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

AAC SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet May-09-2013 3:24 pm Case Number: CGC-10-275731 Filing Date: May-09-2013 3:23 Filed by: JHULIE ROQUE Juke Box: 001 Image: 04050082 ORDER ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS 001004050082 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.PO BOX 6169 NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169 BRAYTON¢PURCELL LLP ATTORNEYS ATLAW 222 RUSH LANDING ROAD (415) 898-1555 Oo Oem NIN Dw F&F WN oe - 2S Oo em YD HW BW N Ww N NY NY NY N WY Y- BRRREBREBY ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ., S.B. #73685 DAVID R. DONADIO, F508 .B. #154436 oa ie OREN P. NOAH, ESQ., S.B. #136310 D JAMIE A. NEWBOLD, ESQ,, S.B. #207186 San Francisee County ut BRAYTON #PURCELL LLP 8 204 ttoreys at Law 33 Rush Landing Road cues 0 ans OX, Novato, California 94948-6169 ey EGE COURT (415) 898-1555 . uty Clerk Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, Plaintiffs, ASBESTOS No. CGC-10-275731 ) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT COMMAIR MECHANICAL SERVICES’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION ) andDOES 1-850 vs. C.C, MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS, 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 COMMAIR MECHANICAL SERVICES’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication, came on regularly for hearing on May 9, 2013, in Department 503, of the above-captioned Court. Plaintiffs and defendant, COMMAIR MECHANICAL SERVICES, appeared by their counsel of record. Having considered all papers and evidence submitted, and inferences reasonably deducible therefrom, the Court determines that defendant COMMAIR MECHANICAL SERVICES’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and its alternate Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED as to issues 1, 3 and 4 (negligence, loss of consortium and premises owner/contractor liability) and OFF CALENDAR as to issue 2 (strict Liability). Defendant failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating that the sophisticated user defense applies to bar KNInjurod\19348iphdlord COMMAR wp 1 OPN ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT COMMAIR MECHANICAL SERVICES’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONCoe IN DAH BR WN NbN NY NY NN NR NN Se Be Be Be oe moe: eI AMP OH FS FEO TRAE SE HAS plaintiffs’ claims against it. Plaintiffs represent that they have dismissed their strict liability cause of action. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant COMMAIR MECHANICAL SERVICES’s Motion for Summary Jud in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication, is DENIED. ) Dated: Judge of the Superior TERI L. JACKSON K.Ainjured\s9349%pldloré COMMAR.wod 2 OPN ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT COMMAIR MECHANICAL SERVICES’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION