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

                                oO Oo ND HW BW NY

Ss

13
14

28

BUTY & CURLANOLEP
‘555. 12" STREET

JASON J. CURLIANO [SBN 167509]
GEORGE S. SULLIVAN [SBN 187793]

BUTY & CURLIANO LLP

555 — 12" Street, Suite 1280 ELECTRONICALLY

Oakland, California 94607 FILED

net 3 to2er0 ry Superior Court of California,
ax: . ’ County of San Francisco

Email: jasonc@butycurliano.com JUN 19 2013

jsullivan@butycurliano.com Clerk of the Court
Attorneys for Defendant BY: MICHAEL  Ooputy Cle

CRITCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, No. CGC-10-275731
Plaintiffs, NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
GRANTING CRITCHFIELD
v. MECHANICAL, INC.’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS; et al.,
Defendants.

eee eee

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 30, 2013, the Court entered the Order granting
defendant CRITCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC.’s Motion for Summary Judgment. A true and
correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

DATED: June 18, 2013 BUTY & CURLIANO LLP

by S Sz
GEORSE 8. SULLIVAN
fe

L for Defendant
LD MECHANICAL, INC.

=

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER GRANTING CRITCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT1 PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
2 I declare that:
3 Iam employed in the County of Alameda, California. I am over the pee of eighteen years
and not a party to the within entitled cause; my business address is 555 - 12" Street, Suite 1280,
4 | Oakland, CA 94607.
5 I served the following document(s) via LexisNexis File & Serve as described as:
6 NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER GRANTING CRITCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC.’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
7
on recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the LexisNexis File & Serve
8 | website.
9 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct. Executed on June 18, 2013, in Oakland, California.
10
11
Regan Balinton issRegan Balintow
12 | Print Signature
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
oygoguour 2
On gAND Ca gs007 NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER GRANTING CRITCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENTEXHIBIT “A”YD Ww BF YN

28

BUTY & CURLIANOLL
‘S85- 12" Steer

‘SUTE 1280.

94807

LAND, CA
'340.287:3000

| orders as follows:

MADELINE L. BUTY [SBN 157186]
GEORGE 8. SULLIVAN [SBN 187793]

BUTY & CURLIANO LLP Epos
555 — 12" Street, Suite 1280 San Francisco Colnty Superior Count
Oakland, California 94607 "
Tel: $10.267.3000 MAY 80 203

Fax: 510.267.0117

Email: mlb@butycurliano.com CLERK OF THE COURT
jsullivan@butycurliano.com BY ee
‘Deputy Clerk

Attorneys for Defendant
CRITCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, No. CGC-10-275731
DEFENDANT CRITCHFIELD
MECHANICAL, INC,’

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs,
v.
C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS; et al.,

Defendants. Date: May 30, 2013

Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept: 503

Trial: June 10, 2013

Cee eee

Defendant CRITCHFILED MECHANICAL, INC.’s Motion for Summary Judgment came

on for hearing on May 30, 2013 in Department 503 of the above-entitled court before The

Honorable Teri L. Jackson. Counsel for plaintiffs and defendant CRITCHFILED MECHANICAL,

INC. appeared. After full consideration of the papers filed in support and in opposition to this

motion for summary judgment, and oral argument, the Court adopts its tentative ruling and hereby

1

DEFENDANT CRITCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC.’S PROPOSED-ORDER
GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT1 Defendant Critchfield Mechanical, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment is granted.
Defendant sustained its initial burden. Plaintiffs failed to submit evidence creating a triable issue
whether defendant breached a duty owed to Mr. Ross, a non-employee. Specifically, plaintiffs

failed to submit evidence creating a triable issue whether defendant knew or should have known

2

3

4

5 | that the products or materials to which it exposed Mr. Ross contained asbestos. Even accepting

6 | plaintiffs’ argument that the duty was created pursuant to the 1955 General Industry Safety Orders
7 (GISOs), plaintiffs failed to submit evidence creating a triable issue whether defendant knew or

8 | should have known that the products or materials allegedly disturbed and/or used by defendant’s
9 employees in Mr, Ross’ presence, who was a non-employee, were hazardous (i.e. asbestos) and
10 | exceeded the dust count acceptable under the 1955 GISOs. Defendant’s objections to Dr. Cohen’s

11 | declaration are sustained. Plaintiffs have dismissed their strict liability cause of action.

12 | ITISSO ORDERED

3
' patep: MAY 30 208

14 HONORABLE TERI L. JACKSON
Judge of the Superior Court

TERI L. JACKSON

os | 2

BUTS CUBLANOLLP DEFENDANT CRITCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC.’S FROPOSED ORDER
Ong AND, Ga 24607 GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

D,
510.287.3000