Answer: ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                MAA

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Jun-14-2011 8:47 am

Case Number: CGC-10-275731
Filing Date: Jun-09-2011 2:00
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03237442

fendant Marshco Auto Parts, Inc.s Answer to Plaintiffs Second Amen

ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS

001003237442

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.Gordon & Rees LLP
101 West Broadway. Suite 2000

San Diego, CA 92101

ELECTPON ICALLY
ROGER M. MANSUKHANI, ESQ. (SBN 164463)
SHARI I. WEINTRAUB, ESQ. (SBN 195250) I E
ANA R. HARTMAN, ESQ. (SBN 259399)
GORDON & REES LLP
101 W. Broadway, Suite 2000 JUN 9 2014
San Diego, CA 92101

Telephone: (619) 696-6700 .(
Facsimile: (619) 696-7124 ooo COURT

pi
Attomeys for Defendant ve rar ky
MARSHCO AUTO PARTS, INC. TR aA ALURIER

San Francisco County Superior Court

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, ) CASE NO. CGC-10-275731
)
Plaintiffs, ) Complaint Filed: December 17, 2010
)
vs. ) DEFENDANT MARSHCO AUTO
) PARTS, INC.*S ANSWER TO
C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS; ) PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED
Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit 1 attached ) COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL
to the Summary Complaint herein; and DOES ) INJURY - ASBESTOS
1-8500. )
)
Defendants. )
)
)

Defendant MARSHCO AUTO PARTS, INC. (hereinafter referred as “Defendant”),
hereby answers the unverified complaint of plaintiffs ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS
(hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”), on file herein as follows:

1. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, Defendant denies
generally and specifically each, every, and all of the allegations contained in said complaint and
the whole thereof, including each and every purported cause of action contained therein.

2. Further answering Plaintiffs’ complaint, Defendant denies that Plaintiffs sustained
or will sustain any loss or damage by reason of any act, omission, or other conduct or absence
thereof on the part of Defendant, and denies that Defendant was guilty of any wrongful act or

omission whatsoever.

-1-
DEFENDANT MARSHCO AUTO PARTS, INC.'S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED PERSONAL INJURY COMPLAINTGordon & Rees LLP
101 West Broadway, Suite 2000

San Diego, CA 92101

NY A wa

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
This answering Defendant alleges the following separate affirmative defenses:
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A FIRST, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID
COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that the complaint and causes of action therein
fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering Defendant.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID
COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff was himself careless and negligent
in and about the matters referred to in the complaint and that such negligence and carelessness on
the part of the Plaintiff proximately caused and contributed to the damages complained of, if any
there were.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID
COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that the Plaintiff knew, or in the exercise of]
ordinary care, should have known of the risks and hazards involved in the undertaking in which
Plaintiff engaged, but nevertheless and with full knowledge of these things, did fully and
voluntarily consent to assume the risks and hazards involved in the undertaking.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FOURTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID
COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that the Plaintiff was himself solely and totally
negligent in and about the matters referred to in the complaint and that such negligence and
carelessness on the part of the Plaintiff proximately amounted to One Hundred Percent (100%)
of the negligence involved in this case and was the sole cause of the injuries and damages
complained of, if any there were.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A FIFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID

COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that at all times and places mentioned in the

-2-
DEFENDANT MARSHCO AUTO PARTS, INC.'S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED PERSONAL INJURY COMPLAINTGordon & Rees LLP
101 West Broadway, Suite 2000

San Diego, CA 92101

complaint, Plaintiff and/or other persons without this Defendant's knowledge and approval
redesigned, modified, altered, and used this Defendant's products contrary to instructions and
contrary to the custom and practice of the industry. This redesign, modification, alteration, and
use so substantially changed the product's character that if there was a defect in the product --
which is specifically denied -- such defect resulted solely from the redesign, modification,
alteration, or other such treatment or change and not from any act or omission by this Defendant.

Therefore, said defect, if any, was created by Plaintiff and/or other persons, as the case
may be, and was the direct and proximate cause of the injuries and damages, if any, that Plaintiff|
allegedly suffered.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A SIXTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID
COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that if there is any negligence or liability of any
of the parties named herein, it is the sole and exclusive negligence and liability of the other
defendants, and not of this answering Defendant.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID
COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant is not liable for any injuries alleged in the complaint
because Defendant’s conduct falls within the purview and protection of the government
contractor defense.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID
COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that at the time of the injuries alleged in the
complaint, Plaintiff was employed and as entitled to and did receive workers' compensation
benefits from said employer(s). This Defendant is informed and believes, and on the basis of|
said information and belief alleges that, if the conditions as alleged in the Plaintiffs’ complaint
are found to exist, the Plaintiff's employer(s) was/were negligent and careless in and about the
matters referred to in said complaint and that said negligence on the part of the employer(s)

proximately caused or contributed to the injuries and damages, if any, complained of by the

-3-
DEFENDANT MARSHCO AUTO PARTS, INC.'S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED PERSONAL INJURY COMPLAINTGordon & Rees LLP
101 West Broadway, Suite 2000

San Diego, CA 92101

Plaintiff, and further, that the Plaintiff's employer(s) assumed the risk of injury to the Plaintiff, if}
any there were, in that at the time and place of the incident such conditions, if any, were open
and apparent and were fully known to the Plaintiff's employer(s); and that by reason thereof, this
Defendant is entitled to set off any compensation benefits received or to be received by the
Plaintiffs against any judgment which maybe rendered in favor of the Plaintiffs herein.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A NINTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID
COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that the complaint and the causes of action
therein are barred by the statutes of limitation and repose of California and any other relevant
state, including but not limited to the limitations set forth under section 340.2 of the Code of|
Civil Procedure of the State of California.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A TENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID
COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that the Plaintiffs unreasonably delayed in
bringing this action against Defendant and that such delay substantially prejudiced this
answering Defendant. Therefore, this action is barred by the doctrine of laches.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO
SAID COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that the complaint and the causes of
action therein fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this answering
Defendant pursuant to sections 3600, et seq., of the California Labor Code.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A TWELFTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO SAID

COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's employer(s) was/were
contributorily negligent and careless in and about the matters alleged in the complaint, and that
such negligence and carelessness was a proximate cause of any injuries and damages suffered by
Plaintiff, if any there were.

Hy

-4-
DEFENDANT MARSHCO AUTO PARTS, INC.'S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED PERSONAL INJURY COMPLAINTGordon & Rees LLP
101 West Broadway, Suite 2000

San Diego, CA 92101

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO
SAID COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's employer(s) voluntarily
and knowingly entered into and engaged in the operations, acts and conduct alleged in said
complaint, and voluntarily and knowingly assumed all of the risks incident to said operation, acts
and conduct alleged in said complaint, and voluntarily and knowingly assumed all of the risks
incident to said operations, acts and conduct at the time and place mentioned in the complaint.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FOURTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO
SAID COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that the Plaintiff acknowledged, ratified,
consented to and acquiesced in the alleged acts or omissions, if any, of this answering Defendant,
thus barring Plaintiffs from any relief as prayed for herein.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A FIFTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO
SAID COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant is informed and believes and therefore alleges
that Plaintiffs are unable to identify the actual manufacturer or manufacturers of the asbestos
products which allegedly caused the injury which forms the basis of the complaint herein, and
that said manufacturers were entities other than this Defendant. Therefore, this Defendant may
not be held liable for the injury of the Plaintiff.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A SIXTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO
SAID COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's employer(s) was/were and
is a sophisticated user and knew independently or should have known of any danger or hazard
associated with the use of a product containing asbestos and of exposure to high levels of dust of|
any sort. Defendant further alleges that it warned the Plaintiff's employer(s) of the danger or
hazard associated with the use of its product and that Plaintiff's employer(s) failed to rely upon
such warning resulting in alleged damages due to Plaintiff and Plaintiff's employer's act or

omission and failure to act as sophisticated users.

-5-
DEFENDANT MARSHCO AUTO PARTS, INC.'S ANSWER TO

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED PERSONAL INJURY COMPLAINTGordon & Rees LLP
101 West Broadway, Suite 2000

San Diego, CA 92101

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A SEVENTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO
SAID COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that at all times alleged in the complaint,
the products alleged to have caused Plaintiff's injuries were designed, manufactured, sold,
distributed, labeled and advertised in compliance with the then existing state of the art in the
industry to which this Defendant belonged and furthermore, that the benefits of any such product
design outweighed any risk of danger in the design and that any such product met the safety
expectations of Plaintiffs and the general public.

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR AN EIGHTEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO
SAID COMPLAINT, Plaintiffs have released, settled, entered into an accord and satisfaction or
otherwise compromised his claims herein, and accordingly, said claims are barred by operation
of law; alternatively, Plaintiffs have accepted compensation as partial settlement of those claims
for which this Defendant is entitled to a set-off.
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A NINETEENTH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO

SAID COMPLAINT, there was no negligence, gross negligence, willful, wanton, or malicious
misconduct, reckless indifference or reckless disregard of the rights of the Plaintiffs, or malice
(actual, legal, or otherwise) on the part of this Defendant as to the Plaintiffs herein.
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A TWENTIETH, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO
SAID COMPLAINT, at all times and places mentioned in the complaint, Plaintiffs have failed to
make reasonable efforts to mitigate injuries and damages, if any.

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FIRST, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO
SAID COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claim of successor
liability and association with other entities is not factually or legally supported, and, as such,

Plaintiffs have no claim against answering Defendant as asserted.

-6-
DEFENDANT MARSHCO AUTO PARTS, INC'S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED PERSONAL INJURY COMPLAINTGordon & Rees LLP
101 West Broadway, Suite 2000

San Diego, CA 92101

TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
TO SAID COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that to the extent the amount of,
punitive damages sought is unconstitutionally excessive under the United States Constitution, it
violates the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. VIII, and the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Const. amend XIV, section 1.

TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS FOR A TWENTY-THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO
SAID COMPLAINT, this answering Defendant alleges that the Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive
damages impermissibly seeks a multiple award of punitive damages as against this Defendant in
violation of the following clauses: the Contracts Clause of Article I, section 10 of the United
States Constitution; the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment of the United States
Constitution; the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution and its counterpart under the California Constitution; the Equal Protection of the
laws and Due Process provision of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution and Article I, section 7 of the California Constitution; and the Equal Protection of
the laws and Defendant's right to be free of Cruel and Unusual Punishment and Excessive Fines
as guaranteed under the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution and Article I, section 7 and 17, Article IV, section 16 of the California Constitution.

‘TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FOURTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering Defendant alleges that punitive damages are barred by the
Constitutions of the United States and California by virtue of their violation of one or more of,
the following clauses: the Contracts Clause of Article I, section 10 of the United States
Constitution; the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment of the United States
Constitution; the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution and its counterpart under the California Constitution; the Equal Protection of the

laws and due process provision of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States

-7-
DEFENDANT MARSHCO AUTO PARTS, INC.'S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED PERSONAL INJURY COMPLAINTGordon & Rees LLP
101 West Broadway, Suite 2000

San Diego, CA 92101

BR WON

Constitution and Article I, section 7 of the California Constitution; and the Equal Protection of|
the laws and Defendant's right to be free of Cruel and Unusual Punishment and Excessive Fines
as guaranteed under the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution and Article I, section 7 and 17, and Article IV, section 16 of the California
Constitution.
TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering Defendant alleges that the subject premises was not used in the
manner in which it was intended to be used, and as a proximate result of such abuse and misuse,
the Plaintiff sustained the injuries and damages complained of, if any there were.
TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SIXTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs have failed to join a party or the
parties necessary for a just adjudication of this matter and has further omitted to state any reasons
for such failure.
TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs’ claims are a nullity for failure of
commencement of suit.

TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs fail to exercise ordinary care for their
own safety and well-being, and that failure to exercise ordinary care proximately and directly
caused and/or contributed to the alleged illness and injury pled in the complaint. Consequently,
this Defendant is entitled to the full protection afforded by law.

TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-NINTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND

DEFENSE, this answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's injuries or illness, if any, were due

-8-
DEFENDANT MARSHCO AUTO PARTS, INC.'S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED PERSONAL INJURY COMPLAINTGordon & Rees LLP
101 West Broadway, Suite 2000

San Diego, CA 92101

to the acts or omissions of a person or persons over whom this Defendant had neither control nor
the right of control.
THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A THIRTIETH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering Defendant alleges that while specifically and vigorously denying the
allegations of the Plaintiffs concerning liability, injuries and damages, to the extent that Plaintiffs
may be able to prove those allegations, this Defendant states that they were the result of]
intervening acts of superseding negligence on the part of the person or persons over whom this
Defendant had neither contro] nor the right of control.

THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A THIRTY-FIRST, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering Defendant alleges that at all times and places mentioned in the
complaint, Plaintiff and/or other persons used this answering Defendant's products, if indeed any
were used, in an unreasonable manner, not reasonably foreseeable to this Defendant, and for a
purpose for which the products were not intended, manufactured or designed. Plaintiff's injuries
and damages, if any, were therefore directly and proximately caused by his misuse and abuse of,

such products.

THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A THIRTY-SECOND, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering Defendant alleges that any exposure of Plaintiff to this Defendant's
product or products, which exposure is vigorously denied, was so minimal as to be insufficient to
establish a reasonable degree of probability that the product or products caused his claimed
injuries and illness.

THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A THIRTY-THIRD, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering Defendant alleges that at the time of this filing, there was no good
ground to support the complaint as to this Defendant. There is now no good ground to support

the complaint as to this Defendant.

-9-
DEFENDANT MARSHCO AUTO PARTS, INC.'S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED PERSONAL INJURY COMPLAINTGordon & Rees LLP
101 West Broadway, Suite 2000

San Diego, CA 92101

THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A THIRTY-FOURTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND

DEFENSE, this answering Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs have waived any and all claims
sought in this action and is estopped both to assert and to recover upon such claims.

THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A THIRTY-FIFTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering Defendant alleges that the doctrine of joint and several liability has
been abolished in a case such as this, and should Plaintiffs prevail against this Defendant, this
Defendant's liability is several and is limited to its own actionable segment of fault, which fault
is vigorously denied.

THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A THIRTY-SIXTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND

DEFENSE, this answering Defendant alleges that the causes of action asserted by Plaintiffs fail
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or, if relief be granted, this Defendant's
Constitutional right to substantive and procedural due process of law would be contravened.
THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A THIRTY-SEVENTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering Defendant alleges that the causes of actions asserted by the Plaintiffs
fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, for if relief be granted, such relief would
constitute a taking of this Defendant's property for a public use without just compensation, a
violation of this Defendant's Constitutional rights.
THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
AS AND FOR A THIRTY-EIGHTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering Defendant alleges that the causes of action asserted by Plaintiffs fail
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because such relief would constitute a denial by
this court of Defendant's Constitutional right to equal protection under the law.
///

HIf

-10-
DEFENDANT MARSHCO AUTO PARTS, INC.'S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED PERSONAL INJURY COMPLAINTGordon & Rees LLP
101 West Broadway, Suite 2000
San Diego, CA 92101

28

ZRCAM/0677269939139¥ 1

THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A THIRTY-NINTH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering Defendant alleges that the causes of action asserted by Plaintiffs
against this entity is improper as Plaintiffs incorrectly allege that this answering Defendant is
responsible, in whole or in part, for the acts of one or more alternative entities. This answering
Defendant denies those claims.

FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AS AND FOR A FORTIETH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND
DEFENSE, this answering Defendant alleges that it reserves the right to plead and prove further
affirmative defenses as they may become known.

WHEREFORE, Defendant prays as follows:

1. That Plaintiffs take nothing by way of their complaint;

2. For judgment in favor of Defendant;

3. For costs of suit;

4 For attorneys’ fees; and

5. For such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.
Dated: June 9, 2011 GORDON & REES LLP

Roger M. Mansukhani

Shari I. Weintraub

Ana R. Hartman

Attorneys For Defendant
MARSHCO AUTO PARTS, INC.

-1l-
DEFENDANT MARSHCO AUTO PARTS, INC.'S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED PERSONAL INJURY COMPLAINTGordon & Rees LLP

101 West Broadway, Suite 2000
San Diego, CA 92101

ZRCAMV/10679269135530v 1

PROOF OF SERVICE

Ross y. C.C. Moore & Co. Engineers, et al.
San Francisco County Superior Court - Case No. CGC-10-275731

I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party
to the within action. My business address is: Gordon & Rees LLP 101 W. Broadway, Suite
2000, San Diego, CA 92101. On June 9, 2011, I served the within documents:

DEFENDANT MARSHCO AUTO PARTS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY — ASBESTOS

(X) BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE VIA LEXIS NEXIS FILE & SERVE. By sending
electronically a true and correct copy thereof to Lexis Nexis File & Serve
(www. lexisnexis.com/fileandserve) for service on all counsel of record by electronic
service pursuant to the Order Mandating Electronic Filing and Service of Asbestos
Pleadings and pursuant to CCP § 1010.6 and CRC 2060(c). The transmission was
reported as complete and without error.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
is true and correct.

Executed on June 9, 2011, at San Diego, California.

Lt Lec
Chan Kes

PROOF OF SERVICE