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

IOAN SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet May-15-2013 2:14 pm Case Number: CGC-10-275731 Filing Date: May-15-2013 2:13 Filed by: DANA OKAZAKI Juke Box: 001 Image: 04057085 ORDER ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS 001004057085 Instructions: Piease place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.BRAYTON@PURCELL LLP ATIORNEYS ATLAW 222 RUSH LANDING ROAD POBOX 6169 NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169 (415} 898-1555, COO IW DU B WwW YY RB NY YY YN N'Y YD Be eB Bee eB Be ee Se Sry nun BW NHN KH BOA NIN AA BH NH BS ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ. ., S.B. #73685 Been MCR ES Saat OR EB f13 3 San Franei: ASHLEY J. BENSON; ES 0. S.B. #276326 $0 County Superior Gourt BRAYTON®PURCELL L - May Attorneys at Law 15 2013 222 Rush Landing Road P.O. Box 6169 Novato, California 94948-6169 (415) 898-1555 mee OF THE COURT Depiity Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Attorneys for Plaintiffs ASBESTOS No. CGC-10-275731 ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT A. TEICHERT & SON, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION vs. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS; Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit 1 attached to the Summary Complaint herein; and DOES 1-8500. ee Date: May 15, 2013 Time: 9:45 am. Dept: 503, Hon. Teri L. Jackson Trial Date: June 10, 2013 Action Filed: December 17, 2010 Defendant A. TEICHERT & SON, INC.’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication, came on regularly for hearing on May 15, 2013, in Department 503, of the above-captioned Court. Plaintiffs-and defendant, A. TEICHERT & SON, INC., appeared by their counsel of record. Having considered all papers and evidence submitted, and inferences reasonably deducible therefrom, the Court determines that defendant A. TEICHERT & SON, INC.’s Motion! for Summary Judgment is denied and its alternate Motion for Summary Adjudication of plaintiffs' strict liability cause of action is off calendar. Defendant failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating that the sophisticated user defense applies to bar plaintiffs’ claims against it, KAlnjuredh193¢9\pld\ord-ATEICH ms)-se.wpd 1 OPN ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT A, TEICHERT & SON, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONOo OCW DH Bw NY YE NNN NY HY NY NNN &— Be eB Be me Se ee EB eID WwW BW KH EF Se wea AH FWD HSE o™ os Defendant failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating that Mr. ROSS was not exposed to asbestos-containing products or materials attributable to defendant because defendant was not present at the one site at issue. Even if the court considers the documents related to the construction of the Sacramento Convention Center (defendant's Exhibit M), when read in conjunction with Mr. ROSS' deposition testimony, they merely create a triable issue whether defendant was present. Plaintiffs have dismissed their strict liability cause of action. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant A. TEICHERT & SON, INC.’s Motion for Summary Judgmen i ternative, Summary Adjudication, is DENIED. Mabe 2 TERIL. JACKSON KAlnjures 9349%pldiond-ATEICH sa wpd 2 OPN ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT A. TEICHERT & SON, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION