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

UO SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Jun-04-2013 3:34 pm Case Number: CGC-10-275731 Filing Date: Jun-04-2013 3:33 Filed by: AUDREY HUIE Juke Box: 001 Image: 04079388 ORDER ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS 001004079388 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.2 FILED ior Court of Califor: Sty PE oom 3 JUN - 4 4} y 3 2013 ' CLERK OF T 5 ow Rp HE COURT 6 Deputy Clark 7 g SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 0 ASBESTOS LAW AND MOTION DEPARTMENT 11 12] ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, No. CGC-10-275731 13 Plaintiffs ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT ANDERSON, ROWE & BUCKLEY, 14] Vs INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ° JUDGMENT 15] C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS, et al. 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 Defendant ANDERSON, ROWE & BUCKLEY, INC.'’s Motion for Summary 20] Judgment came on regularly for hearing on May 23, 2013 in Department 503, of the above- 21 | captioned Court. Counsel of record appeared on behalf of the parties. 22 Having considered all papers and evidence submitted, and inferences reasonably 23] deducible and oral arguments, the Court finds that Defendant's Motion for Summary 24] Judgment is DENIED. 25 Even if Defendant sustained its burden, Dr. Schwartz's declaration creates a triable 26] issue whether Mr. Ross' colon cancer was caused by his exposure to asbestos. (Garrett v. 27| 4 28l ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT ANDERSON, ROWE & BUCKLEY, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CGC-10-2757311 Howmedica Osteonics Corporation (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 173). The information and 21 explanations set forth in Dr. Schwartz's declaration were sufficient to support his opinions for 3], purposes of opposing this Summary Judgment Motion (Id. at 187). Defendant's objections to | Dr. Schwartz's declaration are overruled, except as to objections 12 and 13. Plaintiff's objections to declarations of Khalil Sheibani, M.D. and Robert Morgan, M.D. are overruled. | The Court's findings, however, in this motion do not preclude the parties from filing 4 5 6 7] appropriate trial motions. 8 9 101 Dated: ol 4]a By: e Horiorable Teri ¥. Jackson Judge of the Superior Court 27 284 2 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT ANDERSON, ROWE & BUCKLEY, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CGC-10-275731Superior Court of California County of San Francisco ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, Case Number: CGC-10-275731 Plaintifis) CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE (CCP 1013(a) & CRC 2060(c)) VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS, et al., Defendant(s) I, Audrey Huie, a Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court of the County of San Francisco, certify that [ am not a party to the within action. On June 4, 2013, { electronically served ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT ANDERSON, ROWE & BUCKLEY, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT via LexisNexis File & Serve on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the LexisNexis File & Serve website. Dated: June 4, 2013 T. Michael Yuen, Clerk, By: Audrey Huje, uty Clerk CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE