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

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                a
No 146814 !
& MCLE OD LLP ELECTRONICALLY.

: Ploor FILED

Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco:

JUL 24 2007 |
GORDON PARK-LI, Clerk
BY: CHRISTLE ARRIOLA:

Deputy Clerk

ek BROW N, JK. SBN:

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

LOUIS CASTAGNA,

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR.

PERSONAL INJURY-ASBESTOS

i
CASE NO. CGC 07-274230
Pi isk ants i FE

x
“Sle

ASBE STOS DEFENDAN (BP3,

Pefendants.

 Sepett Meant “nena”: Enagett Mage?” “Saagett Termes? “omatitl “seapett Marca? Saget

COMES NOW, GOAKFABCO,INC.. and by way of answer to plainifscomplamtand |
sursuant ic the terms of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30 denies generally each

and every allegation of the complaint, Defendant further specifically denies that it is hable t

OTST IIT TOTO TE I TIED IO TOTO To NEI

aintifY in. any sum or sums whatseever, or at all, for special, compensatory punifive or any other
ype of damave.

AND AS FOR A FIRST) SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,

| DEPENDANT ALLIOGES:

That the complaint, and vach cause of action stated therem, fails ta stale faets sufficient to

gonstiluic @ cause of action,

aie

i

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY-ASBESTOS
i
|

“BEATE LUM AITILAN S68REST |2 || DEFENSE,

6 || DEFENDANT ALLEGE

~

AND AS FOR A SECOND, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATEY!

DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

therein, state facts

That neither the complain, nor any of the alleged causes of action stat

st this

f action agai swering defendant.

AND AS FOR A THIRD, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,

That the complaint fails w properly invoke the equity jurisdiction of the court.

AND AS FOR A FOURTH, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE

i, DEFENDANT ALLE

personal jurisdiction as to this answering defendant

s court I

AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,

AND AS FOR A FIFTH, SEPARATE DISTIN|

oGE

DEFENDANT AL.

ot limited to, C.C.P. Sections 312,

including but av

plicable statutes of limitatio
xh

1, 339, 340(1), 340(3), 340.2 and 343 bars the complaint and each cause of action s!

DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,

That v nbiguous and uncertain
AND AS FOR A SEVENTH, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

‘That during the relevant times, defendant did not own, control, maintain, i

or otherwise exercise control over the subject premises.
AND AS FOR AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSE, D! DANY ALLEGES:

ng the relevant time and/or times, defendant did not supervise or exercise control

Fand/or f work at any of the premises.

employ

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY-ASBESTOS
‘84479 Dados NETRA sistAND AS FOR A NINTH, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATLV!

DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

That plaintiff has unreasonably delayed the commencement of this action and prejudiced

this answerin; ach cause of

ndant such that the doctrine of laches bars the complaint. and

action therein.

AND AS FOR A TE) AND AFFIRMATIV

ifs damages, if a

are completely or in par sult of plaintiff's failure to

gate as required by law

AND AS FOR AN ELE

yENTH, SEPARATE DISTENCT AND AFFIRMATIVE
DE

PGES:

E, DE

DANT AL

attributable to the:

That if plaintiff suffered injuri

¢ of any product referred to in

faint sly denied, the injuries were solely caused and

{?'s complaint, injuries are expr

ributable to

easonable, unforeseeable and inappropriate purpose and improper use that

aide of the products. |

AND AS FOR A TWELFTH, SEPARATE.

STINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE

ALLEGES:

That parties to this action and nonpanties, other than this amsw sidant, were

ing de!

antly or legally responsible, of otherwise at fault for any damages alleged in the complaint,

which dat :s are herein denied and therefore, in the event of any liability, whether by settlement

or judgment in favor of any other party a

ainst this answeri

defendant, the court or jury should

as tall parties. Furthermore.

's answering defendant requests @ judgment and

ition of indemnification and contribution against all other parties or persons in accordance |

apportionment of fault between the parties.

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY-ASBESTOSDISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE

1 AND AS FOR A THIRTEENTH, SEPARAT

2 | DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

forth in the complaint on

3 That at the time and place of the incident, happening or matter

clessness and

4 || file berein, suid at all times herein montioned, plaintiff himself was guitty of

and about the matters and things set forth in said complaint on file herein; that the

negligen

tually and proximately caused and

sness and negligence on the part of the

6

iaintif?’s alleged injuries, which are herein denied,

actually and proximat

tif and cach of the

9 }} caused solely by the contributory and/or comparative negligence of

10 || stated therein are barred by reason of such comparative negligence.

i ‘That should paint

fendant. said defendant is entitled to have

over damage

tent plaintifi’s

12 || the amount abated, reduced or eliminated to the e aligence caused or contributed

15 | to his injuries and darnages, if any.

T AND AFFIRMATIVE

14} AND AS FOR A FOURTEENTH, SEPARS

15 |) DE DANT ALLEGES:

SE, DEFE!

16 That plaintiff knowingly assumed the risk of any injury or damage alleged in the complaint

NTH, SEPA

7 AND AS FOR A FIFTEE RATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE,

DANT ALLEGE!

‘SE, DEFE:
19 Tha

20 |! intended, but were subjected to unforeseeable and unanticipated misuse, abuse, alteration and/or

1 subject products, artd their component parts were not used as instructed and

iteration, and/or

21 || modification hy those other than this answering defendant, Said misuse, abus

22 || modification was the proximate cause of the injuries and damages, if any, allegedly susiained by

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY-ASBESTOS
labe78 Sods NEERAN SecsAND AFFIRMATIVE

NT!

AND AS FOR A SE TH, SEPARATE DISTINC

E, DEFENDANT ALLEGE

jevant to th

action.

plaintiff's employer assumed the risks incident to all matter:

cPARATE DEISTINC

AND AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEG!

ail activities of this answering defendant alleged in the complaint, conform to statutes,

upon the state of knowledge exis the

in the complaint and each canse of a

tion therein.

time

ARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE

AND AS FOR A NINE’

EENTH, SEP.

\DANT ALLEGE

DEFENSE, DE

¢ products referred to in plaintiff’ int otweighed the risks of

That the ben
danger. if any, inherent in such products.

6 T
7 || governmental regulations and industry standards based
| AND AS FOR A TWENTIETH, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE

DANT ALLEGES:
alleged in the complaint, plaintiff was nat inv privity of contract

plaintif's recovery !

grein upon any theory of warranty,

v7 ing defendant for
18

19

20 AND AS FOR A TWENTY-FIRST, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE
21 SE, DEFENDANT ALLEG

2 That the products alleged in the complaint were used by a sophis termediary,
23 || and said usex/intermediary having adequate and complete warnings of the tisk involved in the use

24 || of said products, this answering defendant had and has no duty to independently wa

25 || the said risks such that plaintiff's claims are thereby barred.

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY-ASBESTOS.36M

AND AS FOR A TWENTY IND, SEPARATE DISTIN

2 || AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEG

3 That any injuries resulting from th f the subject products, which injuries are herein

and state of

4 || denied, were not foreseeable to this answering defendant given the state of knov

injuries

TY-THIRD, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE.

6 AND AS FORA TW

DEFENDANT ALLEG!

Fin the

endant was not

is answering de activity

oduct, st at this

9 |) ma tu

mulation, packaging. labeling, distribution of sale of any

10 || answering defendant cannot be held strictly liable.

ii |} AND AS FOR A TWENTY-FOURTH, SEPARATE DIS

DANT AL

FFIRMATIVE DE!

2NSE, DE

2G)

13 That plaintiff's complaint to the extent that it seeks exemplary or punitive damages pursuant

14 |) to California Civil Code Section 3294, violates defendant's right to procedural due process under

f the

the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and Article 4, Section 7

Constitution of the State of California, and therefore fails to state a cause of action upon which

cither punitive or ages can be awarded.

xemplery’ dan

ig) AND AS FOR A TWENTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE
19 | DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

» hat said complaint, to the extent that it seeks punitive or exemplary damages purstant to

21 || California Civil Code Section 3294, violates defendant's right to protection from "excessive fines”

ection 17 of |

as provided in the Highth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I,

‘he Constitution of the State of California, and violates defendant's right to substantive due process

ic F and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and the

as provided i
| Constitution of the State of California, and therefore fails to state a cause of action supporting the

| punitive or exemplary damages claimed.

6.

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY-ASBESTOS

‘He DETRAN SoGiR2 || parties to be joine

| AFFIRMATIVE DEF!

AND AS FOR A TWENTY-SIXTH, SEPARATE DISTING

ND AFFIRMATI

DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
Defendant alleges that said complaint, and each cause of action therein, fails to state facts

ficient to warrant an award of exemplary or punitive damages.

AND AS FOR A TWENTY.

SEVENTH, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND

NSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGE

‘That this Defendant is liable, if at all, only for its proportionate share of liability/damages

set forth by CC

14311 et seq

AND AS FOR A TWENTY-EIGHTH, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE,

NSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

‘That.

ispensable par

have.not been joined and that it is neces

ary for these absent

in order to obtain a just and final adjudication of all matters all

AND AS FOR 4 TWENTY-NINTH, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

This court js/an improper venue f

1 the adjudication of the matters alleged in the complaint,

as to this answering party

AND AS FOR A THIRTIETH, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

‘That any los:

njury or damage incurred by plaintiff, if any, was proximately caused by t

negli

ons of parties or nonparties whom defendant did not control,

was not proximately caused by any acts, omissions or other conduct of defendant.

AND AS FOR A THIRTY-FIRST, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE.

DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEG

‘This action.is barre

by California Labor Code §§

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INIURY-ASBESTOS|
{

AND AS FOR A THIRTY-SECOND, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE

DEFI

SE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:

That ail times mentioned in the Complaint on file herein, defendant is informed and

believes that the employer of plaintiff, was insured under a policy of Worker's Compensation
Insurance: that on account of the alleged injuries referred to in plaintiff's Complaint, the

compensation cartier has paid to and on behalf of plaintiff certain sums by way of Worker's

wat at-all times,

ion, under

Compens ¢ worker's compensation laws of the State of California:

|
| mentioned in plaintiff's Complaint, said employer and its agents, servants and employees, acting

within the course and scope of their agency and employment, were negligent and careless ix and |

about the matters referred to in plaintiff's Complaint; that said employer carelessly and negligently

failed to furnish the plaintiff’ with a safe place to work and carelessly and negligently failed 10

rovidle proper supervision, inspections, tools, appliances and control and direction over its

“d

employees in the place of employment; that said carelessness and negligence proximately caus

and contributed to the injuries which plaintiff claims to have sustained; that the carelessness and

sligence bars recovery against this answering defendant of all sums paid or to be paid

to or on behalf of plaintiff’ by way of Worker's Compensation benefits as aforesaid: that said

carelessness and concurrent negligence of the employer is by law imputed to the insurance carrier
of said employer

AND AS FOR A THIRTY-THIRD, SEPARATE DISTINCT AND AFFIRMATIVE

| DEFE!

f, DEFENDANT ALLEG

That # conilict in law exi:

as to plainti

claimed exposure as to this answering party is

alleged to oceurred outside the jurisdiction of this court and therefore the laws of that jurisdiction

apply involving all apply as between this answering party and plaintift

i WHEREFORE, this answering defendant prays for judgment as follows:

1 That plaindif take nothing by reason of the complaint filed herein:

2. {hat this answering defendant be awarded costs of suit incurred herein;

SFOS

ars sauna yer sseaeat |

WER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY-ASBFBECM

Lresgce res

som Gxt
Fsaussanonse

oe KOA RD

28

3. ‘That if defendant is found liable, that the degree of responsibility and Hability for
‘the resulting damages be determined, and that defendant be liable only for that
‘portion of total damages in proportion to its total responsibility for same; and

4. Por such other and further relief as the court decms juist and proper.

pe
Dated: July 22, 2007 FILICE BRO} EASSA & MeLEOD LLP

Jn

ee Hine
‘BUGENE BROWN. IR.

AMEE A. MIKACICH
“Atiorneyss for Defendant
OAKEABCO, INC.

9

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY-ASBESTOS:
(nbdrd id META staFBECM
menace
“es

PROOF OF SERVICE
Louis Castagna y. Asbestos Defendants-Oakfabeo, Ine.
San Franciseo County Superior Court Docket Number: 274230

Tama citizen of the United States, over 18 years of age and not ey. to the within action,
Jam employed in the county of Alameda: my business address is 1999 Harrison Street, ig?
Floor, Oakland, CA 94612.
On uty \ , 2007, I served the within documents:
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Onl panties inthis action, as aressed below, by causing ue copy threat to be disufbuted
as follows:

Brayton Purcell Berry & Berry
222 Rush Landing Road 2930 Lakeshore Avenue
P.O. Box 6169 P.O. Box. 16070
Novato CA 94948-6169 Oakland, CA 94610
IX} BY MAIL: Lamm “readily familiar” with the firm's practice of collection

and processing correspondence for mailing. Linder that
practice if would be deposited with US. Postal service on
that Same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the
ordinary course of business, 1 am aware that on motion oF
thy party served, service is presumed invalid if postal
cancellation date or postage meter data is more than one. day
atter date of deposit for mailing in affidavit,

|] VIA HAND DELIVERY: Tcaused such envelope, to be hand delivered to the stated
parties by an agent of INTERCEPTOR.

VIA ELECTRONIC | caused 2 trie and Correct copy of such docriments to be
IX] SERVICE: electronically served on counsel of record by transinission
to Lexis-Nexis File and Serve,

i declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is rue and eorreet.

Executed on say, 2007, at Oakland. California.

tars teoor etna esto.