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

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                GEORGE D. YARON, ESQ, (State Bar #96246)
KEITH E. PATTERSON, ESQ. (State Bar #225753)

MICHAEL PENG, ESQ. (State Bar #260852) ELECTRONICALLY

YARON & ASSO TES FILED

601 California Street, 21° Floor Superior Court of Calton

San Francisco, California 94108-2281 County of San Fran a Joe fa,

Telephone: (415) 658-2929

Facsimile: (415) 658-2930 FEB 26 2010
Clerk of the Court

Attorneys for Defendant BY: CHRISTLE ARRIO

84 LUMBER COMPANY Deputy Glerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

gOYCE JUELCH AND NORMAN JUELCH, CASE NO. CGC-09-2.75212

DEFENDANT 84 LUMBER COMPANY’S

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND

Plaintiff, SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT

OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, OR, IN THE

vs. ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY

Na ee"

ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS, et al.,
Hearing Date: March 18, 2010
Hearing Time: 9:30 a.m.
Depart. No.: 220
Defendants. Hearing Judge: Hon. Harold E. Kahn

Date Action Filed: © May 20, 2009
Date Set For Trial: April 5, 2010

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c(b) and California Rules of
Court Rule 3.1350, Defendant 84 Lumber Company (“84 Lumber”) submits the following Separate
Statement of Undisputed Material Facts for the consideration of the Court in support of the attached
Motion for Summary Judgment, or, in the alternative, Summary Adjudication of Issues.
Mt
Mit
Vif

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS -1- GA3265\MSIASSUF,. wpdUNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS:

On May 20, 2009, Plaintiffs Joyce
Juelch (Mrs, Julech” and Norman
Juelch, Sr. (“Mr. Juelch”) filed their
Complaint against numerous
Defendants, including 84 Lumber,
alleging Strict Liability, Negligence,
False Representation, and Loss of
Consortium causes of action against 84
Lumber Company (“84 Lumber”).
Mrs, Juelch alleged that she developed
lung cancer as a result of occupational,
para-occupational, and non-
occupational exposure to asbestos.

Exhibit "A" to Plaintiffs’ Complaint,

filed therewith and incorporated by

reference into Plaintiffs’ Complaint,

alleges that Mrs. Juelch assisted her

ex-husband, Mr. Chambers, build a

house in Stockton, CA “in the early
5?

The only additional detail provided in
Plaintifis’ Complaint, with respect to
the house allegedly built by Mrs.
duelch, is that she “recalls mixing,
applying and_ sanding asbestos
containing KAISER GYPSUM
COMPANY, INC, joint and taping
compounds purchased from 8
LUMBER.”

On August 24, 2009, 84 Lumber
served Special Interropatories, Set
One, upon Mrs. Juelch, seeking
information, including facts,
documents, and witnesses, regarding
Plaintiff's alleged work with, or
around, any asbestos-containing
product sold by 84 Lumber.

On August 24, 2009, 84 Lumber
served its Request for Production, Set
One, upon Plaintiff seeking the
production of documents regarding
laintiff's alleged work with, or
around, any asbestos-containing
product sold by 84 Lumber.

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

See Plaintiff's Complaint, 1-23,
attached as Exhibit “A” to the
Declaration of Michael J. Peng (“Peng
Decl.”).

See Plaintiff's Complaint, $:20-22,
attached as Exhibit “A” to the Peng
ech.

See Plaintiff's Complaint, 8:20-22,
attached as Exhibit “A” to the Peng
ec,

See 84 Lumber’s Special
Interrogatories, Set One, 1-4, attached
as Exhibit “B” to the Peng Decl.

See 84 Lumber’s Request for
Production, Set One, 1-7, attached as
Exhibit “C” to the Peng Decl.

GA3265\MSI\SSUF wpdOW ed DAW Fw NH =

YM N YN NY YN * Be Be Se eB ee Be ee
ce AA BF OH SK S Cwm IAA BY NY Ee So

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS:

6. Plaintiff was specifically asked:
“Please state all facts in support of
YOUR contention that YOU were
exposed to asbestos through products
and/or materials SOLD by 84
LUMBER,” and “Please describe all
products and/or materials (by brand
name, manufacturer, or by a bysical
description) SOLD by 84 LUMBER
that YOU contend were the source(s)
of each of YOUR alleged exposures to
asbestos.”

7. Tn response, Mrs. Julch stated that 84
Lumber sold asbestos containing joint
and taping compounds manufactured
by Kaiser and Hamilton Materials
(“Hamilton”), to the house she built
with Mr. Chambers in the early 1970s
and a home remodel project she

erformed with Mr. Chambers in

976. Mrs. Juelch also alleged that

she used the same materials purchased.

from an 84 Lumber store while

“performing repair work on another

house around 1976.”

8. Plaintiff was specifically asked:
“Please provide each DATE upon
which YOU contend that YOU were
exposed to asbestos through products
and/or materials SOLD by 84
LUMBER.”

9. Plaintiff was specifically asked:
“Please IDENTIFY each PERSON
who has knowledge of any facts in
support of YOUR contention that
YOU were exposed to asbestos

through products and/or materials

SOLD by 84 LUMBER.”

10. Plaintiff was specifically asked:
“Please IDENTIFY any and_ all
DOCUMENTS in support of YOUR
contention that YOU were exposed to
asbestos through products and/or
materials SOLD by 84 LUMBER.”

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

6.

10.

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

See 84 Lumber’s Special
Interrogatories, Set One, 3:11-13 and
3:17-20, attached as Exhibit “B” to the
Peng Decl.

See Plaintiff's Response to Defendant

84 Lumber Company’s Special!

Prepared Interrogatories, Set One, 2:6-

Dp. attached as Exhibit “D” to the Peng
Cl.

See 84 Lumber’s Special
Interrogatories, Set One, 3:14-16,
ailache as Exhibit “B” to the Peng
eck,

See 84 Lumber’s Special

Interrogatories, Set One, 4:1-4,

aitach as Exhibit “B” to the Peng
ec.

See 84 Lumber’s Special
Interrogatories, Set One, 4:5-8, attached
as Exhibit “B” to the Peng Decl.

GA3265\MSASSUF wpdoD eID A Bw NY

nn s® WwW Ww

1.

12.

13.

14.

15.

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS:

In response, Plaintiff stated, in part: 11.

“Plaintiffrefers to, and incorporates by
reference herein, his (sic.) objections
and Response to Interrogatory No. 1,
above.”

In response to the request for 12.

identification of documents, Mrs.
Juelch identified no documents
responsive to the Interrogatory, and
instead elected to reference her
Responses to 84 Lumber’s Special
Discovery, her Social Security records,
medical records, employment records,
along with all other pleadings in this
action already on file with the Court,
and a list of deposition transcripts and
texts unrelated to this action.

In Tesponse to 84 Lumber’s Requests 13.

for Identification and Production of
Documents, Plaintiff produced no
documents responsive to 84 Lumber’s
requests regarding Plaintiff's work
with, or around, any asbestos-
containing product sold by 84 Lumber,
and. instead elected to reference her
Responses to 84 Lumber’s Special
Discovery, her Social Security records,
medical records, employment records,
along with all other pleadings in this
action already on file with the Court,
and a list of deposition transcripts and
texts unrelated to this action.

84 Lumber requested that Plaintiff 14.

produce all documents supporting her
contention that 84 Lumber supplied,
sold, or distributed asbestos-containing
products to which he was exposed.

In response, Plaintiff produced no 15.

documents responsive to 84 Lumber’s
requests.

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS -4-

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

See Plaintiff's Response to Defendant

84 Lumber Company’s Specially

Prepared Interrogatories, Set One, 3-6,

attached as Exhibit “D” to the Peng
ecl,

See Plaintiff's Response to Defendant
84 Lumber Company’s Specially
Prepared Interrogatories, Set One, 4:24-
6:21, attached as Exhibit “D” to the
Peng Decl.

See Plaintiff's Response to 84
Lumiber’s Requests for Production of
Documents, Set One, 1-13, attached as
Exhibit “E” to the Peng Decl.

See 84 Lumber’s Request for
Production, Set One, 5:15-23, attached
as Exhibit “C” to the Peng Decl.

See Plaintiff's Response to 84
Lumber’s Requests for Production of
Documents, Set One, 4:2-23, attached
as Exhibit “E” to the Peng Decl.

GA326S\MSASSUF. wpdom IDA Rw NY Ye

NN YN NY NN WH HQ SY YH Be Be ew ee ee ee
eS XY A A Bn fF S Oe AAA BBN BS DS

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

UNDISPUTED MATE! FACTS:

84 Lumber requested that Plaintiff 16.

produce all documents supporting her
contention that 84 Lumber sxpressly
represented to her, John Chambers, or
the general public that asbestos and
asbestos-containing products were of
merchantabie quality, and safe for the
use for which they were intended.

In response, Plaintiff produced no 17.

documents responsive to 84 Lumber’s
requests.

Qn June 25-26. Sentember 15-18, and 18.

November 18-20, 2009, Mrs. Juelch
was deposed in this case regarding,
among other things, her work as an
insulator between 1980 and 1988, her
alleged secondary and non-
occupational exposure through the
work of her husbands, and the home
construction project in which she
provided assistance to Mr. Chambers.

Mrs. Juelch was
extensively at her deposition regarding
her claims against 84 Lumber.

Mrs. Juelch identified John Chambers 20.

as a percipient witness in this case.

At deposition, Mrs. Juelch testified
that she and Mr. Chambers built a
house on Adelbert Street in Stockton,
CA in the early 1970s,

In addition to her claim that exposure 21.

to asbestos caused her injury, Plaintiff
Joyce Juelch had a significant smoking
history. According to a report written
by Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. R.M. Luros,
dated October 2, 2009, from 1965 to
December 2008, Plaintiff smoked one-
half to two packs of cigarettes daily,
for up to an 86-pack year smoking
history.

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS -5-

questioned 19.

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

See 84 Lumber’s Request for
Production, Set One, 4:15-26, attached
as Exhibit “C” to the Peng Decl.

See Plaintiff's Response to 84
Lumber’s Requests for Production of
Documents, Set One, 4:2-23, attached
as Exhibit “E” to the Peng Decl.

See Deposition of Mrs. Juelch, 744-

965, relevant portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “F” to the Peng
ec].

See Deposition of Mrs. Juelch, 744-

965, relevant portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “F” to the Peng
ecl.

See Plaintiffs Complaint, 8:20-22,
attached as Exhibit “A” to the Peng
ecl.

See Dr. R.M. Luros’ Report, pp. 3, 14,
be attached as Exhibit “L” to the Peng
ecl.

G:\3265\MSJ\SSUF. wpdSo Dem N DNA Bw NY =

22.

23.

24,

25.

26.

27,

28.

29.

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS:

Mrs. Juelch testified that it took one
yer to build the house on Adelbert
treet,

Mrs. Juelch testified that, during the
home’s construction, she worked full-
time as a nurse.

Mrs. Jueich testified that, during the
home’s construction, Mr. Chambers
worked full-time for a liquor
distribution company.

Mrs. Juelch testified that, because Mrs.
Juelch and Mr. Chamber were working
full-time, they built the house on
nights and weekends.

As to 84 Lumber products used in the
home’s construction, Mrs. Juelch
testified that they used only Hamilton
brand, not Kaiser, tape’ and joint
compound products, and Kaiser brand
sheetrock.

She claimed that she and Mr.
Chambers applied the tape and joint
compound, and then sanded the joint
compound.

Mrs, Juelch and Mr. Chambers only
lived in the house they built on
Adelbert Street for four months before
she moved out.

After that, the couple never got back
together and they got a divorce in 1978
or .

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS.

22.

23.

24,

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

See Deposition of Mrs. Juelch, 764:9-

10, relevant portions of which are

aitached as Exhibit “F” to the Peng
eck,

See Deposition of Mrs. Juelch, 766:6-

10, relevant portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “F” to the Peng
ecl,

See Deposition of Mrs. Juelch, 766:11-

16, relevant portions of which are

autached as Exhibit “F” to the Peng
eck.

See Deposition of Mrs. Juelch, 766:17-

19, relevant portions of which are

altached as Exhibit “F” to the Peng
eck.

See osition of Mrs. Juelch, 796:12-

16, 801:3-6, 802:10-14, relevant

portions of which are attached as
xhibit “F” to the Peng Decl.

See Deposition of Mrs. Juelch, 812:2-
813:13, 851:24-852:1, relevant portions
of which are attached as Exhibit “F” to
the Peng Decl.

See Deposition of Mrs, Juelch, 765:3-7,
relevant portions of which are attached
as Exhibit “F” to the Peng Decl.

See Deposition of Mrs. Juelch, 765:8-

10, relevani_portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “F” to the Peng
eck.

G\326S\MSASSUF.wpdeo me NDA BR WN =

YN YN YN NN NY Be Se ee Se ee eB eB
eo BPA A BO NH = SO we IA KH Bw we S

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS:

30. Besides the construction of the house
with Mr. Chambers, Mrs. Juelch
testified that, prior 2006, the only other
home remodel or construction work
she performed involved _ installing
doors ona house at the 1982 Adelbert

treet.

31, Mrs. Juelch specifically stated that
none of the work at the house at 1982
Adelbert involved work with
“sheetrock or anything like that.”

32. Mrs. Juelch testified that, except for
the time period when she assisted Mr.
Chambers built the house, the only
other 84 Lumber products she could
recall working around where a toilet
seat and toilet roll holder, nails, and
lawn seed.

33. Mrs. Juelch had no information at her
deposition that she ever worked with
or around any other 84 Lumber
products at any other time.

34. Mrs. Juelch testified that she and Mr.
Chambers applied the tape and joint
compound, and then sanded the joint
compound,

35, On January 12, 2010, Mrs. Juelch’s
second husband, Mr. Chambers, was
deposed in this case regarding his
marriage to Mrs. Juelch and the house
that they allegedly built together,

36. Mr. Chambers stated that the onh
house he ever built with Mrs. Juelc!
was located at 251 Adelbert Street.

37. | Mr. Chambers testified that he and
Mrs. Juelch built the house at 251
Adelbert Street over the course of
three years, from 1977 to 1979.

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

30,

31.

32.

33.

34,

35.

36.

37.

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

See Deposition of Mrs. Juelch, 915:13-

916:6, relevant portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “F” to the Peng
rec.

See Deposition of Mrs. Juelch, 915:13-

916:6, relevant portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “F” to the Peng
ecl.

See Deposition of Mrs. Juelch, 906:11-

908:5, relevant portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “F” to the Peng
ecl.

See Deposition of Mrs. Juelch, 907:19-

908:5, relevant portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “F” to the Peng
cl.

See Deposition of Mrs. Juelch, 812:2-

813:13, relevant portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “F” to the Peng
ecl,

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers, 1-

168, relevant portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng
rec.

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,

38:21-39:3, relevant portions of which

are attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng
eC,

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,

38:21-39:3, relevant portions of which

are attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng
eCl,

GA3265\MSASSUF.wpdUNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS:

38. Mr, Chambers stated that they “broke
ground” on the house at 251 Adelbert
in the fall of 1977.

39, | Mr. Chambers testified that the home’s
framing was done from 1977 and into
1978, with most of the home’s
remaining construction taking place in

40. Mr. Chambers testified that, at
sometime in 1978, he and Mrs. Juelch
separated for about six months.

Ww mY AnH FF WN

10

7) 41 Mr. Chambers testified that, during
their separation in 1978, Mrs. Juelc!

2 came around the home construction
site less frequently than when they had

13 been together.

41 42, Mr. Chambers testified that he

15 performed a lot more of the
construction work than Mrs. Juelch did

6 at 251 Adelbert.

71 43. Mr. Chambers thought that he could
build a house, because he and his
father owned a lot of rental properties,
and he was “always having to work on
9 them,” so he “figured” that he could
build a house,

21 44. Mr, Chambers stated that they built the
house at 251 Adelbert “payday by

22 payday.”
23
45. Mr, Chambers testified that the taping
24 and texturing work with joint
compound was performed in the
25 summer of 1978.
26 .
46. | However, Mr. Chambers testified that
a7 he did not perform any of the taping
and joint compound work, because he
28 subcontracted out the work.

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

38.

39,

40.

42.

43.

44,

45.

46.

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers, 62:8~-

12, relevant_portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng
eck,

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,
86:24-87:10, relevant portions of which
are attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng
Decl.

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,

87:11 oA relevant portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng
ec.

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers, 88:4-

12, relevant portions of which are

altached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng
ecl,

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,

68:21-69:10, relevant portions of which

are attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng
eck,

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,

41:20-42:8, relevant portions of which

are attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng
ecl.

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,

41:25-42:2, relevant portions of which

are attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng
MECH.

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,

105:13-17, relevant portions of which

are attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng
ech,

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,

98:12-21, relevant portions of which are

aitached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng
recs.

GA3265\MSIISSUF.wpdOo OW Dw BW NY

10

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS:

47, Mrs. Juelch and Mr. Chambers were

47.

separated during the time frame that.

the tape and joint compound work was
performed.

48. Mr. Chambers testified that Mrs.
Juelch did not perform work with
taping compounds, joint compounds,
and/or sanding, and she was not even
around while this work was being
performed, because they were
separated

49, Mr. Chambers testified that, as the
joint compound work, she would stop
yy to check up on the project from
time to time, but only afier such work
was done.

50. Mr. Chambers testified that did not
know the brand of any of the taping or
joint compounds “used by the
subcontractor at 251 Adelbert.

51. Mr. Chambers testified that he did not
know where any of the tape or joint
compound materials were purchase,
because the subcontractor supplied the
materials.

52. When asked ifhe had ever heard of the
Hamilton brand, Mr. Chambers
testified that he was not familiar with
the name, and he had no knowledge
that Mrs. Jueich had ever worked with
any products made, supplied, or
distributed by Hamilton.

53. Hamilton stopped using asbestos in
their joint compound no later than

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

48.

49.

50.

31.

52.

53.

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,

100:1-8, relevant portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng
ec],

See Deposition of Mr, Chambers,
100:1-8,105:25-106:2, relevant portions
of which are attached as Exhibit “G” to
the Peng Decl.

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,
100:1-8, relevant portions of which are
attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng

ec],

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,
106:3-23, relevant portions of which are
attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,
100:9-11, relevant portions of which are
attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng

ec].

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,
139:12-14,  144:22-145:21, relevant
ortions of which are attached as
xhibit “G” to the Peng Decl.

Sce Hamilton Materials, Inc.’s
Responses to Standard Interrogatories,
27:11-32:10, attached as Exhibit “T" to
the Peng Decl., J 20.

GA3265\MSASSUF wpdCo YN A WH BR wn =

NN YN NY NN NN Be Be Be ee Se ese Be se
eo WAAR Be NH EF DOD we IN DA BR YH SF DS

34.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS:

As to the sheetrock used for the
home’s construction, Mr. Chambers
testified that he could not recall the
specific brand of sheetrock used, but
believed that it was Kaiser brand.

Mr. Chambers testified that the Kaiser
sheetrock was the only Kaiser product
that he can recall using for the entire
ome’s construction.

Mr. Chambers testified that they
hanged the sheetrock sometime
between the summer and winter of

On February 25, 2010, Frank Cicero,
the Executive Vice-President of 84
Lumber, signed an affidavit stating
that 84 Lumber did not operate any
stores in California prior to April
1976.

The Affidavit provides that 84 Lumber
opened its first California store in San
Jose, CA in 1976, and did not open its
Stockton, CA store until June 1976,

The Affidavit states that, prior to June
1976, 84 Lumber did not own, lease,
or operate any building, supply,
lumber, or hardware store in Stockton,

Accordingly, since 84 Lumber did not
have any stores in California prior to
April 1976, no persons could have
purchased any products at an 84

umber store in California prior to
April 1976.

Additionally, no persons could have
urchased any products at the
tockton, CA store prior to June 1976.

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

54.

55.

56.

57,

58.

59.

60.

61.

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

See osition of Mr. Chambers,

77:13-16, relevant portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng
ec],

Sce Deposition of Mr. Chambers,

96:12-15, relevant portions of which are

allached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng
ec],

See Deposition of Mr, Chambers, 78:2-

22, relevant portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng
ecl.

See Affidavit of Frank Cicero (“Cicero
Affidavit”), 1:17-2:23, attached as
Exhibit “H” to the Peng Decl.

See Cicero Affidavit, 1:26-2:2, attached
as Exhibit “H” to the Peng Decl.

See Cicero Affidavit, 2:4-5, attached as
Exhibit “H” to the Peng Decl.

See Cicero Affidavit, 2:6-9, attached as
Exhibit “H” to the Peng Decl.

See Cicero Affidavit, 2:6-9, attached as
Exhibit “H” to the Peng Decl.

GA3265\MS.ASSUF. wpdwow YN RA FF WN =

yy VN NN NY Se eB Be eB Be me Be Be ee
SBNRSRRPRBRBRBESERWRARPSBREeAS

62.

63.

64,

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS;

County of San joaquin ermit records
support Mr. Chambers’ recollection,
and contradict Mrs. Juelch’s
recollection, regarding the time period
that Mr. Chambers and Mrs. Juelch
built the house at 251 South Adelbert.

The records show that house’s “Rough
Frame” was approved by the county
inspector on July 17, 1978.

The house’s “Insulation”
approved on July 25, 1978.

was

The “Sheetrock Nailing” was approved
on August 12, 1978.

Since any sheetrock work would have
necessarily been performed after the
insulation was approved, the sheetrock
work must have taken place sometime
after July 25, 1978.

Since any work with tape and joint

compound products would have been.

performed only after the “Sheetrock

Nailing” would have been approved.

Therefore, any work with tape and

joint compound products would have
een done afier August 12, 1978.

Any work with tape and joint
compound products would have been
performed around August 12, 1978.

Mrs. Juelch testified that she did not

know if any of the products they

purchased from 84 Lumber exposed
er to asbestos.

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

62.

63.

64,

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

See the County of San Joaquin,
Building Inspection Department,
Application for Permit and Inspection
Record, attached as Exhibit “I” to the
Peng Decl.

See the County of San Joaquin,
Building Inspection Department,
Application for Permit and Inspection
Record, attached as Exhibit “I” to the
Peng Decl.

See the County of San Joaquin,
Building Inspection Department,
Application for Permit and inspection
Record, attached as Exhibit “I” to the
Peng Decl.

See the County of San Joaquin,
Building Inspection Department,
Application for Permit and Inspection
Record, attached as Exhibit “P’ to the
Peng Decl.

See the County of San Joaquin,
Building Inspection Department,
Application for Permit and Inspection
Record, attached as Exhibit “I” to the
Peng Decl.

See the County of San Joaquin,
Building Inspection Department,
Application for Permit and Inspection
Record, attached as Exhibit “I” to the
Peng Decl.

See the County of San Joaquin,
Building Inspection Department,
Application for Permit and Inspection
Record, attached as Exhibit “I” to the
Peng Decl.

See Deposition of Mrs, Juelch, 832:18-

23, relevant_portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “F” to the Peng
ec].

GA3265\MSJ\SSUF.wpdOo MWY DAW Fw NHN |

wb NY YP NY NN NN NY Se Se eB Be Be Re Re RB eS
Se XY A A BF YH ese soe A DRA eB DY A Ss

1.

71.

72.

73.

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS:

Kaiser stopped using asbestos in their
joint compound no later than 1975

Kaiser never sold sheetrock that
contained asbestos, and did not sell
any asbestos-containing products
beyond 1976.

Mr. Chambers testified that he had no
information or knowledge that any of
the materials purchased from’ 84
Lumber and used in the home’s
construction contained asbestos,

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission banned asbestos-
containing patching compounds in
December 1977.

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

n.

71,

72,

73.

-12-

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

See Kaiser Gypsum’s Responses to
Standard Interrogatories, 45:17-18,
attached as Exhibit “K" to the Peng
Decl, 421. ,

See Declaration of George B. Kirk in
Support of Defendant Kaiser Gypsum
Company, Inc.’s Notice of Motion and
Motion For Summary Judgment,
2:2:11-14 and 6:24-7:2, attached as
Exhibit “3" to 84 Lumber’s Request for
Judicial Notice.

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,

115:10-15, relevant portions of which

are attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng
ec],

See online printout, attached as Exhibit
No to 84 Lumber's Request for Judicial
otice.

GA3265\MSASSUF.svpdCo OU me ND BR WN

YN RN NY NY NNN Se ee eB ee Se se Se oe
SIDA BW NH K§ SG Cwm HM DHA BY =

74,

7.

76.

77.

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS:

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: STRICT LIABILITY

On May 20, 2009, Plaintiffs Joyce
Jueich (“Mrs. Julech” and Norman
Juelch, Sr. (“Mr. Juelch”) filed their
Complaint against numerous
Defendants, including 84 Lumber,
alleging Strict Liability, Negligence,
False Representation, and Loss of
Consortium causes of action against 84
Lumber Company (“84 Lumber”).
Mts. Juelch alleged that she developed
lung cancer as a result of occupational,
para-occupational, an non-
occupational exposure to asbestos.

Exhibit "A" to Plaintiffs’ Complaint,
filed therewith and incorporated by
reference into Plaintiffs’ "Complaint,
alleges that Mrs. Juelch assisted her
ex-husband, Mr. Chambers, build a
house in Stockton, CA “in the early
1970s.”

The only additional detail provided in
Plaintiffs’ Complaint, with respect to
the house allegedly built by Mrs.
Juelch, is that she “recalls mixing,
applying and sanding asbestos
containing KAISER GYPSUM
COMPANY, INC. joint and taping
compounds purchased from 84
LUMBER.”

On August 24, 2009, 84 Lumber
served Special Interrogatories, Set
One, upon Mrs. Juelch, seeking
information, including facts,
documents, and witnesses, regarding
Plaintiffs alleged work with, or
around, any asbestos-containing
product sold by 84 Lumber.

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

7.

75.

76.

77.

See Plaintiff's Complaint, 1-23,
attached as Exhibit “A” to the
Decision of Michael J. Peng (“Peng
ecl.””),

See Plaintiffs Complaint, 8:20-22,
attached as Exhibit “A” to the Peng
ech.

See Plaintiffs Complaint, 8:20-22,

attached as Exhibit “A” to the Peng
Decl.
See 84 Lumber’s Special

Interrogatories, Set One, 1-4, attached
as Exhibit “B” to the Peng Decl.

G.\326S\MSISSUF.wpdwon Aw FF BN

NWN NN NY BP Se eB Be se ee ew se
RBORRREBBEBSEREADRBDAEBHROS

78.

79.

80.

81.

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS:

On August 24, 2009, 84 Lumber
served its Request for Production, Set
One, upon Plaintiff seeking the
production of documents regarding
laintiff's alleged work with, or
around, any asbestos-containing
product sold by 84 Lumber.

Plaintiff was specifically asked:
“Please state all facts in support of

YOUR contention that YOU were
exposed to asbestos through products
and/or materials SOLD by 84

LUMBER,” and “Please describe all
products and/or materials (by brand
name, manufacturer, or by a Bbysical
description) SOLD by 84 LUMBER
that YOU contend were the source(s)
ofeach of YOUR alleged exposures to
asbestos.”

In response, Mrs. Julch stated that 84
Lumber sold asbestos containing joint
and taping compounds, manufactured
by Kaiser and Hamilton Materials
(“Hamilton”), to the house she built
with Mr. Chambers in the early 1970s
and a home remodel project she

erformed with Mr. Chambers in
1076. Mrs. Jueich also alleged that
she used the same materials purchased
from. an 84 Lumber store while
“performing repair work on another
house around 1976.”

Plaintiff was specifically asked:
“Please provide each DATE upon
which YOU contend that YOU were
exposed to asbestos through products
and/or materials SOLD by 84
LUMBER.”

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

28.

79.

80.

81.

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

See 84 Lumber’s Request for
Production, Set One, 1-7, attached as
Exhibit “C” to the Peng Decl.

See 84 Lumber’s Special
Interrogatories, Set One, 3:11-13 and
3:17-20, attached as Exhibit “B” to the
Peng Decl.

See Plaintiff's Response to Defendant

84 Lumber Company’s Special!

Prepared interrogatories, Set One, 2:6-

18, attached as Exhibit “D” to the Peng
eck,

See 84 Lumber’s Special

Interrogatories, Set One, 3:14-16,

attached as Exhibit “B” to the Peng
eCd.

GA3265\MSJASSUF. wpdoO Oo NDA NH BB WN

10

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS:

Plaintiff was specifically asked:
“Please IDENTIFY each PERSON
who has Knowledge of any facts in
support of YOUR contention that
YOU were exposed to asbestos
through products and/or materials
SOLD by 84 LUMBER.”

Plaintiff was specifically asked:
“Please IDENTIFY any and_ all
DOCUMENTS in support of YOUR
contention that YOU were exposed to
asbestos through products and/or
materials SOLD by 84 LUMBER.”

In response, Plaintiff stated, in part:
“Plaintiffrefers to, and incorporates by
reference herein, his (sic.) objections
and Response to Interrogatory No. 1,
above.”

In response to the request for
identification of documents, Mrs.
Juelch identified no documents
responsive to the Interrogatory, and
instead elected to reference her
Responses to 84 Lumber’s Special
Discovery, her Social Security records,
medical records, employment records,
along with all other pleadings in this
action already on file with the Court,
and a list of deposition transcripts and
texts unrelated to this action.

In response to 84 Lumber’s Requests
for Identification and Production of
Documents, Plaintiff produced no
documents responsive to 84 Lumber’s
requests regarding Plaintiff's work
with, or around, any  asbestos-
containing product sold by 84 Lumber,
and instead elected to reference her
Responses to 84 Lumber’s Special
Discovery, her Social Security records,
medical records, employment records,
along with all other pleadings in this
action already on file with the Court,
and a list of deposition transcripts and
texts unrelated to this action.

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE;

See 84 Lumber’s Special

Interrogatories, Set One, 4:1-4,

attache as Exhibit “B” to the Peng
ec],

See 84 Lumber’s Special
Interrogatories, Set One, 4:5-8, attached
as Exhibit “B” to the Peng Decl.

See Plaintiff's Response to Defendant

84 Lumber Company’s Speciall

Prepared Interrogatories, Set One, 3-6,

attached as Exhibit “D” to the Peng
ecl.

See Plaintiff's Response to Defendant
84 Lumber Company’s Specially
Prepared Interrogatorics, Set One, 4:24-
6:21, attached as Exhibit “D” to the
Peng Decl.

See Plaintiffs Response to 84
Lumber’s Requests for Production of
Documents, Set One, 1-13, attached as
Exhibit “E” to the Peng Decl.

GA3265\MSIASSUF.wpdOo OW WDA FF WN =

MY NM BY NM NY NN NY De ee Be eB Be eB ee
oN A nA BSH ee SO we IN DAH BDH ES

87.

88.

89.

90.

91,

92.

93.

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS:

84 Lumber requested that Plaintiff
produce ali documents supporting her
contention that 84 Lumber sold or
distributed asbestos-containing
products to which he was exposed.

In response, Plaintiff produced no
documents responsive to 84 Lumber’s
requests.

84 Lumber requested that Plaintiff
produce all documents supporting her
contention that 84 Lumber expressly
represented to her, John Chambers, or
the general public that asbestos and
asbestos-containing products were of
merchantable quality, and safe for the
use for which they were intended.

In response, Plaintiff produced no
documents responsive to 84 Lumber’s
requests.

On June 25-26. Sentember 15-18, and
November 18-20, 2009, Mrs. Juelch
was deposed in this case regarding,
among other things, her work as an
insulator between 1980 and 1988, her
alleged secondary and non-
occupational exposure through the
work of her husbands, and the home
construction project in which she
provided assistance to Mr. Chambers.

Mrs. Juelch was questioned
extensively at her deposition regarding
her claims against 84 Lumber.

At deposition, Mrs. Juelch testified
that she and Mr. Chambers built a
house on Adelbert Street in Stockton,
CA in the early 1970s.

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

87.

88.

89,

90.

o1.

92.

93.

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

See 84 Lumber’s Request for
Production, Set One, 5:15-23, attached
as Exhibit “C” to the Peng Decl.

See Plaintiffs Response to 84
Lumber’s Requests for Production of
Documents, Set One, 4:2-23, attached
as Exhibit “E” to the Peng Decl.

See 84 Lumber’s Request for
Production, Set One, 4:15-26, attached
as Exhibit “C” to the Peng Decl.

See Plaintiffs Response to 84
Lumber’s Requests for Production of
Documents, Set One, 4:2-23, attached
as Exhibit “E” to the Peng Decl.

See Deposition of Mrs. Juelch, 744-

965, relevant portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “F” to the Peng
eck,

See Deposition of Mrs. Juelch, 744-

965, relevant portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “F” to the Peng
eck,

See Deposition of Mrs. Juelch, 757:6-
758:, 842:5-19, relevant portions of
which are attached as Exhibit “F” to the
Peng Decl.

GA3265\MS.ASSUP. wpdOo oN DH BF HW DN

10

94.

95.

97.

98.

99.

100.

101,

102.

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS:

Mrs, Juelch could not remember the
exact address where they built the
house with Mr. Chambers.

Mrs. Juelch testified that it took one
yen to build the house on Adelbert
treet.

Mrs. Juelch testified that, during the
home’s construction, she worked full-
time as a nurse,

Mrs. Juelch testified that, during the
home’s construction, Mr. Chambers
worked full-time for a liquor
distribution company.

Mrs. Juelch testified that, because Mrs.
Juelch and Mr. Chamber were working
full-time, they built the house on
nights and weekends,

As to 84 Lumber products used in the
home’s_ construction, Mrs. Juelch
testified that they used only Hamilton
brand, not Kaiser, tape and joint
compound products, and Kaiser brand
sheetrock,

She claimed that she and Mr.
Chambers applied the ‘ape and joint
compound, and then sanded the joint
compound.

Prior to the home construction project
at 251 Adelbert, Mrs. Juelch testified
that she had never had any experiences
applying or sanding joint compound.

After that, the couple never got back
together and they got a divorce in 1978
or .

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

94,

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

100.

101.

102,

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

See Deposition of Mrs. Juelch, 755:17-

22, relevant portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “F” to the Peng
ecl,

See Deposition of Mrs, Juelch, 764:9-

10, relevant portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “F” to the Peng
ecl,

See Deposition of Mrs. Juelch, 766:6-

10, relevant portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “F” to the Peng
eck.

See Deposition of Mrs. Juelch, 766:11-

16, relevant_portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “F” to the Peng
reCl,

See Deposition of Mrs. Juelch, 766:17-

19, relevant portions of which are

aitached as Exhibit “F” to the Peng
eck,

See Deposition of Mrs. Juelch, 796:12-
16, 801:3-6, 802:10-14, relevant
ortions of which are attached as
xhibit “F” to the Peng Decl.

See Deposition of Mrs. Juelch, 812:2-
$13:13,851:24-852:1, relevant portions
of which are attached as Exhibit “F” to
the Peng Decl.

See Deposition of Mrs. Juelch, 852:23-

853:1, relevant portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “F” to the Peng
eck,

See Deposition of Mrs. Juelch, 765:8-

10, relevant portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “F” to the Peng
ech.

G\3265\MSJSSUF.wpdOD eT DU B&B WwW WN

10

103.

104.

105.

109.

06.

07.

08.

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS:

Besides the construction of the house

with Mr, Chambers, Mrs. Juelch

testified that, prior 2006, the only other

home remodel or construction work

she performed involved installing

doors on a house at the 1982 Adelbert
treet.

Mrs. Juelch specifically stated that
none of the work at the house at 1982
Adelbert involved work with
“sheetrock or anything like that.”

Mrs. Juelch testified that, except for
the time period when she assisted Mr.
Chambers built the house, the only
other 84 Lumber products she could
recall working around where a toilet
seat and toilet roll holder, nails, and
lawn seed.

Mrs. Juelch had no information at her
deposition that she ever worked with
or around any other 84 Lumber
products at any other time.

Mrs. Juelch testified that she and Mr.
Chambers applied the tape and joint
compound, and then sanded the joint
compound while building the house at
251 Adelbert.

On January 12, 2010, Mrs. Juelch’s
second husband, Mr. Chambers, was
deposed in this case regarding his
marriage to Mrs. Juelch and the house
that they allegedly built together.

Mr. Chambers stated that the onl
house he ever built with Mrs. Juelc!
was located at 251 Adelbert Street.

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

103.

104.

105.

106.

107.

108.

109.

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

See Deposition of Mrs. Juelch, 915:13-

916:6, relevant portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “F” to the Peng
ecl.

See Deposition of Mrs. Juelch, 915:13-

916:6, relevant portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “F” to the Peng
ecl.

See Deposition of Mrs. Juelch, 906:11-

908:5, relevant portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “F” to the Peng
cl.

See Deposition of Mrs. Juelch, 907;19-
908:5, relevant portions of which are
attached as Exhibit “F” to the Peng

ecl.

See Deposition of Mrs. Juelch, 812:2-
$13:13, relevant portions of which are
attache as Exhibit “F” to the Peng

cl.

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers, 1-

168, relevant portions of which are

ated hed as Exhibit “G” to the Peng
ec].

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,

38:21-39:3, relevant portions of which

are attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng
cl.

GAIZ65\MSASSUF, wpdIDA fF YW HF SD Cw NDA A kw DN

110.

111.

116.

117.

118.

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS:

Mr. Chambers testified that he and
Mrs. Juelch built the house at 251
Adelbert Street over the course of
three years, from 1977 to 1979.

Mr. Chambers stated that they “broke
ground” on the house at 251 Adelbert
in the fall of 1977.

Mr. Chambers testified thatthe home’s
framing was done from 1977 and into
1978, ‘with most of the home’s
remaining construction taking place in

Mr. Chambers testified that, at
sometime in 1978, he and Mrs, Juelch
separated for about six months.

Mr, Chambers testified that, during
their separation in 1978, Mrs. Juelc!
came around the home construction
site less frequently than when they had
been together.

Mr. Chambers testified that he
performed: a lot more of the
construction work than Mrs. Juelch did
at 251 Adelbert.

Mr. Chambers thought that he could
build a house, because he and his
father owned a lot of rental properties,
and he was “always having to work on
them,” so he “figured” that he could
build a house.

Mr. Chambers stated that they built the
house at 251 Adelbert “payday by

payday.”

Mr, Chambers testified that the taping
and texturing work with joint
compound was performed in the
summer of 1978,

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

110.

1.

112.

113.

114.

115.

116.

117.

118.

SUPPORT! EVIDENCE:

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,

38:21-39:3, relevant portions of which

gre attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng
ec],

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers, 62:8-

12, relevant. portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng
ec.

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,

86:24-87:10, relevant portions of which

are altached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng
ech.

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,

87:11-24, relevant portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng
ech.

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers, 88:4-
12, relevant portions of which are
attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng

ecl,

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,
68:21-69:10, relevant portions of which
gre attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng

ecl,

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,
41:20-42:8, relevant portions of which
are attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng

ECL.

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,
41:25-42:2, relevant portions of which
are attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,

105:13-17, relevant portions of which

are attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng
ecl.

G:\3265\MS)\SSUF.wpdCo wa DA nw Bw HN

w wv nN RN Be Bee ese Be ee oe ee
&® Re RRREBSERBRERSRERWRERDEBHAS

119.

120.

121,

122.

123.

124,

125.

126.

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS:

However, Mr. Chambers testified that
he did not perform any of the taping

119.

and joint compound work, because he-

subcontracted out the work.

Mrs. Juelch and Mr. Chambers were
separated during the time frame that
the tape and joint compound work was
performed.

Mr. Chambers testified that Mrs.
Juelch did not perform work with
taping compounds, joint compounds,
and/or sanding, and she was not even
around while this work was being
performed, because they were
separated

Mr. Chambers testified that, as the
joint compound work, she would stop

y to check up on the project from
time to time, but only after such work
was done.

Mr. Chambers testified that did not
know the brand of any of the taping or
joint compounds used by the
subcontractor at 251 Adelbert.

Mr. Chambers testified that he did not
know where any of the tape or joint
compound materials were purchase,
because the subcontractor supplied the
materials.

When asked ifhe had ever heard of the
Hamilton brand, Mr. Chambers
testified that he was not familiar with
the name.

At his deposition, Mr. Chambers had
no knowledge that Mrs. Jueich had
ever worked with any products made,
supplied, or distributed by Hamilton.

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

120.

121.

122,

123,

124,

125.

126.

-20-

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,

98:12-21, relevant portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng
cl.

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,

100:1-8, relevant portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng
ecl,

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,
100:1-8,105:25-106:2, relevant portions
of which are attached as Exhibit “G” to

the Peng Decl.

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,
100:1-8, relevant portions of which are
attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng

ec.

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,
106:3-23, relevant portions of which are
attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng

ecl,

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,

100:9-11, relevant portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng
ecl.

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,
139:12-14, relevant portions of which
are attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng
Decl.

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,
144:22-145:21, relevant portions of
which are attached as Exhibit “G” to
the Peng Decl.

GA3265\MSISSUF. wpdoO IY DA Ae WH

bow wy YW NN NYY SF eB Be Be se ee eB ek
on nn BY NH SF SO we HN HRW B&B Www Ke S

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS:

127. As to the sheetrock used for the
home’s construction, Mr. Chambers
testified that he could not recall the
specific brand of shectrock used, but
believed that it was Kaiser brand,

128. Mr. Chambers testified that the Kaiser
sheetrock was the only Kaiser product
that he can recall using for the entire
home’s construction.

129, Mr. Chambers testified that they
hanged the sheetrock sometime
between the summer and winter of

130. On February 25, 2010, Frank Cicero,
the Executive Vice-President of 84
Lumber, signed an affidavit stating
that 84 Lumber did not operate any
stores in California prior to April
1976.

131. The Affidavit provides that 84 Lumber
opened its first California store in San
Jose, CA in 1976, and did not open its
Stockton, CA store until June 1976,

132. The Affidavit states that, prior to June
1976, 84 Lumber did not own, lease,
or operate any building, supply,
lumber, or hardware store in Stockton,

133. Accordingly, since 84 Lumber did not
have any stores in California prior to
April 1976, no persons could have
purchased any products at an 84
Lumber store in California prior to
April 1976.

134. Additionally, no persons could have
urchased any products at the
tockton, CA store prior to June 1976.

EPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS.

127.

128.

129.

130.

131.

132.

133,

134,

~21-

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,

77:13-10, relevant portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng
ecl.

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,

96:12-15, relevant portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng
ecl,

See osition of Mr. Chambers, 78:2-
22, relevant portions of which are
attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng

See Affidavit of Frank Cicero (“Cicero
Affidavit”), 1:17-2:23, attached as
Exhibit “H” to the Peng Decl.

See Cicero Affidavit, 1:26-2:2, attached
as Exhibit “H” to the Peng Decl.

See Cicero Affidavit, 2:4-5, attached as
Exhibit “H” to the Peng Decl.

See Cicero Affidavit, 2:6-9, attached as
Exhibit “H” to the Peng Decl.

See Cicero Affidavit, 2:6-9, attached as
Exhibit “H” to the Peng Decl.

GA3265\MSNSSUF.wpdCo eo VD AH BF WW

10

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS:

135. County of San Joaquin permit records
Support Mr. Chambers” recollection,
and contradict Mrs. Juelch’s
recollection, regarding the time period
that Mr. Chambers and Mrs. Juelch
built the house at 251 South Adelbert.

136. Therecords show that house’s “Rough
Frame” was approved by the county
inspector on July 17, 1978.

137, The house’s “Insulation” was
approved on July 25, 1978.

138. The “Sheetrock Nailing” was approved
on August 12, 1978,

139, Since any sheetrock work would have
necessarily been performed after the
insulation was approved, the sheetrock
work must have taken place sometime
after July 25, 1978.

140, Since any work with tape and joint
compound products would have been
performed only after the “Sheetrock

jailing” would have been approved.

Therefore, any work with ape and

joint compound products would have

een done after August 12, 1978.

141, Any work with tape and joint
compound products would have been
performed around August 12, 1978.

142. Mrs. Juelch testified that she did not
know if any of the products they
urchased from 84 Lumber exposed

er to asbestos.

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS.

138.

139.

140.

141,

142,

= 22+

35.

36.

37.

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

See the County of San Joaquin,
Building Inspection Department,
Application for Permit and nspection
Record, attached as Exhibit “I” to the
Peng Decl.

See the County of San Joaquin,
Building Inspection Department,
Application for Permit and inspection
Record, attached as Exhibit “I” to the
Peng Decl.

See the County of San Joaquin,
Building Inspection Department,
Application for Permit and Inspection
Record, attached as Exhibit “1” to the
Peng Decl.

See the County of San Joaquin,
Building Inspection Department,
Application for Permit and Inspection
Record, attached as Exhibit “I” to the
Peng Decl.

See the County of San Joaquin,
Building Inspection Department,
Application for Permit and Inspection
Record, attached as Exhibit “I” to the
Peng Decl.

See the County of San Joaquin,
Building Inspection Department,
Application for Permit and iispection
Record, attached as Exhibit “I” to the
Peng Decl.

See the County of San Joaquin,
Building Inspection Department,
Application for Permit and inspection
Record, attached as Exhibit “I” to the
Peng Decl.

See Deposition of Mrs. Juelch, 832:18-
23, relevant_portions of which are
attached as Exhibit “F” to the Peng
ecl.

GA3265\MSJ\SSUF. wpdSo ND NW & WHY

y YR NM NNN Ye Ee ew we Se Se ee ee
BNRRKRREBBEBRBSEERARRZEBCHEAS

143.

144.

148.

149.

150.

45.

46.

47.

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS:

Mrs. Juelch testified that 84 Lumber
never made any warnings or
representations to her regarding the
character or quality of any products
allegedly sold by 84 Lumber.

Mr. Chambers testified that 84 Lumber
never made any warnings or
representations to him regarding the
character or quality of any products
allegedly sold by 84 Lumber.

Mr. Chambers testified that he had no
information or knowledge that any of
the materials purchased from’ 84
Lumber and used in the home’s
construction contained asbestos.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission banned asbestos-
containing patching compounds in
December 1977.

Hamilton stopped using asbestos in
their joint compound no later than

Kaiser stopped using asbestos in their
joint compound no later than 1975

Kaiser never sold sheetrock that

contained asbestos.

Kaiser did not sell any asbestos-
containing products beyond 1976,

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS:

143.

144.

145.

146.

147.

148.

149,

150.

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

See Deposition of Mrs. Jnelch, 888:5-

13, relevant portions of which are

attached as Exhibit “F” to the Peng
ecl,

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,
114:23-115:9, relevant portions of
which are attached as Exhibit “G” to
the Peng Decl.

See Deposition of Mr. Chambers,

115:10-15, relevant portions of which

are attached as Exhibit “G” to the Peng
ech. :

See online printout, attached as Exhibit
No to 84 Lumber's Request for Judicial
jotice.

See Hamilton Materials, Inc.’s
Responses to Standard Interrogatories,
27:11-32:10, attached as Exhibit “J" to
the Peng Decl., | 20.

See