On December 17, 2010 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Ross, Jean, Ross, Robert, and Acco Engineered Systems, Inc., Advanced Mechanical, Advance Mechanical Contractors, Inc., Air Systems Mechanical Contractor, A & K Heating Company, Inc., Albay Construction Company, Allen-Simmons Heating & Sheet Metal Company Inc., Allied Fire Protection, Allied Sprinkler Company, Inc., Allsberry Mechanical Corporation, Anderson, Rowe & Buckley, Inc., Associated Insulation Of California, A. Teichert & Son, Inc., Balliet Bros. Construction Corporation, Banner Drywall & Painting Co. Inc., Barnes Construction Co., Bayer Cropscience Inc., Bayer Cropscience, Inc., Successor To Amchem, Bell Products Inc., Beta Mechanical Contractors, L.P., Bragg Investment Company, Inc., Cahill Construction Co., Inc., Cahill Construction Services, Inc., Cahill Contractors, Inc., California Drywall Co., Castro Construction, Inc., C.C. Moore & Co. Engineers, Cincinnati Valve Company, Cjr Plastering, Clausen-Patten, Inc., Clausen-Patten, Inc., A Dissolved Corporation, Climate Air, Inc., Climate Control Co., Inc., Collins Electrical Company, Inc., Commair Mechanical Services, Consolidated Insulation, Inc., Cosco Fire Protection, Inc., Cosco Sprinkler, Critchfield Mechanical, Inc., C & R Plastering, Inc., Csk Auto, Inc., Cupertino Electric, Inc., Delucchi Sheet Metal Works, Dilland Sederberg Plumbing, Does 1-8500, Domco Products Texas Inc., Domco Products Texas, L.P., Donovan Construction, Dorn Refrigeration, Dorn Refrigeration And Air Conditioning, Dpr Construction, Duro Dyne Corporation, D.W. Nicholson Corporation, D. Zelinsky & Sons, Inc., Emil J. Weber Electric Co., Erwin Mechanical Inc., Ex- Fme, Inc. (Fka Fischbach And Moore Electric,, Fairmont Hotel Company, Fluor Corporation, Foley Electric Co., Foley Electric, Inc., Fuller Floors, General Mills, Inc., Giampolini & Co., Graybar Electric Company, Inc., Hanson Permanente Cement, Inc. Formerly Known As, Harold Beasley Plumbing And Heating, Inc., Harry Lee Plumbing & Heating, H & C Investment Associates, Inc., Henry C. Beck Company, Imperial Plastering & Drywall, Insulation Specialties, Inc., James A. Nelson Co., Inc., Johnson Controls, Inc., Jones Plastering Company, Joseph Bruno Sheet Metal Co., Inc., J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc., J.W. Mcclenahan Company, J.W. Mcclenahan Company, Inc., Kentile Floors, Inc., Laub Sheet Metal Works, Lone Star Industries, Inc., Mack Construction Co., Magee, Robert, Malm Metal Products, Inc., Marine Engineering And Supply Company, Marshco Auto Parts, Inc., Mattock Construction Company, Mcclure Electric, Inc., Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Michael Brothers, Midstate Mechanical, Inc., Mitchell Bros. Truck Lines, Inc., Monsanto Company, Sued As "Pharmacia Corporation", Oakfabco, Inc., Ortho-Craft, Pacific Fireproofing, Pacific Mechanical Corporation, Parker Insulation Contracting & Supply Co. Inc., Perini Corporation, Pharmacia Corporation, Which Will Do Business In, Pribuss Engineering, Pribuss Engineering, Inc., Raymond Interior Systems-North, Red Top Electric Co. Emeryville, Inc., Robert Magee, Rollie R. French, Inc., Rollins Construction, Rountree Plumbing & Heating Inc., Scott Co. Of California, S F L, Inc., S.J. Amoroso Construction Co., Inc., Slakey Brothers, Inc., Sugden Engineering Co., Swinerton Builders, Temper Insulation, Temporary Plant Cleaners, Inc., Texaco, Inc., The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, The W.W. Henry Company, Tuttle And Bailey Corp, Van Mulder Sheetmetal, Van-Mulder Sheet Metal, Inc., Walnut Creek Sheet Metal, Furnace & Air, W.C. Thomason, W.C. Thompson, Webcor Builders, Inc., Westburne Supply, Inc., Willard Electric, Wright Schuchart Harbor, Wright Schuchart Harbor Company, Ross, Jean, Ross, Robert, for civil in the District Court of San Francisco County.
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Preview
BRAYTON®PURCELL LLP. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 222 RUSH LANDING ROAD P.O BOX 6169 NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169 (415) 898-1555 oO YN DAH FF WN oS GILBERT L. PURCELL, ESQ., S.B. #113603 JAMES P. NEVIN, ESQ., S.B. #220816 jnevin@braytonlaw.com RAYTON*PURCELL LLP Erect RonicAty Attorneys at Law FILED 222 Rush Landing Road Superfor Court of Cailfomia, P.O. Box 6169 County of San Francisco Novato, California 94945 08/11/2015 Clerk of the Court BY:RONNIE OTERO Deputy Clerk (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, ) ) | PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION JN LIMINE TO vs. PRECLUDE ALL REFERENCE AND TESTIMONY REGARDING OSTENSIBLE C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS; ) “BACKGROUND” OR “AMBIENT” Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit 1 ) EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS attached to the Summary Complaint ) herein; and DOES 1-8500. ) Trial Date: August 10, 2015 Dept.: 613 Plaintiffs hereby move this Court for an order prohibiting all parties, witnesses, and counsel from referencing the concept of “background” or “ambient” exposures to asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products. Plaintiffs also seek to prohibit speculative testimony that would tend to intimate that all people in the general population are breathing asbestos and all of those persons which make up the general population “have millions of asbestos fibers in their lungs,” even absent confirmed occupational exposure to asbestos. In particular, this motion is directed to the anticipated comments of counsel in voir dire, opening statements, cross- examination of plaintiffs’ witnesses, or testimony by defense witnesses regarding the general population’s ostensible “background” or “ambient” exposures to asbestos contaminants in urban air or the speculative concentration of asbestos in the courthouse, courtroom or in trial K Arjured\95 49a back wpe 1 PN PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION JN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE ALL REFERENCE AND TESTIMONY REGARDING OSTENSIBLE “BACKGROUND” OR “AMBIENT” EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOSCm QW DH HWA BF WwW NY NN NY NY NY KNYN NH NY He Be Be ewe ew ewe Be eB ew eI AA BR ONH FS GCwe KAA A RD YH B'S participants’ lungs. Such speculative evidence is inadmissible, lacks foundation, is of limited probative value, involves undue consumption of time, and is very likely to confuse the issues in the case. Plaintiffs anticipate that the defense will seek to place before the jury by comment, testimony, suggestion, or otherwise the notion that nearly everyone living in an urban metropolitan region has been exposed to “background” or “ambient” levels of airborne asbestos fibers and probably has “millions” of asbestos fibers in his/her lungs. The defense should be precluded from doing this under settled law. Evidence Code § 350 provides that only relevant evidence is admissible. Evidence Code § 210 defines relevant evidence as that evidence having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action. Evidence Code § 352 similarly gives the Court broad discretion to exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury. Defendants’ reference to and/or use of the concepts of “background” or “ambient” asbestos exposure should be excluded under Evidence Code §§ 350 and 352. Plaintiffs submit that the defense will proffer no expert testimony, scientific study, or credible basis for urging that decedents’ injuries were caused by “ambient” or “background” asbestos fiber exposure or that exposures to its products or activities below “ambient” or “background” could not have contributed to cause said injuries. At a minimum the defense should be required to make an offer of proof as to any admissible evidence in its possession on this issue as a predicate to allowing comment, suggestion, or inference regarding “background” or “ambient” airborne asbestos exposure. Plaintiffs aver that no such offer can or will be made. It is well settled as a matter of law that causation is a question of reasonable probability. (Lineaweaver v. Plant Insulation Company (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1416, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 902, 906 [injury from asbestos exposure]; Sparks v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 461, 476, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 739, 748 [same].) “Legal cause” need not be proven with certainty. K Alnjored\ 19349 back wpd 2 DN PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION JN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE ALL REFERENCE AND TESTIMONY REGARDING OSTENSIBLE, “BACKGROUND” OR “AMBIENT” EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOSio em NID NH RF WN = Ss 11 (Id.) However, mere possibility is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of causation, or in the case of the defense argument, to rebut the plaintiffs’ case of causation. (Id.) Thus, the issue is whether it is more likely than not that decedent’s injuries were a result of the defendants’ acts or omissions. (Id.) It is axiomatic that “the trial court has broad discretion in assessing whether the probative value of particular evidence is outweighed by concerns of undue prejudice, confusion, or consumption of time.” (People v. Rodrigues (1994) 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 235, 8 Cal.4th 1060, 885 P.2d 1, modified on denial of the rehearing, cert denied 116 S.CT. 147, 516 US 851, 133 L.Ed.2d 93.) The lack of relevance and the prejudicial nature posed by injecting notions of “background” or “ambient” asbestos can best be illustrated as follows. Consistent with sound epidemiologic practice a chart is created to demonstrate the relative risk or incidence of asbestos-related disease in occupationally exposed persons. The horizontal axis, representing occupational levels of exposure, consists of levels ranging from zero fibers per cubic centimeter (0 fcc) up to one hundred fibers per cubic centimeter (100 f/cc). The vertical axis consists of relative risk valuations ranging from a low of one (1), that of the general population, to ten- (10) fold or a high probability of disease. Inherent in the relative risk valuation of one (1) is a general population exposed only to “background” or “ambient” asbestos (0.001 f/cc to 0.006 f/cc). This valuation for the general population represents no increased risk of developing asbestos-related disease and serves as a baseline by which epidemiologists can then logically calculate the relative risk of disease in individuals exposed over and above 0.006 f/cec (background). Returning to the vertical axis on such chart, assume worker A was exposed occupationally to a level of zero (0) f/ec which would by logical extension still equate to an exposure between 0.001 - 0.006 f/cc, accounting for “ambient/background” exposure. The horizontal axis for worker A would reveal no increased risk for asbestos disease. On the other hand, if worker B received a 1 f/cc occupational exposure he would have a relative risk of developing asbestos disease on the horizontal axis unlike worker A. An increased risk of K Anjuredt 9349 ri back.wpd 3 IPN PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION JN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE ALL REFERENCE AND TESTIMONY REGARDING OSTENSIBLE “BACKGROUND” OR “AMBIENT” EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOSCm rd AH FF BW NE = Ss 12 disease stems not from the “background” or “ambient” exposure, which occupationally exposed and non-exposed individuals share in common, but rather from those asbestos exposures in addition to “background” and/or “ambient” exposures. Plaintiffs in the instant action are not seeking to attribute asbestos-related lung disease to “background” or “ambient” exposures as such could never be scientifically supported. The relevant asbestos exposures are those sustained occupationally, and which are several magnitudes over and above any “background” or “ambient” exposures to asbestos. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing and upon such argument as may be permitted at the hearing on this motion, plaintiffs respectfully move the Court for an order precluding reference, comments, or evidence pertaining to so-called “ambient” or “background” exposures to asbestos fibers, as indicated above. Dated: AUG 2015 BRAYTON*PURCELL LLP By: _/s/ James P. Nevin James P. Nevin Attorneys for Plaintiffs K Anjured\19349\rialuni back. wpd 4 JPN PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION JN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE ALL REFERENCE AND TESTIMONY REGARDING OSTENSIBLE “BACKGROUND” OR “AMBIENT” EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS.BRAYTON®PURCELL LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 222 RUSH LANDING ROAD PO BOX 6169 NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169 (A415) 898-1555 PROOF OF SERVICE BY FILE & SERVEXPRESS Tam employed in the County of Marin, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and am not a party to the within action. My business address is 222 Rush Landing Road, P.O. Box 6169, Novato, California, 94948-6169. On _ AUG 11.2015 _, I electronically served (E-Service), pursuant to General Order No. 158, the following documents: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION JN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE ALL REFERENCE AND TESTIMONY REGARDING OSTENSIBLE “BACKGROUND” OR “AMBIENT” EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS on the interested parties in this action by causing File & ServeXpress E-service program pursuant to General Order No. 158, to transmit a true copy thereof to the following party(ies): SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST The above document was transmitted by File & ServeXpress E-Service and the transmission was reported as complete and without error. Executed on AUG 11 2015_> at Novato, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. ~N ‘Angela Ma OD Robert Ross, et al. v. C.C. Moore & Co. Engineers, et al. San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC-10-275731 PROOF OF SERVICE BY E-SERVICE.Date Created: (AAP) Created by: LitSupport - ServiceList - 19349.004 - Robert Ross Matter Number: Adams Nye Becht LLP 222 Kearny Street, Seventh Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 415-982-8955 415-982-2042 (fax) Defendants: Pribuss Engineering, Inc. (PRIBUS) Berry & Bert P.O. Box 16070 2930 Lakeshore Avenue Oakland, CA 94610 510-835-8330 510-835-5117 (fax) Defendants: Berry & Berry (B&B) Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. 50 Fremont Street, 20" Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2235 415-591-7500 415-591-7510 (fax) Defendants: Pharmacia LLC (PHARCA) ‘0 Parker, LLP 135 jain Street, 20" Ma San Francisco, CA 94105 415-808-0300 415-808-0333 (fax) Defendants: A. Teichert & Son, Inc. (ATEICH) Cahill Construction Co., Inc. (C: Rountree Plumbing & Heating Inc. LU) Swinerton Builders (SWINBU) Tutor Perini Corporation (fka Perini Corporation) (PERCOR) ILC) Low Ball & Lynch - SF Office 505 Montgomery Street, 7" Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-2584 415-981-6630 415-399-1506 (fax) Defendants: Giampolini & Co. (GIAMPO) Pacific Mechanical Corporation (PACMCR) 8/10/2015-4:41:20 PM Brayton-Purcell Service List » BPImport Archer Norris - Walnut Creek 2033 N. Main St. Suite, 800 Walnut Creek, CA 945! 925-930-6600 925- 930 6620 (fax) Defendants: Albay Construction Company (ALBAY) Cahill Contractors, Inc. t ‘AHILL) Cupertino Electric, Inc. (CUPELE) Burnham Brown 1901 Harrison Street, 14" Floor Oakland, CA 94612 510-444-6800 510-835-6666 (fax) Defendants: California Drywall Co. (CALDRY) Foley & Mansfield PLLP 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1900 Oakland, CA 94612 510-590-9500 510-590-9595 (fax) Defendants: ‘Acco Eng ineered Systems, Inc. (ACCHE. DW. Nicholson Corporation (DWNICH) aye Interior Systems-North (RAYISN) S) Van. Mfuder Sheet Metal, Inc. (VANMSM) Imai, Tadlock, Keeney & Cordery, LLP 100 Bush Street, Suite — San Francisco, CA 9: 415-675-7000 415- a8 008 (fax) Defendants: ABM CMS, Inc. (fka Commair Mechanical Services) (COMMAR) Clausen-Patten, Inc. (CLSNPT) Henry C, Beck Company Ty CACRECK) Webcor Builders, Inc. (WEBCOR) McDowall Cotter, APC 2070 Pioneer Court San Mateo, CA 9441 650-572-7933 650-: S72. 0834 (fax) Defendants: Beta Mechanical Contractors, Limited (BETAMC) Run By : Porterfield, Angela Bassi Edlin Huie & Blum LLP - San Francisco 500 Washington Street, fe 700 San Francisco, CA 94i11 415-397-9006 415-397-1339 (fax) Defendants: Balliet Bros, Construction Corporation (BALBRO) J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc. (THORPE) Malm Maal Products, Inc. (MALMSM) Dentons US LLP - San Francisco One Market Plaza Spear Tower, 24" ee San Francisco, CA 9410: 415-267-4000 415-267- 1198 (fax) Defendants: J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc. (THORPE) Haas & Naja 58 Maiden Second Floor San Francisco, CA 941 415-788-6330 415-: 391-0555 (fax) Defendants: McClure Electric, Inc. (MCCLUR) rian, LLP Law Offices of Glaspy & Glaspy, Inc. One Walnut Creek Center 100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 750 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 925-947-1300 925-947-1594 (fax) Defendants: Fairmont Hotel Company (FAIRH) Selman Breitman, LLP - San Francisco Office 33 New Montgome: or Floor San Francisco, CA “Bato: 415-979-0400 415- 919: 2099 (fax) Defendants: Rountree Plumbing & Heating Inc. (RNTPLU)Brayton-Purcell Service List Date Created: 8/10/2015-4:41:20 PM Run By : Porterfield, Angela (AAP) Created by: LitSupport - ServiceList - , BPImport Matter Number: 19349.004 - Robert Ross Sinunu Bruni LLP Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & 333 Pine Street, Suite io Dicker LLP. San Francisco, C, 525 Market Street, 17" Floor 415-362-9700 ais: 362. ‘5707 (fax) San Francisco, CA 94105-2725 Defendants: 415-433-0990 415-434-1370 (fax) McClure Electric, Inc. (MCCLUR) Defendants: Anderson, Rowe & Buckley. Inc. (AR&B) Bell Products Inc. (BELLP} Collins Electrical Company, ‘ne, (COLELC) Emil J. Weber Electric Co. (EMILJW) Kenles Corporation (fka Advanced Mechanical Contractors, Inc.) (ADVMEC)