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

UNE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet May-09-2013 3:26 pm Case Number: CGC-10-275731 Filing Date: May-09-2013 3:25 Filed by: JHULIE ROQUE Juke Box: 001 Image: 04050088 ORDER ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS 001004050088 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 - oO me KH RH RW DY ALAN R, BRAYTON, ESQ., S.B. #73685 DAVID R. DONADIO, ESQ., S.B. #154436 MICHAEL D, LEVINSON, ESQ,, 8.B. #271556 - BRAYTON®PURCELL LLP I L E D Attorneys at Law San Francisco County Superior Court 222 Rush Landing Road MAY 09 2013 P.O, Box 6169 IS) S98 ISSS CLERK OF oe COURT BY Attorneys for Plaintiffs Deputy Clerk Novato, California 94948-6169 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, ASBESTOS No. CGG-1 731 Plaintiffs, [P E vs. ORDER DE! |G DEFENDANT ALBAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY’S C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS; MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit 1 ——— attached to the Summary Complaint herein; and DOES 1-8500. Date: May 9, 2013 Time: 9:45 a.m. Dept: 503, Hon. Teri L. Jackson Trial Date: June 10, 2013 Action Filed: December 17, 2010 Defendant ALBAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY’s Motion for Summary Judgment came on regularly for hearing on May 9, 2013, in Department 503, of the above-captioned Court. Plaintiffs and defendant, ALBAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, appeared by their counsel of record, Having considered all papers and evidence submitted, and inferences reasonably deducible therefrom, the Court determines that defendant ALBAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY’s Motion for Sammary Judgment is DENIED. Mr. Ross’ deposition testimony and declaration create a triable issue whether he was exposed to asbestos-containing products or materials (insulation) attributable to defendant. As to the duty argument, defendant failed to sustain its burden under either prong of Aguilar. Defendant failed to present evidence negating ‘Ktnjured 934SIpldord ALBAY pd L MDL ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT ALBAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENToOo Om XY A HW BR WN ND NM NY NY NY YN ND Yee es em ou AA BR YW YN B= Soe IAA RH NH BS essential element of plaintiffs' duty claims. Defendant also failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating that plaintiffs do not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence that defendant owed a duty to Mr. Ross. Defendant's failure to demonstrate that plaintiffs provided factually devoid responses to comprehensive interrogatories designed to elicit all the evidence plaintiffs have to support their contention that defendant owed plaintiff a duty precludes defendant from successfully invoking the factually devoid prong of Aguilar, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant ALBAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY’s Motion for Sum Jpdgment is DENIED. mh ADM ludge of the Superior Cou: TERI L. JACKSON KAlnjuredh]934%pldlord ALBAY, 2 MDL, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT ALBAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT