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

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                eo ecN DOD ow RF OW NY RB

10

23

Becherer
Kannett & 24
Schweitzer

1255

Email, ca 26
94608
27

510-658-3600

28

MARK S. KANNETT (SBN 104572)
EMILY D. BERGSTROM (SBN 191395)

MARCIA L. RAYMOND (SBN 215655) ELECTRONICALLY
BECHERER KANNETT & SCHWEITZER FILED
1255 Powell Street . Superior Court of California,
Emeryville, CA 94608 ‘aunty of San Francisco
Telephone: (510) 658-3600 FEB 26 2010
Facsimile: (510) 658-1151 Clerk of the Court

BY: ANNIE PASCUAL

Deputy Clerk

Attorneys for Defendant

DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION N.A., INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

JOYCE JUELCH and NORMAN JUELCH, CASE NO. CGC 09-275212
SR., .
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF
DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION, N.A.,
INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT FILED PURSUANT TO

Plaintiffs,

VS.

ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP) As STIPULATION
1-8500, Date: March 18, 2010
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Defendants. Dept.: 220
Judge: Hon. Harold E. Kahn

Trial Date: April-5, 2010
Complaint May 20, 2009

)
)
)
)
)
)
Reflected on Exhibits B, B-1, C; and DOES )
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Filed:

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c(b)(1), Defendant
DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION, N.A., INC. (“DILLINGHAM”) submits the following
Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts’in support of its Motion for Summary

Judgment.
Plaintiffs have no evidence that defendant DILLINGHAM caused injury to

JOYCE JUELCH by exposure to asbestos and She is unlikely to obtain such

evidence.

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF
DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION, N.A., INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTBecherer
Kannett &
Schweitzer

1255
Powell St
Emezyville, CA
94608
310-658-3600

oo wm NO MH fF WYN

MOVING PARTY’S UNDISPUTED OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE AND

MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE

1. The deposition systematically went 1.
through Plaintiff's Social Security
records and her answers to standard
interrogatories as well as, those of her
husband, Norman Juelch, and her ex-
husband, John Chambers. At each job
site, she was specifically asked to
identify her employer, and any other
trades and outside contractors she
recalls being present at the jobsite. Her
husband and ex-husband were asked to
identify every site they recalled working
with Joyce and also to name the
contractors present at that site.

See the deposition testimony of Joyce
Juelch taken various days in 2009,
attached as Exhibit D to Raymond Decl.

2. Ms. Juelch testified that she saw 2.
Dillingham pipefitters perform work at
two jobsites: Shell Oil Refinery in
Martinez, California in 1982 and Tosco
Oil Refinery in Avon, California in 1983.
She was employed by Plant Insulation
and worked at each jobsite for
approximately 2 months. At each
jobsite, she saw the Dillingham
pipefitters performing work to one
valve. She saw them remove two
existing gaskets and insulation from the
valve. She does not know the brand
name, manufacturer, or supplier of the
existing gasket or insulation, who
installed it, when it was installed or if
either contained asbestos. She saw
them cut and install two gaskets that
she believes were manufactured by
Garlock. However she admits that she
does not know if the gaskets contained
asbestos. She was between 3 and 10
feet away from the work being
performed by the Dillingham pipefitter.

2

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF
DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION, N.A., INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTBecherer
Kannett &
Schweitzer

1255

Powell St
Preryville, CA
94808
510-658-3600

o ont Aun FF B® DYN

bY NY N BP eB Be ee ee ei
KR O2N F&F FS OWN A HM BR wHNH HD

25

MOVING PARTY’S UNDISPUTED OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE AND

MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE

Moreover, she testified that she was not
present during the entire duration of the
Dillingham pipefitters’ work at either
location. She stated that she was “back
and forth.” She also testified that she
the work was being performed at both
jobsites she wore a paper mask, as was
her custom and practice each time she
performed her work in the 1980s. Ms.
Juelch testified that she first learned of
the hazards of asbestos in the late
1960s and researched the issue as.a
third year apprentice in 1985. She
testified that at both locations refinery
personnel cleaned up the debris created
by the work performed by the
Dillingham pipefitters.

See Excerpts from the deposition
testimony of Joyce Juelch at pp. 31:17-25,
32:22-23; 33:7, 9-12, 15-16; 36:4-9; 37:5-
11, 17-21; 39:8-16, 21-25; 40:1-4; 42:19-
23; 43:1-18; 44:9-12, 24-25; 45:1-5; 65:1-
21; 161:9-25; 162:1-12; 163:25; 164:1-13;
165.4-17; 166:5-25; 167:1-10; 168:1-25;
169:20-25; 170:1-4; 172:12-23; 173:15-20;
174:6-25; 175:1-25; 176:1-25; 177:1-20;
178:6-8, 13-14, 19-25; 179:1; 180:14-17;
181:1-15; 211:16-25: 212:1-10; 223:2-7;
224:5-13; 226:3-5, 8-25; 227:1-2, 17-25;
228; 5-16; 234:4-20; 254:22-25; 255:3-6;
15-18; 256:2-5, 9-10; 263:1-3; 937:3-11,
21-25; 938:1-9, 15-18, attached as Exhibit
D to Raymond Decl.

3. Ms. Juelch testified that she saw 3.
Dillingham trucks at Shell Oil Refinery

in 1984. But, she did not see any
Dillingham employees perform any
hands-on work on that occasion.

See Excerpts from the deposition
testimony of Joyce Juelch at pp. 258:17-

3

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF
DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION, N.A., INC."S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTBR

MOVING PARTY'S UNDISPUTED OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE AND
MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE

25; 259: 1-25; 260:1-25; 263:1-3; 267:2-14,
attached as Exhibit D to Raymond Decl.

4. She has never heard of C. Norman 4.
Peterson and has no information that
Norman Juelch ever worked with or

around any employee of C. Norman
Peterson.

See Excerpts from the deposition
testimony of Joyce Juelch at pp. 937:21-
25; 938:1-18, attached as Exhibit D to
Raymond Decl.

wm warn aust wWw WN

10

5. Norman Juelch testified thathe saw 5.
12 | Dillingham pipefitters remove and
install two gaskets in Joyce’s presence
13 | at the Shell Oil Refinery in 1983 or 1984.
He does not know the brand name,
manufacturer, or supplier of the
15 | gaskets. Mr. Juelch testified that Joyce
wore a paper mask the entire time the
16 | work was being performed by the
Dillingham employees. He saw no other
17 | trades he thinks were employed by
18 Dillingham perform work in Joyce’s
presence, not-did_he see any Dillingham
19 || employees work with insulation or
packing material. He also testified that
20 | Joyce cleaned up some of the gaskets
the Dillingham emptoyees discarded. He
21] does not know how often she did this or
99 how many gaskets that were discarded
by Dillingham employees she cleaned
23 || up. He does not know the brand name,
pecherer manufacturer, or supplier of the gaskets
Kannetta 24 | or if they contained asbestos. He also
Schweitzer testified he worked at Shell Oil Refinery
2 with Joyce for one month sometime
Powall St 26 between 1982 and 1986 and saw
94608 Dillingham trucks. He did not see any
27 | Dillingham employees any hands-on
work. Other than Shell Oil in 1983 or

4

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF
DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION, N.A., INC."S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTBecherer
Kannett &
Schweitzer

510-658-3600

ee

own onw fF wow DN

MOVING PARTY’S UNDISPUTED

OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE AND

MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING
EVIDENCE

1984, he does not recall seeing
Dillingham perform hands-on work at
any other jobsites when Joyce was also
present. Dillingham has never,
employed Mr. Juelch.

See Excerpts from the deposition
testimony of Norman Juelch at pp. 74:22-
25; 75:1-14, 23-25; 76:1-3, 19-25; 79:7-17;
80:9-14; 81:6-25; 82:1-25: 83:1-25; 213:19-
25; 214:1-17; 251:5-25; 252:10-25; 253:1-
7, attached as Exhibit I to Raymond Decl.

6. Norman Juelch has never heard of C.
Norman Peterson.

See Excerpts from the deposition
testimony of Norman Juelch at p. 253:7-10,
attached as Exhibit I to Raymond Decl.

7. Joyce Juelch’s ex-husband, John
Chambers, stipulated that he has no
information that either Dillingham or C.
Norman Peterson contributed to
Jeyee’s asbestos related illness.

See Excerpts from the deposition
testimony of John Chambers at p. 147:1-
14, attached as Exhibit J to Raymond
Decl.

8. Plaintiffs’ answers to
Dillingham’s discovery also provided no
specific information regarding the
manner in which Dillingham may have
exposed him to an asbestos containing
material. They merely set forth general
allegations, but do not provide specifics
such as the brand name or :
manufacturer of the product or material
to which Dillingham employees
allegedly exposed Ms. Juelch.

5

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

6.

7.

8.

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF
DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION, N.A., INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTm

MOVING PARTY’S UNDISPUTED OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE AND
MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

2 | EVIDENCE
8 See Plaintiffs’ Responses to Dillingham’s
4 | Request for Production of Documents, Set
: One and Special Interrogatories, Set One,
5 | attached as Exhibits G and H,
6 tespectively, to Raymond Decl.
7 | Dated: February 26, 2010 BECHERER KANNETT & SCHWEITZER
° EMPL
9 BY
10 Marcia L. Raymond
Attorneys for Defendant
11 DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION, N.A., INC.
12
13
14
15
16
17 |
18
19
20
21
22
23

Becherer
Kannett & 24
Schweitzer

Tass:
Povrl St

Emerylle,ch 20
94608

510-658-3600

6

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT: OF
DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION, N.A., INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTBecherer
Kannett &
Schweitzer

1255
Powell St
Emeryville, CA

510-658-3600

oOo ON A wn fb Ww DH

BY NY BF Be ee Be ee Be ek
Yeo © @®@AYNO A PF WN FO

PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION

|, Barbara Golstein, declare that | am, and was at the time of service of the
documenis herein referred to, over the age of 18 years, and not a party to the action;
and | am employed in the County of Alameda, State of California. My business address
is 1255 Powell Street, Emeryville, California 94608.

On February 26, 2010, | electronically served the document(s) via LexisNexis File
& Serve described as:

e¢ SEPARATE, STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF
DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION N.A., INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT FILED PURSUANT TO STIPULATION

on the recipients designated on the Transmission Receipt located on the LexisNexis File
& Serve website.

1 declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on February
26, 2010, at Emeryville, California.

7

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF
DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION, N.A., INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT