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
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 F I L E D mile: a superior Court of California, Facsimile: (415) 391-6258 County of San Francisco Attorneys for Defendant AUG 06 2010 PIERCE LATHING COMPANY dba PIERCE Clerk of the Court ENTERPRISES BY: JUANITA D. MURPHY Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO LAURANCE HAGEN, Case No, CGC-10-275582 Plaintiff, ANSWER OF DEFENDANT PIERCE LATHING COMPANY dba vs. PIERCE ENTERPRISES TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS CALIFORNIA; et al., Defendants. Defendant PIERCE LATHING COMPANY dba PIERCE ENTERPRISES (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 Plaintiffs 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 installed or distributed 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 -l- PIERCE LATHING COMPANY dba PIERCE ENTERPRISES’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1000342, 2162-62.08428 Walsworth, Frankia, Bevins & MeCall, LLP AnrowSES 57 L40 CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGED IN PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AS THOUGH PLEADED SEPARATELY TO EACH AND EVERY CAUSE OF ACTION: FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2, The 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 Plaintiffs 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 supervening and/or intervening causes of Plaintiffs injuries and damages, if any. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5. 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 other than Defendant, or co-employees, which sole negligence bars Plaintiff's recovery, or were contributed to by the negligence of Plaintiff's employers other than Defendant, 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 other than Defendant 2- PIERCE LATHING COMPANY dba PIERCE ENTERPRISES' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1000342. 2162-62.044,28 Walsworth, Frankia, Bevins & MeCall, LLP AnrowSES 57 L40 and/or the negligence of Plaintiff's co-employees contributed to the happening of the alleged accident and the alleged injuries. 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 other than Defendant failed to provide the Plaintiff with a safe place in which to work and such employers' negligence, carelessness and other acts and omissions proximately caused the injuries and damages claimed. Therefore, these 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 risks 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 is informed and believes and thereon alleges that if Plaintiff was injured by materials, products and/or equipment supplied, utilized or distributed by Defendant, which is -3- PIERCE LATHING COMPANY dba PIERCE ENTERPRISES' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1000342. 2162-62.044,28 Walsworth, Frankia, Bevins & MeCall, LLP AnrowSES 57 L40 hereby expressly denied, such products and/or equipment were intended for and provided 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/or equipment and the precautions, if any, required to avoid the risks and dangers, if any. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 0. Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff is a member of a sophisticated group of users of Defendant's services, products, materials and/or equipment. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 1. Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff possesses the level of knowledge and skill based upon Plaintiff's training, education and/or experience such that Plaintiff should be categorized as a sophisticated user of Defendant's services, products, materials and/or equipment. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12. Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff was trained to perform the tasks Plaintiff claims caused him to contact with Defendant's services, products, materials and/or equipment. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13. Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff would reasonably be expected to know of the hazards of working with and/or around Defendant's services, products, materials and/or equipment. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14. Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff was employed by and trained by a company who is a member of a sophisticated group of users of Defendant's services, products, materials and/or equipment. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 15. Plaintiff has failed to make reasonable efforts to mitigate his injuries and/or damages, if any. Lid? -4- PIERCE LATHING COMPANY dba PIERCE ENTERPRISES' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1000342. 2162-62.044,28 Walsworth, Frankia, Bevins & MeCall, LLP AnrowSES 57 L40 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16. Plaintiff's complaint and each and every cause of action contained therein is barred by the applicable statute of limitations including, but not limited to, Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1, 338, 339, 340.2 and 343. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 17. Plaintiff's action is barred by the provisions of Labor Code §3600, et seq. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18. 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 Plaintiffs acknowledgment of, acquiescence in and consent to the alleged acts or omissions, if any, of Defendant. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 19, This action is barred by laches as Plaintiff unreasonably delayed in the bringing of this action and thereby prejudiced the rights of Defendant. NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20. Defendant alleges that Defendant distributed and installed 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. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 21. — Plaintiffis 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. TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 22. 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 installed or distributed 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 Se PIERCE LATHING COMPANY dba PIERCE ENTERPRISES' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1000342. 2162-62.044,28 Walsworth, Frankia, Bevins & MeCall, LLP AnrowSES 57 L40 investigate and defend the allegations contained in Plaintiff's complaint. TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 23. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is now estopped from claiming that any product installed or distributed 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. TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 24. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff was not in privity of contract with Defendant and that such lack of privity bars recovery herein upon any theory of warranty. TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25. Defendant alleges that any injuries or damages suffered by Plaintiff, the existence thereof being expressly denied, are the direct and proximate result of Plaintiff's particular, idiosyncratic, peculiar or unforeseeable susceptibility to the alleged product installed or distributed by Defendant, which reaction was not the result of any conduct or omission of Defendant, nor the result of any defect in any product installed or distributed by Defendant. TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 26. Defendant alleges that if Plaintiff was injured by any product installed or distributed by Defendant, Defendant, irrespective, did not breach any duty to Plaintiff and is not liable for any injuries or for Plaintiff's claimed damages as the product when installed 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 product might pose a risk of harm in normal and foreseeable use. TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 27. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff did not reasonably rely upon any act, omission or representation of Defendant. TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 28. In the event that Plaintiff is entitled to non-economic damages including, but not ~6- PIERCE LATHING COMPANY dba PIERCE ENTERPRISES' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1000342. 2162-62.044,28 Walsworth, Frankia, Bevins & MeCall, LLP AnrowSES 57 L40 limited to, pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental suffering, emotional distress, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium, and/or injury to reputation and humiliation, Defendant shall be liable only for the amount of non-economic damages allocated to Defendant's percentage of fault, and a separate judgment shall be rendered against Defendant for that amount pursuant to Civil Code §1431.2. TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 29, Defendant alleges that Defendant was not engaged in the business of supplying, tendering, installing, distributing and/or furnishing products and/or goods or services for use or consumption by the general public. TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 30. 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, re-branding, manufacturing for others, packaging and advertising of a certain substance, the generic name of which is asbestos. THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 31. 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, amy 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. Ait} 7. PIERCE LATHING COMPANY dba PIERCE ENTERPRISES’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1000342. 2162-62.044,28 Walsworth, Frankia, Bevins & MeCall, LLP AnrowSES 57 L40 THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 32. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's complaint and each and every cause of action fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action for punitive damages against Defendant. THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 33. 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 PIERCE LATHING COMPANY dba PIERCE ENTERPRISES 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 attorneys’ fees herein; and 3. That Defendant be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: August 6, 2010 Respectfully submitted, WALSWORTH, FRANKLIN, BEVINS & MeCALL, LLP By: /S/ MICHAEL T. MCCALL MICHAEL T. MCCALL Attorneys for Defendant PIERCE LATHING COMPANY dba PIERCE ENTERPRISES -8- PIERCE LATHING COMPANY dba PIERCE ENTERPRISES' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1000342. 2162-62.044,28 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 6, 2010, I served the within document described as: ANSWER OF DEFENDANT PIERCE LATHING COMPANY dba PIERCE ENTERPRISES 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)! provided the documentfs) 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 6, 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- PIERCE LATHING COMPANY dba PIERCE ENTERPRISES' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1000342. 2162-62.044,