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, 1 {| William M. Hake, Esq. (State Bar No. 110956) Duncan S. Lemmon, Esq. (State Bar No, 184414) ELECTRONICALLY 2 || Steven A. Kronenberg, Esq. (State Bar No. 215541) FILED HAKE LAW, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 3 || 655 Montgomery Street, Suite 1000 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco San Francisco, CA 94111 4 || Tel: (415) 926-5800 FEB 22 2013 Fax: (415) 926-5801 Clerk of the Court 5 || bill@chakelaw.com BY: WESLEY G. RAMIREZ duncan@hakelaw.com Deputy Clerk steven@chakelaw.com 6 7 || Attorneys for Defendant BRAGG INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC. 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO . 1 & ROBERT ROSS, et al., Case No.: CGC-10-275731 = 12 2 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT BRAGG INVESTMENT = 13 vs. COMPANY, INC.S NOTICE OF & MOTION AND MOTION FOR = 14 || C.C, MOORE AND CO. ENGINEERS, etal, | SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, g ALTERNATIVELY, SUMMARY 15 Defendants. ADJUDICATION 16 Filed Concurrently With: i7 1. Memorandum of Points and Authorities 2. Separate Statement of Undisputed 18 Material Facts 3. Declaration of Steven A. Kronenberg 19 4. Declaration of William C. Stockmar 5. Declaration of Khalil Sheibani, M.D. 20 6. Declaration of Robert W. Morgan, M.D. 7. [Proposed] Order Granting Motion for 21 Summary Judgment 8. Proof of Service 22 Date: May 9, 2013 23 Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept. 503 24 25 Wi 26 {fii 27 i 28 ~|- DEFENDANT BRAGG INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC.°S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, SUMMARY ADIUDICATIONHaAKE Law, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at the above-stated date, time, and location, Defendant Bragg Investment Company, Inc. (“Bragg”) will move for summary judgment or, alternatively, summary adjudication against Plaintiffs. Under Code Civ. Proc., sec. 437c, subds. (a), ((2), plaintiffs’ claims have no merit for two separate and independent reasons. First, Bragg owed no duty to plaintiffs, because the Bragg subsidiary that allegedly exposed plaintiff to asbestos did not even exist at the time of the alleged exposure. Berry v. San Francisco and North Pacific R. Co., 50 Cal. 435, 438 (1875). Second, and independently, Bragg did not cause plaintiff Robert Ross’s claimed colon cancer, because plaintiff cannot meet his shifted burden of proving, more likely than not, that exposure to asbestos caused this condition. Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 163 Cal.App.3d 396, 402-403 (1985). This motion is based on this Notice and Motion and the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, and Declarations of Steven A. Kronenberg, William C. Stockmar, Khalil Sheibani, M.D., and Robert W. Morgan, M.D., as well as the records, files, and discovery of this case, any matters of which the Court takes judicial notice, and the oral arguments, if any, presented at the hearing. A proposed order has been filed herewith. Respectfully submitted, Dated: February 21, 2013 HAKE LAW, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION By: William M. Hake, Esq. Duncan S. Lemmon, Esq. Steven A. Kronenberg, Es Attorneys for Defendant BRAGG INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC. -2- DEFENDANT BRAGG INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC."S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION