On May 20, 2009 a Order was filed involving a dispute between Juelch, Joyce, Juelch Sr, Norman, and 3M Company, 84 Lumber Company, 84 Lumber Company, A Limited Partnership, All Asbestos Defendants, Allis-Chalmers Corporation Product Liability Trust, Asbestos Defendants, Cbs Corporation, A Delaware Corporation, F K A, Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Consolidated Insulation, Inc., Csk Auto, Inc., Dillingham Construction N.A., Inc., Does 1-8500, Douglass Insulation Company, Inc., Garlock Sealing Technologies, Llc, General Electric Company, Genuine Parts Company, Hamilton Materials, Inc., J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc., Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Metalclad Insulation Corporation, Oscar E. Erickson, Inc., Pacific Gas And Electric Company, Pacipic Bell Telephone Company, Parker Hannifin Corporation, Quintec Industries, Inc., Redwood Plumbing Co., Inc., Santa Fe Braun, Inc., Sequoia Ventures Inc., Shell Oil Company, Thomas Dee Engineering Company, Timec Company, Inc., Tosco Refining Company, Inc., Union Carbide Corporation, Union Oil Company Of California, Unocal Corporation, for ASBESTOS 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
NW UNO SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Scanning Lead Sheet Mar-18-2010 11:46 am Document Case Number: CGC-09-275212 Filing Date: Mar-1 8-2010 11:46 Juke Box: 001 Image: 02792872 ORDER IOYCE JUELCH, ET AL VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBI 001002792872 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.BRAYTON® PURCELL LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 222 RUSH LANDING ROAD P.O BOX 6169 NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169 (415) 898-1555, no. oD em ID OH BR WwW — “— ~ ~ NL ALAN R. BRAYTON, ESQ., S.B. #73685 DAVID R. DONADIG, ESO.,S.B. #154436 RON G. ARCHER, ESQ., $B. #189429 BRAYTON**PURCELL LLP Attorneys at Law 222 Rush Landing Road P.O. Box 6169 MAR 1 8 2010 Novato, California 94948-6169 ee Z boo COURT Tentative Ruling Contest Email: contestasbestosTR@braytonl&w.co puty Clerk (415) 898-1555 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO JOYCE JUELCH and ) ASBESTOS NORMA JUELCH, SR., ) No. CGC-09-275212 ) Plaintiffs, ) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT ) | METALCLAD INSULATION vs. ) |CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B%P) ) ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Date: March 18, 2010 Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept.: 220, Hon. Harold E. Kahn Trial Date: April 5, 2010 Action Filed: May 20; 2009 METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATION’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication, came on regularly for hearing on March 18, 2010, in Department 220, of the above-captioned Court. Plaintiffs and defendant, METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATION, appeared by their counsel of record. Per Tentative Ruling: MSJ denied. Metalclad's alternate MSA is denied as to negligence (issue 1), strict liability (issue 2), and loss of consortium (issue 5) and moot as to the remaining issues. Meee has not established all the elements of a workers compensation ‘\o v¢y exclusivity defense, das tt Juelch's alleged take-home exposure to asbestos that Mr. Juelch aroge brought home on his work clothes did totarise out of and in the course of Mrs. Juetch's KMnjured 10soBe\pldiord: METALC pd 1 RGA ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONCo ow NO mW RB WN wm RW YY YN NR KY KN BS Be Be Be ee Se Be eS ond AA & BN |&— S&B we IN DH BF BN KF CO ~ + employment with Metalclad. Metalclad has not established all the elements of a sophisticated user defense since there is no evidence that Mrs. Juelch received any training in the hazards of asbestos prior to the commencement of her laundering of Mr. Juelch's work clothes. Mr. Juelch has a loss of consortium claim because Mrs. Juelch has a valid personal injury cause of action against Metalclad. To the extent that Metalclad’s motion is based on an exposure/product identification issue, Metalclad did not satisfy its initial burden on that issue. The evidence supporting plaintiffs’ allegations is set forth in Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement of Disputed Material Facts as follows: PLAINTIFFS' DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS. SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 1. Defendant acknowledges and does not 1. See defendant’s UMF No. 19. contradict the claim that Mrs. JUELCH was exposed to asbestos as a result of her husband’s take-home of asbestos- containing dust on his clothing during times he was working for METALCLAD. Defendant acknowledges and does not contradict the claim that Mrs. JUELCH was exposed to asbestos-containing dust while laundering Mr. JUELCH’s asbestos-laden clothing brought home from his work with defendant. - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATION’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication, is Per Tentative Ruling: MSJ denied. Metalclad's alternate MSA is denied as to negligence (issue 1), strict liability (issue 2), and Joss of consortium (issue 5) and moot as to the remaining issues. Metalciad has not established all the elements of a workers compensation exclusivity defense, waded thg .a8 Mrs. Juelch’s alleged take-home exposure to asbestos that Mr. Juelch brought home on his Brose. work clothes did-netarise out of and in the course of Mrs. Juelch's employment with Metalclad. Metalclad has not established all the elements of a sophisticated user defense since there is no evidence that Mrs. Juelch received any training in the hazards of asbestos prior to the Ml Ml KMljured08698\p Nord METALC pd 2 RGA ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONCo oN DA BR WN Seow too CoM YN DA A KR WwW DN yboeN NYRR YW wR NR WN Be RERRRERES ~ 7s commencement of her laundering of Mr. Juelch's work clothes. Mr. Juelch has a loss of consortium claim because Mrs. Juelch has a valid personal injury cause of action against Metalclad. To the extent that Metalclad's motion is based on an exposure/product identification issue, Metalclad did not satisfy its initial burden on that issue. Dated: 3 \ivlic Judge of the Superior Court HAROLD KAHN K \lnjured08688\pthord- METALC.wpd 3 RGA ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATION'S MOTION Fi THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN