Preview
& CORDERY, LLP
1
Law
IMAL, TADLOCK, K.
Theodore T. Cordery, Esq. (Bar No. 114730)
Valerie R. Marvin, Esq. (Bar No. 254194)
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP ELECTRONICALLY
100 BUSH STREET, SUITE 1300
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 FILED.
Telephone: (415) 675-7000 Superior Court of California,
Se County of San Francisco
Facsimile: (415) 675-7008
JUN 23 2010
Attorneys for Defendant Clerk of the Court
ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO., IBIEYANESSA we ty Clerk
jeputy Clerl
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
LOUIS CASTAGNA, CASE NO.: CGC-07-274230
(ASBESTOS)
Plaintiffs,
DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA
v. “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO.,
INC.’S” SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) As ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT
Reflected on Exhibits B, B-1, C, D, H, I; and TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.”
DOES 1-8500; and SEE ATTACHED LIST. , MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION
Defendants,
Date: September 9, 2010
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept: 220
Judge: Hon. Harold Kahn
Complaint Filed: June 6, 2007
Trial Date: October 12, 2010
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subd. (b), defendant
ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” (hereafter, “Elliott
Company’’) submits the following Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, together
with references to supporting evidence, in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the
ale
DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT
TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
0
54104
alternative, Summary Adjudication as to the following causes of action: Negligence, Strict
Liability, and False Representation, and Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages.
Because there are no triable issues of material fact as to each cause of action against
Elliott Company, Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, Summary Adjudication as to the
above listed causes of action is proper pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section
437(c).
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE
AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
1, Plaintiff filed a Personal Injury 1.
Complaint for damages on June 6,
2007.
Plaintiff's Personal Injury Complaint, at
p. I, attached to the Declaration of
Valerie R, Marvin as Exhibit A.
2. Plaintiff alleges that as a direct and 2.
proximate result of the conduct of
defendants, he has suffered injury and
damages. Plaintiff alleges four causes
of action against Elliott Company,
specifically (1) Negligence, (2) Strict
Liability, (3) False Representation, and
(4) Punitive Damages.
Plaintiff's Personal Injury Complaint, p.
1, attached to the Declaration of Valerie
R. Marvin as Exhibit A.
3. Elliott Company filed its Answer on 3.
July 25, 2007, denying each of
Plaintiff's claims.
Elliott Company’s Answer to
Complaint, attached to the Declaration
of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit B.
4. In Response to Interrogatory No. 26 of 4,
Plaintiff's Responses to Standard
Asbestos Case Interrogatories, Set One,
which asked Plaintiff to identify each of
his employments, and to state for each
employment whether he was exposed to
asbestos. Plaintiff generally alleged that
2.
DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT.
TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
0
54104
throughout his career he worked with
“ELLIOTT steam turbines”.
Plaintiff's Responses to Standard
General Order Interrogatories, Set One,
Response No. 26, at pp. 34:14-17,
attached to the Declaration of Valerie R.
Marvin as Exhibit C.
. Plaintiff's Supplemental/Amended
Responses to Standard Asbestos Case
interrogatories, Set One and Two,
allege that while serving in the U.S.
Merchant Marines, aboard the Arthur
M. Anderson (1952) in 1972, and the
Taluga (AQ-62), in 1973, he “repaired
jackets and insulation on... ELLIOT
(sic)...steam turbines.”
Plaintiff's Responses to Standard
General Order Interrogatories,
Supplemental and Amended, Set One
and Two, Response, at pp. 7:21-26, 8:9-
16, attached to the Declaration of
Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit D.
On or about June 2, 2008, Defendant
Elliott Company propounded Special
Interrogatories, Set One.
Defendant Elliott Company ‘s Special
Interrogatories, Set One, attached to the
Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as
Exhibit E.
On or about July 7, 2008, Plaintiff
served Responses to Elliott Company’s
Special Interrogatories, Set One, and on.
July 23, 2008, Plaintiff served
Verifications to these Responses.
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant
Elliott Company Special
Interrogatories, Set One, and
Verifications to Responses, attached
collectively to the Declaration of
Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit F.
In response to Interrogatory No. 2 of.
Elliott Company’s Special
Interrogatories, Set One, which asks
plaintiff to identify each jobsite at
which he was exposed to an asbestos-
containing Elliott Company product,
3.
DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT
TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE,
SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
0
54104
10.
ii.
Plaintiff states that he was exposed to
Elliott turbines while serving in the U.S.
Merchant Marines between 1967 and
1973, aboard the S.S. Henry Dalton
(1916), the SS. Walter E. Watson
(1920), the S.S. William Snyder Jr.
(1906), the Governor Miller (1938), the
Taluga (AO-62), and the Thomas
Wilson (1943). Plaintiff allegedly
removed insulation, took apart the
governors, and replaced packing and
gaskets associated with the turbines.
Plaintiff alleged that the gaskets he
removed were supplied by Elliott.
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant
Elliott Company Special Interrogatories,
Set One, No. 2, pp. 2:7- 3:13, attached
to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin
as Exhibit F.
In response to Interrogatory No. 4 of 9.
Elliott Company Special Interrogatories
to Plaintiff, Set One, which asks
plaintiff to “state the total duration” of
his exposure to an asbestos-containing
Elliott Company product, Plaintiff
simple referenced his Response to
Interrogatory No. 2 and stated: “After a
reasonable and good-faith inquiry,
plaintiff has no further information
responsive to this Interrogatory at this
time.”
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant
Elliott Company’s Special
interrogatories, Set One, No, 4, p. 3:22-
4:3, attached to the Declaration of
Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit F.
On or about November 12, 2009, Elliott 10.
Company propounded Special
interrogatories, Set Twa,
Defendant Elliott Company Special
Interrogatories to Plaintiff Louis
Castagna, Set Two, attached to the
Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as
Exhibit G.
On or about January 20, 2010, Plaintiff IL
served Responses to Defendant Elliott
Company’s Special Interrogatories to
Plaintiff Louis Castagna. Set Two. and
4.
DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT
TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE,
SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
0
54104
12.
on or about January 20, 2010, Plaintiff
served Verifications to the Responses.
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant
Elliott Company, Set Two, and
Verifications to Responses, attached
collectively to the Declaration of
Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H.
In response to Interrogatory Nos. 35 and
36 of Elliott Company’s Special
interrogatories, Set Two, which asked
Plaintiff to identify jobsites where he
may have been para-occupationally
exposed to Elliott Company products,
Plaintiff generally alleged that his
father, Emilio J, Castagna worked as a
shipwright at Oakland private
shipyards, and that his step-father, Elton
J. Choate, worked at Shell Oil in
Martinez, California, and Ranch Seco
Nuclear Powerhouse in Herald,
California. The responses did not
identify Elliott Company.
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant
Elliott Company’s Special
interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 35-36, p.
1:20 — 2:18, attached to the Declaration
of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H.
. In response to Interrogatory Nos. 44 and
45 of Elliott Company’s Special
Interrogatories, Set Two, which asked
Plaintiff to identify the asbestos-
containing component part of any
product manufactured, sold, or
distributed by Elliott Company to which
he was exposed, Plaintiff generally
alleged that he “was exposed to
asbestos by removing and reinstalling
the asbestos-containing thermal
insulation from ELLIOTT pumps,” and
stated that “[a]fter a reasonable and
good-faith inquiry, plaintiff has no
further information responsive to this
Interrogatory at this time.” The
response fails to allege where this work
was, when this work was performed, or
the basis of Plaintiff's belief that the
insulation was asbestos-containing.
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant
Elliott Company’s Special
be
12.
13.
DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT
TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE,
SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
0
54104
15.
16.
Interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 44-45, p.
8:5-16, attached to the Declaration of
Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H.
. In response to Interrogatory No. 46 of
Elliott Company’s Special
Interrogatories, Set Two, which asked
plaintiff to state whether he contends
that the component part, if any, that
Plaintiff was allegedly exposed to was
included in the original equipment
supplied by Elliott Company, Plaintiff
responded only that “Plaintiff contends
packing and gasket were original.”
Plaintiffs Responses to Defendant
Elliott Company’s Special
interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 46, p.
8:17-21, attached to the Declaration of
Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H.
In response to Interrogatory No. 47 of
Elliott Company’s Special
interrogatories, Set Two, which asked
plaintiff to state “all facts” supporting
his contention that the component part
he was allegedly exposed to was
included in the original equipment
supplied by Elliott Company at the time
of sale, Plaintiff provides no facts
supportive of that contention, but
merely repeats his contentions of para-
occupational exposure through his
father Emilio Castagna’s work as a
shipwright in the Oakland private
shipyards, and his step-father Elton
Choate’s work as a steamfitter at Shell
Oil in Martinez, California, and Ranch.
Seco Nuclear Powerhouse in Herald,
California.
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant
Elliott Company Special
Interrogatories, Set Two, No. 47, pp.
8:22-9:8, attached to the Declaration of
Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H.
In response to Interrogatory No. 61 of
Elliott Company’s Special
interrogatories to Plaintiff Louis
Castagna, Set Two, which asks
plaintiffs to “state all facts” supporting
his contention that the component part
he was allegedly exposed to was
-6-
14.
15.
16.
DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT
TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE,
SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
0
54104
included in the original equipment
supplied by Elliott Company at the time
of sale, Plaintiff does not identify any
specific Elliott Company product to
which he, his father, or step-father was
exposed, or the date, location, or factual
circumstances of any such exposure. In
fact, the response does not specifically
allege that his father, Emilio Castagna,
or step-father, Elton Choate, ever
worked with or around any Elliott-
branded equipment.
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant
Elliott Company Special
Interrogatories, Set Two, No. 47, pp.
8:22-9:8, attached to the Declaration of
Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H.
. In response to Interrogatory No. 61 of
Elliott Company’s Special
Interrogatories, Set Two, which asks
plaintiffs to “state all facts” supporting
his cause of action for negligence,
Plaintiff states the general legal
conclusion that Elliott Company owed a
duty to warn consumers of dangers
inherent in asbestos-containing
products; the broad conclusory
allegation that Elliott Company should
have known of the risks of asbestos
exposure; the general allegation that “at
the below describes jobsites, plaintiff
contends plaintiff was exposed to
asbestos-containing products
manufactured, sold, supplied, and/or
distributed by ELLIOT [sic]
COMPANY.” Plaintiff provides no
evidence of any specific “jobsite” as an
exposure location other than to claim
para-occupational exposure through his
father Emilio Castagna’s work as a
shipwright in the Oakland private
shipyards, and his step-father Elton
Choate’s work as a steamfitter at Shell
Oil in Martinez, California, and Ranch
Seco Nuclear Powerhouse in Herald,
California.
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant
Elliott Company’s Special
Interrogatories, Set Two, No. 61, pp.
18:12-9:24, attached to the Declaration
of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H.
-T-
17.
DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT
TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE,
SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
0
54104
18. In response to Interrogatory No. 61 of
Elliott Company’s Special
interrogatories to Plaintiff Louis
Castagna, Set Two, which asks
plaintiffs to “state all facts” supporting
his cause of action for negligence,
Plaintiff does not identify any specific
Elliott Company product to which he,
his father, or step-father was exposed,
the date, location, or factual
circumstances of any such exposure. In
fact, the response does not specifically
allege that his father, Emilio Castagna,
or step-father, Elton Choate, ever
worked with or around any Elliott-
branded equipment.
Plaintiff's Responses to Elliott
Company’s Special Interrogatories, Set
Two, No. 61, pp. 18:12-9:24, attached
to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin
as Exhibit H.
19. In response to Interrogatory No. 65 of
Defendant Elliott Company's Special
interrogatories, Set Two, which asks
plaintiffs to “state all facts” supporting
his cause of action for strict liability,
Plaintiff states the general legal
conclusion that Elliott Company owed a
duty to warn consumers of dangers
inherent in asbestos-containing
products; the broad conclusory
allegation that Elliott Company should
have known of the risks of asbestos
exposure; the general allegation that “at
the below describes jobsites, plaintiff
contends plaintiff was exposed to
asbestos-containing products
manufactured, sold, supplied, and/or
distributed by ELLIOT [sic]
COMPANY.” Plaintiff provides no
evidence of any specific “jobsite” as an
exposure location other than to claim
para-occupational exposure through his
father Emilio Castagna’s work as a
shipwright in the Oakland private
shipyards, and his step-father Elton
Choate’s work as a steamfitter at Shell
Oil in Martinez, California, and Ranch
Seco Nuclear Powerhouse in Herald,
California.
-8-
19.
DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT
TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE,
SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
0
54104
20.
2
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant
Elliott Company’s Special
Interrogatories, Set Two, No. 65, pp.
21:13-22:5, attached to the Declaration
of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H.
In response to Interrogatory No. 65 of
Elliott Company’s Special
interrogatories, Set Two, Plaintiff does
not identify any specific Elliott
Company product to which he, his
father, or step-father was exposed, the
date, location, or factual circumstances
of any such exposure. In fact, the
response does not specifically allege
that his father, Emilio Castagna, or step-
father, Elton Choate, ever worked with
or around any Elliott-branded
equipment,
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant
Elliott Company’s Special
Interrogatories, Set Two, No. 65, pp.
21:13-22:5, attached to the Declaration
of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H.
. In response to Interrogatory No. 69 of
Defendant Elliott Company’s Special
Interrogatories, Set Two, which asks
plaintiffs to “state all facts” supporting
his cause of action for false
representation, Plaintiff provides no
facts, but merely states the general legal
conclusion that as a “manufacturer,
supplier, and/or distributor of asbestos-
containing products, defendant had a
duty to warn consumers of dangers
inherent in said products, [and] a duty
to appropriately label said products.”
He further states the broad conclusory
allegation that Elliott Company “knew
that asbestos-containing products such
as those supplied to plaintiffs
employers and contractors would be
handled, disturbed, and manipulated by
workers, resulting in the release of
airborne asbestos fibers”; the general
allegation that “at the below describes
jobsites, plaintiff contends plaintiff was
exposed to asbestos-containing products
manufactured, sold, supplied, and/or
distributed by ELLIOT [sic]
COMPANY.” Plaintiff provides no
evidence of any specific “jobsite” as an
-9-
20.
21.
DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT
TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE,
SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
0
54104
22.
23.
24.
exposure location other than to claim
para-occupational exposure through his
father Emilio Castagna’s work as a
shipwright in the Oakland private
shipyards, and his step-father Elton
Choate’s work as a steamfitter at Shell
Oil in Martinez, California, and Ranch
Seco Nuclear Powerhouse in Herald,
California.
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant
Elliott Company’s Special
Interrogatories, Set Two, No. 69, pp.
24:16-25:9, attached to the Declaration
of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H.
In response to Interrogatory No. 69 of 22.
Elliott Company’s Special
Interrogatories, Set Two, Plaintiff does
not identify any specific Eliott
Company product to which he, his
father, or step-father was exposed, the
date, location, or factual circumstances
of any such exposure. In fact, the
response does not specifically allege
that his father, Emilio Castagna, or step-
father, Elton Choate, ever worked with
or around any Elliott-branded
equipment.
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant
Elliott Company’s Special
interrogatories, Set Two, No. 69, pp.
24:16-25:9, attached to the Declaration
of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H.
On June 24, 2008, Plaintiff Louis 23.
Castagna’s attorney or record, Brayton
Purcell LLP, filed a Dismissal without
prejudice of Plaintiffs claim for
punitive damages.
Plaintiff's Dismissal without prejudice,
of punitive damages claim, executed on
June 3, 2008, by Oren P. Noah, Esq. of
Brayton Purcell LLP, and filed on June
24, 2008, attached to the Declaration of
Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit I.
The deposition of Plaintiff Louis 24.
Castagna was taken in this action on
June 17, September 10, 11, 12, 24, 25,
2008; March 2, 3, 5, April 7, 9,
-10-
DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT
TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE,
SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
0
54104
25,
26.
27.
28.
September 14, 16, December 15, 17,
2009; January 27, 29, and February 19,
2010.
Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin.
At deposition, Plaintiff Louis Castagna 25,
testified that there was no Elliott-
branded machinery aboard the S.S.
Henry G. Dalton (1916) when he served
on that vessel.
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. 4, pp. 394:2-
395:22, attached to the Declaration of
Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit J.
At deposition, Plaintiff Louis Castagna 26.
testified that on one occasion he
repaired and two foot section of block
insulation located under metal jacketing
of what he believed was an Elliott steam
turbine aboard the Arthur M. Anderson
(1952). He did not know the brand
name, manufacturer or supplier of the
insulation he removed as part of the
repair project
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. 11, pp. 1135:17-
24, 1136:25-1137:21, 1140:16-22,
1141:7-16, attached to the Declaration
of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit K.
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. 13, pp. 1246:16-
22, and 1247:24-1248:1, attached to the
Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as
Exhibit L.
At deposition, Plaintiff Louis Castagna 27.
testified that he did not know the brand
name, manufacturer or supplier of the
insulation he removed as part of the
repair project
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. 11, p. 1141:11-13,
1141:18-20, attached to the Declaration
of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit K.
At deposition, Plaintiff Louis Castagna 28.
testified that he did not perform any
work with gaskets or packing associated
-li-
DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT
TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE,
SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
0
54104
29.
30.
31
with the Elliott steam turbine aboard the
Arthur M. Anderson (1952).
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. 11, p. 1137:22-24,
attached to the Declaration of Valerie R.
Marvin as Exhibit K.
At deposition, Plaintiff Louis Castagna
testified that he did not know who
originally installed the blanket
insulation that he removed and he did
not know the age of the insulation that
he removed from the Elliott turbine
aboard the Arthur M. Anderson (1952).
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. 13, pp. 1248:2-6,
attached to the Declaration of Valerie R.
Marvin as Exhibit L.
At deposition, Plaintiff Louis Castagna
testified that believed that the Arthur M.
Anderson (1952) was originally fitted in
either 1952 or 1954,
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. 11, p. 1138:3-7,
attached to the Declaration of Valerie R.
Marvin as Exhibit K.
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. 13, p. 1248:7-9,
attached to the Declaration of Valerie R.
Marvin as Exhibit L.
. Although at deposition, Plaintiff Louis
Castagna testified that believed that the
block insulation he removed from the
Elliott turbine aboard the Arthur M.
Anderson (1952) may have been
original to the turbine, Plaintiff
admitted that he never any maintenance
or repair records pertaining to the
insulation. Plaintiff testified that he may
have learned about the age of the
insulation in a conversation with the
chief engineer; however, upon
questioning, Plaintiff stated that he did
not recall the chief engineer’s name, did
not recall the contents of the
conversation regarding the turbine, and
finally admitted that he never discussed
the age of the insulation with the chief
-12-
29.
30.
31,
DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT
TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE,
SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
0
54104
32.
33.
34,
engineer.
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. 13, p. 1248:10-
1250:11, attached to the Declaration of
Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit L.
At deposition, Plaintiff testified that on 32.
one occasion in 1974 or 1975, aboard
the Taluga (AO-62), he worked on what
he believed was an Elliott steam
turbine. Plaintiff removed a 20 by 40
inch piece of block insulation that was
breaking apart, and that he removed a 3
inch section of mud-type insulation
from between the pieces of block
insulation and he replaced the 3 inch
section with new mud insulation which
he covered in muslin cloth and painted.
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol, 11, pp. 1138:8-15,
1139:2-12, 1139:19-1140:5, attached to
the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as
Exhibit K.
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. 13, pp. 1242:7-12,
1244:5-17, attached to the Declaration
of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit L.
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. 18, pp. 1574:24-
1575:15, 1576:7-10, attached to the
Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as
Exhibit N.
At deposition, Plaintiff Louis Castagna 33.
testified that he did not perform any
work with gaskets or packing associated
with the Elliott steam turbine aboard the
Taluga (AQ-62).
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. 11, p. 1138:16-18,
attached to the Declaration of Valerie R.
Marvin as Exhibit K.
With regard to the blanket insulation he 34.
removed aboard the Taluga (AOQ-62),
Plaintiff testified that he did not know
the brand name, manufacturer or
supplier of the insulation, he did not
know who originally installed it on the
-13-
DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT
TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE,
SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
0
54104
35.
36.
37,
38.
turbine, he did not know the age of the
insulation, and he did not have any
reason to believe the blanket insulation
was original to the manufacture of the
turbine.
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. 13, p. 1245:6-19,
attached to the Declaration of Valerie R.
Marvin as Exhibit L.
With regard to the mud-type insulation, 35.
Plaintiff testified that he did not know
the brand name, manufacturer or
supplier of the either the insulation that
he removed or applied from the Ta/uga
(AO-62).
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. 11, p. 1140:6-15,
attached to the Declaration of Valerie R.
Marvin as Exhibit K.
At deposition, Plaintiff Louis Castagna 36.
testified that he did not know the
maintenance or repair history of the
turbine aboard the Taluga (AO-62).
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. 11, p. 1138:22-24,
attached to the Declaration of Valerie R.
Marvin as Exhibit K.
At deposition, Plaintiff testified that on 37.
two or three occasions in 1969 or 1970,
he removed and applied insulating mud
from the overspeed mechanism on an
Elliott turbine aboard the S.S. William
Snyder (1906).
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. 16, pp. 1488:24-
1489715, 1490:17-1491:17, 1492:12-23,
attached to the Declaration of Valerie R.
Marvin as Exhibit M.
At deposition, Plaintiff testified that he 38.
applied Eagle-Pitcher No. 66 insulating
mud. He also believed that the
insulating mud he removed may have
been Eagle-Pitcher No. 66 mud since
that was the mud he applied. Plaintiff
obtained the insulating mud from the
dunnage room.
“14.
DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT
TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE,
SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
0
54104
39,
40.
Al.
42,
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. 16, pp. 1491:18-
1492:11, attached to the Declaration of
Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit M.
At deposition, Plaintiff testified that he
did not know who had applied the
insulating mud he removed from the
overspeed mechanism, and he did not
know when any of the insulating mud
that he removed had been applied.
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. 16, p. 1494:16-23,
attached to the Declaration of Valerie R.
Marvin as Exhibit M.
At deposition, Plaintiff testified that on
two occasions he removed and installed
metal-encased Flexatallic gaskets on the
overspeed mechanism on an Elliott
turbine aboard the S.S. William Snyder
(1906). Plaintiff obtained the
replacement gaskets from the chief
engineer, whose name he did not recall.
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. 16, pp. 1492:25-
1494:2, attached to the Declaration of
Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit M.
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. 18, pp. 1578:23-
1579:21, attached to the Declaration of
Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit N.
At deposition, Plaintiff testified that he
did not know if the gaskets he removed
from the overspeed mechanism were
original to the turbine, and he did not
know the age of the gaskets that he
removed.
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. 16, p. 1494:3-[1,
attached to the Declaration of Valerie R.
Marvin as Exhibit M.
At deposition, Plaintiff testified that on
one occasion he cut a gasket out of
Anchor sheet gasket material and
applied it part of the cooling system
associated with the Elliott turbine
-L5-
39.
40.
4],
42.
DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT
TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE,
SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
0
54104
aboard the S.S. William Snyder (1906).
Plaintiff obtained the sheet gasket
material from the dunnage room.
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. 16, pp. 1494:22-
1495:18, attached to the Declaration of
Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit M.
43, At deposition, Plaintiff testified that on 43.
one occasion he removed and replaced
packing from the stem shaft associated
with the overspeed mechanism on an
Elliott turbine aboard the S.S. William
Snyder (1906).
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. 16, pp. 1496:15-
1497:3, attached to the Declaration of
Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit M.
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. [8, p. 1577:10-18,
attached to the Declaration of Valerie R.
Marvin as Exhibit N.
44. At deposition, Plaintiff testified that he 44.
installed Anchor packing on the stem
shaft associated with the overspeed
mechanism on an Elliott turbine aboard
the S.S. William Snyder (1906). He
obtained the replacement packing from
the dunnage room. Plaintiff testified
that he did not know the brand name,
manufacturer or supplier of the packing
he removed from the stem shaft.
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. 16, p. 1497:4-24,
attached to the Declaration of Valerie R.
Marvin as Exhibit M.
45, At deposition, Plaintiff testified that he 4S.
did not know when the packing that he
removed from the stem shaft associated
with the overspeed mechanism had been
applied.
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. 16, p. 1498:1-8,
attached to the Declaration of Valerie R.
Marvin as Exhibit M.
46. At deposition, Plaintiff testified that he 46.
-16-
DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT
TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE,
SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
0
54104
47,
48.
49.
30.
did not recall the name of any of his co-
workers that may have assisted him
with work on the Elliott turbine aboard
the S.S. William Snyder (1906).
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. 18, p. 1577:10-18,
attached to the Declaration of Valerie R.
Marvin as Exhibit N.
At deposition, Plaintiff Louis Castagna
testified that he did not know the
maintenance history of the Elliott
turbine aboard the S.S. William Snyder
(1906).
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. 16, pp. 1495:19-
23, attached to the Declaration of
Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit M.
At deposition, Plaintiff Louis Castagna
testified that he believed that the Elliott
turbine aboard the S.S. William Snyder
(1906) was installed on the vessel
during a refitting in 1948,
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. 16, pp. 1495:25-
1496:14, attached to the Declaration of
Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit M.
At deposition, Plaintiff Louis Castagna
testified that his father worked at
shipyards in San Francisco from the
time he was born until 1957. Plaintiff
did not know which shipyards he
worked at. Plaintiff also testified that he
did not have any personal knowledge of
the products or materials his father
worked with at the shipyards.
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. 1, p. 68:10-24,
attached to the Declaration of Valerie R.
Marvin as Exhibit O.
At deposition, Plaintiff Louis Castagna
testified that he lived with his father
from then time he was born until 1957..
His father worked at shipyards in San
Francisco throughout this time period.
He never worked with this father or
visited him at work. Plaintiff did not
-l7-
47.
AB.
49.
50.
DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT
TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE,
SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
0
54104
itt
itt
itt
Si.
$2.
$3.
know which shipyards he worked at.
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. 1, pp. 21:25-22:4,
38:1-8, attached to the Declaration of
Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit O.
At deposition, Plaintiff Louis Castagna 51.
testified that he did not have any
personal knowledge of the products or
materials his father worked with at the
shipyards.
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. 1, p. 69:8-10,
attached to the Declaration of Valerie R.
Marvin as Exhibit O.
At deposition, Plaintiff Louis Castagna §2.
testified that he never worked with his
stepfather, Elton Choate, and he never
visited him at a jobsite. Plaintiff also
testified that he did not have any
personal knowledge of the products,
materials, or contractors that his
stepfather worked with or around
throughout his employment as a
steamfitter.
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. 1, p. 50:7-51:1,
73:7-74:3, attached to the Declaration
of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit O.
At deposition, Plaintiff Louis Castagna 53.
testified that he did not have any
personal knowledge of the products,
materials, or contractors that his
stepfather worked with or around
throughout his employment as a
steamfitter.
Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff
Louis Castagna, Vol. 1, pp. 73:7-74:3,
attached to the Declaration of Valerie R.
Marvin as Exhibit O.
-18-
DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT
TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE,
SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
0
54104
MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligence)
Issue 1: Plaintiff Cannot Establish Causation And Therefore His First Cause Of
Action Must Fail,
MOVING PARTY’S UNDISPUTED OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE AND
MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
1. Plaintiff filed a Personal Injury 1.
Complaint for damages on June 6,
2007.
Plaintiffs Personal Injury Complaint, at
p. 1, attached to the Declaration of
Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit A.
2, Plaintiff alleges that as a direct and 2.
proximate result of the conduct of
defendants, he has suffered injury and
damages. Plaintiff alleges four causes
of action against Elliott Company,
specifically (1) Negligence, (2) Strict
Liability, (3) False Representation, and
(4) Punitive Damages.
Plaintiffs Personal Injury Complaint, p.
1, attached to the Declaration of Valerie
R. Marvin as Exhibit A.
3, Elliott Company filed its Answer on. 3.
July 25, 2007, denying each of
Plaintiffs claims.
Elliott Company’s Answer to
Complaint, attached to the Declaration
of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit B.
4, In Response to Interrogatory No. 26 of 4,
Plaintiff's Responses to Standard
Asbestos Case Interrogatories, Set One,
which asked Plaintiff to identify each of
his employments, and to state for each
employment whether he was exposed to
asbestos, Plaintiff generally alleged that
throughout his career he worked with
“ELLIOTT steam turbines”.
Plaintiff's Responses to Standard
General Order Interrogatories. Set One.
-19-
DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT
TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE,
SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
0
54104
Response No. 26, at pp. 34:14-17,
attached to the Declaration of Valerie R.
Marvin as Exhibit C,
Plaintiff's Supplemental/Amended
, Responses to Standard Asbestos Case
Interrogatories, Set One and Two,
allege that while serving in the U.S.
Merchant Marines, aboard the Arthur
M. Anderson (1952) in 1972, and the
Taluga (AQ-62), in 1973, he “repaired
jackets and insulation on... ELLIOT
(sic)... steam turbines,”
Plaintiff's Responses to Standard
General Order Interrogatories,
Supplemental and Amended, Set One
and Two, Response, at pp. 7:21-26, 8:9-
16, attached to the Declaration of
Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit D.
On or about June 2, 2008, Defendant
Elliott Company propounded Special
interrogatories, Set One.
Defendant Elliott Company ‘s Special
interrogatories, Set One, attached to the
Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as
Exhibit E.
On or about July 7, 2008, Plaintiff
served Responses to Elliott Company’s
Special Interrogatories, Set One, and on
July 23, 2008, Plaintiff served
Verifications to these Responses.
Plaintiffs Responses to Defendant
Elliott Company Special
Interrogatories, Set One, and
Verifications to Responses, attached
collectively to the Declaration of
Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit F.
In response to Interrogatory No. 2 of
Elliott Company’s Special
Interrogatories, Set One, which asks
plaintiff to identify each jobsite at
which he was exposed to an asbestos-
containing Elliott Company product,
Plaintiff states that he was exposed to
Elliott turbines while serving in the U.S.
Merchant Marines between 1967 and
1973, aboard the S.S. Henry Dalton
(1916), the S.S. Walter E. Watson
-20-
DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT
TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE,
SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
0
54104
10.
ik,
(1920), the S.S. William Snyder Jr.
(1906), the Governor Miller (1938), the
Taluga (AO-62), and the Thomas
Wilson (1943). Plaintiff allegedly
removed insulation, took apart the
governors, and replaced packing and
gaskets associated with the turbines.
Plaintiff alleged that the gaskets he
removed were supplied by Elliott.
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant
Elliott Company Special Interrogatories,
Set One, No, 2, pp, 2:7- 3:13, attached
to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin
as Exhibit F,
In response to Interrogatory No. 4 of. 9
Elliott Company Special Interrogatories
to Plaintiff, Set One, which asks
plaintiff to “state the total duration” of
his exposure to an asbestos-containing
Elliott Company product, Plaintiff
simple referenced his Response to
Interrogatory No. 2 and stated: “After a
reasonable and good-faith inquiry,
plaintiff has no further information
responsive to this Interrogatory at this
time.”
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant
Elliott Company’s Special
Interrogatories, Set One, No. 4, p. 3:22-
4:3, attached to the Declaration of
Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit F.
On or about November 12, 2009, Elliott 10.
Company propounded Special
Interrogatories, Set Two.
Defendant Elliott Company Special
Interrogatories to Plaintiff Louis
Castagna, Set Two, attached to the
Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as
Exhibit G.
On or about January 20, 2010, Plaintiff Ih.
served Responses to Defendant Elliott
Company’s Special Interrogatories to
Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Set Two, and
on or about January 20, 2010, Plaintiff
served Verifications to the Responses.
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant
Elliott Company. Set Two. and
2I-
DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT
TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE,
SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
0
54104
Verifications to Responses, attached
collectively to the Declaration of
Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H.
12. In response to Interrogatory Nos. 35 and.
36 of Elliott Company’s Special
Interrogatories, Set Two, which asked
Plaintiff to identify jobsites where he
may have been para-occupationally
exposed to Elliott Company products,
Plaintiff generally alleged that his
father, Emilio J, Castagna worked as a
shipwright at Oakland private
shipyards, and that his step-father, Elton
J. Choate, worked at Shell Oil in
Martinez, California, and Ranch Seco
Nuclear Powerhouse in Herald,
California. The responses did not
identify Elliott Company.
Plaintiffs Responses to Defendant
Elliott Company’s Special
Interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 35-36, p.
1:20 - 2:18, attached to the Declaration
of Valerie R, Marvin as Exhibit H.
13. In response to Interrogatory Nos. 44 and
45 of Elliott Company’s Special
Interrogatories, Set Two, which asked
Plaintiff to identify the asbestos-
containing component part of any
product manufactured, sold, or
distributed by Elliott Company to which
he was exposed, Plaintiff generally
alleged that he “was exposed to
asbestos by removing and reinstalling
the asbestos-containing thermal
insulation from ELLIOTT pumps,” and
stated that “[a]fter a reasonable and
good-faith inquiry, plaintiff has no
further information responsive to this
Interrogatory at this time.” The
response fails to allege where this work
was, when this work. was performed, or
the basis of Plaintiffs belief that the
insulation was asbestos-containing.
Plaintiffs Responses to Defendant
Elliott Company’s Special
interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 44-45, p.
8:5-16, attached to the Declaration of
Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H.
14. In response to Interrogatory No. 46 of
22-
12.
13.
14.
DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT
TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE,
SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
0
54104
16,
Elliott Company’s Special
interrogatories, Set Two, which asked
plaintiff to state whether he contends
that the component part, if any, that
Plaintiff was allegedly exposed to was
included in the original equipment
supplied by Elliott Company, Plaintiff
responded only that “Plaintiff contends
packing and gasket were original.”
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant
Elliott Company’s Special
Interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 46, p.
8:17-21, attached to the Declaration of
Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H,
. In response to Interrogatory No. 47 of 15,
Elliott Company’s Special
Interrogatories, Set Two, which asked
plaintiff to state “all facts” supporting
his contention that the component part
he was allegedly exposed to was
included in the original equipment
supplied by Elliott Company at the time
of sale, Plaintiff provides no facts
supportive of that contention, but
merely repeats his contentions of para-
occupational exposure through his
father Emilio Castagna’s work as a
shipwright in the Oakland private
shipyards, and his step-father Elton
Choate’s work as a steamfitter at Shell
Oil in Martinez, California, and Ranch
Seco Nuclear Powerhouse in Herald,
California.
Plaintiffs Responses to Defendant
Elliott Company Special
Interrogatories, Set Two, No. 47, pp.
8:22-9:8, attached to the Declaration of
Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H.
in response to Interrogatory No. 61 of 16.
Elliott Company’s Special
Interrogatories to Plaintiff Louis
Castagna, Set Two, which asks
plaintiffs to “state all facts” supporting
his contention that the component part
he was allegedly exposed to was
included in the original equipment
supplied by Elliott Company at the time
of sale, Plaintiff does not identify any
specific Elliott Company product to
which he, his father, or step-father was
-23-
DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT
TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE,
SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
0
54104
17.
18.
exposed, or the date, location, or factual
circumstances of any such exposure. In
fact, the response does not specifically
allege that his father, Emilio Castagna,
or step-father, Elton Choate, ever
worked with or around any Elliott-
branded equipment.
Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant
Elliott Company Special
interrogatories, Set Two, No. 47, pp.
8:22-9:8, attached to the Declaration of
Valerie R, Marvin as Exhibit H.
In response to Interrogatory No. 61 of
Elliott Company’s Special
Interrogatories, Set Two, which asks
plaintiffs to “state all facts” supporting
his cause of action for negligence,
Plaintiff states the general legal
conclusion that Elliott Company owed a
duty to warn consumers of dangers
inherent in asbestos-containing
products; the broad conclusory
allegation that Elliott Company should
have known of the risks of asbestos
exposure; the general allegation that “at
the below describes jobsites, plaintiff
contends plaintiff was exposed to
asbestos-containing products
manufactured, sold, supplied, and/or
distributed by ELLIOT [sic]
COMPANY.” Plaintiff provides no
evidence of any specific “jobsite” as an
exposure location other than to claim
para-occupational exposure through his
father Emilio Castagna’s work as a
shipwright in the Oakland private
shipyards, and his step-father Elton
Choate’s work as a steamfitter at Shell
Oil in Martinez, California, and Ranch.
Seco Nuclear Powerhouse in Herald,
California.
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant
Elliott Company’s Special
interrogatories, Set Two, No. 61, pp.
18:12-9:24, attached to the Declaration
of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H.
In response to Interrogatory No. 61 of
Elliott Company’s Special
interrogatories to Plaintiff Louis
Castagna, Set Two, which asks
24.
17.
18.
DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT
TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE,
SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES
IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
0
54104
plaintiffs to “state all facts” supporting
his cause of action for negligence,
Plaintiff does not identify any specific
Elliott Company product to which he,
his father, or step-father was exposed,
the date, location, or factual
circumstances of any such exposure. In
fact, the response does not specifically
allege that his father, Emilio Castagna,
or step-father, Elton Choate, ever
worked with or around any Elliott-
branded equipment.
Plaintiff's Responses to Elliott
Company’s Special Interrogatories, Set
Two, No. 61, pp. 18:12-9:24, attached
to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin.
as Exhibit H.
. In response to Interrogatory No. 65 of 19,
Defendant Elliott Company’s Special
Interrogatories, Set Two, which asks
plaintiffs to “state all facts” supporting
his cause of action for strict liability,
Plaintiff states the general legal
conclusion that Elliott Company owed a
duty to warn consumers of dangers
inherent in asbestos-containing
products; the broad conclusory
allegation that Elliott Company should
have known of the risks of asbestos
exposure; the general allegation that “at
the below describes jobsites, plaintiff
contends plaintiff was exposed to
asbestos-containing products
manufactured, sold, supplied, and/or
distributed by ELLIOT [sic]
COMPANY.” Plaintiff provides no
evidence of any specific “jobsite” as an
exposure location other than to claim
para-occupational exposure through his
father Emilio Castagna’s work as a
shipwright in the Oakland private
shipyards, and his step-father Elton
Choate’s work as a steamfitter at Shell
Oil in Martinez, California, and Ranch
Seco Nuclear Powerhouse in Herald,
California.
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant
Elliott Company’s Special
Interrogatories, Set Two, No. 65, pp.
21:13-22:5, attached to the Declaration
of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H.
-25-
DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT
TURBOMACHINER
Preview
& CORDERY, LLP 1 Law IMAL, TADLOCK, K. Theodore T. Cordery, Esq. (Bar No. 114730) Valerie R. Marvin, Esq. (Bar No. 254194) IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP ELECTRONICALLY 100 BUSH STREET, SUITE 1300 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 FILED. Telephone: (415) 675-7000 Superior Court of California, Se County of San Francisco Facsimile: (415) 675-7008 JUN 23 2010 Attorneys for Defendant Clerk of the Court ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO., IBIEYANESSA we ty Clerk jeputy Clerl IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION LOUIS CASTAGNA, CASE NO.: CGC-07-274230 (ASBESTOS) Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA v. “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.’S” SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) As ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT Reflected on Exhibits B, B-1, C, D, H, I; and TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” DOES 1-8500; and SEE ATTACHED LIST. , MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Defendants, Date: September 9, 2010 Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept: 220 Judge: Hon. Harold Kahn Complaint Filed: June 6, 2007 Trial Date: October 12, 2010 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subd. (b), defendant ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” (hereafter, “Elliott Company’’) submits the following Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, together with references to supporting evidence, in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the ale DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP 0 54104 alternative, Summary Adjudication as to the following causes of action: Negligence, Strict Liability, and False Representation, and Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages. Because there are no triable issues of material fact as to each cause of action against Elliott Company, Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, Summary Adjudication as to the above listed causes of action is proper pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 437(c). MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 1, Plaintiff filed a Personal Injury 1. Complaint for damages on June 6, 2007. Plaintiff's Personal Injury Complaint, at p. I, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R, Marvin as Exhibit A. 2. Plaintiff alleges that as a direct and 2. proximate result of the conduct of defendants, he has suffered injury and damages. Plaintiff alleges four causes of action against Elliott Company, specifically (1) Negligence, (2) Strict Liability, (3) False Representation, and (4) Punitive Damages. Plaintiff's Personal Injury Complaint, p. 1, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit A. 3. Elliott Company filed its Answer on 3. July 25, 2007, denying each of Plaintiff's claims. Elliott Company’s Answer to Complaint, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit B. 4. In Response to Interrogatory No. 26 of 4, Plaintiff's Responses to Standard Asbestos Case Interrogatories, Set One, which asked Plaintiff to identify each of his employments, and to state for each employment whether he was exposed to asbestos. Plaintiff generally alleged that 2. DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT. TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP 0 54104 throughout his career he worked with “ELLIOTT steam turbines”. Plaintiff's Responses to Standard General Order Interrogatories, Set One, Response No. 26, at pp. 34:14-17, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit C. . Plaintiff's Supplemental/Amended Responses to Standard Asbestos Case interrogatories, Set One and Two, allege that while serving in the U.S. Merchant Marines, aboard the Arthur M. Anderson (1952) in 1972, and the Taluga (AQ-62), in 1973, he “repaired jackets and insulation on... ELLIOT (sic)...steam turbines.” Plaintiff's Responses to Standard General Order Interrogatories, Supplemental and Amended, Set One and Two, Response, at pp. 7:21-26, 8:9- 16, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit D. On or about June 2, 2008, Defendant Elliott Company propounded Special Interrogatories, Set One. Defendant Elliott Company ‘s Special Interrogatories, Set One, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit E. On or about July 7, 2008, Plaintiff served Responses to Elliott Company’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, and on. July 23, 2008, Plaintiff served Verifications to these Responses. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Elliott Company Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Verifications to Responses, attached collectively to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit F. In response to Interrogatory No. 2 of. Elliott Company’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, which asks plaintiff to identify each jobsite at which he was exposed to an asbestos- containing Elliott Company product, 3. DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP 0 54104 10. ii. Plaintiff states that he was exposed to Elliott turbines while serving in the U.S. Merchant Marines between 1967 and 1973, aboard the S.S. Henry Dalton (1916), the SS. Walter E. Watson (1920), the S.S. William Snyder Jr. (1906), the Governor Miller (1938), the Taluga (AO-62), and the Thomas Wilson (1943). Plaintiff allegedly removed insulation, took apart the governors, and replaced packing and gaskets associated with the turbines. Plaintiff alleged that the gaskets he removed were supplied by Elliott. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Elliott Company Special Interrogatories, Set One, No. 2, pp. 2:7- 3:13, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit F. In response to Interrogatory No. 4 of 9. Elliott Company Special Interrogatories to Plaintiff, Set One, which asks plaintiff to “state the total duration” of his exposure to an asbestos-containing Elliott Company product, Plaintiff simple referenced his Response to Interrogatory No. 2 and stated: “After a reasonable and good-faith inquiry, plaintiff has no further information responsive to this Interrogatory at this time.” Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Elliott Company’s Special interrogatories, Set One, No, 4, p. 3:22- 4:3, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit F. On or about November 12, 2009, Elliott 10. Company propounded Special interrogatories, Set Twa, Defendant Elliott Company Special Interrogatories to Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Set Two, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit G. On or about January 20, 2010, Plaintiff IL served Responses to Defendant Elliott Company’s Special Interrogatories to Plaintiff Louis Castagna. Set Two. and 4. DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP 0 54104 12. on or about January 20, 2010, Plaintiff served Verifications to the Responses. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Elliott Company, Set Two, and Verifications to Responses, attached collectively to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H. In response to Interrogatory Nos. 35 and 36 of Elliott Company’s Special interrogatories, Set Two, which asked Plaintiff to identify jobsites where he may have been para-occupationally exposed to Elliott Company products, Plaintiff generally alleged that his father, Emilio J, Castagna worked as a shipwright at Oakland private shipyards, and that his step-father, Elton J. Choate, worked at Shell Oil in Martinez, California, and Ranch Seco Nuclear Powerhouse in Herald, California. The responses did not identify Elliott Company. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Elliott Company’s Special interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 35-36, p. 1:20 — 2:18, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H. . In response to Interrogatory Nos. 44 and 45 of Elliott Company’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, which asked Plaintiff to identify the asbestos- containing component part of any product manufactured, sold, or distributed by Elliott Company to which he was exposed, Plaintiff generally alleged that he “was exposed to asbestos by removing and reinstalling the asbestos-containing thermal insulation from ELLIOTT pumps,” and stated that “[a]fter a reasonable and good-faith inquiry, plaintiff has no further information responsive to this Interrogatory at this time.” The response fails to allege where this work was, when this work was performed, or the basis of Plaintiff's belief that the insulation was asbestos-containing. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Elliott Company’s Special be 12. 13. DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP 0 54104 15. 16. Interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 44-45, p. 8:5-16, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H. . In response to Interrogatory No. 46 of Elliott Company’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, which asked plaintiff to state whether he contends that the component part, if any, that Plaintiff was allegedly exposed to was included in the original equipment supplied by Elliott Company, Plaintiff responded only that “Plaintiff contends packing and gasket were original.” Plaintiffs Responses to Defendant Elliott Company’s Special interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 46, p. 8:17-21, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H. In response to Interrogatory No. 47 of Elliott Company’s Special interrogatories, Set Two, which asked plaintiff to state “all facts” supporting his contention that the component part he was allegedly exposed to was included in the original equipment supplied by Elliott Company at the time of sale, Plaintiff provides no facts supportive of that contention, but merely repeats his contentions of para- occupational exposure through his father Emilio Castagna’s work as a shipwright in the Oakland private shipyards, and his step-father Elton Choate’s work as a steamfitter at Shell Oil in Martinez, California, and Ranch. Seco Nuclear Powerhouse in Herald, California. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Elliott Company Special Interrogatories, Set Two, No. 47, pp. 8:22-9:8, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H. In response to Interrogatory No. 61 of Elliott Company’s Special interrogatories to Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Set Two, which asks plaintiffs to “state all facts” supporting his contention that the component part he was allegedly exposed to was -6- 14. 15. 16. DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP 0 54104 included in the original equipment supplied by Elliott Company at the time of sale, Plaintiff does not identify any specific Elliott Company product to which he, his father, or step-father was exposed, or the date, location, or factual circumstances of any such exposure. In fact, the response does not specifically allege that his father, Emilio Castagna, or step-father, Elton Choate, ever worked with or around any Elliott- branded equipment. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Elliott Company Special Interrogatories, Set Two, No. 47, pp. 8:22-9:8, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H. . In response to Interrogatory No. 61 of Elliott Company’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, which asks plaintiffs to “state all facts” supporting his cause of action for negligence, Plaintiff states the general legal conclusion that Elliott Company owed a duty to warn consumers of dangers inherent in asbestos-containing products; the broad conclusory allegation that Elliott Company should have known of the risks of asbestos exposure; the general allegation that “at the below describes jobsites, plaintiff contends plaintiff was exposed to asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold, supplied, and/or distributed by ELLIOT [sic] COMPANY.” Plaintiff provides no evidence of any specific “jobsite” as an exposure location other than to claim para-occupational exposure through his father Emilio Castagna’s work as a shipwright in the Oakland private shipyards, and his step-father Elton Choate’s work as a steamfitter at Shell Oil in Martinez, California, and Ranch Seco Nuclear Powerhouse in Herald, California. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Elliott Company’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, No. 61, pp. 18:12-9:24, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H. -T- 17. DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP 0 54104 18. In response to Interrogatory No. 61 of Elliott Company’s Special interrogatories to Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Set Two, which asks plaintiffs to “state all facts” supporting his cause of action for negligence, Plaintiff does not identify any specific Elliott Company product to which he, his father, or step-father was exposed, the date, location, or factual circumstances of any such exposure. In fact, the response does not specifically allege that his father, Emilio Castagna, or step-father, Elton Choate, ever worked with or around any Elliott- branded equipment. Plaintiff's Responses to Elliott Company’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, No. 61, pp. 18:12-9:24, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H. 19. In response to Interrogatory No. 65 of Defendant Elliott Company's Special interrogatories, Set Two, which asks plaintiffs to “state all facts” supporting his cause of action for strict liability, Plaintiff states the general legal conclusion that Elliott Company owed a duty to warn consumers of dangers inherent in asbestos-containing products; the broad conclusory allegation that Elliott Company should have known of the risks of asbestos exposure; the general allegation that “at the below describes jobsites, plaintiff contends plaintiff was exposed to asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold, supplied, and/or distributed by ELLIOT [sic] COMPANY.” Plaintiff provides no evidence of any specific “jobsite” as an exposure location other than to claim para-occupational exposure through his father Emilio Castagna’s work as a shipwright in the Oakland private shipyards, and his step-father Elton Choate’s work as a steamfitter at Shell Oil in Martinez, California, and Ranch Seco Nuclear Powerhouse in Herald, California. -8- 19. DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP 0 54104 20. 2 Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Elliott Company’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, No. 65, pp. 21:13-22:5, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H. In response to Interrogatory No. 65 of Elliott Company’s Special interrogatories, Set Two, Plaintiff does not identify any specific Elliott Company product to which he, his father, or step-father was exposed, the date, location, or factual circumstances of any such exposure. In fact, the response does not specifically allege that his father, Emilio Castagna, or step- father, Elton Choate, ever worked with or around any Elliott-branded equipment, Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Elliott Company’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, No. 65, pp. 21:13-22:5, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H. . In response to Interrogatory No. 69 of Defendant Elliott Company’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, which asks plaintiffs to “state all facts” supporting his cause of action for false representation, Plaintiff provides no facts, but merely states the general legal conclusion that as a “manufacturer, supplier, and/or distributor of asbestos- containing products, defendant had a duty to warn consumers of dangers inherent in said products, [and] a duty to appropriately label said products.” He further states the broad conclusory allegation that Elliott Company “knew that asbestos-containing products such as those supplied to plaintiffs employers and contractors would be handled, disturbed, and manipulated by workers, resulting in the release of airborne asbestos fibers”; the general allegation that “at the below describes jobsites, plaintiff contends plaintiff was exposed to asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold, supplied, and/or distributed by ELLIOT [sic] COMPANY.” Plaintiff provides no evidence of any specific “jobsite” as an -9- 20. 21. DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP 0 54104 22. 23. 24. exposure location other than to claim para-occupational exposure through his father Emilio Castagna’s work as a shipwright in the Oakland private shipyards, and his step-father Elton Choate’s work as a steamfitter at Shell Oil in Martinez, California, and Ranch Seco Nuclear Powerhouse in Herald, California. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Elliott Company’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, No. 69, pp. 24:16-25:9, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H. In response to Interrogatory No. 69 of 22. Elliott Company’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Plaintiff does not identify any specific Eliott Company product to which he, his father, or step-father was exposed, the date, location, or factual circumstances of any such exposure. In fact, the response does not specifically allege that his father, Emilio Castagna, or step- father, Elton Choate, ever worked with or around any Elliott-branded equipment. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Elliott Company’s Special interrogatories, Set Two, No. 69, pp. 24:16-25:9, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H. On June 24, 2008, Plaintiff Louis 23. Castagna’s attorney or record, Brayton Purcell LLP, filed a Dismissal without prejudice of Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages. Plaintiff's Dismissal without prejudice, of punitive damages claim, executed on June 3, 2008, by Oren P. Noah, Esq. of Brayton Purcell LLP, and filed on June 24, 2008, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit I. The deposition of Plaintiff Louis 24. Castagna was taken in this action on June 17, September 10, 11, 12, 24, 25, 2008; March 2, 3, 5, April 7, 9, -10- DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP 0 54104 25, 26. 27. 28. September 14, 16, December 15, 17, 2009; January 27, 29, and February 19, 2010. Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin. At deposition, Plaintiff Louis Castagna 25, testified that there was no Elliott- branded machinery aboard the S.S. Henry G. Dalton (1916) when he served on that vessel. Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. 4, pp. 394:2- 395:22, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit J. At deposition, Plaintiff Louis Castagna 26. testified that on one occasion he repaired and two foot section of block insulation located under metal jacketing of what he believed was an Elliott steam turbine aboard the Arthur M. Anderson (1952). He did not know the brand name, manufacturer or supplier of the insulation he removed as part of the repair project Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. 11, pp. 1135:17- 24, 1136:25-1137:21, 1140:16-22, 1141:7-16, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit K. Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. 13, pp. 1246:16- 22, and 1247:24-1248:1, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit L. At deposition, Plaintiff Louis Castagna 27. testified that he did not know the brand name, manufacturer or supplier of the insulation he removed as part of the repair project Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. 11, p. 1141:11-13, 1141:18-20, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit K. At deposition, Plaintiff Louis Castagna 28. testified that he did not perform any work with gaskets or packing associated -li- DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP 0 54104 29. 30. 31 with the Elliott steam turbine aboard the Arthur M. Anderson (1952). Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. 11, p. 1137:22-24, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit K. At deposition, Plaintiff Louis Castagna testified that he did not know who originally installed the blanket insulation that he removed and he did not know the age of the insulation that he removed from the Elliott turbine aboard the Arthur M. Anderson (1952). Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. 13, pp. 1248:2-6, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit L. At deposition, Plaintiff Louis Castagna testified that believed that the Arthur M. Anderson (1952) was originally fitted in either 1952 or 1954, Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. 11, p. 1138:3-7, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit K. Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. 13, p. 1248:7-9, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit L. . Although at deposition, Plaintiff Louis Castagna testified that believed that the block insulation he removed from the Elliott turbine aboard the Arthur M. Anderson (1952) may have been original to the turbine, Plaintiff admitted that he never any maintenance or repair records pertaining to the insulation. Plaintiff testified that he may have learned about the age of the insulation in a conversation with the chief engineer; however, upon questioning, Plaintiff stated that he did not recall the chief engineer’s name, did not recall the contents of the conversation regarding the turbine, and finally admitted that he never discussed the age of the insulation with the chief -12- 29. 30. 31, DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP 0 54104 32. 33. 34, engineer. Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. 13, p. 1248:10- 1250:11, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit L. At deposition, Plaintiff testified that on 32. one occasion in 1974 or 1975, aboard the Taluga (AO-62), he worked on what he believed was an Elliott steam turbine. Plaintiff removed a 20 by 40 inch piece of block insulation that was breaking apart, and that he removed a 3 inch section of mud-type insulation from between the pieces of block insulation and he replaced the 3 inch section with new mud insulation which he covered in muslin cloth and painted. Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol, 11, pp. 1138:8-15, 1139:2-12, 1139:19-1140:5, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit K. Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. 13, pp. 1242:7-12, 1244:5-17, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit L. Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. 18, pp. 1574:24- 1575:15, 1576:7-10, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit N. At deposition, Plaintiff Louis Castagna 33. testified that he did not perform any work with gaskets or packing associated with the Elliott steam turbine aboard the Taluga (AQ-62). Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. 11, p. 1138:16-18, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit K. With regard to the blanket insulation he 34. removed aboard the Taluga (AOQ-62), Plaintiff testified that he did not know the brand name, manufacturer or supplier of the insulation, he did not know who originally installed it on the -13- DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP 0 54104 35. 36. 37, 38. turbine, he did not know the age of the insulation, and he did not have any reason to believe the blanket insulation was original to the manufacture of the turbine. Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. 13, p. 1245:6-19, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit L. With regard to the mud-type insulation, 35. Plaintiff testified that he did not know the brand name, manufacturer or supplier of the either the insulation that he removed or applied from the Ta/uga (AO-62). Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. 11, p. 1140:6-15, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit K. At deposition, Plaintiff Louis Castagna 36. testified that he did not know the maintenance or repair history of the turbine aboard the Taluga (AO-62). Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. 11, p. 1138:22-24, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit K. At deposition, Plaintiff testified that on 37. two or three occasions in 1969 or 1970, he removed and applied insulating mud from the overspeed mechanism on an Elliott turbine aboard the S.S. William Snyder (1906). Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. 16, pp. 1488:24- 1489715, 1490:17-1491:17, 1492:12-23, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit M. At deposition, Plaintiff testified that he 38. applied Eagle-Pitcher No. 66 insulating mud. He also believed that the insulating mud he removed may have been Eagle-Pitcher No. 66 mud since that was the mud he applied. Plaintiff obtained the insulating mud from the dunnage room. “14. DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP 0 54104 39, 40. Al. 42, Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. 16, pp. 1491:18- 1492:11, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit M. At deposition, Plaintiff testified that he did not know who had applied the insulating mud he removed from the overspeed mechanism, and he did not know when any of the insulating mud that he removed had been applied. Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. 16, p. 1494:16-23, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit M. At deposition, Plaintiff testified that on two occasions he removed and installed metal-encased Flexatallic gaskets on the overspeed mechanism on an Elliott turbine aboard the S.S. William Snyder (1906). Plaintiff obtained the replacement gaskets from the chief engineer, whose name he did not recall. Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. 16, pp. 1492:25- 1494:2, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit M. Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. 18, pp. 1578:23- 1579:21, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit N. At deposition, Plaintiff testified that he did not know if the gaskets he removed from the overspeed mechanism were original to the turbine, and he did not know the age of the gaskets that he removed. Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. 16, p. 1494:3-[1, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit M. At deposition, Plaintiff testified that on one occasion he cut a gasket out of Anchor sheet gasket material and applied it part of the cooling system associated with the Elliott turbine -L5- 39. 40. 4], 42. DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP 0 54104 aboard the S.S. William Snyder (1906). Plaintiff obtained the sheet gasket material from the dunnage room. Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. 16, pp. 1494:22- 1495:18, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit M. 43, At deposition, Plaintiff testified that on 43. one occasion he removed and replaced packing from the stem shaft associated with the overspeed mechanism on an Elliott turbine aboard the S.S. William Snyder (1906). Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. 16, pp. 1496:15- 1497:3, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit M. Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. [8, p. 1577:10-18, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit N. 44. At deposition, Plaintiff testified that he 44. installed Anchor packing on the stem shaft associated with the overspeed mechanism on an Elliott turbine aboard the S.S. William Snyder (1906). He obtained the replacement packing from the dunnage room. Plaintiff testified that he did not know the brand name, manufacturer or supplier of the packing he removed from the stem shaft. Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. 16, p. 1497:4-24, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit M. 45, At deposition, Plaintiff testified that he 4S. did not know when the packing that he removed from the stem shaft associated with the overspeed mechanism had been applied. Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. 16, p. 1498:1-8, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit M. 46. At deposition, Plaintiff testified that he 46. -16- DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP 0 54104 47, 48. 49. 30. did not recall the name of any of his co- workers that may have assisted him with work on the Elliott turbine aboard the S.S. William Snyder (1906). Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. 18, p. 1577:10-18, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit N. At deposition, Plaintiff Louis Castagna testified that he did not know the maintenance history of the Elliott turbine aboard the S.S. William Snyder (1906). Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. 16, pp. 1495:19- 23, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit M. At deposition, Plaintiff Louis Castagna testified that he believed that the Elliott turbine aboard the S.S. William Snyder (1906) was installed on the vessel during a refitting in 1948, Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. 16, pp. 1495:25- 1496:14, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit M. At deposition, Plaintiff Louis Castagna testified that his father worked at shipyards in San Francisco from the time he was born until 1957. Plaintiff did not know which shipyards he worked at. Plaintiff also testified that he did not have any personal knowledge of the products or materials his father worked with at the shipyards. Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. 1, p. 68:10-24, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit O. At deposition, Plaintiff Louis Castagna testified that he lived with his father from then time he was born until 1957.. His father worked at shipyards in San Francisco throughout this time period. He never worked with this father or visited him at work. Plaintiff did not -l7- 47. AB. 49. 50. DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP 0 54104 itt itt itt Si. $2. $3. know which shipyards he worked at. Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. 1, pp. 21:25-22:4, 38:1-8, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit O. At deposition, Plaintiff Louis Castagna 51. testified that he did not have any personal knowledge of the products or materials his father worked with at the shipyards. Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. 1, p. 69:8-10, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit O. At deposition, Plaintiff Louis Castagna §2. testified that he never worked with his stepfather, Elton Choate, and he never visited him at a jobsite. Plaintiff also testified that he did not have any personal knowledge of the products, materials, or contractors that his stepfather worked with or around throughout his employment as a steamfitter. Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. 1, p. 50:7-51:1, 73:7-74:3, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit O. At deposition, Plaintiff Louis Castagna 53. testified that he did not have any personal knowledge of the products, materials, or contractors that his stepfather worked with or around throughout his employment as a steamfitter. Transcript of Deposition of Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Vol. 1, pp. 73:7-74:3, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit O. -18- DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP 0 54104 MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION PLAINTIFF’S FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence) Issue 1: Plaintiff Cannot Establish Causation And Therefore His First Cause Of Action Must Fail, MOVING PARTY’S UNDISPUTED OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE AND MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING SUPPORTING EVIDENCE EVIDENCE 1. Plaintiff filed a Personal Injury 1. Complaint for damages on June 6, 2007. Plaintiffs Personal Injury Complaint, at p. 1, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit A. 2, Plaintiff alleges that as a direct and 2. proximate result of the conduct of defendants, he has suffered injury and damages. Plaintiff alleges four causes of action against Elliott Company, specifically (1) Negligence, (2) Strict Liability, (3) False Representation, and (4) Punitive Damages. Plaintiffs Personal Injury Complaint, p. 1, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit A. 3, Elliott Company filed its Answer on. 3. July 25, 2007, denying each of Plaintiffs claims. Elliott Company’s Answer to Complaint, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit B. 4, In Response to Interrogatory No. 26 of 4, Plaintiff's Responses to Standard Asbestos Case Interrogatories, Set One, which asked Plaintiff to identify each of his employments, and to state for each employment whether he was exposed to asbestos, Plaintiff generally alleged that throughout his career he worked with “ELLIOTT steam turbines”. Plaintiff's Responses to Standard General Order Interrogatories. Set One. -19- DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP 0 54104 Response No. 26, at pp. 34:14-17, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit C, Plaintiff's Supplemental/Amended , Responses to Standard Asbestos Case Interrogatories, Set One and Two, allege that while serving in the U.S. Merchant Marines, aboard the Arthur M. Anderson (1952) in 1972, and the Taluga (AQ-62), in 1973, he “repaired jackets and insulation on... ELLIOT (sic)... steam turbines,” Plaintiff's Responses to Standard General Order Interrogatories, Supplemental and Amended, Set One and Two, Response, at pp. 7:21-26, 8:9- 16, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit D. On or about June 2, 2008, Defendant Elliott Company propounded Special interrogatories, Set One. Defendant Elliott Company ‘s Special interrogatories, Set One, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit E. On or about July 7, 2008, Plaintiff served Responses to Elliott Company’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, and on July 23, 2008, Plaintiff served Verifications to these Responses. Plaintiffs Responses to Defendant Elliott Company Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Verifications to Responses, attached collectively to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit F. In response to Interrogatory No. 2 of Elliott Company’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, which asks plaintiff to identify each jobsite at which he was exposed to an asbestos- containing Elliott Company product, Plaintiff states that he was exposed to Elliott turbines while serving in the U.S. Merchant Marines between 1967 and 1973, aboard the S.S. Henry Dalton (1916), the S.S. Walter E. Watson -20- DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP 0 54104 10. ik, (1920), the S.S. William Snyder Jr. (1906), the Governor Miller (1938), the Taluga (AO-62), and the Thomas Wilson (1943). Plaintiff allegedly removed insulation, took apart the governors, and replaced packing and gaskets associated with the turbines. Plaintiff alleged that the gaskets he removed were supplied by Elliott. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Elliott Company Special Interrogatories, Set One, No, 2, pp, 2:7- 3:13, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit F, In response to Interrogatory No. 4 of. 9 Elliott Company Special Interrogatories to Plaintiff, Set One, which asks plaintiff to “state the total duration” of his exposure to an asbestos-containing Elliott Company product, Plaintiff simple referenced his Response to Interrogatory No. 2 and stated: “After a reasonable and good-faith inquiry, plaintiff has no further information responsive to this Interrogatory at this time.” Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Elliott Company’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, No. 4, p. 3:22- 4:3, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit F. On or about November 12, 2009, Elliott 10. Company propounded Special Interrogatories, Set Two. Defendant Elliott Company Special Interrogatories to Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Set Two, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit G. On or about January 20, 2010, Plaintiff Ih. served Responses to Defendant Elliott Company’s Special Interrogatories to Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Set Two, and on or about January 20, 2010, Plaintiff served Verifications to the Responses. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Elliott Company. Set Two. and 2I- DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP 0 54104 Verifications to Responses, attached collectively to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H. 12. In response to Interrogatory Nos. 35 and. 36 of Elliott Company’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, which asked Plaintiff to identify jobsites where he may have been para-occupationally exposed to Elliott Company products, Plaintiff generally alleged that his father, Emilio J, Castagna worked as a shipwright at Oakland private shipyards, and that his step-father, Elton J. Choate, worked at Shell Oil in Martinez, California, and Ranch Seco Nuclear Powerhouse in Herald, California. The responses did not identify Elliott Company. Plaintiffs Responses to Defendant Elliott Company’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 35-36, p. 1:20 - 2:18, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R, Marvin as Exhibit H. 13. In response to Interrogatory Nos. 44 and 45 of Elliott Company’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, which asked Plaintiff to identify the asbestos- containing component part of any product manufactured, sold, or distributed by Elliott Company to which he was exposed, Plaintiff generally alleged that he “was exposed to asbestos by removing and reinstalling the asbestos-containing thermal insulation from ELLIOTT pumps,” and stated that “[a]fter a reasonable and good-faith inquiry, plaintiff has no further information responsive to this Interrogatory at this time.” The response fails to allege where this work was, when this work. was performed, or the basis of Plaintiffs belief that the insulation was asbestos-containing. Plaintiffs Responses to Defendant Elliott Company’s Special interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 44-45, p. 8:5-16, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H. 14. In response to Interrogatory No. 46 of 22- 12. 13. 14. DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP 0 54104 16, Elliott Company’s Special interrogatories, Set Two, which asked plaintiff to state whether he contends that the component part, if any, that Plaintiff was allegedly exposed to was included in the original equipment supplied by Elliott Company, Plaintiff responded only that “Plaintiff contends packing and gasket were original.” Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Elliott Company’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 46, p. 8:17-21, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H, . In response to Interrogatory No. 47 of 15, Elliott Company’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, which asked plaintiff to state “all facts” supporting his contention that the component part he was allegedly exposed to was included in the original equipment supplied by Elliott Company at the time of sale, Plaintiff provides no facts supportive of that contention, but merely repeats his contentions of para- occupational exposure through his father Emilio Castagna’s work as a shipwright in the Oakland private shipyards, and his step-father Elton Choate’s work as a steamfitter at Shell Oil in Martinez, California, and Ranch Seco Nuclear Powerhouse in Herald, California. Plaintiffs Responses to Defendant Elliott Company Special Interrogatories, Set Two, No. 47, pp. 8:22-9:8, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H. in response to Interrogatory No. 61 of 16. Elliott Company’s Special Interrogatories to Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Set Two, which asks plaintiffs to “state all facts” supporting his contention that the component part he was allegedly exposed to was included in the original equipment supplied by Elliott Company at the time of sale, Plaintiff does not identify any specific Elliott Company product to which he, his father, or step-father was -23- DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP 0 54104 17. 18. exposed, or the date, location, or factual circumstances of any such exposure. In fact, the response does not specifically allege that his father, Emilio Castagna, or step-father, Elton Choate, ever worked with or around any Elliott- branded equipment. Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant Elliott Company Special interrogatories, Set Two, No. 47, pp. 8:22-9:8, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R, Marvin as Exhibit H. In response to Interrogatory No. 61 of Elliott Company’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, which asks plaintiffs to “state all facts” supporting his cause of action for negligence, Plaintiff states the general legal conclusion that Elliott Company owed a duty to warn consumers of dangers inherent in asbestos-containing products; the broad conclusory allegation that Elliott Company should have known of the risks of asbestos exposure; the general allegation that “at the below describes jobsites, plaintiff contends plaintiff was exposed to asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold, supplied, and/or distributed by ELLIOT [sic] COMPANY.” Plaintiff provides no evidence of any specific “jobsite” as an exposure location other than to claim para-occupational exposure through his father Emilio Castagna’s work as a shipwright in the Oakland private shipyards, and his step-father Elton Choate’s work as a steamfitter at Shell Oil in Martinez, California, and Ranch. Seco Nuclear Powerhouse in Herald, California. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Elliott Company’s Special interrogatories, Set Two, No. 61, pp. 18:12-9:24, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H. In response to Interrogatory No. 61 of Elliott Company’s Special interrogatories to Plaintiff Louis Castagna, Set Two, which asks 24. 17. 18. DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO., INC.” MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATEVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONLAW OFFICES IMAI, TADLOCK, KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP 0 54104 plaintiffs to “state all facts” supporting his cause of action for negligence, Plaintiff does not identify any specific Elliott Company product to which he, his father, or step-father was exposed, the date, location, or factual circumstances of any such exposure. In fact, the response does not specifically allege that his father, Emilio Castagna, or step-father, Elton Choate, ever worked with or around any Elliott- branded equipment. Plaintiff's Responses to Elliott Company’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, No. 61, pp. 18:12-9:24, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin. as Exhibit H. . In response to Interrogatory No. 65 of 19, Defendant Elliott Company’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, which asks plaintiffs to “state all facts” supporting his cause of action for strict liability, Plaintiff states the general legal conclusion that Elliott Company owed a duty to warn consumers of dangers inherent in asbestos-containing products; the broad conclusory allegation that Elliott Company should have known of the risks of asbestos exposure; the general allegation that “at the below describes jobsites, plaintiff contends plaintiff was exposed to asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold, supplied, and/or distributed by ELLIOT [sic] COMPANY.” Plaintiff provides no evidence of any specific “jobsite” as an exposure location other than to claim para-occupational exposure through his father Emilio Castagna’s work as a shipwright in the Oakland private shipyards, and his step-father Elton Choate’s work as a steamfitter at Shell Oil in Martinez, California, and Ranch Seco Nuclear Powerhouse in Herald, California. Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant Elliott Company’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two, No. 65, pp. 21:13-22:5, attached to the Declaration of Valerie R. Marvin as Exhibit H. -25- DEFENDANT ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO,, INC.’S” SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ELLIOTT COMPANY FKA “ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINER