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
  • 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

OOO SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Dec-28-2011 2:56 pm Case Number: CGC-10-275731 Filing Date: Dec-28-2011 2:55 Juke Box: 001 Image: 03434422 ORDER ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS 001003434422 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.POBOX 6169 NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169 G15) 898-1555, BRAYTON®PURCELL LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 222 RUSH LANDING ROAD Cm NY DH Bw NY Yo NNN YP NN NY NY Ye Be eB Be ie Be ew eB HR ay nuv FF YN KF Dew A DAR Ne S DAVID R. DONADIO, ESQ., S.B. #154436 NANCY T. WILLIAMS, ESQ,, S.B. #201095 BRAYTON*PURCELL LLP Attomeys at Law 222 Rush Landing Road P.O. Box 6169 Novato, California 94948-6169 (415) 898-1555 Tentative Ruling Contest Email: contestasbestosTR@braytonlaw.com ars &- 4|S3as8q Pp © jor Cgunt of California Superie CPas Hronekce DEC 28 201 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, Plaintiffs, et vs. C.C, MOORE & CO, ENGINEERS; Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit 1 attached to the Summary Complaint herein; and DOES 1-8500. Upon application of plaintiffs on December 28, 2011 for an Order Granting Leave to File Amendment to the Second Amended Complaint To Substitute Defendants' True Names for Does 12-13 and 1012-1013, and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs may file the Amendment to the Second Amended Complaint in the form attached as Exhibit A. Dated: _\2\28\\\ Le Superior Court EAinjnrod 19% rata 12-13 £1012.1013, ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AMENDME! TRUE NAMES FOR DOES 12-13 AND 1012-1013 CLERK OF THE COYRT, BY: AUDREY HIE Deputy Clerk ASBESTOS No. CGC-10-275731 ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AMENDMENT TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT TO SUBSTITUTE DEFENDANTS’ TRUE NAMES FOR DOES 12-13 AND 1012- 13 2 Date: December 28, 2011 Time: 11:00 a.m. Dept.: 503, Hon. Teri L. Jackson Trial Date: N/A Filing Date: December 17, 2010 A Opreenm NT TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT TO SUBSTITUTE DEFENDANTS" UC TERI L. JACKSONEXHIBIT ABRAYTON®@PURCELL LLP ATTORNEYS ATLAW 222 RUSH LANDING ROAD POROX 6169 NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6163 (415) 898-1555 , wv ont AU Pw Ww PN YPN BRN _ eu ek FF RBRRSSRBARaRE CHB Ss 7 7 DAVID R. DONADIO, ESQ., S.B. #154436 BRAYTON®PURCELL LLP Attorneys at Law 222 Rush Landing Road P.O. Box 6169 Novato, California 94948-6169 {415) 898-1555 Attomeys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, ASBESTOS No. CGC-10-275731 Plaintiffs, AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED vs. COMPLAINT TO SUBSTITUTE DEFENDANTS' TRUE NAMES FOR C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS; R DOES 12-13 AND 1012-1013 Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit 1 attached to the S Complaint herein; and DOES 1-8500. —— {C.C.P. Section 474] Plaintiffs amend the second amended complaint in this action as follows: Plaintiffs have leamed the true names of the defendants designated in the complaint as fictitious DOES as set forth below: TRUE NAME FICTITIOUS NAMI CAHILL CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. DOE 12 AND 1012 [Atomic Energy Commission. Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore, CA, 1/1967-3/1972 (1 to 3 weeks); 1967-1970; Bechtel Building, 50 Beale Street, San Francisco, CA, 1960-1962; 1965-1966 (1 week); 1967-1970; Bullocks, Palo Alio, CA, 1977 (1 week); California Pacific Medical Center, California Street, San Francisco, CA, 1/1967-3/1972; Children’s Hospital, California Street San Francisco, CA, 1960-1962;1965-1966; 1967-1972; 1977-1981; Children’s Hospital Oakland, CA, 1967-1972; Coca Cola Co., San Francisco, CA, 1978-1979 (2 weeks); Embarcadero Center #1, #2, #3, San Francisco, CA, 1/1967-3/1972 {1 month); 1985 (May-June, | month total); Anju 1934 12-13 and 1012.1013. AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT TO SUBSTITUTE DEFENDANTS’ TRUE NAMES FOR DOES 12-13 ANDEmbarcadero Center 42, San Francisco, CA 1983 (3 weeks); Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco, CA, 8/1960-6/1962 (10 days); $/1965-12/1966 (several weeks); 1/1967-3/1972; 1967-1972 (9 days); Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA, 1967-1972 (1 week); 1985-1986 (1 month); Fisherman's Wharf, San Francisco, CA, 1967-1972 (1 month); 1977-1980; Ghirardelli Square, San Francisco, CA, 1967-1972 (2 weeks); Hilton Hotel, San Francisco, CA, 1967-1972 (1 month); Hong Kong Bank, Headquarters - 160 Sansome Street, San Francisco, CA, 1/1967-3/1972 (1 week); IBM, San Jose, CA,1960-1962; 1965-1966; 1967-1972; 1977-1981; Ice House, San Francisco, CA, 1/1967-3/1972 (1 month); Jack Tar Hotel, aka Cathedral Hill Hotel, San Francisco, CA, 2/1959-8/1959; 12/1959-1/1960 (1 week); 1/1967-3/1972 (2 weeks); Jewish Home for the Aged, San Francisco, CA, 9/1983 (3 weeks); 6-7/1984 (1 week); Laguna Honda Hospital and Rehabilitation Center, San Francisco, CA, 4/1977-5/1977 (2 weeks); Langley Porter Clinic, San Francisco, CA, 1/1967-3/1972 week); Mount Zion Hospital & Medical Center, San Francisco, A, 1967-1972 {6 weeks); Napa State Hospital, Napa, CA, 1/1967-3/1970 (1 month); 1985 (6 weeks); 3/1986-12/1986; CoGen Plant, Napa State Hospital, Napa, CA, 1982 ( weeks); Naval Air Station, Alameda, CA, 7/1961-10/1961; 7/1962-5/1965; 1967-1972 (3 weeks); St. Luke’s Hospital, San Francisco, CA, 1960-1962; 1965-1966; 1967-1972; Civic Center Auditorium, San Francisco, CA, 1/1967-3/1972 Gio 3 weeks); San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisca, CA, 3/1960-6/1962; 5/1965-12/1966; 1/1967-3/1972; San Francisco International Airport, San Francisco, CA, 8/1960-7/1961; 10/1961-6/1962; 5/1965-12/1966; 1/1967-3/1972; San Francisco International Airport, San Ftancisco, CA (United Airlines), 1979 g weeks); San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA, 1960-6/1962; 5/1965-12/1966 (8 days); 1/1967- 3/1972; 4/1983 (2 weeks); St. Francis ospiial, San Francisco, CA, 1982 (2 weeks), 1984 (1 week); St. Mary’s Church, San Francisco, CA, 1/1967-3/1972 (6 weeks); Stanford Medical Center, Palo Alto, CA, 1960-1962; 1965-1966; 1967-1970; Stanford University Engineering Bide School Business; other buildings, Palo Alto, CA, 8/1960-6/1962; 5/1965-12/1966; Stanford University, Encina Hall, Palo Alto, CA, 1967-1972 3 weeks); Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, 1/1967-3/1972; 991-1992; State Compensation Building, San Francisco, CA, 1967-1972; 1977-1979 (6 weeks), UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 1980-1989; 1990-1991; 1992-1993; UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, 8/1960-6/1962; 5/1965-12/1966; 1/1967- 3/1972 (2 weeks); 4/1977-5/1977 (9 days); 1980 (1 month)] DURO DYNE CORPORATION DOE 13 AND 1013 Alternate Entities: DURO-DYNE COPRORATION D-D MANUFACTURING CORPORATION DURO DYNE MACHINERY CORP. DURO DYNE OF CALIFORNIA, INC. DURO DYNE WEST CORP. [111 Pine Street, San Francisco, CA, 1/1967-3/1972; 5/77- 1/81 (3 weeks }; Atomic Energy Commission. Lawrence Livermore x MK 11 nnd (077-10) AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT TO SUBSTITUTE DEFENDANTS’ TRUE NAMES FOR DOES 12-13 ANDoO 7m ND DH A FR WY NM , bee or at A UW FF WwW HN HH S 20 Laboratory, Livermore, CA, 1/1967-3/1972 (1 to 3 weeks); 1967-1970; Mare island Navai Shipyard, Vallejo, CA, 1959 (3 months); 10/1973-12/1973; 3/3974-3/1976, 10/1976-2/1977 (1 month); 1977 (3 to 4 weeks); 1981 (6 weeks); 1984 (2 months), 1985 (2 weeks); Napa State Hospital, Napa, CA,1/1967-3/1970 (1 month); 1985 (6 weeks); 3/1986-12/1986; CoGen Plant, Napa State Hospital, Napa, CA, 1982 (5 weeks); Civic Center Auditorium, San Francisco, CA, 1/1967-3/1972 (2 to 3 weeks); UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 1980-1989; 1990-1991; 1992-1993] Plaintiffs make a claim for false representation and punitive damages against defendant CAHILL CONSTRUCTION CO.,, INC. With regard to CAHILL CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., hereinafter “CAHILL,” plaintifi(s) allege(s) that it acted with malice, oppression or fraud, in conscious disregard of the rights or safety of plaintiff (s) and other persons similarly situated. Even though CAHILL was under mandatory duties to protect workers on its job sites and CAHILL admits that, at a CAHILL-run job site, there is nothing more important than safety, - No CAHILL senior executive, prior to the 1980s, did anything respecting the rights and safety of any worker with regard to asbestos; - CAHILL cannot identify any CAHILL job superintendent in the 1970s or 1980s that were known to have read or reviewed the California General Safety Orders or had any idea what they say or prescribe; - CAHILL took no precautions at any construction site regarding asbestos, prior to the 1980s; - CAHILL has never prepared any written communications regarding the dangers of asbestos; i - CAHILL never posted any notices with regard to asbestos at any of its jab sites, prior to the 1980s; - CAHILL never employed any laborers who used any special equipment to clean up asbestos-laden debris at any CAHILL-run job site, prior to the 1980s; - CAHILL did not supply or make available to any of its employees or Kaley 12:13 258 1012-1013. AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT TO SUBSTITUTE DEFENDANTS’ TRUE NAMES FOR DOES 12-13 ANDsubcontractors any special equipment for cleaning up asbestos-laden debris; nor did it mandate the use of such special equipment, - CAHILL took no steps to employ any housekeeping sieps to eliminate, minimize or control workers’ exposure to asbestos at any CAHILL-run job site prior to the 1980s; - CAHILL never provided any change rooms, showers, baths or lavatories or similar facility(ies) to address workers’ exposure to asbestos at any CAHILL-run job site prior to the 1980s; oOo Se KN DA WH FF WwW - CAHILL never conducted any testing for airborne asbestos at any CAHILL-run job site prior to the 1980s; - CAHILL has never refused to.allow any subcontractor to deliver to or use ashestos-containing products at any CAHILL-run job site; - CAHILL has never had policy to place any warnings regarding asbestos at any building; and - CAHILL has made no attempt to determine how many people is has exposed to asbestos, Accordingly, plaintiffs are entitled to recover punitive damages from CAHILL Plaintiffs hereby substitute such true names for the fictitious names as set forth above wherever said names appear in the complaint. Dated I ZL BRAYTON*PURCELL LLP ’ David R. Donadio Attorneys for Plaintiffs x 93 ¥2:19 and 1012-20133 4 AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT TO SUBSTITUTE DEFENDANTS' TRUE NAMES FOR DOES 12-13 AND