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

IEC SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO | Document Scanning Lead Sheet May-14-2013 2:29 pm Case Number: CGC-10-275731 Filing Date: May-14-2013 2:16 Filed by: DANA OKAZAKI Juke Box: 001 Image: 04055586 ORDER ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS 001004055586 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.BRAYTON®PURCELL LLP ATTORNEYS ATLAW 222 RUSH LANDING ROAD POBOX 6169 NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169 (415) 898-1555 oO DM IUD HA Bw Ww 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., S.B. #207186 BRAYTON*PURCELL LLP Attorneys at Law 222 Rush Landing Road P.O. Box 6169 Novato, California 94948-6169 Attomeys for Plaintiffs San Francisco County ‘Superior Court . MAY 14 2013 OF THE COURT Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, Plaintiffs, VS. C.C. MOORE & CO, ENGINEERS; Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit 1 attached to the Summary Complaint herein; and DOES 1-8500. ee ASBESTOS No. CGC-10-275731 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Date: May 14, 2013 Time: 9:45 a.m. Dept: 503, Hon. Teri L. Jackson Trial Date: June 10, 2013 Action Filed: December 17, 2010 Defendant JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’s Motion for SH Ve or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication, came on regularly for hearing 01 Department 503, of the above-captioned Court. Plaintiffs and defendant, JOHNSON 5 in CONTROLS, INC., appeared by their counsel of record. Having considered all papers and evidence submitted, and inferences reasonably deducible therefrom, the Court determines that defendant JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication is DENIED. dit Mf K.Mljured\ 1999p ford JOHCON wed 1 OPN ER DENYING DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ORDI ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONco Pm ND WwW Bw Hw = NN NY NY NY-N N NY NY Be Be Be ee ewe eR ee eo IDM FY KH = DCO we rXI AA BRB ONH SF S Defendant failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating that it owed no duty to Mr. Ross based o1 the limitations stated in O'Neil v. Crane Co. Defendant failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating that the sophisticated user defense applies to bar plaintiffs’ claims against it. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’s Motion for Alternative, Summary Adjudication, is DENIED. 3 Summary Judgmer or, in t Dated: . (hu TERI L. JACKSON KNInjuredt19349%pldlord JOHCON. 2 orn ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.*§ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION