Motion-Secondary: ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Selman Breitman Lip

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

MARK A. LOVE (SBN 162028),

mlove@sclmanbreitman.com

RHONDA L. WOO (SBN 168374), ELECTRONICALLY

rwoogéselmanbreitman.com FILED

SELMAN BREITMAN LLP Superior Court of California,

33 New Montgomery, Sixth Floor County of San Francisco

San Francisco, CA 94105 OCT 24 2011

Telephone: (415) 979-0400

Facsimile: (415) 979-2099 aclerk of the Court
Deputy Clerk

Attorneys for Defendant
ROUNTREE PLUMBING & HEATING

INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO- UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
ROBERT ROSS, CASE NO. CGC-07-274099
Plaintiff, Date : November 16, 2011
Time : 9:30am.
vy. Dept. : 503

Judge : Hon. Teri L. Jackson
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, 1
| Complaint Filed =: March 5, 2007
Defendant. Trial Date : May 21, 2012

ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, CASE NO. CGC-10-275731

Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF RHONDA L. WOO
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
Vv. ROUNTREE PLUMBING & HEATING
INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS'
C.C. MOORE & CO, ENGINEERS, et al., MOTION FOR ORDER

Defendant. PURPOSES INCLUDING TRIAL

Date : November 10,2011
Time : 9:30am.

Dept. : $03

Judge : Hon. Teri L. Jackson

Complaint Filed =: December 17, 2010
Trial Date : No trial date set

i, RHONDA L. WOO, declare and state as follows:
L. lam an attorney duly licensed to practice before the courts of the State of

California, and am Of Counsel with the law firm of Selman Breitman, counsel of record for

defendant ROUNTREE PLUMBING & HEATING INC., on whose behalf | make this

CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS FOR ALL

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFES' MOTION FOR ORDER CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS FOR ALL PURPOSES INCLUDING TRIAL

|
/Selman Breitman tip
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

2882 E484 30545

declaration. If called as a witness | would competently testify to the following facts, all of which
are within my own personal knowledge.

i. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of relevant portions of the
Complaint in Robert Ross v. Asbestos Defendants (BP), San Francisco Superior Court Case No.
CGC-07-274099,

2. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of relevant portions of the
Complaint in Robert Ross and Jean Ross v. C.C. Moore & co. Engineers, et al., San Francisco
Superior Court Case No. CGC-10-275731.

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of Defendant Rountree
Plumbing & Heating Inc.'s Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Arising
from the Alleged Asbestosis, Asbestos-Related Pleural Disease, and Other Lung Injuries, in the
above-captioned action.

4. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of Proof of Service via
Lexis Nexis File & Serve of Defendant Rountree Plumbing & Heating Inc.'s Mation to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Claims Arising from the Alleged Asbestosis, Asbestos-Related Pleural Disease, and
Other Lung Injuries and Supporting Documents, in the above-captioned action.

5. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of Request for Dismissal of
Rountree Plumbing & Heating Inc. only in the above-captioned action.

6. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of Defendant A. Teichert &
Son, Inc.'s Joinder in Defendant Domco Products Texas Inc.'s Notice of Motion and Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Arising from the Alleged Asbestosis, Asbestos-Related Pleural Disease

and Other Lung Injuries in the above-captioned action.

7. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of Defendant ACCO
Engineered Systems, Inc.'s Joinder in Defendant Domeo Products Texas Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss
Plainufts' Claims Arising from the Alleged Asbestosis, Asbestos-Related Pleural Disease and
Other Lung Injuries in the above-captioned action.

8. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of Defendant Bell Products,

Inc.'s Joinder Pribuss Engineering, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs‘ Claims Arising from the

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFES' MOTION FOR ORDER CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS FOR ALL PURPOSES INCLUDING TRIALho

us

Selman Breitman Lip
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

2asae | 454 34883

Alleged Asbestosis, Asbestos-Retaied Pleural Disease and Other Lung Injuries in the above-
captioned action.

9. Attached hereto as Exhibit | is a true and correct copy of Defendant Bragg
Investment Company, Inc.'s Joinder in Defendant Domco Products Texas Inc.'s Notice of Motion
and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Arising from the Alleged Asbestosis, Asbestos-Related
Pleural Disease and Other Lung Injuries in the above-captioned action.

10. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of Defendant California
Drywall Co.'s Joinder in Defendant Domco Products Texas Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’
Claims Arising from the Alleged Asbestosis, Asbestos-Related Pleural Disease and Other Lung
Injuries in the above-captioned action.

Il. Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of Defendant Critchfield
Mechanical, Inc. and Harold Beasley Plumbing & Heating, Inc.'s Joinder in Defendant Pribuss
Enginccring Inc’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs! Claims Arising from the
Alleged Asbestosis, Asbestos-Related Pleural Discase and Other Lung Injuries in the above-
captioned action.

12. Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of Defendant Domco
Products Texas Inc.. erroncously sued herein as Domco Products Texas, L.P. fka Azrock
Industries, Inc.'s Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Claims Arising from the
Alleged Asbestosis, Asbestos-Related Pleural Disease and Other Lung Injuries in the above-
captioned action.

13. Attached hereto as Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of Request for Dismissal of
defendant Domco Products Texas Inc.. erroneously sued herein as Domco Products Texas, L.P.
fka Azrock Industries, Inc. only in the above-captioned action.

14. Attached hereto as Exhibit N is a true and correct copy of Defendant D.W.
Nicholson Corporation's Joinder in Defendant Domco Products Texas Inc.'s Notice of Motion and
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Claims Arising from the Alleged Asbestosis, Asbestos-Related
Pleural Disease and Other Lung Injuries in the above-captioned action.

15. Attached hereto as Exhibit O is a true and correct copy of Defendant Foley

re eect.
DECLARATION OF RHONDA L. WOO LN SUPPORT GF DEFENDANT ROUNTREE PLUMBING & I
OPPOSITION FO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS FOR ALL PURPOSES

G INC'S
“DING TRIALfad

w

Selman Breitman Lip
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

3BVAL EASE 30543

Electric, Inc.'s Joinder in Defendant Defendant Temporary Plaint Cleaners, Inc. fka Plant
Maintenance, Inc. of California's Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Claims in the
above-captioned action.

16. Attached hereto as Exhibit P is a true and correct copy of Defendant General Mills,
Inc.'s Joinder in Defendant Domco Products Texas Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Claims
Arising from the Alleged Asbestosis. Asbestos-Related Pleural Disease and Other Lung Injuries in
the above-captioned action,

17. Attached hereto as Exhibit Q is a true and correct copy of Defendant Joseph Bruno
Sheet Metal Co., Inc.'s Joinder in Defendant Domco Products Texas Inc.'s Notice of Motion and
Mation to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Arising from the Alleged Asbestosis, Asbestos-Related
Pleural Disease and Other Lung Injuries in the above-captioned action.

18. Attached hereto as Exhibit R is a true and correct copy of Defendant Kentile
Floors, Inc.'s Joinder in Defendant Domeco Products Texas Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’
Claims Arising from the Alleged Asbestosis, Asbestos-Related Pleural Discase and Other Lung
Injuries in the above-captioned action.

19. Attached hereto as Exhibit S$ is a truc and correct copy of Defendant Marshco Auto
Parts. Inc.'s Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Arising from the Alleged
Ashestosis, Asbestos-Related Pleural Disease and Other Lung Injuries in the above-captioned
action.

20. Attached hereto as Exhibit T is a true and correct copy of Defendant Pribuss
Engineering. Inc.'s Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Claims Arising from the
Alleged Asbestosis, Asbestos-Related Pleural Disease and Other Lung Injuries in the above-
captioned action.

21. Attached hereto as Exhibit U is a true and correct copy of Request for Dismissal of
defendant Pribuss Engineering, Inc. only in the above-captioned action.

22. Attached hereto as Exhibit V is a true and correct copy of Defendant Swinerton
Buulders' Joinder in Defendant Domco Products Texas Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Claims

Arising from the Alleged Asbestosis, Asbestos-Related Pleural Disease and Other Lung Injuries in

a 4 —
BECLARATION OF RHONDA L. WOO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ROUNTREE PLUMBING & HEAT INC'S:
OPPOSITION FO PLAINTIFFS! MOTION FOR ORDER CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS FOR ALL PURPOSES INCLUDING TRIALSelman Breitman tp
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

2ISEE 454.3054

the above-captioned action.

23. Attached hereto as Exhibit W is a true and correct copy of Defendant Temporary
Plant Cleaners, Inc. fka Plant Maintenance, Inc. of California's Notice of Motion and Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Arising from the Alleged Asbestosis, Asbestos-Related Pleural Disease
and Other Lung Injuries in the above-captioned action.

24. Attached hereto as Exhibit X is a true and correct copy of DefendantVan-Mulder
Sheet Metal, Inc.'s Joinder in Defendant Domco Products Texas Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Claims Arising from the Alleged Asbestosis, Asbestos-Related Pleural Disease and
Other Lung Injuries in the above-captioned action.

I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on October 24, 2011 in San Francisco, California.

DECLARATION OF RHONDA L. WOO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ROUNTREE PLUMBING & IIEATING INC'S
OPPOSETION TO PLAINTIFFS! MOTION FOR ORDER CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS FOR ALL PURPOSES INCLUDING TRIALExhibit APO DOX 6159

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6109

BRAYTON@PURCELL LLP
222 RUSH LANDING ROAD

€ €

"| BRC C, SOLOMON ESO SB ISIST Seep

2 BRAYTON ‘PURCELL tie San Fransisco Catnty Superior Court
| Attorneys at Law

3] 222 Rush Landing Road MAR ~ 5 2007

P.O. Box 6169

4] Novato, Califomin 949456104 myer OONRRENCESET | CORDON PARK-Lt, Clerk
5 (415) 898- 7 NATT  Depay Cave

Attorneys for Plaintiff FER 21 2008 -1"2M

DEPARTMENT 206

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

| ROBERT ROSS, ASBESTOS
1D.
Plaintiff, eGC-077274099
vs. COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY -
ASBESTOS
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP)
As Reflected on Exhibits B, B-1, C, E, F,

H, }; and DOES 1-8500; and SEE
ATTACHED LIST.

(413) 981555,

1. Plaintiff ROBERT ROSS was bor September 9, 1935.

2, The ©Brayton* Purcell Master Complsint for Personal Injury [and Loss of

|| Consortium]- Asbestos (hereinafter "Master Complaint") was filed January 2, 2003, in San
Francisco Superior Court. A copy of the Master Complaint and General Order No. 55 may be
obtained upon request from Brayton%*Purcell, and designated portions of the Master Complaint
are incorporated by reference herein pursuant to the authority conferred by General Order No. 55,
Plaintiff's claims are as set forth in said Master Complaint against defendants herein as follows:
Mt

Mt THIS CASE IS SUBJECT TO
“1, MANDATORY ELECTRONIC FILING
PURSUANT TO AMENDED 6.0. 188‘penal Se Ae enmmndanat Neth Mena stanmemmnraeer aay sere =

Cause of Action
First (Negligence)
Second (Strict Liability)

Third (False
Representation)

Fourth {Loss of

% sortium)
Fisth (Premises Owne:/
Contractor Liability)

Sixth, Seventh, Eighth QD
Fran sian Negligence
Jones Act],Maintenance and Cure)

Ninth (Longshore and Harbor Workers w
Compensation Act [LHWCA])

‘Tenth, Eleventh (F.E.L.A.) &

Twelfth, Thirteenth (Respirato
Safety Devices) piratory

Oo ® Ber
BO 8 Wee
Ok

Oo

Fourteenth, Fifteenth
Gipike Shoe Grinding)

Sixteenth {Concert of Action)

Seventeenth, Eighteenth (Fraud, Deceit/Negligent
Misrepresentation/Cencealment)

Nineteenth (Fraud/Deceit/
Intentional Misrepresentation)

Twentieth {Fraud/Deceit - Kent)

Oo

*and their alternate entities as set forth in the Master Complaint or on any Exhibit.

o

ook
OOF

0

OFoo NU A WwW &® we Nm

26
27
28

€ c

3. Plaintiff's asbestos-related injury, date of diagnosis, employment status, and
history of exposure to asbestos are as stated on Exhibit A.

4, Plaintiff's claims against defendant VIACOM, INC. (successor by merger to
CBS CORPORATION which is successor-in-interest to WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC
CORPORATION) exclude military and federal government jobsites.
Dated:_© || BRAYTON“*PURCELL LLP

By:
David R. Donadio
Attomeys for Plaintiff

ice ty a 3.
i iT FOR INA .| c c
= x
t EXHIBIT A
2 Plaintiff's exposure to asbestos, asbestos-containing products, and other toxic and
3} carcinogenic products, occurred at various locations both inside and outside the State of
4} Califomia, including but not fimited to:
5 Location of Exposure
Employer Exposure fob Tith Dates
6
San Mateo Junior College San Mateo Junior College Welder 1958-1959
7}\ San Mateo, CA San Mateo, CA
8] Philip Carey Warehouse Warehouseman 2/1959-8/1959;
Cincinnati, OH 101 Williams T2/1959-1/1960 (1
9 San Francisco, CA. week)
10 Cathedrat Hill Hotel
u San Francisco, CA
Coast Insulating Products Fertilizer Plant Insulator 8/1959-9/1959
12] Los Angeles, CA Helm, CA (Approx
S wks)
13 .
Universal Insulation Mare Island Naval Insulator 10/1959-12/1959
14} 520 6% Avenue Shi
6 Menlo Park, CA Vallejo, CA
Universal Insulation Hewlett Packard Insulator 1959-1963
16] 520 6 Avenue Sani Jose, CA
v7 Mento Park, CA
Western Asbestos PG&E Powerhouse Insulator 1/1960-7/1960
18 || 3150 3” Street Pittsburg, CA
19 San Francisco, CA
Wester Asbestos Queen of the Valley Insulator 711960 (3 weeks)
20) 31503” Street Hospital
1 San Francisco, CA Napa, CA.
Maritime Union Maritime Union Insulator Approx. 1960 (1
22.|| Mission Street Mission Street day)
3 San Francisco, CA ~ San Francisco, CA
Western Asbestos McKinleyville High School Insulator TN9G61-10/1961;
24}) 3150 3" Street McKinleyville, CA 711962-5/1965 (2
San Francisco, CA to 3 weeks, on and
25 off)
26 || Westem Asbestos Calaveras Cement Plant —_—Insulator 7/1961-10/1961;
31503" Street Redding, CA 7/1962-5/1965 (1
27) San Francisco, CA month, on and off)
28 aw EXHIBIT A

& Moros

NAOo Oo YAW BR WH me

104

“a

€
xu
EXHIBIT A (cont'd.)

1949 FORD MOTOR COMPANY: Two-door sedan, Plaintiff bought this vehicle in 1956 and
sold it in 1958. Plaintiff replaced the front and back brakes on two occasions. Plaintiff
purchased replacement brakes ftom GRAND AUTO PARTS, Vallejo, California.

| 1960 CHEVROLET IMPALA: Plaintiff bought this vehicle new from a CHEVROLET dealer.

on Geary Street in San Francisco, California, Plaintiff bought this vehicle in 1960 and sold it in

| 1965. Plaintiff pulled the transmission on this vehicle. Plaintiff purchased engine fasket sets,
} exhaust gaskets and clutches from a CHEVROLET dealer in Eureka, California. P

} installed front brakes and rear brakes. Plaintiff purchased brakes from a CHEVROLET dealer
| in Arcata, California.

aintiff

|| Plaintiff remodeled his family home on Petra Drive, Napa, California, in the 1970s and carly

| 1980s, Plaintiff tore out and replaced sheetrock. Plaintiff drilled holes in the sheetrock

f patched the holes with joint compound. Plaintiff sanded the joint compound after it had been
s

aerliee oced Taos recalls using ee ean compouns. Plaintiff currently contends he
Plaintiff's exposure to asbestos, asbestos-containing products, and other toxic and
carcinogenic products, caused severe and permanent injury to the plaintiff, including, but not
limited to breathing difficulties, asbestosis, and/or other lung damage, and increased risk and
fear of developing mesothelioma, lung cancer and various other cancers. Plaintiff was
diagnosed with asbestos-related pleural disease on or about May 2006.
Plaintiff retired from his last place of employment at regular retirement age. He has

therefore suffered no disability from his asbestos-related disease as “disability” is defined in

| California Code of Civil Procedure § 340.2.

EXHIBIT A

Kiteres 19) es 27Exhibit BBRAVTONSPURCELL LLP

DAVID R. DONADIO, ESQ. S.B. #154436

BRAYTON® PURCELL LLP ENDORSED
Aliorneys at Law
n5 Rash banding Road Sen Prasciste County Seperior Coert
O. BOX
Novato, California 94948-6169 ESTOS DEC 17 2010
| (415) 898-1535 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ECT
CLERK OF THE COURT

Attorneys for Plaintiffs BEC 15 7011 12 PM b¢_PARAM NATT og
¥

DEPARTMENT 220

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, ASBESTOS
No.
Plaintifts,

ainufis, C-10-275731
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY
AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM -
ASBESTOS

=o

VS.

C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINE
Defendants as Reflected on E> t
atlached to the Summary Complaint
herein; and DOES 1-8560.

Te eee

1 Plaintiff ROBERT ROSS was born September 9, 1935

2. The ©Rrayton* Purcell Master Complaint for Personal Injury Jand Loss of
Consortium}- Asbestos (hereinafter "Master Complaint") was filed January 2, 2003. in San
Prancisco Superior Court. A copy of the Master Complaint and General Order No. 55 may be

obtained upon request from Brayton Purcell, and designated portions of the Master Complaint

om

are incorporated by reference herein pursuant to the authority conferred by General Order No. 55:
Plaintiffs’ claims are as set forth in said Master Complaint against defendants herein as follows:
ue
Wit
| Mt

THIS CASE IS SUBJECT TO

MANDATORY ELECTRONIC FILING
PURSUANT TO AMENDED G.0. 158

saath I
MPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY ANP LOSS OF CONSORTIUM - ASDLSTOSCause of Action B Bl D KOOL M
First (Negligence) gf 8 Ooo oO
Second (Strict Liabiliyy ER & oO
Third (False
Representation) Oo Ll
Fourth (Loss of
Consortium) && & QO Oo f ey by) Oo ff oO
Fifth (Premises Owner/
Contractor Lia & &
Oj
ence
and Cure)
re and Harbor Workers C)
Act (LHWCA])
Eleventh (F.E.L.A)’ Ll
Twelfth. Thirteenth (Res; iraiory
Safety Devices} Pum oO
a
&
x)
Nineteenth (Fraud/Deceit/
intentional Misreprese:
Twentierh (Fraud/Deceit - Kent) Oo
Twenty-First (Aiding/Abetting Battery - Met Life)
‘Twenty-Second OJ C} u) CJ 0 CL} Cj CG CQ G

(Civil Banery)

I

*and the male entities as set forth i

he Master Complaint or on any Exhibit.3 Plaintiff's asbestos-related injury, date of diagnosis, employment status, and
history of exposure to asbestos are as stated on Exhibit A.

4. Platnufis were married on December 15, 1975.

3 Plaintiff hereby amends the Master Complaint on file herein, to incorporate a
new Twenty-First Cause of Action, set forth below, specially plead against the defendant Hsted
on Exhibit N, namely METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY. (Plaimifts are in
the process of amending the Master Complaint herein and will include this new Cause of Action

| in said amendment.)

“TWENTY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Aiding and Abetting Batter
{Against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
and Does 7301-7900, Inclusive}

AS AND FOR A FURTHER, TWENTY-FIRST, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT
-CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AIDING AND ABETTING BATTERY, PLAINTIFF
COMPLAINS OF DEFENDANTS METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.
DEFENDANTS ON EXHIBIT N, DOES 7501-7990, THEIR ALTERNATE ENTITIES AND
EACH OF THEM, AND ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:

225. Plaintiff incorparates herein by reference, as though fully set forth hereat, each
and every allegation of the First through Third and Sixteenth. Seventeenth, Eighteenth and
Nineteenth Causes of Action as though fully set forth herein. (As used throughout this cause of
action, ‘plaintiff refers to all named plaintiffs and/or all named decedents from whom the
named plaintiff's injuries may derive.)

226. This cause of action is for the aiding and abetting of battery by METROPOLITAN
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (“MET LIFE”), primarily through its assistant medical
director Anthony Lanza, M.D., of a breach of duty committed by Johns-Manville Corporation
(“J-M”).

227. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thercon alleges, that at all times herein

inentioned defendant MET LIVE was and is a corporation organized and existing under and by

er:

virtue of the laws of the State of New York or the laws of some other state or foreign

Kaper rsa pies 3
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM - ASBESTOSnN

we

Jurisdiction, and that this defendant was and is authorized to do and/or was and is doing
business in the Siate of California, and regularly conducted or conducts business in the County
of San Francisco, State of California. At times relevant w (his cause of action, MET LIFE was
an insurer of J-M,

228. Plaintiff, was exposed to asbestos-coniaining dust created by the use of the
asbestos products manufactured, distributed and/or supplied by J-M. This exposure to the
asbestos or asbestas-related products supplied by J-M caused Plaintif(’s ashestos-related disease
and injuries.

229. Starting in 1928, MET LIFE sponsored studies of asbestos dust and asbestos-
related disease in Canadian mines and mifls, including those of J-M. Those studies reveated
that miners and mill workers were contracting asbestosis at relatively fow levels of dust.
McGill University. which conducted the studies, sought permission ftom MET LIFE to publish
the results but they were never published, MET LIFE prepared its own report of these studies.

230. Between 1929 and 1931, MET LIFE studied dast levels and disease at five U.S,
plants manufacturing asbestos-conmtaining products. including a I-M plant. Those studies
showed that workers in substantial numbers were cantracting asbestosis, at levels less than what
became the Threshold Limit Value ( TLV") of Smppef. The MET LIFE report was never
published or disseminated except to plant owners. including J-M.

231. in 1932, MET LIFE studied dust levels and disease at the }-M plam at Manville,
New Jersey. Results were consistent with those of the Canadian and previous U.S. plant
studies. They were never published

232. In 1934, J-M and others whose plants MET LIFE had studied agreed with MET
LIFE that it should issue a report of its studics.

233. MET LIFE submitted a draft of its report to J-M. J-M requested, for legal and
business reasons, that certain critical parts of the draft be changed. MET LIFE’s official in
charge was Lanza. MET LIFE through Lanza did make changes that J-M requested, including:

(a) Deletion of MET LIFE’s conclusion that the permissible dust level for asbestos

should be less than that for silica;

K Vag ohtOsaboicionp piteph
COMPLAINT FOR Pe ERSONAL INTORY AND LOSS ae CONSORTIUM - ASBESTOS1 (b) Addition of the phrase that asbestosis clinically appeared to be milder than
2 silicosis.
3] The report, thus altered, was published in 1935. IC was misleading. and intentionally so,

a less serious disease process

4} because it conveyed the incorrect propositions that asbestosis

3 ]] than silicosis and that higher levels of asbestos dust could be tolerated without contracting

6][ diseases than was the case for silica dust.

7 234. MET LIFE had a close relationship with J-M. It invested money in J-M. Ii

8 |) provaded group health and life insurance to -M. MET LIFE IN 1934 agreed to supply

9] industrial hygiene services to J-M, including dust counts, training employees to monitor dust
10 ff levels, examining employees. and recommending protective equipment. MET LIFE and Lanza

TE} were viewed as experts on industrial dusts.

12 235. In 1933, MET LIFE through Lanza issued the following advices ta JEM:

13 (a) Disagreeing with the recommendation of a J-M plant physician, MET LIEE
14 advised against wammg workers of the fact that asbestos dust is hazardous to
1S their health, basing its advice in view of the extraordinary legal situation;

16 {hr Wher the plant physician judged the best disposition of an employee with

{7 asbestosis was to remove him from the dust, MEY LIP. advised instead that
18 disposition should depend on his age, nature of work and other factors and to
19 leave him alone if he is old and showing no disability, for, MET LIFE stated,
20 economic and production factors must be balanced against medical factors.
2 236. J-M followed the MET LIFE advices and did not warn its workers, including

22}, plainuff, of the hazards of asbestos dust, and J-M also intentionally refrained from notifying,
23 | workers of their disease.
237. In 1936, MET LIFE, J-M and others founded the Air Hygiene Foundation
25} (“AHF”). One of the AHF purposes was to develop standards for dust levels that would serve
26 j| as a defense in fawsuits and workers’ compensation claims.
238. MET LIFE funded partially another study that tentatively recommended in 1938 a

284 TLV for asbestos dust of Smpccf, the same as for silica dust. MET LIFE was aware of data

5
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM ASBESTOS

K Sepurec IDM prem pecodtey wpefrom its own, unpublished reports that showed that level was too high for asbestos dust. MET
LIFE nonetheless promoted that TL as proper.

239. In June 1947, the Industrial Hygiene Foundation (“IHF”) which succeeded to the
AHF, issued a report of studies by Dr. Hemeon of U.S. asbestos plants. inchiding a J-M plant.
That report showed that workers exposed to less than the recommended maximum levels of
dust were developing disease. MET LIFE was a member of the IHF and Lanza was on its
medical committee. The Hemcon report, which was supphed to J-M and other owners, never
was published.

240. In 1936, J-M and other asbestos companies agreed with a leading medical research
facility, Saranac Laboratories. that Saranac would research asbestos disease, but J-M and the
others retained control over publication of the results. In 1943 Saranac’s Dr. Leroy Gardner, in
charge of the research, sent a draft to J-M that revealed that $1.8% of mice exposed to long
fiber asbestos contracted cancer.

244, Dr. Gardner died in 1946. J-M and other companies wanted parts of the Saranac
results published and enlisted the assistance of MET LIFE’s Lanza. J-M and other companies
decided that Saranac’s findings of cancer caused by asbestos in mice must be deleted, as well as
Saranac’s critique of existing dust standards. Lanza directed Saranac to delete the offending
materials. Saranac did so, and the altered report was published in 1951 by Saranac's Dr.
Vorwald, in the AMA Archives of Industrial Hygiene.

242. Lanza left MET LIFE at the end of 1948, and took a position at New York
University, funded by MET LIFE. He continued to misrepresent that asbestos does not cause
cancer into the 1950s.

243. The IMF (formerly AHF), of which MET LEFE was a member and MET LIFE
official was on its medical committee, through Drs. Braun and Truan conducted a study of
Canadian miners. The original report. in 1957, found an increased incidence of Tung cancer in
persons exposed tw asbestos. The sponsors, including J-M, caused those findings to be stricken,
and the report published in 1958 contained the false conclusion that asbestos exposure alone did

not increase the risk of lung cancer.

KAinunednty soiphtemyptegh 6
COMPLAINT FOR PERSOWAT INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUNT ASHESTOS244. The false and misleading reports that a link hetveen asbestos exposure and cancer
was not proven influenced the TLV. for ifa substance causes cancer the TLV nist be very low
oF 2er0.

245. J-M not faler than 1933 was inflicting asbestos dust on its workers in iis plants
knowing that the dust was hazardous and was causing workers to contract disease that could
and would disable and kill them. As MET LIFF advised, J-M did not warn its workers of the
hazard. J-M committed battery on workers in ifs plants, inclucing plaintiff, by that conduct.

246. MET LIFE knew that J-M°s conduct constituted a breach of its duties to its
workers. MET LIFE gave substantial assistance to J-M in committing batteries on its workers,
including plaintiff, through MET LIFE’s conduct described above, including by:

(a) Affirmatively urging J-M not to warn workers of the hazards of asbestos dust. in
view of the extraordinary legal situation, such thai J-M did not warn its workers,
including plamuft;

{b} Deleting the findings of its own draft report that the allowable Hmits for asbestos
dust should be jess than those for silica dust, and promoting a fatse and unsafe
TLY which specified maximum levels of silica dust, and promoting a false and
unsafe TLV which spectfied maximum levels of dust for workers, including
plaints! which MET LIFE knew was wrong through its own studies;

tc) Advising J-M to keep certain workers continuing to work at dusty areas in the
plant even alter J-M was aware that their lungs showed asbestos-induced
changes, les! other workers including plaintiff be alerted to the dangers of
working in the dust.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment as is hereinafter set forth.”

6. Plaintiffs do not make a claim for either false representative or punitive damages

against any named defendant herein.
Dated: Ve bhyo BRAYTON“PURCELL LLP

Autiorneys for Plaintiffs

EMejmedu9seOpcop-pilcp her 7
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORT IM ASBESTOSEXHIBIT AEXAIBIT A

Plaintiff's exposure to asbestos and ashestas-containing products occurred al various

locations both inside and outside the State of California, including but nat limited to-

Employer

Philip Carey
Cincinnarn, OH

Coast Insulating Products
Los Angeles, CA

Universal Insulation
520 6" Avenue
Mento Park, CA

Universal Insulation
520 6" Avenue
Menlo Park, CA

ACES
Lancaster, PA

Western Asbestos

Western Asbestos
3150 3“ Street
San Francisco, CA

Western Asbestos
3150 3 Street
San Francisco, CA

Heat, Frost & Asbestos
Workers Union
Local 16

Western Asbestos
3150 3" Street
San Francisco, CA

Location of
Exposure

Warchouse
10) Williams
San Francisco, CA

Jack Tar Hotel

(aka Cathedrat Hill Hotel)
1101 Van Ness

San Francisco, CA

Fertilizer Plant
Helm, CA

Mare [sland Naval
Shipyard
Vallejo, CA

Hewlett Packard
Menlo Park, CA

UC Berkeley (Central
Stcam Plant),
Berkeley, CA

Tidewater Associated Oil
Avon, CA

PG&E Powerhouse
Pittsburg, CA

Queen of the Valley
Hospital
Napa, CA

Maritime Union
Mission Strect
San Francisco, CA

McKinleyville High School Insulator

McKinleyville, CA

Exposure
Job Tithe Dates

Warchouseman 2/1959-8/1959:
12/1959-1/1960
(f week)

8/1959-9/ 1959
(approx. 5 wks)

1959 (on and off
for 3 months}

Insuiator
(Apprentice)

Insulator
(Apprentice)

Insulator 1959 (1-2 weeks)
(Apprentice)
Insulator 1966 - 1962;

1965 - 1966

(I week)
Insulator 1959-1965

(3 weeks)
fosulator 1/1960-7/1960
Insulator TA960 (3 weeks)
Insulator Approx. 1960

(i day}

T/L961-10/1961,

7/1 962-5/1965
GA weeks, on
and off}

EXHIBIT A

Holfemp epi opt

Klaassen 12 _
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM - ASBESTOSEXHIBIT A (cont'd

Plaintiff's exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products caused severe and
permanent injury to the plaintiff, including, but not limited to breathing difficulties and/or other
lung damage. Plaintiff was diagnosed with colon cancer on or about October 2010, and with
asbestosis and asbestos-related pleural disease on or about May 2009.

Plaintiff retired from his last place of employment at regular retirement age. He has
therefore suffered no disability from his asbestos-related disease as “disability” is defined in

California Code of Civil Procedure § 340.2.

EXHIBIT A

Hinde DBA gte

pet. 4}
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAT INIORY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM - ASBESTOS”Exhibit CATTORNEYS AT LAW

Selman Breitman Lip

PHP2P YASH 0549

MARK A. LOVE (SBN 162028),
mlove@sclmanbreitman.com
RHONDA L. WOO (SBN 168374),
rwoo@selmanbreitman.com
GILLIAM F. STEWART (SBN 260070),
gstewart@iselmanbreitman.com
SELMAN BREITMAN LLP

33 New Montgomery, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 979-0400
Faesimile: (415) 979-2099

Attorneys for Defendant
ROUNTREE PLUMBING & HEATING
INC.
SUPERTOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO- UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, CASE NO. CGC-10-275731

Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT ROUNTREE PLUMBING

& HEATING INC'S NOTICE OF

v. MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
ING FROM

C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS, et al,
ASBESTOS-RELATED

Defendant. DESEASE, AND OTHER LUNG

__ ncn _|  ENFURIES
Date : October 18, 2011
Time : 9:30 a.m.
Dept. : 220
Judge : Hon. Harold B. Kahn
Complaint Fited December 17, 2010
Trial Date : No trial date set

TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 18, 2011, at 9:30 a.m. in Department 220
of the San Francisco County Superior Court, at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco,
California, 94102, defendant ROUNTREE PLUMBING & HEATING INC. ("defendant")
will move to dismiss plaintiffs ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS’ ("plaintiffs") claims

based upon the alleged injuries/illnesses of: asbestosis, ashestos-related pleural disease,

ING INC'S MEMORANDUM OF PO! iD
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARISING FROM

THE ALLEGED ASBESTOSIS, ASBESTOS-RELATED PLEURAL DISEASE, AND OTHER LUNG
INJURIES|] breathing difficulties, and/or other lung damage. This motion is made on the grounds that

me

plaintiffs failed to assert these claims against defendant within the time mandated by

3 statute, namely California Code of Civil Procedure sections 335.1, 583.210, 583.250,

4 This motion will be based on this Notice and Motion, the Memorandum of Points
5 and Authorities, the Declaration of Gilliam Stewart, the pleadings and records on file

6 | herein, any such matter that may be judicially noticed, and on such additional evidence ar

7 | arguments as may be properly presented at the hearing on this Motion.

9 | DATED: September 19, 201] SELMAN BREITMAN LLP

10
% i By: /.s_/ GILLIAM F, STEWART
a MARK A, LOVE
aq. i] RHONDA L. WOO
a i GILLTAM F. STEWART
er iy Attorneys for Defendant
me ROUNTREE PLUMBING & HEATING INC.
» z 14
Ne 15
ee
= & 16
oO 7
Nn
1s
19
26
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
cere 2 - cenont tenn
28 |” DEFENDANT ROUNTREE PLUMBING & HEATING INC.’'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND

AUTHORITIES SUPPORT OF FPS MO'TION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARISENG FROM
SSA OSHS THE ALLEGED ASBESTOSIS, ASBESTOS-RELATED PLEURAL DISEASE, AND OTHER LUNG
ENJUREES.

S07ATExhibit DSelman Breitman LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

28

RUS | 454. HSA

MARK A. LOVE (SBN 162028),
miove@selmanbreitman.com
RHONDA L.. WOO (SBN 168374),
rwoo@selmanbreitman.com
GILLIAM F. STEWART (SBN 260070),
gstewart@selmanbreitman.com
SELMAN BREITMAN LLP

33 New Montgomery, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 979-G400
Facsimile: (415) 979-2099

Attorneys for Defendani
ROUNTREE PLUMBING & HEATING
INC.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO. UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS,
Plamiilts,

ve

Defendant.

C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS, etal.,

CASE NO, CGC-10-275731

PROOF OF SERVICE VIA LEXIS
NEXIS FILE & SERVE OF DEFENDANT
ROUNTREE PLUMBING & HEATING
INC'S MOTION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFES' CLAIMS ARISING FROM
THE ALLEGED ASBESTOSIS,
ASBESTOS-RELATED PLEURAL
DISEASE, AND OTHER LUNG
INJURLES AND SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTS

Date =: October 18, 2011
Time : 9:30 aon.

Dept. + 220

Judge : Hon. Harold E. Kabs:

Complaint Filed =: December 17. 2010
Trial Date > Ne trial date setSelman Breitman ur
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

PRIMUS E384. 30593

PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION

Robert Ross and Jean Ross v. CC. Moore & Co. Engineers, et al.
San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-10-275731
Defendant: ROUNTREE PLUMBING & HEATING INC.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. | am over the

age of 18 years and an not a party to the within action; my business address is 33 New

Montgomery, Sixth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105.

On September 19, 2011, | clectronically served the document(s) via LexisNexis

File & Serve described as

DEFENDANT ROUNTREE PLUMBING & HEATING INC'S NOTICE OF
MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS! CLAIMS ARISING
FROM THE ALLEGED ASBESTOSIS, ASBESTOS-RELATED PLEURAL
DISEASE, AND OTHER LUNG INJURIES;

DEFENDANT ROUNTREE PLUMBING & HEATING — INC'S
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF FFS
MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFES' CLAIMS ARISING FROM THE
ALLEGED ASBESTOSIS, ASBESTOS-RELATED PLEURAL DISEASE, AND
OTHER LUNG ENJUREES; and

DECLARATION OF GILLIAM STEWART IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
ROUNTREE PLUMBING & HEATING INC,'S MOTION TO DISMISS

on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the LexisNexis File &

Serve website.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

foregoing is true and correct.

Exccuted on September 19, 2011, at San Francisco, Califoraia.

PROOF OF SERVICE VIA LEXIS
MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIPFS
PLEURAL DISEASE, AND OTHER LUNG ENSDRIES AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:

LAIMS ARISING PROM THE ALLEGED ASBESTOSIS. AS

BESTOS-R!Exhibit ECIv-410

‘ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Gar numer, and acaressy

an R. Bra ton on {State Bar # S.B. #73685) FOR COURT USE ONLY
rayton <>

222 Rush Landing Road
Novato, CA 9
‘cence: Fas) 898-1555 —— raxnc. (opbonay: (415) 898-1247

EMAIL ADDRESS (Optional
ATTORNEY FoR (emo): Plaintiff, ROBERT B. ROSS, et al.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORMIA, COUNTY OF San Francisco
street anoress: 400 McAllister Street
MAILING ADDRESS:
: ‘crv ano ze coe: San Francisco 94102
BRANCH NAME:

PLAINTIFE/PETITIONER: ROBERT B. ROSS, et al.
i
iDEFENDANTRESPONDENT: C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS, ci al.

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL.
[30] Personal Injury, Property Damage, or Wrongful Death
(] Motor Vehicle [x] other

Family Law [_] Eminent Domain CGC-10-275731
[iC] Otner (specify) : Asbestos
~ A conformed copy will not ba returned by the clerk uniess a method of return is provided with the docurnent. -

CASE NUMBER:

1. TO THE CLERK: Please disttiss this action as follows:
a. (1) With prejudice (2) [_X_] Without prejudice

». (1) EX] Complaint Q) Petition

(3) [1 Cress-complaint filed by (name): ‘on (date):
(4) Crass-complaint filed by (name): on (date):
(©) (1 Entire action of all parties and all causes of action

(6)[X] Other (specify)« Claims arising from the May 2009 diagnosis of asbestosis and asbestos-related pleural discase
only, as to defendant ROUNTREE PLUMBING & HEATING INC. only.
2. (Complete in alt cases except family iaw cases.)
Court fees and costs were waived for a party in this case. (This infoy
checked, the declaration on the back of this form must be complete).
Dale. September 29, 2011

alion may be obtained from the clerk. If this box is

for Alan R.Brayton

ee (OR PRINT HAME OF ATTORNEY PARTY WATHOUT ATTOR?
requested is of {spc Parle only of spaciieg causes of aft

if dismigsat
only, oF Of spectie’ nits ‘ony, so Sate and erty the pa
ae alae Oe oes complants to oe Hesse "

{SIGNATURE}

ey or party without attomey for:

CX PiaintityPetitioner (J DetendantfRespondent
{7 Cross~Complainant

3. TO THE CLERK: Consent fo the above dismissal is waveby given.

Date: >
qrvpeon erm name or [X } arrorNey PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY) (SIGNATURE)
“ we cross-complaint St Response (Fama baw) seeking affirmative Attomey or party without attorney for:
eros (respondent) mi ee eatin rst

Gattis Concart it toquired by Code of Civ Procedure Section 97) [= Plaintit#Petitioner CX] DefendantfRespondent

oo. [[] Cross-Complainant
ao To be completed by clerk}

Dismissal entered as requested on (date):

3 [1] Dismissal entered on (date); as to only (name):
6. Dismissal net entered as requested for the following reasons (specify):

7. a [_] Attomey or party without attorney notified on (date): +
b. Attorney or party without attomey not Notified. Filing party faited to provide
a copy lo be conformed (_] means to return conformed copy

Date: Clerk, by. , Deputy
Page tof 2
Fer ecrcoucia Cates REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL Ge Gace, § oT Cat Ror a Garo 3100

(CAV-170 (Flaw. July 1, 2008]

TaeteMtelit Aestnmntad Mabfnenin eatiniad Cramacl BowenClv-110

PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: ROBERT B. ROSS, et al. CASE NUMBER:
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS, et al. CGC-10-278731

Declaration Concerning Waived Court Fees

he court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any recovery of $10,000 or more in value by
titement, compromise, arbitration award, mediation settlement, or other recovery. The court's tien must
paid before the court will dismiss the case.

1. The court waived fees and costs in this action for (name):
2. The person in item 1 (check one):
a is not recovering anything of value by this action.
b. is recovering less than $10,000 in value by this action.
c. [__] is recovering $10,000 or more in value by this action. (ifitem 2c is checked, item 3 must be completed.)
All court fees and costs that were waived in this action have been paid to the court (check one): ] Yes No

I deciare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the information above is true and correct.
Bate:

. >

CTYPE OF PRINT NAME OF| ATTORNEY, PARTY MAKING DECLARATION) ISIGNATURE)

EW-170 (Rev. Juyy 1, 2009} Page 2 ata
REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL LexisNexis® Automated Californta Judicial Council FormsBRAYTON® PURCELL LLP.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
222 RUSH LANDING ROAD

PO BOX 6169

NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169

(415) 898-1554

2 2 YW DR Ww eR WD me

12 x
aI
i
15|
x

28 [Robe
San F:

GAPOSPOS- wait fae-signiseat

Oss, Cb a. v.
tancisco Superior

PROOF OF SERVICE VIA U.S. MAIL & FACSIMILE

[am employed in the County of Marin, State of California. I am over the age of 18
years and am not a party to the within action. My business address is 222 Rush Landing Road,
P.O. Box 6169, Novato, California 94948-6169. -

On October 4, 2011, ] served the following document(s) described as:

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF CLAIMS ARISING
FROM THE MAY 2009 DIAGNOSIS OF ASBESTOSIS AND ASBESTOS-
RELATED PLEURAL DISEASE ONLY, AS TO DEFENDANT ROUNTREE
PLUMBING & HEATING INC. ONLY

on the interested party(ies) in this action as follows:

Counsel for ROUNTREE PLUMBING & HEATING INC.
Selman Breitrnaan LLP

33 New Montgomery, 6" Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105

(BY OFFICE MAILING) | am readily familiar with the business practice
at my. place of business for collection and processing of correspondence
for delivery by mail. Correspondence so collected and processed is
deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same day in the
ordinary course of business. On the above date the said envelope(s) was
collected for the United States Postal Service following ordinary business
practices.

(BY TELECOPIER) Each of the above document(s) were telecopied this
date to the offices of the following:

Counsel for ROUNTREE PLUMBING & HEATING INC.
Selman Breitman LLP
Fax: (415) 979-2099

The above document was transmitted by facsimile transmission and the
transmission was reported as complete and without error. The transmission
report confirming receipt was properly issued by the transmitting facsimile
machine.

Executed this 4" day of October, 2011, at Novato, California.
T declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

C. Moore & Co, Engin
Court Case No, ©

R OF SERVICE VIA U8"Exhibit F1 |/Edward R. Hugo, Esq. [Bar No. 124839]
P.M. Bessette [Bar No. 127588]
2 ||BRYDON HUGO & PARKER
135 Main Street, 20th Floor
3 }|/San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 808-0300
4 Facsimile: (415) 808-0333
§
6

Attorneys for Defendant
A. TEICHERT & SON, INC.

7
8
SUPERIOR COURT - STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
10
IL) ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, (ASBESTOS)
D Case No. CGC-10-275731
Plaintiffs,
3 vs. DEFENDANT A. TEICHERT & SON, INC’S
; JOINDER IN DEFENDANT DOMCO
C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS, etal, | PRODUCTS TEXAS INC'S NOTICE OF
4 MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
is Defendants. PLAUNTIEES' CLAIMS ARISING FROM
THE ALLEGED ASBESTOSIS, ASBESTOS-
16 RELATED PLEURAL DISEASE, AND
OYHER LUNG INJURIES
7 Date: November 15, 2011
Time: 9:30 a.m.
18 Dept. 503
19 Judge: Hon. Teri 1. Jackson

20 |/TO PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:

21 Defendant A. TEICHERT & SON, INC. hereby joins and adopts, as if its own,

22 |/Defendant Domco Products Texas Inc.'s Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss

23 |)Plaintiffs’ Claims Arising From the Alleged Asbestosis, Asbestos-related Pleural Disease,
24 |land Other Lung Injuries, and the related memorandum of points and authorities,

25 | declarations, attachments and other supporting evidence thereto, and all other evidence
26 |las may be presented in reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition. and at the hearing on this matter, as

27 Jif set forth fully herein.

28
a tn A a
Hucom Preven DEEENDANT A. THICHERT & SON, INC/S JOINDER IN DEFENDANT DOMCO PRODUCTS TEXAS
s8etanesies INC'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTLEFS’ CLAIMS ARISING FROM THE
a7 Pao ALLECED ASBESTOSIS, ASBESTOS-REI.ATED PLEURAL DISEASE, AND OTHER LUNG INJURIES

San Francisca, CA 26108BRyYDOW
Huco & PARKER

Saw Francisco, CA 94108

This Joinder is made on the grounds that the arguments set forth in Defendant

Domco’s motion apply equally to A. TEICHERT & SON, INC.

Dated: October 18, 2011

By:

2

BRYDON HUGO & PARKER

___{s/ P.M. Bessette
Edward R. Hugo

P.M. Bessette

Attorneys for Defendant

A. TEICHERT & SON, INC.

DEFENDANT A. TEICHERT & SON, INC’S JOINDER IN DEFENDANT DOMCO PRODUCTS TEXAS
INC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTTFES' CLAIMS ARISING FROM THE
ALLEGE!) ASHESTOSIS, ASBESTOS-RELATED PLEURAL DISEASE, AND OTHER LUNG INJURIES23

Ross, Robert & lean
San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC-10-275731
LexisNexis Transaction No, 40422709

PROOF OF SERVICE

Lam a resident of the State of California, over the age of 18 years, and not a
party to the within action. My electronic notification address is

servicetebhplow.com and my business address is 135 Main Street, 20 Floor, San
Francisco, California 94105. On the date below, I served the following:

DEFENDANT A. TEICHERT & SON, INC.'S JOINDER IN DEFENDANT DOMCO
PRODUCTS TEXAS INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS

PLAINTIFES' CLAIMS ARISING FROM THE ALLEGED ASBESTOSIS,
ASBESTOS-RELATED PLEURAL DISEASE, AND OTHER LUNG INJURIES

on the following:

BRAYTON * PURCELL LLP Lexis Nexis Service List
222 Rush Landing Road

Novato, CA 94945

Fax: (415) 898-1247

X By transmitting electronically the document(s) listed above as set forth
on the electronic service list on this date before 5:00 p.m.

o By transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax
trumber(s) set forth above on this date before 5:00 p.m.

o By placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope and placing
the envelope for collection and mailing on the date below following the
firm’s ordinary business practices. | am readily familiar with the firm's
practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under
that practice it would be deposited with U.S. Postal service on the same
day with postage thereon fully prepaid at San Francisco, California in
the ordinary couzse of business. | am aware that on motion of party
served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage
meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in
affidavit.

o By placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope designated
for Federal Express overnight delivery and depositing same with fees
thereupon prepaid, in a facility regularly maintained by Federal Express,
addressed as set forth above.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct.
Executed on October 18, 2011, at San Francisco, California.

osh Tabisaura’

1
PROOF OF SERVICEExhibit GCO RW MN

Stephen J. Foley, Esq. SBN 220752
Dennis M. Young, Esq. SBN 121178
Elizabeth C. Sears, Esq. SBN 250240
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP

300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1900

Oakland, CA 94612

Telephone: (510) $90-9500

Facsimile: (510) 590-9595

Attorneys for Defendant
ACCO ENGENEERED SYSTEMS, INC.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, Case No: CGC-10-275731
Plaintiffs, “Asbestos-Related Matter”
vs. DEFENDANT ACCO ENGINEERED
SYSTEMS, INC.’S JOINDER IN DOMCO
C.C. MOORE & CO., et al., PRODUCTS TEXAS INC.’S MOTION TO
DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS
Defendants. ARISING FROM THE ALLEGED

ASBESTOSIS, ASBESTOS-RELATED
PLEURAL DISEASE, AND OTHER LUNG

INJURIES

Date: November 15, 2015
Time: 9:30 a.m.

Dept.: 503

Judge: Hon. Teri L, Jackson

TO PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

Defendant Acco Engineered Systems, Inc. (“Acco”) hereby joins and adopts, as if its
own, Defendant Domco Products Texas Inc.’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs’ Claims Arising From the Alleged Asbestosis, Asbestos-Related Pleural Disease and
Other Lung Injuries, and the related memorandum of points and authorities, declarations,
attachments and other supporting evidence thereto, and all other evidence as may be presented in
reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition and at the hearing on this matter, as if set forth fully herein.

Hf

1
DEFENDANT ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, INC.’S JOINDER IN DOMCO PRODUCTS TEXAS INC.’S
MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARISING FROM THE ALLEGED ASBESTOSIS, ASBESTOS-
RELATED PLEURAL DISEASE, AND OTHER LUNG INJURIESco wm HR HH BF WN

This Joinder is rnade on the grounds that the arguments set forth in Defendant Domco’s
motion apply equally to Acco. The legal doctrine prohibiting splitting a cause of action, raised in
Domco’s moving papers, applies equally to Acco to support dismissal of Plaintiff's claims for

asbestosis, asbestos-related disease, and other lung injuries from Plaintiffs’ 2010 Complaint.

Dated October 18, 2011 FOLEY & MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P.

By:

Stephen J. Foley

Dennis M. Young

Elizabeth C. Sears

Attormeys for Defendant

ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, INC.

2
DEFENDANT ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, INC.’S JOINDER IN DOMCO PRODUCTS TEXAS INC.’S
MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARISING FROM THE ALLEGED ASBESTOSIS, ASBESTOS-
RELATED PLEURAL DISEASE, AND OTHER LUNG INJURIESRobert