On June 06, 2007 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Castagna, Louis, and Advocate Mines Limited, Albay Construction Company, All Asbestos Defendants, Allis-Chalmers Corporation Product Liability Trust, American Conference Of Governmental Industrial, American Conference Of Governmental Industrial Hyg, American Standard, Inc., Ameron International Corporation, A.O. Smith Corporation, Asbestos Defendants, Asbestos Manufacturing Company, Auto Friction Corporation, Auto Specialties Manufacturing Company, Baugh Construction Company, Bechtel Corporation, Bell Asbestos Mines Ltd., Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc., Brassbestos Brake Lining Company, Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire, Llc, Briggs & Stratton Corporation, Bucyrus International, Inc., Caterpillar Inc., Cbs Corporation, A Delaware Corporation, Chevron Products Company, Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Chicago Bridge & Iron Company,, Chrysler Llc Fka Daimlerchrysler Company Llc,, Conocophillips Company, Consolidated Insulation, Inc., Contra Costa Electric, Inc., Copeland Corporation, Copeland Corporation, Llc Fka Copeland Corporation, Crane Co., Csk Auto, Inc., Daimlerchrysler Company Llc, Formerly Known As, Daimlerchrysler Corporation, Dana Corporation, Dillingham Construction N.A., Inc., Does 1-8500, Douglass Insulation Company, Inc., Durametallic Corporation, Eaton Corporation, Eaton Electrical Inc., Elliott Company,, Elliott Turbomachinery Co., Inc., Emsco Asbestos Company, Fibre & Metal Products Company, Fibre & Metal Products Company, Inc., Fisher Controls International Llc, Fmc Corporation, Fmc Corporation-Chicago Pump, Forcee Manufacturing Corp., Ford Motor Company, Foster Wheeler Llc, Garlock Sealing Technologies, Llc, Gate City Plumbing & Heating, Gatke Corporation, General Electric Company, General Motors Corporation, Genuine Parts Co., Genuine Parts Company, Henry Vogt Machine Co., H. Krasne Manufacturing Company, Honeywell International Inc.,, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Imo Industries Inc., Ingersoll-Rand Company, Interlake Steamship Co., Johnson Controls, Inc., J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc., Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc., Lamons Gasket Company, Landsea Holding Company, Lasco Brake Products, Lear Siegler Diversified Holdings Corp., Lindstrom & King Co., Inc., L.J. Miley Company, Maremont Corporation, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Molded Industrial Friction Corporation, Morton International, Inc., National Automotive Parts Association, National Transport Supply, Inc., Nibco Inc., Oakfabco, Inc., Owens-Illinois, Inc., Paccar Inc., Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Pacific Mechanical Corporation, Parker-Hannifin Corp., Performance Mechanical, Inc., Plant Insulation Company, Pneumo Abex Llc, Quintec Industries, Inc., Rapid-American Corporation, Red-White Valve Corporation, Republic Supply Company, Riley Power Inc., Riley Power, Inc., Erroneously Sued As Babcock, Riteset Manufacturing Company, Rockwell Automation, Inc., Rossendale-Ruboil Company, Santa Fe Braun, Inc., Schlage Lock Company, Scott Co. Of California,, Sequoia Ventures Inc., Shell Oil Company, Silver Line Products, Inc., Southern Friction Materials Company, Special Electric Company, Inc., Special Materials, Inc.-Wisconsin, Standard Motor Products, Inc., Standco, Inc, Sta-Rite Industries, Llc, Stuart-Western, Inc., Swinerton Builders Fka Swinerton & Walberg Co., Taco, Inc., Temporary Plant Cleaners, Inc., Terry Corporation Of Connecticut, Terry Steam Turbine Co., The Budd Company, The Dow Chemical Company, The Industrial Maintenance Engineering Contracting, The William Powell Company, Thomas Dee Engineering Company, Timec Company, Inc., Tosco Refining Company, Inc., Trane Us, Inc., Triple A Machine Shop, Inc., Tyco International, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., Uniroyal Holding, Inc., Universal Friction Materials Company, Unocal Corporation, U.S. Spring & Bumper Company, Warren Pumps, Llc, Wheeling Brake Block Manufacturing Company, Yarway Corporation, Zurn Industries, Llc, Formerly Known As Zurn, for civil in the District Court of San Francisco County.
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Preview
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 %& be Bs 12 g- 13 =< ve 14 ae 15 Se 16 & 17 ” 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 207580.1 1077.28787 RICHARD D. DUMONT (SBN 107967) rdumont@selmanbreitman.com ELECTRONICALLY PAUL J. GAMBA (SBN 146097) FILED pgamba@selmanbreitman.com vy SELMAN BREITMAN LLP Saper Goiok Calo 33 New Montgomery, Sixth Floor San Francisco; CA 94105 OCT 29 2010 Telephone: (415) 979-0400 Clerk of the Court Facsimile: (415) 979-2099 BY: JUANITA D. MURPHY Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Defendant LAMONS GASKET COMPANY SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION LOUIS CASTAGNA, Case No. CGC-07-274230 Plaintiff, MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO PUNITIVE Vv. DAMAGES AND TO STRIKE PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP). DAMAGES - Motion in Limine No. 18 Defendant. Action Filed: June 6, 2007 ‘Trial Date: October 29, 2010 Defendant LAMONS GASKET COMPANY (hereinafter referred to as "LAMONS') herein submits the following motion in limine. 1 INTRODUCTION Defendant Lamons, prior to trial and before the selection of a jury, moves this Court for an order in limine (a) precluding Plaintiff and his counsel from making any reference or comment fo evidence regarding punitive or exemplary damages, and (b) directing Plaintiff's counsel to inform all of plaintiff's witnesses to refrain from making any references to evidence or documents regarding punitive or exemplary damages. Under California law, finding a defendant liable is a perquisite for imposing punitive damages on that defendant. Thus, unless and until the Plaintiff establishes Lamons' liability, evidence of punitive or exemplary damages is irrelevant. Accordingly, 1 MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND TO STRIKE PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES - MIL NO. 182 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 es Wi wt cs 2 a3 3 =< ee 14 mz 15 SE 16 sou 48 19 20 2 2 3 24 25 2% 27 28 207580... 107728787 any reference to punitive damages or evidence regarding punitive damages during voir dire, opening statements and/or questioning of witnesses would be highly improper and potentially prejudicial to Lamons, and should be precluded. IL ARGUMENT A. Evidence Regarding. Panitiye and/or Exemplary Damages Is Irrelevant mess and Until Lamons' Liability Is Established and Should Be Precluded Under California Evidence Code Section 350. It is axiomatic that the party proffering evidence bears the burden of demonstrating its admissibility, and that evidence that is not relevant is not admissible. (Cal. Evid. Code § 350.) Relevant evidence is that which has "any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” (Cal. Evid. Code § 210.) Similarly, it is well established that punitive damages cannot be awarded unless actual damages are suffered, and that liability for a tortious act must be proven before punitive damages may be assessed against a defendant. (See Esparza v. Specht (1976) 55 Cal. App.3d 1, 6.) Under these basic principles, evidence regarding punitive and/or exemplary damages is simply irrelevant, and therefore inadmissible, unless and until Plaintiff makes out a prima facie case of Lamons' liability for actual damages. B. _ Because of Its Potential to Create Undue Prejudice and Confusion, Evidence or Argunen Hegarding Punitive and/or Exemp AN. amages ould Be Precluded Unless and Until Lamons' Liability Is Establishe In the instant case, Lamons anticipates that Plaintiff's counsel, either directly or through witnesses, may attempt to offer evidence or argument regarding Lamons alleged liability for punitive and/or exemplary damages before making out a prima facie showing of liability entitling Plaintiff to actual damages. Under California law, such potentially prejudicial and confusing evidence an/or arguments may be precluded. In this regard, Section 352 of the California Evidence Code provides: The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues or of misleading the jury. Since punitive damages may not be awarded against Lamons unless and until it is 2 MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND TO STRIKE PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES - MIL NO. 182 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ee 1 sed gs 12 Ee ams og 14 me 1s Se 16 n 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2075801 1077.28787 found liable for Plaintiff's actual injuries, requiring the court to hear evidence related to such damages before it has been established that they can be awarded would necessitate an undue and potentially unnecessary consumption of time. (Werschkull v. United California Bank (1978) 85 Cal.-App.3d 981, 1003.) Moreover, absent such a prima facie showing of liability, presentation of evidence regarding punitive or exemplary damages creates a substantial danger of undue prejudice, confusion of issues, and misleading a jury. Presenting such evidence before Lamons underlying liability is established could easily lead a jury to believe that Lamons or some other defendant should be punished simply because they have believe that the defendant's alleged conduct was immoral or unethical, or that Plaintiff has suffered some general harm, without regard to proof of liability for actual damages and harm. The admission of such evidence prior to a finding of liability, therefore, creates a substantial danger of undue prejudice. I. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Lamons’ motion should be granted. DATED: October 28, 2010 SELMAN BREITMAN LLP By:_/s/ Paul J. Gamba RICHARD D. DUMONT PAUL J. GAMBA Attorneys for Defendant LAMONS GASKET COMPANY 3 MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND TO STRIKE PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES - MIL NO. 18SO O SP th Ne pet tet A BO NV = S ATTORNEYS AT LAW 16 Selman Breitman Lip 28 207580.1 197728787 PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION Louis Castagna v. Asbestos Defendants (BP) San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-07-274230 Defendant: LAMONS GASKET COMPANY STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Tam employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and ain not a party to the within action; my business address is 33 New Montgomery, Sixth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105. On the date shown below, | electronically served the following document(s) via LexisNexis File & Serve described as MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND TO STRIKE PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES -Motion in Limine No. 18 on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the LexisNexis File & Serve website. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 7%, 2010, at San Francisco, California. i Cb oi Elrod 4 MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE REFERENCE TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND TO STRIKE PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES - MIL NO. 18