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

                                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) ELECTRONICALLY
COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KUROWSKI LLP FILED
201 Spear Street, Suite 1800 Superior Court of California,
San Francisco, CA 94105 County of San Francisco
Tel: (415) 512-4381 FEB 24 2011
Fax: (415) 512-6791 Clerk of the Court
BY: ALISON AGBAY
Attomeys for Defendant Deputy Clerk

COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.

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

ROBERT ROSS AND JEAN ROSS, Case No. CGC-10-275731
Plaintiffs, REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY,
v. INC.’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S
COMPLAINT
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B¢P),
Hearing Date: March 3, 2011
Defendants. . Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept.: 220
Complaint: December 17, 2010
Trial Date: TBD

Plaintiffs contend they “are willing” (Opp. at p. 1:26) and “stand ready” (Opp. at p. 3:15)
to amend their complaint with details purportedly responsive to the instant demurrer. But what
Plaintiffs “could” or “would” do to modify their complaint is of no consequence. The Court
should sustain this demurrer because the essential point remains uncontested: Plaintiffs’

complaint, as presently comprised, merely alleges exposure to “asbestos,” “asbestos-containing
products,” and in its fifth cause of action, “asbestos containing insulation” in the generic sense,
without identifying specific brand names and products. Bockrath v. Aldrich Chem. Ca. (1999)
21 Cal.4th 71, relying on Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953. Plaintiffs’

first, second, and fifth causes of action ~ for “Negligence,” “Strict Liability,” and “Premises

-l-

DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S
COMPLAINTLaw OFPicEs OF
COOLEY MANION JONES TAKE KuROWSKI LLP

oO oe ND

Owner/Contract Liability” respectively — contain these improper generalizations. Plaintiffs’
fourth cause of action for “Loss of Consortium” is similarly broad, general and unspecific,
namely as to the types of damages Ms. Ross has suffered as a result of her husband’s alleged
injury. Together, these causes of action constitute Plaintiffs’ entire complaint against Collins
Electrical Company, Inc. (“CEC”). Accordingly, this demurrer should be sustained in its
entirety since Plaintiffs have failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. CCP
§ 430.10(e).

Moreover, Plaintiffs’ direct allegations, if any, against CEC are so imprecise that they fail
for uncertainty. CCP § 430.10(f). Plaintiffs’ complaint, as presently comprised, describes no
CEC specific conduct whatsoever. It makes no allegations concerning: (1) CEC’s connection
with any asbestos-containing products, either generically identified or specifically identified by
brand name, model, manufacturer, or supplier, (2) how CEC purportedly exposed Plaintiff to
asbestos, (3) the length of exposure alleged against CEC, (4) how CEC acted negligently, or (5)
how CEC manufactured, distributed, sold, or supplied a defective product (or is liable under any
other theory of products liability).

For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ complaint is uncertain and fails to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action. CCP § 430.10(e)-(f). Asbestos cases are not entitled to lenient
pleading requirements.

The Court should also deny Plaintiffs’ request for 10 days’ leave to amend the complaint.
Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment does not specify where CEC employees allegedly disturbed the
“asbestos-containing” materials and therefore does not “rectify and clarify the issue” (Opp. at
1:24) that Plaintiffs allegations are uncertain and that Plaintiffs have failed to state facts
sufficient to constitute a cause of action. CCP § 430.10(c)-(f}. Plaintiffs merely state that CEC
employees’ disturbance of asbestos-containing materials occurred “in close proximity” to
Plaintiff (Opp. at 2:1) and then provide the same extensive list of worksites supplied in the
complaint (Opp. at 2:2-3:4). This proposed “amendment” is no more specific as to where or how

CEC purported exposed Plaintiff to asbestos, than the allegations in the complaint.

-2-

DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFE’S:
COMPLAINTLAW OFFICES OF
COooLey MANION JONES HAKE KUROWSKI LLP

Ne

For these reasons, CEC respectfully urges the Court to deny Plaintiffs’ request for 10 days’ leave
to amend the complaint. Merely stating that CEC’s employees disturbed “asbestos-containing”

materials “in close proximity” to Plaintiff and then listing every worksite in the complaint is

insufficient.
Respectfully Submitted,

Dated: February 24, 2011 COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE
KUROWSK] LLP

od ite of He

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

-3-

DEFENDANT COLLINS ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC.'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S
COMPLAINTCOOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KUROWSKI LLP

Oo @ ND NW A

PROOF OF SERVICE

Tam 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 DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

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

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

Vanessa Marky

-4-

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