Party Statement: LOUIS CASTAGNA VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                BRAYTON@ PURCELL LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
222 RUSH LANDING ROAD

CM YA HW Fw Ww

10

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

RENE J. CASILLI, ESQ., S.B. #261779 ELECTRONICALLY
BRAYTON*%*PURCELL LLP
Attorneys at Law FILED
222 Rush Landing Road Superior Court of California,
P.O, Box 6169 | County of San Francisco
gee 94948-6169 | AUG 26 2010

898-1555 Clerk of the Court
Tentative Ruling Contest Email: contestasbestosTR@braytonlaw.comBy: JUDITH NUNEZ

Deputy Clerk

Altomeys for Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN. FRANCISCO

LOUIS CASTAGNA, ASBESTOS

No. CGC-07-274230
Plaintiff,
) PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO
vs. } DEFENDANT CONTRA COSTA
) ELECTRIC, INC.’S SEPARATE
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B“P) )

STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

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

Plaintiff hereby submits the following responseslio defendant CONTRA COSTA
ELECTRIC, INC.’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Motion for Summary

Judgment with reference to plaintiff's supporting evidence disputing such statements.

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND
ALLEGED SUPPORTING EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE/EVIDENCE

1. Plaintiff filed his Complaint for Personal 1. Undisputed.
Injury - Asbestos on June 6, 2007.

Plaintiff's Complaint for Personal Injuries -
Asbestos, attached to Index of Exhibits in
Support of Contra Costa Electric, Inc.’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (hereinafter
“Index of Exhibits”) as Exhibit 1.

Mt

Kits jyred02298%p duns CCELEC nig yd 1 RIC
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CONTRA COSTA ELECTRIC, ING.'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTScy 8D I KR Hh RB YW Dm

2. CCE answered plaintiff's complaint on
August 16, 2007.

Defendant CCE’s Answer to Complaint,
attached to Index of Exhibits as Exbibit 2.

3. Plaintiff's complaint states causes of
action against CCE for negligence, product
lability, false representation, and premises
owner/contractor liability.

Plaintiff's Complaint for Personal Injuries -
Asbestos, attached to Index of Exhibits as
Exhibit 1.

4. Plaintiff's responses to standard asbestos
interrogatories, sets one and two, identify
CCE as an electrical contractor at Standard
Oil, Richmond, CA ona one-day job on
January 19, 1976,

Plaintiff's Responses to Defendants’
Standard Asbestos Case Interrogatories,
Sets One at pg, 13, attached to Index of
Exhibits as Exhibit 3 and Plaintiff's
Responses to Defendants’ Standard
Asbestos Case Interrogatories, Sets Two at
pg. 23, attached to Index of Exhibits as
Exhibit 4. -

5. Plaintiffs responses to standard asbestos
interrogatories, sets one and two, make no
mention that CCE either handled or
disturbed any asbestos containing materials
in plaintiff's presence.

Plaintiff's Responses to Defendants”
Standard Asbestos Case Interrogatories,
Sets One at pg. 13, attached to Index of
Exhibits as Exhibit. 3 and Plaintiff's
Responses to Defendants’ Standard
Asbestos Case Interrogatories, Sets Two at
pes. 23, attached to Index of Exhibits as

xhibit 4. .
6. CCE served plaintiff with a
comprehensive set of special interrogatories
on January 28, 2009.

Defendant CCE’s Special interrogatories,
Set One, attached to Index of Exhibits as

Exhibit 5.
i
Hl

Kiln prevh 10229Mpidess-CCELEC neg wma

tyre ong OR ge CELE 6 0 ee IE
PLAINTOFFS RESPONSE 10 DEFENDANT CONTRA COSTA ELECTRIC, INC. S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

2. jUndi sputed,

3. Undisputed,

4, Undisputed.

5, Disputed. Plaintiff alleges defendant °
Contra Costa Electric cut and routed
electrical wires and installed breakers and
panels (Plaintiff's Responses to
efendants’ Standard Asbestos Case
interrogatories, Set One at pg. 13.)

6. Undisputed.

RICwo mo UN DA wh Bw WN

10

7, Although plaintiff was asked for all facts
which support his contention that he was
exposed to asbestos containing products by
CCE, he only provided generic allegations
that CCE disturbed asbestos containing
miaterials in his presence at various
locations.

Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant CCE’s
Special Interrogatories, Set One,
Interrogatory 2, attached to Index of
Exhibits as Exhibit 7.

8. Although plaintiff was asked to describe
by name, manufacturer, supplier,
distributor, color, texture, consistency,
shape, size, and any markings, a description
of the products container including size,
color and writings on that container, that
CCE allegedly exposed him to at any
location, plaintiff failed to identify any
asbestos containing material with
particularity, and merely incorporated his
non-responsive answer to special
interrogatary no. 2.

.Defendant CCE’s Special Interrogatories,

Set One and Plaintiff's Responses to CCE’s
Special Interrogatories, Sets One,
Interrogatory 9 and plaintiff’s response to
Interrogatory 9, attached to Index of

Exhibits as Exhibits 5 and 7 respectively,

9. Plaintiff provided a lst of potential
witnesses, including some that are
represented by plaintiff's counsel, without
specifying any information that they may
have regarding any work CCE may have
performed in plaintifi’s presence.

Defendant CCE’s Special Interrogatories,
Set One and Plaintiff's Responses to CCE’s
Special Interrogatories, Sets One,
Tnterrogatory 5 and plaintiff's response to

K Majuredh 0298p CCELEG nisi wg

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CONTRA COSTA ELECTRIC, INC.’

|

7. (Disputed. Incomplete and misleading.
Plaintiff identifies numerous jobsites
including but not limited to Shell Oil in
Martinez, Standard Oil in Richmond, CA,
Tosco Refinery in Avon, CA as jobsites
where he worked in close Proximity to
Contra Costa Electric employees during the
mid 1970's. Plaintiff also states in his

sponse: “ Plaintiff frequently observed
CONTRA COSTA ELECTRIC, INC.
employees changing out motors, drilling
into panel boards, bending and running
conduit above him, and disturbing asbestos-
containing msulation on lines above him.
Plaintiff baled the asbestos-containing
dust generated by CONTRA COSTA

"ELECTRIC, INC. in disturbing the

asbestos-containing insulation materials
above plaintiff." .

(Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant CCE’s
Special Interrogatories, Set One,
Interrogatory 2.}

8. Disputed as to non-responsive.
Plaintiff's responses identified several
asbestos containing materials used and
disturbed by CONTRA COSTA electric
employees. Plaintiff states in his response:
“ Plaintiff frequently observed CONTRA.
COSTA ELECTRIC, INC. employees
changing out motors, drilling into panel
boards, bending and running conduit above
him, and disturbing asbestos-containing
insulation on lines above him. Plaintiff
inhaled the asbestos-containing dust
generated by CONTRA COSTA
ELECTRIC, INC. in disturbing the
asbestos-containing insulation materials
above plaintiff.”
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant CCE’s
pecial Interrogatories, Set One,
Interrogatory 2.)

9. Undisputed.

RIC
'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED PACTS,wo OR Deh BF WH

-. 10

Interrogatory 5, attached to Index of
Exhibits as Exhibits 5 and 7 respectively

10. Plaintiff Louis Castagna was deposed
on April 9, 2009 by defendants, including
counsel for CCE. Plaintiff testified that he
recalled seeing CCE as an outside
contractor at Shell Oil, Standard Oil, Tosco
refinery and UnoCal.

Deposition of Louis Castagna at p. 1126:17
- 1127:1, attached to Index of Exhibits as
Exhibit 9.

1}. Plaintiff could not recall what year he
saw CCE at Standard Oi. :

‘Deposition of Louis Castagna-at p.
1128:10-13, attached to Index of Exhibits

as Exhibit 9.

12. Plaintiff testified that he was working
for Bechtel and Ehrhart at the time.

Deposition of Louis Castagna at p.
1328:14-21 and 1129:13-17, attached to
Index of Exhibits as Exhibit 9.

13. Plaintiff testified that it was difficult
for him to differentiate the jobs where he
worked and where he saw CCE,

Deposition of Louis Castagna at p.
1130:16+20, attached to Index of Exhibits
as Exhibit 9.

14. Plaintiff could not say when he saw
CCE at Shell Oil, Martinez. -

sition of Louis Castagna at p.
1130:21-25, attached to Index of Exhibits
as Exhibit 9.

“i

KNiniueod 102298 lds OCELEC neg wpd

i

10, Undisputed.

11. Undisputed.

12. Undisputed.

13. Undisputed.

14, Disputed. Misleading. Plaintiff
testified in deposition that he saw Contra
Costa Electric “at so many jobs” that it was
difficult for him to say exactly on which
jobs they were present. Plaintiff reiterated
in deposition that he “worked with them”
(Contra Costa Electric) on many jobs -
(Deposition of Louis Castagna at p. 1131:7-
11). Plaintiff confirms in his declaration
he saw Contra Costa Electric employees at
Standard Oil in Richmond, CA, while he
was employed by Bechtel and Ehrhart.
Plaintiff saw Contra Costa Electric
gmployees at Shell Oil in Martinez, CA;
Tosco/ Avon Refinery; Unocal and
possibly General Motors in Fremont
(Declaration of Louis Castagna at paragraph

.

'
1
RIC

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CONTRA COSTA ELECTRIC, INC“S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS.Coe YW A HW RB we NN =

NON NON ROR RB Dm meme ee
BNRROREREREB ECE DERE EEBDETS

15, Plaintiff testified that he generally
recalled seeing CCE working on his
jobsites, but could not specify the year, his
employer or jobsite.

Deposition of Louis Castagna at p.
1131:12-17, attached to Index of Exhibits
as Exhibit 9.

16. Plaintiff testified that he could not
specify the year, his employer or jobsite

| where he saw CCE at Tosco.

Deposition of Louis Castagna at p-
1131:18-20, attached to Index of Exhibits
as Exhibit 9. :

Kilnyredserzvmpidves. CCE mg wy

15: Disputed. Misleading. Plaintiff
testified in deposition that he saw Contra
Costa Electric “at so many jobs” that it was
difficult for him to say exactly on which
jobs they were present. He reiterated in
deposition that he “worked with them”
(pontra Costa Electric) on many jobs
Deposition of Louis Castagna at p. 1131:7-
11). Plaintiff testified further that he
worked for Bechtel and Erhart at Standard
Oil while Contra Costa Electric employees
were also present.(Deposition of Louis
Castagna at p. 1129:5-8). Plaintiffs
Responses to Defendant Contra Costa
Eleciric’s Special Interrogatories, Set One
indicate that he was employed by Ehrhart at
Standard Oil July through December of
1975.
Plaintiff confirms in his declaration he saw
Contra Costa Electric employees at
Standard Oil in Richmond, CA, while he
was employed by Bechtel and Ehrhart
(Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Contra
Costa Electric’s Special Interrogatories, Set
One, Response to Interrogatory 2, page 4:
17-18). Plaintiffsaw Contra Costa Electric
employees at Shell Oil in Martinez, CA;
Tesco/ Avon Refinery, Unocal and
possibly General Motors in Fremont -
(Declaration of Louis Castagna at paragraph
5). In order to prove his case, Plaintiffis
not required to prove the time or location of
his exposure to asbestos.

16. Disputed. Misleading. Plaintiff
testified in deposition that he saw Contra
Costa Electric “at so many jobs” that it was
difficult for him to say exactly on which
jobs they were present. He reiterated in
deposition that he “worked with them”
(Contra Costa Electric) on many jobs
(Deposition of Louis Castagna at p. 1131:7-
11). Plaintiff testified further that he
worked for Bechtel and Ehrhart at Standard
Oil while Contra Costa Electric employees
were also present (Deposition of Louis
Castagna at p. 1129:5-8). Plaintiff's
Responses to Defendant Contra Costa
Electric's Special Interrogatories, Set One
indicate that he was employed by Ehrhart at
Standard Oil July through December of
1975 (Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant
Contra Costa Electric’s Special
Interrogatories, Set One, Response to
Interrogatory 2, page 4: 17-18). Plaintiff

RIC

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CONTRA COSTA RLECTRIC, INC.'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS:Oo Ct RH RB we NR

wMwoN MN NM BRS Se Se ee mee
BSRFRESSBHREBESE SE BDRGBE BHR OS.

17. Plaintiff testified that he could not
specify the year, his emplo er or jobsite
where he saw CCE at UnoCal.

Deposition of Louis Castagna at p..-
1131:21-23, attached to Index of Exhibits
as Exhibit 9. Forte

18. Plaintiff does not know the brand
name, manufacturer, or supplier of any of
the materials CCE workers worked with in
his presence at any jobsite.

Deposition of Louis Castagna at p. 1132:6-
10, attached to Index of Exhibits as Exhibit

KXtnjurech102298\pless -COELEG ng] wpe

4
1

confirms in his declaration he saw Contra
Costa Electric employees at Standard Oil in
Richmond, CA, while he was employed by
Bechtel and Ebrhart. Plaintiff saw Contra
Costa Electric employees at Shell Oil in
Martinez, CA; Tosco/ Avon Refinery,
Unocal and possibly General Motors’m
Fremont Declaration of Louis Castagna at
paragraph 5). In order to prove his case,
Plaintiff is not required to prove the time or
location of his exposure to asbestos.

17. Disputed. Misleading. Plaintiff
testified in deposition that he saw Contra
Costa Electric “at so many jobs” that it was
difficult for him to say exactly on which
jobs they were present-(Deposition of Louis -
Castagna at p. 1131:7-11). He reiterated in
deposition that he “worked with them”
(Contra Costa Electric) on many jobs
(Deposition of Louis Castagna at p. 1129:5-
8). Plamtiff testified further that he worked
for Bechtel and Ehrhart at Standard Oi]
while Contra Costa Electric employees
were also present (Deposition of Louis
Castagna at p. 1129:5-8). Plaintiff's
Responses to Defendant Contra Costa
Electric’s Special Interrogatories, Set One
indicate that he was employed by Ehrhart at
Standard Oil July through December of
1975 (Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant
Contra Costa Electric’s Special
Interrogatories, Set One, Response to
Interrogatory 2, page 4: 17-18).

Plaintiff confirms in his declaration he saw
Contra Costa Electric employees at
Standard Oil in Richmond, CA. while he
was employed by Bechtel and Ehrhart
{Declaration of Louis Castagna at paragraph
5). Plaintiff saw Contra Costa Electric
employees at Shell Oil in Martinez, CA;
Tosco/ Avon Refinery; Unocal and
possibly General Motors in Fremont
(Declaration of Louis Castagna at paragraph
5). In order to prove his case, Plaintiffis
not required to prove the time or location of
his exposure to asbestos.

18. Disputed. Misleading. Plaintiff
testified in deposition that he saw Contra
Costa Electric “at so many jobs” that it was
difficult for him to say exactly on which
jobs they were present (Deposition of Louis
Castagna at p. 1131:7-11). He reiterated in
deposition that he “worked with them”
(Contra Costa Electric) on many jobs

‘ RIC

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CONTRA COSTA ELECTRIC, INC'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTSem Bw Dh B BN om

Se oe oe
Rm SS

19.Plaintiff testified that he has no
information that any of the materials CCE
employees worked with in his presence, at
any time or location, contained asbestos.

Deposition of Louis Castagna at p,

1132:11-16, attached to Index of Exhibits
as Exhibit 9..

KeUniured 0729 spider CCRLEE mej wpe

(Deposition of Louis Castagna at p. 1129:5-
8). Plaintiff testified further that fe worked
for Bechtel and Ehrhart at Standard Oil
while Contra Costa Electric employees
were also present (Deposition of Louis
Castagna at p. 1129:5-8). Plaintiff's
Responses to Defendant Contra Costa
Electric’s Special Interrogatories, Set One
indicate that he was employed by Ehrhart at
Standard Oil July through December of
1975 (Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant
Contra Costa Electric’s Special
interrogatories, Set One, Response to
Interrogatory 2, page 4: 17-18)

Plaintiff confirms in his declaration he saw
Contra Costa Electric employees at
Standard Oil in Richmond, CA, while he
was employed by Bechtel and Ehrhart

(Declaration of Louis Castagna at paragraph .

5). Plaintiff saw Contra Costa Electric
‘employees at Shell Oil in Martinez, CA;

-Tosco/ Avon Refinery, Unocal and

possibly General Motors in Fremont
(Declaration of Louis Castagna at paragraph
5). In order to prevail at trial, Plaintiff does
not need to prove the identity of the
manufacturer, brand name or supplier of the
asbestos containing products CONTRA
COSTA ELECTRIC employees disturbed
in his presence,

19. Undisputed. Plaintiff is not an expert
and cannot identify and testify to asbestos
content of any material. However, Plaintiff
did testify that Contra Costa Electric
employees disturbed insulation on pipes
when walking on them. He understands
that the insulation was asbestos containing
(Deposition of Louis Castagna atp. + -
1132:23- 1133: 4). Plaintiff confirms 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 he was
working (Declaration of Louis Castagna
paragraph 7). Plaintiff states in his
declaration that the pipes the Contra Costa
Electric employees walked on were high
pressure, high temperature pipes that were
insulated with thermal pipe insulation
Declaration of Louis Castagna paragraph
). Plaintiff further testified that Contra
Costa Electric laborers swept up material
and created dust (Deposition of Louis
Castagna at p. 1134:19-24), Plaintiff was

BC

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CONTRA COSTA ELECTRIC, INC."S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS20, Following plaintiff's deposition, he
served verified supplemental/amended
responses to standard asbestos

interrogatories, set one, on February 16,

Plaintiff's Verified Supplemental/Amended
Responses to Standard Asbestos Case.
Interrogatories, Set One, attached to Index
of Exhibits as Exhibit 10.

21. Plaintiff's yerified supplemental/
amended responses to standard asbestos
interrogatories, set one, served February 16,
2010, identify CCE as an electrical
contractor at Standard Oil, Richmond, CA
on a one-day job on January 19, 1976 and
generally as electricians at Standard Oil,
hell Oil and Unocal. —

Plaintiff's Verified Supplemental/Amended
Responses to Standard Asbestos Case
Interrogatories, Set One, at pgs. 11 and 33
attached to Index of Exhibits as Exhibit 10.
i

Elniucedtt oz9e\padies-CORLEC np wad.

not asked what material Contra Costa
Electric laborers were sweeping up. Had he
been asked he would have stated as he has
in his declaration that he saw them sweep
up materials that included thermal pipe
insulation that had been knocked loose
(Declaration of Louis Castagna paragraph
11). Plaintiff's expert, Charles Ay, opines
based on his asbestos training, education,
first hand experience im the trades as an
insulator, my research, certifications,
asbestos work and inspection activities, that
it is overwhelmingly likely that the thermal
insulation materials disturbed at these
facilities in the mid 1970s would have been
asbestos-containing. Moreover, it is also

insulation materials installed during .
smaintenance, repair, and remodeling work
’ prior to the mid 1970s would also have

een asbestos-containing materials. Given.

the general durability of asbestos-containing
materials, it is much more likely than not
that asbestos-containing thermal insulation
present during the mid 1970s time-period at
these industrial refineries where Mr.
CASTAGNA worked, would have been
asbestos-containing. (Declaration of
Charles Ay, paragraph 15).

20. Undisputed. Irelevant. Plaintiff's
deposition testimony evidences causative
exposure.

21. Undisputed. Irrelevant. Plaintiff's
deposition testimony evidences causative
exposure.

8 EG

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CONTRA COSTA ELECTRIC, INC."S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS:

~ overwhelmingly likely that any thermal .....);wo oe YW A Ww RB WN

wee
A RB WN S. O.

16

22. Plaintiff's verified supplemental/
amended responses to standard asbestos
interrogatories, set one, served February 16,
2010, make no mention that CCE either
handied or disturbed any asbestos
containing materials in plaintiff's presence.

Plaintiff's Verified Supplemental/Amended
Responses to Standard Asbestos Case
Interrogatories, Set One, at pgs. 11 and 33
attached to Index of Exhibits as Exhibit 10.

Dated: <} 26 / Qo

Hrbnjurees 107

2oedpidves COREE os) pit
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CONTRA COSTA ELECTRIC, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED PACTS

'. Attorneys for Plaintiff ls

22, Undisputed. Irrelevant, Plaintiff's
deposition testimony evidences causative
exposure.

BRAYTON® PURCELL LLP

oRehe J Casilli

BIC