Motion-Secondary: ANTHONY CONTE VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS B*P AS REFLECTED ON REFLECTED et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                101 West Broadway
Suite 2000
San Diego, CA 92101

Gordon & Rees LLP

ROGER M. MANSUKHANI (SBN: 164463)
STEVEN A. SOBEL (SBN: 177210)

K.C. SWISHER (SBN: 245238)

GORDON & REES LLP

101 W. Broadway, Suite 2000

San Diego, CA 92101

Telephone: (619) 696-6700

Facsimile: (619) 696-7124

Attomeys for Defendant
HENNESSY INDUSTRIES, INC.

ELECTRONICALLY
FILED

Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco

JUL 02 2010

Clerk of the Court
BY: WILLIAM TRUPEK
Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

ANTHONY CONTE,
Plaintiff,
Ys.
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B“P) As

Reflected on Exhibits B, B-1, C, F, G; and
DOES 1-8500; and SEE ATTACHED LIST.

Nae ae Ne Ne See Sane eS te Se Se Se ee St ne

fil
itt
‘it
ft
if
fff

CASE NO. CGC-09-275046

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT HENNESSY
INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

[Filed and served concurrently with
Notice of Motion and Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings; Compendium
of Foreign Authority; Declaration of K.C.
Swisher; Request for Judicial Notice; and
[Proposed] Order.]

Date: August 24, 2010
Time: 9:30 a.m.

Judge: Hon. Harold E. Kahn
Dept: 220

Complaint Filed: January 30, 2009
Trial date: March 14, 2011

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT HENNESSY INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGSYA WwW B® WY HK

Table of Contents

1. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.

I SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS FROM PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINTS .......

TIL, = ARGUMENT 00... ccessecssesessesesseecerensseesseeesveerasernnersvntrsscenserosecsnaeessesneeeevecaseccanerate
A. This Court Has the Authority to Grant The Instant Motion..............00
B. Plaintiffs Claims Against Defendant Fail as a Matter of Law...

1. A Defendant Can Only Be Held Liable for Defective Products that

It Places Into the Stream of Commerce .

2. As A Matter of Law, Defendant Cannot Be Held Liable for
Asbestos Containing Products Placed Into the Stream of

Commerce By Others... ccsecsescssesescenesnseesesessesecsscsneneesseesrses

a. Defendant Does Not Have a Duty to Warn of the Dangers
of Products It Did Not Place Into the Stream of Commerce.

b. Defendant Cannot Be Held Liable for the Defective Design
of Products It Did Not Place Into the Stream of Commerce

Cc As a Matter of Law, Defendant Cannot Be Held Liable For Negligence

For Products It Did Not Place Into the Stream of Commerce ........:c00
1. Foreseeability and the Remoteness of the Connection Between
Defendant’s Conduct and Plaintiffs Hart... esessesseeeseesene

Prevention Of Injury... cee csceeseetcseeseeceseccseeacereneeaeetereeeseaense

2.

3

4, The Social Consequences: Opening the Floodgates of Litigation...

5 The Inability to Insure Against the Products of Othe? «0.0.0.0.

6 Conclusion: No Duty, No Negligence «00.0.0... ceeeeeeceneeee
D. Plaintiff's Claim for False Representation Lacks Any Merit ..........0...0.44

TV. CONCLUSION 0.0... eesecccstcceseeese es necsneeensoneserecessnsensessesseesnesternssnesareabeesessveaee

“ie

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEFENDANT HENNESSY INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGSCm Ne

10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Table of Authorities

Page

Cases
Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas

(1991) 53 Cal. 3d 987 i ceecsceccccccscssccescsenscecescasepsiussnansacacaseeceseseapacsscngavaceeceusvantacecctansceseene i
Barker v. Huil

(1987) 191 Cal App.3d 221 oo seessesecseecsesseeeserserensestrsneenessecesereversssresersssacsarsenteseseseteneccersraeens 3
Baughman v. General Motors Corp.

(4th Cir, 1986) 780 F.2d 1131 oes sesseeescescueeesseeeneesstesascsnsessessansesessaisesescssasssneesseseeseneseee 10
Becker v. IRM Corp.

(1985) 38 Cal.3d 454 oo eects sssneeseecsesseesnessesessacssnessessessessessnesserseeeeessessesenesarseerseectersteees 10

Blackwell v. Pheips Dodge Corp.
(1984) 157 Cal. App.3d 372...

Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings
(Wash, 2008} 198 P.3d 493 .occsscessssescseessstecsesssseessnssssesrnecsseesseccsesssnessesssnensaressvecsuancssseeersee 7,8

C & H Foods Co. v. Hartford Ins. Co.
(1984) 163 Cal. App.3d 1055 we.ecsssscsssecssssesssssecessseessssnsesssesscsssssssnecsonssessssessssessssesecsssnneresesnresets 3

Cadio v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.
(2004) 125 Cal App.4th $13 os scssessssescscsssecssnecsneeessnesnressnesesecsseessessssesaresussssnecstveteesnersnerees 10

Carlin v. Superior Court
(1996) 13 Cal 4th 1104 onesies eecserecnreeereasenecsnecetnessaccevecenvesnvenevestesssuesesresirsesanssessesenneeeires 5

Dillon v. Legg
(1968) 68 Cal.2d 728 os eccsseccseecccerceeeveceesasesseseeecarecssseceseasnnserssdneseresisrseenereanresnneeennressrnes 12

Garcia v. Jos. Vinee Co.
(1978) 84 Cal. App.3d 868 o0.......cccccscceceescseseeseecnsecerssesssesessesessaseseesneaseesesseseesseessecussnesssessees 10

Garman v. Magic Chef, inc.
(1981) 117 Cal App.3d 634 o.o.ccssscccsssseecsssesceseapnticstennnsustusranstevensusssseeeerenensssssssssseeesssee 5,6

Peterson v. Superior Court
(1995) 10 Cal. 4th 1185 ec esecsseessssssssssoneesscscassesnessnesesseessesssnesneeennessscssenssssssanessasstuteenetes 10

Powell v. Standard Brands Paint Co.
(1985) 166 Cal App.3d 357 oo.cc.ccccccsccsssseasenserssstvessssssssssesenecsssessesssssisssssasassnsesesssnessassnesseveesente 6

Rowland v. Christian
(1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 .

-fi-

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES EN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT HENNESSY INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGSTable of Authorities

(contimued)
Page

Souie v. General Motors Corp.

(1994) 8 Cal. 4th 548 occ ceccescesssessesssessressesseseasessssssenscsseserssnsrssarssersnssnessesarssnesarcuasssneseeneserense 5
Stoops v. Abbassi

(2002) 100 Cal App.4th 644 oo ceecceeceseenresereenesresetsersreeenrenessecsecserseannessrenceneseeereeneteeenneiee 3
Taylor v. Elliot Tarbomachinery Co., Tne.

(2009) 171 Cal. App.4th 564 oo cecccseesseecseseeressnrecsersenee 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

Teilez-Cordova v. Campbell-Hausfeld
(2004) 129 Cal. App.4th 577...

Walton v. The William Powell Co.

(2010) 183 Cal. App.4th 1470 ool csc ccsaceeeeeteueeseesstesertenceseceseaccasaneeenssecennreuseseee 1,2
Statutes
Code of Civil Procedure section 438 ........ccccccescessseessessssscssesesssesecensessesessessseessssuessivecesceeeeensceeetee 3
Other Authorities

Restatement of Torts, section 402(B) .

-iii-

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT HENNESSY INDUSTRIES, INC.’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGSGordon & Rees LLP
101 West Broadway, Suite 2000

San Diego, CA 92101

CO SY KR HW RY BD

YPN ye RY YP Ye HR eR Ye ae ~ —
eo YU A AB OH |= 5 Fe ABA E GH FS

TO THIS HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF
RECORD:

Defendant HENNESSY INDUSTRIES, INC. (“Defendant”) hereby respectfully submits
the following memorandum of points and authorities in support of its concurrently-filed and
served Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to all causes of action asserted against it in
Plaintiff's Complaint herein.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
L s Y OF ARG! NT

Plaintiff's claims against Defendant fail as a matter of law. In this asbestos-based
products liability matter, Plaintiff contends in general terms that a multitude of defendants
manufactured, marketed and distributed asbestos-containing products which caused Plaintiff's
injuries. However, the specific allegations in Plaintiff's Master Complaint do not contend that
this Defendant's brake arcing machine contained asbestos. Rather, Plaintiff specifically alleges
that brake lining manufactured by other parties -- and placed upon Defendant’s arcing machine
by third parties -- contained asbestos.

These specific facts reveal a complete bar to Plaintiff's recovery: As a matter of law,
Defendant cannot be held liable for defective (i.e. asbestos-containing) products placed into the
stream of commerce by others -- even if it was foreseeable that these defective products would
be used in conjunction with Defendant’s arcing machine. (Taylor v. Elliot Turbomachinery Co.,
Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 564; Walton v. The William Powell Co. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th
1470, 1477.) Indeed, based upon precisely the same allegations and legal authority at issue here,
this Court recently held that this Defendant owed no duty to the plaintiffs under California law.
[Exs. C&D]

"On May 11, 2010, Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in the matter of Bettencourt v. Asbestos
Defendants (CGC-06-454966} came before this Court. The Master Complaint upon which that motion was based is
nearly identical to the Master Complaint at issue here. Both Master Complaints were prepared by the

Brayton