On December 17, 2010 a Answer was filed involving a dispute between Ross, Jean, Ross, Robert, and Acco Engineered Systems, Inc., Advanced Mechanical, Advance Mechanical Contractors, Inc., Air Systems Mechanical Contractor, A & K Heating Company, Inc., Albay Construction Company, Allen-Simmons Heating & Sheet Metal Company Inc., Allied Fire Protection, Allied Sprinkler Company, Inc., Allsberry Mechanical Corporation, Anderson, Rowe & Buckley, Inc., Associated Insulation Of California, A. Teichert & Son, Inc., Balliet Bros. Construction Corporation, Banner Drywall & Painting Co. Inc., Barnes Construction Co., Bayer Cropscience Inc., Bayer Cropscience, Inc., Successor To Amchem, Bell Products Inc., Beta Mechanical Contractors, L.P., Bragg Investment Company, Inc., Cahill Construction Co., Inc., Cahill Construction Services, Inc., Cahill Contractors, Inc., California Drywall Co., Castro Construction, Inc., C.C. Moore & Co. Engineers, Cincinnati Valve Company, Cjr Plastering, Clausen-Patten, Inc., Clausen-Patten, Inc., A Dissolved Corporation, Climate Air, Inc., Climate Control Co., Inc., Collins Electrical Company, Inc., Commair Mechanical Services, Consolidated Insulation, Inc., Cosco Fire Protection, Inc., Cosco Sprinkler, Critchfield Mechanical, Inc., C & R Plastering, Inc., Csk Auto, Inc., Cupertino Electric, Inc., Delucchi Sheet Metal Works, Dilland Sederberg Plumbing, Does 1-8500, Domco Products Texas Inc., Domco Products Texas, L.P., Donovan Construction, Dorn Refrigeration, Dorn Refrigeration And Air Conditioning, Dpr Construction, Duro Dyne Corporation, D.W. Nicholson Corporation, D. Zelinsky & Sons, Inc., Emil J. Weber Electric Co., Erwin Mechanical Inc., Ex- Fme, Inc. (Fka Fischbach And Moore Electric,, Fairmont Hotel Company, Fluor Corporation, Foley Electric Co., Foley Electric, Inc., Fuller Floors, General Mills, Inc., Giampolini & Co., Graybar Electric Company, Inc., Hanson Permanente Cement, Inc. Formerly Known As, Harold Beasley Plumbing And Heating, Inc., Harry Lee Plumbing & Heating, H & C Investment Associates, Inc., Henry C. Beck Company, Imperial Plastering & Drywall, Insulation Specialties, Inc., James A. Nelson Co., Inc., Johnson Controls, Inc., Jones Plastering Company, Joseph Bruno Sheet Metal Co., Inc., J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc., J.W. Mcclenahan Company, J.W. Mcclenahan Company, Inc., Kentile Floors, Inc., Laub Sheet Metal Works, Lone Star Industries, Inc., Mack Construction Co., Magee, Robert, Malm Metal Products, Inc., Marine Engineering And Supply Company, Marshco Auto Parts, Inc., Mattock Construction Company, Mcclure Electric, Inc., Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Michael Brothers, Midstate Mechanical, Inc., Mitchell Bros. Truck Lines, Inc., Monsanto Company, Sued As "Pharmacia Corporation", Oakfabco, Inc., Ortho-Craft, Pacific Fireproofing, Pacific Mechanical Corporation, Parker Insulation Contracting & Supply Co. Inc., Perini Corporation, Pharmacia Corporation, Which Will Do Business In, Pribuss Engineering, Pribuss Engineering, Inc., Raymond Interior Systems-North, Red Top Electric Co. Emeryville, Inc., Robert Magee, Rollie R. French, Inc., Rollins Construction, Rountree Plumbing & Heating Inc., Scott Co. Of California, S F L, Inc., S.J. Amoroso Construction Co., Inc., Slakey Brothers, Inc., Sugden Engineering Co., Swinerton Builders, Temper Insulation, Temporary Plant Cleaners, Inc., Texaco, Inc., The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, The W.W. Henry Company, Tuttle And Bailey Corp, Van Mulder Sheetmetal, Van-Mulder Sheet Metal, Inc., Walnut Creek Sheet Metal, Furnace & Air, W.C. Thomason, W.C. Thompson, Webcor Builders, Inc., Westburne Supply, Inc., Willard Electric, Wright Schuchart Harbor, Wright Schuchart Harbor Company, Ross, Jean, Ross, Robert, for civil in the District Court of San Francisco County.
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Preview
oe Om DN ON 28 BUTY &.CURLIANOLLP ‘ATTORNEYS AT LAW 510.267.3000, JASON J. CURLIANO [SBN 167509] DREXWELL M. JONES [SBN 221112] BUTY & CURLIANO LLP 555 ~ 12" Street, Suite 1280 ELECTRONICALLY Oakland, California 94607 FILED Tel: 510.267.3000 Superior Court of California, Fax: 510.267.0117 County of San Francisco Email: jasonc@butycurliano.com JUN 13 2011 dmj@pbutycurliano.com Clerk of the Court Attorneys for Defendant: BY WILLIAM v Naputy Clerk HAROLD BEASLEY PLUMBING & HEATING, INC, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, No. CGC-10-275731 Plaintiffs, ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY v. AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM -— ASBESTOS C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS; Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit 1 attached to the Summary Complaint herein; and DOES 1-8500, Complaint Filed: December 17, 2010 Defendants. ee ee COMES NOW defendant HAROLD BEASLEY PLUMBING & HEATING, INC., and answering the Second Amended Complaint on file herein, admits, denies and alleges as follows: This answering defendant denies each and every, all and singular, generally and specifically, the allegations in said Second Amended Complaint. Further answering said Second Amended Complaint, this answering defendant denies that plaintiffs have sustained, or will sustain, any injury, damage or loss due to any act or omission on the part of this answering defendant. The following affirmative defenses are made on information and belief. AS A FIRST, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiffs’ Second Amended ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM - ASBESTOShw NH 10 il 28 BUTY &.CURLIANO LLP ‘OaKLat 510. 267.3000 Complaint, and each cause of action therein, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering defendant. AS A SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, and each cause of action therein, is barred by the provisions of the Statute of Limitations, including, but not limited to C.C.P. §340.2. AS A THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that the acts, omissions and/or products, if any, of this answering defendant were not the proximate cause of the losses, damages, and/or injuries, if any, alleged in the Second Amended Complaint. AS A FOURTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that the sole and/or partial proximate cause of the incident was due to the negligence, strict liability, and fraud of other persons and other parties, through whose conduct this answering defendant is not responsible and this answering defendant requests that the Court or trier of fact apportion comparative fault among those responsible persons and parties under the doctrine of comparative negligence or comparative fault and/or based upon the doctrine of equitable indemnity and contribution. AS A FIFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiffs themselves were careless and negligent in and about the matters alleged in the Second Amended Complaint, and that said carelessness and negligence proximately contributed to the injuries, loss, and damages complained of, if any. AS A SIXTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiffs failed subsequent to the occurrence described in the Second Amended Complaint to properly mitigate the damages and plaintiffs thereby are precluded from recovering those damages which could have reasonably been avoided by the exercise of due care on the part of plaintiffs. ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM — ASBESTOS28 BUTY & CURLIANOLLP “ATTORNEYS ATLAW AS A SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk and hazard, if any, incident to the activities in which plaintiff was engaged at the time of the alleged incident, and that said voluntary assumption of the risk upon the part of the plaintiff proximately caused and contributed to the injuries and damages to said plaintiff, if any. AS AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff and/or the plaintiff's employers altered, abused or misused the subject product. AS A NINTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiffs were guilty of laches with respect to plaintiffs’ claim and is therefore not entitled to invoke the aid of the equity jurisdiction of the Court. AS A TENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff had accepted the work of defendant and, therefore, is estopped from any claims arising from the performance of the aforementioned work. AS AN ELEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that there were no express warranties made by this answering defendant to plaintiffs. AS A TWELFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiffs failed to join all necessary and indispensable parties to this action. AS A THIRTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that the plaintiffs lack privity of contract with this answering defendant and is thereby barred from claiming damages herein. fit ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM — ASBESTOS28 BUTY & SURLIANOLLP. "ATTORNEYS AT LAW '590.287,3000 AS A FOURTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE SECOND. AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that at all times herein mentioned plaintiff was employed and was acting within the course and scope of his employment, and as a consequence thereof, plaintiffs’ sole recourse for the damages now claimed is governed by Labor Code §§3600 and following which serve to bar the present action. AS A FIFTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that to the extent the Second Amended Complaint asserts defendant’s alleged “market share” liability or “enterprise liability” the plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering defendant. AS A SIXTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, and each cause of action therein, fails to state facts sufficient to sustain an award of punitive damages against this answering defendant. AS A SEVENTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, and to each and every cause of action contained therein, this answering defendant alleges that, pursuant to the terms and provisions of California Civil Code §§1431.1 and 1431.2, the liability of this answering defendant, if any there be, for any non- economic damages of any party herein shall be allocated in direct proportion to the percentage of fault, if any, of this answering defendant. AS AN EIGHTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, and each cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that the state of the medical, scientific, and industrial knowledge, practice and procedure was at all relevant times such that defendant neither breached any alleged duty owed plaintiffs, nor knew, nor could have known, that the products alleged to have caused plaintiff harm presented a foreseeable risk of harm to plaintiff in the normal and expected use of such products. AS A NINETEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, and each cause of action contained therein, defendant alleges that any 4 ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM — ASBESTOS28 BUTY&.CURLIANOLL? "ATTORNEYS ATLAW ‘CAKLANDCA 98607 310.287 3000 work performed by this defendant was consistent with the state of the art applicable at the time the work was performed. AS A TWENTIETH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, this answering defendant alleges that plaintiff is a sophisticated user who knew or should have known the products’ hazards, which negates a manufacturer’s duty to warn of a product’s potential danger. WHEREFORE, this answering defendant prays that plaintiffs take nothing by way of their Second Amended Complaint; that this defendant be dismissed with its costs of suit incurred; and for such other and further relief as the Court deenjs just and proper. DATED: June 13, 2011 BUTY JASON J. TANO DREXWELL M. JONES Attorneys for Defendant OLD BEASLEY PLUMBING & HEATING, INC. ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM - ASBESTOSan vA RF BW NH UTY & CURLIANO LLP ‘ATTORNEYS ATLAW TER 595.12"Sr, Sure 1280 ‘OAKLAND'GA 94607 '510,287-3000 PROOF OF SERVICE I declare that: 1am employed in the County of Alameda, California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a patty to the within entitled cause; my business address is 555 — 12" Street, Suite 1280, Oakland, CA 94607. On June 13, 2011, I served the following document(s) via LexisNexis File & Serve as described as: ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM - ASBESTOS on 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. Executed on June 13, 2011, in Oakland, California. TONI REDGRAVE /s/TONI REDGRAVE Print Name Signature ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM — ASBESTOS