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
  • 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., 8.B. #154436
OREN P. NOAH, ESQ., S.B. #136310 ELECTRONICALLY
ASHLEY J, BENSON, ESQ., S.B. #276326

BRAYTON#PURCELL LLP FILED.
Superior Court of California,

Attorneys at Law County of San Francisco

222 Rush Landing Road

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’ SEPARATE STATEMENT
OF DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT S.J.
AMOROSO CONSTRUCTION CO.,
INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION

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

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(b), plaintiffs submit the
following Separate Statement of Disputed Material Facts in Opposition to Defendant S.J.
AMOROSO CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the

Alternative, Summary Adjudication.

PLAINTIFFS' DISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
1, AMOROSO acknowledges that the
claims herein arise from AMOROSO's
laborers exposing Mr. ROSS to asbestos at
four sites: San Francisco International

1. (AMOROSO’s Separate Statement No.
8.

K.Sinjunah 08: es-AMOCON mss. ope 1 AJB

PLAINTIFFS' SEPAR, FEMENT OF DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT S.J. AMOROSO
CONSTRUCTION CO., INC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

Airport, UCSF Medical Center, Kaiser San
Francisco Medical Center, and the
University of California Berkeley.

2. Defendant AMOROSO acknowledges
that the evidence shows that in the late
1960s Mr. ROSS worked in the presence of
AMOROSO employees at San Francisco
International Airport and that these
employees penetrated and removed
existing drywall and swept up construction
related debris.

3, Defendant AMOROSO acknowledges
that the evidence shows that in 1977 Mr.
ROSS worked in the presence of
AMOROSO employees during a remodel
project at a building on the campus of
UCSF Medical Center in 1977 and that
these employees penetrated and removed
existing drywall and swept up construction
related debris,

4, Defendant AMOROSO acknowledges

that the evidence shows that between [977
and 1979, Mr. ROSS worked aroun:
laborers employed by AMOROSO during a
remodel project at Long Hospital at UCSF

Medical Center. These AMOROSO
employees swept up construction debris in
Mr. ROSS’s presence.

5. Defendant AMOROSO acknowledges
that the evidence shows that between 1977
and 1980, Mr. ROSS worked aroun:
laborers employed by AMOROSO during a
remodel project at Kaiser San Francisco
Medical Center . These AMOROSO
employees swept up construction debris in
Mr. ROSS’s presence.

6. Defendant AMOROSO acknowledges
that the evidence shows that in 1992 or
1993, Mr. ROSS worked around laborers
employed by AMOROSO during a remodel
project at University of California Berkeley.

Kainjuredib024¥ ples AMOCON tales spd

2

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
275731), 2206:7-2207:2; Deposition of
Robert Cantley (SFSC No. 274099),
1309:1-13 [Sullivan Declaration, Exhibit
F]; S.J. Amoroso Construction Co., Inc.'s
Special Interrogatories to Plaintiffs, Set
One, 1:25-2:3 [Sullivan Declaration,
Exhibit G]; Plaintiffs’ Response to
Defendant S.J. Amoroso Construction Co.,
Inc.'s Special Interrogatories, Set One,
2:24-3:28 [Sullivan Declaration, Exhibit
K}.

2. AMOROSO’s Separate Statements Nos.
O and LI.

Deposition of Robert Cantley (SFSC No.
274099), 1309:1-13; Deposition of Robert
Cantley (SFSC No, 274099),
310:10-13:11.

3. AMOROSO’s Separate Statements Nos.
2 and 14.

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
274099), 1784:16-1785:16, 1786:2-1788:8,
790:16-24: Deposition of Robert Rass
(SFSC No. 274099), 1788:9-1789:25,
790:25-1792:3, 1792:13-1793:25.

4. AMOROSO’s Separate Statement Nos.
7 and 18.

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
274099), 1797:13-1801:10.; Deposition of
Robert Ross (SFSC No. 274099),
799:23-1800:4, 1801:11-20.

5. AMOROSO’s Separate Statement Nos.
21 and 22.

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
274099), 1802:25-1805:2; Deposition of
Robert Ross (SFSC No. 274099),
1804:11-20.

6. AMOROSO’s Separate Statement Nos.
24 and 25.

Deposition of Robert Ross (SFSC No.
274099), 1806:4-1808:13; Deposition of

PLAINTIFFS' SEPARA’

‘EMENT OF DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT S.J. AMORO!

7 ‘ATI SO
CONSTRUCTION CO., INC “S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

These AMOROSO employees swept up Robert Ross (SFSC No. 274099),

construction debris in Mr. ROSS’s 1807:9-12, 1809:2-22.

presence.

7. In this Motion, AMOROSO does not 7, AMOROSO’s Separate Statement of
contend that plaintiffs cannot prove that the Facts.

fireproofing, thermal insulation and drywall
disturbed by AMOROSO employees in
plaintiff's presence did not contain
asbestos, or that he was not exposed to

asbestos.
8. Extensive literature, dating back a 8. Declaration of Richard Cohen, M.D.,
century, recognized the potential hazards M.P.H., 19, a.- m., attached to the
posed by toxic substances leaving the work Benson Decl. as Exhibit 2.

lace on the clothing or person of workers.
9. Similarly, literature dating back as early 9. Declaration of Richard Cohen, M.D.,
as1898 recognized the hazards posed by M.LP.H., {ff 16, a- g & 17 a- g,, attached to
asbestos. And by the late 1940s, it came to the Benson Decl. as Exhibit 2.
be understood that asbestos could cause
cancer.
10. Additionally, extensive studies and 10. Declaration of Richard Cohen, M.D.,
iterature indicate that well recognized M.LP.H., § 18, a.- f., attached to the Benson
practices were available to reduce or Decl. as Exhibit 2.
eliminate the exposure to asbestos in the
workplace.

1. By the 1960s a company, working in 11. Declaration of Richard Cohen, M.D.,
construction and on jobsites where M.P.H., § 20, attached to the Benson Decl.
contractors and laborers were working as Exhibit 2.

alike, should have been aware of
potential health hazards associated with
exposure to certain occupational dusts
generally. In view of this, te the extent
that any contractor was unaware of the
composition of dust which might be
created or encountered, it ought to have
sought out such information.

12. Likewise by the 1960s a company, 12. Declaration of Richard Cohen, M.D.,
working in construction and on jobsites M.P.H., § 20, attached to the Benson Decl.
where contractors and laborers were as Exhibit 2.

working alike, should have been aware of
health hazards associated with exposure to
asbestos dust. Information was readily
available prior to the 1960s concerning the
health hazards of not only exposure to
certain occupational non-asbestos dusts, but
also to asbestos dust and the associated
increased risk of developing an
asbestos-related disease. Information
regarding the substantial health risks

KAinjured193-9ip ls: AMOCONs is svpd 3 AJB

PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATI ‘ATEMENT OF DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT S.J. AMOROSO
CONSTRUCTION CO., INC “S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

associated with exposure to airborne
asbestos was readily available by the 1960s,
and only became more readily available
over the course of time.

13. Equally available was information
about measures to reduce the creation of
dust and eliminate or reduce the exposure to
dust that was created. By the 1960s,
contractors, including defendant, located
in California and subject to California
General Industry Safety Orders, had
ready access to information regarding
methods for mitigating exposures and
could have implemented them.

14. Contractors such as defendant should
have been educating their employees and
implementing procedures to mitigating dust
in at least the 1960s.

Dated: ___ April 25, 2013

Kainjuredib024¥ ples AMOCON tales spd

13. Declaration of Richard Cohen, M.D.,
M.P.H., § 20, attached to the Benson Decl.
as Exhibit 2.

14. Declaration of Richard Cohen, M.D.,
M-P.H., § 20-23, attached to the Benson
Decl. as Exhibit 2,

BRAYTON*PURCELL LLP

By: /s/ Ashley J. Benson.

Ashley J. Benson
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

PLAINTIFFS' SEPARATI

JENT OF DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT S.J. AMOROSO.

‘ATEMI
CONSTRUCTION CO., INC “S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION