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

HMI SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet May-09-2013 3:25 pm Case Number: CGC-10-275731 Filing Date: May-09-2013 3:24 Filed by: JHULIE ROQUE Juke Box: 001 Image: 04050086 ORDER ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS 001004050086 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.BRAYTON¢PURCELL LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 222 RUSH LANDING ROAD POBOX 6169 NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169 (415) 898-1555 Cc ~7w NY DH PB WN NN YN NN NN NY! Be Be Be Be Be eB ee eS oT AA BP BNH fF SBD e AI DH Bw N SF S ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ., S.B. #73685 DAVID R. DONADIO, ESQ., S.B, #154436 ANNE T. ACUNA, ESQ., S.B. #245369 BRAYTON®PURCELL LLP scntout Attorneys at Law eo County SPS! 222 Rush Landing Road San Franc! P.O, Box 6169 MAY 09 2013 Novato, California 94948-6169 (415) 898-1555 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, ASBESTOS No. CGC-10-275731 Plaintiffs, vs. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT CUPERTINO ELECTRIC INC,’S MOTION C.C. MOORE.& CO. ENGINEERS; FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit 1 attached to the Summary Complaint herein; and DOES 1-8500. Se 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 CUPERTINO ELECTRIC INC.’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, CUPERTINO ELECTRIC INC., appeared by their counsel of record.” Having considered all papers and evidence submitted, and inferences reasonably deducible therefrom, the Court determines that defendant CUPERTINO ELECTRIC INC.’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Defendant failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating that plaintiffs do not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence that Mr. Ross was exposed to asbestos-containing products or materials‘attributable to defendant or that defendant breached a duty owed to Mr. Ross. Defendant's failure to demonstrate that plaintiffs provided factually devoid responses to comprehensive interrogatories designed to elicit all the K Ainjuredh1934p\pI0rd CUPELY. wd 1 ATA ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT CUPERTINO ELECTRIC INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTevidence plaintiffs have to support their contention of liability precludes defendant from successfully invoking the factually devoid prong of Aguilar. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant CUPERTINO ELECTRIC ING,’s Motion for Summary Judgmenjy is DENIED. Dated: 6 | G l Lo (tn Superior Court TERI L. JACKSON KAlnjured\ 9340 1d\Ord CUPELE wpe 2 ATA ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT CUPERTINO ELECTRIC INC,’8 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT