arrow left
arrow right
  • LOUIS CASTAGNA VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • LOUIS CASTAGNA VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • LOUIS CASTAGNA VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • LOUIS CASTAGNA VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • LOUIS CASTAGNA VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • LOUIS CASTAGNA VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • LOUIS CASTAGNA VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • LOUIS CASTAGNA VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview 
						
                                
Preview

                                om g
59 2
ye &
ps2:
geees
EES Z
BOSaE
Beeee
22585
ESRES
eth
gO" 8

8

(415) 898-1553

Oo wm WA HW BRB WH

RM RPM RNR RR Re mm mete
od A A Rk OW NM = SBS OC we WD UR BR WN & O.-

ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ., $.B. #73685
DAVID R. DONADIO, ESQ., $.B, #154436

RENE J. CASILLI, ESQ., S.B. #261779 ELECTRONICALLY

BRAYTONS*PURCELL LLP
Attorneys at Law | F ILE D
222 Rush Landing Road Superior Court of California,
P.O. Box 6169 County of San Francisco
Novato, California 94948-6169 AUG 26 2010
(415) 898-1555 . Clerk of the Court
Tentative Ruling Contest Email: contestasbestosTR@braytonlaw.compy: JUDITH NUNEZ

+ Deputy Clerk
Attomeys for Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
. COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

LOUIS CASTAGNA,

) ASBESTOS
) No. CGC-07-274230
Plaintiff, )
) PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT
vs. } OF DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN
} OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CONTRA
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP) ) COSTA ELECTRIC, INC.’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Date: September 9, 2010

Time: 9:30 a.m.

Dept: 220, Hon. Harold E. Kahn
Trial Date: October 12, 2010
Action Filed: June 6, 2007

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(b), plaintiff submits the following
Separate Statement of Disputed Material Facts in Opposition to Defendant CONTRA COSTA
ELECTRIC, INC.’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

PLAINTIFF'S DISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

1. Plaintiff was employed as a steamfitter ‘ 1. Plaintiff's Deposition, Volume 15, p.
beginning in 1967 until 1995. I worked at 1391:7-11,

numerous industrial locations throughout
the Bay Area, including refineries, and
manufacturing plants.

2. Plaintiff worked in close proximity to 2. Plaintiff's Deposition, Volume 11 at p.
CONTRA COSTA ELECTRIC employees 1126:17-1127:1.

on many jobsites in the mid 1970's,

including Standard Oil in Richmond, CA,

Miniyred 02208 tds CCELEC ma. wpe 1 RIC

PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CONTRA COSTA,
ELECTRIC, INC."S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT-

20 ON A tA eR OB ON

ee
Nno- S

we
ee

os

NOR NR NNR Rw me
OB BW NM Ss GS wow we LDR
oom

26
27

2

Shell Oil in Martinez, CA and Tosco in
Avon, CA.

3. Plaintiff testified in deposition, that he
could not identify the specific dates or
locations within each refinery where he saw
CONTRA COSTA ELECTRIC employees.
However, he declares he can state with a
reasonable degree of certainty he saw
CONTRA COSTA ELECTRIC employees
at his jobs at Shell Oil, in Martinez, CA,
Standard Oil in Richmond, CA and Tosco
in Avon, CA in the mid 1970's.

4. Plaintiff was not asked in deposition how
he identified CONTRA COST.

+ ELECTRIC employees. Had he been asked ~.-

he.would have said as.he declares he ©.
recognized the individuals as CONTRA
COSTA BLECTRIC employees because their
hardhats and trucks displayed writing that said.
“CONTRA COSTA ELECTRIC.” He also saw
CONTRA COSTA ELECTRIC employees
taking breaks in their break shacks designated
for CONTRA COSTA ELECTRIC employees.

5. Plaintiff testified in deposition and
reaffirmed in his declaration, he saw
CONTRA COSTA ELECTRIC employees
walking on insulated pipes and ‘causing the
insulation to drop from around the seams
onto the beams where Plaintiff was
working. Plaintiff testified and declares the
insulation would come out of the pipe
shoes, which are tubular pipe brackets,
There were cut outs in the insulation where
the pipe shoes were in place. Plaintiff
observed that the insulation material was
discolored, fibrous and challcy and broke...
apart almost to a powder form when it hit
the beams.

6. Plaintiff was not asked in deposition if
the insulation pieces that fell created dust.
If he had been asked if dust was created
when the insulation fell, he would have
said, as he declares, that so much dust was
created that it looked like snow was falling.

7. Plaintiff was not asked in deposition
what type of pipe Contra Costa employees
walked on, but had he been asked, he would
have stated that the Pipes that the CONTRA
COSTA ELECTRIC employees walked on
were high pressure, high temperature pipes

Ktlojured 0279 pkdes CCRLEC nb mpd,

3. Plaintiffs Deposition, Volume 11 at p.
1128:12-13; and 1130: 21-25. Declaration of
Louis Castagna, paragraph 6.

4. Declaration of Louis Castagna, paragraph 7.

5. Plaintiff's Deposition, Volume 11 at p.
1132:18- 1133:4.; Declaration of Louis
Castagna, paragraph 8.

6. Declaration of Louis Castagna, paragraph 8.

7. Declaration of Louis Castagna, paragraph 9.

fc

PLAINTIPP'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CONTRA COSTA,

ELECTRIC, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTOC OW DH BW

RN RR KH KR NR HR NR Be Se em Be ee Re Re ee
S WA eH BF Bw NY = SB we YAH BB DH = S

that were insulated with thermal pipe
insulation.

| 8. Plaintiff was not asked in deposition how 8. Declaration of Louis Castagna, paragraph
10.

close he was to CONTRA COSTA

ELECTRIC employees while they

performed their work. Had he been asked

he would have said, as he declares, very

often he worked elbow to elbow with :

CONTRA COSTA ELECTRIC employces.
At times he worked below the CONTRA

COSTA ELECTRIC employees, while they

were above him disturbing the thermal pipe

insulation as described.

9. Plaintiff testified in his deposition and 9. Plaintiff's Deposition, Volume 11 at p.
reaffirms in his declaration, he worked in... .:. 1134:19-24; Declaration of Louis » Castagna, wf
close proximity to CONTRA COSTA a paragraph 11 |.

ELECTRIC laborers sweeping up. This. '  *~ . Sooabet :
process created a great deal of dust. nooo

10. Plaintiff was not asked in deposition, 10.. Declaration of Louis Castagna, paragraph
but had he been asked what the Contra 12.
Costa laborers were sweeping up, he would
have said as he declares, he saw them
sweep up materials that included thermal
pipe insulation that had been knocked
joose.

11.Charles Ay has read and reviewed the 11. Declaration of Charles Ay, paragraph 14.
relevant deposition testimony and
declaration of LOUIS CASTAGNA in this
matter, Wherein Plaintiff states that in the
mid 1970's he worked as a steamfitter at
Shell Oil in Martinez, CA, Standard Oil in
Richmond, CA, and Tosco in Avon, CA, in
the mid 1970's. Mr. CASTAGNA worked
in Close proximit to CONTRA COSTA
ELECTRIC employees who were walking
on existing pipe lines and dislodging pieces
of thermal insulation that Pisin describes
as discolored, fibrous and chalky. The
description of the insulation is consistent
with that of asbestos containing insulation
of the period. Plaintiff describes it breaking
apart into a powder upon impact and

creating copious amounts of visible dust.

_ The pieces of thermal insulation dropped

onto the beams where Mr. CASTA
was working.

12. Mr. CASTAGNA indicated that 12. Declaration of Charles Ay, paragraph 14.
CONTRA COSTA ELECTRIC laborers

also swept up pieces of thermal insulation

around him. Mr. CASTAGNA observed

KAlnjuredts oxzoKsphdss-COBLEC ms. ad 3 RIC

PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS JN OPPOSITION TO. DEFENDANT CONTRA COSTA
ELECTRIC, INC.."S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT14] dust when the CONTRA COSTA
ELECTRIC laborers were sweeping up this
insulation material.

2

3} 13. Mr. CASTAGNA did not wear a mask 13. Declaration of Charles Ay, paragraph 14.
or any breathing protection during his work

4]| around CON’ COSTA ELECTRIC
employees and laborers at the above

5 | mentioned refineries.

6

7

14, Based on Mr. Ay’s asbestos training, 14. Declaration of Charles Ay, paragraph 15.
education, first hand experience in the
trades as an insulator, his research,
certifications, asbestos work and inspection
8] activities, he opines, that it is
overwhelmingly likely that the thermal
« .< 91 insulation materials disturbed at these > ss. ws
+o Ht facilities in. themid 1970s would have been -
2110 || asbestos-containing.

11 f 15. In Mr. Ay’s expert opinion, it is 15, Declaration of Charles Ay, paragraph 15.
overwhelmingly likely that any thermal '
12]! insulation materials installed during

maintenance, repair, and remodeling work

13 ior to the mid 1970s would also have

cen asbestos-containing materials. Given

14]) the general durability of asbestos-containing

materials, it is much more likely than not

15 || that asbestos-containing thermal insulation

present during the mid 1970s time-period at

16 | these industrial refineries where Mr.

CASTAGNA worked, would have been

17} asbestos-containing.

18]} 16. Itis Mr. Ay’s expert opinion that 16. Declaration of Charles Ay, paragraph 16.
CONTRA COSTA ELECTRIC’s

. 19] employees disturbance and sweeping of

asbestos-containing pipe insulation in the

20] mid 1970s in close proximity to Mr...

CASTAGNA teleased respirable asbestos

21) fibers that Mr. CASTAGNA necessarily

inhaled. This is especially so since Mr.

22], CASTAGNA did not wear a mask or a

respirator.

24]) Dated: fate] & . BRAYTON“*PURCELL LLP

x

x ye Tone Qs’

“Rend J Casith
Attomeys for Plaintiff

K Sjoredh 022s CCELEC on wad 4 RC
PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION 10 DEFENDANT CONTRA COSTA
ELECTRIC, INC"S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT