Answer: CHARLES HUSBAND VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                DAVID T. BIDERMAN, Bar No. 101577
BRIEN F. MC MAHON, Bar No. 66809

PERKINS core we 2400 ELECTRONICALLY
‘our Embarcadero, Suite
San Francisco, California 94111 FILED |
Telephone: (415) 344-7000 Superior Court of California,
Facsimile: (415) 344-7288 County of San Francisco
APR 23 2009
Attomeys for Defendant GORDON PARK-LI, Clerk
GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC, BY: JUANITA D_ MURPHY
fkfa GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
CHARLES HUSBAND, CASE NO. CGC-09-275098
Plaintiff, ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEORGIA-

PACIFIC LLC TO COMPLAINT
v.

ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BeP), et al.,

Defendants.

Defendant Georgia-Pacific LLC, f/k/a Georgia-Pacific Corporation (“Georgia-Pacific”)
hereby answers the unverified Complaint filed on or about March 2, 2009 (“Complaint”) of
Plaintiff, CHARLES HUSBAND (“Plaintiff”), as follows:

GENERAL DENIAL

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), Georgia-Pacific denies
generally and specifically each and every allegation of each cause of action contained in the
Complaint, and further denies that Plaintiff has sustained injury or damage in the sums alleged,
or in any other sum or sums, or at all, and that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief as a result of any

act, conduct, or omission of Georgia-Pacific.

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC TO COMPLAINT
60312-0001.0642/LEGALI5814970.1om I DR HW PB WN

AS AND FOR ITS AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES HEREIN, GEORGIA-PACIFIC
ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
1, The Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, fails to state facts
sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Georgia-Pacific.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2. The Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred, in whole or
in part, by the applicable statutes of limitation and/or repose, including, but not limited to,
California Code of Civil Procedure sections 340 and 340.2.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3. Venue is improper in this Court. Georgia-Pacific reserves its rights to move for
dismissal and/or transfer of the action based on improper and/or inconvenient venue and further
reserves its rights to seek application of the law of the appropriate venue on all issues, including
but not limited to statute of limitations, statute of repose, and punitive damages.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4. The Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred, in whole or
in part, by the doctrine of estoppel by virtue of Plaintiff.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

5, The Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred, in whole or

in part, by the doctrine of laches by virtue of Plaintiff.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6. The Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred, in whole or
in part, by the doctrine of waiver by virtue of Plainiiff.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

7. This Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of Plaintiff's Complaint.

-2-
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC TO COMPLAINT
603 12-0001.0642/LEGAL15814970.1EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

8. The Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred, in whole or
in part, by Plaintiff's implied assumption of the risks and dangers, if any, associated with the
alleged conditions, conduct, or injuries, with knowledge of such risks and dangers.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

9. Some or all of the damages claimed by Plaintiff are not recoverable under
applicable law. In the event that there is a finding of damages for Plaintiff, any award or
judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff must be reduced or offset by the amount of any benefits
Plaintiff received, or is entitled to receive, from any source, under applicable Jaw. In addition, if
Plaintiff has heretofore or should hereafter settle for any of the alleged injuries and damages with
any parties, then Georgia-Pacific is entitled to a credit in the amount of said settlements.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE

10. To the extent that Plaintiff has received payment from any alleged joint tortfeasor
in full satisfaction of any of the alleged injuries and/or claims against Georgia-Pacific and/or
other alleged joint tortfeasors, the Complaint in each and every count and cause of action alleged
therein is barred by the defenses of payment and accord and satisfaction.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

11. Plaintiff's damages, if any, were directly and proximately caused, or contributed
to, in whole or in part, by the acts and/or omissions and/or fault of other individuals, firms,
corporations, or other entities over whom Georgia-Pacific has or had no control or right of
control, and for whom it is/was not responsible. Said acts and/or omissions and/or fault
intervened between, and/or superseded, the acts and/or omissions and/or fault of Georgia-Pacific,
if any. Plaintiff's recovery against Georgia-Pacific, if any, should therefore be barred or

diminished in accordance with applicable law.

~3-
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC TO COMPLAINT
60312-0001 .0642A.EGAL15814976.1Co ma I DAD HH FB WY WN

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

12. Plaintiff's damages, if any, were directly and proximately caused, or contributed
to, by Plaintiff's own negligence or fault at the times and in the places set forth in the Complaint,
or the negligence or other fault of individuals, firms, corporations, or other entities, over whom
Georgia-Pacific has or had no control or right of control, and for whom it is/was not responsible
which were in privity with Plaintiff. Plaintiff's recovery against Georgia-Pacific, if any, should
therefore be barred or diminished in accordance with applicable law.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

13. The Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred, in whole or

in part, by Plaintiff's failure to mitigate damages, if any.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

14. At the times and in the places set forth in the Complaint, any Georgia-Pacific
product in question was not being used in the normal and ordinary way, nor was it being used in
a manner recommended by Georgia-Pacific, nor for the purposes for which it was designed. To
the contrary, any such Georgia-Pacific product was being put to an abnormal use or misuse, and
to a use that was not reasonably foreseeable to Georgia-Pacific. Such abnormal use or misuse
was the sole, direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages, if any. Plaintiff's
recovery against Georgia-Pacific, if any, is therefore barred,

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

15. Atall times and in all places relevant to the alleged conditions, conduct, or
injuries, Plaintiff has or should have had notice and knowledge of the risks and dangers, if any,
associated with such conditions, conduct, and injuries, because any such risk or danger was open,
obvious, and apparent to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff appreciated the danger or risk, and voluntarily

assumed any such danger or risk.

-4-
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC TO COMPLAINT
60312-0001 .0642/LEGAL15814970.1eC DBD WD DH FF wD

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16. ‘If Plaintiff sustained any injury or damage as alleged in the Complaint, said injury
or damage was solely, directly, and proximately caused by conditions, circumstances, and/or
conduct of others, beyond the control of Georgia-Pacific.
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17. Georgia-Pacific is not liable to Plaintiff with respect to the injuries alleged in the
Complaint because such injuries, if any, were caused by pure accident in terms of law.
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18. The actions of Georgia-Pacific were in conformity with the state of the medical,
industrial, and scientific arts, so that there was no duty to warn Plaintiff under the circumstances,
or to the extent such a duty arose, Georgia-Pacific provided adequate warnings, labels, and/or
instructions concerning any Georgia-Pacific product in question. If those warnings, labels,
and/or instructions were not made available or heeded, it is the fault of others and not of
Georgia-Pacific.
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19. The Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred, in whole or
in part, because Plaintiff has failed to join all necessary and indispensable parties.
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20. Georgia-Pacific made no express or implied representations or warranties of any
kind to Plaintiff. To the extent that the alleged representations or warranties were made, they
were made by persons or entities other than Georgia-Pacific, and over whom Georgia-Pacific has
or had no control or right of control.
TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21. Plaintiff did not rely upon any representations or warranties made by Georgia-
Pacific. To the extent Plaintiff relied upon any alleged representations or warranties, such

reliance was unjusiified.

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC TO COMPLAINT
60312-0001.0642/LEGAL15814970.1TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22, The Complaint fails to set forth a claim for punitive damages upon which relief
may be granted.
TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

23. To the extent the Complaint asserts a demand for punitive damages, Georgia-
Pacific specifically incorporates by reference any and all standards of limitations regarding the
determination and/or enforceability of punitive damage awards that arose in the decisions of
BMW of North America, Inc. vy. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996); Cooper Industries, Inc. v.
Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U.S. 424 (2001); and State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 123 S. Ct. 1513 (2003).

F ATIVE DEFE

24. Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages, if granted, would be excessive and would
violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Georgia-Pacific has not received fair notice that it could be subject to punitive damages in this
state for the conduct alleged. Georgia-Pacific’s conduct was not deliberate, and the damages, if
any, to Plaintiff, were economic. The punitive damages sought by Plaintiff would be greatly
disproportionate (o any actual damages.

TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

25. Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages would violate the Eighth Amendment to the
United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 1 and 17, of the California Constitution
because it seeks to impose an excessive fine upon Georgia-Pacific, is penal in nature, and seeks
to punish Georgia-Pacific upon vague standards.
TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26, Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages would violate the Equal Protection Clause
to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 7 of the

California Constitution because it discriminates against Georgia-Pacific on the basis of wealth

-6-
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC TO COMPLAINT
60312-0001.0642/LEGAL15814970.1oe YN DW RB HP

NY NM RN WY WYN NH KR = = = Se Se Se ee SF es
oy A UW & BN | SF BG we WH HD FF YB KH —&—

and because different amounts can be awarded against two or more defendants for the same act
when those defendants differ only in material wealth.
TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

27, Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages would violate the Fifth Amendment to the
United States Constitution and Article I, Section 15 of the California Constitution because it
would expose Georgia-Pacific to multiple punishments and fines for the same act or conduct.

TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

28. Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution in the absence of an order
bifurcating that claim from the issue of liability.

T 'Y-NINTH AFFIRMATIY.

29. Any award of punitive damages in this case would violate the Separation of
Powers Doctrine since this Court and/or the jury would be usurping the exclusive power of the
legislature to define crimes and establish punishment.

THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

30. Any award of punitive damages in this case would be constitutionally defective as
an ex post facto law prohibited by the California and United States Constitution. The jury, in
making any such punitive award, would effectively be criminalizing conduct after it has occurred
and without appropriate advance notice to Georgia-Pacific that such conduct may subject it to
criminal punishment.

THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

31. The punitive damages sought by Plaintiff would violate the Due Process Clause of
the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution because Plaintiff seeks to

punish Georgia-Pacific in California for alleged conduct that occurred elsewhere.

-T-
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC TO COMPLAINT
603}2-0001.0642/LEGAL15814970.1THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

32. Atno time relevant hereto was Plaintiff exposed to any asbestos from products
mined, processed, imported, converted, compounded, designed, manufactured, marketed or sold
by Georgia-Pacific.

T. < FFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

33. Plaintiff was not exposed to any asbestos materials through any act or omission of
Georgia-Pacific, or if such exposure occurred, which is denied, such exposure was of such
insufficient quantities, at such infrequent intervals, for such short periods of time, or under such
conditions as 1o amount to no proximate cause of Plaintiff's damages, if any, as a matter of law.
Therefore, Georgia-Pacific denies that any of its products or any alleged action or inaction on its
part has damaged or injured Plaintiff in any manner or at any time.

THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

34. Plaintiff's employers were negligent and careless, which negligence and
carelessness were legal and actual causes of, and contributed to, the damages, if any, that
Plaintiff sustained, and which negligence and carelessness are a bar to the recovery by Plaintiff,
from Georgia-Pacific. Furthermore, Georgia-Pacific is entitled to set off any workers’
compensation benefits and/or veterans’ benefits and/or military benefits received or that are to be
received by Plaintiff, against any judgment that may be rendered in favor of Plaintiff, against
Georgia-Pacific, or against Georgia-Pacific and any other defendant or defendants.

THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

35. The Fair Responsibility Act of 1986, codified at California Civil Code section
1431.1 er. seq., limits any damages governed thereby, which are awarded to Plaintiff against
Georgia-Pacific, to that portion of Plaintiff's non-economic damages, if any, that are attributable

to Georgia-Pacific’s percentage of fault or liability, if any.

-8-
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC TO COMPLAINT
60312-0001 .0642/LEGAL15814970.1oO; oe MOA OH ROY NN =

NN BN KN RRR RO ieee
oy A A BY NB = SF OD me IN DH FF WN

THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
36. | The Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, is barred, in whole or
in part, by the exclusivity of remedy under the California Workers Compensation Act, California
Labor Code section 3200 ef. seg.
THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
37. Plaintiff's claims are barred or preempted, in whole or in part, by federal law,
statutes, and regulations.

THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

38. Georgia-Pacific neither mined, processed, imported, converted, compounded,

designed, manufactured, marketed nor sold any of the products alleged in the Complaint; thus,
Georgia-Pacific denies that any product or action or inaction on its part caused any alleged
damages to Plaintiff.
THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

39. Any products manufactured by Georgia-Pacific that incorporated asbestos-
containing materials alleged to have been a cause of, or to have contributed to, any disease
contracted by Plaintiff, were manufactured in, under, and in conformity with the direction and
control of the United States Government, which at all times material hereto had knowledge
superior to that of Georgia-Pacific with respect to the potential hazards of asbestos products;
accordingly, no liability can be imposed upon Georgia-Pacific.

FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

40. Any and all “market share,” “enterprise,” and/or “concert of action” theories of

liability are inapplicable to Georgia-Pacific and/or any of Georgia-Pacific’s products in question.
FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
41, Third parties over whom Georgia-Pacific has or had no control or right of control,

and for whom it is/was not responsible, altered or modified the Georgia-Pacific product or

-9-
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC TO COMPLAINT
60312-0001.0642/LEGAL15814970.1co me NN OH Rh Oe NY

Rn =

products in question, and such alteration or modification was the sole, direct, and proximate
cause of Plaintiff's damages, if any, thereby barring any and all claims against Georgia-Pacific.
FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
42, The plans or designs, method or technique of manufacturing, assembling, testing,
labeling and sale of any Georgia-Pacific product alleged in the Complaint to have caused all or
part of Plaintiff's alleged damages conformed with the state of the art at the time any such
Georgia-Pacific product was designed, manufactured, assembled, tested, labeled and/or sold by
Georgia-Pacific, pursuant to generally recognized and prevailing standards and in conformance
with the statutes, regulations, and requirements that governed the product or products at the time
of design, manufacture, assembly, testing, labeling, and sale.
FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
43, — The benefits of the design of any Georgia-Pacific product in question outweigh
any risk associated with said products, if there was actually any risk, which Georgia-Pacific
denies,
FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
44, Georgia-Pacific is not liable for Plaintiff's injuries, if any, because it did not
exercise the requisite degree of control over the details of Plaintiff's work.
FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
45. The claims raised in the Complaint against Georgia-Pacific are barred under the
Privette doctrine, set forth in Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal. 4" 689 (1993), and its progeny.
FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
46. The Complaint fails to state a claim against Georgia-Pacific under the “peculiar
risk” doctrine if Plaintiff's alleged injury on Georgia-Pacific’s premises, which Georgia-Pacific
expressly denies, arose in the course and scope of his/her employment by an independent

contractor.

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC TO COMPLAINT
60312-0001.0642/LEGAL15814970.1Cc 6 em YD HW BF ww =

RB NM NY NY NY YY Se = | ee Se Se Se we Se
oN A Ww RYU YN | SSC we Se AH BR wD BB =

FORTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

47. Georgia-Pacific is not liable for Plaintiff's injuries, if any, because there was no
“dangerous condition” on Georgia-Pacific’s premises that was known to, or should have been
known to, Georgia-Pacific.

Georgia-Pacific reserves the right, upon completion of its investigation and discovery, to
assert such additional defenses as may be appropriate.

FORTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

48. California Code of Civil Procedure section 361 is a bar to this action because
Plaintiff's claims arise in another state and, by the laws of that state, an action cannot be
maintained by reason of the lapse of time and as a consequence, cannot be maintained in this
state,

FORTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

49. Another action is pending or has been adjudicated between Georgia-Pacific and
Plaintiff on the same claims alleged in this action, and therefore, pursuant to Califomia Code of
Civil Procedure section 430. 10(c), this action is duplicative and vexatious and cannot be
maintained.

FIFTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

50. Georgia-Pacific was under no legal duty to warn Plaintiff of the hazard associated
with the use of products containing asbestos or their existence at any premises owned, operated
or otherwise controlled by Georgia-Pacific. The purchasers of said products, Plaintiff, Plaintiff's
employers, his unions or certain third parties yet to be identified, were knowledgeable and
sophisticated users who knew or should have known of the risk associated with using products
containing asbestos and, assuming a warning was required, were in a better position to warn

Plaintiff.

-JL-
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC TO COMPLAINT
60312-0001 .0642/LEGAL 15814970.eo em YN DA A fF YW NY

10

WHEREFORE, Georgia-Pacific prays for judgment against Plaintiff dismissing the
Complaint and each and every purported cause of action alleged against Georgia-Pacific therein,
and awarding Georgia-Pacific costs, interest, disbursements and such other and/or further relief

as the Court may deem appropriate.

DATED: April 23, 2009. PERKINS COIE Lup

By _/s/ Brien F. McMahon
Brien F. McMahon
Attorneys for Defendant
GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC,
fik/a GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION

-12-
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC TO COMPLAINT
603 12-0001 .0642/LEGAL15814970.1Co OD MH DR wh BF YW NHN =

NY NY RR RP NM BD Ye Ee em ee ee ee
oN DH FB HB — SO ON DH FF BH YY K-

PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Felecia P. Hobbs, am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. 1
am over the age of 18 years and am not a party to the within action. My business address is
Perkins Coie LLP, Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 2400, San Francisco, California 94111. Iam
familiar with the business practice of Perkins Coie LLP. On April 23, 2009, I caused to be
served the following document(s) on the interested parties in this action through the use of the

website maintained by Lexis Nexis.

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC TO COMPLAINT

KK BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: | provided the document(s) listed above to the Lexis Nexis
website pursuant to their instructions on that website. If the document(s) is/are provided
to Verilaw electronically by 5:00 p.m., then the document will be deemed served on the
date that it was provided to Lexis Nexis.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United
States of America that the foregoing is true and correct and was executed in San Francisco,

California.

DATED: April 23, 2009. 2 Ly Uselac

Felecia P. Hobbs

--
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC TO COMPLAINT
60312-0001.0642/LEGAL15814970.1