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

oem NY KD A BY 10 ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ., 8.B. #73685 DAVID R. DONADIO, ESQ., S.B. #154436 JAMIE A. NEWBOLD, ESQ., S.B. #207186 ELECTRONICALLY BRAYTON&PURCELL LLP Attorneys at Law sopehr IL EDP 5 Rush Fanding Road County of San Francisco ‘ Novato, California 94948-6169 APR 25 2013 (415) 898-1555 Clerk of the Court Tentative Ruling Contest Email: contestasbestasTR@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’ OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, 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 respectfully submit their objection to defendant JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.’s (SJOHNSON?” 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. Plaintiffs request that this Court, pursuant to Cal. Evid. Code section 450, deny defendant JOHNSON’s Request for Judicial Notice on the following grounds: Mh KeInjered: 10349 glob req jud ne JORCON spd 1 JAN PLAINTINS OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICECo em YW KD hw BR YY 10 Under California’s Evidence Code, a court may only take judicial notice of “matters that are indisputably truce.” (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 it was filed in the above cases (Evid. Code § 452(d)), it may not accept it as true. (See, Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide:_Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2010) 4] 9:54, ch. 9, part I.) For the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs request this Court deny defendant JOHNSON’s Request for Judicial Notice. Dated: April 25, 2013 BRAYTON*PURCELL LLP By: /s/Jamie A. Newbold Jamie A. Newbold Attorneys for Plaintiffs KeInjered: 10349 glob req jud ne JORCON spd 2 JAN PLAINTINS OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE