arrow left
arrow right
  • JAMES RODAMER VS. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • JAMES RODAMER VS. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • JAMES RODAMER VS. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • JAMES RODAMER VS. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY et al ASBESTOS document preview
						
                                

Preview

— Un Selman Breitman LLP ATTORWE'YS AT LAW 130847.1 1,22997 MARK A. LOVE (SBN 162028) JANICE W. MAN (SBN 209956) ELECTRONICALLY SELMAN BREITMAN LLP FILED 33 New Montgomery, Sixth Floor Superior Court of California, San Francisco. CA 94105 County of San Francisco Telephone: (415) 979-0400 Facsimile: (415} 979-2099 MAY 16 2007 : GORDON PARK-LI, Clerk mlove@selmanbreitman.com BY: JUDITH NUNEZ jman@selmanbreitman.com Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Defendant . DOUGLASS INSULATION COMPANY SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION JAMES RODAMER and NANCY RODAMER.| CASE NO. 456569 Plaintiffs, DOUGLASS INSULATION COMPANY'S MOTION IN LIMINE FOR AN OFFER Vv. OF PROOF A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, et al., Time : 2:00 p.m. Defendants. Dept. : 306 Judge : Nancy Davis Trial Daie : April 30, 2007 Complaint Filed : September 29, 2006 Defendant DOUGLASS INSULATION COMPANY (“DOUGLASS”) hereby moves the Court to issue an order in this action requiring the plaintiffs to make an offer of proof, prior to the beginning of trial and before the selection of a Jury, regarding identification witnesses and evidence connecting plaintifT James Rodamer’s alleged exposure to asbestos was a result of the work activities of DOUGLASSS, INFRODUCTION In this case, plaintiffs allege that plaintiff Jamcs Rodamer suffered from injuries suffered as a result of cxposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products installed or disturbed by DOUGLASSS. On the basis of evidence presented to DOUGLASSS during discovery, DOUGLASSS contends that plaintiffs cannot present sufficient evidence of DOUGLASS INSULATION COMPANY'S MOTION IN LIMINE FOR AN OFFER OF PROOF2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 a 3 gs 2 e213 m< oe 14 ae Is SE 16 Sn n 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 o8eT.1 16827997 liability on part of DOUGLASSS to survive a motion for nonsuit. CONCLUSION For each of the foregoing reasons, DOUGLASSS respectfully requests the Court to require plaintiffs to make a preliminary showing that (1) plaintiff James Rodamer was exposed to asbestos for which DOUGLASSS is responsible and (2) that such exposure, if any, was in excess of the EPA's "threshold limit value" or any other applicable standard and that such exposure was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff James Rodamer's illness. DATED; May 16, 2007 SELMAN BREITMAN LLP DOUGLASS INSULATION COMPANY'S MOTION IN LIMINE FOR AN OFFER OF PROOF