Document for GODOFREDO PIQUE VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                JAMES N. SINUNU, SBN 62802

KELLY L. COWAN, SBN 239635

SINUNU BRUNI LLP

333 Pine Street, Suite 400

San Francisco, CA 94104-3311

Telephone: 415.362.9700

Facsimile: 415.362.9707

jsinunu@sinunubrui.com
cowan@sinunubruni.com

Attorneys for Defendant

FEDERAL-MOGUL ASBESTOS PERSONAL

INJURY TRUST as successor to FELT

PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING COMPANY

ELECTRONICALL
FILED

Superior Court of California,

County of San Francisco

JAN 21 2011

Clerk of the Court
BY: RAYMOND K. WONG
Deputy Cl

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

ROSITA PIQUE, as Wrongful Death Heir, and}

as Successor-in-Interest to GODOFREDO
PIQUE, Deceased; and MARLENE
SANCHEZ, GREGORY PIQUE,
FREDERICK PIQUE, as Legal Heirs of
GODOFREDO PIQUE, Deceased,

Plaintiffs,
Vv.

DANA COMPANIES, LLC (FKA DANA
CORPORATION), et al.

Defendants.

a el ee el el el ee eae

)

Case No.: CGC-08-274659

DEFENDANT FEDERAL-MOGUL
ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY TRUST
as successor to FELT PRODUCTS
MANUFACTURING COMPANY’S
OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS’ C.C.P. §
998 OFFER TO COMPROMISE

Complaint Filed: October 5, 2010
Trial Date: Not assigned.

COMES NOW defendant, FEDERAL-MOGUL ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY
TRUST as successor to FELT PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING COMPANY (hereinafter

FEL-PRO) and hereby objects to Plaintiffs ROSITA PIQUE, MARLENE SANCHEZ,
GREGORY PIQUE, AND FREDERICK PIQUE’s Offer to Compromise pursuant to Code of

Civil Procedure, section 998, on grounds that it is premature. At this date, FEL-PRO does

not have sufficient facts or information to determine if Plaintiffs’ offer is reasonable.

qT

DEFENDANT FEDERAL-MOGUL ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY TRUST as successor to FELT PRODUCTS
MANUFACTURING COMPANY’S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS’ C.C.P. § 998 OFFER TO COMPROMISE

rkSection 998 was enacted to encourage the setilement of lawsuits prior to trial and to
punish a party that fails to accept a reasonable offer. (See, T.M. Cobb v. Superior Court
(1984) 36 Cal.3d 273, 280). However, a party is not expected to accept an unreasonable
offer, or one not made in good faith. (Elrod v. Oregon Cummins Diesel, Inc. (1987) 195
Cal. App.3d 692, 698-699). The reasonableness of an offer is determined by the information
known or the information that reasonably should have been known to the offeree. (Id. at
699). Furthermore, if a party makes a section 998 Offer to Compromise with the knowledge
that the offeree lacks information necessary to evaluate the offer, the offer is not made in
good faith. (fd. at 700). Accordingly, an offer that is unreasonable and made with a lack of
good faith is an invalid Offer to Compromise under section 998. (Jd. at 698-699).

In this case, insufficient discovery has been completed to enable FEL-PRO to
accurately analyze the reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ Offer to Compromise. Most importantly,
FEL-PRO and has not yet had the opportunity to depose Plaintiffs. Further, Plaintiffs have
not provided responses to Set Two Standard Interrogatories and therefore FEL-PRO has not
had the opportunity to conduct special written discovery. Further, FEL-PRO has not
received all medical reports, employment records, and/or interrogatory responses. FEL-PRO
also has not had the opportunity to depose Plaintiffs’ percipient witnesses and experts.

FEL-PRO thus lacks the requisite information to accurately determine the
reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ offer. Since Plaintiffs are aware that discovery is not complete
in this case and is in fact in the initial stages, their Offer to Compromise is lacking in good
faith. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ offer fails to effectuate the policy of encouraging settlement of
lawsuits prior to trial, and is invalid as a Section 998 Offer to Compromise.

Based on the above objections, this FEL-PRO will request that the Court not impose
the augmented costs included within Code of Civil Procedure section 998.

f/f
fit
‘if
fit

2

DEFENDANT FEDERAL-MOGUL ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY TRUST as successor to FELT PRODUCTS
MANUFACTURING COMPANY’S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS’ C.C.P. § 998 OFFER TO COMPROMISEDated: January 21, 2011 SINUNU BRUNI LLP

By:

Aa

AMES NSSH

Afforneys for Defendant FEDERAL-
MOGUL ASBESTOS PERSONAL
INJURY TRUST as successor to
FELT PRODUCTS
MANUFACTURING COMPANY

3

MANUFACTURING COMPANY’S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS’ C.C.P. § 998 OFFER TO COMPROMISE

DEFENDANT FEDERAL-MOGUL ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY TRUST as successor to FELT PRODUCTSPROOF OF SERVICE

Rosita Pique v. Dana Companies, LLC (fka Dana Corporations)
San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-08-274659

Iam over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the above-captioned matter.
My business address is 333 Pine Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, California 94104-3311,
where the service described below took place on the date set forth below.

Person(s) Served:

Electronic Service: On the date executed below, I electronically served the
document(s) via LexisNexis File & Serve described below on recipients designated
on the Transaction Receint located on the LexisNexis File & Serve website.

Document(s) Served:

DEFENDANT FEDERAL-MOGUL ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY TRUST as
successor to FELT PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING COMPANY’S OBJECTION TO
PLAINTIFFS’ C.C.P. § 998 OFFER TO COMPROMISE

Manner of Service:

Personal Service: I caused a copy of each document served to be hand delivered
to each person served pursuant to CCP § 1011. Ifrequired, the actual server’s
original Proof of Service will be filed with the Court.

Mail: | am readily familiar with my employer’s practice for the collection and
processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service:
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, I 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 postage thereon fully
prepaid, each envelope being addressed to one of the person(s) served, in
accordance with C.C.P. § 1013(a).

Facsimile: On the date set forth below, | transmitted the document(s) served via
facsimile transmission to the facsimile number(s) set forth above. A confirmation
report was generated confirming completed delivery of the same. A copy of the
confirmation report is on file and available for inspection and copying upon
request.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the Statcof California that the
foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: January 21,2011

PROOF OF SERVICE.