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

BRAYTON@ PURCELL LLP ATTORNEYS ATLAW 222 RUSH LANDING ROAD PO ROX 6169 NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169 (415) 808-1555 nt MM NR RM RW ON RB RR es eC A hw RF YN = SC we TD KR DW RB BW KH em Oe YN DA vw & WN DAVID R. DONADIO, ESQ., 8.B. #154436 NANCY T. WILLIAMS, ESQ., S.B. #201095 BRAYTON*PURCELL LLP ELECTRONICALLY Attorneys at Law 222 Rush Landing Road FILED P.O. Box 6169 Superior Court of California, Novato, California 94948-6169 County of San Francisco (415) 898-1555 JUL 29 2010 Tentative Ruling Contest Email: contestashestosTR@bravtonlaw, £0 Clerk of the Court BY: VANESSA WU Attomeys for Plaintiff . Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO LAURANCE HAGEN, Plaintiff, ASBESTOS No, CGC-10-275582 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AMENDMENT TO THE COMPLAINT TO SUBSTITUTE DEFENDANT'S TRUE NAME FOR DOES 1 & 1001 [C.CP. § 473] Date: July 29, 2010 Time: 11:00 a.m. Dept... 220, Hon. Harold E. Kabn Tral Date: N/A Filing Date: June 2, 2010 vs. ASSOCIATED INSULATION OF CALIFORNIA; Defendants as Reflected on Exhibit | attached to the Summary Complaint herein; and DOES 1-8500. PN let L STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff, LAURANCE HAGEN, filed this asbestos personal injury action on June 2, 2010, claiming injuries and damages as a result of his asbestos-related lung disease. After furthe: discovery and investigation, it was revealed there are additional entities who may share liability for plaintiff LAURANCE HAGEN’s asbestos-related disease, Therefore, the one new defendant who manufactured, distributed, supplied and/or installed asbestos-containing products to it KAtnjucedh 08) 25 pip dia-nprarta-cmp-doe LALO! wpa : i niw MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AMENDMENT TO THE COMPLAINT TG SUBSTITUTE DEPENDANT'S TRUE NAME FOR DOES } & 1001Com ND Hh BR BN plaintiff, LAURANCE HAGEN‘s employers/jobsites, has been added to the Amendment to summary complaint (N. P. l. CORPORATION). Allowing the filing of the Amendment to the Complaint is in the furtherance of justice so that plaintiff may properly present his case. Since there is no trial date assigned in this case, new defendants will have ample time to complete pre-trial discovery and other trial preparation. I. LEGAL DISCUSSION Code of Civil Procedure section 473, provides in pertinent part: The court may, in furtherance-of justice, and on any terms as may e proper, allow a party to.amend any pleading or proceeding... The court may likewise in its-discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow on any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars... California courts have uniformly permitted parties great liberality in amending pleadings. "[T}t can very rarely happen that a court will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his pleading so that he may properly present his case." Seamans v. Standard Hotel Corporations (1947) 78 Cal.App.2d 818, 826. Underscoring this policy of liberality in amending pleadings is the fact that mandamus is available for review of the trial court's denial of leave to amend a pleading, but not for permitting such leave, and that appellate courts commonly reverse trial court's denial of leave to amend. 8 Witkin California Procedure (3d Ed. 1985) "Pleading," §§ 1123, 1124, pp. 540-541. , Moreover, the statute of limitations under C.C.P. § 340.2 has not run for the adding of new parties or the filing of new claims against any party. It is appropriate to grant the requested relief via ex parte application. »y In most courts, leave to amend to substitute a defendant’s true name ‘or “Doe” is routinely granted without notice or hearing of any kind. The application for leave to amend is simply presented to a judge or commissioner for signature. 1 Brown & R. Weil, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2009), Section 6:614. Mf KUpjured FO IZ plas pAeo pt. n-omp. oe | 1003 mpd 2 NOW MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO: FILE AMENDMENT TO THE COMPLAINT TO SUBSTITUTE DEFENDANT'S TRUE NAME FOR DOES | & J001vo we NS DB RH & WB He —- oO Plaintiff is not presenting any new allegations to the complaint, but plaintiff is merely substituting a previously unknown defendant for a “Doe.” Thus, the amendment should be allowed in the furtherance of justice so that plaintiff may properly present his case. (See Seamans; 78 Cal. App.2d at 826.) CONC. IN In view of the foregoing, plaintiff respectfully requests the Ex Parte Application for Order] Granting Leave to File an Amendment to Substitute Defendant's true name for “Doe” be granted. Dated: Zz 2 CS &, Me é Respectfully submitted, BRAYTONSP: LILpP Nancy T. Williams _ Attorneys for Plaintiff K Siniured NOR s2 hpsctespteoticemp-dive1& 100! wpe 3 NIW, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AMENDMENT TO THE COMPLAINT TO SUBSTITUTE DEFENDANT'S TRUE NAME FOR DOES | & 1001