Answer: JAMES JORDAN VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BHC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                oo                                         OE




                        MEIC
                                 San Francisco Superior Courts
                                      Information Technology Group



                       Document Scanning Lead Sheet
                                         May-12-2004 3:13 pm




                                 Case Number: CGC-01-402113

                                  Filing Date: May-12-2004 3:11

                                Juke Box: 001       Image: 00954568

                                             ANSWER



                JAMES JORDAN VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (BHC)




                                          001000954568




Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.
STEVEN ALAN BEILOCK, ESQ., SBN 42702
                                          rt
                                                                                             By O:
     ADAMS | NYE | SINUNU BRUNI | BECHT                      LLP
     222 Kearny Street, Seventh                oor
     San Francisco, California           94108-4521
     Telephone:
     Facsimile:      ¢   415) 982-8955
                         415) 982-2042
                                                                                                     a
     Attorneys for Defendant,
     TAYLOR PLUMBING SUPPLY COMPANY,
     dba GLOBE PLUMBING SUPPLY CO.



                               SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                                     CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10
11    JAMES JORDAN,                                               No. 402113

12                                 Plaintiff,
                                                                  TAYLOR PLUMBING SUPPLY’S
                                                                  SUMMARY PLEADING IN ANSWER TO
13                                                                THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
      vs.
                                                                  (General Order 55) AND REQUEST FOR
14    A.H. Voss Company, et al.,
                                                                  JURY TRIAL
       As Reflected on Exhibits B, C and H; and                   Complaint filed: 12/6/01
15    DOES 1-800
16                                  Defendant.                    Trial date: None

17
18
19                                                    I. INTRODUCTION

20             Taylor Plumbing Supply Company, doing business as Globe Plumbing Co., provides this
21   summary pleading, adopting designated portions of that Master Pleading known as the “Adams *
22   Nye « Sinunu + Walker Master Answer", which document was served on all parties previously.          The

23   authority for incorporation of portions of that Master Pleading was conferred by San Francisco
24    Superior Court General Order Number 55, dated January 17, 1996.
25             NOTICE: The Master Pleading incorporated into this Summary Pleading is on file with the
26    Clerk of the Superior Court, and was filed with the Clerk on October 21, 1997. A copy of the
27    Master Pleading and of General Order 55 may be obtained upon written request to Adams | Nye |
28    Sinunu | Bruni | Becht LLP, at the address above.

      00083208.WPD                                            1

            TAYLOR PLUMBING SUPPLY’S ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT & JURY REQUEST
Taylor Plumbing Supply Company, doing business as Globe Plumbing Supply Co.,

     incorporates into this Summary Pleading the following portions of the above-referenced Master
     Pleading, and responds to the First Amended Complaint on file in this matter as follows:

               II. DEFINITIONS

               Ill. GENERAL    DENIAL

               IV. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

               FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:           Failure To State Cause of Action
               SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Violation of Statute of Limitations

               THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Laches
10             FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:                Denial of Successor/Predecessor Liability

11             FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:            Lack of Legal Capacity
12             SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:            Failure to Join Adequate Defendants
13             SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:                Lack of Privity
14             EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Contribution of Plaintiff's Negligence
15             NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:            Consent of Plaintiff
16             TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:             Failure to Mitigate
17             ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:                 Plaintiff's Knowledge of Hazard
18            TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Injury Caused by Actions of Others Outside
19            Control of Defendant

20            THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Negligence of Other Entities Caused Injury

21             FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:                  Entities Not Named Caused the Alleged
22            Injuries

23            FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:                 Action is in Violation of Labor Code
24            SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:                 Employer Negligence Caused the Alleged
25            Injuries

26   Xx       SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:                    Knowing Acts of Plaintiff's Employer
27            Caused the Alleged Injuries

28   xX       EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:                   Judgment to be Reduced by Workers'

     00083208. WPD                                    2
        TAYLOR PLUMBING SUPPLY’S ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT & JURY REQUEST
Compensation Benefits
             NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:                  Products Conformed With Existing Safety

             Knowledge
             TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:                 Products Were Unforeseeable Misused

             TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:                  Negligent Product Use by

             Sophisticated Employers Was Proximate, Superseding Cause of Alleged Injuries

             TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:                      Failure to warn Plaintiff by Plaintiff's
             Sophisticated Employers Caused the Alleged Injuries
             TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:                   Failure to State Market Share Cause of
10           Action

11           TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:                      Failure to Join a Substantial Share of
12           the Market Defeating Market Share Theory
13           TWENTY-FIFTH        AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:           Liability Absent Identification Violates

14           Constitutional Rights
15           TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:                   Actions of Defendant Conformed to
16           Existing Knowledge and so Were Not Negligent

17           TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:                      Plaintiff Was Directed by
18           Contractor That Was Not Controlled by Defendant
19           TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:                     Defendant is not Liable Because of
20           Lack of Control of Work Site
21           TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:                     Defendant Has No Liability Because
22           Defendant Retained Independent Contractor Employer of Plaintiff
23           THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:                 Defendant is Not Liable Because of

24           Knowledge of Hazard by Controlling Entity
25           THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Plaintiff's Status as "Borrowed Employee"
26           Limits Remedies to Workers' Compensation
27   Xx      THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:                     Complaint Fails to State Cause of
28           Action For Punitive Damages

     00083208.WPD                                       3
        TAYLOR PLUMBING SUPPLY’S ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT & JURY REQUEST
THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:                         Imposition of Punitive Damages Would
               Constitute Criminal Fine or Penalty

               THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: An Award of Punitive Damages Would
               Be In Violation of California Law

               THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:                        The Shipyard Was Controlled By The
              Navy

               THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:                        This Defendant Is Not Liable Under The
               Government Contractor Doctrine and The LHWCA

               THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:                           Ships Were Made Under The
10             Direction and Specification Of Entities With Superior Knowledge
11            THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:                           Ships Were Repaired Under The
12             Direction and Specification Of Entities With Superior Knowledge
13
14
     xX        V. PRAYER
15
16   K        VI. NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
17




                                                                                    i Z\
18   DATED:          4 -2F7 2004                     ADAI                      DA           YNI | BECHT    LLP
19
20                                                   By         SPErt
                                                                        7
21                                                              Attomeys for Deferld
                                                            TAYLOR PLUMBING SUP!              YY COM!
22                                                          dba GLOBE PLUMBING S            PPLY CO.       SS
23
24
25
26
27
28

     00083208. WPD                                          4
        TAYLOR PLUMBING SUPPLY’S ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT & JURY REQUEST
ee




                                                  PROOF OF SERVICE
              I am over the age of eighteen years, not a party to the above-captioned matter, and employed
     by Adams | Nye | Sinunu | Bruni | Becht LLP at 222 Kearny Street, Seventh Floor, San Francisco,
     California, where the service described below took place on the date set forth below.
     Person(s) Served:

     David R. Donadio, Esq.
     Brayton Purcell
     222 Rush Landing Road
     PO Box 6169
     Novato, CA 94948-6169
     Document(s) Served:

      TAYLOR PLUMBING SUPPLY’S SUMMARY PLEADING IN ANSWER TO THE FIRST
         AMENDED COMPLAINT (General Order 55) AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
10
     Manner of Service:
11
          ,   Mail:       I am readily familiar with my employer's practice for the collection and processing of
12            correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service: such correspondence is
              deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of
13            business in the county where I work.       On the date set forth below, at my place of business,
              following ordinary business practices, I placed for collection and mailing by deposit in the
14            United States Postal Service a copy of each Document Served, enclosed in a sealed
              envelope, with the postage thereon fully prepaid, each envelope being addressed to one of
15            the Person(s) Served, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 1013(a).
16            Personal service: I caused a copy of each Document Served to be hand delivered to each
              Person Served pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 1011.            If required, the actual server’s
17            original proof of personal service will be filed with the court.
18            Express Mail (U.S. Post Office): I deposited in a post office, mailbox, or other like facility
                          D
              regularl:maintained by the United States Postal Service for rece i tt of Express Mail a copy
19                                                                                     hi
              of each jocument Served in a sealed envelope with Express Mail postage paid, each
              envelope being addressed to each Person Served as mentioned above in accordance with
20            Code of Civil Procedure 1013(c).
21   —        Express Mail (other express service carrier): I deposited in a box or other like facility
              regularly maintained by an express service carrier, or delivered to an authorized courier or
22            driver authorized by the express service carrier to receive documents, a copy of each
              Document Served in an enveloy      or package designated by the express service carrier with
23            delivery fees paid or provided for, each envelope being addressed to each Person Served in
              accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 1013(c).
24
25            I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
     is true and correct.


                                                      Mit
26
27   Dated: April 29, 2004                                             oh Ka
                                                                       Amber Rocha
28

     00083208.WPD                                            5
         TAYLOR PLUMBING SUPPLY’S ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT & JURY REQUEST