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

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                tf

an

Wo

26

ELECTRONICALLY

CHRISTOPHER B. BRUNI, SBN 116521 FILED —
ADAMS | NYE | SINUNU | BRUNI | BECHT LLP Superior Court of California,
222 Kearny Street, Seventh Floor County of San Francisco
San Francisco, California 94108-4521 AUG 01 2007
Telephone: (415) 982-8955 GORDON PARK-LI, Clerk

Facsimile: (415) 982-2042 BY: ANNIE PASCUAL

Deputy Cle#k
Attorneys for Defendant eputy Cle

THE INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING |
CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC., dba TIWIEC

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

LOUIS CASTAGNA _ No. CGC-07-274230

Plaintitt, DEFENDANT TIMEC’S ANSWER TO
VS. COMPLAINT
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP) Complaint Filed: Tune 6, 2007

As Reflected on Exhibits B, B-1, C, D, H,
I; and DOES 1-8560

Defendants.

I. DEFINITION —

Whenever "Plaintiff" is used in this answer, its reference embraces each Plaintiff named in
any Complaint in response to which some or ail of this Answer has been adopted, individually and
collectively, plus the words, " and each of them,” as well as Plaintiffs, when relevant.

II. GENERAL DENIAL

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30, this responding Defendant
files jis general denial to said Complaint, and denies generally and specifically, each and every
allegation and cause of action in said Complaint, and in this connection, this Defendant denies that
Plaintiffs have been injured or damaged in the sums set forth, or tn any other sums, or in any manner
whatsoever by reason of any alleged product of, any product allegedly sold by, carelessness,
negligence and/or any alleged act, conduct or omission on the part of this responding Defendant.

TL. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
;

DEFENDANT TIMEC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTLak en

THE INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING CONTRACTING COMPANY
INC. (“hereinafter “TIMEC”) hereby pleads and sets forth separately and distinctly the following
affirmative defenses to each and every allegation and cause of action of Plaintiff's complaint:

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Failure To State Cause of Action
Alleged Against Plaintiff

‘This responding Defendant states that neither the Complaint nor any alleged cause of action

therein states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this responding Defendant.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

‘Violation of Statute of Limitations
Alleged Against Plaintiff

‘This responding Defendant states that the Complaint and any alleged cause of action
therein, is barred by the applicable statute of limitations stated in the California Code of Civil
Procedure, including but not limited to Sections 338(a), 338(d), 338.1, 339(1), 340(a), (b), and (c),
340(3), 340.2 (a)(12), (b), (C12), 350, 353, 357, 360.5 and California Commercial Code Section
2725.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Laches
Alleged Against Plaintiff

This responding Defendant states that the Complaint and any alleged cause of action therein
is barred by laches due to Plaintiff's unreasonable delay in commencing said action without any
good cause therefore, and further, as a direct and proximate result of such delay, this responding
Defendant has been prejudiced.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Denial of Suceessor/Predecessor Lial
Alleged Against Plaintiff

‘This responding Defendant denies any and all liability as a successor, successor in business,
successor in product line or a portion thereof, assign, predecessor, predecessor in business,
predecessor in product line or a portion thereof, parent, “alter ego,” subsidiary, wholly or partially
owned, by or the whole or partial owner of or member in any entity researching, studying,
manufacturing, fabricating, designing, labelling, assembling, distributing, leasing, buying, offering
for sale, selling, inspecting, servicing, installing, contracting or installation, repairing, marketing,

2

DEFENDANT TIMEC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTwarranting, rebranding, manufacturing for others, packaging and advertising a certain substance, the
generic name of which is asbestos.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENS!

Lack of Legal Capacity
Alleged Against Plaintiff

This responding Defendant states that Plaintiff lacks legal capacity to sue, is not areal party
in interest, and is thereby precluded from any recovery whatsoever as prayed for herein.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Failare to Join Adequate Defendants
Alleged Against Plaintiff
‘This responding Defendant states thut the Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, is
barred by the California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 389, in that Plaintiffs have failed to join
in this action a party or parties in whose absence complete relief cannot be accorded among
defendants herein, causing this responding Defendant exposure to a substantial risk of incurring
double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Lack of Privity
Alleged Against Plaintiff
This responding Defendant states that at all times and places alleged in the Complaint,
Plaintiffs were not in privity of contract with this responding Defendant, and said Jack of privity
bars recovery herein upon any theory of warranty.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Contribution of Plaintiff's Negligence
Alleged Against Plaintiff

Plaintiffs were negligent in and about the matters alleged in the Complaint and each and
every alleged cause of action therein. Such negligence proximately caused and contributed to, in
whole or in part, the incidents, injuries, losses and damages alleged. In the event Plaintiffs are
awarded any damages, the amount of such should be reduced by the comparative fault of Plaintiff
and any person whose negligent acts or omissions are imputed to Plaintiffs.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Consent of Plaintiff
Alleged Against Plaintiff

Plaintifs acknowledged, ratified, consented to and acquiesced in the alleged acts or

3

DEFENDANT TIMEC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTomissions, if any, of This responding Defendant, thus barring Plaintiffs from any relief as prayed for

herein.

‘TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Failure to Mitigate
Alleged Against Plaintiff
Plaintiffs failed to exercise due diligence to mitigate the loss, injury or damages alleged
herein. Accordingly, the amount of damages to which Plaintiff are entitled, if' any, should be
reduced by the amount of damages which would have otherwise been mitigated and Plaintiff are
barred from any recovery of any injury or damages suffered thereby.
ELEVENTH AFEIRMATIVE DEFENSE

intiff's Knowledge of Hazard
Alleged Against Plaintiff

Plaintiffs were advised, informed, and warned of any purported hazards and/or dangers, if
any, associated with the normal or foreseeable use, handling, and storage of the products,
substances, and equipment described in the Complaint. Plaintiff knew, or in the exercise or ordinary
care should have known, of the purported risks and hazards involved in the undertaking alleged, but
nevertheless freely, voluntarily and unreasonably consented to assume such purported risks and
hazards incident to said undertaking and conduct, at the time and place alleged in said Complaint,
all of which proximately caused and contributed to any loss, injury or damages alleged.
TWELFTH AFFIRM. DEFENSE
Injury Caused by Actions of Others Ou

Control of Defendant
Alleged Against Plaintiff

Any alleged loss, injury or damage incurred by Plaintiff was proximately caused by the
negligent or willful acls or omissions of parties or others whom Defendant neither controlled nor
had the right to control, and was not proximately or legally caused by any acts, omissions or other
conduct of TIMEC.

Negligence of Other Entities Caused Injury
Alleged Against Plaintiff

At the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint, parties other than this responding

4

DEFENDANT TIMEC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTDefendant were negligent in and about the matters referred to in said Complaint, and such
negligence proximately and concurrently contributed to any loss or damage, including non-
economic damages, alleged by Plaintiffs. This responding Defendant shall not be liable for said
parties’ proportionate share of non-economic damages.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Entities Not Named Caused the Alleged Injuries
‘Alleged Against Plain
Its alleged that the sole or partial proximate cause of the injuries, losses, or damages
claimed was the fault, negligence, and/or strict liability of other named defendants, and persons,
firms, or entities not specifically named in the Complaint. In the event of a finding of any against
this Defendant by way of judgment, settlement, or otherwise, this responding Dofendant requests
that an apportionment of fault among all parties be made by the court or jury, and that a judgment
and declaration of partial or total indemnification and contribution against all other parties be made
in accordance with such apportionment of fault, Further, in the event of a finding of liability against
this responding Defendant, this responding Defendant shall be liable only for the amount of non-
economic damages allocated to Defendant in direct proportion to Defendant's percentage of ‘fault in
accordance with the Civil Code Section 1431.2.

of Labor Code
t Plaintiff

The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matters alleged in said Complaint in that
each alleged cause of action against this responding Defendant is barred by the provisions of
California Labor Code, Section 3600 (a) and (b); 3601 (a), (b), (©); and 3602(a), the special
employer doctrine. Defendant TIMEC additionally alleges in this affirmative defense that the
Washington Industrial Insurance Act, R.C.W. Section $1.04,010, et seg., and federal industrial
ingurance laws operate to bar prosecution of this action against this Defendant.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Employer Negligence Caused the Alleged Injuries
Alleged Against Plaintiff
This responding Defendant states that at the time of the injuries alleged in the Complaint,

Plaintiff's employers were negligent in and about the matters alleged, and that such negligence

5

DEFENDANT TIMEC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTproximately and concurrently caused and/or contributed to any loss, injuries or damages, including
non-economic damages alleged by Plaintifis. This responding Defendant is not liable for said

employers' proportionate share of non-economic damages.

Plaintiff's omployers voluntarily and knowingly entered into and engaged in the operations,
acts and conduct alleged in said Complaint, and voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risks
incident to said operations, acts and conduct at the time and place alleged in the Complaint. The
operations, acts and conduct of Plaintifi's employer was the cause of the injuries alleged in the

Complaint, and this responding Defendant is not liable or at fault for such injuries.

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMA’ SE
Judgment to be Reduced by Workei

‘Alleged Against Plaintifi

Atal times material herein, Plaintiff was employed by various employers, the names of
which are currently unknown to this responding Defendant, and was working within the course and
scope of his/her employment. Each such employer and Plaintiff were subject to the provisions of the
Workman's Compensation Act of the State of California which entitled Plaintiff to receive Workers’
Compensation benefits from such employers. Certain sums have been paid to or on behalf of
Plaintiff under the applicable provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California. Each such
employer was negligent and careless in and about the matters alleged in the Complaint and such
negligence and carelessness proximately and concurrently contributed to and caused the incidents
complained of and injuries and damages alleged. Any judgment rendered in favor of Plaintiff must
be reduced, as a set-off, by any benefits or payments made or to be made by the employer or the
employers! compensation carrier under authority of Witt v. Jackson, 57 Cal.2d 57, 17 CalRptr, 369,
366 P.2d 641 (1961).

In the event Plaintiffs are awarded damages against Defendant, this responding Defendant
claims a credit against such award to the extent that Defendant is barred from enforcing its rights to

reimbursement for Workers' Compensation benefits that Plaintiff has received or may in the future

6

DEFENDANT TIMEC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTreceive.

Although this responding Defendant denies the validity of Plaintiffs claims, in the event
those tort claims are held valid and not barred by the statute of limitations or otherwise, Defendant
asserts that cross-demands for money have existed between Plaintiff and Defendant and the
demands are compensated, so far as they equal each other, pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 431.70. :

NINETEENTH AFVIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Safety Knowledge

Products Conformed With E
‘Alleged Against Plaintiff

Plaintiff is barred from recovery in that all products formulated, sold, distributed or
produced by this responding Defendant were in conformity with the existing state-of-the-art
applicable at the time of their manufacture, sale, formulation or distribution, and thus, such products
were not defective in any manner.
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
‘Products Were Unforeseeably Misused
Alleged Against Plaintiff
The products sold or distributed and referred to in the Complaint were properly designed,
manufactured, and fit for the purpose for which they were intended. Said products were improperly
maintained, misused, and/or abused by Plaintiff and/or others and proximately caused Plaintiff's
alleged damages, thus barring recovery herein. Such misuse, abuse or improper maintenance was
not reasonably foreseeable to this responding Defendant.
TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Negligent Product Use by Sophisticated Employers
‘Was Proximate, Superseding Cause of Alleged Injuries
Alleged Against Plaintiff
‘This responding Defendant states that the Plaintiff is barred from recovery herein, because of
modification, alteration or change in some other manner, of the product(s) alleged in Plaintiff's
Complaint. All of Plaintiff's employers were sophisticated users of asbestos-containing products
and said employers’ negligence in providing such equipment and material to its employees in an
altered, modified, negligent, careless and reckless manner was a supersoding intervening cause of

Plaintiff's alleged injuries.

7

DEFENDANT TIMEC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTTWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Failure to warn Plaintiff by Plaintiff's Sophisticated
Employers Caused the Alleged Injuries
‘Alleged Against Plaintiff
This responding Defendant states that the Plaintiff's employer or employers, by reason of
advice, information, warnings, and use, handling and storage information given to them, and/or by
reason of their long standing and continuous experience with the products, substances, and
equipment alleged, are and were sophisticated users, handlers, and storers of any and all such
products, substances, garments and equipment, and thus aequired a separate and affirmative duty to
warn, advise and inform Plaintiff of any potential harmful effects from the mishandling, misstorage,
and/or misuse of the subject property, if any. Each such employer failed to so wam Plaintiff and
thereby breached said duty. Such failure and breach directly and proximately caused all damages,
injuries, and losses alleged.
‘WENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Failure to State Market Share Cause of Action
Alleged Against Plaintiff
This responding Defendant states that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action against this Defendant, to the extent it asserts and bases a claim upon
"alternative," "market share," or "enterprise liability.”
Fi [ATIVE DEFENS!
Failure to Join a Substantial Share of the
Market Defeating Market Share Theory
Alleged Against Plaintiff
‘This responding Defendant has never possessed a substantial percentage of the market for
the asbestos-containing products which allegedly caused Plaintiff's injuries. Further, Plaintiff has
failed to join in this action Defendants representing a substantial share of said market. Therefore,
this responding Defendant shall not be liable to Plaintiffs based on its alleged percentage share of
the applicable market.
TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Liability Absent Identification Violates

Constitutional Rights
Alleged Against Plaintiff

8

DEFENDANT TIMEC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT.aan hwo DD

‘The Complaint, and each cause of action therein, which is admittedly based upon a lack of
identification of the manufacturer of the alleged injury causing product, fails to state facts sufficient
to constitute a cause of action in that Plaintiff has asserted a claim for relief which, if granted, would
contravene this responding Defendant's constitutional rights to substantive and procedural due
process and equal protection laws as required by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, and by Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of California, and further, if
granted would constitute the taking of private property for public use without just compensation and
would deprive this responding Defendant of its property in contravention of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution and Articic I, Sections 7 and 19 of the Constitution
of the State of California, and the applicable California statutes.

‘WENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Actions of Defendant Conformed to Existing Knowledge
And So Were Not Negligent
Alleged Against Plaintiff

Plaintiff is barred from recovery in that all actions taken by this tesponding Defendant that
involved the handling, disturbing, manipulation or dissemination, if any, of asbestos were done in
conformity with the existing state-of-the-art applicable at the time of such acts, and thus, such
actions were not negligent, and no liability can result.

TWENTY-SEVEN' FFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff Was Directed by Contractor

‘That Was Not Controlled by Defendant
Alleged Against Plaintiff

This responding Defendant is not liable for any injury to Plaintiff, the existence of which
injuries is denied, in that Plaintiff was employed by others as an independent contractor or worked
for an independent contractor hired by this Defendant or its contractors, during any time at which he
worked al a site ostensibly controfled by this answering Defendant, and this answering Defendant
did not in any fashion direct the manner in which Plaintiff's job duties wore accomplished, nor

control the environment in which those job duties were accomplished.

‘Defendant is not Liable Because of
Lack of Control of Work Site
Alleged Against Plaintiff

9

DEFENDANT TIMEC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTThis responding Defendant is not liable for any of Plaintifi’s injuries and damages, the
existence of which is denied, pursuant to the holding of the Court in Privette v, Superior Court
(1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, and the case that follow Privette in that this Defendant was not negligent, did
not control Plaintiff's activities, and did not cause Plaintiff's injuries.

‘WENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant Has No Liability Because Defendant

Retained Independent Contractor Employer of Plaintiff
Alleged Against Plaintiff

If Plaintiff has developed any injury, which this responding Defendant denies, as a result of
being the employee of a sub-contractor retained by this responding Detindant, his exclusive remedy
is workers' compensation, in that this responding Defendant has no liability for any negligence of
Plaintiff's employer, nor any liability for negligence of any other sub-contractors on the site, and this
responding Defendant effectively provided the payments for any workers’ compensation policy in
effect to provide compensation to Plaintiff.
THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Knowledge of Hazard by Controlling Entity
‘Alleged Against Plaintiff
Any work performed by this responding Defendant in the capacity of a contractor or general

contractor was conducted according to the specifications of the entity that owned or controlled the
site of any relevant actions, and under the direction and supervision of persons and entities that
owned or controlled the site, which entities had equal or superior knowledge regarding asbestos and
the potential health effects of asbestos-containing products, and superior knowledge regarding the
potential for the presence of asbestos on properties owned or controlled by those entities, which
entities should be responsible for any injuries incurred by Plaintiff. ‘This responding Defendant is
not liable for any injuries to Plaintiff because of the lack of control of the site, and lack of superior
knowledge regarding hazards at the site.

THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff's Status as "Borrowed Employee"

Limits Remedies to Workers' Compensation
Alleged Against Plaintiff

10

DEFENDANT TIMEC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTAt the time that Plaintiff incurred his alleged injuries, which injuries are disputed by this
Defendant, he was working in the capacity of a "borrowed employee", and his remedies against this
responding Defendant are limited to workers’ compensation remedies.

‘THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
‘Complaint Fails to State Cause of Action
For Punitive Damages
Alleged Against Plaintiff

This responding Defendant states that neither the Complaint nor any alleged cause of action
therein states facts sufficient to allow Plaintiffs un award of punitive damages.

ea TIVE DEFENSE

jon of Punitive Damages

Would Constitute Criminal Fine of Penalty
Alleged Against Plaintiff

‘The causes of action asserted herein by Plaintiff fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a
cause of action, in that Plaintiff has asserted claims for punitive damages which, if granted, would
violate the prohibition against laws impairing the obligation of contracts set forth in Article I,
Section 10 of the United States Constitution and further, if granted would contravene this
responding Defendant's constitutional right to be free of excessive fines as set forth in the Eighth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.

IVE.
ive Damages Would Be

In Violation of California Law
Alleged Against Plaintiff

Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages against this responding Defendant should not be
sustained, because an award of punitive damages under California law by a jury that (1) is not
provided a standard of sufficient clarity for determining the appropriateness, or the appropriate size,
of a punitive damages award, (2) is not instructed on the limits of punitive damages imposed by the
applicable principles of deterrence and punishment, (3) is not expressly prohibited from awarding
punitive damages, or determining the amount of an award of punitive damages in whole or in part,
on the basis of invidiously discriminatory characteristics, including the corporate status of this

responding Defendant, (4) is permitted to award punitive damages under a standard for determining

i

DEFENDANT TIMEC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT.liability for punitive damages that is vague and arbitrary and does not define with sufficient clarity
the conduct or mental state that makes punitive damages permissible, and (5) is not subject to
judicial review on the basis of objective standards, would violate this responding Defendant's due
process and equal protection rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment as incorporated into the
Fourteenth Amendment and the California Constitution's provisions providing for due process,
equal protection, and guaranty against double jeopardy.
THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Action Violates Rute Against Splitting Cause of Action
‘Alleged Against Het

This action violates California law against splitting a cause of action, in that Plaintiffs have
sued this Defendant and other Defendants parties to this case in another State, that other action
having been files prior to the filing of this case.

THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Action Violates Labor Code Section 6304.5

Defendant alleges that the causes of action, if any, attempted to be stated and set forth in said
complaint for negligence per se are barred by California Labor Code Section 6304.5 and derivative
authority.
V.PRRAYER:

WHEREFORE, this responding Defendant prays:

1. That Plaintiffs take nothing by this Complaint;

2, That judgment be entered in favor of Defendant;

3, For recovery of Defendant's costs of suit;

4. For appropriate credits and set-offs arising out of any payment of Workers’
Compensation benefits as alleged above;

5. For appropriate credits and set-off arising from allocation of Hability to other named
and unnamed tort feasors; and

6. For such other and (urther relief as the court deems just and proper.

L_NOTICE OF Ww

12

DEFENDANT TIMEC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTPursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §631, this responding Defendant hereby
gives notice of its request for trial by jury.

f- /~

/ /
DATED: July 31, 2007 ADAMS | NYE/| SINUNU | BRUNI | BECHT LLP.
i 1 {

Hl RB RRC
Attorneys for Detenant ~~
THE INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE

ENGINEERING CONTRACTING COMPANY,

13

DEFENDANT TIMEC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT,PROOF OF SERVICE

Lam over the age of eighteen years, not a party to the above-captioned matter, and employed
by Adams | Nye | Sinunu | Bruni | Becht LLP at 222 Kearny Street, Seventh Floor, San Francisco,
California, where the service described below took place on the date set forth below.

Person(s) Served:

David R. Donadio, Esq.

Breyton + Purcell

Atlomeys at Law

222 Rush Landing Road

P.O. Box 6169

Novato, CA 94948-6169
‘Telephone: (415) 898-1555
Facsimile: (415) 898-1247

Document(s) Served:
DEFENDANT TIMEC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Manner of Servi

Mail: | am readily familiar with my employer's practice for the collection and processing of
correspondence for ing with the United States Postal Serv: such correspondence is
deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of
business in the county where I work. On the date set forth below, at my place of business,
following ordinary business practices, | placed for collection and mailing by deposit in the
United States Postal Service a copy of each Document Served, enclosed in a sealed
envelope, with the postage thereon fully prepaid, each envelope being addressed to one of
the Person(s) Served, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 1013(a).

Facsimile: I transmitted by facsimile a copy of each Document Served mentioned above to
each Person Served mentioned above pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 1013(e).

Personal service: I caused a copy of each Document Served to be hand delivered to each
Person Served pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 1011. If required, the actual server's
original proof of personal service will be filed with the court.

Express Mail (other express service carrier): I deposited in a box or other like facility
regularly maintained by an express service carrier, or delivered to an authorized courier or
driver authorized by the express service carrier to receive documents, a copy of each
Document Served in an envelope ot package designated by the express service carrier with
delivery fees paid or provided for, each envelope being addressed to each Person Served in
accordance with Code of Civil Procedume 1013(6).

X__ Electronic Service (E-mail): The document(s) was/were served electronically.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califognia that the foregoing
is true and correct.

Dated: August 1, 2007

DEFENDANT TIMEC’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINTSERVICE LIST

Louis Castagna v. Asbestos Defendants (BP)

San Francisco County Su
Our File

David R. Donadio, Esq.
Brayton 4 Purcell
Atismevs at Law

222 Rush Landing Road
P.O. Box 6169

Novato, CA 94948-6169

Mark Simon Kannett, Esq.
Becherer, Kannett & Schweitzer
2200 Powell St., Suite 805
Emeryville, CA’ 94608

Jennifer A. Kuenster, Esq.
Thelen Reid & Priest LLP
101 Second St,, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94105

Joanne Rosendin, Esq.
Sack Rosendin, LLP

One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 340
Oakland, CA 94612

Michael L. Fox, Esq.

Gregory C. Read, Esq.

Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold LLP
‘One Market Plaza

Steuart Tower, 8" Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105

Reiph R. Rhoades, Esq.
Lynch, Gilardi & Grummer
475 Sansome Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 9411}

Richard D. Dumont, Esq.
Vasquex & Estrada LLP
1000 Fourth Street, Suite 700
San Rafael, CA 94901

Constance MeNeil, Esq.
Lewis Brishois Bisgaard & Smith LLP

San Francisco, CA 94104

Stephen J, Foley, Esq.
Dougias G. Wah, Esq.
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.
1111 Broadway, 10° Floor
Oakland, CA 94607

fo.: TIM-00174

For: Plaintiff

Tel: (415) 898-1555

Fax: (415) 898-1247

For: Johnson Controls, Ine.
Construction, N.A., Inc. CSK Auto, Ine.

Tel: (510) 658-3600
(510) 658-1151

For: DaimlerChrysler Corporation

Tel: (415) 371-1200

Fax: (415) 644-6519

For: Chicago Bridge & Iron Company

Tel: (510) 286-2200

Fax: (510) 286-8887

For: ConocoPhillips Company; Caterpillar,
Inc.

Tek (415) 781-7900

Fax: (415) 781-2633

For: _ Swinerton Builders fka Swinerton &
Walberg Co.

Tel: (415) 397-2800

Fax: (415) 397-0937

For: Lamons Gasket Company; Scott Co. of
California

Tel: (415) 453-0555

Fax: (415) 453-0549

For: Plant Insulation Company

Tel: (415) 362-2580

Bax: (415) 434-0882

For: _ Riley Power, Inc.; Republic Supply
Company; Copeland Corporation, LLC;
Fisher Controls International, LLC

Tel: (510) 390-9500

Fax: (510) 590-9595

1

erior Court No. CGC-07-274230

SERVICE LISTShawn M. Ridley, Esq.
Henry D. Rome, Esq.

Howard Rome Martin & Ridley LLP
1775 Woodside Road, Suite 200
Redwood City, CA 94061-3436

Thomas E. Pfalzer, Esq,
McNamara, Dodge, et at.
1211 Newell Avenue

Post Office Box 5288
Walnut Creek, CA 94596

Christopher W. Wood, Esq.
McKenna Long & Sfdridge, LLP
10] California Street, 43" Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111

Joha A, Graniez, Esq.

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
|| 221 North Figueroa Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Juue A. Torres, Esq.
Gabriel A. Jackson, Esq.
Jackson & Wallace LLP

55 Francisco Street, 6° Floor
San Francisco, CA 94133

Christopher A. Keele, Esq.
Thomas Whitelaw & Tyler LLP
Three Embarcadero Cenier, Suite 1350
San Francisco, CA 9411}-4037

Bruce McLeod, Esq.
Filice Brown Eaasa & McLeod, LLP
Lake Merritt Plaza

1999 Harrison Street, Eighteenth Floor
Oakland, CA 94612-3541

Theodore T. Cordery, Esq.
Imai, Tadlock, Keeney & Corder, LLP
100 Bush Street, Suite 1300

San Francisco, CA 94104

05 ©, Murray, Esq.
indle, Decker & Amaro, LLP
37D Golden Shore, Fourth Floor
P.O. Box 22711

Long Beach, CA 90801-5511

Kennet J, MeCarthy, Esq.
Knox Ricksen LLP

1300 Clay Street, Suite 500
Oakland, CA 94612-1427

2

Eaton Electrical, Inc.; IMO Industries,
Inc.

(650) 365-7715

(650) 364-5297

FMC Corporation
(925) 939-5330
(925) 939-0203

A.O. Smith Corporation; Pacific
Mechanicat Corporation

(415) 267-4000

(415) 267-4198

Advocate Mines Limited
(213) 250-1800
(213) 250-7900

‘Zurn Industries, LLC; Durametallic
Corporation

(415) 982-6300

(415) 982-6700

Rockwell Automation, Inc,
(415) 820-0400
(415) 820-0405

‘The Dow Chemical Company
(S10) 444-3131
(510) 839-7940

Elliott Company fka “Elliott
Burbomachinery Co., Ine.”
(415) 675-7000

(415) 675-7008

Henry Vogt Machine Co.
(562) 436-3946
(562) 495-0564

Allis-Chalmers Corporation Product
Liability Trust
(510) 285-2500
(S10) 285-2505,

SERVICE LISTFrank D. Pond, Esq.
Pond North LLP

350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2850
Los Angeles, CA 90071

Jeremy D, Huie, Esq.
Bassi, Marini, Edlia & Blum, LLP
351 California Street, Suite 200

San Francisco, CA 94104

Michaet J. Pietrykowski, Esq.
Gordon & Rees LLP
Embarcadero Center West

275 Battery Street, Hwentieth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94114

Robert M, Hamblett, Esq,

Hassard Bonnington LLP

‘Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94111-3993

James P. Cunningham, Esq

Carroll, Burdick & McDonough LLP
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 400

San Francisco, CA 94104

Raymond L.. Gill, Esq.

Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis
55 Second Street, Suite 1700

San Francisco, CA 94105

CBS Corporation
(213) 617-6170
(213) 623-3594

Kaiser Gypsum, Ine,
(415) 397-9006
(415) 397-1339

Performance Mechanical, Inc.
(415) 986-5900
(415) 986-8054

Sequoia Ventures, Ine.
(415) 288-9800
(415) 288-9801

Warren Pumps, Ine.
(415) 989-5900
(415) 989-0932

Crane Co,
(415) 882-8200
(415) 882-8220

SERVICE LIST