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

EMI SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet May-15-2013 3:10 pm Case Number: CGC-10-275731 Filing Date: May-15-2013 3:10 Filed by: DANA OKAZAKI Juke Box: 001 Image: 04057330 ORDER ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS 001004057330 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.eC oe UN DAUM Bw HN eo - Oo Se oe ee Bw BW PO BOX 6169 NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169 (415) 898-1555 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 222 RUSH LANDING ROAD BRAYTON®PURCELL LLP NN NY =e ee nv |= SO ww IAD N o Db oN YN wv oo KRW BS ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESO., 8.B. #73685 DAVID R. DONADIO, ESO., 8.B. #154436 OREN P. NOAH, ESQ, S.B. #136310 FE ASHLEY J. BENSON, ESQ,, S.B. #276326 BRAYTON¢PURCELL LLP San Francisco County Siperce Cor 359 Ruch Landing Road M us} anding Koa 7 Novae, California 94948-6169 mrs 28 Novato, California =| Cc (415) 898-1555 by. LERK OF THE COURT Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ASBESTOS No. CGC-10-275731 ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT PERINI CORPORATION’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. Date: May 15, 2013 Time: 9:45 a.m. Dept: 503, Hon. Teri L. Jackson Trial Date: June 10, 2013 Action Filed: December 17, 2010 Defendant PERINI CORPORATION’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, PERINI CORPORATION, appeared by their counsel of record. Having considered all papers and evidence submitted, and inferences reasonably deducible therefrom, the Court determines that defendant PERINI CORPORATION’s Motion foy Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication is denied. Defendant failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating that the sophisticated user defense applies to bar plaintiffs’ claims against it. K.lnjured19349\pid\ord-PERCOR4 1 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT PERINI CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ACTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONoN IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant PERINI CORPORATION’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication, is DENIED. Dated: c| | ) Si ie Superior Co TERI L. JACKSON K:\Unjured\19349%pldiord-PERCOR mss. wpd 2 OPN ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT PERINI CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION