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

                                28

ILOPKINS & CARLEY
ATTORNEYS Air Lawr
Saw Jose

Eugene Ashley (State Bar No. 171885)
Tina L. Naicker (State Bar No. 252766)

HOPKINS & CARLEY ELECTRONICALLY
A Law Corporation
The Letitia Building Sy e IL ED...
70 South First Street . County of San Francisco.
San Josc, CA 95113-2406 MAR 16 2011
ili : Clerk of the Court
mailing a adress: BY: ALISON AGBAY
San Jose, CA 95109-1469 Deputy Clerk
Telephone: (408) 286-9800
Facsimile: (408) 998-4790
Attorneys for Defendant
CHESTER C. LEHMANN CO., INC. dba
ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS CO,
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
RODRICK BRECKLER and JOANNE ASBESTOS
BRECKLER, CASE NO. CGC-08-274566
Plaintiffs, CHESTER C. LEHMANN CO., INC, DBA
ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS CO.’S
v. JOINDER IN DEFENDANT SAN JOSE
BOILER WORKS’ OPPOSITION TO
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B P), PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER
GRANTING PREFERENCE IN SETTING
Defendants. CASE FOR TRIAL AND EXTENDING
DISCOVERY CUTOFF
Date: March 30, 2011
Time: 9:30 am.
Dept: 220
Judge: Honorable Harold Kahn

Complaint Filed: January 2, 2003
Trial Date: TBD

Defendant Chester C. Lehmann Co., Inc. dba Electrical Distributors Co. (“Electrical

Distributors”) hereby joins and incorporates herein by reference Defendant San Jose Boiler

Works’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Granting Preference in Setting Case For Trial,

708\833602.1

CHESTER C. LEHMANN DBA ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS CO.’S JOINDER IN SAN JOSE BOILER.
WORKS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING PREFERENCE28

Hopkins & Cariny
ATTORNBYS AT LAW

Saw Jose

and Extending Discovery Cutoff (“Opposition”) in its entirety. Electrical Distributors adopts the
authorities and arguments set forth in said Opposition as if set forth in their entirety.

In addition, Electrical Distributors respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiff's
Motion for Order Granting Preference in Setting Case For Trial (“Motion”) on the grounds that it
has a pending Motion to Compel against Plaintiff set for hearing on March 29, 2010, and expects
to file another Motion to Compel against Plaintiff regarding other discovery matters after
Plaintiffs Motion is heard. If Plaintiff's Motion is granted prior to the time of resolution of
Electrical Distributors’ Motion to Compel (and possibly a subsequent motion to compel), it would
violate Electrical Distributors’ due process rights in affording a reasonably opportunity to conduct
meaningful discovery and effectively prepare for trial and defend its case. See Hon. William F.
Rylaarsdam et al., CAL. PRAC. GUIDE CIV. PRO. BEFORE TRIAL, Ch. 12 Case Management and
Trial Setting, Scction C [12:248.2](The Rutter Guide)(2010)(“One possible limitation is that a
trial setting so early as to deprive defendant of reasonable opportunity for discovery or pretrial
preparation may violate duc process of law.”)(citing Roe v. Superior Court (1990) 224 Cal. App.
3d 620, 643, fn. 2; Peters v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal. App. 3d 218, 227)).

Accordingly, Electrical Distributors respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiffs
Motion. Should the Court grant Plaintiff's Motion, Electrical Distributors requests the following
order be issued by the Court:

. Plaintiffs’ counsel must serve on each defendant a list of product identification and

causation third-party witnesses and documents they intend to use at trial;

. Plaintiff must identify the specific products including brand name and/or
manufacturer that were purchased from Electrical Distributors, and state the
manner in which Plaintiff was exposed ‘to asbestos from such products.

. Plaintiffs must identify all co-workers and provide dates for their deposition within

three weeks of the granting of trial preference.

. Plaintiff must provide unequivocal, straightforward responses to all Electrical

Distributors’ case-specific written discovery within twenty days.

708\833602.1 -2-

CHESTER C. LEHMANN DBA ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS CO.’S JOINDER IN SAN JOSE BOILER
WORKS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING PREFERENCE28

LlopKins & CARLEY
AVTURNEYS AT LAW
San Joss

To proceed with a preferential trial when Electrical Distributors is unable to prepare for trial will
undoubtedly result in a situation which is prejudicial to it. Thus, by imposing the above
conditions, any prejudice to Electrical Distributors will be minimized while also protecting

Plaintiffs’ right to a preferential trial date.

Dated: March 16, 2011 HOPKINS & CARLEY
A Law Corporation

‘Tina Naicker

Attorneys for Defendant

CHESTER C. LEHMANN CO., INC. dba
ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS, INC.

708\8336002.1 -3-

CHESTER C, LEHMANN DBA ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS CO.’S JOINDER IN SAN JOSE BOILER
WORKS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING PREFERENCE28

Hopkins & CARLEY
Atroevars ATTAW
SAN Jose

PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION

I, Kathleen L. Madrid, declare:

1am a citizen of the United States and employed in Santa Clara County, California. Iam
over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business address
is The Letitia Building, 70 South First Street, San Jose, California 95113-2406.

On March 16, 2011, I electronically filed/served the following document via LexisNexis
File & Serve, described as:

CHESTER C. LEHMANN CO., INC. DBA ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS CO.'S
JOINDER IN DEFENDANT SAN JOSE BOILER WORKS?’ OPPOSITION TO

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING PREFERENCE IN SETTING CASE
FOR TRIAL AND EXTENDING DISCOVERY CUTOFF

on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the LexisNexis File & Serve
website.

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

Executed on March 16, 2011, at San Jose, California.

Vradud

} Kathleen L. Madrid

00\830778, 1

CHESTER C. LEHMANN DBA EILECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS CO.’S JOINDER IN SAN JOSE BOILER,
WORKS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFE’S MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING PREFERENCE