Motion-Secondary: ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
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

ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, ) ASBESTOS
) No. CGC-10-275731
Plaintiffs, )
) PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF
Vs. ) POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
) OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS; ) CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC.’S
Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit I ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
attached to the Summary Complaint )
herein; and DOES 1-8500. )
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
L
INTRODUCTION

Defendant CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC. (“CUPERTINO™ or “defendant’”) moves for
summary judgment on the basis of its mistaken belief that ROBERT ROSS (“plaintiff’) did not
respond to defendant's discovery. As plaintiffs had attempted to inform defendant, plaintiff did,
in fact, provide responses to defendant CUPERTINO’s written discovery on August 24, 2012.
Moreover, defendant’s motion is riddled with errors, including a declaration by Jasun C.
Molinelli referencing Albay Construction, rather than CUPERTINO, and references to non-
existent exhibits in the defendant’s Separate Statement of Undisputed material Facts. Defendant

has wasted the Court's and the parties’ time with its sloppy and improper motion for summary

KAiujuna 08-7 opp CUPELE wad 1 ATA
PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDLM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSETION TO DEFENDANT CUPERTINO ELECTRIC'S,
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

judgment. Thus, defendant cannot successfully invoke the “factually devoid” prong or the

affirmative negation prong as set forth in Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal 4th

826. Defendant failed to sustain its burden of production that plaintiffs do not possess and
cannot reasonably obtain evidence that ROBERT ROSS was exposed to asbestos-containing
materials attributable to CUPERTINO. Therefore, CUPERTINO’s motion should be denied.
Th.
OBJECTIONS

Plaintiffs object to defendant CUPERTINO’s Motion for Summary Judgment as it has
failed to follow the procedures required to seek summary judgment. California Rule of Court
No, 3,1350(d) mandates that a Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in support of a
motion “include reference to the exhibit, title, page, and line numbers” when citing evidence.
Defendant's Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (1) failed to include proper
references throughout, (2) referenced exhibits that were not included with the motion, and (3)
cited to a declaration, which was executed under penalty of perjury, that referenced Albay
Construction. None of the causes of action or claims may be summarily adjudicated due to
defendant’s failure to comply with California Rule of Court No. 3.1350(d) and Code of Civil
Procedure 437c.

UI.
STATEMENT OF FACTS

Defendant wrongly asserts that plaintiff ROBERT ROSS failed to respond to
CUPERTINO’s Special Interrogatories with facts supporting plaintiffs causes of action and
claims on August 24, 2012. (RSS Nos. 6-7.) As such, defendant failed to address the substance
of plaintiffs’ verified discovery responses as they relate to plaintiffs’ claims against
CUPERTINO. (Defendant’ Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, in its entirety.)
Me
Me
Mit

KAiujuna 08-7 opp CUPELE wad 2 ATA
PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDLM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSETION TO DEFENDANT CUPERTINO ELECTRIC'S,
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

Iv,
LEGAL ARGUMENT
A. THE SCOPE OF CUPERTINO’S MOTION IS LIMITED TO THE ISSUES

PRESENTED IN ITS SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS

Code of Civil Procedure § 437c imposes “on the moving party both a pleading
requirement and a substantive burden in order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment.”

(Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal App.4th 59, 66.) “[T]he initial duty to define the

issues presented by the complaint and to challenge them factually is on the defendant who secks
a summary judgment.” (Conn. v. National Can Corp. (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 630, 638.) This
duty requires a defendant seeking summary judgment to set forth in its moving papers “with
specificity (1) the issues tendered by the complaint or answer which are pertinent to the summary
judgment motion and (2) each of the grounds of law upon which the moving party is relying in
asserting that the action has no merit or there is no defense to the action.” (Juge, 12 Cal.App.4th
at 67.)

Specifically, “[t]he Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in support of a
motion must separately identify cach cause of action, claim, issue of duty or affirmative defense,
and each supporting material fact claimed to be without dispute with respect to the cause of
action, claim, issue of duty, or affirmative defense. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.3150(d),
emphasis added.) “The due process aspect of the separate statement requirement is self-evident,
to inform the opposing party of the evidence to be disputed to defeat the motion.” (San Diego
Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2002) 102 Cal-App.4th 308, 316.) “Failure to

comply with this requirement of a separate statement may in the court’s discretion constitute a
sufficient ground for denial of the motion.” (C.C.P. § 437c(b)(1)) “Facts stated elsewhere [other'
than in the separate statement] need not be considered by the court.” (Fleet v. CBS, Inc. (1996)
50 Cal.App.4th 1911, 1916.) Due process further requires the Court to exclude any evidence
which was not timely served in accordance with C.C.P. § 437c(a). (San Diego Watercrafts, Inc.,
102 Cal.App.4th at 316.) “Thus, when the ‘fact’ is not mentioned in the separate statement, it is

irrelevant that such fact might be buried in the mound of paperwork filed with the court, because

KAiujuna 08-7 opp CUPELE wad 3 ATA
PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDLM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSETION TO DEFENDANT CUPERTINO ELECTRIC'S,
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

the statutory purposes are not furthered by unhighlighted facts.” (North Coast Business Park v.
Nielsen Construction Co. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 22, 31.)

Further, defendant cannot expand the scope of its argument or offer new evidence in
response to plaintiffs’ own Separate Statement. There is no provision in either C.C.P. § 437c or
California Rules of Court 3.1350 authorizing or allowing a response to the opposing party’s
Separate Statement. (See Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 253.)
Therefore, any supplemental declarations, documents, or additional evidence presented by
defendant in its reply brief or at the hearing on this motion must be disregarded.

CUPERTINO’s Separate Statement is riddled with errors, not the least of which is
evidence citing the Declaration of Jasun C. Molinelli, which was executed under penalty of
perjury yet included multiple references to Albay Construction instead of defendant
CUPERTINO. CUPERTINO’s Separate Statement raises the issue that plaintiffs cannot offer
evidence that CUPERTINO worked with asbestos-containing materials. To support its assertion
that plaintiffs have no evidence of any asbestos exposure to CUPERTINO, defendant claims that
plaintiffs failed to respond to discovery it propounded.

B. CUPERTINO, AS THE MOVING PARTY, FAILED TO CARRY ITS

THRESHOLD BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT PLAINTIFFS CANNOT

ESTABLISH ONE OR MORE ELEMENTS OF THEIR CAUSES OF ACTION
BY ANY MEANS

California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(o)(2) describes the evidentiary burden a
moving defendant must meet:

A defendant or cross-defendant has met his or her burden of
showing that a cause of action has no merit if that party has shown
that one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not
separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a
complete defense to that cause of action. Once the defendant or
cross-defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the
plaintiff or cross-complainant to show that a triable issue of one or
more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense
thereto. [Emphasis added.]

For a motion for summary judgment/adjudication to be granted in California, the moving
party must show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is

entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. (C.C.P. § 437c(c).) The initial burden lies with the

KAiujuna 08-7 opp CUPELE wad 4 ATA
PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDLM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSETION TO DEFENDANT CUPERTINO ELECTRIC'S,
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

moving party, and only after the burden has been shifted is the responding party required to make
a showing that there is a triable issue of material fact. “A defendant bears the burden of
persuasion that ‘one or more elements of the ‘cause of action’ in question ‘cannot be
established,’ or that ‘there is a complete defense’ thereto.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield
Company (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 849, quoting C.C.P. § 437c(0}(2).) In order to shift the burden,
the defendant cannot simply assert lack of evidence. Rather, the defendant must prove that one
or more elements of plaintiffs’ causes of action “cannot be established” or that “there is a

complete defense” thereto. (C.C.P. § 437c(0)(2); Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Construction Co.

(1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 71-72; Villa v. McFerren (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 733.) Defendant
must satisfy its burden of production that plaintiffs do not possess and cannot reasonably obtain
evidence that injured party was exposed to asbestos fibers attributable to defendant in order to
rely upon the factually devoid prong of Aguilar.

if the moving party can make a prima facie showing of the non-existence of any triable
issue of material fact, the opposing party is then “subjected to a burden of production of his own
to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.” (Aguilar at
850.) The corollary to this is that if the defendant cannot establish that the plaintiffs cannot
prove their case, the motion must be denied before plaintiffs’ evidence of material facts are
considered. “Where the evidence submitted by a moving defendant does not support judgment
in his favor, the court must deny the motion without looking at the opposing evidence, if any,
submitted by the plaintiff. (Citation.)” (Hawkins v. Wilton (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 936, 940.)

A defendant moving for summary judgment may rely on a nonmoving party’s factually
devoid written discovery responses to shift the burden of proof to the nonmoving party. (Union
Bank v. Super. Ct. (Demetry) (1995) 31 Cal-App.4th 573, 580-81.) The California Court of
Appeal in Weber v. John Crane, Inc. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1433, made it clear that “[a] motion,

for summary judgment is not a mechanism for rewarding limited discovery... [T]he defendant
must in some way show that the plaintiff does not have and cannot reasonable obtain
evidence of causation.” (Id. at 1442 (emphasis added).) Here, as in Weber, defendant fails to

produce any evidence allowing an inference that plaintiffs do not possess, or cannot reasonably

KAiujuna 08-7 opp CUPELE wad 3 ATA
PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDLM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSETION TO DEFENDANT CUPERTINO ELECTRIC'S,
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

obtain, any evidence of exposure to an asbestos-containing product for which defendant is liable.
Here, as in Weber, defendant does not “support its motion with evidence that plaintiff
failed to provide meaningful responses to comprehensive interrogatories designed to elicit
all the evidence plaintiff had to support his contention of liability.” (Id.)

A defendant may not rely on its own failure to propound discovery or seck responses as
evidence that responsive information does not exist. The court in Schieding v. Dinwiddie (1999)
69 Cal. App.4th 64 held that a defendant which propounded no discovery, and which asked no
questions about jobsite identification, could not thereby assert that plaintiffs were unable to
produce evidence of defendant’s liability. While “factually devoid” responses to discovery can
create a reasonable inference that plaintiffs do not have, and cannot obtain, a prima facie case
against defendant, there must be discovery propounded in the first place. Schieding at 81.
The Scheiding court made it clear that “we can infer nothing at all with respect to questions
which were neither asked nor answered.” Id,

Here, defendant fails to demonstrate that plaintiffs have no evidence that Mr. ROSS was
exposed to asbestos-containing products attributable to CUPERTINO. As in Weber and
Scheiding, defendant simply failed to make a showing that it propounded an interrogatory
asking plaintiffs to state all facts supporting their causes of action against CUPERTINO
and that plaintiffs’ response to that interrogatory was factually devoid.

As in Weber, defendant CUPERTINO failed to produce any evidence allowing an
inference that plaintiffs do not possess, or cannot reasonably obtain, any evidence of Mr. ROSS’
exposure to asbestos-containing materials for which CUPERTINO is liable. As in Weber,
defendant does not “support its motion with evidence that plaintiffs failed to provide meaningful
responses to comprehensive interrogatories designed to elicit all the evidence plaintiffs had to
support their contention of liability.” (Id. at 1442.) As the Weber court indicated, “[a] motion
for summary judgment is not a mechanism for rewarding limited discovery... [T]he defendant
must in some way show that the plaintiff does not have and cannot reasonable obtain evidence of
causation.” (d.) Defendant has made no such showing, thus the burden never shifts to plaintiffs,

dif

KAiujuna 08-7 opp CUPELE wad 6 ATA
PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDLM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSETION TO DEFENDANT CUPERTINO ELECTRIC'S,
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

Applying these principles to the present case, CUPERTINO did not provide the Court
with any admissible evidence that plaintiffs cannot prove their case. All CUPERTINO has
shown is that it propounded discovery upon plaintiffs and that it received the factually rich
deposition testimony of plaintiff ROBERT ROSS. Plaintiff's written discovery responses, which
were served on CUPERTINO on August 24, 2012, and deposition testimony provide clear
identification of fireproofing disturbed in Mr. ROSS’ presence, that the fireproofing contained
asbestos, and that such expesure was a contributing factor to his asbestos-related disease.

CUPERTINO, as the moving party, submitted no admissible evidence that the
fireproofing disturbed in Mr. ROSS’ presence did not contain asbestos or that such exposure to
the same was not a contributing factor of his asbestos-related disease. CUPERTINO merely
states that Mr. ROSS did not respond to defendant’s discovery, which he did. Defendant boldly
states that “Plaintiff has no factual proof whatsoever, beyond pure conjecture, that he was
exposed to an asbestos-containing product by Cupertino at anytime during his working career.”

(Motion at 6:25-27.) Defendant asserts this position without submitting any admissible evidence

to support its argument as required by C.C.P. § 437c(b). Thus, CUPERTINO failed to show that
plaintiffs cannot prove any elements of their case.

Defendant’s separate statement is completely inadequate to support summary judgment.
Defendant asserts that plaintiffs have no proof that CUPERTINO exposed ROBERT ROSS to
asbestos-containing materials, defendant bases this on plaintiffs purported choice not to respond
to written discovery. First, plaintiffs answered defendant CUPERTINO’s written discovery and
served the responses on August 24, 2012. Second, defendant’s motion is riddled with errors,
including a declaration by Jasun C. Molinelli referencing Albay Construction, rather than
CUPERTINO, and references to non-existent exhibits in the defendant’s Separate Statement of
Undisputed Material Facts.

Because plaintiffs did, in fact, respond to defendant’s “all facts” discovery, yet defendant
failed to address those responses in its moving papers, it would not suffice to shift the burden in
summary judgment. CUPERTINO makes no showing that it ever contacted plaintiffs to inquire

as to whether plaintiffs’ discovery responses had been served so as to be able to show what

KAiujuna 08-7 opp CUPELE wad 7 ATA
PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDLM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSETION TO DEFENDANT CUPERTINO ELECTRIC'S,
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

evidence plaintiffs do or do not possess. Defendant, thus, has no ability to claim that plaintiffs’
evidence is inadequate. Nor has defendant properly proffered any competent and admissible
affirmative evidence. Defendant has thus failed to make a prima facie showing of a failure of
plaintiffs’ evidence and has thereby failed to shift the burden of producing evidence to plaintiffs.

CUPERTINO has failed to show that plaintiffs do not have or cannot obtain evidence that
plaintiff ROBERT ROSS was exposed to asbestos-containing fireproofing from the conduct of
CUPERTINO, nor has it provided any affirmative evidence to show the same,

Cc. iT IS UNCLEAR AS TO WHAT THE BASIS IS FOR DEFENDANT’S CLAIM

THAT IT HAS AFFIRMATIVELY ESTABLISHED THAT IT OWED NO
DUTY TO MR. ROSS

In its moving papers, specifically at page 8 of its Points and Authorities, defendant claims
that it provided affirmative evidence establishing it owed no duty to Mr. ROSS but only cites to
Mr. ROSS’ deposition testimony which it acknowledges that Mr. ROSS testified he worked in
the presence of CUPERTINO employees disturbing asbestos. It is unclear how that evidence
supports defendant’s assertion that it had no duty. While it lists factors for consideration on the
issue of duty, it provides no analysis, and more importantly, no evidence to support its allegation
that plaintiffs do not have or cannot obtain evidence to support their causes of action against
CUPERTINO.

Me
it
Mt

KAiujuna 08-7 opp CUPELE wad 8 ATA
PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDLM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSETION TO DEFENDANT CUPERTINO ELECTRIC'S,
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTCo em YW KD hw BR YY

10

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court deny
defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as defendant failed to carry its burden under C.C.P.

§ 437e(c) and § 437¢(p)(2) of proving that plaintiffs do not have, and cannot prove, their prima

facie case against it.

Dated: 4/25/13 BRAYTON#PURCELL LLP

By: /s/ Anne T. Acuna

Anne T. Acufia
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

[To comply with Department 503's rule regarding tentative rulings, you must email the
Court notice if you wish to contest the tentative ruling at the following email address:
contestasbestostr@sftc.org. A copy of any email notification to Department 503 must also

be sent to our firm at contestasbestostr@braytonlaw.com.|

KAiujuna 08-7 opp CUPELE wad 9 ATA
PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDLM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSETION TO DEFENDANT CUPERTINO ELECTRIC'S,
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTBRAYTON@PURCELL LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
222 RUSH LANDING RGAD

PO BOX 6169
NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169

(415) 898-1555

oO Om I HR HW BRB WN

PROOF OF SERVICE BY;LEXIS-NEXIS E-SER VICE

lam employed in the County of Marin, State of California. 1am over the age of 18
years and am not a party to the within action. My business address is 222 Rush Landing Road,
P.O, Box 6169, Novato, California, 94948-6169.

On Ht ‘2 2 13 , l electronically served (E-Service), pursuant to General Order

No. 158, the following documents:

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANT CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, DECLARATION OF ANNE T. ACUNA IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC.’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT
CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS; PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO
DEFENDANT CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT; [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT CUPERTINO
ELECTRIC, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

on the interested parties in this action by causing Lexis-Nexis E-service program pursuant to
General Order No. 158, to transmit a true copy thereof to the following party(ies):

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

The above document was transmitted by Lexis-Nexis E-Service and the transmission
was reported as complete and without error.

Executed on 3 S ‘| 2 , at Novato, California.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.

~N

ngela P tel

Robert Ross and Jean Ross v. C.C. Moore & Co. Engineers, et al.
San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-10-275731

PROOF OF SERVICE BY E-SERVICEDate Created: 4/22/2013+1:44:25 py

A, (AAP)

Brayton-Purcell service List

Created by: LitSupport - ServiceList - Reporting

Matter Number:

Adams Nye Becht LLP
222 Kearny Street, Seventh Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
415-982-8955 415-982-2042 (fax)
Defendants:

Pribuss Engineering, Inc. (PRIBUS)

Becherer, Kannett & Schweitzer
Water Tower
1255 Powell Street
Emeryville, CA 94608-2604
510-658-3600 510-658-1151 (fax)
Defendants:
CSK Anto, Inc, (CSKAUT D
Johnson Controls, Inc. JOHCON)

Bishop, Barry, Drath
Watergate Tower IIL
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1425
Emeryville, CA 94608
510-596-0888 510-596-0899 (fax)
Defendants:

Foley Electric Co, (FOLELE)

Buty & Curliano
555 12" Street, Suite 1280
Oakland, CA_ 94607
§10-267-3000 510-267-0117 (fax)
Defendants:
Critchfield Mechanical, Inc. S RIMEC)
Harold Beasley Plumbing and Heating, Inc.
(BEASLY)
§.J. Amoroso Construction Co., Inc.
(AMOCON)

Foley & Mansfield PLLP
300 Lakeside Dre Suite 1900
Oakland, CA 946
$10-590-9500 Sto. 590-9595 (fax)
Defendants:
Acco Engineered Systems, Inc.
(ACCHE. HEA}
D.W. Nicholson Corporation (DWNICH)
Fluor Corporation (FLUOR)
Lone Star Industries, Inc. (LNSTR)
Raymond Interior Systems-North
(RAYISN)
Van-Mulder Sheet Metal, Inc. (VANMSM)

19349.004 - Robert Ross

Archer Norris
P.O, Box 8035
2033 N, Main Street, Suite 800
Walnut’ Creek, CA 94596
925-930-6600 925-930-6620 (fax)
Defendants:
Albay Construction Gomp an} any (ALBAY)
Cahill Construction Cork (CAHILC)
Cahill Contractors, Inc. CAHILL)
Cupertino Electric, Inc. cop

Bennett, Samuelsen, Reynolds & Allard
1301 Marina Village Parkway
Suite 300
Alameda, CA 94501-1084
510-444-7688 510-444-5849 (fax)
Defendants:

Stlakey Brothers, inc. (SLAKEY)

Br Brydon Hugo & Parker
Main Street, 20° Foor
Sen Francisco, CA 94105
415-808-0300 415-808-0333 (fax)
Defendants:
A. Teichert & Son, Inc. BAvene
Bayer Cropscience Inc. (BAYCRO)
Domeo Products Texas, L.P. by OO?
Perini Cor) poration (PERCOR:
Rees, fumbing & Heating Inc.
Swinerton Builders (SWINBU)

Cooley Manion Jones, LLP
20} Spear Street
Suite 1800
San Francisca, CA 94105
415-512-4381 415-512-6791 (fax)
Defendants:
Temporary Plant Cleaners, Inc. (TEMPLA)

Gordon & Rees LLP
Shari Weintraub, Esq.
ie Floor

10] West Broadway,
San Diego, CA
619-696-6700 619-696. 7124 (fax)
Defendants:

Marshco Auto Parts, Inc. (MARAPI)

Run By : Porterfield, Angela

Bassi, Edlin, Huie & Blum LLP
$00 Washington Street
Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 9411
415-397-9006 415-397- 11339 (x)
Defendants:
Balliet Bros. Construction Corporation
(BALBRO)
J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc, (THORPE)
Malm Metal Products, Inc. (MALMSM)

Berry & Berr
P.O. Box 16070
2930 Lakeshore Avenue
Oakland, CA 94610
510-835-8330 $10-835-5117 (fax)
Defendants: *
Berry & Berry (B&B)

Burnham Brown
1901 Harrison Street, 14" Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
510-444-6800 310-835-6666 (fax)
Defendants:

California Drywall Co. (CALDRY)

Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
50 Fremont Street, 20" Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-2235
415-591-7500 415-591-7510 (fax)
Defendants:

Pharmacia Corporation, which will do
business in California as Pharmacia
Pharmaceutical Corporation (PHARCA)

Gordon & Rees LLP
Embarcadero Center West
275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA MW
415-986-5900 415- 586. 8054 (fax)
Defendants:
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, The
(GOODYR)Date Created: 4/22/2013-1:44:25 PM

A. (AAP)

Brayton-Purcell Service List

Created by: LitSupport - Servicelist - Reporting

Matter Number:

Haas & Najarian, LLP
38 Maiden Lane
Second Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
415-788-6330 415-391-0555 (fax)
Defendants:

McClure Electric, Inc. (MCCLUR)

Law Offices of Glaspy & Glaspy, Inc.

One Walnut Creek Center
100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 750
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925-947-1300 925-947-1594 (fax)
Defendants:

Fairmont Hote! Company (FAIRH)

McInerney & Dillon, P.C.
1909 Harrison Street, Suite 1700
Oakland, CA 94612
510-465-7100 510-465-8556 (Fax)
Defendants:

Allied Fire Protection (ALLFIR)

Selman Breitman LLP
33 New Montgomery
6" Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-979-0400 415-979-2099 (fax)
Defendants:

Rountree Plumbing & Heating Inc.
(RNTPLU)

Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins & McCall,
LLP

601 Montgome: Street, 9" Floor
San Francisco, 94311
415-781-7072 ts. 391-6258 (fax)
Defendants:
D. Zelinsky & Sons, Inc. bt (ELINS)
Duro Dyne Corporation (DURODN)

19349.004 ~ Rebert Ross

Hake Law, A Professional Corporation
655 Montgomery Street
Suite 1001
San Francisco, CA 9411
415-926-5800 415-926- ‘5801 (fax)
Defendants:
Advance Mechanica! Contractors, Inc.
(ADVMEC)
Anderson, Rowe & Buckley, Inc. (AR&B)
Bell Products Inc. (BELLPR)
Bragg Investment Company, Inc.
(BRAGG
Gallins Electrical Company, Inc.

(COLEL! 2
(cour J, Weber Electric Co. (EMILIW)

Low, Bail & Lynch
505 Montgomery Street, 7" Floor
San Francisco, CA 941 41-2584
418-981-6630 415-399-1506 (fax)
Defendants:

Pao Me & Co. (GIAMPO)
Pacific Mechanical Corporation
(PACM!

Perkins Coie LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-344-7000 415-344-7050 (fax)
Defendants:

General Mills, Inc, (GMILLS)

Sinunu Bruni LLP
333 Pine Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94104
415-362-9700 “415-362-9707 (fax)
Defendants:

McClure Electric, Inc. (ACCLUR)

Run By : Porterfield, angela

Imai, Tadlock, Keeney & Cordery, LLP
100 Bush Street, Suite 1300
San Francisco, CA 94104
415-675-7000 415-675-7008 (fax)
Defendants:
Clausen-Patten, Inc, (CLSNPT)
Commair Mechanical Services
(COMMAR)
Henry C, Beck Company (HCBECK)
Webcor Builders, Inc. (WEBCOR)

McDowall Cotter, A.P.C.
2070 Pioneer Court
San Mateo, CA 94403
650-572-7933 650-372-0834 (fax)
Defendants:

Beta Mechanical Contractors, Limited
(BETAMC)

Prindle, Amaro, Goetz, Hillyard, Barnes
& Reinholtz LLP
One California Street, Suite 1910
San Francisco, CA 9411
415-788-8354 415-788- 3625 (fax)
Defendants:

JW. MecClenahan Company, Inc.
(GAWMCCL’

Red Ere) Electric Co. Emeryville, Inc.
(REDEL!

Sweeney, Mason, Wilson & Bosomworth
A Professional Law Corporation
983 University Ave., Suite 104C
Los Gatos, CA 93032-7637
408-356-3000 408-354-8839 (fax)
Defendants:

Red Top Electric Co. Emeryville, Inc.
(REDELE)