Hearing: JOYCE JUELCH, ET AL VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B/P)AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                wo oN DT FF WN

RNY NM NN NNN BE Be Be Se eB oe Re Be Re eB
NA Go ££ Ob NY +} SG CO aoa NN BD oO FF BW N +S OD

28

BRYDON
Juco & PARKER
195 MAIN STREET
20"! FLOOR
San Prancisco, CA 94105.

John R. Brycion [Bar No. 083365]

Robert C., Crane [Bar No. 197667]

BRYDON HUGO PARKER ELECTRONICALLY

135 Main Street, 20th Floor FILED

San Francisco, CA 94105 Superior Court of California,

Telephone: (415) 808-0300 County of San Francisco

Facsimile: (415) 808-0333 MAR 03 2010
Clerk of the Court

Attorneys for Defendant :

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION eae Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT ~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

JOYCE JUELCH and NORMAN JUELCH, | (ASBESTOS)

SR., Case No. CGC-09-275212
Plaintiff(s), DEFENDANT UNION CARBIDE
vs. CORPORATIONS NOTICE OF MOTION
: AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P), JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Defendants.

[Filed With Memorandum of Points and
Authorities; Compendium of Out of State
and Federal Authorities; Separate Statement
of Undisputed Material Facts; and
Declaration of Ken 1. Hoang]

Date: March 18, 2010
Time: 9:30 a.m.

Dept.: 220

Judge: Hon. Harold E. Kahn

Complaint Filed: | May 20, 2009
Trial Date: April 5, 2010

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 18, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter
as the matter may be heard in Department 220 or such other department as may be
assigned of the above-named Court, located at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco,
California, Defendant UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION (“Union Carbide”) will and

hereby does move the Court, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(a), for an
1

DEFENDANT UNION CARBIDE CORPORATIONS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONoO aN BD oOo F BS NY FR

N oN NNN NON Bom BR eB eB Re eB eB
NpPRRPR BRR BSS YR GR RP GB HBS

28

BRYDON

Huco & PARKER
135 MAINSTREET
20" FLOOR
San Francisco, CA 94105

Order granting summary judgment, including costs of suit, in favor of Defendant Union
Carbide and against Plaintiffs JOYCE JUELCH and NORMAN JUELCH, SR., (“Plaintiffs”).

This motion is brought upon the grounds that Plaintiffs carnot establish the|
existence of a triable issue of material fact, as there is a complete absence of evidence to}
support Plaintiffs’ claim that Plaintiff JOYCE JUELCH (‘Plaintiff’) was exposed to Union|
Carbide asbestos-containing products or products containing Union Carbide asbestos.

In the alternative, if for any reason summary judgment cannot be granted, Union
Carbide will and hereby does move the Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 437c(f) for summary adjudication. In that instance, Defendant respectfully requests
this Court issue an Order adjudicating that the following issues and facts are established
as against Plaintiffs:

Adjudication Issue No. 1:

Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action for Negligence has no merit, because there is no}
evidence that Defendant caused Plaintiff Joyce Juelch’s asbestos-related injuries, or that she’
was exposed to any products manufactured, supplied, or distributed by Defendant that
contained asbestos, or to any asbestos supplied by Defendant placed into products
manufactured by others. This cause of action also fails because Defendant had no duty to
warn its manufacturer-customers and their respective end-users about the potential]
hazards of Union Carbide's raw Calidria asbestos fiber because the purchasers of Calidria
were sophisticated users under Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 56.

Adjudication Issue No, 2:

Plaintiffs’ Second Cause of Action for Strict Liability has no merit, because there is|
no evidence that Defendant caused Plaintiff Joyce Juelch’s asbestos-related injuries, or that}
she was exposed to any products manufactured, supplied, or distributed by Defendant that
contained asbestos, or to any asbestos supplied by Defendant placed into products
manufactured by others. This cause of action also fails because Defendant had no duty to

warn its manufacturer-customers and their respective end-users about the potential

2

DEFENDANT UNION CARBIDE CORPORATIONS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONwo wan Dn eT FF WwW NY

NON N BoB Be Be Be Be RP BP Be
Yv 6& 5S © eo ND GH F BW YN FR SD

28

BRYDON

Huco & PARKER
135 MAIN STREET
20" FLGOR
San Francisco, CA 94105

hazards of Union Carbide’s raw Calidria asbestos fiber because the purchasers of Calidria
were sophisticated users under Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 56.

Adjudication Issue No. 3:

Plaintiffs’ Third Cause of Action for False Representation has no merit, because there
is no evidence that Defendant caused Plaintiff Joyce Juelch’s asbestos-related injuries, or
that Plaintiff was exposed to any products manufactured, supplied, or distributed by
Defendant that contained asbestos, additionally, there is no evidence that Defendant made
any representations to Plaintiff, or owed Plaintiff any duty to affirmatively disclose|
information, ‘This cause of action also fails because Defendant had no duty to warn its
manufacturer-customers and their respective end-users about the potential hazards of
Union Carbide’s raw Calidria asbestos fiber because the purchasers of Calidria were
sophisticated users under Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 56.

Adjudication Issue No. 4:

Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages has no merit, because there is no evidence that
Union Carbide caused Plaintiff Joyce Juelch’s asbestos-related injuries or that she was
exposed to any products attributable to Union Carbide, or that there is any “clear and|
convincing evidence” that any of the conduct at issue concerning Union Carbide herein
constitutes “malice,” “oppression,” or “fraud,” or “despicable conduct,” which is necessary,
to support such a claim.

This motion is made on the grounds that the material facts supporting entry of
judgment herein are without dispute and that, based upon the undisputed material facts,
Union Carbide is entitled to summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary
adjudication, as a matter of law.

This motion is based upon. this Notice of Motion and Motion; the attached
Memorandum of Points and Authorities; the Compendium of Out of State and Federal
Authorities; the Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts; and the Declaration of Thomas J.

Moses filed concurrently herewith; the pleadings and other records on file in this action;

3

DEFENDANT UNION CARBIDE CORPORATIONS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONRB

and upon such other documentary and oral evidence or argument as may be presented at

or before the hearing of this matter.

Dated: February 28, 2010 BRYDON HUGO & PARKER

By: /s/ Thomas J: Moses
John R. Brydon
Thomas J. Moses
Attorneys for Defendant
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION

we fm N DH oF FF ON

See He BP Se RP Be
Dn TF FF Ww N FF

NY FP SB ow
SMU aN

Nn
eB

22

4
‘BRYDON

Huco & PARKER |) DEPENDANT UNION CARBIDE CORPORATIONS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TOR SUMMARY

Spent JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

San Francisco, CA 94105