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
						
                                

Preview

Bw oN Ps 4 a & ge z S z ~ ne BE Law OOLEY MANION Jo C William M. Hake, Esq. (State Bar No. 1109356) Melissa E. Macfarlane, Esq. (State Bar No. 239811) ELECTRONICALLY Rachael A. Buckman, Esq. (State Bar No. 263224) FILED COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KUROWSKI LLP a 201 Spear Street, 18th Floor Se Geen reac San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel: (415) 512-4381 FEB 24 2011 Fax: (415) 512-6791 Clerk of the Court BY: CHRISTLE ARRIOLA Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Defendant TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC. fik/a PLANT MAINTENANCE, INC. OF CALIFORNIA 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, DEFENDANT TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC, f/k/a PLANT Vv. MAINTENANCE, INC. OF CALIFORNIA’S REPLY TO C.C. MOORE & CO. ENGINGEERS; PLAINTIFFS” OPPOSITION TO Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit | attached MOTION TO STRIKE to the Summary Complaint herein; and DOES 1-8500. Hearing Date: March 3, 2011 Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept.: 220 Complaint: December 17, 2010 Trial Date: TBD Plaintiffs allege in their opposition that they “dismissed their claims as to TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC. with respect to Mr. ROSS’ diagnoses of asbestosis and asbestos- related pleural disease” (3:7-8) thereby making Temporary Plant Cleaners, Inc.’s (“TPC”) Motion to Strike moot. To date, TPC has only received dismissals without prejudice for the claims related to Mr. Ross’ diagnosis of asbestosis and asbestos-related disease in 2009. Such dismissals are not fully responsive to TPC’s motion and therefore, TPC requests that the merits of its Motion to Strike be heard by the Court as noticed. TPC respectfully requires that any such dismissal be with -1- DEFENDANT TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC. f/k/a PLANT MAINTENANCE, INC. OF CALIFORNIA’S REPLY TO. PLAINTIFFS” OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKELaw OOLEY MANION Jo ay a & & z 9 & 2 ne C Bw oN prejudice without any restriction as to time of diagnosis. If such allegations are not dismissed with prejudice, Plaintiffs are not precluded from re-filing the same claims related to asbestosis and pleural disease. As a result, TPC would continuously be required to file motions to strike similar to the one filed herein. Ultimately, this becomes a colossal waste of the Court’s time and resources when Plaintiffs, whom have already had an opportunity to litigate the claims with respect to asbestosis and pleural disease, are time and time again allowed to re-file claims related to the above diseases. TPC further requests that the merits of its Motion to Strike be heard as Plaintiffs have completely ignored TPC’s request to have the paragraph regarding it being an agent, servant, employee, and/or joint venturer of all other defendants dismissed. Plaintiffs have failed to contact TPC to notify it that such allegations will be stricken and have equally fatled to address this issue in their opposition papers. Since Plaintiffs failed to timely oppose the agency argument, the Motion to Strike should be granted. Respectfully Submitted, Dated: February 24, 2011 COOLEY MANION JONES HAKE KUROWSKI LLP By: /s/ Rachael A, Buckman William H. Hake, Esq. Melissa E. Macfarlane, Esq. Rachael A. Buckman, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant Temporary Plant Cleaners, Inc. f/k/a Plant Maintenance, Inc. of California -2- DEFENDANT TEMPORARY PLANT CLEANERS, INC. f/k/a PLANT MAINTENANCE, INC. OF CALIFORNIA’S REPLY TO. PLAINTIFFS” OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE