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 ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 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 CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC.’S supporting evidence as follows: Mh K Ninja 08-9) gl Covid objs CUPELE und 1 ATA yas EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC.°S MOTION FOR SUMMARYCo em YW KD hw BR YY 10 OBJECTION NO. L.: Plaintiffs object to and move to strike the entirety of the Declaration of Jasun Molinelli, submitted in support of CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC.’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Declaration of Jasun C. Molinelli (“Molinelli Decl.”) is improper as it refers to ALBAY CONSTRUCTION (“Albay”). (See Molinelli Decl. 41.) Additionally, the motion makes references to exhibits to Mr. Molinelli’s declaration, which do not exist. For example, defendant refers to Exhibit “D,” but there is no Exhibit “D” attached to the Molineili declaration filed with the moving papers. COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION NO. L: Dated: Sustained: Overruled: Dated: 4/25/13 BRAYTON*PURCELL LLP By: /s/ Anne T, Acuna Anne T. Acufia Attorneys for Plaintiffs K Ninja 08-9) gl Covid objs CUPELE und 2 ATA PLAINTIFFS” EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY