure to ensure that the abrading mechanism did not come into contact with the asbestos-containing brake lining until achieving sufficient revolution velocity (RPMs), temperature and pressure were achieved, so as to immediately convert the asbestos fibers in the brake lining, permanently and completely, into inert forsterite, which would not have presented any danger to humans. The actions of said asbestos brake shoe grinding machines themselves created the asbestos exposure and risk of harm. The asbestos brake shoe grinding machines were COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 35Kazan, Miccian, 25 Lyons, GREENWOOD & Hariiy,PLC 26 RC LERCH MARIE 85 Harrason STREET, suredo OF (E10) 466-7728 Fax(oio}ea5-4e13 28, ‘BOSCHI270638.1 defective and unsafe for their intended purpose in that these products caused, and failed to prevent, the inhalation and ingestion of asbestos fibers by plaintiff. The use of defendants’ asbestos brake shoe grinding machines created the asbestos harm that injured plaintiff. The defect existed in said products at the time they left the possession of the ASBESTOS BRAKE SHOE GRINDING: MACHINE DEFENDANTS and released fibers which causes serious disease and/or death. The defect in said products did, in fact, cause personal injuries, including asbestosis, other lung damage, and cancer to "exposed persons," including plaintiff herein, while being used in a reasonably foreseeable manner thereby rendering the same defective, unsafe and dangerous for use. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against defendants, their ALTERNATE ENTITIES, and each of them, as hereinafter set forth. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Strict Liability [Against Asbestos Brake Shoe Grinding Machine Defendants] AS AND FOR A FURTHER, EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PRODUCTS LIABILITY, PLAINTIFF complains of ASBESTOS BRAKE SHOE GRINDING MACHINE DEFENDANTS), AND for a cause of action fo product liability alleges: LL. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the allegations contained in the prior Causes of Action. The asbestos brake shoe grinding machines were defective and unsafe for their intended purpose in their design and manufacture — and also in the lack of any adequate warning or instruction the ASBESTOS BRAKE SHOE GRINDING MACHINE DEFENDANTS gave in the use of the machines in a way that would avoid creation of an asbestos- dust hazard — in that said products caused, and thereafter also failed to prevent, the indiscriminate release, citculation, wholesale contamination of products, workspace, breathing zone and worksite, and thereby the inhalation and ingestion of asbestos fibers by workers, bystanders, occupants and others, including plaintiff. These defects existed in said products at the time they left the possession of the defendant. Use of said products did, in fact, lead to inhalation and ingestion of COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 3624 Kazan, Mecuan, 25 Lyons, GREENWOOD & HarLey, PLO 26 (oc LONDON MARKET 39 HARRISON STREET, (610) 465-7728 Fax (510) 885-4013 28, BOSCHN270639.1 asbestos fibers, which causes serious disease and/or death. The defects in said products did, in fact, cause personal injuries, including asbestosis, other lung damage, and cancer to "exposed persons", including plaintiff herein, while being used in a reasonably foreseeable manner thereby rendering the same defective, unsafe and dangerous for use. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against defendants, their ALTERNATE ENTITIES, and each of them, as hereinafter set forth. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence/Failure to Warn [Against All Premises Defendants] AS AND FOR A NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION, plaintiff complains of defendants A.B.C. MOBILE SYSTEM, individually and as successor in interest, parent, alter ego, and equitable trustee of ASSOCIATED BRAKE COMPANY and WESTERN STATES BRAKE MANUFACTURING; BELNORTEL CORPORATION, d.b.a. ABC. MOBILE BRAKE OF SAN FRANCISCO; SHELL OIL COMPANY; and THREE HUNDRED AND FIRST DOE through THREE HUNDRED FIFTIETH DOE, inclusive. These defendants were at all times herein and still are corporations authorized to and doing business in the State of California, and are hereafter designated the PREMISES defendants. Plaintiff alleges against the PREMISES defendants, and each of them: I. Plaintif£, by this reference, hereby incorporates and makes a part thereof, as though fully set forth herein, each and every allegation contained in the First through Eighth Causes of Action herein. I. Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the defendants sued herein under the fictitious names of THREE HUNDRED AND FIRST DOE through THREE HUNDRED FIFTIETH DOE, inclusive, whether corporate, associate or individual, and plaintiff prays leave to amend this complaint to allege said true names and/or capacities when the same are ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that each of the defendants designated COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INIURIES . 37Kazan, McCuam, 25 Lyons, GREENWOOD & HARLEY, PLC 26 shox Losecai tire SB HARRISON STREET, Sureado 27 OAKLAND: CA 94607 (610) 02-1000 (st0) 485-7728 Fax (Siopaasacig 28 BOSCHM270838.4 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 as hereinafter alleged. Ul. At all times herein mentioned, defendants THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-SIXTH DOB through THREE HUNDRED FIFTIETH DOE, were Officers and Directors of named defendants herein as THREE HUNDRED AND FIRST DOE through THREE HUNDRED TWENTY-FIFTH DOE. / Iv. At all times mentioned herein, the PREMISES defendants cach respectively owned, leased, maintained, managed, and/or controlled one or more of those premises where plaintiff was present worked as set forth in Paragraph IX of the First Cause of Action, which is herein incorporated by reference. v. Prior to and at said times and places, cach said PREMISES defendant caused certain asbestos-containing materials and products and machinery, including but not limited to air compressors and brake shoe grinding machines, to be specified, manufactured, constructed, supplied, installed, maintained, used, replaced, and/or repaired and otherwise be present at the aforesaid premises, by its own workers and/or various independent contractors so as to allow and cause the release of dangerous quantities of toxic asbestos fibers into the ambient air and thereby contaminate the entire premises and create a hazardous condition and unreasonable risk of harm and personal injury to plaintiff and other persons exposed to said asbestos fibers while working on said premises, or otherwise using or coming on said premises, unless special precautions were taken. : VL. At all relevant times mentioned herein, each said PREMISES defendant had a nondelegable duty to exercise reasonable care to inspect and make safe the premises it owned, maintained, managed and/or controlled, and to discover the aforesaid dangerous conditions. COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES : 384 Kazan, MCCLAIN, 25 Lyons, GREENWOOD & 2 HARLEY, PLC 6 hex bono eRe SS HARRISON STREER, sure 400 DaxLand, CA 84607 (610) 302-1000 (510) 465-728 Fak (510) 826-4913 2B BOSCH/1270638.4 PREMISES defendants, and each of them, also created or contributed to said dangerous conditions, by specifying, manufacturing, supplying, installing, maintaining, using, replacing, repairing, and/or requiring the use and/or handling of asbestos-containing materials on said premises, and by failing to properly supervise their own employees or the employees of others over whom said defendants had control in performing work which caused the release of asbestos fibers into the ambient air and the contamination of the entire premise, when defendants knew or in the exercise of ordinary and reasonable care should have known that the foregoing conditions and activities were present on said premises and created a dangerous and hazardous condition and unreasonable risk of harm and personal injury to plaintiff and other persons coming on the aforesaid premises. vil. At all times relevant herein, plaintiff entered said premises and used and occupied said . premises as intended and for the benefit and advantage of each said PREMISES defendant and at each said PREMISES defendant's request and invitation. In so doing, plaintiff was exposed to dangerous quantities of asbestos fibers released into the ambient air by the aforesaid hazardous conditions and activities managed, maintained, initiated, and/or otherwise created, controled, or caused by each said PREMISES defendant. : VIIL Plaintiff at all relevant times used the premises with due cave and was unaware of and in the exercise of ordinary care could not have discovered the risk of personal injury and the hazardous conditions created by the aforesaid presence of asbestos products and materials on said premises. x At all relevant times mentioned herein, each said PREMISES defendant knew, or in the exercise of ordinary and reasonable care should have known, that the premises that were in its control would be used as alleged without knowledge of, or inspection for, defects or dangerous conditions, which were not apparent or obvious, and that persons using said premises would not be u COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 3024 Kazan, MCCLAIN, 25 Lows, GREENWOOD & HaRLey, PLC 26 docx LONDN MARKET ‘SS HARRISOn STREET, sureo D7 (610) $02-1000 (510) 465-7728 Fax (610) 828-4973 28 SBOSCHN 270638.1 aware of the aforesaid hazardous conditions and contamination on the premises to which they were exposed. x At ail times pertinent hereto, the PREMISES defendants, and each of them, owed plaintiff a duty, as provided in Section 1708 of the Civil Code of the State of California, to abstain from injuring the person, property or rights of plaintiff. When a duty to act was imposed, as set forth herein, the defendants, and each of them, did do the acts and omissions in violation of that duty, thereby proximately causing injury to the plaintiff as is more fully set forth herein. XI. At all relevant times mentioned herein, PREMISES defendants, and each of them, failed to warn plaintiff and plaintiff's employer that said materials were dangerous when breathed and caused pathological effects without noticeable trauma, despite the fact that defendants possessed knowledge and were under a duty to disclose that such material was dangerous and a threat to the health of persons coming into contact therewith. , XI. At all relevant times mentioned herein, PREMISES defendants, and each of them, failed to provide plaintiff with information concerning adequate protective masks and devices to be used ° when applying, installing, disturbing, or otherwise working around asbestos-containing products, and each of them, despite the knowledge of the PREMISES defendants and a duty to disclose that such protective measures were necessary and would result in injury to the plaintiff and others applying, installing, disturbing, or otherwise working around such materials if not so advised. XUL At all relevant times mentioned herein, PREMISES defendants, and each of them, concealed from plaintiff the true nature of the industrial exposure of plaintiff, and knew 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 that the materials to which he was exposed would cause pathological effects without noticeable trauma despite the - fact that PREMISES defendants were under a duty to and bound to disclose it. COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 40‘GREENWOOD & Harvey, PLC 26 {8k Lonooh Meroe SS HARRISON STREET, Sure 400 ‘OAKLAND, CA 94607 (S10)302-1000 (810) 465.728 Fc (510) 835-4013 28 SBOSCHHZ70638.1 XIV, At all relevant times mentioned herein, PREMISES defendants, and each of them, failed to provide information of the true nature of the hazards of ashestos materials and that exposure to these materials would cause pathological effects without noticeable trauma to the public, including buyers, users, and physicians employed by plaintiff and plaintiff's employers so that said physicians could examine, diagnose and treat plaintiff and others who were exposed to asbestos, despite the fact that PREMISES defendants, and each of them, were under a duty to so inform and said failure was misleading. XV. At all relevant times mentioned herein, said PREMISES defendants, and each of them, negligently failed to take steps to abate or correct the dangerous conditions, or to make the premises safe or to warn plaintiff of the existence of the aforesaid dangerous conditions and hazards on said premises, although the risk of plaintiff's injuries was a foreseeable consequence of the negligence of defendants and each of them. XVI. As a legal consequence of the foregoing, plaintiff developed an asbestos-related disease which caused his illness as previously set forth and has suffered general and special damages as ‘ alleged herein. : XVIL The foregoing acts of the PREMISES defendants, and each of them, were done wantonly, willfully, oppressively and in conscious disregard of the safety of plaintiff herein, by the defendants, and each of them, in that the defendants, and each of them knew, at the time defendants manufactured, supplied or required the use and/or handling of asbestos-containing materials and/or failed to properly supervise their own employees or the employees of others over whom defendants had control who installed and/or handled the asbestos products to which plaintiff was exposed, that the foregoing 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 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES aKazan, MoCLAN, 29 Lyons, GREENWOOD & HaRLey, FLO 26 (610) 302-1000 (530) 469-728 Fax Gr0)835-4013 2B “BOSCH1270038.1 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 thereof, such as plaintiff, would be exposed to and inhale asbestos fibers, and plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages hereunder. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment as is hereinafter set forth. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligent Hiring and Negligent Exercise of Retained Control [Against AH Premises Defendants} ~ ~~~ ~~ AS AND FOR’A TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION, plaintiff complains of PREMISES defendants, and each of them, as follows: L Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein by reference the First through Ninth Causes of Action of this Complaint, Il. At all relevant times herein, the PREMISES defendants and each of them negligently hired, retained and kept contractors on jobs to perform asbestos related work, and knew or in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence should have known that the contractors, independent contractors, subcontractors, employees, manufacturers, suppliers, distributors, workers and others these defendants employed ot-engaged to or responsible for the manufacture, distribution, installation, inspection, maintenance, repair, replacement, removal and/or disposing of asbestos and asbestas- containing materials on the aforementioned premises were incompetent and unfit to perform the duties for which they were employed, retained, hired or used, and that an unreasonable risk of harm to plaintiff and other persons on the aforesaid premises would exist as a legal consequence of such initial and/or continued employment, retention or contract. PREMISES defendants and each of them failed to exercise reasonable caution in selecting, retaining and continuing to use each of the employees, contractors, independent contractors and/or subcontractors who performed asbestos-related work, excluding those that employed plaintiff, even though said PREMISES COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 42Kazan, McCLAI, Lyons, GREENWOOD & HARLEY, PLC (510) 488-7728. Fax (520) 835-4813 BOSCH/1270698,1 24 25 26 28 defendants knew or in the reasonable exercise of ordinary and reasonable care should have known that failure to choose these persons carefully to perform asbestos-related work and/or allow such persons to continue to perform asbestos-related work after the PREMISES defendants, and each of them, became aware of the negligent manner in which the work was being performed created a dangerous and hazardous condition and unreasonable risk of harm and personal injury to plaintiff and other workers or persons so exposed while working for or in the vicinity of negligent contractors or exposed to asbestos fibers on such persons’ clothing, shoes and person. PREMISES defendants, and each of them, also negligently exercised the control they retained of the operative details — including, without limitation, the asbestos-related details — of plaintiff's work, thereby negligently exposing plaintiff to asbestos that was a legal cause of plaintiff's mesothelioma. il. The foregoing acts of the PREMISES defendants, and each of them, were done wantonly, willfully, oppressively and in conscious disregard of the safety of plaintiff herein, by the defendants, and each of them, in that the defendants, and each of them knew — at the time defendants manufactured, supplied or required the use and/or handling of asbestos-containing materials to which plaintiff was exposed, and/or failed to properly train, hire and/or supervise their own employees or the employees of others over whom defendants had control who installed and/or handled the asbestos products to which plaintiff was exposed, and/or negligently exercised the control they retained of the asbestos-related details of plaintiffs — that the foregoing 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 these 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 asbestos fibers, and plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages hereunder. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment as is hereinafter set forth. “COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 4B