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
oe oF ORO Re ws a ee 8 DRAW OB GS SS) 19. -|[ Attached to the Summary Complaint . PATRICIA G. ROSENBERG, SBN 154820 . HAAS & NAJARIAN, LLP. 58 Maiden Lane, Second Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: 415.788.6330 JAMES N. SINUNU, SBN 62802 JUNIPER BACON, SBN 256687 SINUNU BRUNLLLP: 333 Pine Street, Suite 400 - San Francisco, CA 94104-3311 Telephone: .415,362.9700.. Facsimile: 415.362.9707. isinunu@sinunubruni.com jbacon@sinunubruni. com” Attorneys for Defendant - : ||MCCLURE ELECTRIC, INC. “ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF : CALIF ORNIA : “cry AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO-UNLIMITED JURISDICTION ROBERT ROSS and JEANROSS, Plaintiffs, VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS; -- Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit 1 Herein) and D ES 1-18500..° “Defendants, : Case Nos ‘DEFENDANT MCCLURE ELECTRIC, : _ EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF SIMILAR os PENDING ACTIONS [MIL No. 4 ‘Date: “June 3, 2013 dudg : Hon. Teri L. Jackson ~ Complaint Filed: December 17, 2010 ‘Trial Date: June 10, 2013 ELECTRONICALLY FILED.) Superior Court of California - .. Gounty of San Francisco JUN 04.2013 Clerk of the Court.” BY: VANESSA WU . ° » Deputy. Ci : Sere ° INC.’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO Time: 9:30 an. sae apsAON OW Ro ka ake Fe OO NIC ON eo! £ NON ON ON We POONA BE a PO N ON {| jury, moves this court for an order in limine that no evidence be admitted that might inform the jury of similar. pending personal injury actions brought by other plaintiffs in this court or. elsewhere in the. : United States; that Plaintiff and his counsel be instructed to abstain from making any reference or. comment or introducing. any. evidence that might. so inform the jury: of similar pending actions, without first obtaining permission of the court outside the presence. of. the j jury; and that Plaintif?'s counsel inform his or her witnesses not to make any references or comments which ‘might so inform thej jury of. similar pending actions, without first obtaining permission of the court outside the presence of the j Jy. mo - This motion is made on the ground that the: introduction of such evidence i is irrelevant and would be highly. prejudicial to the Defendant, even if the court were to sustain. an objection thereto and properly instruct the j jury not to consider such. statements, Accordingly, Defendant respectlly oo requests that the court issue e such an order, th. ARGUMENT : : AL _ Evidence of Shnilar Lawsuits Is Irrelevant, . : “Evidence Code section 350 provides: ‘that no evidence i is admissible except relevant evidence, : Evidence Code section 210 defines “relevant evidence” as that evidence. “having any tendency i in. Teason to Prove. or # disprove any disputed fact that is. of consequence to the determination of the. action. Poin : : - Bvidence ‘of. prior or pending lawsuits i is s properly excluded as irrelevant material. (Chyten y, : Lawrence & Howell: Investments (1993) 23. Cal. App. 4th 607, 618-619. ) Evidence of pending lawsuits - is also properly excluded as being speculative as to the outcome of those suits, (bia, ) ‘There are several thousand lavesuits alleging i injuries caused by exposure to asbestos currently | pending in the Superior Courts oft the State of California in the counties of; San Francisco, Alameda, 2 : Los Angeles, and elsewhere. Additionally, there are thousands of such suits of the same nature pening : trowwtont the United States. : : “Defendant anticipates that Plaintif in this action will attempt t 0 introduce evidence concerning. : other lawsuits i in which plaintifis have alleged that exposure | to asbestos-containing products caused injury. ‘Such evidence i is not relevant to any of the i issues in this case. ‘The he filing of such lawsuits by “DEFENDANT MCCLURE ELECTRIC Ic: *S MOTION IN TIMINE TO. - EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF SIMILAR PENDING A ACTIONS SeESE woes " & IMILNO. 4 ms oeio NO NAW Rw ON ERR RR Re ee a CORO AaB ON Se SS we QA ASR Gb eS. || a number of other persons have filed personal i injury actions against the Defendant can logically, by - other parties cannot by: any stretch of the i imagination tend to prove or disprove the disputed facts, issues, or contentions of the parties in the instant matter. It would be ‘absurd to suggest that the fact that inference or otherwise, prove any. of the disputed facts, issues, or contentions in the i instant matter. . The proponent of evidence has the burden of showing | that the facts sought to be proved are: = material to the case and that the evidence offered is probative of those facts. (Evid. Code § 403. Bvidence of other Tavrsuits is not probative of any facts ati issue in this action, and is not material to the issues of this case. . B. “The Court Should Exclude ‘Evidence of Prier or + Pending Lawsuits as 3 the Probative ~ Value of Such Evidence Is Outweighed by. Other Factors. oe Bvidence Code section 352 provides that evidence should be excluded “if its probative valueis is substantially outweighed by the probability that i its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption : of. time or 0). create substantial danger of undue prejudice, « of confusing the i issues, or of misleading || the j Jury.’ ” ” The discretion vested in the court by. Evidence Code section 352 allows the court to. consider the: relationship between the evidence and the relevant inferences to be drawn from it whether the: evidence i is relevant to the main issue or ‘only toa collateral i issue, and the necessity of. the evidence to. : the proponents case, as well.as other factors. ‘(Kessler vy. Gray (1978) 77 Cal. “App. 3d 284, 292: ) ~ Under Evidence Code section 352, the probative value of the offered evidence must clearly outweigh the prejudice it might cause. (Brainard v. Cotner (1976) 59 Cal. App. 3d 790, 795.) Evidence that i is of such a nature, as will inflame the. emotions of the j jury, motivating them to use the information |] to reward or punish one side, should be excluded as unduly prejudicial (Vorse v: Sarasy «1393 3 Cal. App. 4th 998, ‘1009 ) Even, if. evidence of prior or pending lawsuit is s remotely relevant, which Defendant contends | that it is not, its probative value i ds outweighed | by factors supporting exclusion. (Chyten v. Lawrence & Howell Investments, supra, 2B Cal. App. 4th at 6184 619; see. also In re Related Ashestos Cases : (NI D: Cal. 1982) 543 FE: Supp. 1152, 1159 [evidence of other asbestos-related lawsuits excluded} ) Thus, = the court should exclude evidence of pending or prior lawouits under 5 section 352. Admission of. such © : “DEFENDANT: “MCCLURE ELECTRIC, INC’S MOTION IN TUMNETO— EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF SIMILAR PENDING ACTIONS : —. IMILNO, 4] oe awe OO NA A Blow oN Feb a oe Se Aa eR BNO SS evidence will require an undue amount tof time in presentation and rebuttal, will create a substantial danger of undue prejudice against Defendant, and will create a substantial danger of confusing the © issues and misleading the j jury. : olf evidence of other asbestos lawsuits i is admitted, Defendant will be entitled to rebut any . inference that may be drawn from such evidence and, in so doing, will be, entitled to distinguish between the facts of the other lawsuits and the facts of the instant action, This will entail an enormous 1 amount of time, which would outweigh the slight probative valu, if any, of such | evidence. mn, “CONCLUSION Evidence of other. asbestos-related lawsuits i is irrelevant and does not prove any fact a at issue in” this action. Tn addition, the adinission of such evidence would severely prejudice Defendant since a jury might conclude that the fact that many lawsuits exist means that the Defendant is liable for. wrongful conduct. Furthermore, the presentation and rebuttal of this evidence would: require an : inordinate amount of time, especially considering the lack of any probative value of the evidence. - Consequently, Defendant respectfully requests that its motion in limine to exclude evidence of, simile. pending actions be granted. — . Respectly submitted, ‘|[DATED: June 3.2013. ===SS=—*S*S*S*S*S:SS SSN BRUNILLP AMES N. SINUNU _JUNIPER:-BACON SAnnmeys for Defendant A: MCCLURE ELECTRIC, uC, INC. Se DEFENDANT MCCLURE ELECTRIC, INC’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO” ~ EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF SIMILAR PENDING ACTIONS : : (Mu. NO. 4 :