On June 06, 2007 a Answer was filed involving a dispute between Castagna, Louis, and Advocate Mines Limited, Albay Construction Company, All Asbestos Defendants, Allis-Chalmers Corporation Product Liability Trust, American Conference Of Governmental Industrial, American Conference Of Governmental Industrial Hyg, American Standard, Inc., Ameron International Corporation, A.O. Smith Corporation, Asbestos Defendants, Asbestos Manufacturing Company, Auto Friction Corporation, Auto Specialties Manufacturing Company, Baugh Construction Company, Bechtel Corporation, Bell Asbestos Mines Ltd., Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc., Brassbestos Brake Lining Company, Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire, Llc, Briggs & Stratton Corporation, Bucyrus International, Inc., Caterpillar Inc., Cbs Corporation, A Delaware Corporation, Chevron Products Company, Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Chicago Bridge & Iron Company,, Chrysler Llc Fka Daimlerchrysler Company Llc,, Conocophillips Company, Consolidated Insulation, Inc., Contra Costa Electric, Inc., Copeland Corporation, Copeland Corporation, Llc Fka Copeland Corporation, Crane Co., Csk Auto, Inc., Daimlerchrysler Company Llc, Formerly Known As, Daimlerchrysler Corporation, Dana Corporation, Dillingham Construction N.A., Inc., Does 1-8500, Douglass Insulation Company, Inc., Durametallic Corporation, Eaton Corporation, Eaton Electrical Inc., Elliott Company,, Elliott Turbomachinery Co., Inc., Emsco Asbestos Company, Fibre & Metal Products Company, Fibre & Metal Products Company, Inc., Fisher Controls International Llc, Fmc Corporation, Fmc Corporation-Chicago Pump, Forcee Manufacturing Corp., Ford Motor Company, Foster Wheeler Llc, Garlock Sealing Technologies, Llc, Gate City Plumbing & Heating, Gatke Corporation, General Electric Company, General Motors Corporation, Genuine Parts Co., Genuine Parts Company, Henry Vogt Machine Co., H. Krasne Manufacturing Company, Honeywell International Inc.,, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Imo Industries Inc., Ingersoll-Rand Company, Interlake Steamship Co., Johnson Controls, Inc., J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc., Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc., Lamons Gasket Company, Landsea Holding Company, Lasco Brake Products, Lear Siegler Diversified Holdings Corp., Lindstrom & King Co., Inc., L.J. Miley Company, Maremont Corporation, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Molded Industrial Friction Corporation, Morton International, Inc., National Automotive Parts Association, National Transport Supply, Inc., Nibco Inc., Oakfabco, Inc., Owens-Illinois, Inc., Paccar Inc., Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Pacific Mechanical Corporation, Parker-Hannifin Corp., Performance Mechanical, Inc., Plant Insulation Company, Pneumo Abex Llc, Quintec Industries, Inc., Rapid-American Corporation, Red-White Valve Corporation, Republic Supply Company, Riley Power Inc., Riley Power, Inc., Erroneously Sued As Babcock, Riteset Manufacturing Company, Rockwell Automation, Inc., Rossendale-Ruboil Company, Santa Fe Braun, Inc., Schlage Lock Company, Scott Co. Of California,, Sequoia Ventures Inc., Shell Oil Company, Silver Line Products, Inc., Southern Friction Materials Company, Special Electric Company, Inc., Special Materials, Inc.-Wisconsin, Standard Motor Products, Inc., Standco, Inc, Sta-Rite Industries, Llc, Stuart-Western, Inc., Swinerton Builders Fka Swinerton & Walberg Co., Taco, Inc., Temporary Plant Cleaners, Inc., Terry Corporation Of Connecticut, Terry Steam Turbine Co., The Budd Company, The Dow Chemical Company, The Industrial Maintenance Engineering Contracting, The William Powell Company, Thomas Dee Engineering Company, Timec Company, Inc., Tosco Refining Company, Inc., Trane Us, Inc., Triple A Machine Shop, Inc., Tyco International, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., Uniroyal Holding, Inc., Universal Friction Materials Company, Unocal Corporation, U.S. Spring & Bumper Company, Warren Pumps, Llc, Wheeling Brake Block Manufacturing Company, Yarway Corporation, Zurn Industries, Llc, Formerly Known As Zurn, for civil in the District Court of San Francisco County.
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Preview
MeNAMARA, DODGE, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTERY, PFALZER, BORGES & BROTHERS II-P ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O, BOX 5288, WALNUT CREER, CA 94596 TEL PILOR IE: (925) 939-5330 THOMAS E. PFALZER (State Bar No. 85261) PATRICK L. MOORE (State Bar No. 84909) ELECTRONICALLY MCNAMARA, DODGL, NL-Y, BEATTY, SLATTERY, FILED PFALZER, BORGES & BROTHERS LLP 1211 Newell Avenue Post Office Box 5288 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 939-5330 Facsimile: (925) 939-0203 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco JUL 19 2007 GORDON PARK-LI, Clerk Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Defendant FMC Corporation on behalf of its former Chicago Pump business, incorrectly sued as FMC Corporation SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO CIVIL - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION LOUIS CASTAGNA, Case No. CGC-07-274230 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT FMC CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT VS. Action Filed: 6/6/2007 ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P), et al., Defendant. Defendant FMC Corporation on behalf of its former CHICAGO PUMP. business, incorrectly sued as FMC CORPORATION responds to plaintiff's Unverified Complaint as follows: Answering the allegations of plaintiff's Complaint on file herein, this answering defendant denies each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the allegations contained in said complaint, and each and every part thereof, and in this connection denies that plaintiff has been injured or damaged in any sum or sums, or at all, by reason of any carelessness, negligence, act, or omissions of this defendant. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES l. Defendant alleges that plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly entered into and engaged in conduct alleged in said Complaint, and voluntarily and knowingly assumed all risks incident to said Complaint at the time and place mentioned in said Complaint for damages. DEFENDANT FMC CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BY: EDNALEEN JAVIER-LACSONMeNAMARA, I 2. Defendant alleges that said Complaint fails to set forth facts sufficient to state a cause of action against this answering defendant. 3. Defendant alleges that said Complaint fails to state a cause of action for punitive damages against this answering defendant, 4. Defendant alleges that plaintiff was careless and negligent in and about the matters alleged in the Complaint, and that said carelessness and negligence on said plaintiff's own part proximately contributed to the happening of the incident and to the loss and damages complained of, if any there were 5. Defendant alleges that if negligence is found on the part of this defendant, which said negligence is expressly denied, that said negligence should be compared with the negligence of the plaintiff, and all other parties herein, and apportioned accordingly 6. Defendant alleges that the plaintiff's Complaint is barred by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure Section 340, et seq. in particular, Sections 340 (3) and 340.2 7. Defendant alleges that at all times referred to in plaintiff's Complaint, the plaintiff was guilty of abuse and misuse of the product and compound referred to in said Complaint and the plaintiff's injuries and damages, if any there were, were a direct and proximate result of said abuse and misuse by plaintiff. 8. By way of pleading laches, defendant alleges that plaintiff has delayed an unreasonable period of time in bringing this action as alleged in said Complaint; said unreasonable delay is prejudicial to this answering defendant in that the period of time involved places an unreasonable burden on defendant in attempting to obtain evidence to defend said allegations in plaintiff's Complaint, said unreasonable delay upon the part of plaintiff unreasonably prejudiced this answering defendant and plaintiff is thereby guilty of laches and should be barred from any recovery as to this answering defendant. 9. In further answers to the allegations of plaintiff's Complaint, this answering defendant denies that plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages in any sum, or otherwise, or at all, by reason of any carelessness, negligence, act or omission of this defendant 2 DEFENDANT FMC CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINTMeNAMARA, I 10. As an Affirmative Defense to the Fifth Cause of Action to the Complaint, this defendant alleges that said cause of action fails to set forth facts sufficient to state a cause of action (upon which to base a claim for punitive damages) against this answering defendant. 11. Defendant alleges that at the time the alleged incident occurred, plaintift was employed and was acting within the course and scope of his employment. It is alleged by this defendant that plaintifi’s employers, other than this answering defendant, and their agents, servants, and employees were themselves negligent and careless in and about the matters set forth in the Complaint, in that at the time and place described therein said employers, other than this answering defendant, failed to use due care and caution for the protection of plaintiff, that said acts of negligence and carelessness on the part of said employers, other than this answering defendant, proximately caused the injury to said plaintiff, and any and all liability and/or expenditure under the workmen's compensation laws of the State of California incurred by said employers on account of said injuries to employee. 12. Defendant alleges that the Complaint, and each cause of action therein, is barred as against this answering defendant by the provisions of California Labor Code Sections 3602, et seq. 13. Plaintiff's Complaint is barred by statute of limitations pursuant to Section 56. 14. Defendant alleges that it acted solely under the direction and control of the United States of America pursuant to government specifications; that this defendant acted at all times in conformity with one or more government specifications and properly performed all work thereunder according to such specifications; that the United States of America is immune as expressed in Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 71 S.CT.153, 95 L.Ed. 152 (1950); and that this defendant is therefore immune from suit under the so-called government contract doctrine as set forth in Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Company, 309 U.S. 18, 60 S.CT. 89, 84 L.Ed 454 (1940), and In Re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation, 506 F.Supp. 762 (D.C.N.Y. 1980) DEFENDANT FMC CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINTMeNAMARA, I 15. Defendant alleges that plaintiff's Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action under Sindell v, Abbott Laboratories, 26 Cal.3d 588, 607 P.2d 924, 163 Cal.Rptr, 132 (1980), or any other so-called rule of “enterprise liability." WHEREFORE, defendant prays that plaintiff take nothing by way of his Complaint; that defendant be awarded its costs of suit incurred herein; together with such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper Dated: July 19, 2007 McNamara, DODGE, NEY, BEATTY, SLATTERY, PFALZER, BORGES & BROTHERS LLP By: __/s/Patrick L. Moore Thomas E. Pfalzer Patrick L. Moore Attomeys for Defendant FMC Corporation on behalf of its former Chicago Pump business incorrectly sued as FMC Corporation 4 DEFENDANT FMC CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT