On May 20, 2009 a
Motion-Secondary
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.
Preview
1 |) EUGENE BROWN, JR. (SBN; 079824) |
DAVID A. PEREDA (SBN: 237982)
2) FILICE BROWN EASSA & MCLEOD LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1800 ELECTRONICALLY |
3) Oakland, California 94612-3520 FILED :
‘Telephone: (S10) 444-3131 Superior Court of California, |
4 | Faesimile: (310) 839-7940 County of San Francisco
5 | Attorneys for Defendant FEB 24 20 10
TOSCO REFINING COMPANY, INC. BY: CHRISTLE ARRIOLA
6 Deputy Clerk
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO |
10
ll | JOYCE JUELCH AND NORMAN CASE NO, CGC09-275212
JUELCH, SR., I
12 DECLARATION OF DAVID.A. PEREDA IN |
Piaintifls, SUPPORT OF TOSCO REFINING
13 COMPANY, INC’S MOTION FOR
v SUMMARY JUDGMENT
14
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP), Date: March 18, 2010
18 ‘Time: 9:30 am.
Defendant. Dept: 220 1
16 Judge: Hon. Harold ©. Kahn j
Trial Date: April 3, 2010
17}
18 |
19
20 1, DAVID A. PEREDA, declare:
a L That. Jam an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before-all courts of the State
99 | of California, and am an associate in the law firm of Filice Brown Eassa & McLeod LLP,
23 | attorneys of record for Tosco Refining Company.
24, 2. ‘That plaintiff testified that in 1983 for approximately two months, she was
25. | dispatched on behalf of Plant Insulation to Tosce’s Avon Refinery in Martinez, California. ‘This
26 | isthe only occasion on which plaintiff worked at a premises owned, operated, or controlled by
27 | Tosco. These assertions are supported by the deposition of Joyce Juelch, 169:20-21) 1791-4:
28
ATION OF DAVID A. PEREDA IN SUPPORT OF TOSCO REFINING C
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT‘velerence as though fully set forth as Exhibit Ay
3. Plaintiff was an appretitice during her time at the Refi inery, and as such, ‘she
assisted Plant Insulation. joumeymen who were removing and installing insulation. Her-duties
consisted of staging and cleaning the journeymen’s work are
insulation. ‘These. assertions are supported by the deposition of Joyce Juelch, 124:4e6, 2112266, 0
true and correct copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as though
fully set forth as Exhibit A. - .
4, On a few occasions totaling 4.5 10.5 hours, plaintifT observed Plant Insulation
journeymen removing patches of insulation, ‘The insulators banded the insulation they removed
|
s.. She did not remove or-install - |
t
|
:
i
A
i
i
q
: i
. |
to. plaintiff who prepared ito be. discarded, Plante did not know when or by-whom the |
{
insulation was ‘installed. She did not know if it ‘contained asbestos, if it had been tested tor |
asbestos content, or where it. can be obtained now to. be tested, ‘These assertions are supported by |
the deposition of Joyce Jueleh, 19121-25; 192: 1 thru 205: Ihs 207: 12thru 208:25;.209: 12-15, a
true and correct copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as though
fully-set forth as Exhibit A. :
8 ‘Tosco personnel did not remove-or install asbestos-containing materials j in her
presence. ‘This assertion is supported by the: deposition of Joyce Jueleh, at page 222:15-25; 23:1,
a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by-reference’as though
fully set forth as Exhibit A.
6. Plaintiff observed Tosco personnel sweeping p pea gravel j in ‘Plant Insulation ‘work :
areas alter the areas had already been cleaned. by Plant Insulation wor hers. She does. not know if
the pea gi gravel contained asbestos, if it had been tesied for asbestos content, or where:jt can be i
obtained now to be tested, ‘These assertions are supported by the deposition testimony of Joyce ©
Juelch, at page 211: 2-25; 215:20-25; 24631 thru 219:9; 220:1 thru 22:14, a true and correct copy
of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth as
Exhibit.A.
oF Plaintitts’ disclosed percipient witness Kenneth Goforth testified that he does not
ecall ever'secing Tosco personnel while he was al the Refi finery in. 1983. This a
ay
OO DECLARAT TON: OF DAVID A. PEREDA IN SUPPORT OF TOSCO REFINING CC
MOTION. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT“"'PECLARAT OR
supported by the deposition testimony of Kenneth Goforth, takenin Goforth v. Asbestos.
Defendants, 8FSC.No. 451849, on May 22,2007, atpage.651:20-22. a true and cosrect copy of
which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference-as though fully set forth as Exhibit
B. /
8. Norman Juelch testified that while he was present at the Refinery:in 1983, he
observed Tosco personnel sweeping debris, but ‘did not know if it contained asbestos. This
assertion is supported by the deposition testimony of Norman Juelch, taken in Norman Juelchv.
Asbestos Defendant, SESC No. 457464, on May. 22,2008, at pages 648:6-11; 650:24-25; 651 1-
5, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by relerence.as
though fully set forth as: Exhibit C.
I declare. under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing istruc and correct and, if called as a witness, could testify competently thereto,
Executed this. 1A th day of February, 2010, at Oakland, California.
ete
953022 34977 DAP.
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Preview
1 |) EUGENE BROWN, JR. (SBN; 079824) | DAVID A. PEREDA (SBN: 237982) 2) FILICE BROWN EASSA & MCLEOD LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1800 ELECTRONICALLY | 3) Oakland, California 94612-3520 FILED : ‘Telephone: (S10) 444-3131 Superior Court of California, | 4 | Faesimile: (310) 839-7940 County of San Francisco 5 | Attorneys for Defendant FEB 24 20 10 TOSCO REFINING COMPANY, INC. BY: CHRISTLE ARRIOLA 6 Deputy Clerk 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO | 10 ll | JOYCE JUELCH AND NORMAN CASE NO, CGC09-275212 JUELCH, SR., I 12 DECLARATION OF DAVID.A. PEREDA IN | Piaintifls, SUPPORT OF TOSCO REFINING 13 COMPANY, INC’S MOTION FOR v SUMMARY JUDGMENT 14 ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BP), Date: March 18, 2010 18 ‘Time: 9:30 am. Defendant. Dept: 220 1 16 Judge: Hon. Harold ©. Kahn j Trial Date: April 3, 2010 17} 18 | 19 20 1, DAVID A. PEREDA, declare: a L That. Jam an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before-all courts of the State 99 | of California, and am an associate in the law firm of Filice Brown Eassa & McLeod LLP, 23 | attorneys of record for Tosco Refining Company. 24, 2. ‘That plaintiff testified that in 1983 for approximately two months, she was 25. | dispatched on behalf of Plant Insulation to Tosce’s Avon Refinery in Martinez, California. ‘This 26 | isthe only occasion on which plaintiff worked at a premises owned, operated, or controlled by 27 | Tosco. These assertions are supported by the deposition of Joyce Juelch, 169:20-21) 1791-4: 28 ATION OF DAVID A. PEREDA IN SUPPORT OF TOSCO REFINING C MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT‘velerence as though fully set forth as Exhibit Ay 3. Plaintiff was an appretitice during her time at the Refi inery, and as such, ‘she assisted Plant Insulation. joumeymen who were removing and installing insulation. Her-duties consisted of staging and cleaning the journeymen’s work are insulation. ‘These. assertions are supported by the deposition of Joyce Juelch, 124:4e6, 2112266, 0 true and correct copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth as Exhibit A. - . 4, On a few occasions totaling 4.5 10.5 hours, plaintifT observed Plant Insulation journeymen removing patches of insulation, ‘The insulators banded the insulation they removed | s.. She did not remove or-install - | t | : i A i i q : i . | to. plaintiff who prepared ito be. discarded, Plante did not know when or by-whom the | { insulation was ‘installed. She did not know if it ‘contained asbestos, if it had been tested tor | asbestos content, or where it. can be obtained now to. be tested, ‘These assertions are supported by | the deposition of Joyce Jueleh, 19121-25; 192: 1 thru 205: Ihs 207: 12thru 208:25;.209: 12-15, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as though fully-set forth as Exhibit A. : 8 ‘Tosco personnel did not remove-or install asbestos-containing materials j in her presence. ‘This assertion is supported by the: deposition of Joyce Jueleh, at page 222:15-25; 23:1, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by-reference’as though fully set forth as Exhibit A. 6. Plaintiff observed Tosco personnel sweeping p pea gravel j in ‘Plant Insulation ‘work : areas alter the areas had already been cleaned. by Plant Insulation wor hers. She does. not know if the pea gi gravel contained asbestos, if it had been tesied for asbestos content, or where:jt can be i obtained now to be tested, ‘These assertions are supported by the deposition testimony of Joyce © Juelch, at page 211: 2-25; 215:20-25; 24631 thru 219:9; 220:1 thru 22:14, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth as Exhibit.A. oF Plaintitts’ disclosed percipient witness Kenneth Goforth testified that he does not ecall ever'secing Tosco personnel while he was al the Refi finery in. 1983. This a ay OO DECLARAT TON: OF DAVID A. PEREDA IN SUPPORT OF TOSCO REFINING CC MOTION. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT“"'PECLARAT OR supported by the deposition testimony of Kenneth Goforth, takenin Goforth v. Asbestos. Defendants, 8FSC.No. 451849, on May 22,2007, atpage.651:20-22. a true and cosrect copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference-as though fully set forth as Exhibit B. / 8. Norman Juelch testified that while he was present at the Refinery:in 1983, he observed Tosco personnel sweeping debris, but ‘did not know if it contained asbestos. This assertion is supported by the deposition testimony of Norman Juelch, taken in Norman Juelchv. Asbestos Defendant, SESC No. 457464, on May. 22,2008, at pages 648:6-11; 650:24-25; 651 1- 5, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by relerence.as though fully set forth as: Exhibit C. I declare. under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing istruc and correct and, if called as a witness, could testify competently thereto, Executed this. 1A th day of February, 2010, at Oakland, California. ete 953022 34977 DAP. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT