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

AO SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet dun-04-2013 3:38 pm Case Number: CGC-10-275731 Filing Date: Jun-04-2013 3:38 Filed by: AUDREY HUIE Juke Box: 001 Image: 04079405 ORDER ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS 001004079405 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.CLERK OF THE COURT i ‘ or —Ledeep (pene v Deputy Clark SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ASBESTOS LAW AND MOTION DEPARTMENT ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, No. CGC-10-275731 Plaintiffs ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT EMIL * J. WEBER ELECTRIC CO.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT vs. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS, et al., Defendants. Defendant EMIL J. WEBER ELECTRIC CO,'s Motion for Summary Judgment came on regularly for hearing on May 23, 2013 in Department 503, of the above-captioned Court. Counsel of record appeared on behalf of the parties. Having considered all papers and evidence submitted, and inferences reasonably deducible and oral arguments, the Court finds that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Even if Defendant sustained its burden, Dr. Schwartz's declaration creates a triable issue whether Mr. Ross' colon cancer was caused by his exposure to asbestos. (Garrett v. u ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT EMIL J. WEBER ELECTRIC CO.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CGC-10-275731Oo 6 NI DH WwW F&F W N HY = os A BR WoL ” a a Howmedica Osteonics Corporation (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 173). The information and explanations set forth in Dr. Schwartz's declaration were sufficient to support his opinions for 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 appropriate trial motions. 2 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT EMIL J, WEBER ELECTRIC CO.'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 Plaintfi(s) 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 EMIL J. WEBER ELECTRIC CO.'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: ote Audrey Hi s\ppeu Clerk CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE