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
  • 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

Eugene C. Blackard Jr. (Bar No. 142090) Jocelyn M. Soriano (Bar No. 201169) Jasun C. Molinelli (Bar No. 204456) ELECTRONICALLY jmolinelli@archernorris.com ARCHER NORRIS FILED A Professional Law Corporation Superior Court of California, 2033 North Main Street, Suite 800 County of San Francisco Walnut Creek, California 94596-3759 FEB 22 2013 Telephone: 925.930.6600 Clerk of the Court Facsimile: 925.930.6620 BY: WESLEY G. RAMIREZ Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Defendant CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, Case No. CGC-10-275731 Plaintiff, NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Vv. Date: May 9, 2013 C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS, et al., Time: 9:30 a.m. . Dept.: 503 Defendants. Judge: Hon. Teri L. Jackson Action Filed: December 17, 2010 Trial Date: June 10, 2013 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 9, 2013 at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department 503 of the above-entitled Court, located at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, California, defendant CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC. (“Cupertino”) will move this Court for Summary Judgment against plaintiff. This Motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §437(c) on the grounds that there are no triable issue as to any material fact and that Cupertino is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Motion is based upon this Notice, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed herewith, the Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, the Declaration of Jasun Molinelli, the Index of Exhibits and Exhibits, and the papers, files, and records filed herein and ALBIGI/E529 154-1 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT“ oD we ND wh RB WL upon such evidence, oral and documentary as will be produced at the hearing. Dated: February 19, 2013 ARCHER NORRIS ALBI9I/1529154-1 Jasun Molinelli Attorneys for Defendant CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC. 2 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTret co 0 me ND HR B YW HV PROOF OF SERVICE Name of Action: Robert Ross, et al. v. Asbestos Defendants (BP), et al. Court and Action No: San Francisco Superior Court Action No, CGC-10-275731 I, the undersigned, declare that I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to this action or proceeding. My business address is 2033 North Main Street, Suite 800, Walnut Creek, California 94596-3759. On this date, I caused the following document(s) to be served: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR, SUMMARY JUDGMENT; INDEX OF EXHIBITS; DECLARATION OF JASUN C. MOLINELLI IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; & [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. [x] by having personal delivery by ONE HOUR DELIVERY of a true copy of the document(s) listed above, enclosed in a sealed envelope, to the person(s) and at the address(es) set forth: Alan R Brayton, Esq. David R. Donadio, Esq. BRAYTON PURCELL LLP 222 Rush Landing Road Novato, CA 94948 Tel: 415-898-1555 I electronically served the above referenced document(s) through LEXIS NEXIS, E- service in this action was completed on all parties listed on the service list with LEXIS NEXIS. This service complies with the court’s order in this case. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 22, 2012, at Walnut Creek, California. Amy Harkness FFE270/1532060-1 3 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT