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

oO ew NA RB YB ON RP RW RM RM NR KR RR RR mame eV AR A FB SB = SG we I RH HR BW NH Eugene C. Blackard Jr. (Bar No. 142090) ARCHER NORRIS A Professional Law Corporation 2033 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 Ai for Defendant SEP 02 2010 orneys for Defendant Clerk CAHILL CONTRACTORS INC. oy SUBIR NUNES 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 Cahill Contractors, Inc. hereby objects to plaintiff's Offer to Compromise, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §998, 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. In this case, plaintiff has failed to show that he was exposed to asbestos while working at (AE1381/1009037-1 OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S OFFER TO COMPROMISE PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 998CO NI DR A Be WN NR RY NHN RP RY NN Re Be Be Se Se Se Be es Se cD KR UW FB Ob NHN SF SF OC mB DH HA BY YM = any site at which CAHILL CONTRACTORS, 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, deposition of plaintiff. At this point, it is unclear whether plaintiff was ever at any work site at which CAHILL CONTRACTORS, INC. was present, asbestos-containing or otherwise. Without this information, CAHILL CONTRACTORS, INC. is not able to evaluate its potential liability. Defendant CAHILL CONTRACTORS, 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 GL Epgene C. Bl r. ttorneys for Defendant CAHILL CONTRACTORS INC. AE1381/1009037-t 2 OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S OFFER TO COMPROMISE PURSUANT TO C.C.P, SECTION 998ec ew NY DR A PR Bw NY RoR RR MR NRK NY SF es Se se Be ese eB me Be S & & SF G88 = SF BD wera DA BY NHN KS 28 PROOF OF SERVICE Name of Action: Laurance Hagen y. Associated Insulation of California et al. | Court and Action No; San Francisco Superior Court Action No. CGC-10-275582 J, 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. Ons > 2010, I caused the following document(s) to be served: OBJECTION TO PLAINTIF#’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. Ol 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 transmission was reported as complete without error by a report issued by the transmitting facsimile machine. o by having personally delivered a true copy of the document(s) listed above, enclosed in asealed 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. O by placing a true copy of the document(s) listed above, in a box or other facility regularly maintained by , an 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. El 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 | . gq Q ; 2010, at Walnut Creek, California. Rakia i Grant-Smith OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S OFFER TO COMPROMISE PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 998