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

                                DAVID E. FARLEY, SBN #176469

ANTONIOLI & FARLEY ATTORNEYS AT LAW
525 W. REMINGTON DRIVE, SUITE 130 ELECTRONICALLY
SUNNYVALE, CA 94087 FILED
Telephone: (408) 739-9717 Superior Court of California,
Facsimile: (408) 739-1525 County of San Francisco
SEP 17 2009
Attorney for Defendant Madco Welding Supply Co. Inc. GORDON PARK-LI, Clerk
BY: WILLIAM TRUPEK
Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Roderick Breckler and Joann Breckler ) Case No.: CGC-08-274566
)
Plaintiffs, ) ANSWER OF DEFENDANT MADCO
) WELDING SUPPLY CO. INC TO THE
vs. ) UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR
) PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF
Asbestos Defendants (BP) ) CONSORTIUM - ASBESTOS
)
As Reflected on Exhibits )
)
B, B-1, C, H, & and )
)
Does 1-8500; and )
)
See Attached List )
)
Defendants

Comes now MADCO WELDING SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., and answers, Roderick
Breckler and Joann Breckler’s unverified complaint for personal injury and loss of consortium —
asbestos as follows:

GENERAL DENIAL

1, Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §431.20(d), Defendant denies each and

every allegation contained in the Plaintiff's Complaint, and each alleged Cause of Action

thereof. In that connection, Defendant denies that Plaintiffs have been inured or damaged in anyof the sums mentioned in the complaint or in any other amount, or at all, by reasons of any act or
omission of Madco Welding Supply Company, Inc.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
General Demurrer

AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, it is alleged that the complaint and each cause of action therein fails to state facts

sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these answering defendants.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Statute of Limitations

AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, it is alleged that the complaint is barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations,

including but not limited to California Code of Civil Procedure §337; §338: $339; §340; §343

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Laches

AS AND FOR A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, it is alleged that the complaint is barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of laches

against the answering Defendants.

WHEREFORE, defendants pray for judgment against the plaintiff as follows:
1. That plaintiff takes nothing by way of his complaint;

2. That the courts enter judgment for defendants;

3. For costs incurred in defense of the action;

4, For such other and further reliefs the court may deem properDated September 17, 2009

ANTONIOLI] & FARLEY Attorneys at Law

/s/ David Farley.
David Farley, Attorney for DefendantPROOF OF SERVICE
I, DAVID FARLEY, declare:

Tam a citizen of the United States and employed in the County of Santa Clara. I
am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within entitled action, | am employed by
ANTONIOLE & FARLEY, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, 525 W. Remington Drive, Suite 130,
Sunnyvale, CA 94087, in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the
service was made. | am readily familiar with the ANTONIOLI & FARLEY, ATTORNEYS AT
LAW’s practice for collection and processing of documents for delivery by way of the service
indicated below:

() [BY MAIL] By consigning such copy in a sealed envelope, First Class
postage fully prepaid, in the United States Postal Service for collection
and mailing

Q [BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY] By consigning such copy in a sealed
envelope to an overnight courier for next business day delivery

Q [BY HAND-DELIVERY] By consigning such copy in a sealed envelope
to a messenger for guaranteed hand-delivery

() [BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION] By consigning such copy to a
facsimile operator for transmittal

(X) [VIA LEXIS NEXIS FILE AND SERVE SYSTEM]

On the date indicated below, in accordance with ordinary business
practices at ANTONIOLI & FARLEY, I caused to be served the within Defendant Madco
Welding Supply Company, Inc. Answer to Complaint for Personal Injury and Loss of
Consortium — Asbestos in the manner identified above on the person(s) listed below:

The service list is contained in the Lexis Nexis File and Serve System for the above-
referenced action

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

Dated: September 17, 2009

/s/ David Farley.
David Farley