arrow left
arrow right
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview
  • ROBERT ROSS et al VS. C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINEERS ASBESTOS document preview 
						
                                
Preview

                                Law OFFICES OF
COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KUROWSKI LLP

William M. Hake, Esq. (State Bar No. 110956)
Joanna L. Drozd, Esq. (State Bar No.253707)
Kathryn L. Hoff, Esq. (State Bar No. 260420)

COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KUROWSKI LLP

201 Spear Street, Suite 1800

San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: (415) 512-4381
Fax: (415) 512-6791

Attomeys for Defendant
COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.

ELECTRONICALLY
FILED

Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco

FEB 24 2011

Clerk of the Court
BY: ALISON AGBAY
Deputy Clerk

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

ROBERT ROSS AND JEAN ROSS,

Plaintiffs,
v.
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B¢P),
Defendants.

Case No. CGC-10-275731

REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY,
INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE
PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’
COMPLAINT

Hearing Date:
Time:
Dept.:

March 3, 2011
9:30 a.m.
220

December 17, 2010
TBD

Complaint:
Trial Date:

Plaintiffs allege in their Opposition to Defendant Collins Electrical Company, Inc.’s

Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, dated February 17, 2011, that they “dismissed

their claims against COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC. with respect to Mr. ROSS’

diagnoses of asbestosis and asbestos-related pleural disease” (1:20-21) thereby rendering Collins

Electrical Company, Inc.’s (“CEC”) motion to strike such portions of the complaint moot.

On February 23, 2011, Plaintiffs sent to counsel for CEC a Request for Dismissal,

without prejudice, as to CEC “as to claims arising from the May 2009 diagnosis of asbestosis

and asbestos-related pleural disease only.” (Cover letter and Request for Dismissal, dated

February 23, 2011, copy attached to the Declaration of Kathryn L. Hoff as Exhibit A.)

-.-

DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S
COMPLAINTLAW OFFICES OF
COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE Kurowsx1 LLP

a A HW & Ww LH

Plaintiff's offer of partial dismissal without prejudice as to the “May 2009 diagnos[e|s of
asbestosis and asbestos-related pleural disease” is not fully responsive to CEC’s motion to strike
and raises two issues.

First, a dismissal without prejudice does not have the same effect as striking the claims
from the Plaintiffs’ complaint or dismissing the claims with prejudice. If such allegations are not
dismissed with prejudice, Plaintiffs could refile the same claims related to asbestosis and
asbestos-related pleural disease. As a result, CEC would be required to continuously file
motions to strike similar to the one filed in the present action. This would ultimately be a waste
of the Court’s time and resources, as Plaintiffs have already had an opportunity to litigate the
claims with respect to asbestosis and asbestos-related pleural disease.

Second, a dismissal of the “May 2009 diagnos[e]s” does not address Plaintiff Robert
Ross’s curious claim in his first complaint that he was diagnosed with these conditions in “May
2006.” (See p. 27 of Exhibit A to the Request for Judicial Notice attached to (Defendant Collins
Electrical Company, Inc.’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’
Complaint .) CEC asserts that the applicable statutes of limitation may serve to bar such claims.
(See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc., section 340.2.) Nonetheless, CEC requests that the court strike each
portion of the complaint in the above-entitled action, including by reference the Brayton Purcell
Master Complaint, as it relates to Plaintiff’s diagnosis of asbestosis and asbestos-related pleural
disease, without limitation to time.

Hf
Mf
Ui
Ma
Mf
Me
Mf
Uf

-2-

DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF [IN SUPPORT OF ITS DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINTLaw OFFICES OF
COOLEY MANION JONES HakE Kurowski LLP

For these reasons, CEC respectfully requests that the Court strike the requested portions

of the complaint.

Respectfully Submitted,

Dated: February 24, 2011 COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE
KUROWSKI LLP

Kathryn L. Hoff, Esq.

Joanna L. Drozd, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant
COLLINS ELECTRICAL
COMPANY, INC.

-3-

DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF [IN SLIPPORT OF ITS DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S:
COMPLAINTLaw O#FICES OF
COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KuROWSKI LLP

PROOF OF SERVICE

lam a citizen of the United States and employed in San Francisco County, California. I
am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business

address is 201 Spear Street, Suite 1800, San Francisco, CA 94105.

On February 24, 2011, I electronically filed and served the following document via
LexisNexis File and Serve, on all parties:
DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN
SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT

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

Executed on February 24, 2011, at San Francisco, California.

l

Vanessa Mar!

-4-

DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S
COMPLAINT