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
						
                                

Preview

OO SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet May-22-2013 1:25 pm Case Number: CGC-10-275731 Filing Date: May-22-2013 11:41 Filed by: DANA OKAZAKI Juke Box: 001 Image: 04065506 ORDER ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS 001004065506 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.BRAYTON@PURCELL LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 222 RUSH LANDING ROAD. PO BOX 6169 NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169, (415) 898-1555 fo mr AH FW N 10 ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ,, S.B. #73685 DAVID R. DONADIO, ESQ., S.B. #154436 OREN P. NOAH, ESQ,, S.B. #136310 JAMIE A. NEWBOLD, ESQ, 8.B. #207186 BRA YTON@PURCELL LLP San Francisco County ‘Superior Court Attorneys at Law Pobede MAY 2 2 2013 Novato, California 94948-6169 (415) 898-1555 CIERILQF THE COURT BY Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, ASBESTOS No. CGC-10-275731 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT ACCO VS. ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS, } OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit 1 ADJUDICATION attached to the Summary Complaint ) herein; and DOES 1-8500. ) Date: May 22, 2013 Time: 9:45 a.m. Dept: 503, Hon. Teri L. Jackson Trial Date: June 10, 2013 Action Filed: December 17, 2010 Defendant ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, INC.’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication, came on regularly for hearing on May 22, 2013, in Department 503, of the above-captioned Court. Plaintiffs and defendant, ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, INC., appeared by their counsel of record. : Having considered all papers and evidence submitted, and inferences reasonably deducible therefrom, the Court determines that defendant ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, INC.’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and its alternate Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED as to issues 4 (Privette doctrine) and 5 (sophisticated user defense) and OFF CALENDAR as to issue 3 (strict liability). Defendant failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating that plaintiffs do not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence that Mr. Ross KAlnjured\i9a40,pldioed ACCHEA wd 1 OPN ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, INC.*S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONoO ON DA BR WN WRN NR NN RD Dw we ee ee me ea Ao FB ON = SF Cae RAIA AR DWH HK DS was exposed to asbestos-containing products or materials attributable to defendant. Mr. Ross’ deposition testimony and responses to defendant's special interrogatories preclude defendant from successfully invoking the factually devoid prong of Aguilar. As to the Privette doctrine argument, defendant failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating that it did not act in a negligent manner or affirmatively contribute to Mr. Ross’ injury. Defendant failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating that the sophisticated user defense applies to bar plaintiffs’ claims against it. Plaintiffs have dismissed their strict liability cause of action. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, INC.’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication, is DENIED. Dated: 2 | zy { b . { Fe of the hh gM TERI L. JACKSON K.lnjured\93