Preview
28
CARROLL, BURDICK &
McDonoucn LLP
AMotstes ar Lu
SAW FRANCISCO
Garrett Sanderson III, Bar No. 131026
gsanderson@cbmlaw.com
Peter H. Cruz, Bar No. 220850 ELECTRONICALLY
peruz@cbmlaw.com FILED
CARROLL, BURDICK & McDONOUGH LLP Superior Court of California,
Moneys at aM + Suite 400 County of San Francisco
ontgomery Street, Suite
San Francisco, California 94104 APR 02 2014
Telephone: 415.989.5900 .
Facsimile: 415.989.0932 eee paputy Clerk
Attorneys for Defendant Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
HAROLD KOEPKE and NANCY KARIDIS- | Case No. CGC-13-276217
KOEPKE,
REPLY DECLARATION OF GARRETT
Plaintiffs, SANDERSON ILL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PRECLUDE
v. DEPOSITION OF VWGOA’S 85-YEAR OLD
FORMER PRESIDENT
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.,
Date: April 9, 2014
Defendants. Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept. 503
Complaint Filed: December 3, 2013
Trial Date: June 16, 2014
I, Garrett Sanderson IIL, declare as follows:
1. I make this declaration based upon my personal knowledge and, if called as a
witness, could and would testify competently to the matters stated here.
2. I am a member in good standing of the State Bar of California and am a partner of
Carroll, Burdick & McDonough LLP, attorneys for Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
CVWGoA”).
3. Exhibit H to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the cover pages and
excerpts from Bob Cameron’s March 27 and 28, 2014, deposition testimony.
4, Exhibit I to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the cover page and
excerpts from the session of the deposition of Wayne Brotze that occurred on March 21, 2014.
CBM-PRODUCTS\SF622201-1
REPLY DECLARATION OF G. SANDERSON ISO MOT. PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PRECLUDE DEPOSITIONCARROLL, BURDICK &
McDOoNOUGH LLP
Atouamts a1 Lae
SAN FRANCISCO,
I 5. Exhibit J to this declaration is a true and correct copy of a print out of the State of
2 || New Jersey’s online Business Entity Status Report memorializing VWGoA’s original filing date
3 || in October 1955,
4 6. Exhibit K to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the complaint filed by
5 || plaintiffs on December 3, 2013.
7. Exhibit L to this declaration is a true and correct copy the Memorandum of Points
and Authorities in support of VWGoA’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint filed
on January 6, 2014,
8. Judicial notice of Exhibits K and L is respectfully requested pursuant to Evidence
oC Dm ID
Code sections 452(d) and 453.
1 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
12 || foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on April f , 2014, at San
3 || Francisco, California.
14 LK eo
Sn
Garrett Sanderson IL)
28
CBM-PRODUCTSIS622201-3 ~2-
REPLY DECLARATION OF G, SANDERSON ISO MOT, PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PRECLUDE DEPOSITIONEXHIBIT HoO 0 WN OD oa Rh wD a
YY NY NSH NH SB 2 B&B wow 2a Bo wow a Ba 2
eS BF ON 5S F&O &®@ ND aR DN SB
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
---000~--
HAROLD KOEPKE AND NANCY KARIDIS-KOEPKE,
Plaintiffs,
vs. Ne. CGC13 276217
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
VIDEOTAPED
DEPOSITION OF ROBERT P. CAMERON, JR.
VOLUME I, Pages 1 to 426
Taken before EARLY LANGLEY, CLR, RSA, RMR
CSR No. 3537
March 27, 2014
Aiken Welch Court Reporters
One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 250
Oakland, California 94612
(510) 451-1580/(877) 451-1580
Fax: (510) 451-3797
www.aikenwelch.com=~
oO O80 ODN MD OD BRB WH DY
contained asbestos at that time.
MS. ABRAMS: Move to strike as
nonresponsive.
BY MS. ABRAMS:
Q. You had testified in the past, sir, that
from 1959 at least -- '55 at least to the early
1980s Volkswagen of America products, their cars,
contained asbestos in their brakes and clutches;
correct?
MR. MARKS: Vague.
MR. SANDERSON: It's overbroad.
THE WITNESS: Yes. Ail cars did then.
MS. ABRAMS: Move to strike as
nonresponsive.
BY MS. ABRAMS:
Q. Let me tell you, my question isn't about
all cars at that time. I'm specifically asking
you about Volkswagen of America cars. I'm going
to ask it again. Between 1955 and the early
1980s, you have testified in the past that
Volkswagen of America cars contained asbestos in
their brakes and clutches; correct?
MR. MARKS: Vague. Misstates the
testimony.
MR. SANDERSON: Compound and asked and
147
12:57
12:58
12:58
12:58
12:58
Aiken Welch Court Reporters Robert Cameron 03/27/2014=
oO Oo Oo NN DOD HO KR WN
answered.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MS. ABRAMS:
Q. Is it also correct, sir, that with respect
to any of those years when Volkswagen of America
cars contained asbestos in their brakes and
clutches, you did not search for any files with
respect to that time period, with respect to
correspondence between any suppliers of brakes and
clutches and Volkswagen of America?
MR. SANDERSON: Misstates his testimony.
Compound and vague.
MR. MARKS: Overbroad.
THE WITNESS: I don't understand what you
mean by you said the time frame that we're talking
about with the cars, the time frame goes way back
before we even talk about asbestos.
MS. ABRAMS: Move to strike as
nonresponsive.
And maybe the question was poor so let me
try it again.
BY MS. ABRAMS:
Q. Is it correct, sir, that Volkswagen of
America had suppliers of asbestos-containing
friction products that it then assembled into its
148
12:58
12:59
12:59
12:59
12:59
Aiken Welch Court Reporters Robert Cameron 03/27/2014oO Oo ON DO MH BRB ww &
Be NM BM NY DY NY Be sw ow we ow ow lk kk
a fF OW MO = 0D © wn DOD GO BR WOW YP A
239
working. You don't have any information as to
whether documents would be destroyed even if they
were required for legal reasons, do you?
A. What do you mean? When I joined the
company? 15:37
Q. Yes.
A. No, I don't know what they did with it
back in 1965.
Q. Who would know that?
MR. SANDERSON: Assumes facts. 15:37
THE WITNESS: I have no idea that anybody
would know that now. I don't think there's
anybody that would know it.
BY MS. ABRAMS:
Q. Well, how about in the 1970s, who would 15:38
know that?
A. In the '70s?
Q. Yes.
A. I don't know.
Q. Would the president of the company in the 15:38
1970s know what the -- what the corporate policy
was with respect to retaining documents that were
required for business purposes, tax purposes, or
legal reasons?
MR. SANDERSON: Speculation. 15:38
Aiken Welch Court Reporters Robert Cameron 03/27/2014oO Oo ON DD HD BR HD) DB SB
Nw NON NM NY NY NY BSB Ba Bw Bw Bw ow hkl UU Ok
a FF 6 NY = BD © @ FY OD A KR © DD BB
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNTA
IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
--~-000---
HAROLD KOEPKE AND NANCY KARIDIS-KOEPKE,
Plaintiffs,
vs. No. CGC13 276217
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
VIDEOTAPED
DEPOSITION OF ROBERT P. CAMERON, JR.
COR/PMQ VOLKSWAGEN
VOLUME IIT, Pages 427 - 690
Taken before EARLY LANGLEY, CLR, RSA, RMR
CSR No. 3537
March 28, 2014
Aiken Welch Court Reporters
One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 250
Oakland, California 94612
(510) 451-1580/(877) 451-1580
Fax: (510) 451-3797
www.aikenwelch.comoOo OD NN ODO oO BRB WH DY wr
N MO NM NY YW NY - sw wa Bw sw ow ok lk kk
a fF ON = 0 © Mw NN OD OA KR ®D DB FB
570
Volkswagen of America Corporation?
A. I couldn't tell you how many years back it
goes, but I don't think I've been looking up that
question for 25 years. We've already testified
that that warning went into the manuals starting 14:18
around '85, '86 in the Bentley manuals. And only
in the Bentley manuals.
Q. You haven't testified about that here, and
that was my question to you. When was the first
time in writing that Volkswagen of America Company 14:18
told anybody in any form any cautionary
information regarding asbestos? That's my
question. What's your answer?
MR. SANDERSON: A manual?
MR. MARKS: Vague. 14:18
MR. SANDERSON: Yeah. It's vague and
overbroad.
THE WITNESS: ‘85, '86 as I've said before
in other depositions.
BY MS. ABRAMS: 14:18
Q. And where is that '85 or '86 statement on
behalf of the Volkswagen of America Corporation in
writing? Where is that written?
A. It would be in one of the Bentley manuals
published back at that time. 14:18
Aiken Welch Court Reporters Robert Cameron 03/28/2014EXHIBIT IIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
~--9000---
HAROLD KOEPKE AND NANCY KARIDIS-KOEPKE,
Plaintiffs,
vs. No. CGCi3 276217
FORD MCTOR COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
VIDEOTAPED
DEPOSITION OF WAYNE BROTZE
VOLUME II, Pages 363 to 450
Taken before EARLY LANGLEY, CLR, RSA, RMR
CSR No. 3537
March 21, 2014
Aiken Welch Court Reporters
One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 250
Oakland, California 94612
(510) 451-1580/(877) 451-1580
Fax: (510) 451-3797
www. aikenwelch.comoO 8B NN ODO TO KR WwW PH
N NM NM NM YB HY |S & o@ Bw Bw ok ok kl Uk OU
a F © NHN = FD O© O&O HN OD aA KR ®O DY SB
Q. Did you see anyone else?
A. Same answer.
Q. Did you ever perform a brake replacement
on all four wheels on the Volkswagen wagon that
you identified? 09:51
A. Yes.
Q. You mentioned a Volkswagen Karmann Ghia?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever do a replacement of a -- you
told me you did brake replacement on Volkswagen 09:52
Karmann Ghias?
A. Yes.
Q. Were those brake shoes or pads?
A. Shoes.
Q- On all four wheels? 09:52
A. All four wheels.
Q. Do you know the model year for replacement
of any of the Karmann Ghia vehicles on which you
performed brake replacement for all four wheels?
A. I don't remember. 09:52
MS. BOSCH: And it was vague and
ambiguous.
BY MR. MARKS:
Q. Do you know if they were 1960 models, 1970
models? 09:52
415
Aiken Welch Court Reporters Wayne Brotze 03/21/2014oo ON DOD HM BR WH DB A
NM NM MY NY NY NY SB Bow ow Be Bw on Bw uw Aa Ok
ao F © N = CG HO ww NY DOD A BD DH AB
I believe they were all '60 models.
1960s?
'60s. Late '60s, yeah.
oOo FP Oo PY
Any 1970s models --
A. There might have been, but I don't
remember.
Q. How about for the wagon, were these 1960s
models or 1970s models?
A. TI believe they were the '60s models also.
Q. Any 1970s models?
A. I couldn't tell you.
Q. And within the 1960s for either the
Karmann Ghia or the wagon, are you able to tell me
the model year for any of the Volkswagens?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Other than the Volkswagen Beetle, Karmann
Ghia, and the wagons, any other model of
Volkswagen that either you serviced or saw other
people service in the shop at either location?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What other models?
A. The Transporter.
Q Any others?
A. No.
Q
- For the Transporter, was brake work done?
09:52
09:53
09:53
09:53
09:53
416
Aiken Welch Court Reporters Wayne Brotze 03/21/2014EXHIBIT JDivision of Revenue & Enterprise Services: Business Records Service Page | of 1
State of New Jersey
Department of Treesury: Division of Revenue & Enterprise Services
Business Record Service
Business Entity Status Report & Name Search
‘You have selected 1 businesses for which you wish to receive status reports. If you wish to order documents for the businesses listed, click
te "Go Back" button below to add copies to your selection. For more information regarding the availability of specific documents, please
read the important notes below.
Business Name Entity ED City Type Original Filing Date
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC, 9153560000 X DP 10/1955
hitps +//yww.njportal.con/DOR/businessrecords/EntityDocs/BusinessStatCopi €8.aspx 11/20/2012EXHIBIT KMANDATGRY ELECTROMG FILING
PURSUANT TO AMENDESG G.0, 158
THIS CASE 1S SUBJECT TC
400
‘Oaxcasio, CA 94607
(510) 302-1000
(510) 405.7728
Fax stevens 28
‘CBOSCHI1270638,1
10
Joseph D. Satterley, Esq. (C.S.B. #286890)
jsatterley@kazanlaw.com
Carole M. Bosch, Esq. (C.S.B, #239790)
cbosch@kazanlaw.com
KAZAN, McCLAIN, SATTERLEY, LYONS,
GREENWOOD & OBERMAN
A Professional Law Corporation
Jack London Market
55 Harrison Street, Suite 400
Oakland, California 94607
Telephone: (510) 302-1000
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
HAROLD KOEPKE and NANCY KARIDIS-
KOEPKE,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY; A.B.C, MOBILE
SYSTEMS, individually and as successor in interest,
parent, alter ego, and equitable trustee of
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., individualiy 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 PREUMO
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.
~TLED
F sdeaite die
ers 2$ 20d
cuenk oF THE,CQURT
BY: i uly clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
No CG0+43-276235
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL
INJURIES; NEGLIGENCE;
BREACH OF WARRANTIES;
STRICT LIABILITY; FRAUD;
CONSPIRACY; PREMISES
LIABILITY; AND LOSS OF
CONSORTIUM
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES‘KAZAN, MCCiain,
Lyons,
GREENWOOD &
Harvey, PLC
OaxLaND, CA. 94607
(610)302-4000
(510) 465-7728
Fax (510) 835-4913
CBOSCHI270638.1
ROYAL, INC.; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL,
2 INC., fka ALLIED SIGNAL, INC., as Successor-In-
Interest to the BENDIX CORPORATION;
|| KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY; LEAR SIEGLER
|| DIVERSIFIED HOLDINGS CORP., individually and
4 i as successor in interest, parent, alter ego and equitable
| trustee of ROYAL INDUSTRIES, INC.; LES VOGEL
INTERNATIONAL, LLC, formerly known as
6 | MORTON INTERNATIONAL, INC., individually
and as successor in interest, parent, alter ego and
7 | equitable trustee of THIOKOL CORPORATION;
| NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
8 | ASSOCIATION; PARKER HANNIFIN
CORPORATION, individually and as successor in
g |jinterest, parent, alter ego and equitable trustee of EIS
| BRAKE PARTS AND INDUSTRIAL &
10 AUTOMOTIVE ASSOCIATES, INC., d.b.a. CALI-
| BLOCK; PNEUMO ABEX LLC, individually and as
1] [Successor in interest, parent, alter ego and equitable
trustee of ABEX CORPORATION; ROX
12 |AUTOMOTIVE; SHELL OIL COMPANY;
SPECIALTY FOREIGN AUTO PARTS, INC.
B || individually and as successor in interest, parent, alter
ego and equitable trustee of SPECIALITY FOREIGN
14 }AUTO PARTS; THE BUDD COMPANY; THE
| HERTZ CORPORATION; VOLKSWAGEN GROUP
1 | OF AMERICA, INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR SALES,
U.S.A, INC.; W. BERRY HURLEY
16 | CORPORATION, d.b.a, FEDERAL AUTO PARTS;
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
17 | FIRST DOE through FOUR HUNDREDTH DOE,
inclusive,
Defendants.
20 Plaintiff HAROLD KOEPKE alleges:
al FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligence
22 {Against All Products Defendants}
23 . L
24 | Plaintiff Harold Koepke brings this action on his own behalf. The masculine form as used
25 jin this complaint, if applicable as shown by the context hereof, applies to a female person ora
26 | corporation.
(27 WH
28 fi/
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIESiL
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
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.
il.
At all 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--JOHN BEAN
= 7 | AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT SERVICE DIVISION; FMC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
individually and as successor in interest, parent, alter ego, and equitable trustee of JOHN BEAN
(510) 465-7728
raceetesccanis 28
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
CROSCHIIZTNE38.1 3810) 302-7000
{610} 465.7728
Fax (510) 035.4913 28,
‘CBOSCHI1270838.1
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. 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,
USA, 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.
Vv.
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
7 | “asbestos” or “asbestos-containing products.”
tt
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES19
(510) 485.7728
Fax (510) 835-4613 28
CBOSCHI1270698.1
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:
@) 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.
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIESMART
85 Hanrason STREET,
400
‘OnxiaNo, CA 94607
(510) 202-1000
(510) 485-7728,
Fax (510) 635-4913
(CBOSCHNZ70636.4
X.
During the course and scope of his attendance 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.
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
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.
XH.
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.
XI.
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
28
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 61
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
i
12
13
4
15
16
7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
scan Mocusm, 25
presen &
Harwey, PLC 26
| sBrson Steer,
ne ygar 27
{Bloyaes7700
Faxi510) 836-4913 28
‘COOSCHN270838.1
said services which were and are still reasonably required and requests leave to amend this
complaint to insert said sum when it is ascertained.
XV.
By reason of the aforesaid allegations, plaintiff has 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.
XVII.
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 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 to said ashestos 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.
i
H
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES¢
(510) 465-7726
rx oroyessagts 28
CBOSCH/1270638.1
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:
i,
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.
TL
The implied warranty made by the defendants, and each of them, that the asbestos and
asbestos-related materials were of good and merchantable 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,
Iv.
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 to 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.
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES2
3
4
3
6
7
8
9
10
YW
12
13
14
15
16
VW
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Kazan, MeCiany, 25
Lyons, &
Goa ric 26
UAOK LONDON MARKET
SS HARRISON STREET,
Sure400 D7
OaKLaNo, CA 84607
"e10) 302-1000
(810) 485-7728
Fax 610) 695-4913 28
(CBOSCHI270638.1
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Strict 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.
i.
At all times herein mentioned, plaintiff's employers or those entities that installed and/or
handled 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.
i.
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 all 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
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIESea IN nH
24
KAZAN, MCCLAIN, 25
Lyons,
GREENWOOD &
Harvey, PLC 26
‘55 HARRIBON STREET,
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.
VIL
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-containing 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.
VHI.
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.
Ix.
The aforementioned products were used by plaintiff in the manner for which they were
Sure 400 27 | intended, or plaintiff foreseeably was exposed to said products when they were used in the manner
ONaAND, CA 94607
1510) 302-1000
(510) 486-7728
ractsrojessaaia 28.
CBOSCHII270638.1
for which they were intended.
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 101 x.
2 As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing conduct, plaintiff developed an illness, to
3 j wit: mesothelioma, which caused great disability, as previously set forth.
4 Xi.
As a proximate result of the defective design, manufacturing, labeling, marketing and/or
wn
6 | warning of these aforementioned materials and products, plaintiff was generally damaged as is
7 |more fully set forth herein and in addition has sustained special damages hereinabove alleged.
8 XU.
9
‘The foregoing acts of the defendants, and each of them, were done wantonly, willfully,
10 |] oppressively and in conscious disregard of the safety of plaintiff herein, in that the defendants, and
11 | each of them, prior to and at the time of the sale of the aforementioned products to plaintiff's
12 |lemployers or to those cntities that installed and/or handled the asbestos products to which plaintiff
13 || was exposed, knew that the foregoing products and materials released invisible, undetectable
14 |[ respirable asbestos fibers when installed or handled and that said fibers were extremely dangerous
15 | when inhaled. The defendants, and each of them, either did not warn or insufficiently warned
16 || regarding the dangerous nature of said materials, nor placed a sufficient warning on the said
17 | material or package thereof regarding said dangerous nature, nor took any action to protect those
18 |] persons who foreseeably would be exposed to said asbestos products, despite knowing that persons
19 || who had no knowledge of the dangerous and hazardous nature thereof, such as plaintiff, would be
20 |j exposed to and inhale asbestos fibers, and plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages hereunder.
21 WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment as is hereinafter set forth.
22 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
23 Fraud/Failure to Warn
[Against All Products Defendants}
24
Kazan, Moctan, 25 AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION, plaintiff complains of defendants, and
Lyons,
Siar ees, 26 | cach of them, and alleges:
sBioansonsrey,
conama,ca sugar 27 |//
(510) 302-1000
rasiessasis 28 | //
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES u
(CBOSCHN270638.1pow
eo Oe ND HW BR wD
(610) 485.7728
Fax (610) 835-4913 28
CBOSCHII270638.1
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.
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. : :
UL.
Since 1924, the defendants, and each of them, have known and have been possessed of the.
true 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 plaintiff's 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
'7 advantages did do the following acts:
it
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES R24
Kazan, Mecian, 25
510) 465.7728
eacerojeseagis 28
CBOSCHN270638.1
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 them, sold the aforementioned products and materials to
plaintiff's employers and others without advising such employers and others of the
dangers of use of such materials to persons working in close proximity thereto,
when defendants knew of such dangers, as set forth herein, and, as set forth above,
had a duty to disclose such dangers. Thereby, defendants caused 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 trac, 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;
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES B400
COnsiano, CA 84607
1810) 302-1000
(510) 465-7728
Fax (610) 635-4913 28,
(CBOSCH/270638.4
Defendants, and each of them, suppressed from everyone, including plaintiff and
plaintiff's employers, and continue to 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 | 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 each 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 commitiee 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 Carolina, 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
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 4oc Oe DD HA RB Be BD me
Ne NO NM Ne He oe Fh hee
e NM = S © w®m@ UA GD ESS FS
24
Kazan, Mocian, 25
Lyons,
GREENWOOD &
Harvey, PLC 26
(510) 465.7728
Fax (510) 835-4013 28
CBOSCHH270638.1
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 wam plaintiff and plaintiff's employers of the nature of the said materials,
to wit: dangerous when breathed, causing pathological effects 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, 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 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;
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES ‘j Failed to provide information to the public at large and buyers, users and physicians
2] employed by plaintiff and plaintiff's employers for the purpose of conducting
3 physical examinations of plaintiff and others working in contact with asbestos as to
4 the true nature of the hazards of asbestos, in order for such physicians to diagnose,
5 and treat workers coming into contact with asbestos, in that the materials to which
6 plaintiff had been exposed would cause pathological effects without noticeable
7 trauma, when under a duty to supply such information and such failure is likely to
8 mislead for want of communication of such facts; and
9 k. Defendants, and each of them, affirmatively misrepresented that asbestos
10 containing products were safe to use and handle, when they knew such statements
11 were false when made, or made said false statements tecklessly and without regard
12 for whether the statements were true.
BI WV.
4 Each of the foregoing acts, suggestions, assertions and forbearances to act when a duty
15 |[existed to act, the said defendants, and each of them, having such knowledge, knowing plaintiff
16 did not have such knowledge and would breathe such material innocently, was done falsely and
17 fraudulently and with full intent to induce plaintiff to work ina dangerous environment and to
18 [cause plaintiff to remain unaware of the true facts, all in violation of Section 1710 of the Civil
19 || Code of the State of California.
20 Vv.
21 Plaintiff relied upon the said acts, suggestions, assertions and forbearances; had plaintiff
22 known the true facts, plaintiff would not have continued to work in the said environment.
23 | VI.
24 | By reason of the aforesaid premises, plaintiff has been damaged in his health, strength and
Kazan, McCian, 25 | activity in addition to special damages hereinabove alleged.
casein 26 VIL.
sShvnnson Sree
on ee sag7 27 Each of the said acts and forbearances to act were caused by false, fraudulent and malicious
10): ae
motives of the defendants, and each of them, and plaintiff is entitled to exemplary and punitive
(510) 465.7728
ransioeseaats 28
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
+ CBOSCH270688.1 16woe
ND WwW BP iw
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 |
21
22
23
24
Kozan, MeCiam, 25
Lyons,
GREENWOOD &
Harvey, PLC 26
box Lonmou Mauer
‘S55 Hanson STREET,
‘SuTe400 27
Onicano, CA 94607
(610)302-7000
(610)465.7728
Fax (5106354913 28
CBOSCHN2 10638.
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 said 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 thereof, such plaintiff, would be exposed to and inhale asbestos fibers, and
plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages hereunder.
VIL.
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]
I
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 other entities and individuals identified in this cause of action.
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 17CG @ NY KR HW B&B YW wD we
ot
— >
12
13
14
15
16
7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Kazan, MeCuan, 29
Lyons,
merece 26
JACK LONDON MARKET
(SS HARRISON STREET,
Surea0o 27
OAKLAND, CA 54807
(510) 302-1900
(510) 465.7728
raxcsressasia 28
CBOSCH/1270638.1
HE.
Plaintiff does not know the true names and capacities, whether corporate, associate or
individual of defendants sued herein as TVO-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 all 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.
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 decedent’s asbestos-related disease, injuries and/or death.
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 18Kazan, MCCLain,
Lyons,
Greenwoon &
HARLEY, PLE
Preview
28 CARROLL, BURDICK & McDonoucn LLP AMotstes ar Lu SAW FRANCISCO Garrett Sanderson III, Bar No. 131026 gsanderson@cbmlaw.com Peter H. Cruz, Bar No. 220850 ELECTRONICALLY peruz@cbmlaw.com FILED CARROLL, BURDICK & McDONOUGH LLP Superior Court of California, Moneys at aM + Suite 400 County of San Francisco ontgomery Street, Suite San Francisco, California 94104 APR 02 2014 Telephone: 415.989.5900 . Facsimile: 415.989.0932 eee paputy Clerk Attorneys for Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO HAROLD KOEPKE and NANCY KARIDIS- | Case No. CGC-13-276217 KOEPKE, REPLY DECLARATION OF GARRETT Plaintiffs, SANDERSON ILL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PRECLUDE v. DEPOSITION OF VWGOA’S 85-YEAR OLD FORMER PRESIDENT FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., Date: April 9, 2014 Defendants. Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept. 503 Complaint Filed: December 3, 2013 Trial Date: June 16, 2014 I, Garrett Sanderson IIL, declare as follows: 1. I make this declaration based upon my personal knowledge and, if called as a witness, could and would testify competently to the matters stated here. 2. I am a member in good standing of the State Bar of California and am a partner of Carroll, Burdick & McDonough LLP, attorneys for Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. CVWGoA”). 3. Exhibit H to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the cover pages and excerpts from Bob Cameron’s March 27 and 28, 2014, deposition testimony. 4, Exhibit I to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the cover page and excerpts from the session of the deposition of Wayne Brotze that occurred on March 21, 2014. CBM-PRODUCTS\SF622201-1 REPLY DECLARATION OF G. SANDERSON ISO MOT. PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PRECLUDE DEPOSITIONCARROLL, BURDICK & McDOoNOUGH LLP Atouamts a1 Lae SAN FRANCISCO, I 5. Exhibit J to this declaration is a true and correct copy of a print out of the State of 2 || New Jersey’s online Business Entity Status Report memorializing VWGoA’s original filing date 3 || in October 1955, 4 6. Exhibit K to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the complaint filed by 5 || plaintiffs on December 3, 2013. 7. Exhibit L to this declaration is a true and correct copy the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of VWGoA’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint filed on January 6, 2014, 8. Judicial notice of Exhibits K and L is respectfully requested pursuant to Evidence oC Dm ID Code sections 452(d) and 453. 1 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 12 || foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on April f , 2014, at San 3 || Francisco, California. 14 LK eo Sn Garrett Sanderson IL) 28 CBM-PRODUCTSIS622201-3 ~2- REPLY DECLARATION OF G, SANDERSON ISO MOT, PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PRECLUDE DEPOSITIONEXHIBIT HoO 0 WN OD oa Rh wD a YY NY NSH NH SB 2 B&B wow 2a Bo wow a Ba 2 eS BF ON 5S F&O &®@ ND aR DN SB IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ---000~-- HAROLD KOEPKE AND NANCY KARIDIS-KOEPKE, Plaintiffs, vs. Ne. CGC13 276217 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., Defendants. VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ROBERT P. CAMERON, JR. VOLUME I, Pages 1 to 426 Taken before EARLY LANGLEY, CLR, RSA, RMR CSR No. 3537 March 27, 2014 Aiken Welch Court Reporters One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 250 Oakland, California 94612 (510) 451-1580/(877) 451-1580 Fax: (510) 451-3797 www.aikenwelch.com=~ oO O80 ODN MD OD BRB WH DY contained asbestos at that time. MS. ABRAMS: Move to strike as nonresponsive. BY MS. ABRAMS: Q. You had testified in the past, sir, that from 1959 at least -- '55 at least to the early 1980s Volkswagen of America products, their cars, contained asbestos in their brakes and clutches; correct? MR. MARKS: Vague. MR. SANDERSON: It's overbroad. THE WITNESS: Yes. Ail cars did then. MS. ABRAMS: Move to strike as nonresponsive. BY MS. ABRAMS: Q. Let me tell you, my question isn't about all cars at that time. I'm specifically asking you about Volkswagen of America cars. I'm going to ask it again. Between 1955 and the early 1980s, you have testified in the past that Volkswagen of America cars contained asbestos in their brakes and clutches; correct? MR. MARKS: Vague. Misstates the testimony. MR. SANDERSON: Compound and asked and 147 12:57 12:58 12:58 12:58 12:58 Aiken Welch Court Reporters Robert Cameron 03/27/2014= oO Oo Oo NN DOD HO KR WN answered. THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MS. ABRAMS: Q. Is it also correct, sir, that with respect to any of those years when Volkswagen of America cars contained asbestos in their brakes and clutches, you did not search for any files with respect to that time period, with respect to correspondence between any suppliers of brakes and clutches and Volkswagen of America? MR. SANDERSON: Misstates his testimony. Compound and vague. MR. MARKS: Overbroad. THE WITNESS: I don't understand what you mean by you said the time frame that we're talking about with the cars, the time frame goes way back before we even talk about asbestos. MS. ABRAMS: Move to strike as nonresponsive. And maybe the question was poor so let me try it again. BY MS. ABRAMS: Q. Is it correct, sir, that Volkswagen of America had suppliers of asbestos-containing friction products that it then assembled into its 148 12:58 12:59 12:59 12:59 12:59 Aiken Welch Court Reporters Robert Cameron 03/27/2014oO Oo ON DO MH BRB ww & Be NM BM NY DY NY Be sw ow we ow ow lk kk a fF OW MO = 0D © wn DOD GO BR WOW YP A 239 working. You don't have any information as to whether documents would be destroyed even if they were required for legal reasons, do you? A. What do you mean? When I joined the company? 15:37 Q. Yes. A. No, I don't know what they did with it back in 1965. Q. Who would know that? MR. SANDERSON: Assumes facts. 15:37 THE WITNESS: I have no idea that anybody would know that now. I don't think there's anybody that would know it. BY MS. ABRAMS: Q. Well, how about in the 1970s, who would 15:38 know that? A. In the '70s? Q. Yes. A. I don't know. Q. Would the president of the company in the 15:38 1970s know what the -- what the corporate policy was with respect to retaining documents that were required for business purposes, tax purposes, or legal reasons? MR. SANDERSON: Speculation. 15:38 Aiken Welch Court Reporters Robert Cameron 03/27/2014oO Oo ON DD HD BR HD) DB SB Nw NON NM NY NY NY BSB Ba Bw Bw Bw ow hkl UU Ok a FF 6 NY = BD © @ FY OD A KR © DD BB IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNTA IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO --~-000--- HAROLD KOEPKE AND NANCY KARIDIS-KOEPKE, Plaintiffs, vs. No. CGC13 276217 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., Defendants. VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ROBERT P. CAMERON, JR. COR/PMQ VOLKSWAGEN VOLUME IIT, Pages 427 - 690 Taken before EARLY LANGLEY, CLR, RSA, RMR CSR No. 3537 March 28, 2014 Aiken Welch Court Reporters One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 250 Oakland, California 94612 (510) 451-1580/(877) 451-1580 Fax: (510) 451-3797 www.aikenwelch.comoOo OD NN ODO oO BRB WH DY wr N MO NM NY YW NY - sw wa Bw sw ow ok lk kk a fF ON = 0 © Mw NN OD OA KR ®D DB FB 570 Volkswagen of America Corporation? A. I couldn't tell you how many years back it goes, but I don't think I've been looking up that question for 25 years. We've already testified that that warning went into the manuals starting 14:18 around '85, '86 in the Bentley manuals. And only in the Bentley manuals. Q. You haven't testified about that here, and that was my question to you. When was the first time in writing that Volkswagen of America Company 14:18 told anybody in any form any cautionary information regarding asbestos? That's my question. What's your answer? MR. SANDERSON: A manual? MR. MARKS: Vague. 14:18 MR. SANDERSON: Yeah. It's vague and overbroad. THE WITNESS: ‘85, '86 as I've said before in other depositions. BY MS. ABRAMS: 14:18 Q. And where is that '85 or '86 statement on behalf of the Volkswagen of America Corporation in writing? Where is that written? A. It would be in one of the Bentley manuals published back at that time. 14:18 Aiken Welch Court Reporters Robert Cameron 03/28/2014EXHIBIT IIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ~--9000--- HAROLD KOEPKE AND NANCY KARIDIS-KOEPKE, Plaintiffs, vs. No. CGCi3 276217 FORD MCTOR COMPANY, et al., Defendants. VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF WAYNE BROTZE VOLUME II, Pages 363 to 450 Taken before EARLY LANGLEY, CLR, RSA, RMR CSR No. 3537 March 21, 2014 Aiken Welch Court Reporters One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 250 Oakland, California 94612 (510) 451-1580/(877) 451-1580 Fax: (510) 451-3797 www. aikenwelch.comoO 8B NN ODO TO KR WwW PH N NM NM NM YB HY |S & o@ Bw Bw ok ok kl Uk OU a F © NHN = FD O© O&O HN OD aA KR ®O DY SB Q. Did you see anyone else? A. Same answer. Q. Did you ever perform a brake replacement on all four wheels on the Volkswagen wagon that you identified? 09:51 A. Yes. Q. You mentioned a Volkswagen Karmann Ghia? A. Yes. Q. Did you ever do a replacement of a -- you told me you did brake replacement on Volkswagen 09:52 Karmann Ghias? A. Yes. Q. Were those brake shoes or pads? A. Shoes. Q- On all four wheels? 09:52 A. All four wheels. Q. Do you know the model year for replacement of any of the Karmann Ghia vehicles on which you performed brake replacement for all four wheels? A. I don't remember. 09:52 MS. BOSCH: And it was vague and ambiguous. BY MR. MARKS: Q. Do you know if they were 1960 models, 1970 models? 09:52 415 Aiken Welch Court Reporters Wayne Brotze 03/21/2014oo ON DOD HM BR WH DB A NM NM MY NY NY NY SB Bow ow Be Bw on Bw uw Aa Ok ao F © N = CG HO ww NY DOD A BD DH AB I believe they were all '60 models. 1960s? '60s. Late '60s, yeah. oOo FP Oo PY Any 1970s models -- A. There might have been, but I don't remember. Q. How about for the wagon, were these 1960s models or 1970s models? A. TI believe they were the '60s models also. Q. Any 1970s models? A. I couldn't tell you. Q. And within the 1960s for either the Karmann Ghia or the wagon, are you able to tell me the model year for any of the Volkswagens? A. I don't remember. Q. Other than the Volkswagen Beetle, Karmann Ghia, and the wagons, any other model of Volkswagen that either you serviced or saw other people service in the shop at either location? A. Yes, sir. Q. What other models? A. The Transporter. Q Any others? A. No. Q - For the Transporter, was brake work done? 09:52 09:53 09:53 09:53 09:53 416 Aiken Welch Court Reporters Wayne Brotze 03/21/2014EXHIBIT JDivision of Revenue & Enterprise Services: Business Records Service Page | of 1 State of New Jersey Department of Treesury: Division of Revenue & Enterprise Services Business Record Service Business Entity Status Report & Name Search ‘You have selected 1 businesses for which you wish to receive status reports. If you wish to order documents for the businesses listed, click te "Go Back" button below to add copies to your selection. For more information regarding the availability of specific documents, please read the important notes below. Business Name Entity ED City Type Original Filing Date VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC, 9153560000 X DP 10/1955 hitps +//yww.njportal.con/DOR/businessrecords/EntityDocs/BusinessStatCopi €8.aspx 11/20/2012EXHIBIT KMANDATGRY ELECTROMG FILING PURSUANT TO AMENDESG G.0, 158 THIS CASE 1S SUBJECT TC 400 ‘Oaxcasio, CA 94607 (510) 302-1000 (510) 405.7728 Fax stevens 28 ‘CBOSCHI1270638,1 10 Joseph D. Satterley, Esq. (C.S.B. #286890) jsatterley@kazanlaw.com Carole M. Bosch, Esq. (C.S.B, #239790) cbosch@kazanlaw.com KAZAN, McCLAIN, SATTERLEY, LYONS, GREENWOOD & OBERMAN A Professional Law Corporation Jack London Market 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 Oakland, California 94607 Telephone: (510) 302-1000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs HAROLD KOEPKE and NANCY KARIDIS- KOEPKE, Plaintiffs, VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY; A.B.C, MOBILE SYSTEMS, individually and as successor in interest, parent, alter ego, and equitable trustee of 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., individualiy 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 PREUMO 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. ~TLED F sdeaite die ers 2$ 20d cuenk oF THE,CQURT BY: i uly clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO No CG0+43-276235 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES; NEGLIGENCE; BREACH OF WARRANTIES; STRICT LIABILITY; FRAUD; CONSPIRACY; PREMISES LIABILITY; AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES‘KAZAN, MCCiain, Lyons, GREENWOOD & Harvey, PLC OaxLaND, CA. 94607 (610)302-4000 (510) 465-7728 Fax (510) 835-4913 CBOSCHI270638.1 ROYAL, INC.; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, 2 INC., fka ALLIED SIGNAL, INC., as Successor-In- Interest to the BENDIX CORPORATION; || KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY; LEAR SIEGLER || DIVERSIFIED HOLDINGS CORP., individually and 4 i as successor in interest, parent, alter ego and equitable | trustee of ROYAL INDUSTRIES, INC.; LES VOGEL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, formerly known as 6 | MORTON INTERNATIONAL, INC., individually and as successor in interest, parent, alter ego and 7 | equitable trustee of THIOKOL CORPORATION; | NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE PARTS 8 | ASSOCIATION; PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION, individually and as successor in g |jinterest, parent, alter ego and equitable trustee of EIS | BRAKE PARTS AND INDUSTRIAL & 10 AUTOMOTIVE ASSOCIATES, INC., d.b.a. CALI- | BLOCK; PNEUMO ABEX LLC, individually and as 1] [Successor in interest, parent, alter ego and equitable trustee of ABEX CORPORATION; ROX 12 |AUTOMOTIVE; SHELL OIL COMPANY; SPECIALTY FOREIGN AUTO PARTS, INC. B || individually and as successor in interest, parent, alter ego and equitable trustee of SPECIALITY FOREIGN 14 }AUTO PARTS; THE BUDD COMPANY; THE | HERTZ CORPORATION; VOLKSWAGEN GROUP 1 | OF AMERICA, INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A, INC.; W. BERRY HURLEY 16 | CORPORATION, d.b.a, FEDERAL AUTO PARTS; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; 17 | FIRST DOE through FOUR HUNDREDTH DOE, inclusive, Defendants. 20 Plaintiff HAROLD KOEPKE alleges: al FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence 22 {Against All Products Defendants} 23 . L 24 | Plaintiff Harold Koepke brings this action on his own behalf. The masculine form as used 25 jin this complaint, if applicable as shown by the context hereof, applies to a female person ora 26 | corporation. (27 WH 28 fi/ COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIESiL 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 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. il. At all 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--JOHN BEAN = 7 | AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT SERVICE DIVISION; FMC TECHNOLOGIES, INC., individually and as successor in interest, parent, alter ego, and equitable trustee of JOHN BEAN (510) 465-7728 raceetesccanis 28 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES CROSCHIIZTNE38.1 3810) 302-7000 {610} 465.7728 Fax (510) 035.4913 28, ‘CBOSCHI1270838.1 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. 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, USA, 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. Vv. 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 7 | “asbestos” or “asbestos-containing products.” tt COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES19 (510) 485.7728 Fax (510) 835-4613 28 CBOSCHI1270698.1 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: @) 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. COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIESMART 85 Hanrason STREET, 400 ‘OnxiaNo, CA 94607 (510) 202-1000 (510) 485-7728, Fax (510) 635-4913 (CBOSCHNZ70636.4 X. During the course and scope of his attendance 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. 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 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. XH. 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. XI. 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 28 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 61 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 i 12 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 scan Mocusm, 25 presen & Harwey, PLC 26 | sBrson Steer, ne ygar 27 {Bloyaes7700 Faxi510) 836-4913 28 ‘COOSCHN270838.1 said services which were and are still reasonably required and requests leave to amend this complaint to insert said sum when it is ascertained. XV. By reason of the aforesaid allegations, plaintiff has 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. XVII. 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 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 to said ashestos 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. i H COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES¢ (510) 465-7726 rx oroyessagts 28 CBOSCH/1270638.1 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: i, 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. TL The implied warranty made by the defendants, and each of them, that the asbestos and asbestos-related materials were of good and merchantable 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, Iv. 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 to 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. COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES2 3 4 3 6 7 8 9 10 YW 12 13 14 15 16 VW 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Kazan, MeCiany, 25 Lyons, & Goa ric 26 UAOK LONDON MARKET SS HARRISON STREET, Sure400 D7 OaKLaNo, CA 84607 "e10) 302-1000 (810) 485-7728 Fax 610) 695-4913 28 (CBOSCHI270638.1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Strict 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. i. At all times herein mentioned, plaintiff's employers or those entities that installed and/or handled 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. i. 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 all 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 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIESea IN nH 24 KAZAN, MCCLAIN, 25 Lyons, GREENWOOD & Harvey, PLC 26 ‘55 HARRIBON STREET, 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. VIL 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-containing 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. VHI. 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. Ix. The aforementioned products were used by plaintiff in the manner for which they were Sure 400 27 | intended, or plaintiff foreseeably was exposed to said products when they were used in the manner ONaAND, CA 94607 1510) 302-1000 (510) 486-7728 ractsrojessaaia 28. CBOSCHII270638.1 for which they were intended. COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 101 x. 2 As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing conduct, plaintiff developed an illness, to 3 j wit: mesothelioma, which caused great disability, as previously set forth. 4 Xi. As a proximate result of the defective design, manufacturing, labeling, marketing and/or wn 6 | warning of these aforementioned materials and products, plaintiff was generally damaged as is 7 |more fully set forth herein and in addition has sustained special damages hereinabove alleged. 8 XU. 9 ‘The foregoing acts of the defendants, and each of them, were done wantonly, willfully, 10 |] oppressively and in conscious disregard of the safety of plaintiff herein, in that the defendants, and 11 | each of them, prior to and at the time of the sale of the aforementioned products to plaintiff's 12 |lemployers or to those cntities that installed and/or handled the asbestos products to which plaintiff 13 || was exposed, knew that the foregoing products and materials released invisible, undetectable 14 |[ respirable asbestos fibers when installed or handled and that said fibers were extremely dangerous 15 | when inhaled. The defendants, and each of them, either did not warn or insufficiently warned 16 || regarding the dangerous nature of said materials, nor placed a sufficient warning on the said 17 | material or package thereof regarding said dangerous nature, nor took any action to protect those 18 |] persons who foreseeably would be exposed to said asbestos products, despite knowing that persons 19 || who had no knowledge of the dangerous and hazardous nature thereof, such as plaintiff, would be 20 |j exposed to and inhale asbestos fibers, and plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages hereunder. 21 WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment as is hereinafter set forth. 22 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 23 Fraud/Failure to Warn [Against All Products Defendants} 24 Kazan, Moctan, 25 AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION, plaintiff complains of defendants, and Lyons, Siar ees, 26 | cach of them, and alleges: sBioansonsrey, conama,ca sugar 27 |// (510) 302-1000 rasiessasis 28 | // COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES u (CBOSCHN270638.1pow eo Oe ND HW BR wD (610) 485.7728 Fax (610) 835-4913 28 CBOSCHII270638.1 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. 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. : : UL. Since 1924, the defendants, and each of them, have known and have been possessed of the. true 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 plaintiff's 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 '7 advantages did do the following acts: it COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES R24 Kazan, Mecian, 25 510) 465.7728 eacerojeseagis 28 CBOSCHN270638.1 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 them, sold the aforementioned products and materials to plaintiff's employers and others without advising such employers and others of the dangers of use of such materials to persons working in close proximity thereto, when defendants knew of such dangers, as set forth herein, and, as set forth above, had a duty to disclose such dangers. Thereby, defendants caused 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 trac, 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; COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES B400 COnsiano, CA 84607 1810) 302-1000 (510) 465-7728 Fax (610) 635-4913 28, (CBOSCH/270638.4 Defendants, and each of them, suppressed from everyone, including plaintiff and plaintiff's employers, and continue to 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 | 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 each 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 commitiee 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 Carolina, 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 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 4oc Oe DD HA RB Be BD me Ne NO NM Ne He oe Fh hee e NM = S © w®m@ UA GD ESS FS 24 Kazan, Mocian, 25 Lyons, GREENWOOD & Harvey, PLC 26 (510) 465.7728 Fax (510) 835-4013 28 CBOSCHH270638.1 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 wam plaintiff and plaintiff's employers of the nature of the said materials, to wit: dangerous when breathed, causing pathological effects 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, 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 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; COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES ‘j Failed to provide information to the public at large and buyers, users and physicians 2] employed by plaintiff and plaintiff's employers for the purpose of conducting 3 physical examinations of plaintiff and others working in contact with asbestos as to 4 the true nature of the hazards of asbestos, in order for such physicians to diagnose, 5 and treat workers coming into contact with asbestos, in that the materials to which 6 plaintiff had been exposed would cause pathological effects without noticeable 7 trauma, when under a duty to supply such information and such failure is likely to 8 mislead for want of communication of such facts; and 9 k. Defendants, and each of them, affirmatively misrepresented that asbestos 10 containing products were safe to use and handle, when they knew such statements 11 were false when made, or made said false statements tecklessly and without regard 12 for whether the statements were true. BI WV. 4 Each of the foregoing acts, suggestions, assertions and forbearances to act when a duty 15 |[existed to act, the said defendants, and each of them, having such knowledge, knowing plaintiff 16 did not have such knowledge and would breathe such material innocently, was done falsely and 17 fraudulently and with full intent to induce plaintiff to work ina dangerous environment and to 18 [cause plaintiff to remain unaware of the true facts, all in violation of Section 1710 of the Civil 19 || Code of the State of California. 20 Vv. 21 Plaintiff relied upon the said acts, suggestions, assertions and forbearances; had plaintiff 22 known the true facts, plaintiff would not have continued to work in the said environment. 23 | VI. 24 | By reason of the aforesaid premises, plaintiff has been damaged in his health, strength and Kazan, McCian, 25 | activity in addition to special damages hereinabove alleged. casein 26 VIL. sShvnnson Sree on ee sag7 27 Each of the said acts and forbearances to act were caused by false, fraudulent and malicious 10): ae motives of the defendants, and each of them, and plaintiff is entitled to exemplary and punitive (510) 465.7728 ransioeseaats 28 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES + CBOSCH270688.1 16woe ND WwW BP iw 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 | 21 22 23 24 Kozan, MeCiam, 25 Lyons, GREENWOOD & Harvey, PLC 26 box Lonmou Mauer ‘S55 Hanson STREET, ‘SuTe400 27 Onicano, CA 94607 (610)302-7000 (610)465.7728 Fax (5106354913 28 CBOSCHN2 10638. 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 said 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 thereof, such plaintiff, would be exposed to and inhale asbestos fibers, and plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages hereunder. VIL. 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] I 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 other entities and individuals identified in this cause of action. COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 17CG @ NY KR HW B&B YW wD we ot — > 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Kazan, MeCuan, 29 Lyons, merece 26 JACK LONDON MARKET (SS HARRISON STREET, Surea0o 27 OAKLAND, CA 54807 (510) 302-1900 (510) 465.7728 raxcsressasia 28 CBOSCH/1270638.1 HE. Plaintiff does not know the true names and capacities, whether corporate, associate or individual of defendants sued herein as TVO-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 all 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. 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 decedent’s asbestos-related disease, injuries and/or death. COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES 18Kazan, MCCLain, Lyons, Greenwoon & HARLEY, PLE