arrow left
arrow right
  • LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA ASBESTOS document preview
  • LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA ASBESTOS document preview
  • LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA ASBESTOS document preview
  • LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA ASBESTOS document preview
  • LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA ASBESTOS document preview
  • LAURANCE HAGEN VS. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA ASBESTOS document preview 
						
                                
Preview

                                if

Oo 2 RW DH A FF YON

mo woe ee eee
RBRPRePRRR BRB SEAR DRE H HK SC

Bugene C. Blackard Jr. (Bar No. 142090)

| ARCHER NORRIS

A Professional Law Corporation

3033 North Main Street, Suite 800 ELECTRONICALLY
Walnut Creek, California 94596-3759 FILED
Telephone: 925.930.6600 Superior Court of California,
Facsimile: 925.930.6620 County of San Francisco
Attorneys for Defendant SEP oe zone
ANDERSON, ROWE & BUCKLEY INC, BY: JUDITH NUNEZ

Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

LAURANCE HAGEN, Case No, CGC-10-275582

Plaintiff, OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S OFFER

TO COMPROMISE PURSUANT TO C.C.P,
v. SECTION 998

ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF Action Filed: June 2, 2010
CALIFORNIA et al.,

Defendant.

Defendant Anderson, Rowe & Buckley Inc, hereby objects to plaintiff's Offer to
Compromise, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 8998, on the ground that the offer is premature
since defendant does not have sufficient facts to determine if plaintiff's offer is reasonable.

Code of Civil Procedure §998 was enacted to encourage settlement, but a party is not
expected to accept an offer which was not made in good faith, Elrod v. Oregon Cummins Diesel,
Inc. (1987) 195 Cal.App. 3d 692, 698-699. In order to determine if an offer is reasonable, the
court looks to see what information is known, or is readily known, to the offeree. Id. at 699. Ifa
party makes a CCP §998 offer with the knowledge that the offeree lacks information to evaluate
the offer, then the offer was not made in good faith. Id. at 700. The court in Elrod found that an

offer was invalid under §998 if it was not made in good faith.

| AEI380/1009032-1

OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S OFFER TO COMPROMISE PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 998|

| In this case, plaintiff has failed to show that he was exposed to asbestos while working at
any site at which ANDERSON, ROWE & BUCKLEY INC. was associated. This offer is
premature. Insufficient discovery has been completed to provide defendant sufficient information
to evaluate this case, including, but not limited to, plaintiff's deposition. At this point, itis
unclear whether plaintiff was ever at any work site at which ANDERSON, ROWE & BUCKLEY
INC. was present, asbestos-containing or otherwise. Without this information, ANDERSON,
ROWE & BUCKLEY INC. is not able to evaluate its potential liability.

Defendant ANDERSON, ROWE & BUCKLEY INC. lacks the requisite information to
determine the reasonableness of plaintiff's offer. Therefore, plaintiff's offer to compromise is
lacking in good faith and is invalid.

Dated: August__/_, 2010 ARCHER NORRIS

| heen eG
gene C, Blapan r,
Attorneys for Defendant

| ANDERSON, ROWE & BUCKLEY INC.

| AE1380/£009032-1 2

OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S OFFER TO COMPROMISE PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 998oO we 1D AH BF YN

Roe Se ee Se Se Se Se eS
So 6 we RA Rh Be WH KF So

2)

PROOF OF SERVICE

Name of Action; Laurance Hagen v. Associated Insulation of California et al,
Court and Action Ne: San Francisco Superior Court Action No, CGC-10-275582

I, Rakia V. Grant-Smith, declare that I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to
this action or proceeding. My business address is 2033 North Main Street, Suite 800, Walnut
Creek, California 94596-3759. On. Fh hs , 2010, I caused the following document(s) to
be served: OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S OFFER TO COMPROMISE PURSUANT TO
C.C.P, SECTION 998

Oo by placing a true copy of the document(s) listed above, enclosed in a sealed envelope,
addressed as set forth below, for collection and mailing on the date and at the business
address shown above following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar
with this business’ practice for collection and processing of correspondence for
mailing with the United States Postal Service. On the same day that a sealed envelope
is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business
with the United States Postal Service with postage fully prepaid.

oO by having a true copy of the document(s) listed above transmitted by facsimile to the
person(s) at the facsimile number(s) set forth below before 5:00 p.m. The trarismission
was reported as complete without error by a report issued by the transmitting facsimile
machine.

oO by having personally delivered a true copy of the document(s) listed above, enclosed in
a sealed envelope, to the person(s) and at the address(es) set forth below.

Oo by having personal delivery by of a true copy of the document(s)
listed above, enclosed in a sealed envelope, to the person(s) and at the address(es) set
forth below.

Q by placing a true copy of the document(s) listed above, in a box or other facility
regularly maintained by , ati express service carrier, or delivered to a
courier or driver authorized by the express service carrier to receive documents, in an
envelope designated by the express service carrier, with delivery fees paid or provided
for, addressed as set forth below, .

i I electronically served the above referenced document(s) through LEXIS NEXIS. E-
service in this action was completed on all parties listed on the service list with LEXIS
NEXIS. This service complies with the court’s order in this case.

declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on
g 2 2010, at Walnut Creek, California.

—

Rakia V. Grant-Smith

AE1380/1009032-1 3

OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF?S OFFER TO COMPROMISE PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 998