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

HAKE LAW, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION William M. Hake, Esq. (State Bar No. 110956) Melissa Ippolito, Esq. (State Bar No. 239811) ELECTRONIGALLY Kathryn L. Hoff, Esq. (State Bar No. 260420) FILED HAKE LAW, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Superior Court of California, ee Montgomery 8 at Suite 1000 County of San Francisco Tel: (415) 926-5800 FEB 22 2013 Fax: (415) 926-5801 Clerk of the Court bill@hakelaw.com BY: WESLEY G. RAMIREZ roclissa@hakelaw.com Deputy Clerk luey@hakelaw.com Attorneys for Defendant ANDERSON, ROWE & BUCKLEY, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ROBERT ROSS AND JEAN ROSS, Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF MELISSA D. EPPOLITO IN SUPPORT OF VS. DEFENDANT ANDERSON, ROWE & BUCKLEY, INC’S MOTION FOR C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS, et al. SUMMARY JUDGMENT Case No.: CGC-10-275731 Defendants. Hearing Date: May 9, 2013 Time: 9:30 am. Judge: Hon. Teri Jackson Dept.: 503 Complaint: December 17, 2010 Trial Date: June 10, 2013 L, Melissa D. Ippolito, declare as follows: L lam an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and am a partner of the law firm Hake Law, a Professional Corporation, attorneys of record for Defendant Anderson, Rowe & Buckley, Inc. I have personal knowledge of each fact stated in the declaration and, if called upon to testify, could and would competently testify thereto. 2. Plaintiffs Robert and Jean Ross (“Plaintiffs”) filed their Complaint for Personal Injury — Asbestos on December 17, 2010. On May 8, 2012, the court granted leave for Plaintiffs to file a Third Amended Complaint, but denied inclusion of a “proposed claim based on the May 2009 asbestosis diagnosis as Mr. Ross had a prior action based on that claim.” A true and correc _atke DECLARATION OF MELISSA D. IPPOLITO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ANDERSON, ROWE & BUCKLEY, IN SUMMARY JUDGMENTHAKE LAW, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION copy of the Notice of Entry of Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Leave to File Third Amended Complaint, filed on May 11, 2012, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. On May 11, 2012, Plaintiffs Robert and Jean Ross filed their Third Amended Complaint for Personal Injury and Loss of Consortium — Asbestos, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Third Amended Complaint contains the following causes of action against Defendant Anderson, Rowe & Buckley, Inc.: Negligence, Strict Liability, Loss of Consortium and Premises Owner/Contractor Liability. On page 46, Plaintiffs include the impermissible language as to the May 2009 asbestosis diagnosis. 4, On June 26, 2012 Defendant Anderson, Rowe & Buckley, Inc. filed and served its| Answer to Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint for Personal Injury and Loss of Consortium — Asbestos, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C_ The Answer contains a general denial along with affirmative defenses. 3 On November 16, 2012, a Request for Dismissal without prejudice was filed dismissing the Strict Liability cause of action, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 6. On July 10, 2012, the court entered an Order Granting Defendant Temporary Plant Cleaners, Lnc.’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint; in particular the court struck page 46, lines 19-20, “..., and with asbestosis on or about May 2009.” A true and correct copy of the Order is attached hereto as Exhibit E. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 21, 2013 at Granite Bay, California. Dated: February 21, 2013 sevmanennnchn seventeen statin nec ISSA D. IPPOLITO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ANDERSON, ROWE & BUCKL SUMMARY JUDGMENT TINC.'§ MOTION FOR