arrow left
arrow right
  • CHARLES TOBEY VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • CHARLES TOBEY VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • CHARLES TOBEY VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview
  • CHARLES TOBEY VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al ASBESTOS document preview 
						
                                
Preview

                                Douglas G. Wah, Esq. SBN 64692
Michael R. Roberts, Esq. SBN 258769

ELECTRONICALLY

2] Foley & Mansfield P.L.L.P. FILED
1111 Broadway, 10th Floor Superior Court of Californi
3] Oakland, California 94607 County of San Francisco
Telephone: (510) 590-9500
4 imile: JAN 22 2010
Facsimile: (510) 590-9595 GORDON PARK-LI, Clerk
3 || Attorneys for Defendant BY: JUDITH ae epuly Clerk
6 FLUOR CORPORATION
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10 || CHARLES TOBEY, ) Case No. CGC-07-274226
)
i Plaintiff, ) “Asbestos-Related Case”
)
12 vs. ) DEFENDANT FLUOR CORPORATION’S
) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR
13 ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
) ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
14 || ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (Bé¢P), ) ADJUDICATION
)
15 Defendants. ) Date: April 8, 2010
) Time: 9:30 a.m.
16 ) Dept.: 220
7 ) Judge: Hon. Harold Kahn
)
) Complaint Filed: June 5, 2007
18 ) Trial Date: May 10, 2010
19 )
20 | TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:
21 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 8, 2010 at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter
22 || may be heard, in Department 220 of the above-referenced Court, located at 400 McAllister Street, San
23 || Francisco, California, Defendant FLUOR CORPORATION (hereinafter “Fluor”) will hereby move this
24 || Court for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication, pursuant to Code of Civil
25 || Procedure Section 437c. This Motion is brought on the following grounds:
26 (1) Plaintiff Charles Tobey will be unable to present competent evidence establishing a triable
27 issue of material fact that Fluor’s activities were a substantial factor in Plaintiff's illness.
28 11

i

DEFENDANT FLUOR CORPORATION'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONcee DOD A ee BH

YR Be YY Bw NR NY KR DP Be SB ee ee ee ee
SAA eh BF BN = SF OC HB HW DH A RB WBN & S

(2) Plaintiff Charles Tobey’s claim for strict liability fails as there is no evidence that Fluor
manufactured, sold, distributed or supplied an asbestos-containing product that caused
Plaintiff's illness.
(3) Plaintiff Charles Tobey’s claim for false representation fails because he cannot present
evidence that Fluor made any misrepresentation upon which he relied to his detriment or that
Fluor suppressed information that induced him to act.
(4) Plaintiff Charles Tobey’s prayer for punitive damages fails because there is no evidence that
Fluor acted with oppression, fraud or malice toward him.
This Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion, the supporting Memorandum of Points and
Authorities, the Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, the Declaration of Michael R.
Roberts, the Court’s files and record herein, any and all exhibits produced during the pleading stages of

this Motion, and all oral and documentary evidence, if any, produced at the hearing of this Motion.

Dated: January 22, 2010 FOLEY & MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P.

. Iilen

Douglas 6. Wah

Michael R. Roberts
Attorneys for Defendant
FLUOR CORPORATION

2
DEFENDANT FLUOR CORPORATION'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION