arrow left
arrow right
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
						
                                

Preview

ATTORNEYS AT BRAYTON*PURCI NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169 ELECTRONICALLY ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ., S.B. #73685 g FILED JAMES P. NEVIN, ESQ.., S.B. #220816 jnevin@braytonlaw.com ‘Superior Court of Cailfornia, BRAYTON*PURCELL LLP County of San Francisco Attorneys at Law 09/28/2016 222 Rush Landing Road Clerk of the Court P.O. Box 6169 aoe rene Novato, California 94948-6169 oT (415) 898-1555 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, ASBESTOS No. CGC-10-275731 Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF JAMES P. NEVIN IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ALLOW FILING OF APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT vs. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS; Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit | attached to the Summary Complaint herein; and DOES 1-8500. eee Date: September 29, 2016 Time: 11:00 a.m. Dept.: 503, Hon. Garrett L. Wong Trial Date: None Action Filed: December 17, 2010 I, James P. Nevin, declare: 1. Tam an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all courts in the State of California and am a trial attorney and partner in the law firm of Brayton*Purcell LLP, attorneys for plaintiff. 2. The information stated herein is true to my own personal knowledge, and if called as a witness, I could and would testify competently thereto. 3. On December 17, 2010, Plaintiffs ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS filed the above- captioned complex asbestos-related litigation. The action involves over 100 Defendants. 4, On March 14, 2011, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint. 5. On May 16, 2011, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint. gee peice pst a A I mp DECLARATION OF JAMES P. NEVIN IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ALLOW FILING OF APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT.6. Following the May 16, 2011 filing, Plaintiffs served the Summons and a copy of the Complaint filed May 16, 2011 Defendants. Of those defendants so served with the Second Amended Complaint, eight (8) failed to respond and the Clerk of Court entered default upon the Complaint filed May 16, 2011; these defendants are, with date of Clerk's entry of default indicated: BARNES CONSTRUCTION CO. (August 3, 2011), CINCINNATI VALVE COMPANY (August 3, 2011), DORN REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING (September 6, 2011), JONES PLASTERING COMPANY (April 11, 2012), MIDSTATE MECHANICAL, INC. (April 5, 2012), ROLLIE R. FRENCH, INC. (April 5, 2012), and S FL, INC. (April 6, 2012), hereinafter “Defendants”. 7. On May 11, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint. The sole purpose of the Third Amended Complaint was to add to the action two (2) defendants who had not previously been included in the lawsuit, namely DURO DYNE CORPORATION and S.J. AMOROSO CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. Neither of these defendants are related to the seven defaulted defendants identified above, or alternate entities thereof. The Third Amended Complaint did not expand any theories of recovery against the seven defaulted defendants identified above or bring any other causes of action against them. Simply put, Plaintiffs amended| their complaint to bring in two more defendants and nothing more. 8. The Third Amended Complaint did not materially changed the substance of the causes of action plead against these seven Defendants. 9. On September 1, 2015, this action was removed from the trial calendar as the case had resolved as to all non-defaulted defendants. 10. On March 24 and 25, 2016, Plaintiffs filed separate applications for default judgment against defaulted defendants. The hearing date for the prove-up hearing was set for May 24, 2016. 11. On April 5, 2016, Plaintiffs filed additional separate applications for default judgment against defaulted defendants. The hearing date for those prove-ups was set for May 26, 2016 as the Clerk in Department 514 had not additional room on the May 24" calendar. lif gee peice pst a A 2 mp DECLARATION OF JAMES P. NEVIN IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ALLOW FILING OF APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENTom NIN DAW BR WN | Boe Be Se ie ee ee om YN DAH PF DWN SO 20 12, Subsequent to the March 24, March 25, and April 5 filings, in May 2016, the Court in Department 514 ruled that, instead of several separate applications for individual default judgments, the Court would entertain only one consolidated motion for all defaulted defendants and render only one consolidated judgment form. 13. On May 18, 2016, and on May 23, 2016, in response to the ruling in Department 514 (the one motion / one judgment ruling), Plaintiffs removed all prove-up motions from the court’s calendar. 14. The Court in Department 514’s one motion / one judgment ruling caused other similar motions in similar cases to also have to come off calendar. This is because the prove-up motions in those cases, and in the instant case, had to be ‘re-tooled’ to consolidate the various motions into one omnibus motion. In addition to this requirement placed upon counsel, the Court in Department 514 also instituted more detailed prove-up requirements, including further proof requirements in the areas of proof of medical billing damages and proof involving plaintiffs’ economist. 15. Plaintiffs’ counsel completed the other pending prove-ups en mass, and by September 26, 2016, had completed the re-tooled prove-up in the instant case. 16. On September 26, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their Application for Entry of Default Judgment against these seven defendants, 17. On September 26, 2016, the Clerk of Court refused to file Plaintiffs’ application for default judgment issuing a document entitled “DEFAULT JUDGMENT REJECT”. A true and accurate photocopy of that document is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit “A”. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 27, 2016 at Novato, California. J . Nevin K Alnjred\19549iph'decl JPN file prove-up (FIRST DRAFT) 3 vp. DECLARATION OF JAMES P. NEVIN IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ALLOW FILING OF APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENTEXHIBIT ASUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 400 MCALLISTER STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 ROBERT ROSS et al PLAINTIFF (S) vs. NO. CGC-10-275731 C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS DEFAULT JUDGMENT REJECT DEFENDANT (S) Issued to: PLAINTIFF ROBERT ROSS, JEAN ROSS: Your Request for Clerk/Court Judgment against BARNES CONSTRUCTION CO., CINCINNATI VALVE COMPANY, JONES PLASTERING COMPANY, MIDSTATE MECHANICAL, INC., ROLLIE R. FRENCH, INC., S FL, INC., DORN REFRIGERATION AND AIR CONDITIONING submitted on SEP-26-2016 can not be processed for the reason(s) stated below. Other: THE REQUEST FOR COURT JUDGMENT COULD NOT BE ENTERED DUE TO 1) SINCE THERE WAS A 3RD AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED ON 5-11-2012, A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT MUST BE FILED AGAIN FOR EACH OF THE DEFENDANT'S THAT IS TO BE DEFAULTED. RESUBMIT REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT(FORM ClV-100,ALSO MARK THE COURT JUDGMENT BOX)AND MOTION FOR PROVE UP HEARING ALONG WITH THE COURT REPORTER'S FEE DOCUMENT EITHER ON LETTERHEAD OF PLEADING PAPER, AND ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. THE HEARING DATE YOU REQUESTED IS ALMOST FULL. THE NEXT AVAILABLE DATE IS NOVEMBER 10, 2016. THE HEARING DATES FILL UP QUITE FAST. THEREFORE, IF YOU HAVE PREFERRED DATES LIST THEM ON THE COMMENTS SECTION FOR THE CLERK AND WE WILL TRY TO ACCOMODATE YOU. OTHERWISE, LEAVE HEARING DATE BLANK AND THE NEXT AVAILABLE DATE WILL BE ASSIGNED FOR YOU. THANKS. DATED: SEP-26-2016 By: Default Clerk or Deputy Court Clerk Clerk of the Superior Court