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
BARBARA R. ADAMS, SBN 99231 ADAMS | NYE{BECHT LLP 222 Kearny Street, Seventh Floor San Francisco, California 94108-4521 ELECTRONICALLY Telephone: (415) 982-8955 FILED Facsimile: (415) 982-2042 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco Attorneys for Defendant JUL 29 2011 PRIBUSS ENGINEERING, INC. Clerk of the Court BY: WILLIAM TRUPEK Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ROBERT ROSS and JEAN ROSS, ASBESTOS No, CGC-10-275731 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT PRIBUSS VS. ENGINEERING, INC.’S AMENDED ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS; Defendants | COMPLAINT as Reflected on Exhibit 1 attached to the Summary Complaint herein; and DOES 1-8500, 2nd Amended Complaint Filed: 5/16/11 Defendants. I. INTRODUCTION Defendant PRIBUSS ENGINEERING, INC. hereby provides this summary pleading, adopting designated portions of that Master Pleading known as the "Adams « Nye « Sinunu * Walker LLP Master Answer", which document was served on all parties previously. The authority for incorporation of portions of that Master Pleading was conferred by San Francisco Superior Court General Order Number 55, dated January 17, 1996. : NOTICE: The Master Pleading incorporated into this Summary Pleading is on file with the Clerk of the Superior Court, and was filed with the Clerk on October 21, 1997. A copy of the Master Pieading and of General Order 55 may be obtained upon written request to Adams | Nye | Becht LLP, at the address above. Mt 1 DEFENDANT PRIBUSS ENGINEERING, INC“S AMENDED ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINTDefendant Pribuss Engineering, Inc. hereby incorporates into this Summary Pleading the following portions of the above-referenced Master Pleading, and responds to the Complaint on file in this matter as follows: x Bi Ri Mt IL DEFINITIONS fil. GENERAL DENIAL IV. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES: FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Failure To State Cause of Action : Alleged Against Plaintiff SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Violation of Statute of Limitations : Alleged Against Plaintiff THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Laches: Alleged Against Plaintiff FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Denial of Successor/Predecessor Liability: Alleged Against Plaintiff FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Lack of Legal Capacity: Alleged Against Plaintiff SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Failure to Join Adequate Defendants: Alleged Against Plaintiff SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Lack of Privity: Alleged Against Plaintiff EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Contribution of Plaintiff's Negligence: Alleged Against Plaintiff NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Consent of Plaintiff: Alleged Against Plaintiff TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Failure to Mitigate: Alleged Against Plaintiff ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Plaintiffs Knowledge of Hazard: Alleged Against Plaintiff TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Injury Caused by Actions of Others Outside Control of Defendant: Alleged Against Plaintiff THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Negligence of Other Entities Caused Injury : Alleged Against Plaintiff FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Entities Not Named Caused the Alleged Injuries: Alleged Against PlaintiffCom I DAH FF WH DY Soe ~ Oo ee hw NY wn ~ a = x _ oO So Nw pb 4 woN a Nn a N a Sal ra yo N oe on FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Action is in Violation of Labor Code: Alleged Against Plaintiff SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Employer Negligence Caused the Alleged Injuries: Alleged Against Plaintiff SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Knowing Acts of Plaintiffs Employer Caused the Alleged Injuries: Alleged Against Plaintiff EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Judgment to be Reduced by Workers' Compensation Benefits: Alleged Against Plaintiff NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Products Conformed With Existing Safety Knowledge: Alleged Against Plaintiff TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Products Were Unforeseeable Misused: Alleged Against Plaintiff TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Negligent Product Use by Sophisticated Employers Was Proximate, Superseding Cause of Alleged Injuries: Alleged Against Plaintiff TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Failure to warn Plaintiff by Plaintiff's Sophisticated Employers Caused the Alleged Injuries: Alleged Against Plaintiff TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Failure to State Market Share Cause of Action: Alleged Against Plaintiff TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Failure to Join a Substantial Share of the Market Defeating Market Share Theory: Alleged Against Plaintiff TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Liability Absent Identification Violates Constitutional Rights: Alleged Against Plaintiff TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Actions of Defendant Conformed to Existing Knowledge and so Were Not Negligent: Alleged Against Plaintiff TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Plaintiff Was Directed by Contractor That Was Not Controlled by Defendant: Alleged Against Plaintiff THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Defendant is Not Liable Because of Knowledge of Hazard by Controlling Entity: Alleged Against Plaintiff THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Complaint Fails to State Cause of Action For Punitive Damages: Alleged Against Plaintiff THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Imposition of Punitive Damages Would Constitute Criminal Fine or Penalty: Alleged Against Plaintiff 3 DEFENDANT PRIBUSS ENGINEERING, INC. S AMENDED ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT& THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: An Award of Punitive Damages Would Be In Violation of California Law: Alleged Against Plaintiff Pe Vv. PRAYER: [x] VI. NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL DATED: July 29, 2011 ADAMS | NYE| BECHT LLP By: Ly B. SARA R. ADAMS Attorneys for Defendant PRIBUSS ENGINEERING, INC. 4 DEFENDANT PRIBUSS ENGINEERING, INC. 'S AMENDED ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINTCo Oo ND 10 il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE Tam over the age of eighteen years, not a party to the above-captioned matter, and employed by Adams | Nye| Becht LLP at 222 Kearny Street, Seventh Floor, San Francisco, California, where the service described below took place on the date set forth below. Person(s) Served: Xx Electronic service (San Francisco asbestos cases): 1 caused a copy of each Document Served to be electronically served via LexisNexis File & Serve pursuant to San Francisco Superior Court Amended Asbestos General Order 158 (Order Mandating Electronic Filing and Service of Asbestos Pleadings, dated July 14, 2006) on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the LexisNexis File & Serve website. Document Served: DEFENDANT PRIBUSS ENGINEERING, INC.’S AMENDED ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Manner of Service: Mail: | am readily familiar with my employer's practice for the collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service: such correspondence is deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of business in the county where I work. On the date set forth below, at my place of business, following ordinary business practices, I placed for collection and mailing by deposit in the United States Postal Service a copy of each Document Served, enclosed in a sealed envelope, with the postage thereon fully prepaid, each envelope being addressed to one of the Person(s) Served, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 1013(a). Facsimile: | transmitted by facsimile a copy of each Document Served mentioned above to each Person Served mentioned above pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 1013(e). Personal service: | caused a copy of each Document Served to be hand delivered to each Person Served pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 1011. If required, the actual server’s original proof of personal service will be filed with the court. Express Mail (U.S. Post Office): I deposited in a post office, mailbox, or other like facility regularly maintained by the United States Postal Service for receipt of Express Mail a copy of each Document Served in a sealed envelope with Express Mail postage paid, each envelope being addressed to each Person Served as mentioned above in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 1013(c). Express Mail (other express service carrier): I deposited in a box or other like facility regularly maintained by an express service carrier, or delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized by the express service carrier to receive documents, a copy of each Document Served in an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier with delivery fees paid or provided for, each envelope being addressed to each Person Served in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 1013 (c). 5 DEFENDANT PRIBUSS ENGINEERING, INC.°S AMENDED ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINTom IY DH Mh BF WN woN oN a i BesepRR BB & 8 Se ARE GH FS I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: July 29, 2011 ( t coke Memos Christine Thomas 6 DEFENDANT PRIBUSS ENGINEERING, INC.’S AMENDED ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT