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

ordon & Rees LLP € 101 West Broadway, Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101 ROGER M. MANSUKHANI, ESQ. (SBN 164463) SHARI L. WEINTRAUB, ESQ. (SBN 195250) ANA R. HARTMAN, ESQ. (SBN 259399) ELECTRONICALLY GORDON & REES LLP FILED 101 Ww. Broadway, Suite 2000 Superior Court of California, San Diego, CA 92101 County of San Francisco Telephone: (619) 696-6700 Facsimile: (619) 696-7124 MAR 22 2011 Attorneys for Defendant BY: ANNIE ee coal Clerk MARSHCO AUTO PARTS, INC. 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’ FIRST 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 er 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’ FIRST AMENDED PERSONAL INJURY COMPLAINTGordon & Rees LLP 101 West Broadway, Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101 Oo OW DD A Bh Ye De mH NON RN RN NR ee — ea 3 AFG EGOS = &F SF BU BEDE OKT ES 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’ FIRST AMENDED PERSONAL INJURY COMPLAINTGordon & Rees LLP LOL West Broadway, Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101 Co Oo YN DA A BR YW HY NBN Bw NY wR RN De me —_ ou AG FG 8S |= & © &® AFA EBS BS 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’ FIRST AMENDED PERSONAL INJURY COMPLAINTCO Oe NM DR we B&B BH Ne ve Bw De S ordon & Rees LLP a San Diego, CA 92101 an € 101 West Broadway, Suite 2000 BS RRR_RRYRB SES 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 Califomia 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 FO 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 Plaintiffs 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. fil -4- DEFENDANT MARSHCO AUTO PARTS, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED PERSONAL INJURY COMPLAINTGordon & Rees LLP 401 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. ATIVE 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’ FIRST 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 Plaintiffs 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 10 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’ FIRST AMENDED PERSONAL INJURY COMPLAINTGordon & Rees LLP 101 West Broadway, Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101 Oo Oo NY DH BR BW LD Nw NM BHM RM NM NR NR NR RD ee eo 2A am FS 8S =§ FSF 6 we DAA EGS eS 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. VIIL and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Const. amend XIV, section |. 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 1, 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 1, 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” FIRST AMENDED PERSONAL INJURY COMPLAINTGordon & Rees LLP 101 West Broadway, Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101 CO YN DAD HW RB BY De RPM BNR RR NR Re oS A A BY Be & SS © we at DA A bh YW HH HE S Constitution and Article L, 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 J, 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 aileges 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’ FIRST AMENDED PERSONAL INJURY COMPLAINTGordon & Rees LLP 101 West Broadway, Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101 I A HW &B WwW Ww co ow 10 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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 iliness. 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’ FIRST 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. fil fil -10- DEFENDANT MARSHCO AUTO PARTS, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED PERSONAL INJURY COMPLAINT1 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 & BW N against this entity is improper as Plaintiffs incorrectly allege that this answering Defendant is 5 ||responsible, in whole or in part, for the acts of one or more alternative entities. This answering 6 || Defendant denies those claims. 7 FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 AS AND FOR A FORTIETH, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ANSWER AND 9 |) DEFENSE, this answering Defendant alleges that it reserves the right to plead and prove further 10 |] affirmative defenses as they may become known. li WHEREFORE, Defendant prays as follows: 12 1, That Plaintiffs take nothing by way of their complaint; 13 2. For judgment in favor of Defendant; For costs of suit; For attorneys’ fees; and Gordon & Rees LLP 101 West Broadway, Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101 Bp wa ye Ye For such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate. 17 || Dated: March 21, 2011 GORDON & REES LLP 18 19 By: Roger M. Mansukhani 20 Shari 1. Weintraub Ana R. Hartman 21 Attorneys For Defendant MARSHCO AUTO PARTS, INC. 28 2KCAMTIOGTI2ESA0 1208.1 -ll- DEFENDANT MARSHCO AUTO PARTS, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED PERSONAL INJURY COMPLAINTSan Diego, CA 92101 Gordon & Rees LLP 161 West Broadway, Suite 2000 28 ARCAMNOGTIUEIISS36¥,1 PROOF OF SERVICE Rossy. CC. Moore & Co. Engineers, et al. San Francisco County Superior Court — Case No. CGC-10-275731 Jam 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 March 22, 2011, I served the within documents: DEFENDANT MARSHCO AUTO PARTS, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST 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. { declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on March 22, 2011, at San Diego, California. “£ Log Rogers PROOF OF SERVICE