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 AT LAW 222 RUSH LANDING ROAD PO BOX 6169 NOVATO, CALIFORNEA 94948-6169 4415) 808-1585 oem NY KD A BY 10 ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ., 8.B. #73685 DAVID R. DONADIO, ESQ., S.B. #154436 ANNE T. ACUNA, ESQ., S.B. #245369 ELECTRONICALLY BRAYTON#PURCELL LLP Attorneys at Law FILED 222 Rush Landing Road P.O. Box 6169 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco Novato, California 94948-6169 APR 25 2013 (415) 898-1555 Clerk of the Court Tentative Ruling Contest Email: contestasbestosTR@braytonlaw.com BY: ALISON AGBAY Deputy Clerk Attomeys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ASBESTOS No. CGC-10-275731 PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT MCCLURE ELECTRIC, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, Plaintiffs, 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 respectfully request the Court to rule on plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections in accordance with Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.1352 and 3.1354, Vineyard Springs Estates, LLC v. Super. Ct. (Wyatt) (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 633, 635; Sambrano v. City of San Diego (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 225, 235; Laird v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 727, 736, and Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2005) { 10:301.1, ch. 10-F. These more recent cases disagree with the Court’s holding in Biljac Assocs, v. First Interstate Bank of Oregon, N.A, (1990) 218 Cal. App.3d 1410, 1419. Plaintiffs object to, and moves to strike, defendant MCCLURE ELECTRIC, INC.’s supporting evidence as follows: K Ninja 08-7 Covid objs MCCLUR wp 1 ATA PLAINTIFFS” EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT MCCLURE ELECTRIC, INCCS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONCo em YW KD hw BR YY 10 OBJECTION NO. 1: Plaintiffs object to and move to Exhibits LA-1E to the Hedman Declaration. The photos are irrelevant and misleading. It is unclear which parts of the building the photos were taken of and whether they are representative of the entire Mills Building. Mr. Hedman admits that the photos depict “some of those opened spaces” of the building. It is unclear as to what they show and how, if they do, establish that any of those materials did not contain asbestos, given Mr. Hedman’s lack of training in that area and the vagueness of his declaration as to what information is contained in the building plans he reviewed. As such, Exhibits | A-1E must not be considered. COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION NO. 1: Dated: Sustained: Overruled: OBJECTION NO. 2: Plaintiffs object to Exhibits 2 and 3, the newspaper article, attached to the Hedman Declaration, The newspaper is hearsay and not properly authenticated. Further, there has been no showing that the newspaper fits under the Ancient Documents exception to the Hearsay Rule. COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION NO, 2: Dated: Sustained: Overruled: Dated: 4/25/13 BRAYTON*PURCELL LLP By: /s/ Anne T. Acuna Anne T, Acuiia Attorneys for Plaintiffs eat seen dobjs MCCLUR wat 2 ATA 'S’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT MCCLURE ELECTRIC, INCLS MOTION POR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR iN THE ALTERNA TIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION