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
						
                                

Preview

BRAYTON*PURCELL LLP ATTORNEYS ATLAW 222 RUSH LANDING ROAD. PO BOX 6169 NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169 (415) 808-1555 oem NY KD A BY 10 ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ., 8.B. #73685 DAVID R. DONADIO, ESQ., 8.B. #154436 OREN P. NOAH, ESQ., S.B. #136310 ELECTRONICALLY ASHLEY J. BENSON, ESQ., S.B. #276326 BRAYTON%PURCELL ie F I L E D Attorneys at Law 222 Rush Landing Road Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco P.O. Box 6169 APR 25 2013 Novato, California 94948-6169 Clerk of the Court (415) 898-1555 BY: ALISON AGBAY Tentative Ruling Contest Email: contestasbestosTR@braytonlaw.com Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ASBESTOS No. CGC-10-275731 ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT A. TEICHERT & SON, INC.’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE vs. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS; Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit | attached to the Summary Complaint herein; and DOES 1-8500. eee Date: May 9, 2013 Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept: 503, Hon. Teri L. Jackson Trial Date: June 10, 2013 Action Filed: December 17, 2010 Plaintiffs, ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, respectfully submit their objection to defendant A. TEICHERT & SON, INC.’s (“A. TEICHERT” or “defendant”) Request for Judicial Notice it submitted in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication. Defendant has failed to establish that, pursuant to Cal. Evid. Code §452, it is entitled to judicial notice of the Declaration of Howard Spielman and exhibits thereto filed in Eugene Millard v. Associated Insulation of California, Superior Court of the County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-09-275091, and the Declarations of Richard Cohen filed in Betty Peterson v, Associated Insulation of California, Superior Court of the County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-10-275498, John Casey v. Asbestos Defendants, Superior Court of the County Mit Knjered 1034 lob req jud nee ATEICH wept 1 AlB PLAINTIS OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT A. TLICHERT & SON, INC. S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICECo em YW KD hw BR YY 10 of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-10-275517, and Steven Peterson v. Asbestos Defendants, Superior Court of the County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-08-274707. Plaintiffs request that this Court, pursuant to Cal. Evid. Code section 450, deny defendant A. TEICHERT”’ s Request for Judicial Notice on the following grounds: Under California’s Evidence Code, a court may only take judicial notice of “matters that are indisputably true.” (Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont Gen. Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97,113.) Thus, the Court may not take judicial notice of the contents of a declaration that fails to fall under any of the permissible matters set forth in Evidence Code section 452(a)-(h). While a court may take judicial notice of the fact of the existence of the declarations and that each was filed in the above cases (Evid. Code § 452(d)), it may not accept them as true. (See, Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2010) 9:54, ch. 9, part 1.) For the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs request this Court deny defendant A. TEICHERT’s Request for Judicial Notice. Dated: _April 25, 2013 BRAYTON*PURCELL LLP By: /s/ Ashley J. Benson Ashley J. Benson Attorneys for Plaintiffs Knjered 1034 lob req jud nee ATEICH wept 2 AlB PLAINTIS OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT A. TLICHERT & SON, INC. S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE