On June 02, 2010 a Answer was filed involving a dispute between Hagen, Laurance, and 3M Company, 4520 Corp., Inc.,, A & A Mechanical Contractors Inc., A & A Sheet Metal, Aberthaw Construction Company, Acco Engineered Systems, Inc., A.E. Knowles Corporation, Aire Sheet Metal Inc., Air Systems Mechanical Contractor, A.J. Peters & Son, Aladdin Heating Corporation, Albay Construction Company, Allied Painters, Inc., Allied Sprinkler Company, Inc., Anderson, Rowe & Buckley, Inc., Applied Support Systems, Inc., A.R.B. Mechanical, Armaral Plumbing, Associated Insulation Of California, Atlas Heating And Ventilating Company, Ltd., Bailey Plumbing, Heating & Sheet Metal, Barnes Construction Co., Bay Cities Crane And Rigging, Inc., Bayer Cropscience Inc., Bayer Cropscience, Inc.,, B H P Minerals International, Inc., Bigge Crane And Rigging Co., Bragg Investment Company, Inc., B.T. Mancini Co., Inc., Buttner Corp., Cahill Contractors, Inc., Carrier Corporation, Cbs Corporation, A Delaware Corporation, Fka, Cbs Corporation (F K A Viacom Inc., F K A, C.C. Moore & Co. Engineers, Certainteed Corporation, Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, Chicago Bridge & Iron Company,, Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., Coastal West Ventures, Inc., Commair Mechanical Services, Conocophillips Company, Consolidated Insulation, Inc., Cooper Brothers, Inc., Corey Contractors, Cosco Fire Protection, Inc., Coscol Petroleum Corporation, Coscol Petroleum Corporation Erroneously Named And, Crane Co., Crowley Plumbing, Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., C & R Plastering, Inc., Cupertino Electric, Inc., Dana Companies, Llc, Devcon Construction, Inc., Dillingham Construction, N.A., Inc., Does 1-8500, Domco Products Texas Inc. Erroneously Sued, Domco Products Texas, L.P., Dome Construction Corporation, Douglass Insulation Company, Inc., D.W. Nicholson Corporation, D. Zelinsky & Sons, Inc., Early Engineering Corporation, Incorporated, East Bay Sheet Metal Works, East Bay Sheet Metal Works, A Dissolved Corp., E.C. Braun Company, Inc., Emerick Sheet Metal Co., Emil J. Weber Electric Co., E. Mitchell, Inc., Enterprise Plumbing, Inc., Erwin Mechanical Inc., Ex- Fm, Inc. (Fka Fischbach And Moore Electric,, Exxon Mobil Corporation, Faye Plumbing, Fdcc California, Inc., Finzel Plumbing Company, Fischbach And Moore, Incorporated, Nka Ex-Fm, Inc., Fluor Corporation, Foley-Pmi, Inc., Foster Wheeler Llc, Foster Wheeler Llc (Fka Foster Wheeler, F.P. Lathrop Construction Company, F.P. Lathrop Construction Company,, Frank Bonetti Plumbing, Inc., Frederick Meiswinkel, Inc., F.W. Spencer & Son, Inc., Garlock Sealing Technologies, Llc, General Cable Corporation, General Electric Company, George F. Schuler, Inc., George M Robinson & Co., George Townsend & Associates, George Wilson Company, Inc., Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Georgia-Pacific Llc, Giampolini & Co., Golden Gate Drywall, Inc., Granite Rock Company, Grinnell Corporation, Grinnell Llc,, Haas And Haynie Corporation, Haas & Haynie Corporation, Hamilton Materials, Inc., Hansen Plumbing And Heating, Hanson Permanente Cement, Inc. Formerly Known As, Harry Lee Plumbing & Heating, H.B. Fuller Company, H & C Investment Associates, Inc., Hensel Phelps Construction Co, Hensel Phelps Construction Co., Herrick Iron Works, Honeywell International, Inc., Honeywell International Inc., Fka Alliedsignal,, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., H.T.R. Enterprises, Inc., Ingersoll-Rand Company, Jacobs Constructors, Inc., James A. Nelson Co., Inc., James Nelson, Johnson Controls, Inc., J.R. Simplot Company, J.T. Thorpe, Inc., J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc., J.W. Mcclenahan Company, Inc., Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc., Kentile Floors, Inc., Kent M. Lim & Company, Inc., Kinetic Systems, Inc., Kramer Acoustics, Laub Sheet Metal Works, Leonard Construction Company, Lewis Air & Refrigeration, L.J. Kruse Company, Macarthur Company, Madlem Mechanical, Inc., Marcal Associates, Ltd., Marconi Plastering Company, Inc., Marina Heating & Air Conditioning, Marina Plumbing Company, Mauch Sheet Metal, Mayta & Jensen, Mcguire & Hester Corporation, Mckeon Construction, Mcmillan Brothers Electric, Inc., Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Monterey Mechanical Company, Norcal Scaffolding, N. P. I. Corporation, N.V. Heathorn, Inc., Oakfabco, Inc., Ocean Shore Iron Works, O.C. Mcdonald Co., Inc., O H I Company, Inc., Oscar E. Erickson, Inc., Owens-Illinois, Inc., Owens Mckeon Construction, Pacific Coast Builders, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Pacific Mechanical Corporation, Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Parsons Infrastructure & Technology Group Inc., Peerless Stucco Co., Perini Corporation, Perini Land And Development Company, Peter Kiewit Sons, Inc., Peter Lim Construction, Pierce Enterprises, Pierce Lathing Company Dba Pierce Enterprises, Power Refrigeration Company, Powers Process Controls, Quality Air Conditioning, Inc., Quintec Industries, Inc., Raphael Company, Raymond Interior Systems-North, Ray Oil Burner Co., A Dissolved Corporation,, Ray Oil Burner Company, Inc., Republic Supply Company, Rmc Pacific Materials, Inc., Robertshaw Controls Company, Rodoni Becker, Rosendahl Corporation, Rountree Plumbing & Heating Inc., Rudolph And Sletten, Inc., Santa Fe Braun, Inc. As Successor-In-Interest To, Schneider Electric Usa, Inc. (Fka Square D, Scott Co. Of California, Scott Norman Mechanical Company, Scott Technologies, Inc., Sequoia Ventures Inc., S F L, Inc., Shell Oil Company, Sierra Pacific Industries, S.J. Amoroso Construction Co., Inc., Stanford Plumbing, Stolte Inc., Sugden Engineering Co., Swinerton Builders, Temporary Plant Cleaners, Inc., Texaco, Inc., The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, The Jack Dymond Company, The Linford Company, Therma Corporation, Therma Mechanical, Thermon Manufacturing Co., Thomas Air & Refrigeration Inc., Thomas Dee Engineering Company, Timec Company, Inc., Tosco Corporation, Tosco Corporation Erroneously Sued And Served As, Trane U.S., Inc., Erroneously Sued As Trane U.S.,, Trane Us, Inc. Fka American Standard, Inc., Turner Construction Company, Tutor-Saliba Corporation, Union Oil Company Of California, University Mechanical And Engineering Contractors,, Valley Sheet Metal, Van-Mulder Sheet Metal, Inc., Vogel & Associates, Walnut Creek Sheet Metal, Furnace & Air, Washington Group International, Inc., Western Allied Corporation, Western Asbestos Company, Western Insulation, Inc., Western Macarthur Company, Western Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc., W.G. Thompson, Inc., Wheatley-Jacobsen, Inc., Williams & Burrows, Inc., Wilson Construction Company, W.L. Hickey Sons, Inc., Wright Schuchart Harbor, Wright Schuchart Harbor Company, Yamas Controls Group Inc., Zurn Industries, Llc, for ASBESTOS in the District Court of San Francisco County.
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Preview
28 Walsworth, Frankia, Bevins & MeCall, LLP AnrowSES 57 L40 MICHAEL T. MCCALL, State Bar No. 109580 WALSWORTH FRANKLIN BEVINS & McCALL, LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Ninth Floor ELECTRONICALLY San Francisco, California 94111-2612 Telephone: (415) 781-7072 FILED. Facsimile: (415) 391-6258 Superior Court of California, . County of San Francisco Attorneys for Defendant AUG 16 2010 CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC. Clerk of the Court BY: WILLIAM TRUPEK Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO LAURANCE HAGEN, Case No, CGC-10-275582 Plaintiff, ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC. TO vs. PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA; et al., Defendant. Defendant CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC. (hereafter "Defendant"), in answering the Plaintiff's unverified complaint, for itself alone and severing itself from all others, admits, denies and alleges as follows: 1. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 431.30, Defendant denies, both generally and specifically, each, every and all allegations of each and every purported cause of action or count of Plaintiff's complaint, denying specifically that Plaintiff has been, is, or will be injured or damaged in the manner or sum alleged, or in any other manner or sums at all, and further denying that Defendant was negligent in any manner, that the alleged product was defective in any way or that the alleged defect was the proximate cause of the Plaintiff's claimed damages or injuries, DEFENDANT HEREIN ALLEGES AND SETS FORTH SEPARATELY AND DISTINCTLY THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO EACH AND EVERY CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGED IN PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AS THOUGH PLEADED -l- CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1004869. 3093-93.70728 Walsworth, Frankia, Bevins & MeCall, LLP AnrowSES 57 L40 SEPARATELY TO EACH AND EVERY SUCH CAUSE OF ACTION: FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2. Plaintiff's complaint and each and every purported cause of action or count thereof fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action against Defendant. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3. Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the acts, injuries and damages alleged in the complaint occurred and were proximately caused by either the sole negligence or fault of Plaintiff, which sole negligence or fault bars Plaintiff's recovery, or were contributed to by Plaintiff's negligence or fault. Plaintiff's recovery, if any, should be reduced by an amount proportionate to the amount by which Plaintiff's negligence or fault contributed to the happening of the alleged incident and/or alleged injury. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4, Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the negligence, carelessness and other acts or omissions of other Defendants in this lawsuit, as well as other persons and entities not parties to this lawsuit, proximately caused or contributed to Plaintiff's injuries and damages, if any. The negligence, carelessness and other acts or omissions of the other Defendants in this lawsuit, and other persons and entities not parties to this lawsuit, account for one hundred percent (100%) of the causal or contributing factors relating to Plaintiff's injuries and damages, if any, and/or constitute the sapervening and/or intervening causes of Plaintiff's injuries and damages, if any. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Ss. Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the accident, injury and damages alleged in Plaintiff's complaint occurred and were proximately caused by either the sole negligence of Plaintiff's employers or co-employees, which sole negligence bars Plaintiff's recovery, or were contributed to by the negligence of Plaintiff's employers or co-employees. Plaintiff's recovery, if any, must be reduced by an amount proportionate to the amount by which the negligence of Plaintiff's employers and/or the negligence of Plaintiff's co-employees contributed to the happening of the alleged accident and the alleged injuries. -2- CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1004869. 3093-93.70728 Walsworth, Frankia, Bevins & MeCall, LLP AnrowSES 57 L40 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6. Defendant alleges that while at all times denying any liability whatsoever to Plaintiff, any alleged liability or responsibility of Defendant is small in proportion to the alleged liability and responsibility of other persons or entities, including other persons and entities who are parties herein, and Plaintiff should be limited to seeking recovery from Defendant for the proportion in which Defendant is allegedly liable or responsible, all such alleged liability and responsibility being expressly denied. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7. Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at the time the alleged operations, acts and conduct occurred, Plaintiff was acting within the course and scope of employment and was entitled to receive, did receive and will continue to receive workers’ compensation benefits. Plaintiff's employers failed to provide the Plaintiff with a safe place in which to work and Plaintiff's employers' negligence, carelessness and other acts and omissions proximately caused the injuries and damages claimed by Plaintiff. Therefore, said employers and their workers' compensation carriers are barred from any recovery by lien or otherwise herein and Defendant is entitled to set off any such benefits Plaintiff has received against any judgment rendered in favor of Plaintiff. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8. Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff knew of the tisks and dangers inherent to Plaintiff's conduct and with full knowledge of the risks and dangers and with an appreciation for the magnitude of the risks and dangers, did voluntarily assume the risks, injuries and damages, if any, sustained thereby, Plaintiff's assumption of risk bars or proportionately reduces any recovery by Plaintiff. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has failed to make reasonable efforts to mitigate his injuries and/or damages, if any. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10. Plaintiff's complaint and each and every cause of action are barred by the applicable 3- CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1004869. 3093-93.70728 Walsworth, Frankia, Bevins & MeCall, LLP AnrowSES 57 L40 Statute of Limitations, including, but not limited to, Code of Civil Procedure, Sections 335.1, 338, 339, 340.2 and 343. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE il. Plaintiff's action is barred by the provisions of Labor Code, Section 3600, et seq. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has waived and is estopped from asserting any claim against Defendant by reason of Plaintiff's approval and consent to the risks of the matters causing the damages, if any, and Plaintiff's acknowledgement of, acquiescence in and consent to the alleged acts or omissions, if any, of Defendant. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13. Defendant alleges that this action is barred by laches as Plaintiff unreasonably delayed in the bringing of this action and thereby prejudiced the rights of Defendant. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14. Defendant alleges that Defendant manufactured and produced its products in full compliance with regulations and/or specifications promulgated by the United States Government and any recovery by Plaintiff is barred as a consequence. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is barred from asserting any claim based on breach of warranty against Defendant by reason of failure to fulfill the conditions of warranties alleged in Plaintiff's complaint in the event such alleged warranties are proved at trial. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has waived whatever rights Plaintiff might otherwise have had for breach of warranty in that Plaintiff failed to notify Defendant of any alleged breach of warranty, express or implied, and/or of any alleged defect in any product manufactured or marketed by Defendant within a reasonable time after Plaintiff discovered, and/or should have discovered, any defect or nonconformity, if any existed, thereby prejudicing Defendant from being able to fully investigate and defend the allegations contained in Plaintiff's complaint. Jie? 4. CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1004869. 3093-93.70728 Walsworth, Frankia, Bevins & MeCall, LLP AnrowSES 57 L40 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is now estopped from claiming that any product manufactured or marketed by Defendant was in any way defective or failed to conform to any alleged warranties in that Plaintiff failed to notify Defendant of any defect or nonconformity in any product within a reasonable time after Plaintiff discovered, and/or should have discovered, any defect or nonconformity, if any existed. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff was not in privity of contract with Defendant and that such lack of privity bars Plaintiff's recovery herein upon any theory of warranty. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19. Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff and/or other persons, without Defendant's knowledge and/or approval, redesigned, modified, altered and/or used Defendant's product contrary to the instructions and warnings and the customs and practices of the industry so as to substantially change the character of Defendant's product. Defendant further alleges that if the products of Defendant were defective in any way, which defectiveness is specifically denied, such defectiveness resulted solely from the redesign, modification, alteration, use or other change thereto and not from any act or omission of Defendant. Therefore, the defect, if any, so created by Plaintiff and/or other persons or parties, as the case may be, was the sole and proximate cause of the injuries and/or damages, if any, alleged by Plaintiff. NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20. Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the accident, injury and damages alleged in Plaintiff's complaint were solely and proximately caused by Plaintiff's misuse of the product. Defendant could not have reasonably foreseen this misuse and Plaintiff's misuse thereof bars recovery against Defendant. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21. Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that any injuries or damages suffered by Plaintiff, the existence thereof being expressly denied by Defendant, are the direct and proximate result of Plaintiff's particular, idiosyncratic, peculiar or unforeseeable susceptibility to 5. CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1004869. 3093-93.70728 Walsworth, Frankia, Bevins & MeCall, LLP AnrowSES 57 L40 the alleged product manufactured by Defendant, which reaction was not the result of any conduct or omission of Defendant nor the result of any defect in any product manufactured by Defendant. TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22. Defendant alleges that in light of all relevant factors, on balance with the benefits of the design of any product alleged to have caused injury to Plaintiff, if any, the benefits outweigh the risks and danger, if ary, inherent in the said design of any such product. TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23. Defendant alleges that if Plaintiff was injured by any product manufactured or distributed by Defendant, Defendant, irrespective, did not breach any duty to Plaintiff and is not liable for those injuries or for Plaintiff's claimed damages as the products when manufactured and/or distributed conformed to the then current state-of-the-art specifications and because the then current state-of-the-art medical, scientific and industrial knowledge, art and practice were such that Defendant did not and could not know that the products might pose a risk of harm in normal and foreseeable use. TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24, Defendant alleges that if Plaintiff was injured by any product manufactured by Defendant, such products were intended and sold in bulk to a knowledgeable and sophisticated distributor or user over whom Defendant had no control who was fully informed as to the risks and dangers, if any, associated with the products and the precautions, if any, required to avoid the risks and dangers, if any. TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff possesses the level of knowledge and skill based upon Plaintiff's training, education and/or experience such that Plaintiff would be categorized as a sophisticated user of Defendant's services, products, materials and/or equipment. TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26. Defendant alleges that if Plaintiff was injured by any product manufactured by Defendant, the products were accompanied by good and sufficient labeling when they left the custody, possession and control of Defendant which gave a conspectus of reasonable and adequate -6- CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1004869. 3093-93.70728 Walsworth, Frankia, Bevins & MeCall, LLP AnrowSES 57 L40 warnings and directions to the users of the products concerning the purpose for which, and manner in which, the products were to be used and concerning the risks and dangers, if any, attendant to said use. Defendant alleges that as a result of the warnings and directions, Defendant fulfilled whatever duty, if any, that was owed to Plaintiff. If Plaintiff was injured by any such product, the injuries were proximately caused by the use of the product in disregard of the warnings and directions which was not reasonably foreseeable to Defendant. TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 27. Defendant denies any and all liability to the extent that Plaintiff may assert Defendant's alleged liability as a successor, successor in business, successor in product line or a portion thereof, assign, predecessor, predecessor in business, predecessor in product line or a portion thereof, parent, alter ego, subsidiary, wholly or partially owned by, or the whole or partial owner or member in an entity in which there has been research, study, manufacturing, fabricating, designing, labeling, assembling, distributing, leasing, buying, offering for sale, selling, inspecting, servicing, installing, contracting for installation, repairing, marketing, warranting, rebranding, manufacturing for others, packaging and advertising of any and all of the products, as alleged in Plaintiff's complaint. TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 28. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff herein lacks legal capacity and standing to sue, is not a real party in interest or person with superior right to make the claims contained in the complaint and is thereby precluded from any recovery whatsoever. Additionally, to the extent that Plaintiff lacks standing or proper appointment to bring the claims he is asserting, any action taken in this matter with regard to Plaintiff's claims is voidable. Defendant further contends that any declaration filed by any person asserting a survival claim contains expert opinions and conclusions that are not supported and that the declarant is not qualified to make. TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 29. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff did not reasonably rely upon any act, omission or representation of Defendant. Jie? -T- CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1004869. 3093-93.70728 Walsworth, Frankia, Bevins & MeCall, LLP AnrowSES 57 L40 TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 30. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's complaint and each and every cause of action therein fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action for punitive damages against Defendant. THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 31. Defendant alleges that insofar as the instant complaint is an attempt to recover punitive or exemplary damages from Defendant, it violates the following United States Constitutional and California State Constitutional principles: a Excessive fines clause of the United States Constitution, Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment; b. The contract clause, Article I, Section 10, clause 1, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; c. The due process clause of the United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment; d. The equal protection clause of the United States Constitution; e, The California Constitution due process and equal protection clauses, Article 1, Section 7(a); f The California Constitution excessive fines clause, Article 1, Section 17. WHEREFORE, Defendant CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC. prays for judgment as follows: 1. That Plaintiff takes nothing from Defendant by virtue of the complaint herein; 2. That Defendant be awarded costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees herein; and 3. That Defendant be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: August 16, 2010 Respectfully submitted, WALSWORTH, FRANKLIN, BEVINS & McCALL, LLP By: /S/ MICHAEL T. MCCALL MICHAEL T. MCCALL Attorneys for Defendant CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC. -8- CLEAVER-BROOKS, {NC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1004869. 3093-93.70728 Walsworth, Frankia, Bevins & MeCall, LLP AnrowSES 57 L40 PROOF OF SERVICE tam employed in the County of Orange, State of California. | am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1 City Boulevard West, Fifth Floor, Orange, California 92868-3677. On August 16, 2010, I served the within document(s) described as: ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC. TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS on the interested parties in this action as stated below: BRAYTON*PURCELL, LLP 222 Rush Landing Road. P.O. Box 6169 Novato, CA 94948-6169 X} (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL) I provided the document(s) listed above electronically to the Lexis Nexis website pursuant to their instructions on that website. If the document is provided to Lexis Nexis electronically by 5:00 p.m., then the document will be deemed served on the date that it was provided to Lexis Nexis. Executed on August 16, 2010, at Orange, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Ellen Wright /si Ellen Wright (Type or print name) (Signature) -9- CLEAVER-BROOKS, {NC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1004869. 3093-93.707