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

                                28

BUTY & CURLIANO LLP.
‘555. 12" Steerer
‘Sune 1280
‘OAGAND,CA 34607
‘540.267.3000

| MADELINE L. BUTY [SBN 157186]
GEORGE S. SULLIVAN [SBN 187793]

BUTY & CURLIANO LLP
555 — 12" Street, Suite 1280 ELECTRONICALLY
Oakland, California 94607 FILED

Tel: 510.267.3000 Superior Court of Californk
Fax: 510.267.0117 County of San Frenctsea
Email: mlb@pbutycurliano.com FEB 22 2013

jsullivan@butycurliano.com Clerk of the Court

BY: JUANITA MURPHY
Attorneys for Defendant Deputy Clerk

CRITCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

| ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, No. CGC-10-275731

Plaintiffs, EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT CRITCHFIELD
MECHANICAL, INC.’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION

v.

C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS, et al.,
Defendants.

Date: May 9, 2013
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept: 503

Trial: June 10, 2013

ae ee a el Nl a ed Ne

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(b) and Rule 3.1350 of the California
Rules of Court, defendant Critchfield Mechanical, Inc. (“Critchfield”) submits the following
evidence in support of its motion for summary judgment or, alternatively, summary adjudication.
Ml
Hf

|

EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CRITCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONoO we NA

10
i
12
13
14
15
16
7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

BUTY 2 URLIANO LLP
385.12" Stacer

‘uate 1288
‘OAKLAND, CA 94007
"Hozs7 3000

EVIDENCE

Declaration of George S. Sullivan in Support of Critchfield’s Motion for Summary

Judgment or, Alternatively, Summary Adjudication, with attached Exhibits A through Y:

Hd

Exhibit A — Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint for Personal Injury and Loss of
Consortium — Asbestos

Exhibit B — Defendants’ Standard Interrogatories to Plaintiff (Personal Injury), Set 1
Exhibit C —Plaintiffs’ Answers to Interrogatories

Exhibit D — Title Page, Pages 300-301, 1479, 1505-1506, 1651-1654, 1795-1796, 1805,
3026-3027, and 3030, and reporter’s certificate from the deposition of Robert Ross in San
Francisco Superior Court Case No. 274099

Exhibit E - Title Page, Pages 187-237, 743-756, and 2186-2187, and reporter’s certificate
from the deposition of Robert Ross in San Francisco Superior Court Case No. 275731
Exhibit F — Critchfield Mechanical, Inc.’s Special Interrogatories to Plaintiffs, Set One
Exhibit G — Critchfield Mechanical, Inc.’s Request for Production of Documents to
Plaintiffs, Set One

Exhibit H — Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant Critchfield Mechanical, Inc.’s Special
Interrogatories, Set One and verification

Exhibit I- Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant Critchfield Mechanical, Inc.’s Request for
Production of Documents, Set One and verification

Exhibit J — Critchfield Mechanical, Inc.’s Special Interrogatories to Plaintiffs, Set Two
Exhibit K — Critchfield Mechanical, Inc.’s Request for Production of Documents to
Plaintiffs, Set Two

Exhibit L — Critchfield Mechanical, Inc.’s Request for Admissions to Plaintiffs, Set Two
Exhibit M — Critchfield Mechanical, Inc.’s Form Interrogatories to Plaintiffs, Set Two
Exhibit N — Plaintiffs’ Response to Critchfield Mechanical, Inc.’s Special Interrogatories,

Set Two and verification

2

EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CRITCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION28

BUTYS CURLIANOLLP
‘585-12 Sraeer

OAKLAND, CA 94007

510-267-3009,

e Exhibit O — Plaintiffs’ Response to Critchfield Mechanical, Inc.’s Request for Production
of Documents, Set Two and verification

© Exhibit P — Plaintiffs’ Response to Critchfield Mechanical, Inc.’s Requests for Admission,
Set Two and verification

e Exhibit Q — Plaintiffs’ Response to Critchfield Mechanical, Inc.’s Form Interrogatories, Set
Two and verification

« Exhibit R ~ Title Page, Pages 229-240, 524-525, 575-576, 580-581, 605-625, 633-644,
656-661, 670-674, 701-706, 716-732, 780-782, 792-794, and 994-1003, and reporter’s
certificate from the In Re: Complex Asbestos Litigation (SFSC No. 828684) deposition of
Arthur R. Klimack

« Exhibit S — Title Page, Pages 32 and 46-55, and reporter’s certificate from the Deposition
of Arthur Klimack in Klimack v. Asbestos Defendants (SFSC No. 438260)

e Exhibit T — Excerpts from Zhe Asbestos Worker from April 1957

« Exhibit U ~ Excerpts from The Asbestos Worker from October 1957

¢ Exhibit V ~ Excerpts from The Asbestos Worker ftom April 1958

¢ Exhibit W ~ Excerpts from The Asbestos Worker from May 1959

« Exhibit X — Excerpts from The Asbestos Worker from February 1963

e Exhibit Y — Declaration of Kyle Dotson in Support of Defendant Critchfield Mechanical,

DATED: February 21, 2013 BUTY & CURLIANO LLP

Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication
JRGE S. SULLIVAN

eys for Defendant

¥TCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC.

3

EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT CRITCHFIELD MECHANICAL, INC.*S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION