Answer: CHARLES BOUDREAUX et al VS. ADVOCATE MINES, LTD et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Bo

Co SF NN Dh

28

MCKENNA LONG &
ALDRIDGE LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCESCO

CHRISTOPHER W. WOOD (BAR NO. 113291)

ERIC D. BERGSTROM (BAR NO, 127381) ELECTRONICALLY

D. PAUL BIRD II (BAR NQ. 202006) FILED

McKENN A LON Ge ALDRIDGE LLP Superior Court of California,

us ne oma Strect County of San Francisco

“ Faaor

San Francisco, CA 9411! ~ - Spe Foe nar natn gee es FEB 28 2007

Telephone: (415} 267-4000 GORDON PARK-LI, Cler

Facsimile: (455) 267-4198 BY: CHRISTLE ARRIOLA
Deputy Cler

Attomeys for Defendant,

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO -

CHARLES BOUDREAUX and — CASE No, 07-274029
DEBORAH BOUDREAUX,
DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS
Plamtiffs, CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFTS’? COMPLAINT FOR
PERSONAL INJUIRY AND LOSS OF
Vv. — CONSORTIUM - ASBESTOS

ADVOCATE MINES, LYD., ef a/.,

Defendants

in A lal NH

DefernGant GENERAL MOTORS “CORPORATION, im answer io ihe” unverified | ™

complaint of Plaintiffs CHARLES BOUDREAUX and DEBORAH BOUDREAUX herewith |
denies each and every, all and singular, the allegations of said complaint, and each alleged cause
of action thereof and, in that connection, said defendant denies that plaintiffs have been injured or
damaged in any of the sums mentioned in the complaint, or in any other amount, or at all, by
reason of any act or omission of said defendant. Hereinafter, the use of the singular shall include |

the plural, and the masculine inchuues the feminine.

een te NN A EH TT

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

271392C4. 1 29305.367428

MCKENNA LeNG &
ACDRIOCE LEP
San FeANEIsCo

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a first separate and distinct affirmative defense to the entire complaint, and each cause

of action thereof, G i MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that this Court lacks
jurisdiction over this action.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Asa second separate and distinct affirmative defense, GENERAL MOTORS
CORPORATION alleges that the complaint, and each cause of action thereof, fails to state facts
sufficient to constitute a claim upon which relief may be granted.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE ‘SE

Asa third separate and distinct affirmative defense to the entire complaint, and each cause
of action thereat. GENFRAI. MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that the allegations of the
complaint, and each cause of action thereof, are uncertain, vague and ambiguous.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a fourth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the entire complaint, and each

cause of action thercof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that plaintiff has failed

to join all proper parties, or alternatively, has misjoined the parties to this action.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a fifth separate and distinct affirmative detense to the éntire complaint, and each cause |

of action thereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that the entire complaint and
each cause of action thereof should be dismissed pursuant to Sections 583.210 through 583.250,
and 583.410 through 583.430 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, and other applicable
code sections.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Asa sixtn separate and distinct allirmative defense, GENERAL MOTORS:
CORPORATION alleges that the entire complaint, and each cause of action thereof, is barred by

the applicable limitations periods set forth in Sections 337(1)43). 337.1(a)-(f). 337.15(a)-42),

-2

‘GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT,MeKriva Love &
‘ALDRYDCS LLP
atromveys aval

338(a)-(k). 339(1}-(3), 340(1}-(5), 340.2(a)-(c), 343, 353(a)-(d) and 361 of the California Code of
Civil Procedure, and other applicable statutes of limitations.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

~-As a scvenih sepurate anid distinct affirmative defense to the entire complaint, and edich

cause of action thereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that it does not have, and

never has had, a successor, successor-in-business, successor-in-product line or portion thereof,

successor-in-interest, assignee, predecessor, predecessor-in-business, predecessor-in-product line

or portion thereof, predecessor-in-interest, parent, subsidiary or whole or partial ownership or

membership relationship with the entity upon which plaintiff premises his allegations of liability.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,

Asan eighth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the entire complaint, and each
cause of action thereof, GENERAT. MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that to the extent that the
complaint alleges a “market share” or “enterprise” theory of liability, it fails to state facts
sufficient to constitute a cause of action against GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFE!

‘Asa ninth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the entire complaint, and each cause
of action thereof. GENERAT. MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that it did not have a sufficient
market share with respect to the products and materials which plaintiff alleges caused the alleged
injuries and damages. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION fiay stot be held liable to plainiit
for any alleged share of said market, or upon any theory premised upon market-share liability,

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a tenth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the entire complaint, and each cause
of action thereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that the damages alleged by
plaintiff, if any, were caused, either in whole or in part, by persons, firms or entities other than
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As an eleventh separate und distinct affirmative defense to the entire complaint, and each

cause of action thereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that plaintiff was
-3-

‘GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT28

McKenna Lose &
‘ALDRIOGE LL?
ATTORNEYS A ZA
‘San FRANE.SCO

i
negligent and unreasonable in or about the things alleged in the complaint. Any damages which
plaintiff seeks to recover from GENERAT. MOTORS CORPORATION must be reduced in

proportion to the extent that plaintiff's own negligence contributed to plaintiff's injuries or

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

‘Asa twelfth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the entire complaint, and each
cause of action thereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that plaintiff failed to
exercise reasonable diligence in mitigating damages allegedly sustained as a result of the alleged
acts of GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Asa thirteenth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the entire complaint, and each
cause of action thereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that if plaintiff sustained
injuries or damages attributable to the use of any product researched, tested, studied,
manufixctured, fabricated, inadequately researched, designed, inadequately tested, labeled,
assembled, distributed, leased, bought, offered for sale, sold, inspected, serviced, installed,
contracted for installation, repaired, marketed, warranted, arranged, rebranded, manufactured for
others, packaged, advertised and/or which contained or lacked warnings by GENERAL
MOTORS CORPORATION, which allegations are expressly denied, the injuries or damages
were proximately caused by the unreasonabléand unforeseeable misuse, abuse, alteration, or
improper maintenance of the product by plaintiff or by others.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

‘Asa fourteenth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the entire complaint, and each
cause of action thereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that at all times
mentioned, plaintiff consented to the alleged acts of GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION.

EIFTREENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Asa fifteenth separate and distinct affirmative defense lo the entire complaint, and each
cause of action thereol, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that at all times

mentioned, plaintiff had knowledge of the risks of the matters set forth in the complaint, as well
-4-

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT28

MeKENNA Lose &
‘AIDRIOGE LLP.
ATTORNEYS AT Law
San FRANCISCO

as the magnitude of the risks, and thereafter, knowingly, willingly. and voluntarily assumed those
risks.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a sixteenth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the entire complaint, and each
cause of action thereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that plaintiff was
negligent, legally responsible, or otherwise at fault for the injuries or damages allegedly sustained
by plaintiff and that GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION is not liable for plaintif?’'s
proportionate share of fault. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION requests that in the event
ofa finding of any liability in favor of plaintiff, or in the event of a settlement or judgment

¢ of tauit be made among ail

against GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, an apportionme

parties, and a judgment and declaration of partial indemnification and contribution be made
against all other parties or persons in accordance with the apportionment of fault.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As @ seventeenth separate and distinct, affirmative defense to the entire complaint, and
each cause of action thereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges thal any injuries or

damages sulfered by plaintiff, if any, we:

proximately caused by the acts or omissions of others
not within the contro] of GENERA]. MOTORS CORPORATION.
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As an eigiteenth Separate and distinct affirmative defense io the entire complaint, and
each cause of action thereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that claims asserted
by plaintiff were proximately caused by a superseding, intervening cause.

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATI) SE

‘Asa nineteenth separate and distinet affirmative defense to the entire complaint, and each
cause of action thereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that the entire complaint,
and each cause of action thereof, is barred on the grounds that the products or materials referred
to in the complaint, if any, werc not a substantial factor in bringing about the injuries and

damages alleged by plaintilT.

-5

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT28

MEKENNA Love &
“ALDRIDGE LLP
AIOINEYS AT Caw
‘DAN RANE sco

i
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Asa twentieth separate and distinct affirmative defense, GENERAL MOTORS
CORPORATION alleges that if it is determined to be liable to plaintiff, such fiability is based on
conduct whieh is passive and seconday to the active and primary wrongful conduct of other
defendants to this action. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION is, therefore, entitled to total,
equitable indemnity from such other defendants.

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a twenty-first separate and distinct affirmative defense to the entire complaint, and
cach cause of action thereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that plaintiff's
injuies or damages, if any, occurred in the course and scope of plaintifi’s employment, and thai
one or more of plaintiff's employers, none of which was GENERAL MOTORS
CORPORATION, was negligent and careless in or about the matters alleged in the complaint,
and that such negligence and carelessness was a proximate cause of any injuries or damages
suffered by plaintiff, if any were suffered.

TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Asa twenty-second dislinet allirmative defense to the entire complaint, and separate and
cach cause of action thereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that one or more of
plaintiff's employers, none of which was GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, knowingly,

willingly, and voluntarily entered into and engaged in or about the matters alleged in the
complaint, and knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily assumed all risks incident to these matters.

TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Asa twenty-third separate and distinet affirmative defense to the entire complaint, and
each cause of action thereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that the entire
complaint, and each cause of action thereof, is barred on the grounds that the products or
maicrials referred to in the complaint, if any, were not a substantial factor in bringing about the

injuries and damages alleged by plaintiff.

-6-

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT&

te
¥

TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a twenty-fourth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the entire complaint, and
cach cause of action thercof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that the entire
complaint, and each vause of actionthereoi, is barred against GENERAL MOTORS
CORPORATION by the doctrine of waiver.

TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Asa twenty-fifth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the entire complaint, and
each cause of action thereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that plaintif’s
complaint fails to state facts sufficient to entitle plaintiff to an award of punitive or exemplary
damages against GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION.

TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Asa twenty-sixth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the entire complaint, and
cach cause of action thereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that plaintiff is not
entitled to an award of punitive or exemplary damages in this action. Such an award would be
‘unconstitutional unless GENERA. MOTORS CORPORATION is accorded the safeguards
provided under the Constitution of the Stale of California and the Fourth, Vifth, Sixth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

-seventh separaie and distinct affirmative detense to the entire complaint, and

each cause of action thereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that to the extent
plaintiff's claims arise out of contraet, plaintiff's claims do not state facts sufficient to entitle
plaintiff to an award of punitive or exemplary damages against GENERAL MOTORS
CORPORATION.

TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Asa twenty-eighth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the entire complaint, and
each cause of action thereof, GENERAT. MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that plaintiff, at all

times mentioned, was not in privity of contract with GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,

-7-

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT28

Mckena Lone &
ALoRIOGE LLP
Atronneys Az Lave
‘Sha FRANCISC

and that said lack of privity bars any recovery by plaintiff against GENERAL MOTORS
CORPORATION under any theory of breach of warranty.
‘TWENTY-NINTY AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

ini’ separate and distinct affirmative defense to the entire Gornpiaintyand™

each cause of action thereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that plaintiff failed
to give adequate and timely notice of any alleged breach of warranty.
THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Asa thinieth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the entire complaint, and each
cause of action thereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that at all times material
herein, the premises upon which plaintiff alleges he was iijiired were under the sole control of
plaintiffs employers

TIDRY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,

Asa thirty-first separate and distinct affirmative defense to the entire complaint, and cach
cause of action thereof, GENFRAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that all products and
materials rescarched, tested, studied, manufactured, fabricated, inadequately rescarched,
designed, adequately tested, labeled, assembled, distributed, leased, bought, offered for sale,
sold, inspected, serviced, installed, contracted for installation, repaired, marketed, warranted,
arranged, rebranded, manufactured for others, packaged, advertised, and/or which contained or
lacked warnings oy GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION were nol defeuiive in any wanuer,
as said products and materials conformed with the state-of-the-art in existence at all times
mentioned in the complaint,

THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

‘As a thirfy-second separate and distinct affirmative defense to the entire complaint, and
cach cause of action thereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that the entire
compiaint, and each cause of action thereof, is barred because the products and matcriais, which
plaintiff alleges caused the alleged injuries and damages, conformed to specifications and plans

promulgated and approved by the United States Government.

-8-

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT.THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a thirly-third separate and distinct affirmative defense to the complaint, and each cause

of action thereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that the entire complaint, and

wach cause of action thercof, fails to state a cause of action agains! RAL MOTORS”
CORPORATION because the federal government has préempted the field of law applicable to the
products alleged to have caused plaintiff injuries. The granting of the relief prayed for in the
complaint would impede, impair, frustrate and/or burden the effectiveness of federal law
regulating the field and would violate the Supremacy Clause contained in Article VI, Clause 2 of
the United States Constitution.

10 THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Asa thiny-fourth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the entire complaint, and

each cause of action thereo!, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that the state of

medical and scientific knowledge and published literature and materials reflecting such state of
medical and scientific knowledge. at all times pertinent hereto, was such that GENERAL
MOYORS CORPORATION neither knew, nor coiild have known, that the products in issuc
presented a foresccable risk of harm to plaintiff in the normal and expceted usc of said products.

THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE i

Asa thirty-fifth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the complaint, and each cause
of action thereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION aiieges thut its alleged actions, which}
are the subject of the complaint, were lawful.
THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As a thirty-sixth separate and distinet affirmative defense to the complaint, and each cause
of action thereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that its alleged actions, which
are the subject of the complaint, were justitied.

THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

As a thinty-seventh separate and distinct affirmative defense to the entire complaint, and

each cause of action thereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that the entire

-9-
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT28

MCKENNA LONG &
AvoRibGE LLP
Sin Heanse>

!
complaint, and each cause of action thereof, is barred against GENERAI. MOTORS
CORPORATION by the doctrine of rex judicata.

TITRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Asa thirty-cighth separate anc distinct-aifinmaiive defense to the enlire Complaint, and
each cause of action thereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that the entire
complaint, and each cause of action thereof, is barred against GENERAL MOTORS
CORPORATION by the doctrine of waiver
THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Asa thirty-ninth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the entire complaint, and
each eause of activ tixereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION aileges that the entire
complaint, and each cause of action thereof, is barred against GENERAL MOTORS
CORPORATION by the doctrine of estoppel.

FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Asa fortieth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the entire complaint, and each
cause of action thereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges thal the entire complaint,
and euch cause of action thereof. is barred against GENERAL. MOTORS CORPORATION by
the doctrine of laches.

FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

e defense i

separate and distinct attirmat

entire complaint, andl cach
cause of action thereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that the entire complaint,
and cach cause of action thereof, is barred against GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION by
the doctrine of unclean hands.

FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Asa forty-second separate and distinct affirmative defense to the entire complaint, and
cack cause of action thereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that the entire.
complaint, and each cause of action thereo!, is barred against GENERAL MOTORS,

CORPORATION by the doctrine of bad faith.

-10-

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT28

HcKeNNA Lene &
Atonioce LEP
‘Say FRANIBCE

FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Asa (orly-third separate and distinct affirmative defense to the entirc complaint, and each

cause of action thereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that plaintiff lacks

standing to sue GEN

fy MOTORS: ATION.

FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

‘Asa forty-fourth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the entire complaint, and
each cause of action thereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that any danger or
defect on any premises owned or controlled by GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION was
obvious or could have been observed by plaintiff's exercise of reasonable care.

FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ~

Asa forty-fifth separate and distinet affirmative defense to the entire complaint, and each
cause of action thereof, GENFRAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that any defect or danger
on any premises owned or controlled by GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION was trivial.

FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Asa forty-sixth separate and distinct affirniative defense to the entire complaint, and each
cause of action thereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that as to any injury
alleged to have occurred on premises owned or otherwise controlied by GENERAL MOTORS
CORPORATION, it warned plaintiff’ employers of all dangers on the premises known to
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, ~
FORTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Asa forty-seventh separate and distinct affirmative defense to the entire complaint, and
each cause of action thereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that plaintiff has
improperly split his causes of action and seek to maintain a duplicative lawsuit based on the same
facts and circumstances as a lawsuit previously filed.

FORTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Asa forty-cighth separate and distinct affirmative defense to the entire complaint, and
each cause of action thereol, GENERAL, MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that California

Civil Code Sections 1431.1 through 1431.5, known as the Fair Responsibility Act of 1986, are
-U-

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT28

NNA LOSG &
DRIOCE LUP
evs AP Last
‘San FRANCISCO

applicable at least in part to the present action and to certain claims therein, and based upon
principles of comparative fault, the liability, if any, of GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
for non-economic damages shall be several only and shall not be joint. GENERAL MOTORS

CORPORATICN, if iable-ai ail, shail be tiable only for the amount of non-economic damages’~

allocated to GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION in direct proportion to GENERAL

MOTORS CORPORATION'S percentage of fault, and a separate and several judgment shall be

rendered against GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION for non-economic damages, if any.
FORTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Asa forty-ninth separate and distinct affirmative defense to th complaint, and each
cause of action thereof, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION alleges that it presently has
insufficient knowledge or information on which to form a belief as to whether it may have
additional, as yet unstated, defenses available. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION reserves,
the right to assert additional defenses in the event that they would be appropriate.

‘WHEREFORE, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION prays for judgment as follows:

1. That plaintiff take nothing by way of the complaint;
2. That the present action be dismissed with prejudice:
3. That the court enter judgment in favor of GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION

and against plaintiff on each claim for relief;

‘4, That an apportionment of fauit be made among all patties, and a judginent aid
declaration of partial indemnification and contribution be made against all other parties or persons
in accordance with the apportionment of fault;

5. For attorneys” fees;

-12-

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTee 4

28

MecKENNA LENG &
AUDRIOGE LLP

SAT LAM
Faancisce

6. Forcosts of suit; and
7. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
Dawe: vebruary 27.2007 MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP

Move.

CHrisToPHER W. Woon
AXttofney for Defendant
=NERAL MOTORS CORPORATION

-1B-

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT,28

McKEwva Love &
‘ALDRIDGE LL?
San Praneseea

PROOF OF SERVICE VIA LEXISNEXIS FILE & SERVE
T am a citizen of the United States and employed in San Francisco County, California. 1
am over the age of eighteen years and not 2 party to the within-entitled action. My business
address is 101 California Street, 41" Floor, San Francisco, California 94111.
On February 28, 2007, I electronically served the document(s) via LexisNexis File &
Serve described as:
DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION’S

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL
INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM - ASBESTOS

on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the LexisNexis File & Serve
website, I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct and was executed on February 28, 2007, at San Francisco,

California.

(GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT